Just to reply to some of Matthew's points.
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.
It would be fine to do that if you wanted yourself for fun. However I think the emphasis for winning should be placed primarily on each individual tournament instead of year rankings as this for me ruined the game before and made it far too long and too much commitment.
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.
I guess it would be down to demand, if emphasis is put on it being the winner of the tournaments and not the year as a whole then there is no reason somebody couldn't spring up a new thread for a masters or something if they wanted. It would be somewhat useful if the tournaments could somehow be separated or archived once they are completed so the forum isn't a complete mess with a mix of threads? That would be up to Mark though.
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.
If people should preferably do their own scoring as I suggested then the scoring really should be as simple as possible, you'd be surprised how easily people can get confused (no offence to anybody
). It would just make it quicker and easier for people to do the scoring and that has the greater benefit of making it more likely for people to join in; a benefit which I think outweighs the gains in perhaps more interesting scoring systems.
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.
To be honest people were somewhat picking the obvious scorelines before and using their banker on the most obvious results. There is a a downside to doing this however in that you will not separate yourself from the crowd, if a player decides to pick a less obvious match or scoreline it can work to their favour by gaining points on everybody else if they then get it correct.
I personally think before the matches were getting a bit boring because the same people kept coming up at the start of tournaments, the middle average player match-ups which a lot of people were not really bothered much about.