PDA

View Full Version : Holy Crap - Half My Team Disqualified


lordmanji
06-10-2009, 08:35 PM
four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009

nyc
06-10-2009, 08:48 PM
the league results alone are not terribly lopsided, but when you look at the DQ's tournament records, you see that they won 3.5 level tournament matches convincingly...that may have been the trigger.

I don't really know much about the DQ rating game, but the league records don't look much different from mine this year and I haven't been DQ'd

beernutz
06-10-2009, 08:50 PM
Kind of funny that Charles Hoang didn't get DQed too considering his record and that he beat Omar on your team who was DQed.

The USTA algorithm is a mystery wrapped in a puzzle surrounded by an enigma to me though.

Jim A
06-10-2009, 09:03 PM
the best way not to get DQ'd is to not play and win at higher levels, one of your players won @ 4.0 doubles and a 3.5 tournament, what did you expect?

our team stays out of tournaments for the self-rated players during the season. that way there is lesser chance of DQ along the way

lordmanji
06-10-2009, 09:04 PM
the league results alone are not terribly lopsided, but when you look at the DQ's tournament records, you see that they won 3.5 level tournament matches convincingly...that may have been the trigger.

I don't really know much about the DQ rating game, but the league records don't look much different from mine this year and I haven't been DQ'd

sean lui didnt have any 3.5 matches whatsoever. omar gonzales had one he won by retirement and another in doubles three. steve gov lost all his matches at 3.5 which were doubles two and three.

the 3.0 matches for omar were all fairly competitive except for one match. sean lui as well except for three sets. and all of steve gov's 3.0 matches were competitive.

i could understand frank getting dqed but he is the only one. then you have guys like teddiu liu and his partner luis topete who play doubles 1 and are undefeated and win all their matches except for one very easily (not more than usually 2 or 3 games lost).

i think it's a conspiracy, the other team is making a bunch of complaints, and/or the system is whack.

lordmanji
06-10-2009, 09:06 PM
the best way not to get DQ'd is to not play and win at higher levels, one of your players won @ 4.0 doubles and a 3.5 tournament, what did you expect?

our team stays out of tournaments for the self-rated players during the season. that way there is lesser chance of DQ along the way

i just saw omar gonzalez's tournament win in 3.5. i'll rescind my defense of him. but sean lui and steve gov have 3.0 records.

then check out the top team's top doubles team, teddie liu and luis topete's sterling records at 3.0:

6-2, 6-3 doubles 1
6-3, 6-1 doubles 2
6-1, 6-2 doubles 1
6-4, 6-1 doubles 2
6-3, 2-6, 1-0 doubles 1

they won all except one EASILY. and trust me, i saw them play. teddie especially has 3.5 strokes at the least.

120mphBodyServe
06-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Maybe they're trying to get people to play tennis less?
:-P

amarone
06-11-2009, 01:42 AM
but sean lui and steve gov have 3.0 records.
Here's how it could have played out for Steve Gov.

Match 1: win against a middling 3.0 player. No strike.
Match 2: very close match against two 3.5 players who have very good 3.5 records. In this match Gov would be rated as a high 3.5 player. Strike 1.
Match 3: win against a player with two crushing victories at 3.0, and one significant defeat. His rating is probably high 3.0. This win maintains Gov above the strike level. Strike 2.
Match 4: Narrow loss to someone who was DQed and therefore we know is at least high 3.5. This would maintain Gov above the strike level. Strike 3.
Match 5: This was the day after match 4 and Gov may already have been DQed but there hadn't been time to notify him. Or possibly one of the previous matches had not quite generated a strike and this was the final blow. Very close match against one middling 3.5 player and one with an exceptional 3.5 record who may well now dynamically rate 4.0. Strike 3 or 4.

Although Gov does not have an impressive W-L record, it is clear that he can hold his own against good 3.5 players or better, and hence is "at the top of the next NTRP level" - the yardstick for disqualification.

amarone
06-11-2009, 01:44 AM
i think it's a conspiracy,Yawn.

the other team is making a bunch of complaintsIf they raised self-rate grievances, you would know about it, otherwise complaints have no effect.

Topaz
06-11-2009, 05:51 AM
four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009

I hope you aren't here looking for sympathy?

If they got bumped, it is becuase they showed, through their results, that they belonged at a higher level of play.

What I find unfair is when people deliberately rate lower than they should just so they can beat up on weaker players. THAT's unfair.

Cindysphinx
06-11-2009, 06:31 AM
No, it doesn't "have to be unfair." If that many players on one team are DQ'd, then we know two things to be true:

1. The individual players are not cheating by throwing games to avoid a DQ. That is laudable.

2. The individual players and their captain erred, and the computer fixed it.

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 06:36 AM
four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009

4 out of 19 is not half. It's not even a quarter, stop exaggerating. Life sometimes isnt fair....

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 06:39 AM
the league results alone are not terribly lopsided, but when you look at the DQ's tournament records, you see that they won 3.5 level tournament matches convincingly...that may have been the trigger.

I don't really know much about the DQ rating game, but the league records don't look much different from mine this year and I haven't been DQ'd

The difference is always what the actual specific ratings of who they played, which we will never know. That's why two people can have similar looking results but one can get DQ'ed.

That's why we'll always have people whining about how it's unfair.

If you are going to rate yourself 3.0, that's just the risk you take, that's why it's not worth doing it just for a shot at a pen or whatever their goal was. (and if that was not their goal they could of played 3.5, 3.5 has about the same players as 3.0 in some cases so you're seeing the same tennis except for the 4.0ish teams)

3 of them were in the finals for one 3.5 tournament or another so this cant be all that much of a surprise. Apparently tournaments count toward your rating in your area.

goober
06-11-2009, 06:57 AM
4 out of 19 is not half. It's not even a quarter, stop exaggerating. Life sometimes isnt fair....

True but I bet those 4 represented half his starting line up- lol :)

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 07:03 AM
True but I bet those 4 represented half his starting line up- lol :)

Probably.

It's always interesting when someone has 19 players for a league that only had 8 matches. (that's only 3 and 1/3 match per player)

Surely they are in it for a pen and a self paid trip to wherever....

They are probably hiding the "better" players for the playoffs. :-) That's typical when you have that many people.

raiden031
06-11-2009, 07:05 AM
Your captain sucks if you guys had 4 players get DQ'd, yet your team is WINLESS! LOL.

Xisbum
06-11-2009, 07:33 AM
Your captain sucks if you guys had 4 players get DQ'd, yet your team is WINLESS! LOL.

I noticed that, too. Worth a head shake and a hmmmmmmm. :)

Nellie
06-11-2009, 07:36 AM
They were winless because of the DQs!

But back to the original question, your guys are self-rates and were winning, one even winning a singles match 0 and 1 at 3.5.

raiden031
06-11-2009, 07:47 AM
They were winless because of the DQs!

But back to the original question, your guys are self-rates and were winning, one even winning a singles match 0 and 1 at 3.5.

Oh good point. LOL.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 08:54 AM
Your captain sucks if you guys had 4 players get DQ'd, yet your team is WINLESS! LOL.

it's his first year as captain so he didn't know and yeah, we lost because of the dq's. we were 6-0 before the first dq, then dropped down to 2nd place after the first dq, then finally two players got dqed at once and was dropped down to last place. (great etiquette to be laughing. remind me next time to turn a nelson on you).

i am not whining so much as trying to understand. maybe some of you guys never had this happen to you or maybe you did. either way i havent.

and no, the captain wasn't hiding any players for playoffs. he was playing the best players most of the time and played the rest when he could. this isn't something i agreed with but if you look at the top teams in leagues they usually do that so just dont hate on my team.

i already said frank and omar indeed have 3.5 abilities but sean and steve i believe do not. steve played some close 3.5 matches but he lost them all and he played with a teammate who was already dqed up to a 3.5 before him so the computer shouldve taken that into account. if you compare the top teams doubles 1 team, then they even have worse records than them yet they are the ones dqed.

raiden031
06-11-2009, 09:05 AM
it's his first year as captain so he didn't know and yeah, we lost because of the dq's. we were 6-0 before the first dq, then dropped down to 2nd place after the first dq, then finally two players got dqed at once and was dropped down to last place. (great etiquette to be laughing. remind me next time to turn a nelson on you).

i am not whining so much as trying to understand. maybe some of you guys never had this happen to you or maybe you did. either way i havent.

and no, the captain wasn't hiding any players for playoffs. he was playing the best players most of the time and played the rest when he could. this isn't something i agreed with but if you look at the top teams in leagues they usually do that so just dont hate on my team.

i already said frank and omar indeed have 3.5 abilities but sean and steve i believe do not. steve played some close 3.5 matches but he lost them all and he played with a teammate who was already dqed up to a 3.5 before him so the computer shouldve taken that into account. if you compare the top teams doubles 1 team, then they even have worse records than them yet they are the ones dqed.

Back in the day I might feel bad for a long-time computer-rated player to get DQ'd, which is what happened to some guy in my league who played 3.5 for several years, and then in sectionals last year he gets dynamically DQ'd and I believe it cost his team a trip to Nationals.

Now that the new rule is in place that only self-rates, appeals, and mixed-exclusive players can get DQ'd, I have no sympathy when it happens.

Topaz
06-11-2009, 09:14 AM
i am not whining so much as trying to understand. maybe some of you guys never had this happen to you or maybe you did. either way i havent.

.

What is there to understand? The players were DQ'd because they are not of a 3.0 skill level as *proven* by the their results. Since most of them were playing 3.5 anyway, sounds like they knew it, too. The computer put them where they are supposed to be, and where it would be most *fair* to all competitors.

What you believe about someone else's ability is irrelevent. Results are what count. Their results show they are 3.5s.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 09:27 AM
What is there to understand? The players were DQ'd because they are not of a 3.0 skill level as *proven* by the their results. Since most of them were playing 3.5 anyway, sounds like they knew it, too. The computer put them where they are supposed to be, and where it would be most *fair* to all competitors.

What you believe about someone else's ability is irrelevent. Results are what count. Their results show they are 3.5s.

no, players dont always play 3.5 because they ARE 3.5's. sometimes they play it to see what 3.5 is like, or to have fun. it's not all black and white and not all my teammates played or was successful at 3.5. how could they know they were even 3.5s if a couple of them it was their first year? they didnt. they managed to do well. usta should not let players play up if they only wish for them to lose since there is no benefit in winning.

again, explain to me how players like the top team's double 1 can win every match easily (except one and that was our top team) and not get dqed if the league was supposed to be so "fair" for all competitors.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 09:29 AM
Back in the day I might feel bad for a long-time computer-rated player to get DQ'd, which is what happened to some guy in my league who played 3.5 for several years, and then in sectionals last year he gets dynamically DQ'd and I believe it cost his team a trip to Nationals.

Now that the new rule is in place that only self-rates, appeals, and mixed-exclusive players can get DQ'd, I have no sympathy when it happens.

you have a point though the way you say it makes it hard for people to hear.

beernutz
06-11-2009, 09:39 AM
sean lui didnt have any 3.5 matches whatsoever. omar gonzales had one he won by retirement and another in doubles three. steve gov lost all his matches at 3.5 which were doubles two and three.

the 3.0 matches for omar were all fairly competitive except for one match. sean lui as well except for three sets. and all of steve gov's 3.0 matches were competitive.

i could understand frank getting dqed but he is the only one. then you have guys like teddiu liu and his partner luis topete who play doubles 1 and are undefeated and win all their matches except for one very easily (not more than usually 2 or 3 games lost).

i think it's a conspiracy, the other team is making a bunch of complaints, and/or the system is whack.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the line at which matches were played has ANY impact on the DQ algorithm.

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 09:55 AM
it's his first year as captain so he didn't know and yeah, we lost because of the dq's. we were 6-0 before the first dq, then dropped down to 2nd place after the first dq, then finally two players got dqed at once and was dropped down to last place. (great etiquette to be laughing. remind me next time to turn a nelson on you).

i am not whining so much as trying to understand. maybe some of you guys never had this happen to you or maybe you did. either way i havent.

and no, the captain wasn't hiding any players for playoffs. he was playing the best players most of the time and played the rest when he could. this isn't something i agreed with but if you look at the top teams in leagues they usually do that so just dont hate on my team.

i already said frank and omar indeed have 3.5 abilities but sean and steve i believe do not. steve played some close 3.5 matches but he lost them all and he played with a teammate who was already dqed up to a 3.5 before him so the computer shouldve taken that into account. if you compare the top teams doubles 1 team, then they even have worse records than them yet they are the ones dqed.

Losing or winning matches doesnt mean anything. He had "competitive results" at 3.5 which probably gave him another strike.

In addition to that he got the finals or semifinals in a couple 3.5 tournaments so clearly he is not a 3.0 player.

So that's 3 people that you have no ability to defend why they were DQ'ed.

Sean isnt as obvious but since we dont know the actual ratings of those players that he whooped other then a couple of them have a few 3.5 matches under their belt.

As far as the players on the first place #1 doubles team, they are not playing 3.5, and they are not playing in tournaments.

Winning every match isnt that big of a deal. You can win a match against someone who is competitive with you, just out of sheer mental fortitude.

But if you are winning and having competitive matches at the next level, that's another story.

This should just be lesson learned. Your players got to play 4 or 5 of the 8 matches, and they got DQ'ed. Rather then complain about it they should feel that they accomplished something.

It only becomes a complaint when a teams "ONLY" reason for playing is to win a pen and a trip to the playoffs or whatever. That's a nice goal to have since it's a league, but hopefully players are in the league to play tennis and they feel they get something out of it even if they dont win a title.

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 09:56 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the line at which matches were played has ANY impact on the DQ algorithm.

No it does not. It also doesnt really matter what level you are playing at (in case someone is rated 3.0 in a 3.5 league), all that matter is the specific rating of your opponents and your partner (if it's doubles).

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 10:05 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the line at which matches were played has ANY impact on the DQ algorithm.

well it should be. doubles 2 and 3 are the weaker positions compared to doubles 1 obviously so if a 3.0 player does well playing up, he is playing well against weaker (relatively) opponents which can explain the good results. to reiterate, if a strong 3.0 player plays a weak 3.5 player, the results will naturally be close. and you guys probably know this from playing but alot of 3.5 players should be really playing at 3.0.

fe6250
06-11-2009, 10:13 AM
well it should be. doubles 2 and 3 are the weaker positions compared to doubles 1 obviously so if a 3.0 player does well playing up, he is playing well against weaker (relatively) opponents which can explain the good results. to reiterate, if a strong 3.0 player plays a weak 3.5 player, the results will naturally be close. and you guys probably know this from playing but alot of 3.5 players should be really playing at 3.0.

It's not necessarily true that doubles 2 and 3 are weaker as captains will frequently 'stack' their line-ups and sacrifice court 1, playing their better players at 2 and 3 in order to try to win the match. As others have said on the thread - it's the players ratings you are playing against that matter - no matter what court they happen to be positioned on.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 10:15 AM
Losing or winning matches doesnt mean anything. He had "competitive results" at 3.5 which probably gave him another strike.

In addition to that he got the finals or semifinals in a couple 3.5 tournaments so clearly he is not a 3.0 player.

So that's 3 people that you have no ability to defend why they were DQ'ed.

Sean isnt as obvious but since we dont know the actual ratings of those players that he whooped other then a couple of them have a few 3.5 matches under their belt.

As far as the players on the first place #1 doubles team, they are not playing 3.5, and they are not playing in tournaments.

Winning every match isnt that big of a deal. You can win a match against someone who is competitive with you, just out of sheer mental fortitude.

But if you are winning and having competitive matches at the next level, that's another story.

This should just be lesson learned. Your players got to play 4 or 5 of the 8 matches, and they got DQ'ed. Rather then complain about it they should feel that they accomplished something.

It only becomes a complaint when a teams "ONLY" reason for playing is to win a pen and a trip to the playoffs or whatever. That's a nice goal to have since it's a league, but hopefully players are in the league to play tennis and they feel they get something out of it even if they dont win a title.

i agree with the last part. i like to be on a team that just plays to have fun. i won't say my captain was wrong but i do disagree with how aggressively he played some of the better players -- i wouldve liked everyone to play at least three times. but i think he's getting his punishment for that right now. unfortunately the team has to suffer as well and all those players got so few chances to play.

i checked out steve gov's record. i didnt see his tournament play at the bottom. yep, he definitely qualified for a dq since he did so well at the 3.5 and even 4.0 level. no argument there anymore.

i think to a degree it's about how you play within the system. if the other top teams played 3.5 then i think for sure they wouldve been dqed as well. but they didnt and my teammates did. this is extremely poorly put, but the other teams were smart about it and were rewarded with not playing at 3.5 (since they wouldve done well and thus been dqed) and my teammates were penalized. because like i said, that top double steam are definitely 3.5 with their strokes (great technique, lot of pace and strategy).

well, ive only got sean to back up now. he didnt play any tournaments at 3.5 or in league play. him i have to say was unfair of to dq.

fe6250
06-11-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree - Sean is a bit more puzzling, if you look for his 3 strikes (assuming he is self-rated). His first singles match was against a Benchmark 3.0 where he won in singles 6-0, 6-3 - let's say that is strike #1.

From there it's hard to see which of the remaining matches were strike #2. We can only assume that the last match he played was his strike #3 and he was playing a team that won easily against others in the league in that match.

So - can't say I can see where the second strike came from....but one of those middle matches caused it in my opinion. You would have to look and see if any of those players were benchmarked or otherwise had strong playing records to try to figure it out.

kylebarendrick
06-11-2009, 10:52 AM
I was on a strong team a few years ago that had two players DQ'd. At first it was frustrating - I knew the flaws in their games and I also saw better players on other teams that avoided the DQ. It didn't seem fair.

Realistically though, I soon acknowledged that the computer did manage to DQ the players on our team that were most out of level.

We were like your team. We had strong self-rated players and we played aggressively to win as many matches by as lopsided a score as possible. That can lead to players being DQd but it is also fair. Nobody is trying to trick the computer or hide themselves for a chance at a playoff run.

That said, plenty of captains know how to build a strong self-rate team and protect their players from DQ. They limit their matches during the local league. The encourage them to throw sets or even matches (when they aren't needed for the team win) to keep ratings below the DQ threshold. Captains that do this are gaming the system and essentially cheating - but that is part of the reason why you see players with skills that are way out of level somehow manage to avoid the DQ.

Cruzer
06-11-2009, 11:32 AM
Not only is it "Holy crap - half my team disqualified" but it is also "Holy crap - half my team disqualified and even with a bunch of guys playing at the wrong level we have not been able to win one stinkin' match this season".

hammer
06-11-2009, 12:12 PM
It's always interesting when someone has 19 players for a league that only had 8 matches. (that's only 3 and 1/3 match per player)



Believe it or not, it can actually be pretty tough to field a team, even with a 19 man roster, at this time of year with a lot of players going on vacation or doing graduation stuff for their kids, relatives, or friends.

hammer
06-11-2009, 12:14 PM
Not only is it "Holy crap - half my team disqualified" but it is also "Holy crap - half my team disqualified and even with a bunch of guys playing at the wrong level we have not been able to win one stinkin' match this season".

As mentioned earlier in this thread, all of those losses came because of the DQ's. They were in first place and undefeated prior to the DQ's.

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 12:36 PM
Believe it or not, it can actually be pretty tough to field a team, even with a 19 man roster, at this time of year with a lot of players going on vacation or doing graduation stuff for their kids, relatives, or friends.

Ive been running teams for years so I am well aware of how many players you need to field a team.

As long as the matches are on a set day every week, having 14 or 15 players is more then enough to account for people being out of town.

11-13 is more ideal for having a good solid lineup and giving out enough matches for everyone (when players play more sometimes they do better), but then you really have to hope that most of your players can and want to play almost every week.

Any more then 15 is just crazy unless you have more then 10 matches. This league only has 8 matches (which is pretty much on the low end of acceptable).

So if some team has more then 15 players to me that means either the captain is just very absent minded (I know someone in my league who doesnt even keep track of how many players he has and he promises everyone under the sun they can play), or it is a means of picking up enough extra ringers that you only have to play them once or twice before the playoffs.

(or you know you've got the personal to go to the playoffs and you're making sure you have enough available bodys for that since not everyone is always planning on playing in an extra one or two or three entire weekends after the regular season)

amarone
06-11-2009, 01:07 PM
again, explain to me how players like the top team's double 1 can win every match easily (except one and that was our top team) and not get dqed if the league was supposed to be so "fair" for all competitors. Teddie Liu has a computer rating, so he's not going to get DQed. Topete looks like a candidate, though.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 01:24 PM
Teddie Liu has a computer rating, so he's not going to get DQed. Topete looks like a candidate, though.

how can you tell if they're self rated?

amarone
06-11-2009, 01:28 PM
how can you tell if they're self rated?Go into TennisLink and use the menu entry on the right hand side for Find a Rating. That will give you their rating as of the last National Rating, if they had one (like Lui) and the type (C = Computer). If they did not have a National Rating, but self-rated since, it will show them as type S and give the date that they self-rated.

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 02:17 PM
Go into TennisLink and use the menu entry on the right hand side for Find a Rating. That will give you their rating as of the last National Rating, if they had one (like Lui) and the type (C = Computer). If they did not have a National Rating, but self-rated since, it will show them as type S and give the date that they self-rated.

heh now it's starting to make sense. so if you're a benchmark player because you went to playoffs or sectionals, how long do you stay one? i ask because sean lui beat a benchmark 3.0 player (carl barbata) who i've played and isn't that great.

amarone
06-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Kind of funny that Charles Hoang didn't get DQed too considering his record and that he beat Omar on your team who was DQed.
a) Hoang beat Omar at 3.5. Omar was DQed from 3.0. b) Hoang is computer-rated so will not get dynamically DQed.

JLyon
06-11-2009, 03:44 PM
You get a Benchmark Rating if you play a match above the Local League Level, even City Championships. Hs nothing to do with how good or bad a player is. If they step on the court and play one point after Local League they are given a "B"

lordmanji
06-11-2009, 03:58 PM
You get a Benchmark Rating if you play a match above the Local League Level, even City Championships. Hs nothing to do with how good or bad a player is. If they step on the court and play one point after Local League they are given a "B"

but for how long? just that year? or beyond?

kylebarendrick
06-11-2009, 04:28 PM
Just that year

hammer
06-11-2009, 04:29 PM
As long as the matches are on a set day every week, having 14 or 15 players is more then enough to account for people being out of town.

11-13 is more ideal for having a good solid lineup and giving out enough matches for everyone (when players play more sometimes they do better), but then you really have to hope that most of your players can and want to play almost every week.

Any more then 15 is just crazy unless you have more then 10 matches. This league only has 8 matches (which is pretty much on the low end of acceptable).


For my adult leagues, we usually have a 10-11 match schedule over the years, and having 16-17 players is ideal for us. I captained a team, however, that had a 12 man roster, and we had to default a line a couple of times (all we need is just 5 players to not be available). You must have players that are available all the time, because almost all of my guys have families with kids, and a couple even have to work on weekends at times. So, yeah, I can have 6-7 players not be available for a given match, especially on a three day weekend, or Mothers' Day weekend, or graduation.

So if you have an 8 match schedule, that means you have 64 spots to fill throughout the entire season. Are you telling me that you would have a tough time accommodating 16 players to play at least 2 matches each? Each player, if divided up evenly, would be able to play 4 matches each, if I calculate that correctly.

JavierLW
06-11-2009, 11:22 PM
For my adult leagues, we usually have a 10-11 match schedule over the years, and having 16-17 players is ideal for us. I captained a team, however, that had a 12 man roster, and we had to default a line a couple of times (all we need is just 5 players to not be available). You must have players that are available all the time, because almost all of my guys have families with kids, and a couple even have to work on weekends at times. So, yeah, I can have 6-7 players not be available for a given match, especially on a three day weekend, or Mothers' Day weekend, or graduation.

So if you have an 8 match schedule, that means you have 64 spots to fill throughout the entire season. Are you telling me that you would have a tough time accommodating 16 players to play at least 2 matches each? Each player, if divided up evenly, would be able to play 4 matches each, if I calculate that correctly.

Are your matches on a set day every week (like Thursday nights), or are they on all sorts of random days even on weekends??

That seems to make a huge difference.

Our matches are always on the same night of the week every week. We also only really have USTA league at all in the summer, so it's not all that hard for husbands to get their wifes to let them play on ONE night during the week.

And YES, my players want to play tennis, that's why they signed up. I realize that a lot of other people SAY they want to play tennis, up until something that's more important to them comes along, but the guys on my team are not like that.

They might typically ask off for maybe 2 weeks per year, but otherwise they would play every week if I let them.

They also respect my time and they respect the team so they dont bail on me at the last minute. (and if someone did tend to do that, Id probably replace them and not bother with them for too much longer)

Face it most people pay money to play tennis in this league. They are not going to pay $65 to play 2 matches or even just 4 matches. That's not a league, you could join some club league and get a way better deal then that....

It's only these weird teams that are ONLY in it to make the playoffs that seem to think it's reasonable that players may only play 2-4 matches so they go out and get a zillion players.

Just because you had a team that only had 12 players and you had to default means you cant run a team with 12 players. (although I admit that's stretching it a bit) It all depends on who you get. (although I understand in some situations like on club teams you are sometimes stuck with certain people but I wouldnt run a club team for that reason)

The first year I started running my current team we only had 10 players for most of the season, and we probably would of made it all the way thru without a default except for one week where we had to pick up a 11th player to avoid it.

It was actually a lot more fun, and we managed to take 3rd place out of 8 teams even though we had 7 3.0 rated players (including the last guy we had to pickup).

heninfan99
06-12-2009, 10:53 AM
How many sets did your guys win at love in that first match?


four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009

Cindysphinx
06-12-2009, 10:54 AM
Are your matches on a set day every week (like Thursday nights), or are they on all sorts of random days even on weekends??

That seems to make a huge difference.



Yeah, having matches on many different days and times calls for a much larger roster than having matches the same day every week.

If I had to field six players per match (combo doubles, say), I could never do it with just 12 players on the roster. Players are on multiple teams. Players have jobs. Players have families. Players get injured. Players take vacations.

Right now, our roster limit for spring adult play is 20, and you need 8 players per match. I have 16 players. Each week, I have a random assortment of 8-10 people available. It is killing me. I don't have the right players for the opponent we are facing, and I don't often have the right doubles pairings. It makes it very hard to be competitive.

I wish our league would stop splitting the teams into two flights of 10 each. That is only nine team matches per season. With 16 players, most players will get 5 matches, but some will get just 4 over a 12-week season. That's barely enough. So if you took on the full roster of 20 people, you'd get so few matches that it would barely be worth anyone's time.

JavierLW
06-12-2009, 12:11 PM
Yeah, having matches on many different days and times calls for a much larger roster than having matches the same day every week.

If I had to field six players per match (combo doubles, say), I could never do it with just 12 players on the roster. Players are on multiple teams. Players have jobs. Players have families. Players get injured. Players take vacations.

Right now, our roster limit for spring adult play is 20, and you need 8 players per match. I have 16 players. Each week, I have a random assortment of 8-10 people available. It is killing me. I don't have the right players for the opponent we are facing, and I don't often have the right doubles pairings. It makes it very hard to be competitive.

I wish our league would stop splitting the teams into two flights of 10 each. That is only nine team matches per season. With 16 players, most players will get 5 matches, but some will get just 4 over a 12-week season. That's barely enough. So if you took on the full roster of 20 people, you'd get so few matches that it would barely be worth anyone's time.

Right, how they split the flights up is a big problem here as well, sometimes they dont put a whole lot of thought into it.

We dont have a huge window to play in here because the sectionals are too early, but sometimes they do things like:

22 teams:

One year they go 6-6-6-4 (10 matches / 10 matches / 10 matches /9 matches)

But then the next year they get a new coordinator that doesnt put much thought into it and they go 6-6-5-5 (only 8 matches for 10 teams)

With 20 teams, on a good year here they'd probably go 8-6-6. (10 matches for all, the 8 team division would have to play a "mini-round robin")

And that's just if you are limited to 10-11 weeks for some reason, if you had more room then Im sure there are all sorts of better combinations then going 10-10.

I think having the matches on all sorts of random days is silly, but that's my opinion.

The leagues view on it is "it allows more people to play", but does it? It doesnt if half the time they end up being unavailable because they've likely made other plans on certain days of the week. (like weekends which seem to be really hard for a lot of people in the summer, people work 5 days a week and they likely made plans for familytime on the weekend, where a weeknight isnt such a big deal)

(what it really does is it facilitates more people registering for your team so the USTA makes more $$$)

Cindysphinx
06-12-2009, 12:31 PM
I think having the matches on all sorts of random days is silly, but that's my opinion.

No, it's not silly. It's quite sensible.

The various flights around here are not the same size. There are way more 3.0 women than 4.0 women, for instance. If you decide that 3.0 women always play on Wednesdays and 4.0 women always play on Fridays, you will have two problems.

First, there are not enough indoor courts to accommodate all of the 3.0 matches that would need to be played on Wednesdays.

Second, courts will sit idle on Fridays because there are not enough 4.0 women to fill them.

In addition, mixing things up guarantees that every team, regardless of gender or level, shares the pain. The "pain" I am referring to is the matches in distant locations and odd-ball times. The matches that are least popular are Saturday nights at 9 pm, and also 7 pm weeknight matches far away (because the traffic getting there is so bad). We also recently had a match at 10:00 am on Sunday morning, which is yet another kind of pain.

I actually think a system of having matches be spread around on different days and times is much better. Everyone has different scheduling challenges. For me, I would rather play a match from 9-11 pm than 7-9 pm on a weeknight because it is easier on my family; others feel exactly the opposite. Also, there are some people who are simply unavailable on certain days of the week. If the league decreed that 3.5 women had to play Saturdays, I know one woman who couldn't play at all because of her soccer coaching obligations. Nor could people with religious restrictions on the Sabbath.

So there are lots of good reasons why leagues do it the way my league does, and it is not at all "silly."

The leagues view on it is "it allows more people to play", but does it? It doesnt if half the time they end up being unavailable because they've likely made other plans on certain days of the week.

Yes, it does allow more people to play, for the reasons I explained above.

If you want to play, you have to look at the season schedule and try to plan other obligations around your tennis. At least then *you* are deciding how much of a priority your tennis should be. In contrast, if the league decrees that you Shall Play On Thursday Evenings, then the player may have his or her hands tied.

(like weekends which seem to be really hard for a lot of people in the summer, people work 5 days a week and they likely made plans for familytime on the weekend, where a weeknight isnt such a big deal)

(what it really does is it facilitates more people registering for your team so the USTA makes more $$$)

Weeknights are a big deal for some people and not for others. Anyone with spouse, family, job and tennis will understand just how tricky the juggling is. The last thing folks like me need is the league decreeing that henceforth 3.5 women will all have to play on Monday nights.

JavierLW
06-12-2009, 12:55 PM
No, it's not silly. It's quite sensible.

The various flights around here are not the same size. There are way more 3.0 women than 4.0 women, for instance. If you decide that 3.0 women always play on Wednesdays and 4.0 women always play on Fridays, you will have two problems.

First, there are not enough indoor courts to accommodate all of the 3.0 matches that would need to be played on Wednesdays.

Second, courts will sit idle on Fridays because there are not enough 4.0 women to fill them.

In addition, mixing things up guarantees that every team, regardless of gender or level, shares the pain. The "pain" I am referring to is the matches in distant locations and odd-ball times. The matches that are least popular are Saturday nights at 9 pm, and also 7 pm weeknight matches far away (because the traffic getting there is so bad). We also recently had a match at 10:00 am on Sunday morning, which is yet another kind of pain.

I actually think a system of having matches be spread around on different days and times is much better. Everyone has different scheduling challenges. For me, I would rather play a match from 9-11 pm than 7-9 pm on a weeknight because it is easier on my family; others feel exactly the opposite. Also, there are some people who are simply unavailable on certain days of the week. If the league decreed that 3.5 women had to play Saturdays, I know one woman who couldn't play at all because of her soccer coaching obligations. Nor could people with religious restrictions on the Sabbath.

So there are lots of good reasons why leagues do it the way my league does, and it is not at all "silly."



Yes, it does allow more people to play, for the reasons I explained above.

If you want to play, you have to look at the season schedule and try to plan other obligations around your tennis. At least then *you* are deciding how much of a priority your tennis should be. In contrast, if the league decrees that you Shall Play On Thursday Evenings, then the player may have his or her hands tied.



Weeknights are a big deal for some people and not for others. Anyone with spouse, family, job and tennis will understand just how tricky the juggling is. The last thing folks like me need is the league decreeing that henceforth 3.5 women will all have to play on Monday nights.

It might mean that "more people can play" but it also might mean that nobody is going to get to play a lot.... (since everyone is going to have a conflict at some time or another)

As far as level/gender parity, you arent putting enough thought into that one. In our league they estimate how big a certain level/gender will be and they schedule them on a day of the week to not overwhelm one day versus another.

Yes that might mean that someone is going to get stuck playing on Monday nights (which seems to be the least desirable weeknight other then Friday), but that's the way it goes, there are only 7 days a week... (and 4 weeknights if you dont include Friday)

They usually throw all of the mixed on Friday's here. (but they are allowed to move it to the weekend if they want and both teams agree)

I dont care how much reasoning you put into it, if you have a system where most of your players are going to be unavailable for half of the matches (because everyone has different conflicts like you admit), then that's not really much better then one where you can get people to play every match if they want. Especially when you're talking about paying for a league where you only might play 4 times or less.

hammer
06-12-2009, 01:13 PM
Are your matches on a set day every week (like Thursday nights), or are they on all sorts of random days even on weekends??

That seems to make a huge difference.

Our matches are always on the same night of the week every week. We also only really have USTA league at all in the summer, so it's not all that hard for husbands to get their wifes to let them play on ONE night during the week.


Yeah, our matches are scheduled during various times of the week. Most are on weekends (when the courts aren't as busy). Court availability is probably the largest factor when it comes to scheduling matches, which is probably why half of them are scheduled on a weekend afternoon, when not many people are playing.

I definitely agree that it's much easier to get players to play an evening match than it is to play a weekend match. Our league is quite competitive, so we tend to play our best players quite a bit rather than having them play their 2 matches and wait for playoffs to come. For other players that want join my team, but I know I won't be able to play them as much, I'll tell them that I can probably only play them 3 or 4 times this season (out of a 10 match season), and that usually suits them quite well.

Cindy - I can really relate to what you go through as I seem to go through the same stuff each season. I had a playoff match where 4 of our top 8 couldn't play (injury, vacation, prior engagement, etc.) We ended up losing that match, obviously.

Cindysphinx
06-12-2009, 03:31 PM
The reason playerss might not play much (say, 4 matches over 12 weeks) is not because of our scheduling system. It is because the flights are too small. Simple as that. Bigger flights would allow bigger teams while still allowing everyone to play a lot.

I think it likely that I would have the same availability problems even if we had a designated night for our matches. I mean, the season schedule comes out in one chunk at the beginning of the season, so player know full well when the matches will be. The problem is that other personal things get scheduled as the season goes along, and then the player has a conflict. I have heard everything from spouse having surgery to Billy's first piano recital to called out of town on business to last-minute houseguests to dropped furniture on hand (that one was just last week!). If all of our matches were on Wednesdays, for instance, we would have the same number of personal conflicts. They would all more likely happen on Wednesdays.

I'm glad you like your system, Javier, but I would be bummed to switch places with you. Here, players join as many teams as they want per season (I am on three teams right now), and we have tennis leagues (combo, senior, mixed, adult, day) year-round. It looks like I will play at least 12 matches this spring season. That is plenty of tennis!

Topaz
06-12-2009, 04:17 PM
The reason playerss might not play much (say, 4 matches over 12 weeks) is not because of our scheduling system. It is because the flights are too small. Simple as that. Bigger flights would allow bigger teams while still allowing everyone to play a lot.



Case in point, my indoor league, which has 23 teams. That means 22 matches in 2 and a half months (roughly speaking). While you do get tired sometimes, I would much rather have it this way than only have a few matches and be divided up into flights.

Cindysphinx
06-12-2009, 04:26 PM
Case in point, my indoor league, which has 23 teams. That means 22 matches in 2 and a half months (roughly speaking). While you do get tired sometimes, I would much rather have it this way than only have a few matches and be divided up into flights.

I wish I could join that league, for exactly that reason. I'm terrified of the traffic, though. I think I'd throw a blood clot right on the American Legion Bridge.

lordmanji
06-12-2009, 05:39 PM
Yeah, having matches on many different days and times calls for a much larger roster than having matches the same day every week.

If I had to field six players per match (combo doubles, say), I could never do it with just 12 players on the roster. Players are on multiple teams. Players have jobs. Players have families. Players get injured. Players take vacations.

Right now, our roster limit for spring adult play is 20, and you need 8 players per match. I have 16 players. Each week, I have a random assortment of 8-10 people available. It is killing me. I don't have the right players for the opponent we are facing, and I don't often have the right doubles pairings. It makes it very hard to be competitive.

I wish our league would stop splitting the teams into two flights of 10 each. That is only nine team matches per season. With 16 players, most players will get 5 matches, but some will get just 4 over a 12-week season. That's barely enough. So if you took on the full roster of 20 people, you'd get so few matches that it would barely be worth anyone's time.

ehehe my team was the exact opposite (back before all the dq's). we had 19 players and the same people kept getting played even though many of us were available to play. the only good thing about the dq's were that it helped everyone to play but even then i know of four-five guys that are always on the roster (including the captain). what makes it crazier is that a few of these guys play for our 3.5 team as well so they get double play!

we have our last league match tomorrow, there's a guy who paid but hasnt played one match and he's not even half bad but he's not gonna get a chance to play again. i think that really sucks and if i were a captain, id try to rotate everyone in. you could have your "strong team" play one week and the "weak team" the next, or just figure out a way to combine the two. my captain just plays the best people all the time no matter whoever else is free and unless someone from his A team is unavailable, the others don't play. of course people have different priorities and he's really a co-captain so he didn't decide who could be let in, but i think he shouldve taken that into account when he made his rosters and i think it's not cool when the urge to win comes at the expense of someone's rightfully hurt feelings.

Cindysphinx
06-13-2009, 07:17 AM
ehehe my team was the exact opposite (back before all the dq's). we had 19 players and the same people kept getting played even though many of us were available to play. the only good thing about the dq's were that it helped everyone to play but even then i know of four-five guys that are always on the roster (including the captain). what makes it crazier is that a few of these guys play for our 3.5 team as well so they get double play!

we have our last league match tomorrow, there's a guy who paid but hasnt played one match and he's not even half bad but he's not gonna get a chance to play again. i think that really sucks and if i were a captain, id try to rotate everyone in. you could have your "strong team" play one week and the "weak team" the next, or just figure out a way to combine the two. my captain just plays the best people all the time no matter whoever else is free and unless someone from his A team is unavailable, the others don't play. of course people have different priorities and he's really a co-captain so he didn't decide who could be let in, but i think he shouldve taken that into account when he made his rosters and i think it's not cool when the urge to win comes at the expense of someone's rightfully hurt feelings.

Obviously, your captains should have been explicit about how they would decide who would play. It isn't fair to have people pay and then bench them without telling the policies in advance.

I kind of wonder how teams who operate like your team stay in business year after year. My previous DC captain played her strong players for every match in an effort to make the playoffs. I got one match despite having payed registration fees of $70. And guess what? Almost all of the mid-level players left for other teams. So she is now left with the weakest players and whoever else she could recruit (because the strong players were bumped up or left for personal reasons). And her team was 0-5 last time I checked.

lordmanji
06-14-2009, 09:52 AM
Obviously, your captains should have been explicit about how they would decide who would play. It isn't fair to have people pay and then bench them without telling the policies in advance.

I kind of wonder how teams who operate like your team stay in business year after year. My previous DC captain played her strong players for every match in an effort to make the playoffs. I got one match despite having payed registration fees of $70. And guess what? Almost all of the mid-level players left for other teams. So she is now left with the weakest players and whoever else she could recruit (because the strong players were bumped up or left for personal reasons). And her team was 0-5 last time I checked.

Wow 70 bucks is a lot. I only pay 19 to play in the league plus the yearly membership fee. Well, my captain didn't play another player yesterday -- his opponent didn't show up so he got a default win. He wanted to play though in place of one of the three doubles guys that's played almost every week but just wasnt allowed to play even though we're in last place and so a win means absolutely nothing for the team. maybe for the player, but it's too bad the captain placed his own desire to play and still for the team to win over that player. feel very bad for the guy.

hammer
06-15-2009, 12:04 AM
Wow 70 bucks is a lot. I only pay 19 to play in the league plus the yearly membership fee. Well, my captain didn't play another player yesterday -- his opponent didn't show up so he got a default win. He wanted to play though in place of one of the three doubles guys that's played almost every week but just wasnt allowed to play even though we're in last place and so a win means absolutely nothing for the team. maybe for the player, but it's too bad the captain placed his own desire to play and still for the team to win over that player. feel very bad for the guy.

The captain need to just say up front about how much someone's going to play before he/she joins a team. I will always try to play a variety of players to get everyone involved. Normally I would pick out the weaker teams on my schedule and play the majority of my "B" squad against those teams. There are actually some people who join our team so that they can just take part in our practices and play their two matches.

Xisbum
06-15-2009, 04:06 AM
When I captained teams back in the day, we tried to walk the fine line between trying to win and trying to get everyone significant playing time. My name would always be the last one added on any scorecard, and only when there was no other option. I acted as the "wild card," so to speak, ready to step in if anyone had a last minute emergency, got stuck in traffic or just forgot.

I got my tennis fix during weekly practice and in helping others warm up. I was seldom the best and never the worst player on my teams, so I could fit in just about anywhere. Since we all knew each other and played with and against each other quite frequently during the off season and during the week, compatibility was never a problem.

Seemed to work for us.

P.S. We had only one league season - spring through early summer - for regular and senior teams. Mixed doubles and combo leagues each had separate seasons later in the summer. All our matches were outside and on weekends, so planning our schedules around team tennis was fairly simple.

We also had a robust NTRP tournament schedule beginning in February (inside) and running through November (also inside). Those tournaments were weeklong affairs, each played at a single site on weekday evenings (6 p.m. start time) with semis and finals on the weekends, often with 350 entries or more in gender singles and doubles and mixed doubles, 3.0 through 4.5 (sometimes 5.0 if we could get enough entries). We had at least one tournament a month rotated throughout the city's private and public courts, sometimes two in a month. They were fun and usually well run.

amarone
06-18-2009, 04:32 AM
four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009 How come the 1st placed team have not yet played their 5/30 match? In our league that would be a double-default. I am interested to see if Topete manages to get DQed in the last two matches.

Topaz
06-18-2009, 06:33 AM
^^^Rain-out???

amarone
06-18-2009, 06:40 AM
^^^Rain-out??? Surely there are time limitations on when it must be replayed? In Atlanta we have to play within a week, with the final day being the default day - if you don't arrange anything otherwise, you must play on that day. If it rains that day, you must play the next, and so on. Maybe the local league in question here has much more lax timescales, but given that the round-robin season seems to have ended - the last match was last weekend, surely there is some need to get the matches finished?

Topaz
06-18-2009, 06:42 AM
*shrug* I don't know, just the first thing I thought of that could be a reason. In one of my leagues, if you are rained out, you pretty much have until the end of the season to get the make-up matches in.

Fedace
06-18-2009, 06:58 AM
four of my teammates were disqualified - one a few wks ago, another last week, now two more this week. compared to only one dq for one other play on the team that's now in first place. check out all the "3.5" players on my team and their records and tell me what you guys think. this has to be unfair.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=T&TeamCode=DB003AC318E06E5CF5D46B1A09585F0E4D2C&CYear=2009

That is what you get for putting out Ringers and not playing Fair.:)

Atown
06-18-2009, 07:27 AM
Surely there are time limitations on when it must be replayed?

We just have to play the match before the season ends.

TNE_Admin
08-04-2009, 03:41 PM
Too funny. Looking at the team. Steve Gov and Omar Gonzalez both play www.TennisLosAngeles.com

10sguy
08-04-2009, 04:09 PM
[QUOTE=JavierLW;3547395]

"Probably"

(just between us; well, it took a while - but congrats on getting it right!)

Lakers4Life
08-04-2009, 06:51 PM
I've seen these guys play at Shoal Canyon. Way under-rated, and still are. I would not be surprised if the Computer bumps up a couple of guys, and puts them in a level where they should belong.

Klaus
08-05-2009, 03:37 PM
I actually played in this league. Almost all of the players play at 3.5 level or higher. There was one that was a solid 3.0 and maybe one other, but the rest were above that level of play with footwork, playing the net and strategy.

Lakers4Life
08-05-2009, 06:51 PM
I was laughing at one of guys who plays 2.5. He's definately playing above his level, I would rate him at 1.5 to 2.0 solidly. I think he was using a Wilson Federer signature kids racquet. I could not stop laughing, he was sort of a wise crack.

quest01
08-09-2009, 07:48 PM
In sectionals there were two teams disqualified, one was from New Jersey and the other from Long Island. The New Jersey team had a guy playing #1 singles who was DQ'd because he was a higher rating. The Long Island player was DQ'd along with his entire team because he was a higher level also, he played doubles and the strategy was for him to play the baseline while leaving the weaker player at the net and he would just let every ball go back to him. It almost felt like he was playing by himself.