[Broseghini]

i prefer the current rules too.

[Andreas]

I was wondering, in order to qualify for Bali, you need to win a title on International level, right?

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by Andreas

I was wondering, in order to qualify for Bali, you need to win a title on International level, right?

For Bali, we ran our own "Race to Bali" which will have the Top 12 players who scored the highest amount of points in international events.

[DAVAJ MKirilenko]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit more complicated. I like that retirements count in our game because that's the point of our game -- suicide, whether it benefits you or goes against you.

I'll hold out how I feel about it while more people comment.

It's not more complicated. 6-1 6-2 is not 1+2 but 12-3.
I just don't think that retirements has to be such an advantage.
Afterall sport is about winning and not cause of problems of the opponent.
If you make the same picks till the QF. Then SF's are 6-3 6-3 and 0-5 retirement and no pick left at the last day for both. Just won't be fair that the 0-5 wins, cause you're already lucky enough to survive that. And like I said, it would also eliminate the 6-0 0-6 6-0 as being better than 6-0 6-7 6-0.
I do agree that we count retirements for the game itself. 6-1 5-0 and retirement from the opponent would be fair to use the backup. A 1-6 0-5 retirement is so rare that we can't consider that as a disadvantage.

Retirements just shouldn't give you so much advantage as it is now.

[Wedgie619]

I was looking at the infomation on the Bali Tournament and wasn't able to find out about the ranking points you get...
but i found out that there is a "12-woman round robin singles format (four groups of three players)"... so in regards to the rules, will it be like the the YEC and after the round robin, all picks are reset???
I presume there would be Day 1-3 of round robin play, (Reset picks) and then the SF and F on Day 5???

[Danars]

In

[Wedgie619]

Originally Posted by DAVAJ MKirilenko

It's not more complicated. 6-1 6-2 is not 1+2 but 12-3.
I just don't think that retirements has to be such an advantage.
Afterall sport is about winning and not cause of problems of the opponent.
If you make the same picks till the QF. Then SF's are 6-3 6-3 and 0-5 retirement and no pick left at the last day for both. Just won't be fair that the 0-5 wins, cause you're already lucky enough to survive that. And like I said, it would also eliminate the 6-0 0-6 6-0 as being better than 6-0 6-7 6-0.
I do agree that we count retirements for the game itself. 6-1 5-0 and retirement from the opponent would be fair to use the backup. A 1-6 0-5 retirement is so rare that we can't consider that as a disadvantage.

Retirements just shouldn't give you so much advantage as it is now.

I think these 2 points are the reason why the +/- game calculation system should be used instead of the "games lost" one...

If we had a situation like at the ATP YEC where 2 players have lost the same amount of sets/games, under current rules the player who posted first would win... but what if the player who DIDN'T post first had won more games (ie. player A [44-40], player B [45-40])... wouldn't it be fairer if player be won as they had won more game??? and the +/- games calculation system eliminates this situation as well...

I really dont like the "whoever post first rule" and this system would ALMOST eliminate this as it is really unlikely that someone whould win/lose the same amount of games/set (if picking different people)....

-----------------------------------------------------

Also I know ITZ did it for Bali but i dont see why the YEC has Day 6 No pick...
This is imposible as you have 4 players to pick on SF day and therefore if you win the SF you have 1 to pick on the final day... The winnner of the other SF...

YEC Current points

DAY 1: 210
DAY 2: 290
DAY 3: 375
DAY 4: 675
DAY 5: 825:(Invalid)
DAY 6: 1050 (No Pick)
DAY 6: 1230 (Invalid)
DAY 6: 1500 (Winner)

I would like to see the Day 6 I go down to 1050 as it gives better incentive to pick the SF yopu think will lose in the final and not just the easy SF...

[Carotastrophe]

Count me in-Starting now! do you have to be over 3 months to play?

[In The Zone]

Nope. You may play.

[the jackal]

shouldnt there be a pre-requisite that only players who have won an international event can take part in the race to bali (as it is on the actual tour)?

[Deck]

Originally Posted by Zauber

this tournament again shows that having first round bys in this game is totally unfair and is totally unnecessary. It adds nothing to the game and just makes it unfair.

Supported.

[Jolene]

It's one thing to have byes; I don't love it, but I get the rationale, but I think there needs to be some serious thought given to how to handle players with byes when it comes to the tiebreaker. It seems very unfair that players not only get the advantage of not having to pick in the first round but automatically losing 0 sets/0 games when there's a tiebreaker. So the players who really made all picks/all rounds and already have a better case for deserving to win are disadvantaged against them. Why shouldn't players with byes be asked to pick someone for the first round whose games/sets will be counted against them only in the event of a tiebreaker?

[DarkchildSwiss]

this bye discussion is really annoying me this week. is it just because I won this tournament or why is it just coming up this week? little bit confused. there were 7 other players who also had a bye this week and they did not win. it is also about strategy.

[DAVAJ MKirilenko]

Sets/games lost is only there to the decide the winner. The points stay the same.

[Deck]

Originally Posted by DarkchildSwiss

this bye discussion is really annoying me this week. is it just because I won this tournament or why is it just coming up this week?

Yes Sir, everybody's against you

I also find it weird that there has to be one winner and one runner-up in the end like in real. Why not call everybody who makes it through winners