- Patrick Dockhorn
- 30 April, 2026
- Pickleball
If you are looking for an introduction to the PIRAT Pickleball Rating System, click here.
Why
The easy part of round robin scheduling is making legal games. The hard part is making a session feel fair, varied and worth showing up for.
Every organiser who has tried to do it properly
Why 4 players on 1 court is easy
With exactly 4 players on 1 court there are no sitouts and there is not much real freedom. Once you decide one team, the other team is automatically determined by the 2 players left over. That means there is only a limited choice of structurally valid games, everyone plays every round, and there is no separate bench-management problem to solve.
In other words, the shape of the session does most of the work for you. You are not really solving a large scheduling problem yet. You are mainly rotating through a small set of possible pairings.
What changes once the pool gets bigger
As soon as you add more players, more courts, or both, that simplicity disappears. Now the scheduler has to decide who partners with whom, which 4 players share a court, who sits out, whether the same people are sitting out again, whether the same opposition keeps showing up, and whether the games look obviously uneven if the attending players differ meaningfully in strength.
More players create more possible combinations, which sounds good until you realise that it also creates more ways to produce a bad draw. So the goal is not just to create a legal schedule. The goal is to create one that makes the tradeoffs in the least painful way for the whole group.
What are we trying to optimise?
There are usually 4 competing goals. First, we want partner variety, ideally meaning each player partners with each of the other players once, or as close to that as the session allows. Second, we want sitout fairness, meaning players sit out the same number of times where possible and do not keep sitting out in consecutive rounds. Third, we want opposition variety, meaning players do not keep running into the same opponents on the other side more often than necessary. Fourth, we want fair games.
If the attending players can be ranked with P1 the strongest player, P2 the next strongest and so on, then team strength can be balanced deliberately. But that often conflicts with the other goals. Sometimes the fairest-looking game repeats a partner pairing you were trying to avoid. Sometimes the best partner spread leads to a worse strength balance. That is why there is rarely a single perfect answer.
When the template summaries later talk about an average P-number gap and a max gap, they are simply describing how far apart the players were in strength-ranking terms: the average gap is the typical difference between the stronger and weaker sides across all games, while the max gap is the biggest such mismatch that appears anywhere in the schedule.
How
Ok then... so what do the preferred templates actually look like?
Anyone trying to set up a session for 11 players on 2 courts
Preferred templates by player and court count
We've cracked the numbers so you don't have to - below are a set of - what we hope are - well balanced round robin templates that take all of the points raised above into consideration.
4 players / 1 court
Provided all 12 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety, with every player getting a full partner spread; in the worst case, 4 players end up facing the same opposition player 8 times. It is optimal for sitouts because no one sits out at all, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and optimal for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 2.00 and a max gap of 4.
If your session goes for 2 hours, the suggested rhythm is 8 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
Open the PDF template5 players / 1 court
Provided all 10 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety, with every player getting a full partner spread; in the worst case, 5 players end up facing the same opposition player 4 times. It is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out exactly 2 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and optimal for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 2.00 and a max gap of 5.
The recommended structure is 10 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
6 players / 1 court
Provided all 12 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety, with every player getting a full partner spread; in the worst case, 6 players end up facing the same opposition player 4 times. It is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 4 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 2.67 and a max gap of 7.
The timing guide is 8 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
7 players / 1 court
Provided all 14 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 7 players play with at least one partner more than once, and 2 partner pairings never happen at all; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 6 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 4.00 and a max gap of 8.
The pacing guide is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
8 players / 2 courts
Provided all 14 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety, with every player getting a full partner spread; in the worst case, 8 players end up facing the same opposition player 4 times. It is optimal for sitouts because nobody sits out, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 3.71 and a max gap of 10.
The recommended rhythm is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
9 players / 2 courts
Provided all 9 rounds are played, this schedule is optimal for partner variety, with every player partnering with every other player exactly once, optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 1 time, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and strong for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 3.67 and a max gap of 13.
For a 2 hour session, use 11 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
10 players / 2 courts
Provided all 11 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 1 partner pairing never happens, but no player gets the same partner twice; it is optimal for sitouts with players sitting out between 2 and 3 times and no consecutive sitout events, optimal for opposition variety with only 1 player-pair opposition matchup missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 5.50 and a max gap of 12.
The suggested structure is 8 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
11 players / 2 courts
Provided all 14 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 4 players play with the same partner more than once, and 1 partner pairing never happens; it is strong for sitouts with players sitting out between 3 and 5 times and no consecutive sitout events, optimal for opposition variety with only 2 player-pair opposition matchups missed, and strong for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 3.14 and a max gap of 7.
The timing guidance is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
12 players / 3 courts
Provided all 11 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 4 players play with the same partner more than once, and 2 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because nobody sits out, optimal for opposition variety with 5 player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 2.73 and a max gap of 9.
The pacing guide is 8 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
13 players / 3 courts
Provided all 13 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 8 players play with the same partner more than once, and 4 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts with players sitting out between 0 and 2 times and no consecutive sitout events, strong for opposition variety with 11 player-pair opposition matchups missed, and strong for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 2.56 and a max gap of 10.
The guide is 7 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
14 players / 3 courts
Provided all 14 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 5 players play with the same partner more than once, and 10 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 2 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 7.14 and a max gap of 16.
The recommendation is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
15 players / 3 courts
Provided all 15 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 4 players play with the same partner more than once, and 17 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 3 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 8.04 and a max gap of 19.
The suggested structure is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
16 players / 3 courts
Provided all 10 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 60 partner pairings never happen, but no player gets the same partner twice; it is optimal for sitouts with players sitting out between 2 and 3 times and no consecutive sitout events, optimal for opposition variety with 15 player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 8.00 and a max gap of 19.
The guide here is 10 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
16 players / 4 courts
Provided all 15 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 15 players play with the same partner more than once, and 11 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because nobody sits out, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and optimal for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 7.57 and a max gap of 21.
The timing recommendation is 6 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
17 players / 4 courts
Provided all 17 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 16 players play with the same partner more than once, and 16 partner pairings never happen; it is strong for sitouts with players sitting out between 0 and 17 times and 16 consecutive sitout events, strong for opposition variety with 16 player-pair opposition matchups missed, and optimal for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 7.00 and a max gap of 25.
The pacing guide is 5 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
18 players / 4 courts
Provided all 18 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 17 players play with the same partner more than once, and 24 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 2 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 8.33 and a max gap of 28.
The timing guide is 4 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
19 players / 4 courts
Provided all 19 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 19 players play with the same partner more than once, and 36 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 3 times, optimal for opposition variety with no player-pair opposition matchups missed, and OK for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 9.21 and a max gap of 28.
The recommendation is 4 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
20 players / 4 courts
Provided all 20 rounds are played, this schedule is good for partner variety: 15 players play with the same partner more than once, and 39 partner pairings never happen; it is optimal for sitouts because everyone sits out 4 times, optimal for opposition variety with only 1 player-pair opposition matchup missed, and optimal for balancing team strength across the rounds with an average P-number gap of 8.98 and a max gap of 26.
The suggested structure is 4 minute rounds with a 2 minute break between rounds.
Final thought
The main lesson is that round robin scheduling gets difficult not because the software cannot generate combinations, but because the best combinations depend on what you value most in that session. Some groups care most about partner spread. Some care most about sitout fairness. Some care most about avoiding repeat opposition. And if you have a rated pool, some care most about creating even-looking games. The scheduler cannot make those tradeoffs disappear. It can only make them explicit and choose the least bad compromise for each player-count and court-count setup.