I find this move surprising to say the least by POP. They are always touting about how they want everyone to be able to play all the rounds they want because the game is fun. This is obviously an inconsistent move given their intentions. Also, I would have found this type of move to be a more logical decision in 2006; the year after only letting 5-0s in through the 2005 LCQ and having everyone complain about it (and rightfully so). While the 2/3 matchplay is definitely an improvement, I find some major flaws with this decision.
First off, this has the potential to be a disaster if the amount of invites awarded are an odd or really, any weird number. Considering 24 invites were awarded to Masters in 2009, I would expect the number to be around that range. And everyone thought I was crazy when I said the Grinder would award between 16-32 invites that year, also. Let's take a look at something:
256 Masters show up (no way will it be this low):
R2 128 players remain
R3 64 players remain
R4 32 players remain
R5 16 players remain
R6 8 players remain
If there are only 8 invites, then you must 5-0 to get into Worlds. An obvious problem arises if say 24 invites are awarded. How can there be an opponents win percentage if it's single elimination? There can't be!
Another potential problem arises if there are not exactly 256 Masters (or any other age group) because 256 is the "dream" number that eliminates most potential problems. Example:
356 players (a much more realistic number)
R2 178 players remain
R3 89 players remain
R4 OOOPS we have to give someone a BYE at 2-0, WHAT?!
Now, pretty much everyone on here gives a nonsense response to a well-thought out post like this and a common quote is "well have you got a better solution?". Yes I do!
Magic: The Gathering (oh no, he's going to THAT again!) does their Grinders in a way that ALWAYS works. They are run with flights of 32 players. Funny, because Wizards of the Coast used this type of thing back during the original Super Trainer Showdown Mall Tour Qualifiers (or at least, they did in California) so it does have some ties with our game.
Anyways, MTG starts Grinders at a designated time and allows only 32 players to register in each "tournament". The last remaining player (or maybe two) from each is given an invite into said event. If a player is knocked out they may enter another Grinder throughout the day and another after that, and so on. Is this a problem for MTG? No. Does MTG have more players and more potential of a problem given that there are only 32 players in each Grinder? Yes. Could it work for Pokemon? Absolutely, and it makes more sense given our "unknown" number of invites. Example:
Pokemon does not yet have everyone pre-registered for Worlds 2011 and thus does not know exactly how many invites will be awarded for the Grinder and it is about to start. They start running some Grinder tournaments. After a few are completed, Pokemon announces there will be 20 invites given out. Now, the only potential problem with running separate tournaments is that there may not be enough time to run them all. That is why there needs to be an exact number prior to beginning them. Do I think this can be done? Yes, why couldn't it? And wouldn't it be easier for one or two judges to handle a 32 person tournament at a time?
Just my thoughts.
