alosso:An analogy, but still no difference except that the sum of both sides' points is hereby steadied, different to ours.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but the result is an easy to understand 14.5 points to win it and 14 points to retain it, perhaps it was that.
To continue using the Ryder Cup the 16.5- 11.5 would have changed to 14-9 if there were no points for a/s matches, no real difference. So what I was saying is that they could award 0pts in an A/S match with no difference to the outcome but they don't (how many times have we heard "a vital half point for Europe/USA") for, as you say, motivational reasons and I'd suggest aesthetic ones too.
Off the top of my head the points system here hardly makes a difference, the team that wins the most matches (almost always) wins. I can see that 8-4 (7-3 etc) in the singles and 0-3 in the pairs leaves a tie but even then the team with 8 singles wins would statistically be the more likely winners. If an equal number of matches are won then the pairs decide, which seems fair enough.
Throughout this thread there have been occasional suggestions for improvements, all also saying how great a competition it is. I agree wholeheartedly with the latter and have sometimes worried the former could feel to the organisers like a "but.....", albeit unintended. Please believe this is not, I think this competition is great and am not suggesting you should change it.
If wgt was thinking, as they should be, of starting something similar from scratch I would suggest, like the Ryder cup a scoring system with a finishing line. That would mean something like 2pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie, perhaps with 4pts and 2pts in the pairs. Teams would then know they needed 19pts to win. If it was thought this would place too much importance of the pairs, maybe 2pts and 1pt there too.