Peter too wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Peter too wrote:

---

I think Steven and I adopted a standard for writing results about 13 years ago when we started copying results across. Since it was for British tennis it seemed reasonable to always put the British player's name first. It also seemed reasonable to always show the score from the British player's point of view, though to some extent that made the "beat/def" or "lost to"superfluous. I thought that creating a standard way of showing results should make it easier for people to read once they got used to it.

---

Steven does like to put the British player first. But he also shows the winning score as I do, winner's score first, was doing so when I joined early days, and occasionally made clear that was his own preference. So sorry, Peter, but rather than a standard way there was clearly early and continuing divergence between you and Steven for starters. 

We've managed for 13 years, I reckon we can continue to manage. Though anyone can feel free to switch to our way   

---

 Steven probably started the practice of putting the British player first and I probably started putting the score down from the British player's point of view. I tended to use Q1, Q2, R1 etc but Michael D seems to have adopted the QR1, QRF, R32 so I expect that to be the standard in the future. It doesn't matter too much what standard is adopted so long as it is consistent, but chopping and changing is probably not helpful. 

---

Yes I noticed a few different methods being used when I started - as there are now - and just settled on the one I use now since it seemed clearest and is also easy to copy and paste from the ITF site. For me using Q1 Q2 was a little confusing since sometimes a Q2 was a Q2 with a Q3 to follow, and sometimes it was the FQR, so I preferred to use FQR to denote the final q round, whichever it was. Same for R32 etc... Most ITF draws are 32 players, but of course in a grand slam the first round is R128, and there are other tournaments that have varying draw sizes as well.. Each to their own, and I agree Peter as long as the usage is by and large consistent that's fine; diversity is nearly always enrichening.