Fantasy Decade Tennis

[Wuornos]

I have often read on this site about the strength and weakness of various players in relation to their decades, who was strongest in each decade, the game was stronger or weaker in a specific decade etc.

Anyway I’m toying with an idea of running a fantasy tennis competition between the various singles players of each decade. The competition would consist of six teams each representing each decade from the 1950s to 2000s, inclusive. Each of the six teams would consist of 10 players who would be ranked in order by their relative captains. Player 1 would play player 1 from each team, player 2 against player 2 etc with each won match scoring a pointa in the league. As the entire process including team submissions for each match would be posted publicly captains would take turns in submitting the order of their teams first. Each team would meet twice in a round robin tournament.

The results of each match would be calculated using Peak ELO ratings derived from major results only, (so don’t expect them to match my previous ELO rating posts) and linked to a random number generator to represent the luck factor within each match. I would expect to run a couple of matches each week and for the tournament to be over within about three weeks. As peak ELO is being used this should not hamper players who were absent from the tradional major tournaments for any any period because it is based on peak performance and not total achievement. This of course assumes the player concerned had at least a reasonable period of play in the grand slam events after the start of 1950.

Captains could choose any players they want who were active within their decade providing this is acceptable to the other captains and is not challenged. The rule of thumb though is to select a player at the point in time when the evidence was strongest regarding his peak playing standard, i.e. peak ELO. Any dispute as to which player belongs to which decade I will act as sole arbiter based on where the peak ELO rating occurs. Each player only represent a single decade within te entire tournament.

The first step would be to select the six captains and which decade they will each represent. Of course the Captain who selects the 2000s will have a slight handicap as his period of peak performance from which to select his players will be 1 year and 8 months shorter than for the other captains. Tough !

I would like to invite some of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum to take part in this game before opening the game up for other volunteer captains.

The first six from the following fifteen regular TTW posters expressing their interest in playing the game will automatically be accepted. After the captains are finalised we will move into the player selection phase for the first match with a further explanation of the rules.

The ten regular posters I would like to invite in no specific order are:
noel edmonds
CEvertFan
urban
chaognosis
grafrules
hoodjem
Cyborg
Moose Malloy
Drakulie
FiveO
Benhur
ATPballkid
chris in japan
anointedone
MEAC ALLAMERICAN

Sorry for anyone I may have left out.

Captains will require a good knowledge of the major tournaments within their decade along with an anlytical approach to out manouver other captains based upon their previous fantasy league results.

If any of the above are interested in taking part in this FOR FUN game, please post under this thread that you are interested and which decade you wish to be the captain for.

First come first served basis.

Regards

Tim

Please feel free to ask any questions, should you have any.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Ok, I'll take the 80s.

 

[Wuornos]

Ok, I'll take the 80s.

Thanks Moose and good luck.

Regards

Tim

 

[chaognosis]

First, a few questions:

As peak ELO is being used this should not hamper players who were absent from the tradional major tournaments for any any period because it is based on peak performance and not total achievement. This of course assumes the player concerned had at least a reasonable period of play in the grand slam events after the start of 1950.

This seems problematic. What happens if a player's peak performance was achieved as a pro, rather than as an amateur? If you polled the group of posters you named, for example, and asked them who was the best player of the 1950s, I think every single one of them would name Pancho Gonzales--but he is effectively disqualified from competition here, both because he had an extraordinarily brief (and comparatively inconsequential) amateur career, and because the two amateur majors he actually did win occurred in the 1940s. To assemble a 1950s team without Kramer/Segura/Gonzales would be the equivalent of a 1990s team without Edberg/Agassi/Sampras or a 2000s team without Hewitt/Nadal/Federer... in my judgment this would put the 1950s team at a rather substantial disadvantage.

My second question is related to the first: why is it not possible to include pro results in the ELO calculations for purposes of this competition? If I remember correctly, ELO is solely based on the strength of the players who meet one another in a match, rather than on an exclusive consideration of certain events (e.g., the amateur majors) or other factors (e.g., surface of play). It seems there should be enough data from the pro tours to make this sort of calculation. The results of at least the three major professional events are readily available, being published in Joe McCauley's The History of Professional Tennis and reprinted in Bud Collins's Total Tennis. They are even uploaded on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

I know this alone isn't enough to do the rigorous statistical work you have become well known for, but I think it is at least a start, and I would like to know what you have to say about this. (You should talk to urban, as I believe he has a book that lists all the winners of most tournaments for this period, not just the major ones. SgtJohn would also be a huge resource, though I haven't seen him around in a while.) I would be inclined to jump on board and captain the 1950s team, except that I'm not sure how to do it when three of the six players I would be inclined to choose are excluded under the current rules. If you cannot make room for the pro game in any way, then I think the 1950s (and to a lesser degree the 1960s as well) would need a pretty considerable handicap as well, much bigger than the one for the 2000s team...

Sorry to complicate matters! I very much like the idea.

 

[Wuornos]

First, a few questions:



This seems problematic. What happens if a player's peak performance was achieved as a pro, rather than as an amateur? If you polled the group of posters you named, for example, and asked them who was the best player of the 1950s, I think every single one of them would name Pancho Gonzales--but he is effectively disqualified from competition here, both because he had an extraordinarily brief (and comparatively inconsequential) amateur career, and because the two amateur majors he actually did win occurred in the 1940s. To assemble a 1950s team without Kramer/Segura/Gonzales would be the equivalent of a 1990s team without Edberg/Agassi/Sampras or a 2000s team without Hewitt/Nadal/Federer... in my judgment this would put the 1950s team at a rather substantial disadvantage.

My second question is related to the first: why is it not possible to include pro results in the ELO calculations for purposes of this competition? If I remember correctly, ELO is solely based on the strength of the players who meet one another in a match, rather than on an exclusive consideration of certain events (e.g., the amateur majors) or other factors (e.g., surface of play). It seems there should be enough data from the pro tours to make this sort of calculation. The results of at least the three major professional events are readily available, being published in Joe McCauley's The History of Professional Tennis and reprinted in Bud Collins's Total Tennis. They are even uploaded on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_tennis_tournaments_before_the_Open_Era

I know this alone isn't enough to do the rigorous statistical work you have become well known for, but I think it is at least a start, and I would like to know what you have to say about this. (You should talk to urban, as I believe he has a book that lists all the winners of most tournaments for this period, not just the major ones. SgtJohn would also be a huge resource, though I haven't seen him around in a while.) I would be inclined to jump on board and captain the 1950s team, except that I'm not sure how to do it when three of the six players I would be inclined to choose are excluded under the current rules. If you cannot make room for the pro game in any way, then I think the 1950s (and to a lesser degree the 1960s as well) would need a pretty considerable handicap as well, much bigger than the one for the 2000s team...

Sorry to complicate matters! I very much like the idea.

First paragraph. Yes that's correct, but it's only a game. I was going to point out the Pancho Gonzalez occurence but in the end I didn't feel it worthwhile. All Kudos to you for picking it up. I can't think of a single other player that would be effected by this.

Second paragraph. Because the cross over between the amateur and pro populations are insufficient to calibrate the population means to ensure consistency. ELO requires this calibration between two populations to ensure consistency. Not frequently enough did the pro and amateur players meet. Believe I would love to be able to do this but to date have not found a way around the problem.

Third paragraph. Just curious who would be the three players excluded who would have hit their major playing peak in the 1950s ? If they hit a peak in the late 1940s it may be possible to include them. Remember that many of the players who played in the the pros also had a substantial peak within the traditional amateur majors too. By and large I tend to find a players peak comes earlier in the first half of their career rather than the second half making the early peak in the amateurs quite representative of their overall standard.

Take care

Regards

Tim

 

[chaognosis]

I see the difficulty in "mixing" results from the two populations. However, since it is commonly agreed that the pros were at a higher level than the amateurs beginning in at least 1948 (and really in 1939), wouldn't it make more sense to exclude the amateur results rather than the pro ones? I think the pro numbers are probably more valuable here than the amateur ones. (Your point about a player's peak level being reached earlier in his career rather than later is, I believe, more valid for today's game than for previous eras. It is undoubtedly a reflection on the greater athletic demands now, but somebody like Tilden didn't enter his prime until his late '20s, and his true "peak" probably occurred when he was around 30 years old, if we go by his record.)

Well, Jack Kramer and Pancho Segura are usually considered the best players of the early 1950s, before Gonzales took over. It should be possible to come up with a decent ELO for Kramer from 1946-47; because of the war, Kramer didn't turn pro too young, so he did enjoy two of his most successful years as an amateur. But Segura (whom Kramer thought was a better player than Rosewall!) has an even skimpier amateur record than Gonzales--nevertheless he was certainly one of the small handful of top pros of the decade, at least as good as Sedgman and probably better than Trabert. No doubt Kramer is a '40s/'50s transitional figure, but since the 1940s aren't in play, I am assuming that he is fair game. Segura, though, is a '50s player through and through, and I can't fathom a list of players for the 1950s that doesn't include him.

 

[CEvertFan]

Thanks for the invite and I'll take the 90s.

 

[noeledmonds]

It is a compliment to see that my name was the first that came to mind. I will take the 1960s.

 

[Wuornos]

I see the difficulty in "mixing" results from the two populations. However, since it is commonly agreed that the pros were at a higher level than the amateurs beginning in at least 1948 (and really in 1939), wouldn't it make more sense to exclude the amateur results rather than the pro ones? I think the pro numbers are probably more valuable here than the amateur ones. (Your point about a player's peak level being reached earlier in his career rather than later is, I believe, more valid for today's game than for previous eras. It is undoubtedly a reflection on the greater athletic demands now, but somebody like Tilden didn't enter his prime until his late '20s, and his true "peak" probably occurred when he was around 30 years old, if we go by his record.)

Well, Jack Kramer and Pancho Segura are usually considered the best players of the early 1950s, before Gonzales took over. It should be possible to come up with a decent ELO for Kramer from 1946-47; because of the war, Kramer didn't turn pro too young, so he did enjoy two of his most successful years as an amateur. But Segura (whom Kramer thought was a better player than Rosewall!) has an even skimpier amateur record than Gonzales--nevertheless he was certainly one of the small handful of top pros of the decade, at least as good as Sedgman and probably better than Trabert. No doubt Kramer is a '40s/'50s transitional figure, but since the 1940s aren't in play, I am assuming that he is fair game. Segura, though, is a '50s player through and through, and I can't fathom a list of players for the 1950s that doesn't include him.

Hi Chaog

First Paragraph. I can see where your coming form on this but the problem regarding the population means still exists. If you remove a few players from the top of the game in a large population, i.e. the amateurs, you do not significantly effect the population mean which is more an indicator of the journeyman standard withhin this group. We can therefore see that the amateur group is comparatively easy to maintain. The population mean remains very similar on average when compared with the open era and as with all normal disributions, with the peak removed the gap between players at the top of the population narrows and domination becomes more difficult. Within the pros though the population is much smaller, player movement into and out of the population would significantly effect the mean and we have no way of ensuring consistency with the open era mean which is a large population. We know it would be much higher but I would prefer something a little more scientific than a guess at it's level. We are therefore in a position where it is the amateurs who are the group where consistency may be assured.

Second paragraph. The game we are playing assigns players to decades based upon their peak level of play in the majors. We are not defining the decades by peak within the pros or a players absolute peak as to do so is not possible using the ELO peak rating methodology. I think it is important to keep this definition as it avoids disputes regarding who belongs to which decade and makes it easier for me to make a decision where disputes occur. Any other definition and we are moving away fro the mathematical principles and into personal opinion.

I previously stated that I may be able to include players who peaked in the 1940's in the majors but having thought about this further I feel it gives an unfair advantage unless we exclude players who peaked in the majors of the 1950s and then went on to play in the pros in the 1960s. Again we are on the slippery slope towards opinion only based decisions. Because of this I must insist that the original definition of peaking in the major events only and not within the pro game defines a players decade for the purpose of this game. And after all it is only a game.

Let me know if you want to take on the 1950's on this basis. The first come first serve policy is still in operation.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

We now have three captains assigned to teams as follows:

Moose Malloy the 1980s.
CEvertFan the 1990s
noeledmonds the 1960s.

Thanks all and be thinking about your first 10 player singles selection but don't post anything yet.

We require three more captains for the 1950s, 1970s, and 2000s before the game begins.

Anymore takers before I open the game up to the general population of posters.

Regards

Tim

 

[chaognosis]

Thanks for your explanation, Tim. It makes a lot of sense now. Obviously you know a lot more about this than I do, so I thank you for humoring me!

And yes, I will still take the 1950s.

 

[noeledmonds]

If I understand this correctly then the 1960s will also suffer from exclusion of professionals. Surely Rosewall will suffer heavily as he turned proffessional before 1960 and only played the grand slams in 1968 and 1969 of the decade. Gonzales and Hoad were pretty strong in the early 1960s as proffesionals. Gimeno also turned proffesional in 1960. However, I guess some players (such as Emerson) will benefit.

Either way I will stick with the 1960s anyway. However, this would effect how I rank the players. I am pretty sure that Moose has got the strongest decade here anway. The 1980s will have very good ELO ratings for Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Wilander.

 

[chaognosis]

I am curious whether Rosewall's peak ELO, so defined, would have occurred either in the 1950s or the early '70s... a question Tim will be able to answer, I'm sure, when it comes to that.

This should be very interesting. I am really looking forward to seeing how some of the top amateur players of the 1950s and '60s fare against the Open Era champions.

 

[Wuornos]

Thanks for your explanation, Tim. It makes a lot of sense now. Obviously you know a lot more about this than I do, so I thank you for humoring me!

And yes, I will still take the 1950s.

Thanks Chaog. Much appreciated. That just leaves Captains required for the 1970s and 2000s now.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

If I understand this correctly then the 1960s will also suffer from exclusion of professionals. Surely Rosewall will suffer heavily as he turned proffessional before 1960 and only played the grand slams in 1968 and 1969 of the decade. Gonzales and Hoad were pretty strong in the early 1960s as proffesionals. Gimeno also turned proffesional in 1960. However, I guess some players (such as Emerson) will benefit.

Either way I will stick with the 1960s anyway. However, this would effect how I rank the players. I am pretty sure that Moose has got the strongest decade here anway. The 1980s will have very good ELO ratings for Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and Wilander.

I think you understand perfectly Noel based on what you're saying.

I woudn't be too down hearted about the 1960s. As you quite rightly identify you'll have Emerson and it's difficult to see how Laver's peak can have been anything other than the 1960s even without the inclusion of his pro matches. He has to be a pretty decent #1 for your team.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

I am curious whether Rosewall's peak ELO, so defined, would have occurred either in the 1950s or the early '70s... a question Tim will be able to answer, I'm sure, when it comes to that.

This should be very interesting. I am really looking forward to seeing how some of the top amateur players of the 1950s and '60s fare against the Open Era champions.

Hi Chaog.

Based upon the ELO rating system as derived from major tournaments only, Ken Rosewall's peak falls within in the 1950s. End of 1956 to be precise, so he's one of your players.

Regards

Tim

 

[peluzon]

ajajajaaj hey guys what are you smoking ??? please give me the dealer phone

 

[BeHappy]

moose molloy has already won.

 

[Wuornos]

moose molloy has already won.

No, we've not started yet.

If I don't have any takers by this time tomorrow as captains of either the 1970s or 2000s, care to take one on yourself, BeHappy?

Regards

Tim

 

[boredone3456]

Wow, this is a really cool idea, it would be interesting to see how the likes of laver, rosewall and others would do against fed, sampras, and the more modern players based on your system, since we have debated it for seems forever. Although I agree....Moose does seem to have the strongest decade in terms of star and firepower...if he puts them in a strong order. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[CEvertFan]

I do have one question:

If a player's career overlaps two decades, can he be used as a player for more than one decade i.e. Becker played in the 80s and 90s and won Slams in both decades. Or are you using the player's peak ELO rating to determine what decade he belongs in?

 

[SgtJohn]

Hi everyone,

If nobody proposes to take it by Wuornos's deadline tommorow, I'd really like to be the 70s captain.
[By the way, thanks Chaog for mentioning me ;-). And it's right I haven't been around in a while, I've been very very busy with work these last weeks, so Wuornos's idea is a good way to get back in the game now ]

See you all,
Jonathan

 

[Wuornos]

I do have one question:

If a player's career overlaps two decades, can he be used as a player for more than one decade i.e. Becker played in the 80s and 90s and won Slams in both decades. Or are you using the player's peak ELO rating to determine what decade he belongs in?

Hi CEvertFan

A player may only represent one decade.

Essentially the decade a player belongs to is defined by the participants of the game itself. It's up to a participant to appeal if someone tries to use a player that he/she feels more appropriately belongs th their team. In the event of a dispute the peak ELO rating is used as the deciding factor.

Remember though once a playe4r has repressented a decade and given the player can only represent a single decade it's to late to appeal when that player appears in subsequent matches.

More on all this when the game starts. It's very staright forward really and we'll go through each of the 10 rounds step by step.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Hi everyone,

If nobody proposes to take it by Wuornos's deadline tommorow, I'd really like to be the 70s captain.
[By the way, thanks Chaog for mentioning me ;-). And it's right I haven't been around in a while, I've been very very busy with work these last weeks, so Wuornos's idea is a good way to get back in the game now ]

See you all,
Jonathan

OK Jonathan. You're in as the Captain of the 1970s.

We now have the following participants

Moose Malloy the 1980s.
CEvertFan the 1990s
noeledmonds the 1960s
chaognosis 1950s
SgtJohn 1970s

The game is now open to anyone who wishes to play to take on the captaincy of the 2000s team. As oon as we have someone we will begin.

Regards

Tim

 

[boredone3456]

if no one else wants to do the 2000s I'd be willing to give it a shot...given I have the shortest time here if anyone else with more experience wants it though they can have it.

 

[Wuornos]

if no one else wants to do the 2000s I'd be willing to give it a shot...given I have the shortest time here if anyone else with more experience wants it though they can have it.

OK Boredone you're in for the 2000s.

The team captains therefore are :

Moose Malloy the 1980s.
CEvertFan the 1990s
noeledmonds the 1960s
chaognosis 1950s
SgtJohn 1970s
Boredone 2000s.

First round of matches commences the draw is :

1950s v 2000s
1960s v 1990s
1970s v 1980s

Step 1. Teams named first must nominate their 10 players numbering each from 1 - 10. Therer are no rules relating to order.

Step 2. Each team has the opportunity to challenge should they believe a notehr team has fielded a player more appropriately assigned to their decade. I will assign disputed player based on peak ELO. If challenge is succesful player must be replaced by appropriate captain with a valid player from their decade. Remember once a player has been fielded for a team and accepted by all captains they may not be challenged in future as each player can only represent a single decade. Each Captain must respond with either their challenges in a single post or a note to say they are not challenging any opposing team players. I have also decided to impose a three failed challenge limit on each captain for the duration of the tournament, after which they forfeit the right of future challenges.

Step 3. Teams named second field their teams, again numbered 1-10 with each number playing their opposite number in the fixture concerned.

Step 4 - Repeat Step 2.

Step 5 - Matches are computed using Major only based ELO and a random number generator and results posted along with league table and individual player records.

Step 6. Return to step 1 for second round of matches.

Each team will have the same number of matches where they post their teams first or second.

OK first up its the captains from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to post their teams, so over to you, chaognosis, noeledmonds and SgtJohn.

Good luck all and remember this is just for fun.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Here's the full fixture list for each round of the tournament.

Round 1
1950s v 2000s
1960s v 1990s
1970s v 1980s

Round 2
1950s v 1960s
2000s v 1980s
1990s v 1970s

Round 3
1980s v 1990s
1970s v 1950s
1960s v 2000s

Round 4
1990s v 1950s
1970s v 2000s
1980s v 1960s

Round 5
2000s v 1990s
1950s v 1980s
1960s v 1970s

Round 6
2000s v 1950s
1990s v 1960s
1980s v 1970s

Round 7
1960s v 1950s
1980s v 2000s
1970s v 1990s

Round 8
1990s v 1980s
1950s v 1970s
2000s v 1960s

Round 9
1950s v 1990s
2000s v 1970s
1960s v 1980s

Round 10
1990s v 2000s
1980s v 1950s
1970s v 1960s


Any betting on whether any individual players will score 10 straight wins?

Regards

Tim

 

[noeledmonds]

Just to clafiy Tim, the order of the 10 players is irrelevant. The players do not have to be ranked from 1 to 10. If this is so, then should players be drawn against each other randomly rather than played 1 against 1 and 2 against 2 etc? The problem I expect with this current system is that it allows for tactical changes in the order submitted depending on the order that an oponent has already submitted.

For example, lets say that I (1960s) was playing the 1970s and I submitted my order (before my oponent) with Laver as number 1. The 1970s captain would probabely realise that none of their player would be likely to beat Laver so they could deliberately play (and effectively sacrifce) their worst player at number 1 against Laver to maximise their chances else where.

Sorry to complicate things but it seems a simple enough problem to solve. Simply play oponents randomly against each and not in the order submitted.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Step 2. Each team has the opportunity to challenge should they believe a notehr team has fielded a player more appropriately assigned to their decade. I will assign disputed player based on peak ELO. If challenge is succesful player must be replaced by appropriate captain with a valid player from their decade. Remember once a player has been fielded for a team and accepted by all captains they may not be challenged in future as each player can only represent a single decade. Each Captain must respond with either their challenges in a single post or a note to say they are not challenging any opposing team players. I have also decided to impose a three failed challenge limit on each captain for the duration of the tournament, after which they forfeit the right of future challenges.

Any way you can just answer our questions about where certain players can be before the event? I'd really like to know which decade Borg, Edberg, & Becker's peak go under ELO, not just wait until someone challenges to find out if I'm right or wrong. But I guess it does add some drama to the event.

For example, lets say that I (1960s) was playing the 1970s and I submitted my order (before my oponent) with Laver as number 1. The 1970s captain would probabely realise that none of their player would be likely to beat Laver so they could deliberately play (and effectively sacrifce) their worst player at number 1 against Laver to maximise their chances else where.

Sorry to complicate things but it seems a simple enough problem to solve. Simply play oponents randomly against each and not in the order submitted.

To me, this is the fun part of the game. You have to use some strategy in selecting which players play at which spot. Just like a league.

 

[boredone3456]

Just to clafiy Tim, the order of the 10 players is irrelevant. The players do not have to be ranked from 1 to 10. If this is so, then should players be drawn against each other randomly rather than played 1 against 1 and 2 against 2 etc? The problem I expect with this current system is that it allows for tactical changes in the order submitted depending on the order that an oponent has already submitted.

For example, lets say that I (1960s) was playing the 1970s and I submitted my order (before my oponent) with Laver as number 1. The 1970s captain would probabely realise that none of their player would be likely to beat Laver so they could deliberately play (and effectively sacrifce) their worst player at number 1 against Laver to maximise their chances else where.

Sorry to complicate things but it seems a simple enough problem to solve. Simply play oponents randomly against each and not in the order submitted.

this is a good point as I was wondering the same thing...I think we should all submit our teams at the same time...so no problems like that could occur...like we submit them all to wournos and he approves them based on elo and then go from there?

also...how long do we have to post our teams either as the first or second to do so?

 

[CyBorg]

*grabs popcorn*

Dance, monkeys, dance!

 

[Wuornos]

Just to clafiy Tim, the order of the 10 players is irrelevant. The players do not have to be ranked from 1 to 10. If this is so, then should players be drawn against each other randomly rather than played 1 against 1 and 2 against 2 etc? The problem I expect with this current system is that it allows for tactical changes in the order submitted depending on the order that an oponent has already submitted.

For example, lets say that I (1960s) was playing the 1970s and I submitted my order (before my oponent) with Laver as number 1. The 1970s captain would probabely realise that none of their player would be likely to beat Laver so they could deliberately play (and effectively sacrifce) their worst player at number 1 against Laver to maximise their chances else where.

Sorry to complicate things but it seems a simple enough problem to solve. Simply play oponents randomly against each and not in the order submitted.

Yes that's absolutely right. But I don't see it as a problem. I see this as where the skill of captaincy comes in, and your second paragraph is exactly as I would see it working. The only difference is you will get your chance at the return match where the opposing captain goes first and you can take a similar advantage

If we took the 1-10 in order of strength, no one is going to agree on the correct order and a major element of skill would be removed from the game. Similarly a random pairing system will stop a captain's skills from coming to the fore.

You're not complicting things you're just raising a valid point.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Any way you can just answer our questions about where certain players can be before the event? I'd really like to know which decade Borg, Edberg, & Becker's peak go under ELO, not just wait until someone challenges to find out if I'm right or wrong. But I guess it does add some drama to the event.




To me, this is the fun part of the game. You have to use some strategy in selecting which players play at which spot. Just like a league.

Hi Moose

Happy to disclose all peaks at the end of the game, if there's any still in doubt.

I agree about the team selection positions. It's where part of the skill lies within the game.

Regards

Tim

 

[chaognosis]

1950s Team - Round One:

01. Lew Hoad
02. Tony Trabert
03. Frank Sedgman
04. Ashley Cooper
05. Ken Rosewall
06. Alex Olmedo
07. Dick Savitt
08. Jaroslav Drobný
09. Vic Seixas
10. Budge Patty

P.S. If any player goes undefeated, it will probably be Roger Federer...

 

[Wuornos]

this is a good point as I was wondering the same thing...I think we should all submit our teams at the same time...so no problems like that could occur...like we submit them all to wournos and he approves them based on elo and then go from there?

also...how long do we have to post our teams either as the first or second to do so?

I know what you mean boredone regarding the posting of team selections but this is part of the skill involved and gives weaker teams chances to catch stronger teams with good captaincy. It all balances out in the end with everyone getting a fair crack of the whip.

It's difficult to impose a time constraint and I was hoping not to have to. Sometimes people can't get to the internet. If I believe we have waited long enough I'll post a time limit on the captain we are waiting for at that point.

Regards

Tim

PS see you all in the morning. It's 11.35pm here and I'm off to bed.

 

[CEvertFan]

this is a good point as I was wondering the same thing...I think we should all submit our teams at the same time...so no problems like that could occur...like we submit them all to wournos and he approves them based on elo and then go from there?

also...how long do we have to post our teams either as the first or second to do so?

That sounds like an excellent idea but it would be better if the players for each decade were ranked by peak PLO instead of at the captain's discretion. It would be ludicrous if Borg, Laver, Lendl, Sampras, Federer etc. were ranked lower in their assigned decade than they should be. I for one was looking forward to seeing how the very best of each decade stood up to one another and if you don't pit #1 against #1 etc. then it's pointless.

 

[Wuornos]

1950s Team - Round One:

01. Lew Hoad
02. Tony Trabert
03. Frank Sedgman
04. Ashley Cooper
05. Ken Rosewall
06. Alex Olmedo
07. Dick Savitt
08. Jaroslav Drobný
09. Vic Seixas
10. Budge Patty

P.S. If any player goes undefeated, it will probably be Roger Federer...

Thanks Chaog. I won't make any comments on team selections as to do so would be unfair given the fact that I have the rankings being used for this event.

 

[Wuornos]

That sounds like an excellent idea but it would be better if the players for each decade were ranked by peak PLO instead of at the captain's discretion. It would be ludicrous if Borg, Laver, Lendl, Sampras, Federer etc. were ranked lower in their assigned decade than they should be. I for one was looking forward to seeing how the very best of each decade stood up to one another and if you don't pit #1 against #1 etc. then it's pointless.

The problem with this is it gives people feedback on where people appear within the rankings being used and subsequently effects their team selections. The game is really meant as a game of skill for the Captains rather than a definitive answer as to which was the stronger decade.

Happy to post all rankings after the event along with when ELOs hit their peak. Even happy to run the game on the same system with players ranked in order with no captains, if there is sufficient interest.

If the majority would like the game administered in this way then I am happy to do this, but in my opinion it would take away the skill of captaincy to such an extent that it wouldn't be worthwhile having captains at all. Happy to go with the majority though.

Now I really am off to bed

Tim

 

[noeledmonds]

Alright, I will just go with my team and leave the 1990s captain to decide who will play who.

1. Stolle
2. Emerson
3. Santana
4. Laver
5. Pietrangeli
6. Ashe
7. Roche
8. Fraser
9. Osuna
10. Newcombe

Also I would like to appeal for Rosewall on the grounds that his peak was clearly in the 1960s as a proffesional. I know that proffesional years pre-1968 don't count but I would still have Rosewall in my team as a replacement for Pietrangeli if my appeal is succesfull.

 

[boredone3456]

ok....I have my team but its not what I was thinking,...I obviously woulda liked 2000 era sampra and agassi who were still winning...but they are so obviously on the 90's team...sooooo....with good luck to choag and my fellow captains here is my team:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Kuerton
4. Hewitt
5. Roddick
6. Ivanisevic
7. Djokovic
8. Gaudio
9. Ferrero
10. Johansson

also...one more question...and sorry for all of them....are you using a specific surface of play...as some players obviously were much stronger on some surfaces then others and that may well affect a match depending on who was playin who?

 

[CEvertFan]

Whatever format the majority decides to go with for who plays who is fine with me. I was only voicing an opinion.

That being said here is my team for the 1990s:

( 1 ) Pete Sampras
( 2 ) Stefan Edberg
( 3 ) Andre Agassi
( 4 ) Jim Courier
( 5 ) Michael Chang
( 6 ) Patrick Rafter
( 7 ) Goran Ivanisevic
( 8 ) Michael Stich
( 9 ) Todd Martin
( 10 ) Petr Korda


I would have added Becker but he obviously belongs on the 80s team even though his career overlapped into the 90s.


Also, I too am interested to know which surface the 'matches' will be played on.


I see that Ivanisevic was also picked as a player for the 2000s team so we're going to need a ruling on where he actually belongs.

 

[boredone3456]

I picked him because he won his only major during my time period...but I do believe his peak upon looking into it was probably during your era cevertfan....so I withdraw him from my team...bump up everyone below him one spot....and put in his place Nalbandian

 

[Zimbo]

Whatever format the majority decides to go with for who plays who is fine with me. I was only voicing an opinion.

That being said here is my team for the 1990s:

( 1 ) Pete Sampras
( 2 ) Stefan Edberg
( 3 ) Andre Agassi
( 4 ) Jim Courier
( 5 ) Michael Chang
( 6 ) Patrick Rafter
( 7 ) Goran Ivanisevic
( 8 ) Michael Stich
( 9 ) Todd Martin
( 10 ) Petr Korda


I would have added Becker but he obviously belongs on the 80s team even though his career overlapped into the 90s.


Also, I too am interested to know which surface the 'matches' will be played on.


I see that Ivanisevic was also picked as a player for the 2000s team so we're going to need a ruling on where he actually belongs.

If Edberg is on the '90's team I see no reason why Becker should be regulated to the '80's team.

 

[Wuornos]

Alright, I will just go with my team and leave the 1990s captain to decide who will play who.

1. Stolle
2. Emerson
3. Santana
4. Laver
5. Pietrangeli
6. Ashe
7. Roche
8. Fraser
9. Osuna
10. Newcombe

Also I would like to appeal for Rosewall on the grounds that his peak was clearly in the 1960s as a proffesional. I know that proffesional years pre-1968 don't count but I would still have Rosewall in my team as a replacement for Pietrangeli if my appeal is succesfull.

Thanks Noel and good luck.

To keep appeals fair I must, as stated, abide by the peak ELO as scored in the traditional majors, and therefore must rule against your appeal for Ken Roswall.

Sorry

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

ok....I have my team but its not what I was thinking,...I obviously woulda liked 2000 era sampra and agassi who were still winning...but they are so obviously on the 90's team...sooooo....with good luck to choag and my fellow captains here is my team:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Kuerton
4. Hewitt
5. Roddick
6. Ivanisevic
7. Djokovic
8. Gaudio
9. Ferrero
10. Johansson

also...one more question...and sorry for all of them....are you using a specific surface of play...as some players obviously were much stronger on some surfaces then others and that may well affect a match depending on who was playin who?

Thanks Boredone.

You should really wait before submitting your team until the first step teams are submitted as you are surrundering your advantage in the game.

ELO is calculated without reference to surface. It is therefore reasonable to say that each player is playing on a surface that is a hybrid of the surfaces played on in the four majors at the time they were at their peak.

Your replacement of Goran Ivanišević with David Nalbandian has been noted.

Thanks again

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Whatever format the majority decides to go with for who plays who is fine with me. I was only voicing an opinion.

That being said here is my team for the 1990s:

( 1 ) Pete Sampras
( 2 ) Stefan Edberg
( 3 ) Andre Agassi
( 4 ) Jim Courier
( 5 ) Michael Chang
( 6 ) Patrick Rafter
( 7 ) Goran Ivanisevic
( 8 ) Michael Stich
( 9 ) Todd Martin
( 10 ) Petr Korda


I would have added Becker but he obviously belongs on the 80s team even though his career overlapped into the 90s.


Also, I too am interested to know which surface the 'matches' will be played on.


I see that Ivanisevic was also picked as a player for the 2000s team so we're going to need a ruling on where he actually belongs.

Thanks CEvertFan

Regarding surfaces, please see answer to previous post.

Boredone has honoured your request for Goran Ivanišević without recourse to appeal.
Tim

 

[SgtJohn]

Hi everyone

Here is the 70's team:


1. Bjorn Borg
2. Jimmy Connors
3. Arthur Ashe
4. Guillermo Vilas
5. Stan Smith
6. John Newcombe
7. Jan Kodes
8. Ilie Nastase
9. Vitas Gerulaitis
10. Roscoe Tanner

I need no appeal at this point, Wuornos.

Jonathan

 

[Moose Malloy]

Ok, looks like this is getting complicated. I need some clarification before putting out my list.

is this rule still in effect?

Each team has the opportunity to challenge should they believe a notehr team has fielded a player more appropriately assigned to their decade. I will assign disputed player based on peak ELO. If challenge is succesful player must be replaced by appropriate captain with a valid player from their decade. Remember once a player has been fielded for a team and accepted by all captains they may not be challenged in future as each player can only represent a single decade. Each Captain must respond with either their challenges in a single post or a note to say they are not challenging any opposing team players. I have also decided to impose a three failed challenge limit on each captain for the duration of the tournament, after which they forfeit the right of future challenges.

because I see noeledmonds has posted this, does that mean he loses a challenge?

Also I would like to appeal for Rosewall on the grounds that his peak was clearly in the 1960s as a proffesional.

or does this not count because he is not challenging another's list, just his own? if so I also want to know if some players I'm considering count for my decade or not.

also, both noeledmonds & SgtJohn have Ashe & Newcombe on their list, Wuornos are you stepping in to make a ruling on that, or does someone have to challenge first?

also regarding CEvertFan's list:

( 1 ) Pete Sampras
( 2 ) Stefan Edberg
( 3 ) Andre Agassi
( 4 ) Jim Courier
( 5 ) Michael Chang
( 6 ) Patrick Rafter
( 7 ) Goran Ivanisevic
( 8 ) Michael Stich
( 9 ) Todd Martin
( 10 ) Petr Korda

is he allowed to use those players unless someone else challenges them? meaning you won't step in if someone is using players from the wrong decade?

and as far as challenges, am I only allowed to challenge SgtJohn, since I am playing him? because CEvertfan's list does affect my choices as well, since I was considering some of those names.

I wish we could just get clarification on which players are eligible for which decade, as you see there are already some problems arising with the game.

also are we stuck with the same 10 players throughout the event, or can we make changes round by round?

 

[chaognosis]

My understanding is that Noel's appeal for Rosewall does (or should) count as a challenge, since I had already posted my 1950s list, which includes Rosewall, before he made the appeal. So he was challenging my selection of Rosewall, even if he did not directly name me in the post... and, curiously, despite the fact that Tim had already revealed above that Rosewall's peak ELO in majors did, in fact, occur during the 1950s.

 

[noeledmonds]

My understanding is that Noel's appeal for Rosewall does (or should) count as a challenge, since I had already posted my 1950s list, which includes Rosewall, before he made the appeal. So he was challenging my selection of Rosewall, even if he did not directly name me in the post... and, curiously, despite the fact that Tim had already revealed above that Rosewall's peak ELO in majors did, in fact, occur during the 1950s.

I agree that my appeal was indeed a challange against you chaognosis. I accept the challange has failed and therefore I lose one of my three avaliable challanges. I was unaware when Rosewall's peak ELO rating in majors occured before my challange.

What is more confusing is that SgtJohn has named a team with 2 players I previously named in my team (Newcombe and Ashe) but claims not to be challanging anyone. It is not my responsibility to challange SgtJohn as my team selection was made first. I therefore suggest that should SgtJohn wish to continue with his conflicting team suggestions then he puts forward challagnes against me.