2017 ATP Sudden Death League: Miami

boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
sosa09 said:
Exactly.

And Kukushkin was involved in this again lol. In IW he was the LL that won the match, now he had to play against a LL.
Click to expand...

I brought this up in the WTA game, and I'll say it here...maybe at the end of the year we should talk about changing the rule to more along the lines of what Stringertom said. Doing it now would make it seem unfair for tournaments that have already happened this season. Just a suggestion :)
 
Big_Dangerous

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
boredone3456 said:
Actually thats not correct. See #8 in the OP. If Kuku had lost, Aussie would have been out because Aussie would have had to say before the match started to use the backup instead. We ran into this in IW where a LL stepped in after a pick was made and won and the person was eliminated because they didn't change their pick themselves, and their backup pick did win their match. Since Kuku won, aussie is good, but had Kuku lost, Aussie would be out.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought in the event of a withdrawal or walkover, your backup pick would then be used, unless you indicated that you wanted to pick someone else whose match hadn't already started. Because what would have happened if Kuku was the last scheduled match of the day, and Tomic withdrew to have another sexy party? Seems like it's rather pointless to make backup picks if once a player withdraws and a lucky loser steps in, we're still stuck with that initial pick (assuming we didn't change it). I mean in the powerplay and prediction leagues, if there is a lucky loser situation, where someone like Tomic withdraws, that pick becomes null and void. Why isn't that the case for this game?
 
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Big_Dangerous said:
Really? I thought in the event of a withdrawal or walkover, your backup pick would then be used, unless you indicated that you wanted to pick someone else whose match hadn't already started. Because what would have happened if Kuku was the last scheduled match of the day, and Tomic withdrew to have another sexy party? Seems like it's rather pointless to make backup picks if once a player withdraws and a lucky loser steps in, we're still stuck with that initial pick (assuming we didn't change it). I mean in the powerplay and prediction leagues, if there is a lucky loser situation, where someone like Tomic withdraws, that pick becomes null and void. Why isn't that the case for this game?
Click to expand...

Kuku is still the pick, Kuku didn't withdraw, pick is still valid and if he loses you are out, thats the current rule as was enforced in IW. Personally I don't like it, because now this is 2 tournaments in a row where this happened and clearly not everyone knew right away. I said in the WTA thread the rule should be changed, and the response there was we follow the tournaments and we should know...clearly there is an issue and we need to address it.
 
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Big_Dangerous said:
Really? I thought in the event of a withdrawal or walkover, your backup pick would then be used, unless you indicated that you wanted to pick someone else whose match hadn't already started. Because what would have happened if Kuku was the last scheduled match of the day, and Tomic withdrew to have another sexy party? Seems like it's rather pointless to make backup picks if once a player withdraws and a lucky loser steps in, we're still stuck with that initial pick (assuming we didn't change it). I mean in the powerplay and prediction leagues, if there is a lucky loser situation, where someone like Tomic withdraws, that pick becomes null and void. Why isn't that the case for this game?
Click to expand...
Yes, the rule applied to me in IW. I'm with you- we should change the rule. In fact, I lobbied for that very thing during IW, claiming a similar argument (and surprise, surprise, it happened again, with another unhappy person claiming that Clause 8 is stupid.) I had picked a player because I thought they could beat their opponent, not beat ANY opponent.

Case in point- Troicki v. Lu. You say Troicki will win, but then Lu withdraws. JMDP steps in, and you are unaware. They play and JDMP expectedly wins. You did not pick Troicki because you thought he could beat anyone in that round, you picked him specifically against Lu. This is why it should be a system of backups instead of keeping with the original pick.

Alternative: use my signature. It has been allowed to keep this from happening to you specifically in the future.
 
stringertom

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Day 4, 2R Top Half: Gotta stand with THE TOWER OF TANDIL now or I won't get to use him. So arrogant to have 4 initials, that JMDP guy.

B/u: fedr
 
Aussie Darcy

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Big_Dangerous said:
Really? I thought in the event of a withdrawal or walkover, your backup pick would then be used, unless you indicated that you wanted to pick someone else whose match hadn't already started. Because what would have happened if Kuku was the last scheduled match of the day, and Tomic withdrew to have another sexy party? Seems like it's rather pointless to make backup picks if once a player withdraws and a lucky loser steps in, we're still stuck with that initial pick (assuming we didn't change it). I mean in the powerplay and prediction leagues, if there is a lucky loser situation, where someone like Tomic withdraws, that pick becomes null and void. Why isn't that the case for this game?
Click to expand...

boredone3456 said:
Kuku is still the pick, Kuku didn't withdraw, pick is still valid and if he loses you are out, thats the current rule as was enforced in IW. Personally I don't like it, because now this is 2 tournaments in a row where this happened and clearly not everyone knew right away. I said in the WTA thread the rule should be changed, and the response there was we follow the tournaments and we should know...clearly there is an issue and we need to address it.
Click to expand...

TripleATeam said:
Yes, the rule applied to me in IW. I'm with you- we should change the rule. In fact, I lobbied for that very thing during IW, claiming a similar argument (and surprise, surprise, it happened again, with another unhappy person claiming that Clause 8 is stupid.) I had picked a player because I thought they could beat their opponent, not beat ANY opponent.

Case in point- Troicki v. Lu. You say Troicki will win, but then Lu withdraws. JMDP steps in, and you are unaware. They play and JDMP expectedly wins. You did not pick Troicki because you thought he could beat anyone in that round, you picked him specifically against Lu. This is why it should be a system of backups instead of keeping with the original pick.

Alternative: use my signature. It has been allowed to keep this from happening to you specifically in the future.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Well i'm glad Kuku won and I didn't suffer the same result as TripleATeam but I definitely think this is something to vote on.

Similar to what Triple said, I chose Kuku cause Tomic sucks major ass at tennis lately, whereas Youzhny is actually winning matches and could have won in my opinion. I know I didn't specify that I wanted to change the pick but Tomic withdrew very last minute + I live on the other side of the world to most people on this forum.

I think a discussion is needed or a vote cause I wouldn't want this happening. I must have missed this drama in IW- sorry this happened to you TripleA. But yeah, hopefully it doesn't happen again.
 
stringertom

stringertom

Bionic Poster
boredone3456 said:
Actually thats not correct. See #8 in the OP. If Kuku had lost, Aussie would have been out because Aussie would have had to say before the match started to use the backup instead. We ran into this in IW where a LL stepped in after a pick was made and won and the person was eliminated because they didn't change their pick themselves, and their backup pick did win their match. Since Kuku won, aussie is good, but had Kuku lost, Aussie would be out.
Click to expand...
Read my poast again and tell me I'm wrong. If @Aussie Darcy had not indicated prior to the start of the Kuku/Youzhny (LL) match that Kuku was still in play, the pick is void and the backup pick is used. It is the option of the player to stick with the primary choice in the new matchup or change to any other match that hasn't begun.
 
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
stringertom said:
Read my poast again and tell me I'm wrong. If @Aussie Darcy had not indicated prior to the start of the Kuku/Youzhny (LL) match that Kuku was still in play, the pick is void and the backup pick is used. It is the option of the player to stick with the primary choice in the new matchup or change to any other match that hasn't begun.
Click to expand...
8. If the opponent of the person you picked withdraws and is replaced by a lucky loser your original pick will stand unless you specifically change it.

This is the controversial clause 8. The clause that makes it so that the primary pick stands in case of a lucky loser unless otherwise mentioned prior to the match start. He could only have changed it prior to the start of the match. If Kuku had lost, Aussie could not choose his backup instead. That happened to me when Kukushkin beat Jordan Thompson as a LL. Giving players a choice after the fact is unfair, but making them stick with the pick is equally so. I say move on to the backup no matter what if the matchup that was stated does not occur.
 
stringertom

stringertom

Bionic Poster
TripleATeam said:
8. If the opponent of the person you picked withdraws and is replaced by a lucky loser your original pick will stand unless you specifically change it.

This is the controversial clause 8. The clause that makes it so that the primary pick stands in case of a lucky loser unless otherwise mentioned prior to the match start. He could only have changed it prior to the start of the match. If Kuku had lost, Aussie could not choose his backup instead. That happened to me when Kukushkin beat Jordan Thompson as a LL. Giving players a choice after the fact is unfair, but making them stick with the pick is equally so. I say move on to the backup no matter what if the matchup that was stated does not occur.
Click to expand...
Didn't @Krish872007 rule in your favor and state the match was void due to the replacement in IW?

Our game involves players in time zones throughout the world and with a variety of work schedules. It involves picking matches at tournaments all over the world as well. All of us can't be expected to monitor late changes like this. That's why the backup should kick in whenever there is a change in the primary choice's match unless directed otherwise by the contestant.
 
ark_28

ark_28

Legend
There is was thinking I may have picked Dimitrov too early and instead he's knocked me out!

Not happy about it

Anyway good luck to all remaining and see you in Monte Carlo!
 
gn

gn

G.O.A.T.
@stringertom : Win or lose, we can hug each other.
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
stringertom said:
Read my poast again and tell me I'm wrong. If @Aussie Darcy had not indicated prior to the start of the Kuku/Youzhny (LL) match that Kuku was still in play, the pick is void and the backup pick is used. It is the option of the player to stick with the primary choice in the new matchup or change to any other match that hasn't begun.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong, look at the spreadsheet, Aussie's pick is listed at Kuku..not Mahut, the match was not voided...and unless I missed it Aussie did not state a change from Kuku or confirm still wanting Kuku as their pick.
 
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
stringertom said:
Didn't @Krish872007 rule in your favor and state the match was void due to the replacement in IW?

Our game involves players in time zones throughout the world and with a variety of work schedules. It involves picking matches at tournaments all over the world as well. All of us can't be expected to monitor late changes like this. That's why the backup should kick in whenever there is a change in the primary choice's match unless directed otherwise by the contestant.
Click to expand...
You can check the IW spreadsheet. Krish ruled against me- I was knocked out in R1 because of it.

It's why i have this signature- to avoid it in the future.
 
stringertom

stringertom

Bionic Poster
TripleATeam said:
You can check the IW spreadsheet. Krish ruled against me- I was knocked out in R1 because of it.

It's why i have this signature- to avoid it in the future.
Click to expand...
OK...I could have sworn he stated it was a matchup circumstance where you are not married to your primary choice when a LL is subbed in. Did someone object to his ruling? If so, I only wish they go through your dilemma to see how it feels.

This needs to be voted on before another snafu occurs. We can't be expected to universally monitor every match to prevent these changes.

One of the reasons I like SDL more than either PPL or TPL is it's usually straightforward with no issues like this. In the 5.5 years I've played it has been without much controversy. The others...lots of accusations of cheating in TPL made me sick of the bellyaching so I stopped. PPL is OK except for the last minute switcheroo shenanigans a few obsessive contestants use to gain advantage. Let's get this cleaned up and back to normal.
 
TripleATeam

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
stringertom said:
OK...I could have sworn he stated it was a matchup circumstance where you are not married to your primary choice when a LL is subbed in. Did someone object to his ruling? If so, I only wish they go through your dilemma to see how it feels.

This needs to be voted on before another snafu occurs. We can't be expected to universally monitor every match to prevent these changes.

One of the reasons I like SDL more than either PPL or TPL is it's usually straightforward with no issues like this. In the 5.5 years I've played it has been without much controversy. The others...lots of accusations of cheating in TPL made me sick of the bellyaching so I stopped. PPL is OK except for the last minute switcheroo shenanigans a few obsessive contestants use to gain advantage. Let's get this cleaned up and back to normal.
Click to expand...
Krish872007 said:
It's a tricky situation but Thompson (the main pick) did not actually receive a walkover, and the purpose is to pick a player you think will advance. If he loses, you're out. The pick cannot be changed or voided after the match is complete.
Click to expand...

Krish872007 said:
The frustration is understandable. It's also understandable that you may not have had time to realise this change had taken place. I will edit the clause slightly and say that the change of pick should take place before the match starts (as clarification), but this kind of outcome is part and parcel of the SDL in my view. This has happened in the past as well and consistency in handling the issue should be maintained
Click to expand...
No, it was pretty straightforward. I'm not bitter, though- I just would like this clause changed. It's not intuitive, and Krish this is the second time in a row that it has occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krish872007
2018 ATP Sudden Death League: Miami
3 4 5
Replies
231
Views
6K
stringertom
stringertom
Krish872007
2018 ATP Sudden Death League: Miami
5 6 7
Replies
309
Views
7K
FEDERERNADAL13
FEDERERNADAL13
Krish872007
2017 ATP Sudden Death League: Indian Wells
7 8 9
Replies
417
Views
11K
Krish872007
Krish872007
Krish872007
2019 ATP Sudden Death League: Indian Wells
3 4 5
Replies
213
Views
5K
Krish872007
Krish872007
Krish872007
2017 ATP Sudden Death League: FRENCH OPEN
9 10 11
Replies
545
Views
16K
winchestervatennis
W
Top