Joined: 21 Sep 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Newtown, PA, USA
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject:
Eric Wulff and Greg Lima have the best seeds in Singles as it stands now. If it is drawn up as a standard 32 player single elimination bracket then they would play each other in the first round. This will likely be a very close match and whoever wins will be well prepared for their second round match vs. the winner of the 1 seed vs. the 32 seed. My guess is that will be Manu.
The last place you want to play Manu is in the Finals. Your best chance to beat him is early in the tournament. He will not be as sharp in the second round as he will be in the finals. It will be far easier to win a game to 11 against him than a game to 15.
Eric is playing better singles now than I have ever seen him play. Greg is the best young singles player I have seen in many years. Could one of these guys pull off the upset of the century?
If I could be guaranteed the 16th seed maybe I'd come
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 330 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:16 am Post subject:
Air Jere´s singles predictions, based solely on 1 session of beer drinking:
-Greg Lima makes it into the top 10
-Manu coasts through pool play but gets upset by Sam Maleki in the Quarters
-Johnny scratches due to pony tail injury
-PT plays in Air Max´s because Flo throws his vintage brooks into die Main river, still makes it to the quarters.
-4 finns make the quarters but only 1 advances to the semis, you´ll have to wait und see!
-Sasha Smirnov, using only his left outside, dismantles flo in pool play to steal his seed, plays ____ in the finals.
-Hungry like the Wolff, Andy breezes through the competition, reaching the semis, where my predictions get hazy
-Air Jer loses his Finnair sponsorship after losing in pool play to Ted Fritch and Lino Landau
-Ales Pelko, after receiving miracle leg bone growth treatment from Swiss doctor to grow 20 cm taller, makes the quarters when his head mysteriously shrinks to Beetlejuice size, disrupting his perception of the net bag, making it look larger than a Takraw ball.
-Ulli forgets to put up his hair, sneaks into the Women´s singles bracket, but loses in pool play to Helena, who abuses his right outside.
-Patti, looking like a true American, rolls over his competition (literally) as he blasts standing spikes. He´s too lazy to "spring."
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject:
A healthy discussion. Nice! Air Jer has the right idea. We've decided to adjust the ranking system and worlds seeding based solely on his input. jk
If anyone read Shults' post - obviously he was completely wasted or something. Only reason I'm playing singles is cause I lost a bet. I've got a bad left knee and my right ankle still has stiches in it from surgery. I gained weight since I last played singles at worlds(2 lbs I think), and I have grey hair. Yes, grey. Not gray. Worlds is in Europe yo! Anyway, I'm a threat to make it out of my pool and that's about it.
Now, all this talk about 'use the rankings' is getting on my nerves a little . We ARE using the rankings. However, perhaps you're suggesting we rely *solely* on the ranking system. But our sport is completely amateur and no-one has the time or money to travel the world competing against one another on a regular basis. This isn't tennis where all the best in the world play in the same event at least four time per year. We're each playing the same DIFFERENT group of players 3 or 5 times a year and then many of us, not even all of us (WFC - off the top of my head - no Kenny, Siebert, Cote), get together once a year for the WFC and see how it all pans out just that one time. If someone gets hurt or is actually running the event then they're seeding for that year would likely be screwed if we simply went solely by our ranking system. Our ranking system is pretty cool considering our situatiion but the reality is - it is not a clear reflection of individual/team standings in the world. It's more like a collection of results easily referenced.
I really like the addition of PTs averaging out the rank. That's a nice start to consider.
I still think JF and Gilles are getting overlooked. There is talk about Frank's points not being considered since he won 2 major non-sanctioned tournaments. Well, Gilles was his partner and is now JF's. And Gilles won 3 major non-sanctioned tournaments last season and defeated Manu in doubles twice - once with Frank in semis at Montreal, and once with his current partner, JF, at Funtastik finals. JF in last 3 years is World Champion, 3rd, 2nd. How is he 4th, with Gilles, considering the Fin team that is currently 3rd finished 5th, 6th, 3rd at last 3 worlds. The Fins are a great team and defenitely a threat to win it all. But I don't think they're a bigger threat than JF and Gilles nor do they have the track record that JF has and Gille's is not enough of a drag to bring JF down to 4th.
Lastly, I will continue to stress this... The top priority of seeding the tournament, not the only one but the top one, is to have it reflect the most likely outcome. Things like who's earned the right for what carries weight but is secondary. If we collectively believe whoever is seeded 5 for example but would be surprised to see them finish that high - well then the seeding will not accomplish it's purpose. The reason for seeding an event is to balance everyone's opportunity to advance their standing.
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 104 Location: Wheaton, IL, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject:
As I posted before...
Quote:
I'm not going to Worlds this year, and even if I was my name would be so far down the list that my opinion wouldn't make much difference anyway, so take all that for what it's worth.
Eric- Given the above facts, if you don't want my opinion on this matter please just say so and I'll drop out of the debate entirely, with no offense taken whatsoever. However, until you make that call, I'd like to add some thoughts and responses to your last post...
You wrote...
Quote:
The top priority of seeding the tournament, not the only one but the top one, is to have it reflect the most likely outcome.
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. The purpose of seeding ANY event is to award players based on previous results. The purpose of the tournament is to discover the eventual outcome. If seeding were intended to "guess" the outcome, then why have the tournament at all? Why don't you just tell us how it's going to happen and we can all save the money and stay home?
Quote:
perhaps you're suggesting we rely *solely* on the ranking system
and...
Quote:
I really like the addition of PTs averaging out the rank. That's a nice start to consider.
I AM suggesting that you rely *solely* on the ranking system, and I'm pretty sure that PT was just as well. I don't understand why it doesn't work for you for singles but it's okay for doubles. Isn't it the same mathematical equations for both?
If there is a problem with the ranking system putting out bad results, you need to change the ranking system, not the results. And if JF and Gilles are as good as you think they are then they will prove it ON THE COURT, not in your debate. (By the way, I think they are that good too, but they haven't proven it yet. That's why we have tournaments.) You mentioned tennis: have you ever noticed that there is almost always a huge upset somewhere along the way at every major event? Why? Because there is someone that is really good but they haven't competed enough to earn the higher seed. I think your ranking system is a hell of a lot better than you're giving it credit for. Give it a chance!
Just my humble opinion. Please feel free to disregard it if you are so inclined.
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 330 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject:
If I understand Eric correctly, he is saying that 2 players, who have performed well with other partners, and who decide to play together, should be given a higher seed (based on guesswork) than a proven 3-time worlds team (in the Finns). That makes sense, right?
I don't know which is the better team, but IMO, we have to give the Finns 3rd because they earned it at Worlds last year, and Gilles and JF haven't proven their skills at Worlds.
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject:
First off I want to say I totally apprecitate everone's input and absolutely expect no one to drop out of this discussion whether they're going to WFC or not. Whether they're the most experienced or least experienced. This is what we need to do I think.
I have opinions, some of them strong, and if I they don't convince you then - either I'm wrong or I didn't do my job. Either way - I think going thru this process will get us the most fair and transparent seed at worlds possible this year.
So, I appreciate everyone's input - thx for that - and I hope noone thinks otherwise!!!
Please don't think that if I disagree you think I'm not listening. I haven't yet editted any of the seeding and won't unless there's strong argument to do otherwise.
Also, we've never said that rankings would be the only basis for seeding any event and have in fact prevented that from the very beginning. It helps and it's getting better but I don't yet see a way of doing this while players are still not competing against each other on a regular basis.
With regards to upsets in tennis. Please don't think I'm trying to prevent upsets. That's not the purpose of seeding correctly. The purpose is to make upsets as legitimate as possible.
Also, I'm suggesting the the ranking system is not accurate enough so implying that it takes out 'guesswork' is a mistake. I'm saying all it does is mask quesswork. I'm also suggesting we can do better than the ranking system when coming up with a seed by having discussions like this and insluding on the rank system as a reference in the debate.
I also believe that seeding should be based on what you've earned. I'm suggesting that what you've earned is based more on your skill level overall instead of 'what have you done for me lately'.
The tournament means allot less if there is inaccurate seeding. If seeding correctly didn't matter then we'd make it a random draw. There is never any reason to seed one player higher then another if it's not understood that they're better. If it's a close call then we should rely *more* on rank because at that point you gotta base it on something substantial in an effort to eliminate bias.
babble babble
So, I have allot to say but I hope it's not coming across in a negative manner and discouraging others from commenting.
One thing I liked in Takraw, was the way they did the pools at the worlds champs.
They put the top 4 teams in one pool (a), 5 to 8 in another pool (b) and so on.
after the pools you just seed in a straight elimination bracket. so if you are in the first pool, you will end up between 1 and 4 seed. and so on for the other brackets.
There are 2 noticable advantages to this system:
1: You play 3 matchs (or games) againts teams of your level, witch is great for everyone but also helps a fuckin lot for ranking the next tourney!
2: Almost (I say almost because there is still some dificulties between ranking 4 and 5 and 8 and 9 and so on) all hard ranking descisions are made easy as they can battle it out in their pool.
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:58 am Post subject:
Wow! that is interesting. Works well too I bet - when no one is eliminated from the pools. I know you're not suggesting we use it. I'm just stating the obvious perhaps.
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 23 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:53 am Post subject:
Scot Hansen (scothansen) wrote:
And if JF and Gilles are as good as you think they are then they will prove it ON THE COURT, not in your debate. (By the way, I think they are that good too, but they haven't proven it yet. That's why we have tournaments.)
Eric Wulff (ewulff) wrote:
I also believe that seeding should be based on what you've earned. I'm suggesting that what you've earned is based more on your skill level overall instead of 'what have you done for me lately'.
I like those "prove it on the court" and seeding should be based on what you've earned arguments. Everyone now in the top 10 had opportunity to show their skills on the court last year. In my opinion, last year's results are a good starting point when doing this year's tournament seeding. There should be a good reason, such as the current seeding, to lower one's tournament seeding below last year's results. I wonder how Chris Löw / Hannes Daniel are seeded higher than Andreas Wolff / Uli Haase. Isn't it pretty naive if it is just because of one match in Montpellier?
Eric Wulff (ewulff) wrote:
I haven't yet editted any of the seeding and won't unless there's strong argument to do otherwise.
This is ridiculous I have to defend my own singles seeding, but it seems to be the only way to keep the earned seed. Last year my tournament seeding was 15 and Flo's 13 and we ended 3rd and 2nd. I bet someone had seen many players playing well and wanted to seed them high, but forgot we were 2nd and 3rd in the European Championships (and 9th and 11th in the Worlds 2006 and 5th and 8th in 2005).
This year, the same thing. I've been playing pretty well as you can see from the current seeding. Once again, I'm somehow expected to do worse than last year! The same top 10 players are playing, except John. John was 8th in 2006 and he's been playing pretty good, but I don't see any reasons why he should be higher than me. Maybe you Eric have seen John playing better than ever?
regarding hannes and chris: they won again in leipzig at german champs but i would (especially because GFC is not sanctioned) not seed them higher than andi and uli.
i have a funny seed too.
in singles im behind karim who beat me this one time in montpellier but is 20+ places behind me in the ranking. also my beloved partner amaya is seeded over me although he never finished a tournament over me and is ten places under me in the ranking...
however, i'm not in shape and dont think it matters too much for the midfielders afterall.
Quote:
There is a panel of about 12 people or more in discussion on this topic behind the scenese
one thing i have not quite understood is, who is actually involed in the seeding process in the first place? is any european player besides grischa consulting? because i have the feeling that some of the decisions based on "what we've seen in unsanctioned tourneys" are kind of biased towards north american input. which comes naturally if those people do all the work and are the ones spending the effort... so no offense or rant from my side. but still i would like to know, how the list is made. are you guys emailing your discussion, is there any way to participate for people like me (or others that play since a long time but have never reached a top level)? has there been a "call for help" or anything alike?
well. i see that its way too late now, to get involved, but for the future we could try to establish a continous discussion like this one to prevent dissapointments earlier. i also see the problem in having too many people involved, making the whole process slower. but still the "behind the scenes work-style" gives me a conspirative feeling about all those decisions.
again, i appreciate your work..and i'm far from able to judge about decisions that are not related to my very self or the euro-players i see more than twice a year...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
