Formal Format Debate

Talk about any Kick Off Tournament here.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tripod
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Formal Format Debate

Postby Tripod » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:14 pm

Ok, people, let's talk about the format of the next World Cup while the memories of the last one are still fresh. I (hopefully not in vain) ask everybody to stay calm! Personally I think the last WC's format was the best yet. And I say this because everybody (bar 2 tourists) got the same amount of games, which was always my goal and I'll keep fighting for it. I don't care so much about the "mix up" on the second day, but still, let's see what people think should be done next year.

I'll try and break it down to get some order into it.

1. Day one. Larger groups with A=B, playing each other once. Did everybody enjoy this? Were there any problems? Anybody think that we should instead return to playing in smaller groups and two legs - and if so, then why?

2. The final position after day 1 immediately determines what you are playing for the next day. No chance, say, that if you end up 5th you can still win the World Cup (by beating the 4th in another group on day 2). Again, did you like that? Please state your reasons.

3. Whether with another round or not (see 2.), players on day 2 are (eventually) split up into groups of (ideally) 16. With 48 players, that makes three groups, with 64 it would be four. Did that work well? Would you like to see it kept that way?

4. "North vs South", as Robert called it. The idea being that only in the final do players from the two "halves" meet up. To keep it easy and in spirit with the WC that just ended, let's say there are four groups, A to D. Obviously, on Day one people only play others in their group, Then on day two they will only meet players of one more group (A meets B, C meets D), before the final. I am fairly certain there is one adjustment to this which most people can agree on. After A1-B4, in the quarter final that winner should not face the winner from A2-B3, but B2-A3. Which if all goes according to plan would be (from the point of view of A1): Play B4, then B2, then B1, then face somebody from C/D in the final. Give us your thoughts.

5. Mixing it up. From the quarter finals onwards, all four groups meet, as an alternative to North vs South. It would look something like this: A1 plays B4 first, then the winner plays the winner of C2-D3 and then the semis would ideally be A1-C1/D1 and B1-C1/D1. Upsets are possible but the chances of meeting somebody from your Day one group are slim (only in the semi final or final). Is this better? Fairer?

6. Alternative to knockout rounds: Leagues on Day 2. I guess the top 16 don't want to try this, but for the middle 16 (still working with roughly 48 players) this is an alternative and especially for the bottom group this could be interesting. On day 2, 2 of each group are put together into a day 2 league (in fact, 2 leagues). 8 players per league, play each other once, makes 7 games each. Final position altogether could/will be determined by playing the person who ended up in the same place in the other league, with one leg everybody would end up with 8 games, just like playing knockout rounds. One game would definitely be against a Day one player and possibly so would the match for your final position, though it's not so likely. For the "middle 16" of Day one (assuming we have 4 groups with 12 players on the first day) each league would look something like this: A5, A6, B5, B6, C7, C8, D7, D8. (Possibly A5, A8, B6, B7, C5, C8, D6, D7).

6b. The idea would be especially useful for the "league of shame" with an imperfect number of players (which, in fact, was planned for this year if 56-ish players had turned up). So, for example, a league instead of knockouts for the bottom 8 if 40 players turned up. Or for the bottom 8 if 56 turned up. As it was, we had 50 players. Two went sightseeing but maybe we could have stopped them if the bottom 18 had played in two leagues of 9 players instead of knockouts. If time is restricted, then they cannot play out a final position (one more game each, the bottom one being the Game of Shame, of course).

Did I forget anything? Please add your ideas and comments - after taking a deep breath (preferably from a joint, it's very soothing :)).
WC Performances 2003: 28/31 - 2004: 14/43 - 2005: 17/63 - 2006: 31/50 - 2008: 12/41 - 2009: 14/34 - 2010: 24/46
User avatar
alkis21
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 15076
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Postby alkis21 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:23 pm

1. In Cologne, I had a very easy Day 1 group where nobody came close to even draw against me. Then on Day 2 I had to play Haydn, Durban and Robert respectively, players that I knew I would qualify against one way or another. I was in the semi-finals without sweating, and there I was thrashed and the WC was over. This year's idea put me up against quality players from the very beginning, and I loved it.

2. No problems for me.

3. I liked that too.

4. "North Vs South" (or East Vs West, as they looked like NBA Playoffs to me) was not ideal in my opinion and I would have preferred it if the groups were crossed. But I probably wouldn't have noticed it if the QFs were determined differently, as discussed in another thread.

5. Yes, I do prefer it that way.

6. I miss the Round 2 leagues and I wouldn't have minded playing in one again.
Remember, remember, the 4th and the 3rd of November
Image
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Re: Formal Format Debate

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:41 pm

1. I actually don't have a preference. I enjoyed this years cup and I also enjoy play x2.

2. Don't mind this either, whatever the format there's always going to be a position which if you are in it you can't win the world cup.

3. I loved the groups of 16 play offs. It didn't work for two people but to counteract that I'd put all of the bottom tier first round losers into a league of shame. This would then have 6 people with a play x1 format. If there were 4 or more people outside of a group of 16 then the league format could be adapted. 4 players play x2, 8 players 2 leagues play x2, 12 players 2 leagues playx1 etc. If two leagues of shame, then the bottom of each league play the game of shame. Otherwise the bottom two players play the game of shame. We must have a game of shame.

4. Happy with your proposal

5. This is better.

6.Really like the knockouts

I'd also add a small medal for the winner of each 16 group knockout section. I think that achivement should be acknowledged, even if it is rewarding those players with the near misses. I don't think we should give an award again to someone finishing in the middle of a knockout group.
Robert
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 16369
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:00 am

Re: Formal Format Debate

Postby Robert » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:55 pm

1. Day one. Larger groups with A=B, playing each other once.

GOOD. Better, in my opinion. Same as Alkis. For me, Milan and Cologne World Cup Day One was not much of a challenge (although I had trouble with Nick P last year!) and so quality players on Day One was good. What was also nice was in my group the #5 was beating the #2, the #7 was beating the #3 etc. This made it very interesting and tense. Too bad I lost. Actually I hated it :-)

2. The final position after day 1 immediately determines what you are playing for the next day.

GOOD. I strongly proposed 'no second chance for the 5th player' and I got what I deserved, coming 5th :-) An extra 1-32 round would have taken more time and reduced the importance of Day One. This year, Day One was the most important Day One ever. In previous years, Day One was easy for the elite, and pointless for the non-elite. This year with Gold/Silver/Bronze levels (prefer this to Top/Mid/Lower) then everything is to play for.

3. Whether with another round or not (see 2.), players on day 2 are (eventually) split up into groups of (ideally) 16. With 48 players, that makes three groups, with 64 it would be four. Did that work well? Would you like to see it kept that way?

GOOD. See answer to previous question. Of course this was my idea so I should like it. But if it had gone shitty I would admit. It didn't though, it was much better than previous formats.

4. "North vs South", as Robert called it.

OK maybe this was not such a good idea, as people are less happy with it. Next year, maybe we go for A1/B4 vs C2/D3 in round two. This may mean A1/A2 playing in the final, so the final could be a replay - with one player taking a massive psychological advantage from winning the group game, and people seeing the result maybe as a 'foregone conclusion'. Also if the winner beats a guy he lost to in the group, is he really the champion or just lucky? These are all the reasons I went for a North vs South final (yes, I did put thought into it, it was not just the mistakes of a crappy unprofessional).

My belief this year was that the final should be like 'Alien vs Predator' i.e a long-expected confrontation between two supreme guys both at the top of the food-chain and probably undefeated until that point. Something like 'Alien vs slightly smaller Alien' didn't seem so exciting.

BUT - if enough people were not happy with this - it's a reason to change. I just want people to understand counter-arguments and the reasons like it was designed how it was this year, rather than bellowing at the top of their voices and not thinking.

5. Mixing it up. From the quarter finals onwards, all four groups meet, as an alternative to North vs South.

See answer to previous question. The key choice is what you do in round two. Do you force new games early or leave the option to 3 or 4? In a knockout competition where players leave after being defeated, you have to take the 'Stox method' and ensure fresh opponents early. There is always the possibility that A1 and A2 were in fact the best players in the WC (although this would mean a seedings error). The thing about this competition is that everyone plays a 'final' of their own, whether it's 1st/2nd, or 17th/18th, like I did with James Beard. So we need to think about the interest of this game.

Before people think too much about this year and how it was 'wrong' for Klaus to play Spyros and Alkis to play Marco in the QF's.....also maybe the Spyros/Gianni game was more like a 'Final' this year....just remember that this happens very often. Last year, the two strongest players (Alkis/Gianluca) met in the Semi Final. In Milan, again the Semi-Final of Nikos/Gianluca was more like the final with the Luigi/Camber and Luigi/Gianluca games being unbalanced. You have to go back to the great finals of Athens and Groningen for the days when the two best players were in the final together and the result was determined by a single goal.

6. Alternative to knockout rounds: Leagues on Day 2.

We abandoned Day Two leagues last year and I am not missing them. Maybe it's because I played in some of the most horrible leagues ever! Athens I had a 4-man league with Alkis/Rikki (the two finalists) and Bill21. Groningen I was in with Martin Jeffrey/Nikos (2nd and 4th) and James Beard. Nightmare. Let's not bring this back!!

I really like the idea of a tournament that is 50% league and 50% knockout. It's the perfect balance. We play leagues all the time. Something that's not great about leagues is that it's possible to come top and be defeated. Whereas the benefit of knockouts is that the winner is always the one person that was not defeated. There can be only one. The winner of a knockout always gains more respect, and you avoid there being a champion who has someone walking around saying 'but I beat him'.
Semtex
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2917
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:00 am

Postby Semtex » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:55 pm

I like your suggestion of leagues, that way you play more people.
With a 'final' against the other league positions you get the knockout feel at the end - a perfect proposal in my opinion.
I also like your idea that you should have more to fight for. For me day 2 was just a training session, a bit like Alkis said he'd beat me, Durban and Rob one way or another.
IF I had been promoted to a league with the losers from silver section I would have had something to fight for, and end up playing more games against my standard of players... something that we all say we want. PLUS we end up with the chance for a proper KOAcup, the 16 players from 25th to 40th fighting for it seems sensible, with Wayne and Maurizio through to James Bu and Michael Mu all realistically capable of winning it.
We could even then give a medal to the winner of the bottom 8.
I would have politely declined a medal for 33rd. If a polite response didn't work I'd have told you to fuck off, basically.
Wayne never finished middle BTW, he finished top of a group of 8...
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:38 pm

Semtex wrote:IF I had been promoted to a league with the losers from silver section I would have had something to fight for, and end up playing more games against my standard of players... something that we all say we want.
You would have been playing those players if you'd performed better on day 1. At the end of the day, we all got what we deserved I feel. You ended up playing someone about your level, with 1 win each over the two legged match. If you'd lobbed like that on day 1 you could have been in the 1-16 group.

Semtex wrote:I would have politely declined a medal for 33rd. If a polite response didn't work I'd have told you to fuck off, basically.

Knobby. :roll:

Semtex wrote:Wayne never finished middle BTW, he finished top of a group of 8...
I thought we were playing in groups of 16? :?
Semtex
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2917
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:00 am

Postby Semtex » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:59 pm

Bounty Bob wrote:
Semtex wrote:IF I had been promoted to a league with the losers from silver section I would have had something to fight for, and end up playing more games against my standard of players... something that we all say we want.
You would have been playing those players if you'd performed better on day 1. At the end of the day, we all got what we deserved I feel. You ended up playing someone about your level, with 1 win each over the two legged match. If you'd lobbed like that on day 1 you could have been in the 1-16 group.

Semtex wrote:I would have politely declined a medal for 33rd. If a polite response didn't work I'd have told you to fuck off, basically.

Knobby. :roll:

Semtex wrote:Wayne never finished middle BTW, he finished top of a group of 8...
I thought we were playing in groups of 16? :?



As it turned out I was only competiting in a group of 2...

MORE GAMES AGAINST PLAYERS OF MY LEVEL
Can't say it any clearer than that.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:00 pm

Do better on day one then. CAN'T SAY IT ANY CLEARER THAN THAT.
Semtex
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2917
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:00 am

Postby Semtex » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:10 pm

Bounty Bob wrote:Do better on day one then. CAN'T SAY IT ANY CLEARER THAN THAT.


Forget it. If I can't get through to you then what chance have I got against anyone else here?

YOU SHOULD AIM FOR PLAYING AS MANY 'EXCITING' GAMES AS POSSIBLE.
I HAD ONE, AGAINST JAMES BU. WHOOPIEFUCKINGDO.
IN COLOGNE I HAD 4 CLOSE MATCH UPS.
IF THE ONLY ANSWER IS DO BETTER ON DAY ONE THEN WE RUN THE RISK OF PEOPLE NOT BOTHERING. IF I END UP IN BRONZE AT DELFT OR ROME THEN I'D PROBABLY GO SIGHTSEEING RATHER THAN SIT IN A ROOM BEATING 4 'RUNTYISH' PLAYERS.
THERE IS NOW A CLEAR DEBATE BETWEEN "BLACK AND WHITE FINAL TABLES" AND "MORE EXCITING KICK OFF MATCHES"
I KNOW WHICH I PREFER.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:14 pm

Semtex wrote:YOU SHOULD AIM FOR PLAYING AS MANY 'EXCITING' GAMES AS POSSIBLE.
I HAD ONE, AGAINST JAMES BU. WHOOPIEFUCKINGDO.
Hmm, you seemed quite excited to turn around the defecit in the second leg of our match.

Semtex wrote:IN COLOGNE I HAD 4 CLOSE MATCH UPS.
Yes, because you did better on day one!! :lol: :roll:
Semtex
2000+ Poster!
2000+ Poster!
Posts: 2917
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 12:00 am

Postby Semtex » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:21 pm

Bounty Bob wrote:
Semtex wrote:YOU SHOULD AIM FOR PLAYING AS MANY 'EXCITING' GAMES AS POSSIBLE.
I HAD ONE, AGAINST JAMES BU. WHOOPIEFUCKINGDO.
Hmm, you seemed quite excited to turn around the defecit in the second leg of our match.

Semtex wrote:IN COLOGNE I HAD 4 CLOSE MATCH UPS.
Yes, because you did better on day one!! :lol: :roll:


NOT EXCITED, IT WAS SIMPLY 'PROFESSIONAL'. LOBS ARE BORING BUT EFFECTIVE...

IF MY SYSTEM HAD BEEN USED IN COLOGNE I WOULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING FOR THE KOACUP WITH FILIPPO AND JORN PLUS OTHERS OF MY LEVEL. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE, PROBABLY EVEN MORE ENJOYABLE, AS THE THOUGHT OF A BIT OF PLASTIC FOR THE TROPHY CABINET, AGAINST PLAYERS OF MY LEVEL WOULD HAVE MADE IT EVEN MORE EXCITING.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:24 pm

Semtex wrote:NOT EXCITED, IT WAS SIMPLY 'PROFESSIONAL'. LOBS ARE BORING BUT EFFECTIVE...
At least that explains your cheering and smiles then. :roll:
User avatar
Sid
4000+ Poster!
4000+ Poster!
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: KORA HQ
Contact:

Postby Sid » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:24 pm

Semtex wrote:
Bounty Bob wrote:Do better on day one then. CAN'T SAY IT ANY CLEARER THAN THAT.


Forget it. If I can't get through to you then what chance have I got against anyone else here?


Whats your proposal then??

I don't mind... as I have obviously yet to attend one, so can't really comment. Trust the good of the WC will be handled correctly anyway...
Image
WC2011 #20th position
WC2011 Rodolfo's new arch enemy and Silver Cup dream ender!
WC2011 The KOA's new bowling champion
UKC2009 #1 Silver Cup Winner
UKC2007 organiser

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests