It is no secret that Feed in Consolation through the Quarterfinals (FICQ) is my favorite draw format. It is commonly used for Junior Sectional championship tournaments as well as Level 1 tournaments for both Junior and Adult competition. This “double elimination” format is the gold standard for tournament competition when the stakes are high.
In the FICQ variation, the feed in mechanism runs through the quarterfinals. The losers of the semifinals drop down into a 3rd-4th playoff match necessary for determining who receives the “bronze ball” at Level 1 tournaments. A player who loses in the first round of a FICQ tournament can still battle back to come in 5th. In fact I have pulled off that grueling feat myself in a Level 1 tournament.
FICQ is a great solution for solving the low participation rate in back draws of adult tournaments. In fact the draw format completely mitigates all the issues exacerbated by voluntary consolation described yesterday.
- Ranking Points. A player can lose in the first round and still come back to win 5th place points. In a Level 1 tournament fifth place is worth 1200 ranking points. If voluntary consolation was used in the same level tournament, each win in the points per round system is worth one tenth of that value. A player motivated by ranking points will stay in the tournament because there are still a lot of points that can be earned.
- Level of Competition. In a FICQ bracket, players that lose their main draw matches drop down into the back draw after every round. That means that the level of competition is not constrained by the pool of players that lost their first match. It will eventually include every player who does not reach the semifinals. That incentivizes players who want to play stronger competition as there will eventually be a chance in the back draw.
- Opportunity to Play Matches. There are nominally two rounds required in the back draw for every match played in the front draw. That means that players who drop into the back draw early will have significantly more opportunity to play matches than players who prevail in the front draw. Players who enter tournaments to actually play tennis matches will find a lot of that in the FICQ back draw.
- Cultural Acceptance. In recent years, FICQ hasn’t been immune to the excessive withdrawal issues experienced in other draw formats. I would argue that it is because the more commonly used FMLC format has a more profound impact on culture currently than FICQ. It is not as commonly used and many players don’t understand the format and ranking points implications. Culture change takes time.
The primary drawback to the FICQ draw format from a tournament organizer perspective is that it results in significantly more matches than FMLC. That can be an issue both from a tournament duration perspective and for court capacity. Under the current USTA tournament framework, FICQ would not be feasible in many situations including when division sizes are very large. Large draw sizes would be a good problem to have for many USTA divisions.
In my Section, Adult tournaments from Level 4 and down are scheduled as 3 day events. The USTA “Adult Tournament Ranked Events” summary page indicates that those tournaments can be up to 5 days in duration. That document is dated 2021, but still appears to be the current one in effect. Additionally, Table 9 in USTA Regulations II.D in the USTA Friend at Court limits Adult players to a maximum of three matches per day only two of which may be Singles. I plan on expanding the combined implications of those limitations next weekend.
For a 3 day FMLC tournament, the maximum draw size under USTA scheduling regulations is 64 players. That would potentially result in two matches each day for players who reached the finals of the front draw.
If you use two matches per day as the guideline of what is acceptable from a tournament scheduling perspective, then a FICQ draw that contains up to 16 players is completely feasible for a three day tournament. The players who finish 1-4 in the tournament will each play four matches.
A player who loses in the round of 16 (R16) and manages to advance all the way through the bracket to play in the 5th-6th match will play six matches. That is the maximum required for any player in the tournament.
Tournaments that provide more matches to the participants leads to higher engagement that encourages more tournament participation. Consequently, my personal advocacy for tournament formats is that each division should be structured to maximize the number of matches.
FICQ should be promoted as the preferred draw format for three day tournaments when there are up to 16 players. If there are 8 or fewer players, then the draw plays out almost equivalent to a FMLC with a couple of exceptions. However, even in that case the first round losers are playing for 5th place points rather than points per round consolation values. It is worth playing for.
At some point in the near future I will delve into the implications of scheduling longer tournament durations. There are some legitimate reasons why most tournaments should be capped at three days of participation.
In the interim, I will close by observing that if a tournament is scheduled for 4 days, then FICQ should be mandated for draws up to 32 players. A five day tournament can support FICQ for up to 64 competitors.
More tennis is always the answer.
- 2021 USTA Adult Tournaments Ranked Events, USTA Website, viewed May 13, 2022.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2022
