Mana Games

Also I wanna add that I think Togtdaylttai had some possibly really good ideas so I'm gonna think them out and see if they could work in some form or another. Meaning maybe having some sets wins could have slightly more meaning even if you have a losing h2h...I don't think it is at all crucial or an...

I just wanna give my last comment on this subject because I think I finally managed to put into words why I find this current scoring the best lol, even though this thread isn't very lively anymore... I think this system determinates who is a better player than who(in a month) the best because it do...

Just gonna post a new rule in this thread... From this month on, the points given for each winning head to head won't have a one point difference with each rank, such as 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 etc...but rather according to the amount of points each player gathered during the previous month. For example, n...

Some guidelines for result posting: When posting a result, please use only one name, and if you have a ranking(in the official ladder rankings, not race rankings), use the name you have in the ranking. Also put your ranking(official ladder ranking) and your opponents ranking after the names, like th...

S.Williamz(1) d. Ro.Federer(3) 6-1, 6-0, 6-3

S.Williamz(1) d. Togtdyalttai(9) 6-0

S.Williamz(1) d. Marat Safin(6) 6-1 6-0

Let's designate S. Williamz as #1 and Chiller as #2 again here. Say they play 15 times, S. Williamz wins 10 and Chiller wins 5. S. Williamz would get 55 points from the head to head margin. But he would also get 18 points from the sets won past the head to head. Chiller would get 20 points from the...

Swilliamz wrote: Umm, two players play against each other 30 times, other beats the other 20-10 in sets, he isn't clearly better? Makes sense to me. Ok so why do u wanna only count 10 sets per player than it shudnt be a confusion and who beats more times will clearly be ahead then or instead of tak...

All I can say is that I'm not going to change the scoring system until someone clearly tells me what is so much better in this new suggested system than in the current system? They are almost indentical, except they emhasize certain things a bit more than the other one. Such as playing tons of match...

Swilliamz wrote: But it's not fair, cuz the n.1 player is clearly better than the number 2, yet the number 2 player gets to be number 1, only because he won ten sets...that not something that is fair to me. :D well dont u think if the no 2 player beats no1 ten times then he is definatley good playe...

S.Williamz(1) d. Marat Safin(6) 6-0 7-5

Second set, really tough.

Togtdaylttai wrote:No one really payed attention to my compromise system it seems: Have the head to head margin count for like 2 or 3 times more than the other wins. You still get points for winning each set but the head to head is not meaningless.

I don't really understand what you mean...could you elaborate?

Also with the current system, there are no meaningless wins. Even though you beat the n.1, you might not get direct points for it, should the head to head be 5-1, but you are actually making the number 1 lose points.

Swilliamz wrote: "so I get 120 points while Chiller gets 110...and I go to number 1...doesn't seem quite fair to me. " ok u said if i was no.1 and u were no.2 ok and u get 120 and i get 110 an tat u wud be no.1 so i think its fair coz u wud then deserve being no.1 becoz u have just beaten...