Ok maybe it's not wise for me to comment in RTR again but I will go against better judgement and make some suggestions lol. ok here it goes:
1) Do individual champions JUST for each tournament and not an overall year winner. This way nobody will need to keep track of scores and it will not matter if you miss a tournament in the year (as how it was missing a couple of tournaments could put you out of contention for winning in the year).
2) Consider perhaps ONLY doing grand-slam tournaments, this way you are only doing RTR 4 times a year and people won't get fatigued or bored with it.
3) Only award points for an exact match in sets and the winner (say 10 points). This will make scoring a lot easier.
4) Let people make a prediction about ANY 4 matches on the day. The thread starter can then simply copy/paste the list of every match into the post from a score site (like flashscore.com) or something. The list of matches for the next day is normally posted on those sites for the next day so the thread starter can post a thread the day before. This method has several benefits:
- Firstly it is much easier and quicker for a thread starter since they can simply copy and paste the list very quickly and do not need to make any decisions on which matches to pick. It might then be simple enough to allow anybody to start a match thread?
-Secondly it will make things more interesting as people can make predictions about different matches and the ones they are interested in.
- Thirdly, and I think this is a big benefit: If people come late to the thread and miss the start of some matches there will still be plenty of other matches they could choose to make predictions for which are on later in the day. Or again if somebody withdraws due to injury that match could be nullified and they could get the chance the make a prediction on another later match (the only caveat is if an injury occurs in the last match of the day?).
Of course when it gets the the SF and final you would only then do 2 and 1 matches . Maybe you could up the scores so a match is worth 15 for the SF and 20 for the final to make the end of the tournament a bit more exciting? It will still be easy to score.
5) Consider getting people to post their own scores in the match day thread, so they have to check themselves what they got right. This way the emphasis is purely on the players so it will be their own fault if they miss out their score, and it will be a heck of a lot less work for the organizers. I'm sure most people here are trustworthy enough to do their own scoring and if anybody is doing it wrong or cheating I'm sure someone will eventually realize. Or perhaps do a mixed system where people should be responsible for posting their own score in the match day thread but if somebody wanted they could voluntarily go through the thread and post everybody's scores as well.
Then really an organizer (or any member really) could add up a tally of the scores just at the end of the tournament or perhaps just before the final so people know what the scores are going into the final. If all the scores are posted in the threads it should take that long for somebody to go through the days and put them in an excel spreadsheet.
Ok first of all thanks for your post!
1. I agree with your 1st point and that we should have a champion for each tournament. But I think just for fun it will interesting to keep a ranking to see who performs best over a year- I will happily keep tally of the rankings as it will be no trouble.
2. I agree that too many tournaments will create fatigue among players. But I think that only having the 4 slams will not be enough as there will be long periods when people forget about the game and so it may be harder to get people back playing when the next slam comes around. Therefore I think playing Slams, WTF, Masters and maybe a couple of 500s will be sufficient- I will happily manage the majority of tournaments with a little bit of help for some of them.
3. Sometimes the amount of sets in a match can be very unpredictable and so I think the previous system of scoring 1 point for a winner and 3 for the correct amount of sets will work well, I do not think scoring that would be too difficult.
4. I would say that a max 8 matches could be put on any single day OOP. The problem with letting people score whatever match they liked would mean that everyone would pick the obvious match to predict- for example for today they would pick Federer in 3 and tomorrow Djokovic in 3. This would lose the difficulty and interest in trying to predict 50/50 match-ups. I think allowing people to predict matches up to the start of each match is a good idea and so the OOP should always have a few later matches in it so people will still see a point in posting their picks.
I think having extra points available for the later rounds would definitely create more excitement and is a very good idea.
5. That is a good idea and would make life much easier for a organiser, and maybe when they have some spare time they can check that everyone added up their scores right if they wanted to.