|
On March 13 2015 05:38 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:35 pure.Wasted wrote:On March 13 2015 05:10 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:05 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 04:26 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 pure.Wasted wrote:
In g5, Life takes a huge engagement at his fourth. At the start of this engagement, Inno is maxed and banking over 1k minerals. Cut to the end of the fight, he's still sitting at 1k minerals and he's down like 30 supply despite the fight looking more or less even. If it were any other player, I'd just assume they failed to macro and be satisfied with that, but this is Innovation, forgetting to build Marines while he's attacking with Marines isn't really a thing that happens to him.
Kaelaris even pointed this out after the fight was over and he looked at the supply and he was like "I'll have to rewatch that game, something weird happened."
If anyone's figured it out or rewatches the series and has a theory, please reply here or PM me, I'm super curious. I rewatched the vod, he never stopped building marines during the fight, I would assume Life managed to resupply faster with a lot of larva but I'm not sure. Inno did not have all his reinforcements aggressively rallied so he lost at the fourth. Then he lost his Natural, but what the commentators didn't notice is that Life got supply blocked (I believe Inno took out three to four Overlords in the middle of the map while retreating) and this allowed Inno to catch up in supply. True enough, but after the first big fight, he was down 30 supply despite constant reproduction in a fight that looked like an even trade. Inno's supply constantly trended downwards while Life's was more stable I guess because of impeccable Inject timings? So what, Inno didn't have enough Barracks? It's undeniable that he was floating over 900 minerals for a while during that engagement, so he might have been building units the whole time but maybe his infrastructure wasn't set up or something? I've never seen the guy float that much cash and it really puzzled me, especially because his supply was plummeting. He was building like 12 to 14 marines and 2-3 marauders at a time as well as 3 mines, production was pretty much fine.
dont forget 2 medivacs. This is fine if you can produce ~30supply all 35sec? Exactly this is the reason I dont play ZvT. Terran's supply production machine is way too powerful for me.
Baneling cant deal with such endless waves, because it takes way too much time, 44sec.
|
On March 13 2015 06:05 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point. The point is that you have no point. Sure, if we only look at the system (here: an IEM winner plays vs someone who qualified online) it might seem ok. But if you take a moment and think about it for 5 minutes and you realize that you have two of the best players play in the first round and Life as IEM winner getting fucked by that (lol at that "fair seeding"). It is the IEM championship and i get that they wanna have winners and runner ups there, but why did they choose to have qualifiers at all then? Cause they obviously know that tournaments held months in the past maybe aren't the best indicator of current skill (and thus it is better to have at least 8 "hot players" there now, which in itself isn't really guaranteed due to online randomness) So why don't they have IEM points you get for placing high at every IEM tournament? You still can get all the winners and runner ups cause it kinda makes sense to do so, but then you could seed by using IEM points. I think that would be more logical if you use the excuse of it being the IEM championship. If you don't do that and you hold qualifiers cause you apparently wanna have the best current players there (as well?) why not seed by current skill? Sry but this whole system isn't cohesive and certainly not fair one way or another. Also you arguing with Innovation instead of Life makes little sense considering what happened today, even though it still is the same concept. Because "current skill" isn't a measurable variable. The second you start trying, you will fuck over players. Did you regard Life as the best player in the world coming into Blizzcon? You probably didn't. And yet he showed up there and he was. I'm arguing about Innovation because his seeding is the only one in question here. Life was always going to be seeded into either the first or last slot of one bracket. This was decided through a draw, so that all IEM champions are equal. That's a good thing (again, because "tournament difficulty" can't be measured). Innovation then was treated the same as all the other players that qualified through the online qualifiers, except Dark and Cure. Again, good thing, qualifier difficulty can't be measured, etc. This system is absolutely fair towards players. Innovation could have drawn anybody else as well and they'd have been punished by that draw, simply because he's good. You can't arbitrarily decide who's fine to have Innovation play against. That isn't fair.
The bracket location was done properly for IEM winners and runners up. The only thing that I'm questioning at this point (because people still love randomness and claim anything other than randomness is "rigging") is that champions had absolutely no advantage whatsoever over runners up. Too bad Life didn't throw the last game against Maru huh? Coulda had a shot at 75k
|
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 06:12 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 06:05 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point. The point is that you have no point. Sure, if we only look at the system (here: an IEM winner plays vs someone who qualified online) it might seem ok. But if you take a moment and think about it for 5 minutes and you realize that you have two of the best players play in the first round and Life as IEM winner getting fucked by that (lol at that "fair seeding"). It is the IEM championship and i get that they wanna have winners and runner ups there, but why did they choose to have qualifiers at all then? Cause they obviously know that tournaments held months in the past maybe aren't the best indicator of current skill (and thus it is better to have at least 8 "hot players" there now, which in itself isn't really guaranteed due to online randomness) So why don't they have IEM points you get for placing high at every IEM tournament? You still can get all the winners and runner ups cause it kinda makes sense to do so, but then you could seed by using IEM points. I think that would be more logical if you use the excuse of it being the IEM championship. If you don't do that and you hold qualifiers cause you apparently wanna have the best current players there (as well?) why not seed by current skill? Sry but this whole system isn't cohesive and certainly not fair one way or another. Also you arguing with Innovation instead of Life makes little sense considering what happened today, even though it still is the same concept. Because "current skill" isn't a measurable variable. The second you start trying, you will fuck over players. Did you regard Life as the best player in the world coming into Blizzcon? You probably didn't. And yet he showed up there and he was. I'm arguing about Innovation because his seeding is the only one in question here. Life was always going to be seeded into either the first or last slot of one bracket. This was decided through a draw, so that all IEM champions are equal. That's a good thing (again, because "tournament difficulty" can't be measured). Innovation then was treated the same as all the other players that qualified through the online qualifiers, except Dark and Cure. Again, good thing, qualifier difficulty can't be measured, etc. This system is absolutely fair towards players. Innovation could have drawn anybody else as well and they'd have been punished by that draw, simply because he's good. You can't arbitrarily decide who's fine to have Innovation play against. That isn't fair. The bracket location was done properly for IEM winners and runners up. The only thing that I'm questioning at this point (because people still love randomness and claim anything other than randomness is "rigging") is that champions had absolutely no advantage whatsoever over runners up. Too bad Life didn't throw the last game against Maru huh? Coulda had a shot at 75k
They had a better bracket slot that guaranteed that they wouldn't face an IEM champion until at least the semifinals. Considering that it's the IEM circuit, those are the people considered the strongest within the system. Once again you can't measure skill. You can however differentiate champions from non-champions.
You could also do this with IEM points, but that really wouldn't change the situation with online qualified players at all. A strong player in Innovation qualified, was considered equal to the other online qualified players (which is good, because he's done exactly the same as them to qualify) and got one of the already seeded players drew him from the online-people-pool. Turned out to be Life. Anyone else could have drawn him as well. Just because Innovation is a scary fucking player doesn't mean he should be treated differently.
|
Nah the more i think about it the more i dislike the system.
As i said before, if you say this is the IEM WC and thus the winners and runner ups qualify for it, WHY don't you fill the other spots with the best players of the 4 IEM tournaments? (decided by a point system, you even could use wcs points earned at those tourneys)
So these players who did well months ago now get the best seeds and have to play vs players who qualified recently through stacked brackets (and thus you could consider them the "hot players" atm).
Out of 4 matches, 3 lower seeds actually won so far. This isn't necessarily a problem, but imo it shows that the whole system was bad.
For anyone reading this and thinking "damn why can't you just be happy about a great tournament", well i am still excited and i am sure a great player wins in the end, but i generally think that seeding should be done in sc2 tournaments, kinda like in tennis 
|
Not bad, I'm only 1 series/2 maps off so far
|
On March 13 2015 06:19 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 06:12 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 06:05 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point. The point is that you have no point. Sure, if we only look at the system (here: an IEM winner plays vs someone who qualified online) it might seem ok. But if you take a moment and think about it for 5 minutes and you realize that you have two of the best players play in the first round and Life as IEM winner getting fucked by that (lol at that "fair seeding"). It is the IEM championship and i get that they wanna have winners and runner ups there, but why did they choose to have qualifiers at all then? Cause they obviously know that tournaments held months in the past maybe aren't the best indicator of current skill (and thus it is better to have at least 8 "hot players" there now, which in itself isn't really guaranteed due to online randomness) So why don't they have IEM points you get for placing high at every IEM tournament? You still can get all the winners and runner ups cause it kinda makes sense to do so, but then you could seed by using IEM points. I think that would be more logical if you use the excuse of it being the IEM championship. If you don't do that and you hold qualifiers cause you apparently wanna have the best current players there (as well?) why not seed by current skill? Sry but this whole system isn't cohesive and certainly not fair one way or another. Also you arguing with Innovation instead of Life makes little sense considering what happened today, even though it still is the same concept. Because "current skill" isn't a measurable variable. The second you start trying, you will fuck over players. Did you regard Life as the best player in the world coming into Blizzcon? You probably didn't. And yet he showed up there and he was. I'm arguing about Innovation because his seeding is the only one in question here. Life was always going to be seeded into either the first or last slot of one bracket. This was decided through a draw, so that all IEM champions are equal. That's a good thing (again, because "tournament difficulty" can't be measured). Innovation then was treated the same as all the other players that qualified through the online qualifiers, except Dark and Cure. Again, good thing, qualifier difficulty can't be measured, etc. This system is absolutely fair towards players. Innovation could have drawn anybody else as well and they'd have been punished by that draw, simply because he's good. You can't arbitrarily decide who's fine to have Innovation play against. That isn't fair. The bracket location was done properly for IEM winners and runners up. The only thing that I'm questioning at this point (because people still love randomness and claim anything other than randomness is "rigging") is that champions had absolutely no advantage whatsoever over runners up. Too bad Life didn't throw the last game against Maru huh? Coulda had a shot at 75k They had a better bracket slot that guaranteed that they wouldn't face an IEM champion until at least the semifinals. Considering that it's the IEM circuit, those are the people considered the strongest within the system. Once again you can't measure skill. You can however differentiate champions from non-champions. You could also do this with IEM points, but that really wouldn't change the situation with online qualified players at all. A strong player in Innovation qualified, was considered equal to the other online qualified players (which is good, because he's done exactly the same as them to qualify) and got one of the already seeded players drew him from the online-people-pool. Turned out to be Life. Anyone else could have drawn him as well. Just because Innovation is a scary fucking player doesn't mean he should be treated differently.
They used a similar seeding system for the LoL tournament, and the matches rate just as bad. The difference? They compensated for the horrible matches with a loser's bracket. The poor seeding system (or unfortunate draw from your perspective) combined with no loser's bracket is what fucks over the best players and is amateur hour coming from a huge organization and tournament
|
Luck has always been a part of any competitive game.
Some of the rock-paper-scissor build order shenanigans are just as brutal as seeding.
Single elimination tournaments are generally the norm. Even more forgiving formats which start in groups switch to single elimination for the ro16 or ro8. People only complain after a favorite loses.
|
damn it taeja 
|
On March 13 2015 06:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Nah the more i think about it the more i dislike the system. As i said before, if you say this is the IEM WC and thus the winners and runner ups qualify for it, WHY don't you fill the other spots with the best players of the 4 IEM tournaments? (decided by a point system, you even could use wcs points earned at those tourneys) So these players who did well months ago now get the best seeds and have to play vs players who qualified recently through stacked brackets (and thus you could consider them the "hot players" atm). Out of 4 matches, 3 lower seeds actually won so far. This isn't necessarily a problem, but imo it shows that the whole system was bad. For anyone reading this and thinking "damn why can't you just be happy about a great tournament", well i am still excited and i am sure a great player wins in the end, but i generally think that seeding should be done in sc2 tournaments, kinda like in tennis
This game is far more luck based than tennis. How do you seed a player who had a bad stretch but is regaining his form? How much do you weigh current games versus past games? Where are your date cutoffs? How much subjective decision making are you willing to bring into the process? Come on, show me a good, fool proof system.
|
I still don't get what are you guys proposing instead of the current seeding system 
I don't know about tennis but keep in mind we don't have a fair point system to use as reference (don't tell me you wanna seed based on WCS points because that's a joke).
And some people here saying Life shouldn't have got Inno because Inno is good? What do you want? IEM to make a vote on who is the stronger player according to fans and build a ranking based on that? you think that's fair?
|
I am just sad we don't get to see more Life games
|
On March 13 2015 07:10 Silvana wrote:I still don't get what are you guys proposing instead of the current seeding system I don't know about tennis but keep in mind we don't have a fair point system to use as reference (don't tell me you wanna seed based on WCS points because that's a joke). And some people here saying Life shouldn't have got Inno because Inno is good? What do you want? IEM to make a vote on who is the stronger player according to fans and build a ranking based on that? you think that's fair?
There are at least two alternatives (and probably more than that).
One, follow tennis and have a seeding committee that simply assigns seeds to the players, based on their knowledge of the game and the players. A committee can take into account factors that a formula can't.
Two, use the system from the upcoming WCS season and allow the top seeds to select their opponent. Those players better than anyone else will know who the strongest players are and would presumably not choose them as their first round opponents. Or if they did, that would create interesting drama all to its own, and a player that chose to do it would have no one to blame but themselves.
|
On March 13 2015 07:29 Melix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 07:10 Silvana wrote:I still don't get what are you guys proposing instead of the current seeding system I don't know about tennis but keep in mind we don't have a fair point system to use as reference (don't tell me you wanna seed based on WCS points because that's a joke). And some people here saying Life shouldn't have got Inno because Inno is good? What do you want? IEM to make a vote on who is the stronger player according to fans and build a ranking based on that? you think that's fair? There are at least two alternatives (and probably more than that). One, follow tennis and have a seeding committee that simply assigns seeds to the players, based on their knowledge of the game and the players. A committee can take into account factors that a formula can't. Two, use the system from the upcoming WCS season and allow the top seeds to select their opponent. Those players better than anyone else will know who the strongest players are and would presumably not choose them as their first round opponents. Or if they did, that would create interesting drama all to its own, and a player that chose to do it would have no one to blame but themselves.
One - Considering the Power rank is rather similar to this proposal, and the fact that literally no one ever seems to agree with it, makes me think that this isn't a good option either.
Two - I wouldn't mind this too much, but I always feel bad for the guy who gets chosen in that regard. The small room for randomization may screw over a great player, like it did Life in this case, but it also allows for other stars to shine for once.
Whenever any system provides an advantage for one person, it provides a disadvantage for another. Maybe a win for one of the (currently) lesser players will inspire them towards greatness in the future, which wouldn't have been possible had they faced Life and got crushed. Again, I would've loved to see more of both Innovation and Life at this tournament, but there was a 1/8th chance of this happening, and we had the bad luck that it indeed happened.
|
Damn...1/4 correct predictions.
So much for Rain winning IEM. Who cares tho? FANTASY!1
Taeja vs Dark wasn't quite as good as I'd of hoped and Taeja lost -. -
Can't believe Zest almost lost to Hydra.
Life vs Bogus is about as evenly matched as it gets.
|
On March 13 2015 07:48 Neemi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 07:29 Melix wrote:On March 13 2015 07:10 Silvana wrote:I still don't get what are you guys proposing instead of the current seeding system I don't know about tennis but keep in mind we don't have a fair point system to use as reference (don't tell me you wanna seed based on WCS points because that's a joke). And some people here saying Life shouldn't have got Inno because Inno is good? What do you want? IEM to make a vote on who is the stronger player according to fans and build a ranking based on that? you think that's fair? There are at least two alternatives (and probably more than that). One, follow tennis and have a seeding committee that simply assigns seeds to the players, based on their knowledge of the game and the players. A committee can take into account factors that a formula can't. Two, use the system from the upcoming WCS season and allow the top seeds to select their opponent. Those players better than anyone else will know who the strongest players are and would presumably not choose them as their first round opponents. Or if they did, that would create interesting drama all to its own, and a player that chose to do it would have no one to blame but themselves. One - Considering the Power rank is rather similar to this proposal, and the fact that literally no one ever seems to agree with it, makes me think that this isn't a good option either. Two - I wouldn't mind this too much, but I always feel bad for the guy who gets chosen in that regard. The small room for randomization may screw over a great player, like it did Life in this case, but it also allows for other stars to shine for once. Whenever any system provides an advantage for one person, it provides a disadvantage for another. Maybe a win for one of the (currently) lesser players will inspire them towards greatness in the future, which wouldn't have been possible had they faced Life and got crushed. Again, I would've loved to see more of both Innovation and Life at this tournament, but there was a 1/8th chance of this happening, and we had the bad luck that it indeed happened.
Or let the IEM winner/runner up do a selection show for Round of 16 match?
|
Damn only got predicted Inno right, surprised with Zest's and especially Fantasy's performance. How were the games, any noteworthy plays?
|
Bisutopia19365 Posts
Thanks for taking my side DarkLordOlli. I said my peace and won't defend my opinion. Everyone else can think what they want. I just feel sorry for the people who would rather bitch about the system then look at how enjoyable day 1 was and actually discuss potential matchups as the tournament moves forward. I am someone who believes in a positive atmosphere in competitive game and you guys are definitely dropping the ball these last few pages. Just accept that you view the system differently from DarkLordOlli and I and move on.
|
On March 13 2015 07:10 Silvana wrote:I still don't get what are you guys proposing instead of the current seeding system I don't know about tennis but keep in mind we don't have a fair point system to use as reference (don't tell me you wanna seed based on WCS points because that's a joke). And some people here saying Life shouldn't have got Inno because Inno is good? What do you want? IEM to make a vote on who is the stronger player according to fans and build a ranking based on that? you think that's fair?
Well yeah the problem is that we don't really have tournaments where every player participates. That's why the WCS ranking is bad too.
I just would like to have a system which is at least close to the tennis one, i don't wanna have Life vs Inno in the first round of a single elimination tournament. It would be way less of a "problem" if it would have been double elim, or some group stage.
But if you do single elim, it has to be some sort of seeding which is as close as possible to 16 vs 1, etc (and that in skill, elo?)
I mean we obviously can't be sure if these two would have made it past the ro16 if they didn't play vs each other, but i don't think anyone would disagree that Innovation shouldn't be a lower seed if we wanna rate the players here.
But yeah whatever, let's just hope we still get a good final  (and semis)
On March 13 2015 08:12 BisuDagger wrote:
Thanks for taking my side DarkLordOlli. I said my peace and won't defend my opinion. Everyone else can think what they want. I just feel sorry for the people who would rather bitch about the system then look at how enjoyable day 1 was and actually discuss potential matchups as the tournament moves forward. I am someone who believes in a positive atmosphere in competitive game and you guys are definitely dropping the ball these last few pages. Just accept that you view the system differently from DarkLordOlli and I and move on.
Well in the end you are right (about being positive about the tournament  )
I won't start bitching about it again tomorrow (at least not in the live report thread), but i think the general topic of discussion (seeds and how they should be handled) is an interesting one and maybe should be discussed elsewhere.
|
On March 13 2015 06:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Nah the more i think about it the more i dislike the system. As i said before, if you say this is the IEM WC and thus the winners and runner ups qualify for it, WHY don't you fill the other spots with the best players of the 4 IEM tournaments? (decided by a point system, you even could use wcs points earned at those tourneys) So these players who did well months ago now get the best seeds and have to play vs players who qualified recently through stacked brackets (and thus you could consider them the "hot players" atm). Out of 4 matches, 3 lower seeds actually won so far. This isn't necessarily a problem, but imo it shows that the whole system was bad. For anyone reading this and thinking "damn why can't you just be happy about a great tournament", well i am still excited and i am sure a great player wins in the end, but i generally think that seeding should be done in sc2 tournaments, kinda like in tennis
To be a WCS global event they have to have 8 spots available through qualifiers, it's in the rules set by Blizzard.
As far as tennis goes, I had a look at the Wimbledon draws from the last few years and it appears to be more random than the IEM system. Seeds 1 and 2 are put at opposite sides of the bracket, and can only meet in the final. After that the seeds are kind of "tiered" like in IEM and drawn randomly. 3 and 4 can only meet 1 or 2 in the semis, but it could be 1v3 or 1v4. That continues for seeds 5-8, 9-16 and 17-32. I believe all the grand slams work this way but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/A96Ee6Z.jpg)
