One of the primary arguments that people make in support of voluntary consolation is that it prevents players from having to wait around a day (or more) before back draw play begins. That line of reasoning conveniently neglects to consider that a traditional voluntary consolation draw requires ALL the players to wait even longer than the worst case scenario from the traditional First Match Loser’s Consolation (FMLC) back draw. You cannot make a voluntary consolation draw without knowing the exact number of players that will elect to participate.
The “solution” to that problem is an accelerated “first off” consolation bracket. In that approach, the first two players to lose and elect voluntary consolation are paired off against each other, then the next two and so forth. However, that method is less than perfect because some players try to game the system by hanging out by the tournament desk to time their back draw declaration to align with a favorable matchup.
Additionally, when participation is low, voluntary consolation can result in lop sided brackets. If six players sign up and are immediately paired off, then the tournament is left with three winners. It is the logical equivalent of four players in one half of the back draw, and only two players in the other. In a points per round ranking system, this essentially robs one player of an opportunity to compete and potentially win an extra match.
I have previously outlined how points per round back draw ranking systems creates absolutely no incentive for players to remain in the consolation draw other than for match play. Additionally, I have also illustrated how voluntary consolation exacerbates the problem by reducing the number of matches available to competitors. That further limits the ranking points. Under this system it has become apparent that playing the back draw isn’t worth the time.
One solution to low participation in the back draw when numbers are low, is to eliminate the back draw all together. The obvious way to do that is to have a Round Robin in the “winner’s bracket.” According to the USTA Adult and Family Tournaments Ranking System, the single pool Round Robin format is acceptable for up to 5 competitors. In fact, the point tables are optimized for that number. Unfortunately, in reality, most tournament directors elect FMLC when there are 5 competitors.
The awkward participation level for a tournament is 6 or 7 players because it is really hard to have a meaningful back draw with those numbers. It is too many for a Round Robin, but not enough for a Feed In Consolation through the Quarters (FICQ) draw. Today I am sharing my solution for that mushy middle.
When there are 6 or 7 players entered in an event at a tournament, then the consolation bracket should be played as a full round robin.
The winner of a back draw Round Robin when the total number of players is 6 or 7, should receive 5th place ranking points. Additionally, the remaining players that win any matches in the back draw Round Robin should receive ranking points commensurate with their order of finish.
There are numerous things that I love about the Round Robin back draw. Players can be paired off immediately when they opt in to the format, since everybody has to play each other eventually. No one has to wait around for their first match. Additionally, for those players that value actual match play, that maximizes the opportunity to compete.
The challenge with this approach is that the number of competitors rapidly gets unwieldy. It is simply too many players to conduct a Round Robin if 8 or more enter. For any division with 8 or more players, I believe that Feed In Consolation through the Quarters (FICQ) should be the standard.
A full explanation of why I think FICQ is the solution, even for only 8 players…, is a post for another day. In fact, there is a delicious little reason why tournament directors should always select FICQ rather than FMLC when that is an option.
Does anyone else see the compelling reason I say that? There is a future post coming on that topic real soon now.
| # of Competitors | Front Draw Format | Back Draw Format |
| 1-5 | Round Robin | N/A |
| 6-7 | FMLC + 3rd/4th playoff | Round Robin for 5th-7th points. |
| 8+ | FICQ | FICQ |
- USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, as of February 2022, viewed April 29, 2022.
Teresa,
I love the idea of a consolation format which enables participants to get on the court for more matches as soon as possible, to be “paired off immediately”… without having to wait for either positions to be filled in a pre-defined (rigid) structure or for a Voluntary Consolation structure to be generated after all “volunteers” are determined. You note the challenge with Round Robin that “the number of competitors rapidly gets unwieldy”… but I see no reason why all possible pairings within a Round Robin need to be completed to determine a winner; the number of consolation rounds to be played can simply be capped. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament
I’ve mentioned “DrawMatic” in these comments before… It is a format that was created for level-based play where the number of participants in each round can vary. In essence DrawMatic generates pairings for each round where participants avoid previous opponents (and optionally team members). This means that given the same four participants in each round, generating three rounds is the equivalent of a Round Robin structure. With one additional parameter, a cap on the number of rounds a participant can play, DrawMatic could be used to generate your Consolation Pairings on an as-needed/ad-hoc basis, as participants become available. No need to be concerned with picking FMLC or FICQ based on the number of competitors and an assumption of how many of those may want to play the consolation.