Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 57 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
1. new rule
2. I don't really care. But If it stays like it is in 1. then it should be changed
3. new rule
4. new rule
5. new rule
6. current rule
7. current rule
8. only if SEs get dumped. Otherwise it would steal to much spots from players who earned their spot by ranking
9. that sounds better than 8
10. B
11. new rule
12. see 11

14. new rule
15. new rule
16. 3 is enough
17. current rule. But still prefer a new ISR rule
18. new rule
19. current rule
20. current rule
21. new rule
22. new rule
23. bring them on. Top 30 players being LE is enough
24. current rule
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
1. Allowing multiple commitments
NO. Would not a large number of players automatically commit to every tournament every week? It would be nice to be assured of an MD place (or QD in my case), but we could end up with 100 entries for a 48 player tournament. This only delays the player's ultimate choice. I would encourage managers to update the entry lists more frequently (some are better than others in this respect) and also perhaps remove the LE penalty for a player changing tournaments.

2. Doubles deadline
NO. Fine as it is.

3. SE for SF
Definitely NO. I don't really like SE for finalists, but this is at least logical and follows ATP.

4. Late entries to be ordered by commitment time.
NO, but don't feel that strongly.

5. Placing of Alts and LLs by ranking instead of ranking.
YES. Good idea

6. Players with Byes failing to send for second round.
YES replace by LL but not Alt

7. Doubles FQR and MD spots.
NO. Whoever turns up, plays, whether this is 2v2 2v1 or 1v1.

8/9. Wild cards
Comes up every year and every year the answer is NO.
The players in the draw are there on merit, by virtue of points gathered over a 12 month period. Why should one player give up their place to someone who happens to have won a particular tournament or tournaments?

10-17 Tie breaksByes
Any change should take into account the number of matches which can be decided by Evita's spreadsheet, and the number which are to be determined manually. At present the latter are few in number, and hopefully that will continue.

10. ISR tie-breaker
NO. (a) is a sensible suggestion, but see above.

11. NO. The shootout is an adequate tie-breaker. Players may disagree with the manager as to the most difficult matches in the OOP, but once they know which is SR1, SR2 etc, surely they should pay the most attention to getting these right!

12. YES. The example clearly shows better picking. I would not use this rule for 64 63 matches and results, since this could depend on who serves first.

13. YES after PTS, provided there is always a board member or other experienced manager available to help any manager who has difficulty with GD.

14. YES, definitely logical

15. Byes and second round CB
NO Keep current rule. A player who has a Bye and chooses not to send first round picks has only himself to blame if he loses on CB.

16. Maximum number of PTS matches
NO. Players don't have to send all PTS that are marked as such. For example in a first round doubles match if there is a difference in one's match on day 1 there is no point in sending PTS on day 2. I have seen a match decided on PTS11, but this is very rare.

17. Shootout sets to winner.
NO keep current rule.

18. Different picks for singles and doubles.
A resounding NO. You could just as easily say you could play singles in one tournament and doubles in another

19. Accepting picks sent to wrong manager.
YES, but with sanctions against serial offenders.

20. Accepting picks sent just after deadline.
YES to allow for errors in a player's computer time. I would go for D + 3 minutes

21. Picks between early deadline and "real" deadline (start of play)
NO, not if some differences are going to be published at early deadline. If I am undecided on one or two matches I could delay my picks until I see what some of the other players have picked, and follow those I trust the most. In the meantime my opponent may already have sent, which would give me an unfair advantage.

22. Minimum number of matches is first round.
NO. If the final can have just 3 matches, so can the first round,
Hopefully it's very rare.

23. Off season futures
YES

24. Managers in their own tournaments.
Should be allowed IN GS and Masters only.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,010 Posts
6. Players with Byes failing to send for second round.
YES replace by LL but not Alt

I have a hard time picturing how a tournament can have both BYEs in R1 and LLs. For a LL to exist qualies must have been played. So where did the BYEs come from? Replacing a draw? If so, all LLs have been given opportunity to enter already in R1, or the one receiving a BYE would have got an LL opponent instead. So is this meant solely for LLs who forget to send for R1 but remember to send for R2?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,224 Posts
I have a hard time picturing how a tournament can have both BYEs in R1 and LLs. For a LL to exist qualies must have been played. So where did the BYEs come from? Replacing a draw? If so, all LLs have been given opportunity to enter already in R1, or the one receiving a BYE would have got an LL opponent instead. So is this meant solely for LLs who forget to send for R1 but remember to send for R2?
Pretty sure it's for Round 1 lucky losers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,780 Posts
Huge thanks to murilo as always for collating all the proposals and analysing our replies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
:sobbing: gutted ISR idea didn't go through. And accepting different picks.
 

·
.
Joined
·
34,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
TT Changes 2015

1) Allowing multiple commitments
No change.

2) Doubles deadline to be the same as in singles
No change.

3) Special Exempts & SFs
No change.

4) Late entries to be ordered by commitment time
No change

5) Alternates & LL to be placed by the opponent's ranking order in the cases they're currently placed randomly in the draw
RULE CHANGE: placement of alternates and lucky losers is no longer random.

6) Players with bye & Alternates/LL
RULE CHANGE: players with a bye in the first round who fail to send picks on the first day of the second round can now be replaced by lucky losers from qualifying or alternates (if no qualifying is played) who doesn't get placed in the first round.

7) Doubles final qualifying round & MD spots
No change.

8) Wild Cards for challenger winners into 250 tournaments
No change.

9) Challenger winners & WC's into 64-player tournaments: a WC to be given to a winner of challengers played in pre-estabilished weeks prior to a 64-player tournament (all Masters 1000 events + Barcelona, Queens, Hamburg, Washington, Winston-Salem). The player who wins a challenger and scores more points in these weeks earns the WC.
RULE CHANGE.

10) Adding a ISR-like tie-breaker
No change.

11) Tie-break structure
No change.

12) PTS & correct set in the correct order: Bonus of 2 points if the correct scoreline is predicted in the correct set - Old PTS rule
RULE CHANGE.

13) GD to be used as a TB step before CB
No change.

14) Total number of SRs to be used as a TB step after the Tournament CB
RULE CHANGE.

15) Byes & first round picks
No change.

16) Maximum number of PTS/GD matches in first rounds
No change.

17) Sets given to the winner & Shootout decision
No change.

18) Allowing different picks for singles and doubles
No change.

19) Accepting picks sent to the wrong manager
No change.

20) Accepting picks sent until 5 minutes after the deadline (or 4, 3, 2?)
No change.

21) Picks sent between the early deadline and the real deadline
No change.

22) Minimum number of matches in singles first round
RULE CHANGE: minimum of 4 matches.

23) Off-season futures: futures to be played during the off-season with less points awarded
RULE CHANGE: futures to be played after the end of the challengers calendar, with top 30 players allowed to play as LE and the following distribuction of points:

W - 24
F - 16
SF - 8
QF - 4
R16 - 1


24) Managers & Tournaments
Managers are allowed to play their own tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,936 Posts
Some minor changes only, it's always good to keep TT fresh and updated. NUmbers 9 and 23 are the only ones that can influence in a direct way in the rankings. Numbers 12, 14 and 22 are almost mandatory changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
Genuinely disappointed that the LE ranking rule STILL stands despite losing the poll last year.

Really wonder how the board works in this scenario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Yes, but in case of the new LE system majority (30-29 :D) voted for the change, tealeaves only questioning why the Guardian Council have not changed the rule.

(Actually I also question why 23-23 tie is not worth of a change :D )
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,010 Posts
Yes, but in case of the new LE system majority (30-29 :D) voted for the change, tealeaves only questioning why the Guardian Council have not changed the rule.

(Actually I also question why 23-23 tie is not worth of a change :D )
It was interpreted as 30-30, counting a vote in the thread.

And it was decided a majority was needed for change. Equal = status quo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
What a pity. Well...Let's hope more people will be convinced by the end of the season that the ranking rule is actually unfair.
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
Top