[bry17may]

02/11/2015

 

[Fargif]

This is the perfect example why this scoring system isnt fair. Nothing against player A B C D or E. Its about fairness.

While there isnt many points available you have to be very lucky to get somepoint.


Heres my problem. TRmooney won AO. And he deserved it. So did his 2000 points. Now look at the rest of the year. He hasnt played since Monte Carlo. Should he be in the final 16? With this point system yes. But what about those who have played all year and havent been lucky?

Vamos, Fickle, Jean, RHB, mijb Synesthetic. ETC...

With the other new system we had until MC these players would of have more time and more points to get within top16. And lucky players who win a major or master but then dont play for the rest of the year fall out.


As you can see im up there so it doesnt afffect me much. But i still remain with the same opinion as i did early on.

 

[bry17may]

As 14/09/2015

 

[RNW]

This is the perfect example why this scoring system isnt fair. Nothing against player A B C D or E. Its about fairness.
While there isnt many points available you have to be very lucky to get somepoint.
Heres my problem. TRmooney won AO. And he deserved it. So did his 2000 points. Now look at the rest of the year. He hasnt played since Monte Carlo. Should he be in the final 16? With this point system yes. But what about those who have played all year and havent been lucky?
Vamos, Fickle, Jean, RHB, mijb Synesthetic. ETC...
With the other new system we had until MC these players would of have more time and more points to get within top16. And lucky players who win a major or master but then dont play for the rest of the year fall out.
As you can see im up there so it doesnt afffect me much. But i still remain with the same opinion as i did early on.

I see your points, Fargif. But first: The winner of the AO who was not playing since April is ranked 24 and has no chance to be in the Tour Finals. So there is a balance in this system, at least a bit.

Second: I was not convinced by the new system because you had to play every week and you had to play always very conservative and you were safe to gain a lot of points, this can't be a game in here when just everyone fills out the seedings in every big tournament und has then enough points to be Top 20 (i exagerate it here a bit of course).

This old system is in my opinion better but it could also be a little bit flatter in my opinion like f.e. a Grand Slam 1=2000, 2=1600, 3=1300, 4=1150, 5=1050, 6=950 etc. und not as "hard" as it is at the moment.


Thanks a lot for your work bry17may

 

[Fargif]

I see your points, Fargif. But first: The winner of the AO who was not playing since April is ranked 24 and has no chance to be in the Tour Finals. So there is a balance in this system, at least a bit.

Second: I was not convinced by the new system because you had to play every week and you had to play always very conservative and you were safe to gain a lot of points, this can't be a game in here when just everyone fills out the seedings in every big tournament und has then enough points to be Top 20 (i exagerate it here a bit of course).

This old system is in my opinion better but it could also be a little bit flatter in my opinion like f.e. a Grand Slam 1=2000, 2=1600, 3=1300, 4=1150, 5=1050, 6=950 etc. und not as "hard" as it is at the moment.


Thanks a lot for your work bry17may

I get what your saying, but i respectfully disagree.

Had he played a few more tournaments and had a few top5 he would be in.

That new system while not perfect atleast you can miss a week but then come back.

I dont get the conservitive part. I played the same why i did last year, only diference is i didnt miss alot this year and by luck i got most times the tournament winner.

Its like Roddickfan in Suicide. He plays conservatly, do you think its a bad thing?
This year didnt do much good. So those who risked more got ahead oh him.


I dont see why it bothers you soo much. Give it a try? Just one year. If you and olther dont like it then lets go to a vote.


But what happened this year was a bit discusting. We had a vote, he had a new point systm then its was changed midway back to old system. Thats never a good thing.

The oold system rewards luckys winners. While new system rewards conservative ( yes) but also realistic players.

Some of your draws early on were out of this world. Not sure you did that under protest or just didnt care.

 

[BMT360]

I'm 3 in the race and didn't play Wimbledon... :shrug:

 

[Fargif]

I'm 3 in the race and didn't play Wimbledon... :shrug:

True. But you won RG.

This opinion of mine is not against a specific player who won a Slam. Its the principal.

If a person wins a slam and M1000. He has a good shot at wtf. Even not playing anymore. Is that fair? What about all the others that play week in and week out and arent lucky eniough.?

If we have 4 diferent slam winners, plus 9 M1000 winners These guys will be at the top15.Some will add points here and there. Other will stop due to other reasons.

The onther way You had to play every week. Even a bad day would give you points.

Too bad there isnt anyone to make a ranking system based on this years early scoring system. That would be interesting

 

[RNW]

I get what your saying, but i respectfully disagree.
I dont see why it bothers you soo much. Give it a try? Just one year. If you and olther dont like it then lets go to a vote.

It doesn't bother me that much. I don't like the old system a lot better. It should be a compromise between the old and the new system in my opinion.

But I guess we had a poll and the results were really unclear and balanced.

 

[BMT360]

One solution to this problem is that 1-16 will obviously play WTF and if ALTs get in they cannot qualify for the Year-End Challenger finals. This will be for 17-32 and ALTs beyond that.

This will give those who play every week and weren't lucky can make the CHALLENGER finals. It will definitely not be worth as many ranking points as the WTF because those who made it to that deserve it. But it will give the others, a chance to add some additional ranking points.
Perhaps the ranking point system will be cut in half for the Challenger Finals.

I'll manage it.

Thoughts?

 

[Fargif]

Well im not sure what you guys are talking about now.
What i feel is that we cant tell who played or who got last place in any given week.

If you play and got last place you should get 1 point at least. So everyone knows you played but you got last few places that week. If you get a zero , means you didnt play.

Why is this important? Simple. Mandatory. To prevent new players from coming in and getting lucky in 2-3-4 months and qualifying for WTF, when otheres who played the whole year misses out.

There are new players every week. Some are even new accounts and go directly to FITD. While suicide is diferent and doesnt make a diference. There are mandatory also.

There is a new member this year that played the whole year and is always up there, so this is not for him. But others who come out of nowhere. There should be some guidlines for them.

 

[Walsall]

The Race hasn't been updated since September; isn't it the thing we should be talking about rather than another empty debate about useless details?

 

[Eddy DoubleD]

I talked with Brian and he said he will do an update this week. :shrug:

 

[Walsall]

thank you

 

[bry17may]

The week is not finished yet, I'm going to make something tonight I promise

 

[BMT360]

One solution to this problem is that 1-16 will obviously play WTF and if ALTs get in they cannot qualify for the Year-End Challenger finals. This will be for 17-32 and ALTs beyond that.

This will give those who play every week and weren't lucky can make the CHALLENGER finals. It will definitely not be worth as many ranking points as the WTF because those who made it to that deserve it. But it will give the others, a chance to add some additional ranking points.
Perhaps the ranking point system will be cut in half for the Challenger Finals.

I'll manage it.

Thoughts?

We wanna go through with this?

 

[Eddy DoubleD]

We wanna go through with this?

There is no reason to. It was a long season. We need the break to discuss changes we can make for 2016.

 

[bry17may]

As 26/10/15

 

[bry17may]

As 9/11/2015

 

[MIJB#19]

19th... It was all meant to be.

 

[Chadmild]

OMG 2nd overall despite lots of tournaments "DNS" :surprise: