Since the new TT board has been voted for by now, we will be looking at the rules and what changes need to be made and so on in the next few weeks. However, if any tt player has specific issues or recommendations to raise regarding tt, then they should do so in this thread and we'll examine that.

Personally, I have promised to the players voting for me that I would try to make one big change in TB rules and as many of them voted on me, it seems to be well received.
As for me it may make the tie deciding more fair.
I will try to explain it in here by an example and wait for your suggestions.


Sharapova's match is TB1 and we have a tie...
PlayerA picks Sharapova 6:1, 4:6, 6:4
PlayerB picks Sharapova 7:6, 3:6, 7:5

Sharapova loses: 6:1, 4:6, 4:6

With current rules PlayerB would win in such a situation, although she/he has nothing correct!!!! only gave more games to Maria's opponent (a winner).
Even though PlayerA has two sets completely right to the right player in a right order, she/he loses :confused:

As for me and some other players it's really unfair.
I have two proposals:
1) we may count good sets (for the right set winner of course) even if the player we pick loses,
2) or maybe (less liked but also possible) go for TB2 :confused:

Personally, I have promised to the players voting for me that I would try to make one big change in TB rules and as many of them voted on me, it seems to be well received.
As for me it may make the tie deciding more fair.
I will try to explain it in here by an example and wait for your suggestions.


Sharapova's match is TB1 and we have a tie...
PlayerA picks Sharapova 6:1, 4:6, 6:4
PlayerB picks Sharapova 7:6, 3:6, 7:5

Sharapova loses: 6:1, 4:6, 4:6

With current rules PlayerB would win in such a situation, although she/he has nothing correct!!!! only gave more games to Maria's opponent (a winner).
Even though PlayerA has two sets completely right to the right player in a right order, she/he loses :confused:

As for me and some other players it's really unfair.
I have two proposals:
1) we may count good sets (for the right set winner of course) even if the player we pick loses,
2) or maybe (less liked but also possible) go for TB2 :confused:

I Agree with that...

Rough draft of ideas to be discussed and problems to be solved

- suspensions and penalties for cheating players :angel: ;
- TB rules (mainly the one with incorrect winner being picked)
- counting Set Ratios (when picked winners can decide the score);
- using countback rule, while a player had a bye in the recent round;
- an uniformized schedule for every type of tournament;
- more organized first page of tournaments (like on MTF);
- TT Board members being the head managers of main tournaments (GSs), with eventual help from other players;
- more tournaments ran per week (adding some ITFs);
- official name for The Board :p ;
- TOP30 players not playing ITFs;
- sending picks by byes in case of CB needed;
- solving ties problem, so that not to make anyone play against two opponents the next day;
- particularising the case of commitment deadline (not 2 days before the draw) and eventual placing the late entries;
- necessity of commiting doubles team by both players;

I came with this GLORIOUS idea :)

Why we dont use the same TB rules that are used on MTF? :)

We recently had an issue on whether or not a player with a bye has to send picks and whether countback should be used. Maybe the board can settle that issue.

Also maybe the board could look at penalties for cheating players. We had the case of Lukasz and Dizoo (and to some extent Netin). A similar case arose between Solo and Lovehotel, but went largely unnoticed. In none of these cases a decision was made on what penalty should be given.

Personally, I have promised to the players voting for me that I would try to make one big change in TB rules and as many of them voted on me, it seems to be well received.
As for me it may make the tie deciding more fair.
I will try to explain it in here by an example and wait for your suggestions.


Sharapova's match is TB1 and we have a tie...
PlayerA picks Sharapova 6:1, 4:6, 6:4
PlayerB picks Sharapova 7:6, 3:6, 7:5

Sharapova loses: 6:1, 4:6, 4:6

With current rules PlayerB would win in such a situation, although she/he has nothing correct!!!! only gave more games to Maria's opponent (a winner).
Even though PlayerA has two sets completely right to the right player in a right order, she/he loses :confused:

As for me and some other players it's really unfair.
I have two proposals:
1) we may count good sets (for the right set winner of course) even if the player we pick loses,
2) or maybe (less liked but also possible) go for TB2 :confused:

These are always tricky, but isn't it so that getting a set right (even in wrong order) always goes before counting the games, under current TB rules? In your example player A predicted one set right (one of the two 6-4 sets to the opponent of Sharapova).

These are always tricky, but isn't it so that getting a set right (even in wrong order) always goes before counting the games, under current TB rules? In your example player A predicted one set right (one of the two 6-4 sets to the opponent of Sharapova).

It's my point that it should be like this, but with current rules it surely isn't :wavey:

"where both players have the incorrect winner of the match, the player who gives the most sets to the winning wta player will be the winner. Where both players give the same number of sets to the winning player, the player who gives the winning wta player the most number of games shall win"

And yeah, I can ensure we'll make the penatlies for cheating as fast as we can :)
Good point James, that you reminded the problem with "countback for a bye". I also will try to get it discussed :)

One thing I would like to change ASAP is to count the winners first, and if tied, then SR when they are needed, cause with these rules, you can have moer winners but still lose. :o

I came with this GLORIOUS idea :)

Why we dont use the same TB rules that are used on MTF? :)

If so, it's strange that I've never noticed it, I will truly back-up you with this idea :)
Now I can say I hope to do something with it, as it was my main point during the voting and players want to have straight and clear TB rules (they don't have to be copied from MTF though)...

If you have some other problems or want to give some proposals for improving TT feel free to write it down or PM one of The Board members :wavey:

One thing I would like to change ASAP is to count the winners first, and if tied, then SR when they are needed, cause with these rules, you can have moer winners but still lose. :o

Ok, I think it may be discussed or voted about, but can't tell you now we'll surely change this rule. We'll have to think about pros and cons of this change and see if it would really be better for the game :angel:

I agree with Gigi the Set Ratios value 1 point rule should be discussed too...not many players like this..

Denijs did you receive Chris PM? :)

It's my point that it should be like this, but with current rules it surely isn't :wavey:

"where both players have the incorrect winner of the match, the player who gives the most sets to the winning wta player will be the winner. Where both players give the same number of sets to the winning player, the player who gives the winning wta player the most number of games shall win"

And yeah, I can ensure we'll make the penatlies for cheating as fast as we can :)
Good point James, that you reminded the problem with "countback for a bye". I also will try to get it discussed :)

Yes, you are right, I reread the rules. I think it is more fair the way it was done in your example. Good for you to bring it up. :yeah:

As for me and some other players it's really unfair.
I have two proposals:
1) we may count good sets (for the right set winner of course) even if the player we pick loses,
2) or maybe (less liked but also possible) go for TB2 :confused:

I actually prefer the rules as they are rather than that :p
But it is something to discuss for sure.

I actually prefer the rules as they are rather than that :p
But it is something to discuss for sure.

I think it's sometimes even better not to agree in everything, so we can have a few ideas and some different points of view, and when we make some decission it will surely be the good one ;)

I think it's sometimes even better not to agree in everything, so we can have a few ideas and some different points of view, and when we make some decission it will surely be the good one ;)

Indeed :p

Indeed :p

:lol: Looking forward to some interesting and inteligent discussions full of arguments :p

Chris i dunno if i added you correctly :confused:

Chris i dunno if i added you correctly :confused:

You did :p

What will happen with me?
I want to return for TT a lot

What will happen with me?
I want to return for TT a lot

Decision will be made this week and you'll be PMed shortly after it...

I agree with Denijs about the Tb's. I think if both players tb1 has lost then it should go to tb2 then tb 3, then if their still somehow the same, then do the tb1 with sets won first, and if none do the games differential.

One thing I would like to change ASAP is to count the winners first, and if tied, then SR when they are needed, cause with these rules, you can have moer winners but still lose. :o

:worship: I'm sure most players will agree with this

I came with this GLORIOUS idea :)

Why we dont use the same TB rules that are used on MTF? :)

That would be ideal, the TB rules over there are well though out. I think they may mean a little more work for managers though so maybe last year's MTF TB rules would be a good solution.

:worship: I'm sure most players will agree with this



That would be ideal, the TB rules over there are well though out. I think they may mean a little more work for managers though so maybe last year's MTF TB rules would be a good solution.

Personally, I totally disagree with the SRs counting idea and I will try to make my best not to confirm it as a new rule. I can say I am a protagonist of sending and counting set ratios for all matches (even if there are many of them in the OOP) :wavey:

And about the TB rules: I don't think we should become the second MTF. For me it wouldn't be fun to play two identical games :confused: So far we have had different TB rules and it was good as well :) I've started the discussion only cause it seemed to me that the last rule is a bit unfair, what I've tried to show in my example here :wavey:

BUT THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS AND NOT OFFICIAL BOARD'S ONES... ;)

Ok, I agree that you won't have the same rules as MTF! But I completely agree on the fact that first the amount of matches right should be counted, and only after that the amount of SRs, if you want to use those!

I also think there should be more tournaments if that's needed! I was an alt this week and didn't get in! I would have preferred only playing a challenger, but there was no option for that!

I also think there should be more tournaments if that's needed! I was an alt this week and didn't get in! I would have preferred only playing a challenger, but there was no option for that!

You didn't get in, but the same week there is other tournament in Fes, in which there were free places till the start ;)
And we run ITFs when they are needed, e.g. when there is only one small tournament per week, or in the second week of GSs :wavey:
But as all other suggestions, your will be also discussed...

I have a suggestion, saw this rule on mtf.
And i think they have a good point!

Top 30 players shouldn't be allowed to play ITF's ( challengers )
I think it's insane when a top 30 player plays a challenger, it's unfair towards the lower ranked players who need the challengers to boost their rankings!

I have a suggestion, saw this rule on mtf.
And i think they have a good point!

Top 30 players shouldn't be allowed to play ITF's ( challengers )
I think it's insane when a top 30 player plays a challenger, it's unfair towards the lower ranked players who need the challengers to boost their rankings!

mtf is very different from wtaw.
they have enough managers to run sometimes 3 atp events and 3 challenger events per week, and they have way more tt players than us as well, so the challenger circuit is far more important on mtf tt.
besides, their rule forbids top players to play in challengers, but allows them to play in the second week of slams, etc....which is when our challengers usually take place.

Top 30 players usually only play ITFs during the 2nd week of a slam. And during the 2nd week of a slam, anyone can participate who has lost. We have not had a situation where the MD and qualifying have been filled and we have alternates waiting in such a case.

You didn't get in, but the same week there is other tournament in Fes, in which there were free places till the start ;)
And we run ITFs when they are needed, e.g. when there is only one small tournament per week, or in the second week of GSs :wavey:
But as all other suggestions, your will be also discussed...

Okay, I'm sorry about this complain than! Didn't see that, so no problem with that anymore!

Personally, I totally disagree with the SRs counting idea and I will try to make my best not to confirm it as a new rule. I can say I am a protagonist of sending and counting set ratios for all matches (even if there are many of them in the OOP) :wavey:

And about the TB rules: I don't think we should become the second MTF. For me it wouldn't be fun to play two identical games :confused: So far we have had different TB rules and it was good as well :) I've started the discussion only cause it seemed to me that the last rule is a bit unfair, what I've tried to show in my example here :wavey:

BUT THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS AND NOT OFFICIAL BOARD'S ONES... ;)

There are a lot of comparisons between the MTF TT and this one! I don't think we should do that too much, but it's not a big problem to learn from them. I'm pretty new in this game on WTAworld, because I had to wait 3 months to start playing. I think this is because of cheating, but it is also very discouraging for new players. Which players will wait for 3 months before they can start playing a game. I know I didn't play this game that much, but I suggest to at least shorten the waiting period, maybe even make no waiting period. In MTF they don't really have problems with this, so why should we have them here?

Personally I also don't see the problem of making a second MTF! I like how everything's arranged there, and the TB rules are really clear and good! And the big difference is already the matches that have to be predicted. And next to that it might also be confusing with different rules. But as I told you, I don't have a big say in all this, because I didn't play this game yet. But what I want to point out again, please let first the amount of right picks count. Don't let the amount of SR come into play when one player has more picks right.
Otherwise you can lose if you have all players right, but few SR, while your opponent only has 3/4 of the picks right, but all SRs right! I think this is not fair!

mtf is very different from wtaw.
they have enough managers to run sometimes 3 atp events and 3 challenger events per week, and they have way more tt players than us as well, so the challenger circuit is far more important on mtf tt.
besides, their rule forbids top players to play in challengers, but allows them to play in the second week of slams, etc....which is when our challengers usually take place.

A very good point. But of course you should try to become as big as MTF and try to get as much managers as they have. So this rule is not necessary yet, but hopefully in a few years it is!

-about Byes,.. what is the idea of a bye? how does that fit in the TT game.. should they be filled when more players are enrolled or just left that way and the later on signing players be placed as Replacement or "ALT"
-when having Byes.. do players should send picks? <--the esence of TT is predicting, how does a bye fit in that part of the game.. if a player doesnt send when getting a bye, then it is their fault, not his/her rival vs "byes are prizes we like to give, no one questions a bye, if you get one, everything starts on R2 and if still tied, use ranking or next round matches as to untie"


-rules about deadlines and start of tournaments: there should be a fixed schedule for deadlines and not according to the manager.. it should be like 6 pm CET on fridays, for singles, or sth like that.. and another rule, such as "no qualy match" (from real tournament) should be counted for main draw TT matches except rare exception such as when there is no other choice"..

Commitments should be done with a week in advanced i think :shrug:

-make good tie break rules that fill all the spots: if it is tied, should we look back or forth? should "previous picks" decide, or future picks?.. should be go for Tournament countback or just previous round?



I think every player is supposed to send picks, and the definition of a tied match should always look backwards and not forward.. into the history of picking in that tournament :hug:

ps :secret: i havent got much time right now so basically i copied parts o the previous post i did a couple of weeks ago :rolls:

there should always be a winner in a match
in a first round match: ranking
later in the tourney: on CB

No, the ranking rule is very unfair, if you ask me, the lower ranked should win, cause the higher ranked is supposed to be better and not need the last choice to beat the lower ranked. :o

No, the ranking rule is very unfair, if you ask me, the lower ranked should win, cause the higher ranked is supposed to be better and not need the last choice to beat the lower ranked. :o

can also be :p
than the higher ranked one should do different TB's :p

at least there always has to be a winner, and not that the match will be played again with other picks :o

can also be :p
than the higher ranked one should do different TB's :p

at least there always has to be a winner, and not that the match will be played again with other picks :o

I agree with you completely! It's just not possible to play a match again with different picks. I'm not sure how many times it happened that there was no winner, but still there should be a solution. If somebody has a better solution than ranking, but I can't think of any. Maybe a cointoss! And ranking is a little bit fair, because the higher ranked player has worked very hard to get there. So that's why he wins!

And again I would like to point out that the SR en matches points at the same time is wrong. In the semifinal of Berlin our opponents picked Dementieva en we picked Ivanovic. So I would say they win, but if we would have had the right SR on the other match, both of us, we might even win this match because we get points for that. So if you first count the matches, and if that is tied go to SR, I think it is much fairer and gives more solutions!

I agree with you completely! It's just not possible to play a match again with different picks. I'm not sure how many times it happened that there was no winner, but still there should be a solution. If somebody has a better solution than ranking, but I can't think of any. Maybe a cointoss! And ranking is a little bit fair, because the higher ranked player has worked very hard to get there. So that's why he wins!

And again I would like to point out that the SR en matches points at the same time is wrong. In the semifinal of Berlin our opponents picked Dementieva en we picked Ivanovic. So I would say they win, but if we would have had the right SR on the other match, both of us, we might even win this match because we get points for that. So if you first count the matches, and if that is tied go to SR, I think it is much fairer and gives more solutions!

it happened 2 times that I played against 2 players :tape: :help: :lol:

there should always be a winner in a match
in a first round match: ranking
later in the tourney: on CB

Today evening The Board will discuse the rules and change the ones that are bad in our opinion...
I think your idea is also worth discussing ;) Can ensure you we'll try to solve the problem out, but I can't promise it will be your way :angel:

Today evening The Board will discuse the rules and change the ones that are bad in our opinion...
I think your idea is also worth discussing ;) Can ensure you we'll try to solve the problem out, but I can't promise it will be your way :angel:

ok thanks :)

Ok, we had our first TT Board meeting tonight, and we agreed on the following rule changes and issues.

1/ suspensions and penalties for cheating players

- each case will be decided on its own merits by the board, but any form of cheating may lead to a permanent ban.

- "convicted" cheaters can never run tourneys again

- e_dementieva fan's ban expires after RG
- lukasz, dizoo banned permanently
- netin banned til end USO

2/ TB rule changes

- Set Ratios DO NOT count as points in themselves any more, but will still be used when there are less than 8 matches as the primary tie break method.
(eg there are 5 matches, and Chris 84 and meelis both get 4 correct winners each. The score is then 4-4, but we then compare correct SRs, and whoever has more correct wins)
The secondary TB method is then TB1.
Where there are 8 or more matches, SRs are not needed and the primary TB method remains TB1.

- where players get the wrong winner in TB1, it is no longer the case that the person who gives more games to the loser will win. However, if Player A gives a set to the winner, and Player B does not, then Player A wins)
If neither player has given a set to the winner, then move on to TB2 as the means of separating the players. If all TB matches are looked at and fail to produce a winner, the old method of TB will be used where the person who gives the winner the most games will win.

-There will now be 5 TB matches.

3/ Byes

-Players with byes do not need to send picks. The new TB rules should make countback highly unlikely in any event.

4/ ITFs

- Players in the top 30 may only enter ITFs in the second week of Grand Slams and at the end of the year.
- the ranking points for ITF TT events will no longer be inflated.



These changes will take place after the Italian Open (first tournaments affected are Strasbourg and Istanbul)

Congratulations Board! These are very good decision, I like all of them!

Congratulations Board! These are very good decision, I like all of them!

Thank you :) We tried our best :devil:

Loving the new Tb rules

i dont like the bye rule

if a player has a bye and then is tied with a player who had to win a match, so that person who already had to win a match will lose on ranking thanks to that rule? or will have to play an extra match because someone got a "gifted" present called bye? how fair is that?

let's say we have 10 matches, and im tied with Dementieva Dude who had a bye in first round, i won my opening match, and we have TB1 = 6-3 6-4, TB2 = 6-3 6-4 TB3 6-3 6-4 (it can happen 2 players send the exact same pts)

So.. who wins? do I lose on ranking? do i have to play another round as before? that's not fair.. imo..

it happened before, and it will happen in the future, this same issue, mark my words

what is the decision about this case?

i dont like the bye rule

if a player has a bye and then is tied with a player who had to win a match, so that person who already had to win a match will lose on ranking thanks to that rule? or will have to play an extra match because someone got a "gifted" present called bye? how fair is that?

let's say we have 10 matches, and im tied with Dementieva Dude who had a bye in first round, i won my opening match, and we have TB1 = 6-3 6-4, TB2 = 6-3 6-4 TB3 6-3 6-4 (it can happen 2 players send the exact same pts)

So.. who wins? do I lose on ranking? do i have to play another round as before? that's not fair.. imo..

it happened before, and it will happen in the future, this same issue, mark my words

what is the decision about this case?

There are only some tournaments with many byes, and if you are so worried about the ranking question just make every TB different..

good TB rule :D :yeah:

I have to run a tourney with the new rules :scared: :p

I have to run a tourney with the new rules :scared: :p

If you have any doubts, just ask one of us ;)
We'll surely help to solve all the imprecisions :wavey:

Ok question! Case of the second round in Istanbul:
We tie in SR and in matches.

TB1 - 75 63 vs. 64 64
Real result is 7-5 6-4. Just wondering, we give both 8 games to the loser, in real it are 9 games. But I say the match takes 21 games, my opponent says it will take 20 games. In real it is 22 games. Am I not closer to the real score? And because we both had right winner and right SR, this match will decide first, right.

If this is the same, what I can understand
TB2 - 63 63 vs. 64 64
Real score: 6-2 4-6 7-6. Tennisfan wins on TB2 not TB1. But if I am closer in TB1 than I will win.

TB3 - in 3 vs. in 2
Real score in 2. So on TB3 player two wins!
But now the question, who wins??

I have dealt with it :p
The first player wins :shrug:

I think doubles TB rules need to be discussed by the board :)

I think doubles TB rules need to be discussed by the board :)

May I know the reason? :wavey:
Was there some problem with pointing the winning team lately? If there was something, can you send me this case on PM or post problematic scores here :) Thanks

Let me know if you need more info - I think you saw the situation in the RG thread so if the board could lay out a firm rule going forward for doubles, that would be great.

Let me know if you need more info - I think you saw the situation in the RG thread so if the board could lay out a firm rule going forward for doubles, that would be great.

Yep, I went through the TT RG thread and I know it's a bit confusing situation, even though for many it seems as not a problematic one.
It's worse that we may meet much harder TB situations in doubles, so I think the board will get it into consideration and try to find some general rule for such a case :wavey:

Appreciate the quick response :D :yeah:

will be running tt barcelona soon..
can someone sum up all the new rule changes & stuff for singles & dubs :awww:

will be running tt barcelona soon..
can someone sum up all the new rule changes & stuff for singles & dubs :awww:

- Set Ratios DO NOT count as points in themselves any more, but will still be used when there are less than 8 matches as the primary tie break method.
(eg there are 5 matches, and Chris 84 and meelis both get 4 correct winners each. The score is then 4-4, but we then compare correct SRs, and whoever has more correct wins)
The secondary TB method is then TB1.
Where there are 8 or more matches, SRs are not needed and the primary TB method remains TB1.

- where players get the wrong winner in TB1, it is no longer the case that the person who gives more games to the loser will win. However, if Player A gives a set to the winner, and Player B does not, then Player A wins)
If neither player has given a set to the winner, then move on to TB2 as the means of separating the players. If all TB matches are looked at and fail to produce a winner, the old method of TB will be used where the person who gives the winner the most games will win.

-There will now be 5 TB matches.



If you need any help or are unsure about anything, just PM me :)

My hypothetical question would be about TB rules..

So both player chose the TB1 winner correctly, but they both missed the set ratio.
e.g
Player A: 61 36 63
Player B: 61 36 75

and the real score was: 75, 64

Who will win?:D
Player A who gave less points to the loser, or Player B who know the exact score of a game, but in a wrong order? Or, it comes TB2?

My hypothetical question would be about TB rules..

So both player chose the TB1 winner correctly, but they both missed the set ratio.
e.g
Player A: 61 36 63
Player B: 61 36 75

and the real score was: 75, 64

Who will win?:D
Player A who gave less points to the loser, or Player B who know the exact score of a game, but in a wrong order? Or, it comes TB2?

Player B I think ;)

Player B I think ;)

thx for your kind answer. My hypothetical problem became real(ity) :lol::

So: Who will win?

Dmitry (RUS) 64 36 62
sinkordia (HUN, LL) 64 36 75

The exact result was Camerin - Woerle: 7-5, 7-6

According to my compatriot manager libre83, Dmitry won, because he gave less points to Woerle (the loser).

thx for your kind answer. My hypothetical problem became real(ity) :lol::

So: Who will win?

Dmitry (RUS) 64 36 62
sinkordia (HUN, LL) 64 36 75

The exact result was Camerin - Woerle: 7-5, 7-6

According to my compatriot manager libre83, Dmitry won, because he gave less points to Woerle (the loser).

If you both chose the winner you win cause you gave a set correct to the winner even though it is in a wrong order :)

First Rik. and now Ruisantos an other legendary Manager...
Thx for your answers. It was an honour...:worship:

(lick-lick-lick)

I am looking for a permanent dubz partner for TT so I thought maybe a thread could be made with other players who are also looking for a permanent team-mate.
I would personally rather play with the same person every week, then find a new partner for each event

Just an idea.

I think you can make such a thread, cause it's not about rules and our agreement is not needed :wavey: Then others who find it needed will surely use it to find a partner for themselves ;)

Thanks for the quick reply!!
Will make a thread soon.

New day, new TB question to the TT Board, and to our TB specialists! ;)

Player A: 64 76
Player B: 63 62

The real score: 62 46 16

That means nobody was right about the winner. What can we do in this case?
According to the new rules it would be logical going to TB2 (so it doesn't count that Player A give more points to the winner).
But there is still a confusing fact, that Player B was right about a score of the loser (62)? Does it count in this case (winner = Player B) or not (go to TB2)?

New day, new TB question to the TT Board, and to our TB specialists! ;)

Player A: 64 76
Player B: 63 62

The real score: 62 46 16

That means nobody was right about the winner. What can we do in this case?
According to the new rules it would be logical going to TB2 (so it doesn't count that Player A give more points to the winner).
But there is still a confusing fact, that Player B was right about a score of the loser (62)? Does it count in this case (winner = Player B) or not (go to TB2)?

If noone gives a set to the winner (games do not count), then TB2 is used :)

Okay.

Is anyone going to be available to do the TT Races?

Gigi. randomly ims me and then forces me to take the files becaues he is going to Georgia and will have limited PC access.

Someone please volunteer.

lol. Rui knew it from months ago that I won't be able to take them after RG.

I can do them! With some explanations of course!

I can do them! With some explanations of course!

I can give you the explanations ;)

But not today maybe tomorrow or sunday ok?

I don't mind when. ;) So I need the files and the explanation and than I can start working. ;) Hope I can do a good job!

What is your email? I'll forward them.

:banana:

mana committed late for singles..was 57 minutes late..should i give him a slot for singles :awww:
made the draw just havent typed it yet..so can he/she still enter MD.. if its ok to rui to give up his bye..

mana committed late for singles..was 57 minutes late..should i give him a slot for singles :awww:
made the draw just havent typed it yet..so can he/she still enter MD.. if its ok to rui to give up his bye..

I'm torn on this.....it is up to you.

Deadlines are there for a reason, but on the other hand, if you only have one "bye" spot in the draw, it might be as well just to fill it. Alternatively, make him alt1.

I see you don't have just one bye.

I would make him alt1 i think.

I see you don't have just one bye.

I would make him alt1 i think.

yeah we got 3 byes :p

I'm torn on this.....it is up to you.

Deadlines are there for a reason, but on the other hand, if you only have one "bye" spot in the draw, it might be as well just to fill it. Alternatively, make him alt1.

:awww:
ill just make him alt1 instead to be fair to everyone else..:angel:

i think we should also make a rule like if a player commits late for the 1st time then he's still in but has a warning...or something :tape:..or not..just suggesting here :angel:

aleksz just committed :tape:
so we got two alts now :tape:

I think we need a hard and fast rule too.

In my opinion, deadlines aree deadlines, and anyone who doesn't commit in time should be an alt.

I think we need a hard and fast rule too.

In my opinion, deadlines aree deadlines, and anyone who doesn't commit in time should be an alt.

:worship:
just asking birmingham had a deadline but extended it till its draw is full..now im thinking about that too since there will be no qualies anyway and start of play will be monday..and anyway i havent typed the draw out..i can just redo it..

what do you think..or i'll just stick to my 1st option :awww:

im just too nice..:(

:worship:
just asking birmingham had a deadline but extended it till its draw is full..now im thinking about that too since there will be no qualies anyway and start of play will be monday..and anyway i havent typed the draw out..i can just redo it..

what do you think..or i'll just stick to my 1st option :awww:

im just too nice..:(

Whatever you want, seriously :lol:
The draw hasn't been posted, so you can do whatever suits you.

Whatever you want, seriously :lol:
The draw hasn't been posted, so you can do whatever suits you.

ok..ok..i'll let mana & aleksz enter..hope i wont get complaints from the other players who had byes :unsure:

If denijs really sent rude comments/threats to Jeronimo via pm (without valuable reason, and even if it's Jeronimo), I don't think it's acceptable for a board member. Plus his post on the thread is pretty rude.
(cf. Birmingham thread)

If denijs really sent rude comments/threats to Jeronimo via pm (without valuable reason, and even if it's Jeronimo), I don't think it's acceptable for a board member. Plus his post on the thread is pretty rude.
(cf. Birmingham thread)

And don't you wonder why he didn't quote the messagge to show everyone how much unliked he is :wavey: I can tell you why: cause there was nothing wrong in this PM...

I only wonder why many of you believe what he says just without any thinking that it's barely the whole true :eek:

QUOTE: "If you want to run tournaments do it properly, or do not do it at all :rolleyes: THERE ARE 5 TB MATCHES - as long as few weeks are not enough for you to get know about it :o "

As long as you can find a threat or any hail of abuse in this part of PM just get me know or doesn't he know the word "sarcasm" included in last opinion :angel:
Maybe he sees something/(someone) rude in my picks - e.g. An. Rodionova :lol: EOT

Ok I believe you and it doesn't surprise me either.

However,
QUOTE: "If you want to run tournaments do it properly, or do not do it at all :rolleyes: THERE ARE 5 TB MATCHES - as long as few weeks are not enough for you to get know about it :o "
I saw this message with the - adorable - mention "SHUT THE FUCK UP" on the thread, but you deleted it, of course.

Ok I believe you and it doesn't surprise me either.

However,

I saw this message with the - adorable - mention "SHUT THE FUCK UP" on the thread, but you deleted it, of course.

I'm quoting the PM, that he accussed of being so rude and now you see it wasn't :wavey:

The post in the TT thread is the other thing. This post was impolite and I deleted it some time after posting when I thought a bit about my comment. It wasn't nice, but I was pissed off by the lies about rude PM... :tape:

2/ TB rule changes

- Set Ratios DO NOT count as points in themselves any more, but will still be used when there are less than 8 matches as the primary tie break method.
(eg there are 5 matches, and Chris 84 and meelis both get 4 correct winners each. The score is then 4-4, but we then compare correct SRs, and whoever has more correct wins)
The secondary TB method is then TB1.
Where there are 8 or more matches, SRs are not needed and the primary TB method remains TB1.


we have 9 matches for the oop..but since osterloh & cibulkova withdrew..we just got 7 valid matches..it hasnt happen yet but asking for future use :angel:
anyway what if we got a tie..so does this mean i will just compare the 5 SR'a from the 5 tb's or i'll just use the TB1 method..

just asking now..you know if someone complains or anything in the future:wavey:

we have 9 matches for the oop..but since osterloh & cibulkova withdrew..we just got 7 valid matches..it hasnt happen yet but asking for future use :angel:
anyway what if we got a tie..so does this mean i will just compare the 5 SR'a from the 5 tb's or i'll just use the TB1 method..

just asking now..you know if someone complains or anything in the future:wavey:

Managers can take response about the retirements of players...
You take into account number of matches that were in OOP :)
So in your case, you use TB1 even though you can count only 7 WTA matches for the scores :wavey:

I can give you the explanations ;)

But not today maybe tomorrow or sunday ok?

Can you give me the explanation, as I'm hitting in the dark for most. And also In the zone, could you update your threat, so that I can find all the results on one page! This makes it a lot easier to do the races for after Roland Garros!

Managers can take response about the retirements of players...
You take into account number of matches that were in OOP :)
So in your case, you use TB1 even though you can count only 7 WTA matches for the scores :wavey:

thanks! :)

Can you give me the explanation, as I'm hitting in the dark for most. And also In the zone, could you update your threat, so that I can find all the results on one page! This makes it a lot easier to do the races for after Roland Garros!

Thursday i will give you for sure...just mark an hour in the afternoon and give you your MSN adress so we can talk ;)

hi guys, about the new tb rules, one question：

6 matches, a-e are tb1-tb5

real score：

a in 2
b in 2
c in 2
d in 2
e in 2
f in 2

player one's pick：

a in 2
b in 3
c in 3
d in 3
e in 3
f lost

player two's pick:

a in 2
b in 2
c in 2
d in 2
e lost
f in 2

player one has more TB matches' corret winners, but player two has more tb matches' correct SRs

so in this case, the winner is player two, right?

No, is dependent on TB1. If they both have the right winner in TB1, it goes to PTS1. If not, it goes to TB2. The one who has the right SR there, or gives a set to the right winner, wins!

Player 2 is the winner in this case ;) Winning on SRs (5-1)

No, is dependent on TB1. If they both have the right winner in TB1, it goes to PTS1. If not, it goes to TB2. The one who has the right SR there, or gives a set to the right winner, wins!

These are NOT the rules... :wavey: Firstly all SRs; then TBs...

Ok, forgot that it were only 6 matches!

thanks :)

although i think player one deserve to win in this case :lol:

My situation?

My situation?

You can come back after US Open

You can come back after US Open

Ok. Thanks :wavey:

I have following question:

Player A picked:

Kirilenko 64 75
K Bondarenko 62 67 63
Chakvetadze 75 63
Erakovic 64 75
Safina 2-0

Player B picked:

Kirilenko 6-4 6-4
K Bondarenko 6-4 5-7 6-2
Chakvetadze 6-3 6-2
Erakovic 6-3 6-4
Safina 2-0

Results are:
Tanasugarn wins 6-3 6-3 against K.Bondarenko
Cirstea wins 7-5 6-4 against M.Kirilenko
:shrug:
Who will win now?
On which TB it will be decided???
Thank you very much!!!
:wavey:

In this case TB1 decides, so exact score of Erakovic's match (as long as she wins)...
If Marina loses then Chakvetadze will, as TB5

In this case TB1 decides, so exact score of Erakovic's match (as long as she wins)...
If Marina loses then Chakvetadze will, as TB5

I have the first set corect;)
So when now Erakovic wins in 3 I won?
Or still will go to TB 5?

I have the first set corect;)
So when now Erakovic wins in 3 I won?
Or still will go to TB 5?

If Erakovic wins in 3 with last set score 75 it will go to next TB, if she wins the 3rd set in any other score you won. ;)

If Erakovic wins in 3 with last set score 75 it will go to next TB, if she wins the 3rd set in any other score you won. ;)

correct ;)

Thx guys;)
:wavey:
Go Marina win but not with 7-5 :lol:

Maybe it will good to add the new rules to the Tie-break rules thread.

Another question in my case;)
If Erakovic will lose, this match goes to TB 5
Chaky-Kerber,rhight?
And I have Chaky in 2 (6-3 6-2)
Now the score is 6-3 3-6 4-1 for Chaky;)
If she wins that in 6-3 3-6 6-3 I also won,don't I?
Thx another time:bowdown:

Another question in my case;)
If Erakovic will lose, this match goes to TB 5
Chaky-Kerber,rhight?
And I have Chaky in 2 (6-3 6-2)
Now the score is 6-3 3-6 4-1 for Chaky;)
If she wins that in 6-3 3-6 6-3 I also won,don't I?
Thx another time:bowdown:

May I ask for not making so many hypothetical situation and just wait a bit more time (not long for sure) for the scores...
If then manager or you will have problems deciding the tie, I'll surely and as fast as I can solve the TB situation in every case it is needed...
Thank you :)

May I ask for not making so many hypothetical situation and just wait a bit more time (not long for sure) for the scores...
If then manager or you will have problems deciding the tie, I'll surely and as fast as I can solve the TB situation in every case it is needed...
Thank you :)

Sorry:awww:
Thx:)

What to do with a manager who does not post the results, which puts bad differences, postea updates with the blue after which the winners are not winners, and thanks to these errors I lost by not sending peaks in the day Today?
Someone can answer my questions?
All this is in Rosmalen.
Thank you.

Please managers put winners in blue (or another color) and put them in the first page..

it's horrible to have to look through all the pages just to do the ranks :tape:

What to do with a manager who does not post the results, which puts bad differences, postea updates with the blue after which the winners are not winners, and thanks to these errors I lost by not sending peaks in the day Today?
Someone can answer my questions?
All this is in Rosmalen.
Thank you.

Please, he isn't doing as bad as you are opposing here. He only didn't put you in bleu while you were the winner. Those things can happen, please, it is only a game. And as there was Jazar didn't send picks, I would have send picks because it was very strange. But of course, it's a bad thing, but he only made one mistake which can happen, he is human!

I am sure Rik. is apologetic for mistakenly putting them in BLUE.

But it clearly states Jazar did not send picks.

Brush the dirt off your shoulder and prepare for Wimbledon.

I am sure Rik. is apologetic for mistakenly putting them in BLUE.

But it clearly states Jazar did not send picks.

Brush the dirt off your shoulder and prepare for Wimbledon.

Ok, from today I will send my picks from the first day until the last, managers will be crazed with me.

Is it possible that someone from the board could lay out a clear explanation of the PTS rules, it seems to be a constant source of confusion and I think it would help out a lot of people.

Thanks ;)

I need a clear rule for LL spots. In case of 1 LL is not problem, but in case of many LLs, how to draw them?

by random.org

or

by ranks?

thy a lot...:wavey:

libre83 :kiss:

By ranks.

Then I would like to raise the point, where that is written down. It is getting more and more difficult to run events, if rules keep popping up from nowhere.

By ranks.

Why would we draw them by rank. Wta doesn't draw them by rank. :confused:

Then I would like to raise the point, where that is written down. It is getting more and more difficult to run events, if rules keep popping up from nowhere.

That's my problem too. :)

Or maybe we can do it like in real...

Q/LL and draw later, when know how many LL will play by random.org...

or is it fixed that draw by rank, pls fix it...

im Tzar now, just to let you know.

AKA Jeronimo

LL placement has been discussed before, but I can´t find it :(

I do remember it being discussed before, but I don't know if a conclusion was ever given. The point I was making is that rules should be clearly known for managers, or running an event will get too difficult. I always have assigned LL's with random.org and I don't really see why that would be problematic. If I had known I was to follow the ranks rule, I can still disagree naturally, but then it would be logical to follow the official rule.

Is it possible that someone from the board could lay out a clear explanation of the PTS rules, it seems to be a constant source of confusion and I think it would help out a lot of people.

Thanks ;)

PTS Rules

Order of Value (when score is, for example, 6-3 6-4)

1/ getting the score exactly right (6-3 6-4)
2/ getting the right score, but wrong order of sets (6-4 6-3)
3/ getting one set score exactly right (6-3 7-5)
4/ getting one set score right but in the wrong order (7-5 6-3)

5/ being closer to the actual score than the opponent. In order to ascertain closeness to actual score, the manager should add the games won in the actual match (in the case of this example, this score would be 12-7). The person who is closest to this score is the winner (eg 6-2 6-2 is better than 6-0 6-0) as the total scores here are 12-4 v 12-0. Player A is 3 games out, whereas Player B is 7 games out.

If anyone has any disagreements with this, then let me know.

I do remember it being discussed before, but I don't know if a conclusion was ever given. The point I was making is that rules should be clearly known for managers, or running an event will get too difficult. I always have assigned LL's with random.org and I don't really see why that would be problematic. If I had known I was to follow the ranks rule, I can still disagree naturally, but then it would be logical to follow the official rule.

I think it would be better if it was listed by the points the LL gained in the Last Quali.Round:shrug::scratch:
I think this is the fairest solution:confused::)
:wavey:
EDIT:
Now I get it...:o
You discuss how to draw them into MD:o
Hmm...by rank is stupid I think;)
But you must decide it:lol:
I'm manager in Stockholm in a few weeks...I hope till then it's cleared:lol:

You guys should be able to get into the MD. If you don't, I know we've done it in the past ( and even most recently for Nikko84 after he won RG while we were waiting for updated rankings ), you can get a SE into the MD. Obviously you guys deserve a spot.

Our situation is identical to that Nikko84 was in so I ask the board to give a SE to FiBeR/Hotzenplotz for the Stanford doubles :wavey:

Monday - TT Qualies = means both rounds..

as for the second part.. please keep your feelings for yourself..

The rules dosn't say that there can't be 2 rounds per day?

What is going on in Stanford in Manager's fault, for not being organized, Entry Lists were posted yesterday without order, so if someone wanted to change from tournament, couldn't know if he was in, out, Qd or as an ALT :smash:

this has been all a mess so far really, this manager should get it together...

The rules dosn't say that there can't be 2 rounds per day?

What is going on in Stanford in Manager's fault, for not being organized, Entry Lists were posted yesterday without order, so if someone wanted to change from tournament, couldn't know if he was in, out, Qd or as an ALT :smash:

this has been all a mess so far really, this manager should get it together...

The rules! The rules! The rules! The rules!

Rather than trying to "tell on" Yarden, pay attention. When managers have been late or forgotten about certain aspects of tournaments, we have had qualifying on the same day using the same OOP.

Did you ever wonder that maybe something personal is going on with Yarden? He has a track record of being incredibly reliable and respectful, unlike some people.

The rules! The rules! The rules! The rules!

Rather than trying to "tell on" Yarden, pay attention. When managers have been late or forgotten about certain aspects of tournaments, we have had qualifying on the same day using the same OOP.

Did you ever wonder that maybe something personal is going on with Yarden? He has a track record of being incredibly reliable and respectful, unlike some people.

Well you're obviously saying unlike me.

You obviously have somethign personal against me.

You obviously can't or don't want to remember the fact that the 3 1/2 tournaments i've run have been FLAWLESS. (Waikoloa, Birmingham, Bangalore and Rome).

And if Yarden has personals issues going on, he should speak and let someone else manage the tournament like what is going on now in MTF, Alonsofz, had to travel so im running Kitzbuhel for this days.

My feelings about you have nothing to do with this.

I think the tournament in Stanford is fine. If Yarden needs help, he knows to ask.

Considering Budapest and Cuneo both had qualifying in the same day, I am not quite sure where your argument comes from. Let's end this discussion and let Stanford move on.

Could anyone just stop Jean from calling me names in the TT Stanford thread while I never asked for it? Thanks.

The rules dosn't say that there can't be 2 rounds per day?

What is going on in Stanford in Manager's fault, for not being organized, Entry Lists were posted yesterday without order, so if someone wanted to change from tournament, couldn't know if he was in, out, Qd or as an ALT :smash:

this has been all a mess so far really, this manager should get it together...

I don't see that making 2 rounds of qualies in one day is against rules and IT SURELY ISN'T UNFAIR :wavey:
Entry lists in some tournaments were made just before the draw and you weren't complaining loudly about it then... I don't know why now it is a big problem, cause people with rank 100 and around should be smart enough to realize there is another event... It's easy: 28MD+16Q=44players, anyone who isn't in TOP44 in the ranks should realize his/her situation...
AND AS THERE ARE 2 EVENTS PER WEEK YOU CAN ALWAYS COMMIT TO BOTH AND THEN WITHDRAW FROM ONE WHERE YOU DON'T LIKE THE ENTRY LIST :angel:

I was really kind in my response :kiss:

Hi!

I have an idea... On the week of Aug.4 there won't tournement. Can we play that week by ITF tournement the Fed Cup QF and relegation-tie? Because last time we couldn't play itbecause of no manager... If U want I will run it...:wavey:

I write it here because I think it must be a Board decission...

Did we not have 2 rounds of qualifying (sometimes 3!) in one day for like A YEAR AND A HALF previously until a few months ago? Why is this such a big deal if it's being done in Stanford? :rolleyes:

The rules dosn't say that there can't be 2 rounds per day?

What is going on in Stanford in Manager's fault, for not being organized, Entry Lists were posted yesterday without order, so if someone wanted to change from tournament, couldn't know if he was in, out, Qd or as an ALT :smash:

this has been all a mess so far really, this manager should get it together...


Oh, I just saw it now mister Jeronimo. let me tell you few things.

You don't understand why people really don't like you. Well, that's why. You act in an immature way, constantly criticizing others, constantly looking only for the mistakes and the problems. You can never be quiet about something and keep your own opinions to yourself. I know you only from the forum, and I sincerely hope that you are not really like this, because this kind of behavior will not get you anywhere. You do not have any normal relationship with the people here, and you treat them disrespectfully.
You have no appreciation for things that people, other than yourself, do and that is ashame,
but your must own up to it.

I do not like your leadership, and I looked into the one of your tournement, and I saw that not everything is perfect there, so don't say that your leadership is "flawless".
If I need help, don't worry. I will not hesitate to ask for it, and believe me, I have asked people in the past and same did happen in Stanford. I think this is a little harsh but I think that's the only way you can understand something. that's all, hope you will have a nice time for the rest of the season.

The rules! The rules! The rules! The rules!

Rather than trying to "tell on" Yarden, pay attention. When managers have been late or forgotten about certain aspects of tournaments, we have had qualifying on the same day using the same OOP.

Did you ever wonder that maybe something personal is going on with Yarden? He has a track record of being incredibly reliable and respectful, unlike some people.

Thank you Casey for your politeness :) you are really kind :D

I don't see that making 2 rounds of qualies in one day is against rules and IT SURELY ISN'T UNFAIR :wavey:
Entry lists in some tournaments were made just before the draw and you weren't complaining loudly about it then... I don't know why now it is a big problem, cause people with rank 100 and around should be smart enough to realize there is another event... It's easy: 28MD+16Q=44players, anyone who isn't in TOP44 in the ranks should realize his/her situation...
AND AS THERE ARE 2 EVENTS PER WEEK YOU CAN ALWAYS COMMIT TO BOTH AND THEN WITHDRAW FROM ONE WHERE YOU DON'T LIKE THE ENTRY LIST :angel:

I was really kind in my response :kiss:

I agree with denijs, to me it seems so stupid to commit for a big event knowing that you have a low ranking and your chances to play are minimal. When someone who play TT for the first time and commit for big event, it just seems too sloppy.. I just don't understaned these people..

What's actually the reason that SR don't count as points anymore?
A TB should always be the latest part to decide a match.

A day has 5 matches.

Player A:

TB 1 6-3 6-7 6-4
TB 2 6-1 6-4
TB 3 7-5 6-3
TB 4 6-4 6-0
TB 5 6-3 6-2

Player B:

TB 1 6-2 5-7 7-5
TB 2 3-6 6-1 7-6
TB 3 0-6 7-6 7-6
TB 4 6-4 1-6 6-3
TB 5 4-6 7-5 6-3

Results:

TB 1 6-2 6-0
TB 2 6-1 6-4
TB 3 7-5 6-3
TB 4 6-4 6-0
TB 5 6-3 6-2

SR DO COUNT as decider, but only for singles.
So in singles player A wins, but in doubles it's player B?
Or am I wrong?

Since January, we have this rule:

Doubles: SRs are not used, when there are 4 or more matches scheduled (2 players/team = 8 picks).

Sorry Ivanovic Fan!!!!:awww:

Since January, we have this rule:

Doubles: SRs are not used, when there are 4 or more matches scheduled (2 players/team = 8 picks).

But does it answer my question? If in above mentioned example player B will win in doubles then it's totally ridiculous.
Your picks are good enough to win, both if your partner does the same you will lose :confused:
I know it's 8 picks, but still the same matches.
The SR add something to the game. Now it's like, equal? TB 1 and you can lose on a silly difference.
If this all really is the case, then what the hell happend in January to decide this rule change.

Did we not have 2 rounds of qualifying (sometimes 3!) in one day for like A YEAR AND A HALF previously until a few months ago? Why is this such a big deal if it's being done in Stanford? :rolleyes:

I still belong to the time when the same score would get you through 3 rounds of qualies...:angel:

Can I make a 64 Singles MD and a 32 Doubles MD in Bali???
It's the only WTA TT Tournament and I think it's easier for the manager of the ITF, which then doesn't have to do qualies and can begin directly with the MD...
I would say for Singles 60 direct Spots+4Q...for Doubles I would say also 28 direct Spots+4Q!?!
I hope thats ok?!?
:wavey:

16 singles Q-DRAW and 8 Doubles Q-Draw???

It should stay 32 MD

According to TT rules: - draws are the same size as those on the actual WTA tour, not bigger.

Plus, in real life it has only 16QD and they will not start qualifying before Sunday. Which means that you can´t start TT qualifying on Saturday ;)

It should stay 32 MD

According to TT rules: - draws are the same size as those on the actual WTA tour, not bigger.

hmm..ok
I'll change it then:sobbing:

What about Doubles?
16 MD and 8QD???

What about Doubles?
16 MD and 8QD???

Yes

Yes

Ok i changed it;)
Thx btw:)

ITF's of every level should be included. It would be so interesting :D