PDA

View Full Version : what do you think of leagues where percentage of games won/ played determines winner?


EKnee08
02-01-2010, 01:32 PM
Hi All:

I just completed a club mens doubles league (4.0) where you played with and against different partners each week. To me, the league was just for fun and social in nature and I used it to work on different aspects of my game. I won far more times than I lost.
Going into the 2nd to last match, my partner advised me that we needed to beat the other team badly, because I was in 5th place and if we did really well, I could move into 2nd or 3rd place and play in the championship match the following week.
Well we won three out of three sets easily and when I came to the club for the last week, the league director was there and advised me and the 3 other guys in my match that we would be playing the championship match for trophies (I assumed the winning team would win the trophies-wrong!).
Well, everyone took the match seriously because, it was for trophies.
My partner and I won and when we stepped off the court, the director made some calculations, and I did not win the trophy.
There was no way to win because although we won in straight sets, one of the guys on the other team was well ahead in the standings and my partner was also ahead of me in the standings by 0.001% or something like that.
I really didn't care about winning the trophy other than to bring it home to show my 5 year old who wins trophies all the time just for participating in her activities. (That is I have had my share of USTA and club tournament trophies anyway at the 4.5 and 5.0 level ). The bottom line was that it was the most fun and competitive match of the season.
The question, though is what is your feeling about leagues where the percentage of games won or total games won is given more importance than winning more sets and the match?-for example, you could be considered to win if you lose to the other team 6-0 , 4-6, 4-6 ( you won 14 games and your opponent won only 12) but you really lost the match!

blakesq
02-01-2010, 04:04 PM
Seems like a fair way to do it, if your league format has you playing with different partners.


Hi All:

The question, though is what is your feeling about leagues where the percentage of games won or total games won is given more importance than winning more sets and the match?-for example, you could be considered to win if you lose to the other team 6-0 , 4-6, 4-6 ( you won 14 games and your opponent won only 12) but you really lost the match!

dlk
02-01-2010, 04:12 PM
Yes, it is strange; WTT is same. More meaning to games won than sets won.

OrangePower
02-01-2010, 04:24 PM
As long as the scoring method is understood by everyone going in, then I have no problem with it.

I once participated in a league where every team consisted of 3 dubs pairs, and a match against other teams consisted of each team's pairs playing 11 games against each other the other team's pairs. So each pair played 11 x 3 = 33 games, for a total of 99 games, and the team with 50 or more total games won the match.

justinmadison
02-01-2010, 08:29 PM
The most competitive league/format I have ever played is a ladder system. You play 3 sets each night switching partners each set. The player with the most games won moves up a court and the player with the least games won move down a court. The next week you do it all again.

At the end of the league, I think we played 12 weeks, the winner is the person who wins the most games on the top court on the final night.

It is absolutely brutal.

DownTheLine
02-01-2010, 08:48 PM
My junior league dis that and I thought it was stupid. You can play worse players then others and have a game ratio of like 90%, while the kid with 70% is the better player but played better people.


At the end we did have a league tournament so the places were just seeds.

Solat
02-01-2010, 10:55 PM
The most competitive league/format I have ever played is a ladder system. You play 3 sets each night switching partners each set. The player with the most games won moves up a court and the player with the least games won move down a court. The next week you do it all again.

At the end of the league, I think we played 12 weeks, the winner is the person who wins the most games on the top court on the final night.

It is absolutely brutal.

i like this idea, thanks for sharing

Taxvictim
02-02-2010, 05:47 AM
The most competitive league/format I have ever played is a ladder system. You play 3 sets each night switching partners each set. The player with the most games won moves up a court and the player with the least games won move down a court. The next week you do it all again.

We do that at our club; it's called Quads. We play eight games with each partner -- four games on one side of the net, then switch to the other side. Partners change their receiving order at the switch. You get to play with many different partners each season, you meet a lot of nice people, and after a few weeks everyone ends up on a court where everyone is approximately the same level, so the play is very competitive. Many times the decision between who moves up depends on the very last game.

Whenever we play men's social doubles (just four guys out for fun), we use the same format. It's really the most fair because one guy doesn't get stuck with the worst player the whole match.

As to the original question about winning games vs. winning sets, in regular tennis that would mean that Andy Roddick won Wimbledon this year.

Sumo
02-02-2010, 06:20 AM
The most competitive league/format I have ever played is a ladder system. You play 3 sets each night switching partners each set. The player with the most games won moves up a court and the player with the least games won move down a court. The next week you do it all again.

At the end of the league, I think we played 12 weeks, the winner is the person who wins the most games on the top court on the final night.

It is absolutely brutal.

This is awesome. I need to find something like that.

spot
02-02-2010, 07:07 AM
I really didn't care about winning the trophy

I somehow don't believe you when you say this...

beernutz
02-02-2010, 08:05 AM
The only thing odd to me is that apparently you personally had no chance to win a trophy even before the final match was played. This really isn't that surprising given the format of the league. However, is it possible that some of the other final standings might have changed as a result of the outcome?

EKnee08
02-02-2010, 10:39 AM
The only thing odd to me is that apparently you personally had no chance to win a trophy even before the final match was played. This really isn't that surprising given the format of the league. However, is it possible that some of the other final standings might have changed as a result of the outcome?

Yes, it was odd. Mathematically, it was impossible for any of the 4 players positions to change. Number 4 was so far behind me (at 3) that he couldn't catch me and #2 was my partner and something like 0.001% ahead of me. It would have been nice to have this announced before the match but it was still fun and the best quality tennis of the league season.

EKnee08
02-02-2010, 10:42 AM
I somehow don't believe you when you say this...

It was a tiny trophy, and winning the league would not be considered any big deal, it was social and for laughs However, showing it to my 5 year old would be nice because at this point she gets trophies just for participating and has more trophies than many adults. A trophy should be the result of accomplishing something. Thats a whole another discussion.

justinmadison
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
My 8 year old played in the tournament. During the trophy presentation the tournament director was giving trophies to each of the participants. When he called up my son and tried to give him the trophy my boy said he did not win and did not understand why he should get a trophy. The director told him it was for “sportsmanship”. My boy thought it over and told the director he did not deserve the trophy because he was only a good sport for 1 and ˝ matches. He refused the trophy and walked away. 

He really was a bad sport during play.

LuckyR
02-02-2010, 01:20 PM
Considering that noone in this situation makes their living at tennis, it is OK. It does violate the overall tone of tennis though (that is that someone can win more overall points but still lose the match ie that not all points in tennis are created equal).