Round-robin Tournament - Evaluation

Evaluation

In theory a round robin tournament is the fairest way to determine a champion among a known and fixed number of participants. Each player or team has an equal chance against all other participants. The element of luck is seen to be reduced as compared to a knockout system since a few bad performances need not cripple a competitor's chances of ultimate victory. A participant's final record is thus seen to be more accurately represented in the results since it was arrived at over a prolonged period against equal competition. This can also be used to determine which teams are the poorest performers and thus subject to relegation if the format is used in a multi-tiered league. In English football, the Football League, the (round-robin) League champions are generally regarded as the "best" team in the land, rather than the (knockout) FA Cup winners.

The primary disadvantage to a round robin tournament is the time needed to complete it. Unlike a knockout tournament where half of the participants are eliminated after each round, a round robin requires one round less than the number of participants. For instance, a 32 team tournament can be completed in just 5 rounds in a knockout format. However if the same teams are put through a round robin it would require 31 rounds to finish. Other issues stem from the difference between the theoretical fairness of the round robin format and practice in a real event. Since the victor is gradually arrived at through multiple rounds of play teams who perform poorly can be eliminated from title contention rather early on, yet they are forced to play out their remaining games. Thus games occur late in competition between competitors with no remaining chance of success. Moreover, some later matches will pair one competitor who has something left to play for against another who does not. This asymmetry means that playing the same opponents is not necessarily equitable: the same opponents in a different order may play harder or easier matches. Teams may also suffer injuries to their star players during competition and thus a match-up may have a completely different complexion than it would have if the order of play was different. There is also no showcase final match.

Further issues arise where a round-robin is used as a qualifying round within a larger tournament. A competitor already qualified for the next stage before its last game may either not try hard (in order to conserve resources for the next phase) or even deliberately lose (if the scheduled next-phase opponent for a lower-placed qualifier is perceived to be easier than for a higher-placed one). Four pairs in the 2012 Olympics Women's doubles badminton having qualified for the next round, were disqualified for attempting to lose in the round robin stage to avoid compatriots and better ranked opponents. The round robin stage at the Olympics were a new introduction and potential problems were readily known prior to the tournament.

Swiss system tournaments attempt to combine elements of the round-robin and elimination formats, to provide a reliable champion using fewer rounds than a round-robin, while allowing draws and losses. Also if the tournament is not held at a true neutral location and is instead at a team's home field or away the system of Double Round Robin is an effective equalizer. In this format each team plays each other twice, once away and once at home, in an effort to account for meetings of teams where homefield could sway the results.

Read more about this topic:  Round-robin Tournament

Famous quotes containing the word evaluation:

    Evaluation is creation: hear it, you creators! Evaluating is itself the most valuable treasure of all that we value. It is only through evaluation that value exists: and without evaluation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, you creators!
    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

    Good critical writing is measured by the perception and evaluation of the subject; bad critical writing by the necessity of maintaining the professional standing of the critic.
    Raymond Chandler (1888–1959)