.png)
All Nations 2023 Tournament Scheduling Reflection
tl;dr
Smaller pools do not reduce the overall match count. What actually counts is the number of matches each team plays.
Single (done twice), double or triple elimination won’t ever really work for All Nations
Reorganise the pool matches so the top seeds don’t play first (the perennial top teams always play the very first game)
The ideal number of matches you want each team to play is 11 and the ideal number of teams to comfortably fit within the regularly timings of the current venue is 48
The Biggest Yet
The All Nations London is a big tournament where players register individually and the organiser, Gary Beckford, places them into teams according to where they are from. It’s a great tournament because it’s a huge tournament and you get to catch up with players you may not have seen in a while. The All Nations Finals are also probably the most attended in the UK, even more than the National Cup Finals.
The tournament is getting increasingly bigger and this year was by far the biggest. You can see in the chart below that the last two editions of the London tournament had 50 total teams (see link for more All Nations Charts). This year, we had 61! That’s a 22% increase! The schedule was already packed with 50 teams so how can we fit in 11 extra teams? This was going to be the biggest issue this year.
Although I have scheduled the tournament since 2015, I still learnt some things. I reflect on my scheduling experience below. Read my previous reflections on scheduling the tournament – 2022, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015.
Creating a Tournament Format to Fit in 11 More Teams
The biggest issue was how to create a tournament format that fit in a 22% increase in teams in what was an already jam-packed schedule. I went through several versions.
Double/ Triple Elimination Knockouts is ComplicatedOne idea I had to reduce the overall total match count was to do a cup format. I worked out that if we did a single elimination/ cup format and played it out to places, we only needed 80 matches based on 32 teams. If we double it for both genders, that’s only 160 matches, which was enough to be completed in one weekend. However, I didn’t like the idea of one loss and you can’t come back to win the entire tournament.
I thought double or triple-elimination knockout could do the trick. This is where a team can lose once (double elimination) or twice (triple elimination) and can still win the main event. However, it was super complicated when I looked at brackets and tried to conceptualise it for myself (see the below chart). There are extra in-between rounds which means the number of matches each team plays can really vary. In the example below, you can play from 5 matches (win all your matches to the Final Final) to 11 matches (losing twice but coming back to reach the Final Final). This doesn’t work because you want each team to play a similar number of matches. Also, I forgot that if a team loses their first three matches, they are out of the tournament. This doesn’t work for the All Nations Tournament either. They can probably play out to places but I can’t even conceptualise how that would work.
Single Elimination Knockouts Done Twice Doesn’t Work I thought if single-elimination knockouts for both genders of 32 teams each can be completed in a single weekend (160 matches total), I could just do it twice. The single-elimination knockout results in the first weekend can determine seedings for the second weekend’s singles-elimination knockouts, which will determine the actual winners. I did like this idea but I realised it wouldn’t work. The tournament format needs exactly 32 teams for each gender to make it work. If there are fewer teams, then this introduces byes and fewer matches for those teams who got byes. For example, there were 26 women’s teams so 8 teams would get a bye into the next round, which means they would only get to play four matches instead of five. If there are more than 32 teams, then it will introduce an extra round. Teams that lose in the first round will play far fewer matches. For example, there were 35 men’s teams. This means 6 teams will play in the first round. Three teams that lose will have to play each other in a round-robin to determine places. That means 3 teams will only play 3 matches (1 first round, 2 round-robin), which is not enough. Even if we get 32 teams each to fill out a weekend, you won’t get the big men’s and women’s show court finals in the second weekend as you need every available court.
A Series of Smaller Pools Does Not Reduce the Overall Match CountI had an idea last year of having a tournament format that consists of a series of smaller pools of four teams on day one, two, and three before the knockout stage on day four. The logic behind this is smaller pools need fewer matches to be played. You can see in the table below that the smaller the pool, the number of matches needed to be played goes exponentially down (exponentially is probably the wrong term for it but you want what I mean). I also know from experience that several pools of 4 teams can usually be completed in one day, as I would do this on the second Saturday.
So it makes sense that smaller pools mean fewer matches that needed to be played. For example, if you had eight teams, a pool of eight teams requires 28 matches to be completed but two pools of four teams only need 12 matches (2 pools * 6 matches). You saved 16 matches! However, each team in the pool of four teams only played three matches whereas each team in the pool of eight played seven matches. So you can boost the number of matches played by playing another round of two pools of four teams (my idea above). So two pools of four teams, done twice, require 24 matches to complete it. That’s four fewer matches I could save compared to if I did a pool of eight teams (28 matches). That’s four fewer matches I could save compared to if I did a pool of eight teams (28 matches). However, each team in a pool of four, done twice, will play six matches whereas However, each team in a pool of four, done twice, will play six matches whereas each team in the pool of eight teams will have played seven matches. each team in the pool of eight teams will have played seven matches. So if the eight teams in the two pools of four, done twice, got an extra match, e.g. 1st in Pool A vs 1st in Pool B, 2nd vs 2nd, 3rd vs 3rd, 4th vs 4th, then that’s four extra matches. So if the eight teams in the two pools of four, done twice, got an extra match, e.g. 1st in Pool A vs 1st in Pool B, 2nd vs 2nd, 3rd vs 3rd, 4th vs 4th, then that’s four extra matches. So the four matches I thought I saved due to the smaller pools were due to the fact that each team played one fewer game. So smaller pools do not reduce the overall match count. What actually counts is the number of matches each team plays.
One Formula to Calculate the Total Number of Matches Needed To Be PlayedWhen I realised smaller pools do not mean fewer matches and what actually counts is the number of matches you want each team to play, I knew there had to be a formula to calculate this. I worked out the formula to be below:
(Total Number of Teams * Total Matches You Want Each Team to Play)/2 = Total Matches Needed to Complete the Tournament
I actually used this formula to calculate the number of matches needed to complete a pool [=(n*(n-1))/2], where n = the number of teams in a pool. The formula is the same except you’re changing the total number of matches you want each team to play. The formula even works to calculate the number of matches needs to complete a single-elimination played to places, i.e. =(32 teams * 5 rounds)/2 = 160/2 = 80 Matches to be Played.
This formula is extremely useful because when the number of teams was spiralling upward, you can quickly count how many matches you needed to complete the tournament and compare it with how many match slots can be fitted in within the time frame. In this year’s example, we had 61 total teams and if you want each team to play 11 matches, you need 335.5 matches to be played (the 0.5 match is because the 61st team cannot play itself). However, based on one-hour matches and a shortened final day to accommodate the final, we only have 278 match slots. You can see we are 57.5 match slots short. It means it doesn’t matter what the tournament format is, if you want every team to play 11 matches, you will be 57.5 matches short. You need to change something to make it work.
Several Ways Accommodate More MatchesSo I need to accommodate 57.5 matches. I did this in several ways. The biggest help was having an extra hour at the beginning of each day (8:30am start). This gives me 32 extra match slots. It was costly for the organiser but it could not work without it without drastically reducing the number of matches or minutes played by each team. I also allotted one hour for matches on the second Saturday when I normally allow 65 minutes. I figured this will work since we are still in the pool stage so there would still be some quick matches. This gives me 8 extra match slots. The second Sunday is also reduced matches to 65 minutes from the usual 70 minutes and the Finals will start later. This gives me an extra 8 match slots. That’s a total of 48 extra match slots that I created (=32+8+8). This means I am 9.5 matches short. The way the tournament format works (see below), around 21 teams (11 men’s and 10 women’s) will play 10 matches only so that’s 10.5 fewer matches needed to be played. So I don’t need to accommodate 57.5 matches but 47 matches. Since I created 48 match slots, I am now able to fit those matches in.
Tournament Format of Bigger Pools then Knockout StageI tend to have a tournament format of bigger pools of 7/6 teams that are completed on the first weekend, pools of 4 teams (based on the results of the first weekend) on the second Saturday, and then knockouts (usually straight knockouts) on the second Sunday. If I did it this way, I needed 177 matches to complete the bigger pools but I only had 176 match slots. We could try and squeeze it in but I didn’t like it. Also, I would have to do pools of 3 on the second Saturday and that wasn’t ideal.
I decided to go for bigger pools of 9/8 teams that are played over two and a half days then knockouts played to places after that. If you think that bigger pools require a lot more matches, remember what I reflected earlier – what actually counts is the number of matches you want each team to play. One advantage of this tournament format is each team will play 10 or 11 matches. Also, with more pool matches, it should mean more matches that finished quickly because there are more mismatches in team strength. However, the biggest constraint is the knockout stage needs to be worked out on the day and communicated to the teams. This is a choking point and it can really delay things if it is not done in a timely fashion.
Biggest Knot in the Schedule – Working Out Knockout Teams During the DayThe big downside to having pools of 9/8 teams is the pool stage finishes halfway during the second Saturday with the knockout stage happening straight after. This means the league tables need to be worked out AND communicated to teams so they know when they are playing and refereeing next. I gave it an hour for this to be worked out and this is a massive time crunch. We have to make sure the results are entered correctly and the pool table is updated automatically. If not then there will be massive issues. Also, this will need to be communicated to the teams when they are playing and refereeing next. Any delays and this will impact the rest of the schedule and the schedule is already tight.
Scheduling and Excel
Constantly Copying the Conditional Formatting Slows Excel Down A part of my process is to list the teams and the pools they will be in. I found that when I changed the name of a team, e.g. Brazil 1 to Brazil (M), then it would take 10 seconds to process it. However, it would be automatic, i.e. like normal, in other parts of the worksheet. I later realised it was because those cells had around 100 conditional formats on them. I use conditional formatting to colour-code the groups from A to D. However, I applied it to the whole worksheet. This is not a problem if done once but when I want to move teams around, I would copy and paste into column H before pasting into where I want the team. This would copy the conditional formatting. I would also copy this worksheet from the previous All Nation Tournament schedule and I copied that from the one behind. All of those conditional formats slow it down significantly. I then had to clear the conditional formats and applied new ones to just the selected columns (C and F). use conditional formatting to colour-code the groups from A to D. However, I applied it to the whole worksheet. This is not a problem if done once but when I want to move teams around, I would copy and paste into column H before pasting into where I want the team. This would copy the conditional formatting. I would also copy this worksheet from the previous All Nation Tournament schedule and I copied that from the one behind. All of those conditional formats slow it down significantly. I then had to clear the conditional formats and applied new ones to just the selected columns (C and F).
Don’t Make the Number 1 Seeds Play FirstThe way I work out the pool matches is to have one team stay in the A1 position and just rotate the other teams around until you get to the original set of pool matches (see the below screenshot). The team in the A1 position is usually the top seed of the pool. For the men’s tournament, this is usually Africa 1. This means they always play in the first match of the day. They did complain about this and it is a fair complaint. Next year, I will do it another way so a random team is in the A1 position (or at least Africa 1 is not always first playing). I will probably put the top seeds in the A5 position (where Moldova 2 is), move the second seeds to the A1 position (in this case Poland) and go from there.
Space Out the SeedingsAnother thing I realised was the way I rotate the teams (clockwise) to get the list of matches, the second round of matches is always the first seeds (Africa Red in the above example) versus the second seeds (Poland in the above example). The third round of matches is then the first seeds versus the third seeds. I was thinking you don’t want such big matches being played on day one when teams and coaches are still getting used to each other. Having the first seeds in the A5 position and the second seeds in the A1 position will probably fix that.
Rescheduling During the Tournament
Rescheduling Overrun Matches The first Saturday ran to schedule (amazing). The first Sunday had 7 overrun matches. One court couldn’t even finish their two final matches of the day! This wasn’t ideal because the second weekend was packed. To accommodate these seven overrun matches, I had to cut the final matches of the knockout stage except for the Divisional Finals and the 3rd vs 4th place. This accounted for 19 matches. This wasn’t ideal because now many teams had one fewer match and most teams would only play one match on Sunday when you ideally want them to play two. Although removing 19 matches was more than the seven overrun matches that needed to be played, I knew I needed that time for more overrun matches on the second Saturday and to give more time on the second Sunday as 65-minute matches were probably optimistic.
As it turned out, five matches were overrun on the second Saturday. This could have been more as matches were still being played well past the closing time. Luckily, with the buffer I had, I was able to fit in those matches. With 70-minute matches on the second Sunday, I knew those matches could overrun a bit but it would be completed. As it turned out, the women’s finals started around 30 minutes late, which isn’t bad.
Additional Issue of Fitting in Too Many Matches One issue I didn’t think about when trying to fit in all of those matches with tight match times is some teams waited for 4 to 6 hours to play their final match before being told there wasn’t enough time to play it. This isn’t nice. So it is best to try and give more time to complete these matches, e.g. 65-minute matches rather than 60-minute matches.
Accommodating More Teams Next Year
The trend is the All Nations Tournament will get bigger. We already saw the schedule is jam-packed, so how can we accommodate more teams? You can put a limit on players entering but you don’t want to go down that route. The All Nations Tournament is an inclusive tournament rather than an exclusive one so we want to include as many players as we can. So what other ways can we accommodate more teams?
The Ideal Number of Matches for Each Team Strangely, one thing I haven’t really thought about is the ideal number of matches you want each team to play. I tend to think about it in terms of what fits in the time available. When I thought about it, the answer seems obvious now. You want each team to have 11 matches. That’s three matches per day for the first three days and two matches on the shortened final day. Simples.
Maximum Teams for the Current Timings(Total Number of Teams * Total Matches You Want Each Team to Play)/2 = Total Matches Needed to Complete the Tournament
When the number of teams was spiralling upward, I used the above formula to calculate how many matches it would take if I wanted each team to play a certain number of matches. However, you can also use the formula to work out the maximum number of teams you can have if you want each team to play 11 matches within the regular timings we have. I basically worked out that a total of 48 total teams looks to be ideal. That’s good to know.
Having Two Tournaments to Spread the Players Out? The trend is clear and there’s no chance it will go from 61 teams down to 48 teams. My idea to reduce the number of teams is to have two All Nations tournaments but have it tiered – Championship (Division 1) and Shield (Division 2). Numerous players may decide to play in the Shield version rather than the Championship version, which will reduce the total number of players playing in the Main tournament. Players can self-select which one they want to play in. You can play both versions at the same time but the Shield will have to be played at a different venue or the Shield could be done at a different time. The one big downside is you do want to have all the players in one place to get that big tournament feel.
Bigger Venue?The best solution is to have a venue that can accommodate more courts and/or more hours. I have no idea where there could be.
Coaching Record
I’m not going to reflect on coaching at the All Nations Tournament as I only coached USA for the first weekend. The one main thing I learnt was statting in real-time as the Head Coach, which can be viewed on this link. However, I would still like to update my All Nations coaching record. I was happy USA did well and got joint 5th place overall. did well and got joint 5th place overall.
2023: USA | Joint 5th Place (Coached the first weekend only) 2022: USA | 2nd Place 2021: Cancelled 2020: Cancelled 2019: USA | Division III Champions (17th Place Overall) 2018: Turkey | Either 17th to 23rd 2017: No team coached due to work at Wagamama 2016: Germany | Joint 5th Place Overall 2015: Asia | 11th overall 2014: Asia Women | 21st Place (Second from bottom); Asia Men | Place unknown 2013: No team coached – probably because I just had the most intense two weeks of my life 2012: No team coached as I was doing the All Nations Volleyball Statistics 2011: Asia | Place unknown 2010: Asia | Place unknown
Comments