Groups or knocks outs in Qualification rounds?

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,171
6,121
15,044
Read 3 reviews
Do you guys prefer Groups or Knock outs in the qualifications stages?

The current WTT has a few changes, like Knockouts in the Qualifications.
So it is all based on the luck of draw. IE, 2 strong players can draw together, while somewhere else in the draw, 2 weaker players can draw together (we have seen this in the WTTC too, where 200 plays against 100, while 100 plays against a top 10 in the same round)

You spend hundreds of dollars for entry fee, or thousands of dollars for hotel and entry fees. And another thousands of dollars to get there and back, and you play 1 match and you go home because you had an unlucky draw?

I would also like to see MA (member association) players protected from each other so early on.
I mean, you spend thousands of dollar to fly around the world to play an international, but you end up playing a domestic opponent and one of you need to go home. This has happened so many times.

The alternative is having a group stage of say 3 or 4 players and 2 players proceed.
This way, this takes out the importance/unfairness of a good or bad draw and provides more game time for your bucks.

What do you guys think?

What I do know from my side is that so many pro players are a bit irratated on the 1 match or 2 match and go home, because they are lower rank (not necessary lower level) and will take a long time (ie 1 to 2 years) to catch up with seeded players, because they are not allowed to play the events with the highest points. So they start in qualification and pray for a good draw. They only have 6 to 10 events a year and when 3 to 5 of them goes like that, it becomes very costly and useless in terms of "point gain"
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Apr 2023
1,329
1,112
4,287
Do you guys prefer Groups or Knock outs in the qualifications stages?

The current WTT has a few changes, like Knockouts in the Qualifications.
So it is all based on the luck of draw. IE, 2 strong players can draw together, while somewhere else in the draw, 2 weaker players can draw together (we have seen this in the WTTC too, where 200 plays against 100, while 100 plays against a top 10 in the same round)

You spend hundreds of dollars for entry fee, or thousands of dollars for hotel and entry fees. And another thousands of dollars to get there and back, and you play 1 match and you go home because you had an unlucky draw?

I would also like to see MA (member association) players protected from each other so early on.
I mean, you spend thousands of dollar to fly around the world to play an international, but you end up playing a domestic opponent and one of you need to go home. This has happened so many times.

The alternative is having a group stage of say 3 or 4 players and 2 players proceed.
This way, this takes out the importance/unfairness of a good or bad draw and provides more game time for your bucks.

What do you guys think?

What I do know from my side is that so many pro players are a bit irratated on the 1 match or 2 match and go home, because they are lower rank (not necessary lower level) and will take a long time (ie 1 to 2 years) to catch up with seeded players, because they are not allowed to play the events with the highest points. So they start in qualification and pray for a good draw. They only have 6 to 10 events a year and when 3 to 5 of them goes like that, it becomes very costly and useless in terms of "point gain"
Prefer groups.

prefer the same players from the same association not put in the same part of the bracket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blahness
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
May 2023
125
125
470
Groups or double elimination (although DE might get weird) for singles would be way more interesting. A WTT Contender event is 32 people, Star Contender 48, then majors 64+.

Based on World Ranking, set your groups of 4, so that's 8, 12, 16+ pools, with 6 matches in each group and top 2 going into the knockouts. Scheduling may be the only challenge given venue rental, staffing, broadcasting, and handling scheduling for doubles/mixed doubles, but competitively, it'd be a total dream to see so many matchups each tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony's Table Tennis
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Sep 2013
7,171
6,121
15,044
Read 3 reviews
Groups or double elimination (although DE might get weird) for singles would be way more interesting. A WTT Contender event is 32 people, Star Contender 48, then majors 64+.

Based on World Ranking, set your groups of 4, so that's 8, 12, 16+ pools, with 6 matches in each group and top 2 going into the knockouts. Scheduling may be the only challenge given venue rental, staffing, broadcasting, and handling scheduling for doubles/mixed doubles, but competitively, it'd be a total dream to see so many matchups each tournament.

You are right about scheduling
The new WTT is basically very little tables (half or more than half) compared to yester years.
hence less matches too.

DE is actually an interesting one, since many countries does use DE in important features too (its not always KO)
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
May 2023
125
125
470
You are right about scheduling
The new WTT is basically very little tables (half or more than half) compared to yester years.
hence less matches too.

DE is actually an interesting one, since many countries does use DE in important features too (its not always KO)
It seems like some logistics can be fixed and adjusted. I'd be interested in learning more about the backend side and how they reach a lot of their decisions. I like that we have a lot of streams to watch now, so it seems like groups could streamline where each stream can take place.

DE would be cool and would add to some tension to the events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony's Table Tennis
Top