|
|
Post by floridaLOG on Mar 11, 2019 10:57:23 GMT -5
Can someone lay out the qualifying process. I’m trying to follow why it “isn’t worth it” for some teams to play. I just I guess don’t understand why winning a three star and playing some top competition would hurt teams like 2A and 2S
|
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Mar 11, 2019 11:35:57 GMT -5
Based on the star system:
3* Events Points Value:
1st - 600 points
2nd - 540 points
3rd - 480 points
4th - 420 points
5th - 360 points
4* Events Points Value:
1st - 800 points
2nd - 720 points
3rd - 640 points
4th - 560 points
5th - 480 points
5* Events Points Value:
1st - 1200 points
2nd - 1080 points
3rd - 960 points
4th - 840 points
5th - 720 points
The best 8 placements in the last 365 days count for the World Rankings. This means the top teams can risk losing their placement. For example, they can lose in the quarterfinals of a 4* and pick up 480 points. But for a 3* event, they’ll need to place at least 3rd place to pick up 480 points.
It’s still early in the race to qualifying for the Olympics so I don’t think it’s worth it to risk the points.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 11, 2019 11:59:29 GMT -5
I thought it’s the top 12 placements. I know you need a minimum of 12 events played.
The only thing you really risk by playing is seeding points, which means a poor finish might knock you back into the qualifiers or country quotas for the next event. But I would argue it’s worth the risk because every event you play gives you another opportunity to improve on your best 12, especially so early in the qualification period.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamz on Mar 11, 2019 12:01:45 GMT -5
I thought it’s the top 12 placements. I know you need a minimum of 12 events played. The only thing you really risk by playing is seeding points, which means a poor finish might knock you back into the qualifiers or country quotas for the next event. But I would argue it’s worth the risk because every event you play gives you another opportunity to improve on your best 12, especially so early in the qualification period. You are correct. I was looking at the World Rankings list and it said best 8 out of 365 days. |
|
|
|
Post by floridaLOG on Mar 11, 2019 12:39:36 GMT -5
If it the top finishes then shouldn’t one cast the net wide and play everything? I guess I don’t understand where teams get hurt by playing? If they do bad it still could be points if they don’t do too hot in the bigger tournaments?
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Mar 11, 2019 13:01:59 GMT -5
If it the top finishes then shouldn’t one cast the net wide and play everything? I guess I don’t understand where teams get hurt by playing? If they do bad it still could be points if they don’t do too hot in the bigger tournaments? The Olympics will take your top 12 results of all tournaments played starting September 1, 2018. But every other tournament takes your best 4 of the last 6 results to determine who gets into the Main Draw, Qualifier, and Country Quota. Since this is calculated as a "revolving door" of your last 6 tournaments, the low points offered in a 1,2, or 3 * tournament may replace a high finish and points you earned at a 4 or 5 *, thus moving you out of the Main Draw for upcoming tournaments. So, if you're already a main draw team, it doesn't make sense to risk a low finish at a low-point value tournament. |
|
|
|
Post by diskprotek on Mar 11, 2019 13:47:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 11, 2019 14:23:21 GMT -5
In April and Alix’s case, their 6th most recent event was Gstaad last year where they finished 5th for 720 points. So they would have lost seeding points even if the played and won Sydney (600 points). However they probably wouldn’t have lost their main draw spot with a bad finish because their other recent finishes were pretty good. And they’ll still be in the same situation in Xiamen next month, where they’ll have to finish 2nd or better to get 720 points.
On the other hand, the 600 points for potentially winning Sydney might have been one of their top 12 finishes toward the Olympic qualification period. It’s hard to predict. Maybe one of them gets injured and they have to miss a few events. Maybe points in 4/5 stars become harder to earn because the field is deeper and more competitive. It might be a better strategy to get in your 12 events early, then you’ll know whether you can afford to skip a few later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by haze on Mar 12, 2019 17:44:39 GMT -5
If it the top finishes then shouldn’t one cast the net wide and play everything? I guess I don’t understand where teams get hurt by playing? If they do bad it still could be points if they don’t do too hot in the bigger tournaments? The Olympics will take your top 12 results of all tournaments played starting September 1, 2018. But every other tournament takes your best 4 of the last 6 results to determine who gets into the Main Draw, Qualifier, and Country Quota. Since this is calculated as a "revolving door" of your last 6 tournaments, the low points offered in a 1,2, or 3 * tournament may replace a high finish and points you earned at a 4 or 5 *, thus moving you out of the Main Draw for upcoming tournaments. So, if you're already a main draw team, it doesn't make sense to risk a low finish at a low-point value tournament. Great explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Mar 13, 2019 11:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
