Babolat - please rea you wrote: For those that arent familiar with tennis rankings and seedings, it works like this: Prior to each tournament, your rank determines who you will play and where you will be in the draw. If you are ranked #1, you will play the lowest ranked player in the draw (tournament) in the first round. If you are ranked #2, you will play the second to last lowest ranked player in the draw, so on and so forth. So the higher the rank you have, the better chance you will have to play a weak player at the start of the tournament. But then again, please remember that this is tennis. Anything can happen, and upsets happen ALL the time. So please dont be discouraged by a low rank. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, my question/comment is this: we should not seed the ENTIRE field. we should instead seed 1/4 (approx) of the tourney, and those players who are unseeded should be randomly drawn... my feeling is that #64 will NEVER beat #1, and therefore will never be able to move up. the way i've described it, #64 could wind up "drawing" #63 (as 2 unseeded players COULD meet in round 1) - this allows them more of a chance to win matches and move up... in real tennis - not EVERYONE in the field is seeded... why would we do it that way here? i'm thinking 1/4 to 1/3 of the draw should be seeded, the rest "drawn" randomly. a 32-man tourney could have 12 seeds, with 20 spots drawn a 64-man tourney couls have 16-24 seeds, the rest drawn... what do you think?
hear hear! if i play tris10 every time in the first round, i'll never make it past it... please listen to the wise goalie.
You have a very valid point, goalie. I agree with you 100%. I think there should be a real "draw" as well. But if it is a technical issue that is the reason for seeding every player, then that should be stated.
Trust me, this is a huge concern for us. We want to create an envirment that gives everyone a chance to win, but at the same time doesn't give any direct and indirect advantages to someone. We might change the point system and how you get points. Currently you get points from wins and losses in whatever round you are in. For example if you are in round 1 of the US open, you might get 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss, While if you were in the 3rd round it might be 15 a win, 7 for a loss. Since you would never get any points if you kept getting knocked out we might give points for other things like games won or something. Nothing official yet. But another thing to take into consideration is the #1 seed would only face the last season if there was excatly 64, 32 or 128 players in the tournament. The system i created is completely dynamic, and if there was say 72 players in a tournament, the first 8 seeds would get a bye in the first round.
Goalie, I totally agree. We are trying to get this as perfect as possible. The problem that occurs is this. What if the seeds are randomly drawn, and YOU have to play the number #1 seed. Is that fair for you, no. If we seed only the top 16 people (1/4 of players), and the #17 ranked guy (which isn't seeded now) gets randomly placed to play the #1 player, he would get upset from his possible loss. He should not have to play that person that early. Now what if that (above) happens, and the #64 person plays someone low as well, like the #59 player. It just doesn't come out fair. So doing it the way we have is the best way. This is the same way it works in real life, which is what I do with junior tournaments and adults, and it works. Its bad for that one kid or adult that gets slammed the first round, but the bright side is they got great experience playing. Its just a realy tough system, and with all these people, we cant make everyone happy. So please bare with whatever happens.
all i'm really saying is tone down the number of players who are "seeded" - the rest should be random draw. i think 32 of 128 were seeded for the US OPEN. in the past it used to be 16 of 128. those are good percentages to use, to help keep each tournament as dynamic as possible. seeding EVERYONE will be way too static, in my opinion... can't the tournament chairperson (not sure about our lingo) use a random generator for the other parts of the draw?
i think this will also help promote competition THROUGHOUT the ladder, as people will battle to hang onto one of those top 16ish seeded spots...
I agree with Goalie as well, and it will keep the same people from playing over and over, give guys who aren't as good at the game a chance to play lesser seeds than just getting the #64 seed everytime.
Ya it's spot on, we made the changes in the format accordingly http://www.leaguegaming.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2307
Well I haven't played a tourney yet and it would take a few/bunch of bad draws to change my mind, but I don't like how grand slams now seed 32...I mean when you used to go to first week of a grand slam tourney the #1 seed might draw 17-25 and actually have a 'scare' the first week which is always fun for the fan to watch. Obviously we are the players now, but I still think 16 seeds is right, but that is up to commish and 'majority' to decide.
