Questioning World Championship Format

Anyone else think it's strange they play for 4 days and a total of 448 matches just to reduce the field from 128 to 64, then play only 63 matches from that point to determine a winner?

I actually like the round robin phase. It allows all the players ample opportunity to adjust to the tables and conditions. We must assume the strength of the players in each bracket have been distributed and weighted equally - a very tough task indeed. Although the races to 5 are short, in 7 matches the deserving players should be able to finish in the top half of their bracket to advance.

My question - if they're going through all that trouble simply to reduce the field in half, why not then go in to a far more preferable (for the players) double elimination format at that point? Oh yeah, I forgot. TV considerations, sponsorship dollars, etc. compromise and destroy all integrity our pro tournaments will ever have. I know - hopefully this if for the future growth of our game, but it's just sad to see it comes at such a high price for the players.

It's kind of like a major golf tourney having 128 players playing a 72 hole qualifier to reduce the field to 64, then playing 9-hole single elimination shoot-out matches from that point on to determine a tournament winner. Great for TV viewers, but as for determining a true world champion - a joke if you ask me.

I do appreciate the effort of those involved to put in the time, effort and expense to hold such a quality tourney with decent prize money for the players, but I just wish that just one time somebody (other than Grady) would get it right! - Chris in NC

[Tom_In_Cincy]

Strange is putting it mildly.. in my opinion..
Although I do find it intersting that the field is seeded and not random draw for the brackets.

It all boils down to giving the best players the best chance to make it to the final round where the sponsers will get the biggest bang for their advertising dollars.

I just wish there were some cable companies here in the states that would pick it up and offer it as a ppv..

Tom, IMO the seeding of the players to go in different brackets for phase I is one of the few things they did get right. Without seeding the players and spreading out the best players among the brackets, you could potentially have more than 3-4 players in the same bracket - which would guarantee that all would not advance to the final 64.

Exactly how they justly determined the seeding of these players I'm guessing had to be largely a subjective decision on someone's part - based on past tournament performances and reputations. I don't have any problem with that nearly as much as I do their decision to go in to single elimination that early in the tournament. - Chris in NC

Hi Chris,
I agree with u.
Donot forget that irrationality is so pervasive that reasonable people are helpless.cheers
Vagabond

[jjinfla]

Without seeding you might end up with all the US players in one section. Then watch everyone cry. No matter what they do people will complain. At least in the US. Everyone over there seems to like it. All 2,000,000 of them. Jake