Logic for semifinal clash..
A friend of mine today questioned the logic for semifinal clashes in tournaments. Usually, if the semifinalists stand 1,2,3,4 on the points table, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. He questioned this saying that this takes the fun out of one of the clashes in the semifinal. Even though 2 vs 3 will be a good contest (speaking in expected terms), 1 vs 4, in all probabilities will be one-sided.

He said if you wanted to make sure 1 should get to the finals - you could very well not have semifinals and have finals - straight between 1 and 2. Whats the point in having a semifinal and taking the fun out of one game, he argued.

He said, for better contests - 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4 is ideal. But because this will eliminate a better team one stage before, we should avoid that and have 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4, instead.

I did give him a convincing argument against his format and he finally accepted to the current format. And the explanation I gave was simple enough, I thought.

But just want to know if there are other thoughts.. What do you think?

For the records, I am totally unaware of any mathematical facts involving tournaments, when I say all this.. So if you give me any, I will blindly accept.. (after considerable thought! :-)