PDA

View Full Version : DQ: Easier than you think


OrangePower
05-10-2009, 05:41 PM
I noticed recently that a self-rated player on another team in my league got DQ'd after four matches. Scores were (all singles matches):

6-2 6-3
6-1 6-3
6-1 6-4
6-4 6-1

One of these was against another self-rated, other three were against computer rated. None was against an adjusted that appealed down. I was a bit surprised to see the DQ - I know that it all depends on the rating of the beaten players, but only one is I think close to the top of the level (but just going based on having played them in the past). And this is after just four matches, none of which were a complete beatdown.

Anyway, makes no difference really since the team this player is on is weak and not in contention, and they had lost all their team matches so far. So losing the DQ lines did not change anything.

But I thought I would share a few observations about the situation:

* Seems like it is easier to get DQ'd than some might think.

* Seems like it penalizes the ignorant but not always the cheaters. What I mean by that is that in this case I think it was a honest case of the player underestimating his skill. Because there is no way this team was going to do well anyway, so no real incentive for sandbagging. But on the other hand, teams that are trying to gain an unfair advantage typically have captains crafty enough to manipulate the system to prevent DQ.

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 05:44 PM
One of the guys in our league was undefeated his entire season - but never DQ'd, and get this - never moved up to the next level.

Nellie
05-10-2009, 07:23 PM
I have always been of the opinion that the USTA computer believes that new players should lose. If you join and win 3-4 matches, you may very likely get DQed.

innoVAShaun
05-10-2009, 08:06 PM
It's pretty easy to get DQ'd in singles.

Someone might have filed a grievance and USTA investigated the player. All it takes is one lie on the questionaire and they're DQ'd.

OrangePower
05-10-2009, 08:17 PM
It's pretty easy to get DQ'd in singles.

Someone might have filed a grievance and USTA investigated the player. All it takes is one lie on the questionaire and they're DQ'd.

Yeah, first I thought maybe someone filed a grievance... then I saw the team record... they have not won a match yet... so not much motivation for another captain to file a grievance IMO. But you never know...

Rickson
05-10-2009, 08:22 PM
I'd think you'd need some bagels to get penalized.

Jim A
05-10-2009, 08:25 PM
What level was this at?

Rickson
05-10-2009, 08:29 PM
I don't think those scores were unreasonable.

OrangePower
05-10-2009, 08:52 PM
I'd think you'd need some bagels to get penalized.

I don't think those scores were unreasonable.

Yeah that's why this surprised me too.

What level was this at?

Men's 4.0

Jim A
05-10-2009, 08:53 PM
they must have found something that was blatant on his self-rate survey or he was trying to keep it close

Rickson
05-10-2009, 09:00 PM
Maybe he gets dominated at the 4.5 level.

goober
05-11-2009, 07:26 AM
One of the guys in our league was undefeated his entire season - but never DQ'd, and get this - never moved up to the next level.

Who knows how these things work. I know one guy that was undefeated in singles or doubles over a 2 year period at 4.0 before he got moved up.

savtennis
05-11-2009, 07:31 AM
Have been a captain a long time and read through all of the procedures - usually a KEY factor is SOS, i.e., the strength of opponents played. I would be curious to see the complete records of the players he beat. Very possible the 4 players were winning 85-90% of their matches and this guy takes them all in straight. This is the "dynamic" part of the rating.

JavierLW
05-11-2009, 08:15 AM
Yeah that's why this surprised me too.



Men's 4.0

We have no idea what sort of ratings his opponents have so there is no way to determine if it's reasonable or not.

It's all guessing.....

Also from what I understood when they put in this system, the higher the level involved the easier it is to get DQ'ed because they put a "improvement" threshold in which is smaller and smaller as the levels go up.

(it was to prevent a massive amount of people from getting moved up if they simply "improved" during the season, the jist of it was that would be more common at 3.0 then it would be at 4.0 or better)

I had a player last year in 3.5 that had better scores then this (a lot of doubles though, but #1 Doubles). He got bumped at year end, but not during the season, it all depends on who you play.

If any is worried about DQ's then it's simple, just dont rate yourself too low then.

JavierLW
05-11-2009, 08:17 AM
One of the guys in our league was undefeated his entire season - but never DQ'd, and get this - never moved up to the next level.

So? We have no idea who he played, so just winning every single match means nothing. He could of played #3 Doubles and played a bunch of weaker players for all we know.

Also some people just have a knack for winning, they play competitive matches but they just manage themselves better and they win, and others dont. That doesnt mean they belong in a completely different level.

Kostas
05-11-2009, 11:44 AM
DQ's completely determined who went to state for my 3.0 team this year.

Our #1 singles player got DQ'd half-way which cost us courts that eventually led to us losing tie-breaks to go to state.

Another team in the league had their #1 singles player DQ'd which cost them matches and their state run. They were a shoe-in after we blew our last match of the season.

Coincindentally, the team "waiting in the wings" to go to state after the top two teams got essentially DQ'd from the running was the team from the town where our league coordinator live and this team is real buddy-buddy with them.

Our 3.0 player was playing up to 3.5 so it wasn't super surprising he got DQ'd but here is the other player.

He is a 3.0 Mixed Year End (Self Rating Basically).
Match 1 - #1 Singles: Lost 6-3, 4-6, 6-3 vs Our player that got DQ'd
Match 2 - #2 Singles: Won 6-4, 6-2....Opp Record: 3-1 (including this loss)
Match 3 - #1 Doubles: Won 6-2, 6-2
Match 4 - #2 Singles: Won 6-1, 6-1....Opp Record: 4-2 (including this loss and a win and loss against my team's 2nd best singles player whose only loss came to this player)
Match 5 - #2 Singles: Won 7-6, 6-3...Opp Record: 2-5 (5 doubles, 2 singles)

That's all it took to get this player DQ'd and cost them a trip to state.

I've heard all the lectures about the system and the moving parts and such but this still doesn't look right to me.

JavierLW
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
DQ's completely determined who went to state for my 3.0 team this year.

Our #1 singles player got DQ'd half-way which cost us courts that eventually led to us losing tie-breaks to go to state.

Another team in the league had their #1 singles player DQ'd which cost them matches and their state run. They were a shoe-in after we blew our last match of the season.

Coincindentally, the team "waiting in the wings" to go to state after the top two teams got essentially DQ'd from the running was the team from the town where our league coordinator live and this team is real buddy-buddy with them.

Our 3.0 player was playing up to 3.5 so it wasn't super surprising he got DQ'd but here is the other player.

He is a 3.0 Mixed Year End (Self Rating Basically).
Match 1 - #1 Singles: Lost 6-3, 4-6, 6-3 vs Our player that got DQ'd
Match 2 - #2 Singles: Won 6-4, 6-2....Opp Record: 3-1 (including this loss)
Match 3 - #1 Doubles: Won 6-2, 6-2
Match 4 - #2 Singles: Won 6-1, 6-1....Opp Record: 4-2 (including this loss and a win and loss against my team's 2nd best singles player whose only loss came to this player)
Match 5 - #2 Singles: Won 7-6, 6-3...Opp Record: 2-5 (5 doubles, 2 singles)

That's all it took to get this player DQ'd and cost them a trip to state.

I've heard all the lectures about the system and the moving parts and such but this still doesn't look right to me.

Ive seen players get DQ'd for having close matches with other players that got DQ'ed before.

Right there based on match #1, I dont see how you can think anything else of it but it's justifyed.

You're admitting that the player they played in question deserved to get DQ'ed.

And this player had a very close match with them. (took him 3 sets and all were decent average scores, in rating terms they won 12 games and only lost 16) So it cant be all that surprising that they are getting DQ'ed as well.

I think when they recalculate the dynamic rating they go back and recalculate the other self rates in there somehow. Which is more then fair, if you clobbered someone who later got DQ'ed that SHOULD figure into it somewhere along the way. (same if you had a good match with them)

I saw this in our 3.0 league a few years ago, there was a virtual slew of self rated players who were getting DQ'ed and getting each other DQ'ed in the process. (meanwhile beating everyone else pretty handily as well)

It can happen a lot at 3.0 because in some areas that is the lowest level there is, so it's easy to show up there where you will be WAY better then the 3.0.

All the more reason to make sure you're rating yourself at the right level.

Im not so sure you can blame DQ'ing for not going to State. If your players are too good for your level then you dont deserve to go to State. Hopefully though that's not your ONLY real reason for being on a team or running a team.

Kostas
05-11-2009, 01:55 PM
This goes back to the conversation about sandbaggers and making post-season runs.

It's been widely acknowledged that just about everyone who goes to state is towards the top of their skill level, if you make it to sectionals you are at the top or ready for the next level and if you make it to nationals you are definately ready for the next level or in some cases 2 levels.

The difference comes in which players can successfully navigate the dynamic rating system without getting DQ'd.

The player on my team that was DQ'd was a good player coming back from 10 years away from high school tennis. Was he ready for 3.5? Pretty much. But he self-rated according to the USTA guidelines just like I did.

In spite of that DQ we still had a chance to go but we lost our last match of the season (against the team that is going now) and that is our fault. I'm not making excuses but I did intentionally hint at a conspiracy theory in my first post.
The guy on the other team is also a self-rated player and I know not of his tennis history but I can tell you this. All he is is a speedy, consistent pusher who would get beat by just about every average 3.5 in our area pretty easily. He wasn't cheating, sandbagging or anything else. But like most real 3.0 players, they have a very difficult time dealing with a player like that.
That DQ did cause their team to miss state and that's unfortunate because it shouldn't have happened if you ask me.

Computers can't watch the matches and we're simply at the mercy of a system that is objective to a fault.

kylebarendrick
05-11-2009, 03:42 PM
The player on my team that was DQ'd was a good player coming back from 10 years away from high school tennis. Was he ready for 3.5? Pretty much. But he self-rated according to the USTA guidelines just like I did.

Well that depends. The guidelines say that someone who is successful in high school tennis should self-rate at 3.5 or higher. Strangely enough, in my experience former high-school players under the age of 30 do very well at the 3.0 and 3.5 levels.

JohnnySpot
05-11-2009, 03:52 PM
i got dq'd for farting too much onthe courts. har

bmwfool
05-11-2009, 04:15 PM
Funny, I think I know who you are referring to. If the guy you describe is who I think it is, I don't believe he was DQ'd for "only" his play at the 4.0 level. He has also played a couple of 4.5 doubles matches and won both of those. Not only that, both of the 4.5 doubles matches, his partner was a 4.0.

I think that may help explain it. That is of course, if I have the right guy.

JavierLW
05-11-2009, 04:23 PM
The guy on the other team is also a self-rated player and I know not of his tennis history but I can tell you this. All he is is a speedy, consistent pusher who would get beat by just about every average 3.5 in our area pretty easily. He wasn't cheating, sandbagging or anything else. But like most real 3.0 players, they have a very difficult time dealing with a player like that.
That DQ did cause their team to miss state and that's unfortunate because it shouldn't have happened if you ask me.

There are pushers that can do well at 3.5 as well, I know plenty. (3.5 players are not the model of consistency either)

Also you have to keep in mind that sometimes players look like pushers when they can get away with it. In fact Ive seen plenty of players like that and they are quickly moved up to 4.0 a couple years later.

It's because they are way more superior at "controlling the ball", not just whacking it or pushing it.

Your analysis is precisely why I would trust the computer system far more then some 3.0/3.5 players analysis of whether someone should be moved up or not.

Unless your player was sandbagging the match against this guy (the true definition where he purposely made the match close), there is no way you can not put him in the same category as your player.

Maybe he's a COMPLETELY different looking type of player but if someone is of an entirely different level you cant use the excuse that (this guy is just hard to play...).

I think that's your flaw, you are assuming that because he's a pusher that somehow that defines him as some guy that can only win 3.0 matches. That's a typical view of 3.0 players (I used to play 3.0), guys who hit hard are "good" and pushers "only win because they can run around but otherwise they are not good".

From my experience pushers actually do great until they get to meet some of the 4.0ish players in 3.5 and then they hit a wall because those players are just as consistent but have weapons. Which means this guy probably will win about 70% of his matches at 3.5, unless they stick them him at a lot of doubles where he might suck. (because pushers dont do very well in 3.5 doubles because their partners will end up with tennis balls sticking out of their eye sockets)

Maybe he wont go on to the playoffs at 3.5 and win a pen but he should have a decent record. (if he was really in it just to play tennis then he wont mind but some people are ONLY playing to get to the playoffs and they have no other goals in mind)

So like I said, he probably got a strike from playing your guy. I dont think you can dispute that fact because the score doesnt lie. Also as your guy is doing better, it's probably affecting this guys rating.

OrangePower
05-11-2009, 09:42 PM
Funny, I think I know who you are referring to. If the guy you describe is who I think it is, I don't believe he was DQ'd for "only" his play at the 4.0 level. He has also played a couple of 4.5 doubles matches and won both of those. Not only that, both of the 4.5 doubles matches, his partner was a 4.0.

I think that may help explain it. That is of course, if I have the right guy.

Maybe it's the same guy... but this guy has played only 4.0 singles this season. However before that he played 2 doubles matches at 4.5 in 2003, and won them both. So maybe that's what you saw but didn't notice the year.

For the person who asked about the strength of the opposition... no way to tell their rating of course, but here are their records:

6-2 6-3 match 1 opponent: Last year went 4-2, all singles
6-1 6-3 match 2 opponent: Last year went 6-4, mostly doubles
6-1 6-4 match 3 opponent: No last year data (self rated). Only other match this year was a loss.
6-4 6-1 match 4 opponent: Last year went 5-3, some singles some doubles

So above average, but not dominant.