[DC 86]

The game theory would be interesting here.  My guess is that the the first team would nominate their #3 player in the first round.  Team 2 would respond by putting forth their #1 or #2 depending on how confident they were about that match-up, but then it would get interesting.

BC

Generally speaking that makes sense, but if you have two strong players and three weak players you would approach things differently than if you had one superstar, two pretty good players and two weaker players, and perhaps more importantly would need to similarly consider how the other team is constructed. You really would want to test all the possible permutations, simulating each of the five match outcomes for each set, ultimately producing a tree of recommended decisions based on what the opposing coach decides at each juncture. It would be an interesting project, but ultimately dependent on how accurate you are in projecting each player's relative ability.

[DC 86]

The game theory would be interesting here.  My guess is that the the first team would nominate their #3 player in the first round.  Team 2 would respond by putting forth their #1 or #2 depending on how confident they were about that match-up, but then it would get interesting.

BC

Generally speaking that makes sense, but if you have two strong players and three weak players you would approach things differently than if you had one superstar, two pretty good players and two weaker players, and perhaps more importantly would need to similarly consider how the other team is constructed. You really would want to test all the possible permutations, simulating each of the five match outcomes for each set, ultimately producing a tree of recommended decisions based on what the opposing coach decides at each juncture. It would be an interesting project, but ultimately dependent on how accurate you are in projecting each player's relative ability.