Good or Bad Captaining - What do you think?

[Allibaba]

I'm a higher-rated 2.5 player (hahaha) and just joined 2 women's leagues, 2.5 and up on 3.0. The captains have very different approaches and I'm curious what you think about them.

The 2.5 captain has given everyone an equal amount of playing time, approx. 4 matches for the season. She is alternating us between 1 singles (S1) and 2 doubles positions (D1 and D2) so that we play with almost everyone on our team and rarely have the same partner. It doesn't appear that she considers our team's or our opponents' stats and ratings when deciding on the lineups. The range of player ratings on our team varies from 2.0 to higher 2.5. This captain has team practice every week.

The 3.0 captain has given the higher-rated players 5-6 matches and the new and lower-rated players 3-4 matches for the season. I can tell she determined the line-ups based on our team's and our opponents' stats and ratings, playing the stronger players with the stronger teams and weaker players with the weaker teams. She has 3.0 players playing the 2 singles spots (S1 and S2), paired all of the 3.0 players for doubles (D1 and D2), and all of the self-rated 3.0's and 2.5 players together (D3) for the most part. The majority of our opponents' teams have 3.0 players only. I will note that if the 2.5 players hadn't joined, there wouldn't have been enough ladies to form this team. This captain either doesn't have team practice or excludes the new players.

I am not sure if it was a good idea to join this 3.0 team if I'm hoping to move up in a couple of years but I would like to play more often. I'm doing okay with 2.5 so far and am anticipating losing my 3.0 matches, especially paired with another 2.5. Two of my 3.0 partners are self-rated so I think that even if I play equally as well or better, they'll get the higher rating because I'm a computer-rated 2.5. From a ratings perspective, it is my understanding that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player, even though you may not win.

My questions are:
1. Is it fair that the higher-rated players get to play more matches?
2. Should doubles partners be alternated or maintained throughout the season and should captains ask for input including compatibility?
3. Should captains determine the lineups based on their team's and their opponent's stats and ratings?
4. Should doubles partners be matched based on closer ratings or for instance, pair a higher 3.0 with a 2.5 (so that you have 5.5 vs. 6.0 instead of 5.0 vs. 6.0)?
5. From a ratings standpoint, is it true that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player if you want to move up?

I would love to hear opinions from any captains and any ladies out there too!

 

[JW10S]

There is no real right or wrong answer as I sure things vary for team to team and level to level. I've never been a captian but coached some women's league teams and they all had variations in how they saw things. I remember a 3.5 team I coached where I suggested that everyone on the roster play equally and that the lineups vary from time to time to mix things up. The team had a meeting where one of the players asked 'Do you want to have fun, or do you want to win?' (apparently doing both is not possible??!!). So they used the same lineup based on ability for nearly the whole season, the only changes came if someone in the lineup was not able to play that day. So there were 2 players who went to every practice, paid the same as the others for the league and coaching, and only played 1or 2 matches. The team had a good season but I chose to not coach them again after that. I figure players join leagues to play. In my experience the captains who thought they alone knew best generally had the poorest team retention, while the captains who took input from the team usually had more success and better team retention.

 

[M_k 87]

There are two philosophies for captains:
A) "We have a super competitive team that has a chance to win the league. I'm going to play my best players as much as possible. Weaker players will have to deal with it."
B) "We're just here to have fun, so we'll let everyone play equally."

Either can be fair. However, for option A, the captain should be very clear about that up front.

That being said, if there's an odd number of matches to divide up, then it's not totally unreasonable for the players with more seniority to get the extra match. Also, it's not the end of the world to be put only into D3 since you're playing up. (Anecdotal example: Our city league prohibits players who play up from playing in any spot other than D3.)

If your captain wasn't transparent or upfront about the way this would be handled, I'd be annoyed too. While you're out there this season, try and chat up your opponents. Maybe you'll have luck finding a different 3.0 team next year.

TL;DR
1. Depends on the goal of the team.
2. Every team is different. Sometimes it's an issue of availability. Captains should be open to input, but players should not ask for too much.
3. Same as #1.
4. A 3.0+2.5 would be expected to do better than a 2.5+2.5, yes. But again, if you aren't thrilled with being paired with a 2.5, then wouldn't the 3.0s feel the same? What's crazy for me is that your captain actually made the lineups that far in advance! Usually it's best to see how people perform, then to adjust accordingly.
5. I'm not an expert with ratings, but my understanding is this: If the underdog pulls off a big win in doubles, both winners get a nice boost to their rating. So it matters less if you're the higher or lower rated player, but that your combined rating with your partner was lower than the opponents. (Also, if you're paired with another 2.5 and lose 0-6, 0-6, that will hurt your rating less than if you had the same score with a 3.0 rated player as partner.)

 

[M_k 87]

Note that when I say "super competitive team", I don't mean top to bottom. I mean the top 5-6 players, assuming they are available for all the matches. In my 3.5 league a couple years back, one of the teams had about 40% players who were 3.0. They ended up tied for 1st place because they won nearly all S1 & S2 matches, and would find a way to win at least one of the doubles matches.

 

[Cashman]

It really depends on the goals of the team and the players. I gather than 2.5 is basically a developmental level - in that case it makes sense for the captain to prioritise giving everyone playing time and exposure to different partners and opponents.

The approach of the 3.0 captain isn't uncommon for teams that are results-focused. Coming onto a competitive team, players accept that they will need to earn their place as a preferred player. The goal of the captain is to min-max their line-up, whilst still providing less skilled players with enough opportunities to feel like staying on the team is personally worthwhile.

I don't think either is necessarily a problem, as long as the captain is up-front with new players about what the selection strategy will be. Both have the potential to cheese off players at one end of the spectrum if they come into the side with incorrect expectations.

 

[Allibaba]

There is no real right or wrong answer as I sure things vary for team to team and level to level. I've never been a captian but coached some women's league teams and they all had variations in how they saw things. I remember a 3.5 team I coached where I suggested that everyone on the roster play equally and that the lineups vary from time to time to mix things up. The team had a meeting where one of the players asked 'Do you want to have fun, or do you want to win?' (apparently doing both is not possible??!!). So they used the same lineup based on ability for nearly the whole season, the only changes came if someone in the lineup was not able to play that day. So there were 2 players who went to every practice, paid the same as the others for the league and coaching, and only played 1or 2 matches. The team had a good season but I chose to not coach them again after that. I figure players join leagues to play. In my experience the captains who thought they alone knew best generally had the poorest team retention, while the captains who took input from the team usually had more success and better team retention.

Thank you for your reply JW10S! I agree and think everyone should get equal playing time, especially when everyone is paying the same amount and for those who do put in the practice time to improve even if they aren't the best on their team. That's a good point about team retention too. It will be interesting to see who sticks around next year. I'm learning that it's important to feel comfortable with your team. While everyone wants to win, I'd rather play with ladies I enjoy than feel like a pariah as I do on the 3.0 team. I don't think the lower-rated players on our 2.5 team feel like pariahs at all. And so far the 2.5 team is doing better in their league than the 3.0 team is in theirs.

 

[Allibaba]

There are two philosophies for captains:
A) "We have a super competitive team that has a chance to win the league. I'm going to play my best players as much as possible. Weaker players will have to deal with it."
B) "We're just here to have fun, so we'll let everyone play equally."

Either can be fair. However, for option A, the captain should be very clear about that up front.

That being said, if there's an odd number of matches to divide up, then it's not totally unreasonable for the players with more seniority to get the extra match. Also, it's not the end of the world to be put only into D3 since you're playing up. (Anecdotal example: Our city league prohibits players who play up from playing in any spot other than D3.)

If your captain wasn't transparent or upfront about the way this would be handled, I'd be annoyed too. While you're out there this season, try and chat up your opponents. Maybe you'll have luck finding a different 3.0 team next year.

TL;DR
1. Depends on the goal of the team.
2. Every team is different. Sometimes it's an issue of availability. Captains should be open to input, but players should not ask for too much.
3. Same as #1.
4. A 3.0+2.5 would be expected to do better than a 2.5+2.5, yes. But again, if you aren't thrilled with being paired with a 2.5, then wouldn't the 3.0s feel the same? What's crazy for me is that your captain actually made the lineups that far in advance! Usually it's best to see how people perform, then to adjust accordingly.
5. I'm not an expert with ratings, but my understanding is this: If the underdog pulls off a big win in doubles, both winners get a nice boost to their rating. So it matters less if you're the higher or lower rated player, but that your combined rating with your partner was lower than the opponents. (Also, if you're paired with another 2.5 and lose 0-6, 0-6, that will hurt your rating less than if you had the same score with a 3.0 rated player as partner.)

Thank you for your reply M_k 87! The two philosophies make sense. Guess I'm trying to figure out what the norm is since I don't have much league experience. Sounds like my 2.5 team is B and 3.0 team is A. There was no transparency from the 3.0 captain and of course I didn't think to ask as I'm just noticing the differences. I'm feeling fortunate to have experienced B with my 2.5 team first, otherwise I probably would have given up on playing in a league last year.

I'm fine with playing D3. Because my 3.0 team goes by stats and ratings, it seems like the captain would pair the 2.5s with the 3.0s. The 3.0s would only have to sacrifice one match each to play with a 2.5. I would think it would be better to have the opportunity to at least win more games for the team even if we're likely going to lose our match? I'm fine being paired with a 2.5 (5.0 vs 5.0) but when we're playing two 3.0s, it seems like it makes more sense to try to even the playing field as much as possible. Like mixed doubles, when you have a 2.5 and 3.5 vs. two 3.0s? Your comment is interesting about the ratings though and I'll have to watch my ratings to see how it pans out.

Thank you for the tips! I'll chat up some opponents and if all else fails, I'll hope that my team moves up together!

 

[Allibaba]

It really depends on the goals of the team and the players. I gather than 2.5 is basically a developmental level - in that case it makes sense for the captain to prioritise giving everyone playing time and exposure to different partners and opponents.

The approach of the 3.0 captain isn't uncommon for teams that are results-focused. Coming onto a competitive team, players accept that they will need to earn their place as a preferred player. The goal of the captain is to min-max their line-up, whilst still providing less skilled players with enough opportunities to feel like staying on the team is personally worthwhile.

I don't think either is necessarily a problem, as long as the captain is up-front with new players about what the selection strategy will be. Both have the potential to cheese off players at one end of the spectrum if they come into the side with incorrect expectations.

Thank you for your reply Cashman! Yeah, it makes sense that 3.0 is more competitive than the 2.5 level. This 3.0 team just seems too serious, not fun, and certainly not welcoming. Your comment about captains being up-front about selection strategy with new players is interesting! Do captains really do that? I'm disappointed in this 3.0 team but that's probably because I'm the worst player, don't know these ladies very well, and had no idea what to expect coming in.

 

[Allibaba]

Note that when I say "super competitive team", I don't mean top to bottom. I mean the top 5-6 players, assuming they are available for all the matches. In my 3.5 league a couple years back, one of the teams had about 40% players who were 3.0. They ended up tied for 1st place because they won nearly all S1 & S2 matches, and would find a way to win at least one of the doubles matches.

Wow! That's great! The teams here are not allowed to have more than 25% of the team be lower-level players.

 

[Allibaba]

4. A 3.0+2.5 would be expected to do better than a 2.5+2.5, yes. But again, if you aren't thrilled with being paired with a 2.5, then wouldn't the 3.0s feel the same? What's crazy for me is that your captain actually made the lineups that far in advance! Usually it's best to see how people perform, then to adjust accordingly.

I'm guessing she used Tennislink stats and Tennisrecord player ratings to come up with the lineups for this season. Will be curious to see if she adjusts as the season progresses.

 

[Cashman]

This 3.0 team just seems too serious, not fun, and certainly not welcoming.

Well, some people find serious fun.

As far as not welcoming - I would try not to take the allocation of match time, partners, etc. personally. It can be a bit intimidating to be judged, coming into a competitive team for the first time and having to compete against stronger players for roster spots. But if they are a good team, they will want to make the experience good for you and help you get better. After all, that's the best way to ensure the team wins.

If they are just plain unpleasant or the competitive environment isn't your bag, that's a different matter.

Your comment about captains being up-front about selection strategy with new players is interesting! Do captains really do that?

I am not sure about the US, but when I've signed up for competitive teams I have often asked how selection works. I've always got an open answer. A good captain knows that keeping that stuff secret just breeds confusion, resentment and suspicion.

It works both ways. Competitive players deserve to know going in if they are joining a team where everyone gets equal playing time and opportunities. They may prefer to find a side where winning is a focus, and their good play and improvement will be rewarded with more playing time or harder matches. It can be hard to sit on a bench and watch a teammate lose a match that you know you could have won.

 

[OnTheLine]

I'm a higher-rated 2.5 player (hahaha) and just joined 2 women's leagues, 2.5 and up on 3.0. The captains have very different approaches and I'm curious what you think about them.

The 2.5 captain has given everyone an equal amount of playing time, approx. 4 matches for the season. She is alternating us between 1 singles (S1) and 2 doubles positions (D1 and D2) so that we play with almost everyone on our team and rarely have the same partner. It doesn't appear that she considers our team's or our opponents' stats and ratings when deciding on the lineups. The range of player ratings on our team varies from 2.0 to higher 2.5. This captain has team practice every week.

The 3.0 captain has given the higher-rated players 5-6 matches and the new and lower-rated players 3-4 matches for the season. I can tell she determined the line-ups based on our team's and our opponents' stats and ratings, playing the stronger players with the stronger teams and weaker players with the weaker teams. She has 3.0 players playing the 2 singles spots (S1 and S2), paired all of the 3.0 players for doubles (D1 and D2), and all of the self-rated 3.0's and 2.5 players together (D3) for the most part. The majority of our opponents' teams have 3.0 players only. I will note that if the 2.5 players hadn't joined, there wouldn't have been enough ladies to form this team. This captain either doesn't have team practice or excludes the new players.

I am not sure if it was a good idea to join this 3.0 team if I'm hoping to move up in a couple of years but I would like to play more often. I'm doing okay with 2.5 so far and am anticipating losing my 3.0 matches, especially paired with another 2.5. Two of my 3.0 partners are self-rated so I think that even if I play equally as well or better, they'll get the higher rating because I'm a computer-rated 2.5. From a ratings perspective, it is my understanding that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player, even though you may not win.

My questions are:
1. Is it fair that the higher-rated players get to play more matches?
2. Should doubles partners be alternated or maintained throughout the season and should captains ask for input including compatibility?
3. Should captains determine the lineups based on their team's and their opponent's stats and ratings?
4. Should doubles partners be matched based on closer ratings or for instance, pair a higher 3.0 with a 2.5 (so that you have 5.5 vs. 6.0 instead of 5.0 vs. 6.0)?
5. From a ratings standpoint, is it true that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player if you want to move up?

I would love to hear opinions from any captains and any ladies out there too!

I have to say, I am not a fan really of either of your captain's approaches, but for different reasons.

I ave no idea what your 2.5 captain is doing. It sounds more like running a gym class in grade school than a team. But, at the 2.5 level it also makes sense as players are all beginners. Finding a partnership(s) for doubles is important and helps to develop both individual players and leads to better matches (wins), rotating them randomly I think would cause problems.
Not everyone wants to play singles and some don't want to play much doubles. We are adults, we have earned the right to play the way we want! (and a captain should know who prefers which)

If your 3.0 captain wasn't up front about playing better players over weaker players that is on her and it should have been clear when you joined. That said, I have a few 3.0 players on my 3.5 team. I would never put them in a higher line. than D3 unless I have no choice. They simply can't handle it and it isn't fair to them or to their opponents. No one wants to be a part of a blow out. I was also up front that the at level players were going to have more playing time than those playing up. That is a no brainer. It is a privilege to be granted a spot on a higher level team ... it is kinda funny to me that someone would think they deserve equal playing time in that situation.

Worrying about your ratings while playing up is waste of your energy. Of course the higher rated person will get "credit" for some of the match, and so will you! That is how it works. Spending your time on TR or TLS is a time suck at best and at worst can get in your head where it will do you no good.

As to your questions:
1. Of course it is fair that higher rated players play more. The team is trying to win matches right? And do you think that perhaps the at-level player has earned it vs a player playing up in a league? OR, that perhaps there are established partnerships and the players playing up are fillers?
2. Partnerships should be developed and maintained where possible. Some feedback is good but know that some players will "feedback" themselves out of playing by complaining about everyone
3. Captains should always take a look at their own team and put together as effective of a lineup as possible. They should take a look at what the opponents might be throwing at them, but that is nothing but rolling the dice
4. This is a tougher call ... If you have 2 good singles players available, and 2 regular partnerships available and you need to fill that last court, sometimes you just fill it with whoever you have left over. That would be preferable to mangling your entire lineup to place a stronger player with your weakest players. Why have 3 crummy lines instead of two decent lines and one lower?
5. Yes, that is how math works. If you are playing with a lower rated player, the computer lowers your chances of winning or lowers the margin .... if you beat the margin it will drive your rating higher

My recommendation is to just play tennis. You are in a wonderful position .... you are at a time period where you will likely experience rapid improvement which is exciting ... you are challenging yourself by playing up which can help with improvement if you keep a positive mindset. Enjoy tennis and don't worry about all the other stuff ... when you are in the lineup, give it everything you have, learn, enjoy, win or lose you will have gained experience.

*ignore the dang rating sites! So many women (especially women) get so caught up in those stupid little numbers. Don't be like them.

Instead
Ask yourself:
Am I better than last week?
Have I improved since last month?
Is my serve a little stronger, more consistent, more spin, fewer DFs?
Is my forehand better, is my backhand better?
Is my volleying a little more crisp and sure?

Focusing on that instead of those little numbers will do you so much more good, and will bring you greater happiness.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Perfect.

OnTheLine said everything I would have, except one: start your own team.

If you captain, you control everything. How often you play, with whom, against whom. You can keep nutjobs off the team. You can decide the team goals.

I started captaining the very first season I played league tennis. Just grabbed some ladies from my beginner county tennis class, and off we went.

Lastly, tennis is about what you can do on the court. There is no substitute for improving, you can’t fake it, you can’t outsmart the computer. Take some instruction if you can, practice a ton. You’ll move up to 3.0 next year, so you need to be ready.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh, and be grateful that you get to be playing up at all. I can’t remember the last time I let someone play up on a team I captained. Any player who is playing up but who complains about not playing enough will be ushered to the door.

 

[OnTheLine]

Oh, and be grateful that you get to be playing up at all. I can’t remember the last time I let someone play up on a team I captained. Any player who is playing up but who complains about not playing enough will be ushered to the door.

Amen.

 

[Cindysphinx]

One more myth needs busting.

If I have a mix of strong players and weak players, I am very reluctant to pair strong with weak. I pair strong with strong and weak with weak.

If I give strong players a weak partner, they complain and may even leave if it happens a lot.

If I give a weak player a strong partner, the weak player will defer to much, waiting for the strong player to win the match. Also, the weak player will get targeted and the strong player never sees a ball. The chance of losing the court is high.

But if I pair weak with weak, they both know they need to step up their game. Now and then, they will eek out a win. But if they don’t, they haven’t vexed and annoyed my strong players.

 

[Cashman]

Oh, and be grateful that you get to be playing up at all. I can’t remember the last time I let someone play up on a team I captained. Any player who is playing up but who complains about not playing enough will be ushered to the door.

That might be fine in your area, at your level. But if a team needs people to play up in order to field a side, then they may not be in a position to treat the people who volunteer to do so as disposable.

Both points of view are valid here. Particularly at lower levels, where a large number of players are more interested in skill development than winning matches.

 

[Matthew ATX]

Bottom line:

As a captain, tell people how playing time will be doled out before you take anyone's money. Anyone who complains after that can kick rocks.

Personally, at the level I'm currently at, I don't want to be on the last place team that gives everyone equal playing time. But if you do, that's fine. Enjoy.

 

[ATX Tennis]

As long as the captain is upfront about the goals of the team, either answer can be "correct." And I find that my competitive teams usually attract others that want to win, so if a guy isn't playing much, he will understand if the team is winning. If the team is out of contention, I will email the team as such and start evening out the playing time.

And what Cindy said is absolutely correct about playing strong with strong and weak with weak. I find that to be the biggest mistake captains make when putting together lineups. The quickest way to make a lineup mediocre is by making a bunch of strong/weak pairings.

 

[kevrol]

1. Is it fair that the higher-rated players get to play more matches?
2. Should doubles partners be alternated or maintained throughout the season and should captains ask for input including compatibility?
3. Should captains determine the lineups based on their team's and their opponent's stats and ratings?
4. Should doubles partners be matched based on closer ratings or for instance, pair a higher 3.0 with a 2.5 (so that you have 5.5 vs. 6.0 instead of 5.0 vs. 6.0)?
5. From a ratings standpoint, is it true that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player if you want to move up?

1. Yes - 3-4 matches instead of 5-6 isn't a bad spread. I've done the same.
2. All depends on makeup of the team. Everyone wants to play with the best players. It's hard to keep everyone happy.
3. If everyone is available I'll always try to put my strongest lineups in against the strongest teams and get the weaker players in against the weaker teams.
4. See #2
5. Only if you outperform the computers expectations.

 

[kevrol]

And so far the 2.5 team is doing better in their league than the 3.0 team is in theirs.

That could be because everyone on the 2.5 team is playing at their level and not playing up like several of your teammates on the 3.0 team are.

 

[OnTheLine]

That could be because everyone on the 2.5 team is playing at their level and not playing up like several of your teammates on the 3.0 team are.

This couldn't possibly be the case .... ratings can't matter that much when it comes to results

 

[brettatk]

I have no beef with what either captain is doing. I captain and this season 50% of my roster is playing 2 matches and the other half 3 matches. With a large roster and only 6 regular season matches it's been hard making sure everyone plays twice. But I told everyone at the beginning of the season that I was going to spread playing time around the best I could. So hopefully nobody gets upset. Also if we do make the playoffs the best people will be playing regardless of the number of times they've already played.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Two types of teams in USTA:

1. Fun competition, no chance to win league/state/etc

2. Team knows they are good and have a shot to win league/state

I have played on both. On a “fun” team, it’s everybody gets roughly equal matches. If it’s on a “win” team, they play the higher rated best live up available each match. I have been on teams where several players never got a match or only got the minimum two matches so they could be a back up warm body for state if needed. And they were ok with that because they knew the situation up front ahead of time.

 

[kevrol]

I would add that when I've captained a team that I thought had a chance to win the league, and therefore didn't play the lower rated players as much, as soon as we were eliminated from winning the league I would immediately shift to trying to even out playing time.

 

[kylebarendrick]

If you are playing up, expect to play less. Two reasons for this: (1) You have options - you can play on either your 2.5 team or your 3.0 team. The 3.0 players can only play on the 3.0 team. (2) You are weaker.

I am a 3.5 who also plays up at 4.0. I know going in I'll only get a couple of matches on the 4.0 team and I'm fine with it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

This couldn't possibly be the case .... ratings can't matter that much when it comes to results

Mmmm, I’m not sure about that.

Here, the teams with people playing up are almost always at the bottom of the flight.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Cindy — frequently confused by emojis

 

[kevrol]

Mmmm, I’m not sure about that.

Here, the teams with people playing up are almost always at the bottom of the flight.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Cindy — frequently confused by emojis

I thought the sarcasm was dripping off OTL's post.

 

[OnTheLine]

Mmmm, I’m not sure about that.

Here, the teams with people playing up are almost always at the bottom of the flight.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Cindy — frequently confused by emojis

LOL ... yes @kevrol got it right .... so totally sarcastic.

 

[ShaunS]

5. From a ratings standpoint, is it true that it is to your benefit to play with a lower-rated player if you want to move up?

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. The "gap" between you and your partner's ratings will be maintained. For example, if you are 3.04, and your partner is 3.08. You exceed the NTRP expected results, so your record goes up. It would still keep the .04 gap meaning if you went to 3.07 your partner would then be 3.11.

The second crucial part is your opponents' rating. The system will project an expected result based off your ratings versus their ratings. The more deviation from the projection the larger the adjustment will be. It's absolutely possible for you to win a match 6-2, 6-2, and have your rating go down if the expectation was a larger win.

Going back to the original question though - is it advantageous to play with a lower-rated player? Not necessarily. Doubles is an interesting (and challenging) thing to measure with a simple value. You could put two players together who are higher rated, but have games that just don't compliment each other in any way. The USTA system will be unable to see that coming, and that team will be effectively "overrated" for the match. Similarly, you might have a higher and mid-range player who simply mesh perfectly, covering for each other's weaknesses. This team will be "underrated" in the practical sense, and should be able to exceed expectations.

So it isn't that a lower-rated player alone will help. Having a partner whose talent is underrated by the NTRP system would: whether that's due to improvement in their game, or the way that you play together as a team.

I'll throw a plug out for @schmke at this point. One of the many things his reports can tell you is your rating with different partners. Obviously if you're constantly playing with different people it is less useful, but if you've got a handful of partners that you've recorded matches with it's very interesting (to me). I played with a couple guys last year who had a disagreement over who was the better team playing with me. The data suggested it was actually a pretty big gap (0.15) with one of the guys being the doubles partner who I averaged the lowest rating with at 3.80.

 

[schmke]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. The "gap" between you and your partner's ratings will be maintained. For example, if you are 3.04, and your partner is 3.08. You exceed the NTRP expected results, so your record goes up. It would still keep the .04 gap meaning if you went to 3.07 your partner would then be 3.11.

The second crucial part is your opponents' rating. The system will project an expected result based off your ratings versus their ratings. The more deviation from the projection the larger the adjustment will be. It's absolutely possible for you to win a match 6-2, 6-2, and have your rating go down if the expectation was a larger win.

Going back to the original question though - is it advantageous to play with a lower-rated player? Not necessarily. Doubles is an interesting (and challenging) thing to measure with a simple value. You could put two players together who are higher rated, but have games that just don't compliment each other in any way. The USTA system will be unable to see that coming, and that team will be effectively "overrated" for the match. Similarly, you might have a higher and mid-range player who simply mesh perfectly, covering for each other's weaknesses. This team will be "underrated" in the practical sense, and should be able to exceed expectations.

So it isn't that a lower-rated player alone will help. Having a partner whose talent is underrated by the NTRP system would: whether that's due to improvement in their game, or the way that you play together as a team.

I'll throw a plug out for @schmke at this point. One of the many things his reports can tell you is your rating with different partners. Obviously if you're constantly playing with different people it is less useful, but if you've got a handful of partners that you've recorded matches with it's very interesting (to me). I played with a couple guys last year who had a disagreement over who was the better team playing with me. The data suggested it was actually a pretty big gap (0.15) with one of the guys being the doubles partner who I averaged the lowest rating with at 3.80.

All of this well said.

Another way of putting it is that you may win a lot with a higher rated partner, but that may be because you as a pair are supposed to win due to your combined ratings compared with your opponents. Your rating may not go up like you might expect.

Corresponding you may lose a lot with a low rated partner, but that may be because you as a pair are supposed to lose. Your rating could actually go up in a loss if it is closer than expected.

That said, the chemistry @ShaunS mentions is important. You can just go play with the lowest rated partner you can find, as if you don't play well together, or they are so weak that they get targeted and you as the stronger player never get involved, you could still lose worse than expected.

So in doubles, ideally find a partner you play well with that may be "underrated", regardless of how high they are rated. As long as you play well together, the chances of doing better than expected will be greater than if you play with someone you don't play well with.

And yes, my reports show how your matches have rated with different partners so you can get an idea of who the computer thinks you play well with. I also show your record in matches where you are the favorite or underdog which can be useful to see.

 

[Dartagnan64]

To me anything 3.0 and below should be purely for fun and improvement. It's "everyone gets a ribbon" tennis at that stage. So let everyone play equally if possible to maximize their improvement potential.

Once you move to intermediate tennis, I think competition starts to be as important as people start hitting their max potential and want to win as they aren't getting the joy of improvement anymore. Then developing competitive teams seems more reasonable. But things still should be reasonably fair and upfront. People should know in advance if they are a weaker player and may play less. They pay the same money so unless they are given an out or a rebate, its unfair to take that money and not give them matches.

 

[OnTheLine]

To me anything 3.0 and below should be purely for fun and improvement. It's "everyone gets a ribbon" tennis at that stage. So let everyone play equally if possible to maximize their improvement potential.

Once you move to intermediate tennis, I think competition starts to be as important as people start hitting their max potential and want to win as they aren't getting the joy of improvement anymore. Then developing competitive teams seems more reasonable. But things still should be reasonably fair and upfront. People should know in advance if they are a weaker player and may play less. They pay the same money so unless they are given an out or a rebate, its unfair to take that money and not give them matches.

Yes and no ....

I think that anyone at any level can choose to have league be either competitive or only-for-fun. Simply because a team/player is lower ranked doesn't mean that they can't feel/be competitive and out to win their league, district, region, etc. at that level.

I am pretty much against the everyone-gets-a-medal thing in any endeavor. I guess I am just from the wrong generation.

 

[ATX Tennis]

Wow guys I needed to share this incredible tennis training aid that I've been using for a few months now.... its helped my game a lot and makes my practices more exciting and fun! I ran into a local pro who was training some top juniors with it and I just thought I need to get myself one of those! I got it at www.tennismat.com
its called the TennisMat!

I have used this. It’s the worst product ever. Makes practice less fun and has ruined my game.

edit: ok, just kidding. Never used this product. Just hated to see threads get spammed.

 

[Cashman]

It should be called "Expensive Tarpaulin".

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

To me anything 3.0 and below should be purely for fun and improvement. It's "everyone gets a ribbon" tennis at that stage. So let everyone play equally if possible to maximize their improvement potential.

Once you move to intermediate tennis, I think competition starts to be as important as people start hitting their max potential and want to win as they aren't getting the joy of improvement anymore. Then developing competitive teams seems more reasonable. But things still should be reasonably fair and upfront. People should know in advance if they are a weaker player and may play less. They pay the same money so unless they are given an out or a rebate, its unfair to take that money and not give them matches.

I don't think there's a magic Rubicon that separates the "fun and improvement" crowd from the "now it's serious" crowd. In fact, there are better players who just play for fun and worse players who are dead serious.

Human nature being what it is, extremely competitive people are going to be serious whether they are 2.5 or 4.5. For someone to decree that they're not good enough to sit at the big table smacks of elitism [this is how it will be perceived by some].

 

[ShaunS]

For someone to decree that they're not good enough to sit at the big table smacks of elitism [this is how it will be perceived by some].

I believe that's a fair assessment. Declaring an arbitrary line where people are allowed to be serious competitors isn't necessary.

I think we can all benefit from being less judgmental about how others derive their entertainment. I know I could. There's nothing wrong about wanting to compete at your level, regardless of what that is. If you want to assemble a 3.0 team to try and get to nationals, have at it. If you do it the right way with the right people then it should be great fun. I'm expounding on my own thoughts here less than responding to the previous post, so please don't take it as criticism there.

Back to the good/bad captain discussion though... captains have the responsibility of communicating the type of team to any potential players. If it's going to be "seriously competitive" to the point that they'll only let the "weaker" players in sparingly that must be established. Otherwise you're being a "jerk", and you should expect to be called out on it. That said if you join a "competitive" team understand the potential for more drama. Your captain will be the one deciding who the best players are, and they won't always agree with your evaluation.