How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? [WINNER: Current System] - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

## View Poll Results: How to use SRs?

Current System 21 60.00%
A 2-1 Loser SR will end a SR Shootout in victory 4 11.43%
Count all sets given to winners, including 2-1 Loser SRs. 10 28.57%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Dec 26th, 2009, 09:22 PM   #1
In The Zone
it's serena, bitch.

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 24,479
How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? [WINNER: Current System]

We have three possible scenarios:

1) Current. A SR Shootout ends when there is a correct winner vs. loser, or a correct SR vs. wrong SR. It does not end when it is a loser 2-0 vs. loser 2-1 in favor of the 2-1.

2) A SR Shootout will end Loser 2-0 vs. Loser 2-1 in favor of the Loser 2-1 since he gave the winner a set. (sdtoot example)

3) Counting all the 2-1 Set Ratios given to LOSERS. Therefore, whoever gave the most sets to the WINNERS of the matches would win on SRs. This is counted ONLY if the # of correct SRs is tied and is done before a SR Shootout.

If this third scenario; the process would look like this:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jarl_02 If this rule is approved the order to break ties would be: 1º Number of correct SRs 2º The new rule about counting the 2-1 scores 3º SR Shootout 4º TB

Last edited by In The Zone : Dec 31st, 2009 at 09:32 PM.

 Dec 26th, 2009, 09:29 PM #2 Chris 84 Senior Member     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Glasgow Posts: 24,514 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? for clarification, the 2nd option, as proposed by sdtoot: "Add a new Rule into the current SR Shoot-out Rules New Rule: In the case of identical SR score and no SR shootout winner, then re-check the SR's by their order and when both players pick the loser, the shoot-out win goes to the one who gave more sets to the winner." __________________ Come on the Bhoys! GISELA DULKO Bibiane Schoofs Flavia Pennetta Anett Kontaveit Aga Radwanska Tara Moore Sorana Cirstea MY TWITTER https://twitter.com/ChrissieBhoy
 Dec 26th, 2009, 09:31 PM #3 Chris 84 Senior Member     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Glasgow Posts: 24,514 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? 3rd option as proposed by andiyan: "Matches were both people chose the winner with a different SR are disregarded for this rule. They only come back into play when we go to the next step (SR-shootout). This may seem weird, but Imo it's interesting to make a 2-1 pick more attractive. If we add your scenario (player A picked the winner 2-0 and player B picked the winner 2-1) that wouldn't be the case, since player A would (or at least have a bigger chance to) win then. And it's not going from SR to SR to check if there is a SR difference, you should count up the amount of sets given to the winner in the lost matches." __________________ Come on the Bhoys! GISELA DULKO Bibiane Schoofs Flavia Pennetta Anett Kontaveit Aga Radwanska Tara Moore Sorana Cirstea MY TWITTER https://twitter.com/ChrissieBhoy
 Dec 26th, 2009, 09:32 PM #4 Chris 84 Senior Member     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Glasgow Posts: 24,514 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? if anyone has any questions about any of these 3 tie break rules, then questions can be directed to the board, sdtoot or andiyan in this thread. __________________ Come on the Bhoys! GISELA DULKO Bibiane Schoofs Flavia Pennetta Anett Kontaveit Aga Radwanska Tara Moore Sorana Cirstea MY TWITTER https://twitter.com/ChrissieBhoy
 Dec 26th, 2009, 09:51 PM #5 Sexysova I'm back and fierce, bitches!     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Prague Posts: 53,398 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? current system __________________ NICOLE VAIDISOVA ON-LINE WEBSITE
 Dec 26th, 2009, 10:14 PM #6 sdtoot Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,621 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? The current SR rule does NOT reward players who pick 2-1 sets. The winner in TT should be the player who predicts the closest in all matches in the OOP - not just the TB1 match. We all know that over 60% of all tennis matches are won by a 2-0 set scoreline. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to predict a 2-1 scoreline unless you receive some reward for giving a set to the winner. The current SR rules do not reward you when you pick a 2-1 set scoreline. Yes - many of the top TT players will only ever predict 2-0 scorelines because of the current rule. What Andiyan/myself are suggesting here is that players should be rewarded when they give a set to an outsider who actually goes on to win a set or the match against the favourite. Option 2 above is currently used successfully on MTF TT, but I firmly beleive that Option 3 is slighly better. No doubt Option 1 will be voted in by most players who are reluctant to see changes in this game. Last edited by sdtoot : Dec 26th, 2009 at 11:26 PM.
 Dec 27th, 2009, 12:11 AM #7 Andiyan Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Piatra Neamț Posts: 44,399 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? Vote wise, people, vote for more excitement and more fairness in the game! For the people that voted for option 1, I'm very interested what reasons they had for this decision? So please share your thoughts.
 Dec 27th, 2009, 01:00 AM #8 MH0861 Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 14,020 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? I like the current system I think a TT match should be decided between correct picks, not incorrect ones (at least so early). I think our SR change last year was a nice addition to add more excitement and fairness as it is -- and it's going to get too complicated by going so deep here.
 Dec 27th, 2009, 01:06 AM #9 Andiyan Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Piatra Neamț Posts: 44,399 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? True, the current system is nice, but can be enhanced. I don't see the complications as I stated earlier. It will prevent some hard TB-checking/CB in several matches and the step is just a matter of counting up stuff. Besides that it's about once the correct picks are tied, deciding the match on BETTER incorrect picks.
 Dec 27th, 2009, 02:08 AM #10 Pisces0304 Senior Member     Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 576 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? I like the current system. I agree that MH0861 said ：“I think a TT match should be decided between correct picks, not incorrect ones (at least so early).” There is an old Chinese idiom story said ：Two army deserters run away when the war start.One runs 100 steps and the other runs 50 steps.At that time the slower deserter laughed the 100-step one and said ：“Haha ，you are army deserters.” We should judge the winner by the bullet shooting on the “birds” ，not the bullet far from the “birds” ，even not comparing whose far bullet is nearer to the “birds”. __________________ 2012 Tennis Tipping Brisbane(R1) Sydney(QF) AO(R1) Paris(R2) Doha(R1) Dubai(R2) Kuala Lumpur(winner) Indian Wells(R2) Miami(R1) Charleston(R2) Barcelona(R2) Stuttgart(Ret) Estoril(R1) Madrid(R2) Rome(R3) Brussel(R1) Roland Garros(R2) Bad Gastein(R1) Eastbourne(QF) Wimbledon(R3)
Dec 27th, 2009, 08:41 AM   #11
sdtoot
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,621
Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MH0861 I like the current system I think a TT match should be decided between correct picks, not incorrect ones (at least so early).
It is not so early. We still count the number of correct picks then the number of correct SR's before this stage.

Why do we have to focus only on the winners when deciding who wins in TT. Lets take two secenario's from the 2009 US Open R3:-

Oudin vs Sharapova (Result : Oudin 36 64 75)
Clijsters vs Flipkens (Result : Clijsters 60 62)

Player A picks:-

Sharapova 2-1
Clijsters 2-0

Player B picks:-

Sharapova 2-0
Clijsters 2-0

Who picked the closest in these two matches? Yes Player A because he/she took a risk and gave a set to Oudin, but he/she will get no reward for this pick with the current rule.

For all you who have voted Option 1 then you don't believe that Player A should be rewarded for giving a set to Oudin if the TT match was tied on scores and correct SR's. No you would rather look back through matches where you had picked the winner to decide the SR Shootout or TB (you have already been credited for these winning matches in the scores and maybe in the correct SR's count).

The rule in Option 1 is STOPPING players from taking risks by picking 2-1 set scores (lots of players will only ever pick 64 63 and 2-0 scores) and it is NOT rewarding the player who has predicted the closest in ALL the matches, which has got to be much more fairer.

Frank asked players to post why they voted for option 1. The only response back has said that we should only focus on winning picks and that the other option is too complicated. If this is the best you can come up with.

 Dec 27th, 2009, 11:31 AM #12 Rui. Senior Member   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 21,141 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? 1º Number of correct SRs 2º The new rule about counting the 2-1 scores 3º SR Shootout So what is implied in this order of untying things is that giving a set to the winner is more important than predicting a correct SR in a match that is more difficult to predict (If you go by the SR order)?
Dec 27th, 2009, 02:46 PM   #13
MH0861
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 14,020
Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sdtoot It is not so early. We still count the number of correct picks then the number of correct SR's before this stage. Why do we have to focus only on the winners when deciding who wins in TT. Lets take two secenario's from the 2009 US Open R3:- Oudin vs Sharapova (Result : Oudin 36 64 75) Clijsters vs Flipkens (Result : Clijsters 60 62) Player A picks:- Sharapova 2-1 Clijsters 2-0 Player B picks:- Sharapova 2-0 Clijsters 2-0 Who picked the closest in these two matches? Yes Player A because he/she took a risk and gave a set to Oudin, but he/she will get no reward for this pick with the current rule. For all you who have voted Option 1 then you don't believe that Player A should be rewarded for giving a set to Oudin if the TT match was tied on scores and correct SR's. No you would rather look back through matches where you had picked the winner to decide the SR Shootout or TB (you have already been credited for these winning matches in the scores and maybe in the correct SR's count). The rule in Option 1 is STOPPING players from taking risks by picking 2-1 set scores (lots of players will only ever pick 64 63 and 2-0 scores) and it is NOT rewarding the player who has predicted the closest in ALL the matches, which has got to be much more fairer. Frank asked players to post why they voted for option 1. The only response back has said that we should only focus on winning picks and that the other option is too complicated. If this is the best you can come up with.
1. If these were the only two matches on the OOP, wouldn't player A win on TB1 anyway? Perhaps your example should have more matches in it to drive the point home better.

2. Yeah, I don't like it - we're rewarding people based on their incorrect picks rather than their correct ones I happen to prefer a system of SR shootout than looking at all the matches we got wrong and looking for a set I know TT can be a game of 2-0 6-3 6-4 sometimes but I've been rewarded more often than not for taking risks So I understand, instead of a SR shootout the next thing we would do is count Loser 2-1 SRs correct?

Also, I'm entitled to that opinion and would appreciate it if you didn't roll your eyes or go all help on me for expressing it

3. What's to stop everyone from doing 2-1 6-3 3-6 6-4 instead of 2-0 6-3 6-4 now with this rule change? Then there will be no reward for picking 2-0

 Dec 27th, 2009, 02:58 PM #14 MH0861 Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 14,020 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? Also, nobody has to "defend" their opinion, it's a vote, and really -- it's probably clear anyone who voted for #1 isn't convinced by you guys it's a better system
 Dec 27th, 2009, 03:37 PM #15 Broseghini Senior Member     Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 24,126 Re: How should we decide matches when SRs are involved? Current system __________________ Elena Dementieva ♥ MARIA KIRILENKO | ALIZE CORNET | MARION BARTOLI MARIA SHARAPOVA | JELENA JANKOVIC | ANA IVANOVIC | CAROLINE GARCIAtwitter