c4countdown

Would this be a good idea for a tournament.
32 players either draw lots to see who represents who (or base it on ratings)
Then they play in groups, the same as the 2010 World Cup. followed by the knock out etc.

Just an idea.

Sounds amusing, I'd play.

Yeah, this is a great idea. But bad timing to go against Feisty's tournaments I think, so unlikely to take off?

Played on a similar time frame as the real World Cup I presume? I'd like to see Kirk as North Korea annihilate all the others in the group of death.

Yeah, basing it on ratings seems like a good idea. I'd be up for it.

First 32 players to yes this thread (I guess we've got 4 already) take part.
Arrange players in order of ratings, top to bottom.
Match ratings-ordered players to the 32 teams taking part in World Cup by their FIFA rankings.
(Some lucky low-rated player will get South Africa who obviously have the most biased draw, being hosts they get seeded with the other Top 7 teams.)
From there it just follows the World Cup groupings and follows structure (and timings?) of tournament, shouldn't be too hard.

Group games will be allowed to be draws, right?

World Cup teams by FIFA rankings.

1. Brazil
2. Spain
3. Portugal
4. Netherlands
5. Italy
6. Germany
7. Argentina
8. England
9. France
13. Greece
14. USA
15. Serbia
16. Uruguay
17. Mexico
18. Chile
19. Cameroon
20. Australia
21. Nigeria
24. Switzerland
25. Slovenia
27. Côte d'Ivoire
30. Algeria
31. Paraguay
32. Ghana
34. Slovakia
36. Denmark
38. Honduras
45. Japan
47. Korea Republic
78. New Zealand
83. South Africa
105. Korea DPR

If Mark doesn't mind, I'm not at all busy so I'll help organise it.
Assumed that anyone who has replied to this thread so far is keen.

YES list:
1. Charlie Reams
2. Matt Morrison
3. Dinos Sfyris
4. Jon O'Neill
5. Michael Wallace
6. Karen Pearson
7. Heather Badcock
8. Ian Dent
9. James Robinson
10. Andy Wilson
11. James Doohan
12. Tom Rowell
13. Innis Carson
14. Ben Hunter
15. Kai Laddiman
16. Hugh Binnie
17. Eoin Monaghan
18. Edward McCullagh
19. Lloyd Pettet
20. Stuart Arnot
21. Niall Seymour
22. John Gillies
23. Kirk Bevins
24. Chris Philpot
25. Scott Gillies
26. Oliver Garner
27. Dan Seasmith
28. Ben Wilson
29. Phil Makepeace
30. Jim Bentley
31. Liam Tiernan
32. Ryan Taylor

Michael Wallace wrote:Group games will be allowed to be draws, right?

It should definitely be a possibility - I assume the only safe way to do this would be to take the score after 15 rounds to be the final score.
So although apterous will obviously have you finish the game, and one person win the tie-break conundrum, as far as the AWC is concerned this would be a draw.
Is this enough of a draw possibility? What else could make draws more likely, flat scoring?
What about maxes only (the 1 point per max type scoring) - that could produce more football-like results, does it favour top seeds too heavily?

I'll play. I'm guessing I'm going to end up being someone rubbish like Honduras!

Matt Morrison wrote:Is this enough of a draw possibility? What else could make draws more likely, flat scoring?

Maxes might be cool - since then the scores will be much closer to football scores, too.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Is this enough of a draw possibility? What else could make draws more likely, flat scoring?

Maxes might be cool - since then the scores will be much closer to football scores, too.

Synchropost xx

Matt Morrison wrote:If Mark doesn't mind, I'm not at all busy so I'll help organise it.
Assumed that anyone who has replied to this thread so far is keen.

YES list:
1. Marc Meakin
2. Charlie Reams
3. Matt Morrison
4. Dinos Sfyris
5. Jon O'Neill
6. Michael Wallace
7. Karen Pearson

Please do, as I am just an ideas man really.

Matt Morrison wrote:If Mark doesn't mind, I'm not at all busy so I'll help organise it.
Assumed that anyone who has replied to this thread so far is keen.

YES list:
1. Marc Meakin
2. Charlie Reams
3. Matt Morrison
4. Dinos Sfyris
5. Jon O'Neill
6. Michael Wallace
7. Karen Pearson

I am happy to relinquish my place for a more deserving player (ie someone with a higher rating)

I think maybe it would be a bit harsh to only allow the first 32 players to yes this thread to enter.
I personally would prefer the highest rated 32 players interested/comitted to be chosen.
Kirk (Brazil) v Craig Beevers (Holland) final would be awesome.

Marc Meakin wrote:I think maybe it would be a bit harsh to only allow the first 32 players to yes this thread to enter.
I personally would prefer the highest rated 32 players interested/comitted to be chosen.
Kirk (Brazil) v Craig Beevers (Holland) final would be awesome.

I think it's fairer to let the first entrants play. It's good to cater to all ratings, not just the top players who get plenty of attention anyway.

If you want to play Marc, you're playing. Let me know a yes/no otherwise I'll assume you're still keen.
And yeah, the whole point of a World Cup is a range of abilities. The only thing I'd like to sort is a slightly increased chance of some football-style upsets, at least once we're in the knockout stages.
Stepdown? Maxes? What will produce the best results? We need a format or scoring system that makes games closer without making them predictable. Any ideas Charlie?
Also, Beevers would never take part in a football-themed tournament unless he could be Liverpool.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Marc Meakin wrote:I think maybe it would be a bit harsh to only allow the first 32 players to yes this thread to enter.
I personally would prefer the highest rated 32 players interested/comitted to be chosen.
Kirk (Brazil) v Craig Beevers (Holland) final would be awesome.

I think it's fairer to let the first entrants play. It's good to cater to all ratings, not just the top players who get plenty of attention anyway.

Fairy nuff.
I will still sacrifice my place though, as I would rather spectate than compete.

Matt Morrison wrote:If you want to play Marc, you're playing. Let me know a yes/no otherwise I'll assume you're still keen.
And yeah, the whole point of a World Cup is a range of abilities. The only thing I'd like to sort is a slightly increased chance of some football-style upsets, at least once we're in the knockout stages.
Stepdown? Maxes? What will produce the best results? We need a format or scoring system that makes games closer without making them predictable. Any ideas Charlie?
Also, Beevers would never take part in a football-themed tournament unless he could be Liverpool.

See below (or is it above?)

Matt Morrison wrote:We need a format or scoring system that makes games closer without making them predictable. Any ideas Charlie?

Some weird format that the standard good players aren't so hot at maybe? The trouble is any volatility will work in both directions, so unless the volatility in scoring you introduce is down to luck, it's only going to help the better players. Max Omelette, anyone? (I need a emoticon here but can't find a suitable one)

Michael Wallace wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:We need a format or scoring system that makes games closer without making them predictable. Any ideas Charlie?

Some weird format that the standard good players aren't so hot at maybe? The trouble is any volatility will work in both directions, so unless the volatility in scoring you introduce is down to luck, it's only going to help the better players. Max Omelette, anyone? (I need a emoticon here but can't find a suitable one)

How about Max Unlimited? I'd be very happy with that!

Maybe have a coin toss before each match (in line with the football theme) and the winner chooses the format.

Short short games.

2 letters rounds
1 numbers
1 conundrum

I'm in btw

I'm in too.

I think we have to keep it Standard in terms of variant, otherwise it'll annoy/not interest people.
And besides, Standard is the only variant where the 32 players will end up having reasonably realistic comparable ratings, which we need to make sure the seeding them against the real life teams works out.

Think we can only really fiddle with scoring, and I'm most tempted at the moment by the Maxes only route, mainly because it will make scores more football-like and the stats will look cooler.

Michael or Charlie or anyone into statistics - with normal vs. flat vs. one-point-per-max scoring, which would you guess is most able to throw up an upset?

Ian Dent wrote:Short short games.

2 letters rounds
1 numbers
1 conundrum

I'm in btw

This is a really good idea. But for the sake of making the thing worthwhile playing, I think 9 rounders is a suitable medium.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:Short short games.

2 letters rounds
1 numbers
1 conundrum

I'm in btw

This is a really good idea. But for the sake of making the thing worthwhile playing, I think 9 rounders is a suitable medium.

Maybe Ian's idea could represent extra time for drawn games in the knock out rounds.
Not sure how you could simulate penalties though.

Matt Morrison wrote:Michael or Charlie or anyone into statistics - with normal vs. flat vs. one-point-per-max scoring, which would you guess is most able to throw up an upset?

Is flat scoring the one where you score even if your opponent has a longer word? If so that seems like the one that gives the mortals more of a chance (since at the very least you should be in touch come the conundrum). Whilst standard gives the chance of a bigger swing if you find a longer word, that works in both directions and I can't really see it giving more chance of an upset unless we use Ian's idea and have a much shorter game, in which case standard is probably the way to go if you want to avoid it always being down to the conundrum (as I presume would happen with flat).

To summarise - I'd say go standard format but a short game.

Edit: Loving how long that sentence ended up being - stream of consciousness ahoy.

Matt Morrison wrote:I think we have to keep it Standard in terms of variant, otherwise it'll annoy/not interest people.
And besides, Standard is the only variant where the 32 players will end up having reasonably realistic comparable ratings, which we need to make sure the seeding them against the real life teams works out.

Think we can only really fiddle with scoring, and I'm most tempted at the moment by the Maxes only route, mainly because it will make scores more football-like and the stats will look cooler.

Michael or Charlie or anyone into statistics - with normal vs. flat vs. one-point-per-max scoring, which would you guess is most able to throw up an upset?

Surely flat. If you have a word disallowed you get properly nailed, which creates a lot of volatility.

Charlie Reams wrote:Surely flat. If you have a word disallowed you get properly nailed, which creates a lot of volatility.

Aren't better players going to be far less likely to declare an invalid word though?

Yeah I'm very slightly swinging towards Flat, even though I'm king of made-up nonsense words, just because it keeps things close to the end.

Also, for the record, one-point-per-max was a stupid idea - what I was kind of thinking was Winners only - i.e. 1 point to the winner(s) of the round, regardless of maximumness.

I'd love to enter!

Andy Wilson wrote:I'd love to enter!

Enough about your sex life Andy! Nice to see someone representing Ireland... I hope you get to do a grudge all over whoever represents France. You're in.

It's such a bummer we didn't get there. The whole country would be buzzing this week if we'd qualified

Will the trophy be called 'The Charles Reamay'

Me too please

Marc Meakin wrote:Will the trophy be called 'The Charles Reamay'

That's pretty funny.

Andy Wilson wrote:It's such a bummer we didn't get there. The whole country would be buzzing this week if we'd qualified

Will have to make do with memories of 2002

im in please

Me as well please.

I'll take apterous ratings as soon as the 32nd player yesses it up, then start a new thread with the details of the teams, groups, and timings.

I may or may not also have a visual treat in store.

i'm all in.

YESSIR

This sounds like a larf. (In please!)

Oh go on then.

(As long as I isn't France.)

Put me in please!

in please

Yes please.

With 3 other Irishmen already entered, I still get to cheer for Ireland in the world cup! Yay!

Yes please.

Put me in please. At least someone from Scotland will be involved in the World Cup.

I'm up for taking part if any spaces remain.

John Gillies wrote:Put me in please. At least someone from Scotland will be involved in the World Cup.

Don't come home too soon!

I'm in, please.

I'll admit I've put Kirk in without his express asking - it is his birthday so he won't see this thread. Think of it as a birthday present.
That's my only frivolence, am respecting first-come-first-served for everyone else.

Yes please!

Dan Seasmith wants in.

Charlie Reams wrote:Dan Seasmith wants in.

Has he not got forum? I was only going to mention on apterous if we were desperate for entrants, as I have seen how hard it is to organise games with people who aren't forum-keen.