Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 274 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
this week he runs both tournaments and hasn't done the ranking of last week yet. i'm sure it's because he is too busy and i don't blame him for that.

we need to do him a favour. this game is too big for one person to carry on. at least help him run some tournaments if you want this game to continue. seriously i started to think sandg is exausting.

sorry sandg for bringing this up but everytime i saw your name on PAW tournament threads, i can even feel how tired you are. being a PAW manager is a very tough job and takes a lot of time. it isn't fair for you to take this reponsibility weeks after weeks 'cuz you also have to do the rankings stuffs as well.

i wish i can help you more but i have a lot of things to do too. maybe later this year if i can fix my schedule, i'll run some more tournaments.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,799 Posts
Last year we were going to reform PAW to make less people playing PAW tourneys. But nothing is still done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,665 Posts
I used to run more tournaments and after my final examination in Biology next Monday I will definitely run some events again, but not week in, week out. sandg knows I help whenever I can. I don't want to run tournaments with more than 70 people though. I did that one time and got nearly crazy...
But there really should be more people helping. They don't imagine how much work it is to run tournaments but expect LTs every day just an hour after play has been finished. Guys you sometimes should appreciate this hard work a bit more, esp. if someone like sandg does it week-in week-out...

An idea: why not letting two people run one event and splitting up the tasks, so one does players from A to M and the other one the rest for example. You would have two LTs that have to be combined but this would mean less work all in all...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I used to run more tournaments and after my final examination in Biology next Monday I will definitely run some events again, but not week in, week out. sandg knows I help whenever I can. I don't want to run tournaments with more than 70 people though. I did that one time and got nearly crazy...
But there really should be more people helping. They don't imagine how much work it is to run tournaments but expect LTs every day just an hour after play has been finished. Guys you sometimes should appreciate this hard work a bit more, esp. if someone like sandg does it week-in week-out...

An idea: why not letting two people run one event and splitting up the tasks, so one does players from A to M and the other one the rest for example. You would have two LTs that have to be combined but this would mean less work all in all...
i know. i've got more than 100 players in Budapest and i was so tired.
now imagine sandg doing slams and all people :help:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
66,184 Posts
I used to run more tournaments and after my final examination in Biology next Monday I will definitely run some events again, but not week in, week out. sandg knows I help whenever I can. I don't want to run tournaments with more than 70 people though. I did that one time and got nearly crazy...
But there really should be more people helping. They don't imagine how much work it is to run tournaments but expect LTs every day just an hour after play has been finished. Guys you sometimes should appreciate this hard work a bit more, esp. if someone like sandg does it week-in week-out...

An idea: why not letting two people run one event and splitting up the tasks, so one does players from A to M and the other one the rest for example. You would have two LTs that have to be combined but this would mean less work all in all...
Maybe but Unless it's in Different Posts, the other one must be a moderator
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,419 Posts
I can try to help out, but i can't run a tournament by myself because I already run PTF.:wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,585 Posts
I really felt sorry for sandg after I read this thread.
sandg, thank you for your hard and amazing work.
You make me proud that you're Indonesian (are you?).
Keep it up, and be GREAT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,279 Posts
Thank you sandg for your hard work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
I think PAW is going down if there won't be more managers getting involved.
Problem is, tournaments with 100+ people will always scare potential managers off, it's just too much work.
The only way I see how maybe we could get more managers, if we make the tournaments more manageable. Which is either splitting the tasks (which I don't really like), or having tournaments with 30-40 people in them (with the occasional slam with all people). The last option may attract more people as manager, because it wouldn't take up nearly as much time as running a PAW-tournament takes right now. And it also means adding ITFs to the PAW-calender. This was all dscussed when Spikey was still here, when things were still good. Nothing was done about it in the end....

I don't know. I just think the way it's going now isn't going to work for a whole lot longer...

:shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
And big thanks, sandg, ofcourse. But I really think you're doing too much alone right now. Maybe I can do one next week.

But in the end, I think we need a more permanent change to get back to where PAW was :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,718 Posts
last month i run two tournaments, one I one IV.

really,it's a crazy job if the PAW player more than 100 person.:eek:

i spent more than 5 hours to summing the picks every day for Charleston.

mistakes, complain, and so on, i thought i was insane and wanted to give up them one time.:sad:

Estoril Open , only less than 40 people play, is OK.

i think PAW need change something, its very difficulty to ran a I tournament or Grand Slam .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,718 Posts
sandg, he need somebady help him.

if i have time i can ran some Tier III or IV tournaments, but never I or Grand Slam if no have any changes. im sorry.:sad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,665 Posts
last month i run two tournaments, one I one IV.

really,it's a crazy job if the PAW player more than 100 person.:eek:

i spent more than 5 hours to summing the picks every day for Charleston.

mistakes, complain, and so on, i thought i was insane and wanted to give up them one time.:sad:

Estoril Open , only less than 40 people play, is OK.

i think PAW need change something, its very difficulty to ran a I tournament or Grand Slam .
Exactly, I once ran a tourney as big as yours and really nearly went crazy... We need to limit tournament entries and need to introduce challengers. I suüported this last year already, but sandg didn't want it. That way PAW can't continue I fear...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,560 Posts
We need to introduce ITFs, atleast 100Ks and 75Ks and maybe 50Ks
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
the idea about having a tournament cut off is good. i mean regular tour does that and there is nothing wrong. of course it will hurt lower rank players and prevent us all from playing every weeks (which probably bores us lol) but it can solve the problems here.

sandg i know you are against this idea but we know you are tired and really want to help. please reconsider about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,665 Posts
Another idea: the LT after Round 1 is the basis for the LT of the rest of the tournament, so if you are between #1 and 64 (128 players in total) e.g., you advance to the next round at a GS. The problem is just that there are usually more players and no "straight" numbers...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Another idea: the LT after Round 1 is the basis for the LT of the rest of the tournament, so if you are between #1 and 64 (128 players in total) e.g., you advance to the next round at a GS. The problem is just that there are usually more players and no "straight" numbers...
fair enough. i like that :yeah: :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49,042 Posts
Another idea: the LT after Round 1 is the basis for the LT of the rest of the tournament, so if you are between #1 and 64 (128 players in total) e.g., you advance to the next round at a GS. The problem is just that there are usually more players and no "straight" numbers...
This means : LT on each round have to be update as soon as the completion of that round, therefore people will know! otherwise would create more hassle as well

Good idea though :hearts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49,042 Posts
The problem is this game is just to popular :p :kiss: everyone loved playing this game! :heart:

Maybe we should start doing "the cut off" on each tournament! with the commitment deadline as well, although players rank inside TOP 128 but late to commit, there will be no excuse! therefore will be chance for lower players to play

Grand Slam/Tier I = 128 players

Tier II/III/IV/V = 64 players
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
This means : LT on each round have to be update as soon as the completion of that round, therefore people will know! otherwise would create more hassle as well

Good idea though :hearts:
I really don't like the idea of cutting players after one round. PAW is about competing strategies - people who pick a lot in the first couple of rounds vs people who hold their picks until later in the tournament. Implementing this would destroy that...unless we agree that everyone has to make the same amount of picks in round 1.

Also, I think the game should be for all people, and using only cut-offs doesn't accomplish that. We need ITFs for that. But that won't be so simple. OK, it both makes everything more realistic, and it makes tournaments more manageable. But everything comes down to finding enough people on a weekly basis who want to manage a tournament of about 40-50 people. So I think the first thing we need to do is to find out if those people are there, if not there isn't any sense in even trying to implement the ITF-option...
 
1 - 20 of 274 Posts
Top