|
On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format.
Yes! This is exactly what I think of the format too! I've never really seen a game decided by such a strange tie-breaker.
|
at least now we might see savior vs FBH!
|
Guys, they don't do this "super ace match" because it's more/less fair. They do it because it's more exciting to the fans: one game to decide all! I'm sure Jangbi got a lot of new fans after this. And that's how it works. This final game really tests which team has the players that can win when it matters. The stats don't favor KHAN, but they do have better players.
"Good players and team chemistry can win you games, but you need great players to win you championships."
- Jimmy Johnson, former coach of the Dallas Cowboys, Super Bowl champion
|
Have you ppl seen Miracle? Hes RIPED under that uniform.
July's blubber and reach's flamboyance ain't got sht on Miracle XD
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
On July 19 2009 16:47 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:42 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:24 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:23 faseman wrote:
It's not so much blaming it as much as it's confusing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. STX wins more games overall but it all came down to one ace match? Just not a fan really. I've never really seen such a strange format. Have you ever watched tennis? A basketball playoff series? A team needs to win what matters, not useless numbers... Neither of these are good examples. In a tennis grand slam final, the winner of the last set is determined by a tie-breaker that has a minimum of 7 points, not 4. It's like playing a mini-set... longer than 1 game, but much shorter than an entire set. And of course in some slam finals (as we all saw this year in the Wimbledon) you don't even get a tie-breaker in the last set.
Basketball's playoffs are no better. Sure you can win 3 blow-out games and lose 3 nail-biters, but still the last match is played. They don't have some gay "ok lets determine this with a short over-time match to decide the winner" no they go into a 7th game.But here it seems like all all day STX was playing their hearts out to win, yet KHAN just wins 1 match to win it all. Of course playing a 3rd series would be crazy... but honestly I think they should have added more than putting everything both teams worked so hard for into 1 game. So what do I think? A bo5 in winner's league format, winner takes all. Would be FUCKING EPIC. See, you just proved why it makes sense  In basketball if the series is tied 3-3 you play another game because there really is no other way to settle it. It's a team based game where there isn't any individual aspect short of Free Throws that would make any possible sense to determine a tie-breaker. Likewise, in SC PL matches when there is a tie-breaker during for the Bo5 what do they do? Ace Match. So how is having an Ace match for 2 sets - which was already played in NORMAL PL fashion unfair? It's the same format as always so how does it not make sense.
You can't compare a 4-hour long basket ball game to a 30 minute-avg game as the deciding match of the winning team.
What if the NBA decided the winning team in a series tied at 3-3 by a free-throw contest? Or a 10 minute over-time game? That's about the same equivalent to PL.
|
United States12607 Posts
Listen to OneOther. Arguments against "fairness" of an arbitrary match scheme are just stupid. This is the PL playoff format. Both teams knew what the format was upon entering the playoffs, and one emerged victorious.
Arguing that this format is somehow "unfair" because it places the playoff fate of a team on the result of one game is obviously silly, but it's just as wrong to say that, because STX won more games, they were robbed. Some games matter more than others — this is a fact in any match format.
|
On July 19 2009 16:54 .risingdragoon wrote:
Have you ppl seen Miracle? Hes RIPED under that uniform.
July's blubber and reach's flamboyance ain't got sht on Miracle XD
TT is ripped
|
On July 19 2009 16:54 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:47 Ace wrote:On July 19 2009 16:42 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:24 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:23 faseman wrote:
It's not so much blaming it as much as it's confusing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. STX wins more games overall but it all came down to one ace match? Just not a fan really. I've never really seen such a strange format. Have you ever watched tennis? A basketball playoff series? A team needs to win what matters, not useless numbers... Neither of these are good examples. In a tennis grand slam final, the winner of the last set is determined by a tie-breaker that has a minimum of 7 points, not 4. It's like playing a mini-set... longer than 1 game, but much shorter than an entire set. And of course in some slam finals (as we all saw this year in the Wimbledon) you don't even get a tie-breaker in the last set.
Basketball's playoffs are no better. Sure you can win 3 blow-out games and lose 3 nail-biters, but still the last match is played. They don't have some gay "ok lets determine this with a short over-time match to decide the winner" no they go into a 7th game.But here it seems like all all day STX was playing their hearts out to win, yet KHAN just wins 1 match to win it all. Of course playing a 3rd series would be crazy... but honestly I think they should have added more than putting everything both teams worked so hard for into 1 game. So what do I think? A bo5 in winner's league format, winner takes all. Would be FUCKING EPIC. See, you just proved why it makes sense In basketball if the series is tied 3-3 you play another game because there really is no other way to settle it. It's a team based game where there isn't any individual aspect short of Free Throws that would make any possible sense to determine a tie-breaker. Likewise, in SC PL matches when there is a tie-breaker during for the Bo5 what do they do? Ace Match. So how is having an Ace match for 2 sets - which was already played in NORMAL PL fashion unfair? It's the same format as always so how does it not make sense. You can't compare a 4-hour long basket ball game to a 30 minute-avg game as the deciding match of the winning team. What if the NBA decided the winning team in a series tied at 3-3 by a free-throw contest? Or a 10 minute over-time game? That's about the same equivalent to PL.
You heard of OVERTIME? 5 min to decide everything.
|
10387 Posts
seems like Samsung is full of ripped people
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
On July 19 2009 16:50 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format. Nope. I wouldn't feel robbed if I knew that's what I had to do to win. If the third set is decided by one game, so be it. Why is that unfair? Why would I feel robbed? I would be the one who didn't carry over the momentum and choke the most important game away. My opponent and I were on perfectly even ground. Whoever loses does so in a completely fair way.
I STRONGLY doubt you'd feel that way if that happened to you. Especially in a tennis match where the servers has a HUGE advantage over the receiver.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 19 2009 16:54 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:47 Ace wrote:On July 19 2009 16:42 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:24 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:23 faseman wrote:
It's not so much blaming it as much as it's confusing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. STX wins more games overall but it all came down to one ace match? Just not a fan really. I've never really seen such a strange format. Have you ever watched tennis? A basketball playoff series? A team needs to win what matters, not useless numbers... Neither of these are good examples. In a tennis grand slam final, the winner of the last set is determined by a tie-breaker that has a minimum of 7 points, not 4. It's like playing a mini-set... longer than 1 game, but much shorter than an entire set. And of course in some slam finals (as we all saw this year in the Wimbledon) you don't even get a tie-breaker in the last set.
Basketball's playoffs are no better. Sure you can win 3 blow-out games and lose 3 nail-biters, but still the last match is played. They don't have some gay "ok lets determine this with a short over-time match to decide the winner" no they go into a 7th game.But here it seems like all all day STX was playing their hearts out to win, yet KHAN just wins 1 match to win it all. Of course playing a 3rd series would be crazy... but honestly I think they should have added more than putting everything both teams worked so hard for into 1 game. So what do I think? A bo5 in winner's league format, winner takes all. Would be FUCKING EPIC. See, you just proved why it makes sense In basketball if the series is tied 3-3 you play another game because there really is no other way to settle it. It's a team based game where there isn't any individual aspect short of Free Throws that would make any possible sense to determine a tie-breaker. Likewise, in SC PL matches when there is a tie-breaker during for the Bo5 what do they do? Ace Match. So how is having an Ace match for 2 sets - which was already played in NORMAL PL fashion unfair? It's the same format as always so how does it not make sense. You can't compare a 4-hour long basket ball game to a 30 minute-avg game as the deciding match of the winning team. What if the NBA decided the winning team in a series tied at 3-3 by a free-throw contest? Or a 10 minute over-time game? That's about the same equivalent to PL.
Uhh...not really. The NBA equivalent to this playoff format would be to play two Bo7 matches and, if the teams split, one game to decide who advances to the next round.
|
On July 19 2009 16:50 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format. Nope. I wouldn't feel robbed if I knew that's what I had to do to win. If the third set is decided by one game, so be it. Why is that unfair? Why would I feel robbed? I would be the one who didn't carry over the momentum and choke the most important game away. My opponent and I were on perfectly even ground. Whoever loses does so in a completely fair way.
You could also argue it favors the weaker player/team. For example, I hate playing poker with certian relative or friends because they increase the blinds so quickly. I play the game fairly seriously and would win much more often if they stayed lower. I think I have a legitimate complaint about the format.
Let me just say that I don't think Khan is a "weak" team. I like Khan, but statistically, STX was favored to win. It's natural that we're not going to like this sort of format.
|
On July 19 2009 16:50 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format. Nope. I wouldn't feel robbed if I knew that's what I had to do to win. If the third set is decided by one game, so be it. Why is that unfair? Why would I feel robbed? I would be the one who didn't carry over the momentum and choke the most important game away. My opponent and I were on perfectly even ground. Whoever loses does so in a completely fair way.
knowing that u fought for 3 hours lets say, just to lose in the last 5 mins, thats quite depressing.
u cant deny that if u would put so much effort into something, and then just lose everything in few mins, that would be depressing.
ya it happens all the time, eventually u will get over it, but it takes time.
just like in football (soccer), fans whine all the time, but after some days (ok not always), they get over it.
its actually pretty much like this for all the sports.
u cant deny that sometimes the worse team wins (im not talking about sc now), look at euro 2004 for a good example.
khan won, stx lost and im just depressed about it as probably all the stx fans (thats why we whine).
overall, i have to admit that the matches were fun to watch and i was entertained which is obviously the point of such things.
id say lets stop all this nonsense discussion, and hope for more good games.
|
On July 19 2009 16:48 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
2 bo7s, if tied, decide by arm wrestle
that's most fair I think
in which case jangbi wins :D
okay enough fooking around, it's DONE. STX even got a good draw in final bo1 and STILL lost. Time to shut up and live it doooown. ACE would rape the playoffs if it was like that
ACE wouldn't make it to the ace match though.
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 19 2009 16:57 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:50 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format. Nope. I wouldn't feel robbed if I knew that's what I had to do to win. If the third set is decided by one game, so be it. Why is that unfair? Why would I feel robbed? I would be the one who didn't carry over the momentum and choke the most important game away. My opponent and I were on perfectly even ground. Whoever loses does so in a completely fair way. I STRONGLY doubt you'd feel that way if that happened to you. Especially in a tennis match where the servers has a HUGE advantage over the receiver.
Dude, you can't fall back on an element of tennis that is not present in StarCraft to prop up your argument.
|
Baltimore, USA22250 Posts
Alright guys, I think most of us should be dropping this and heading to bed now...
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 19 2009 17:00 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Alright guys, I think most of us should be dropping this and heading to bed now...
Nighty night, ETT! ^^
|
Baltimore, USA22250 Posts
|
United States10774 Posts
On July 19 2009 16:57 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 16:50 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:48 Live2Win wrote:On July 19 2009 16:37 OneOther wrote:On July 19 2009 16:32 Presony-Boy wrote:
it just nice how all the khan fans make it sound like this format is perfect.
if jangbi wouldve lost, then khan fans wouldve whined about the format.
so seriously just let us the stx fans whine for a while till we all get over it, u dont even have to respond (talking to all the non-stx fans). Honestly, I think the format is completely fair. Maybe it's because I play tennis. In tennis, SETS matter, not GAMES. It doesn't matter if you win lose a 5-7 and win the other 7-6, the score is 1-1. Both teams knew that MATCHES mattered, not games. The individual game count simply does not matter. They prepared and set their lineup while keeping that in mind. What if tennis format was like this, after 2 sets if it is tied, the winner is determined by 1 game. So you lose the first sets 6-7(6), then win 6-0. Then you lose the next game. Wouldn't you feel robbed? Wouldn't you have preferred a full set, or even a shortened version of it instead of playing 1 lousy game? Even a tie-breaker would be better, or a 4-wins to a set match. This is how i feel is similar to this format. Nope. I wouldn't feel robbed if I knew that's what I had to do to win. If the third set is decided by one game, so be it. Why is that unfair? Why would I feel robbed? I would be the one who didn't carry over the momentum and choke the most important game away. My opponent and I were on perfectly even ground. Whoever loses does so in a completely fair way. I STRONGLY doubt you'd feel that way if that happened to you. Especially in a tennis match where the servers has a HUGE advantage over the receiver.
And this is relevant because Jangbi got to hit that huge 125 mph slice serve down the middle, right?
Jokes aside, I assumed that where would be a fair method to make serving/receiving fair for both players in the last game. That is obviously a must, and something that is not a problem in StarCraft. It would be fair and I wouldn't complain.
|
yeah khan won fair and square
it just sucks though 
can't wait for next season of PL lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
