Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Adult League & Tournament Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   usta tie rules opinions (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=333117)

markmdfw 06-13-2010 04:38 AM

usta tie rules opinions
 
What are you thoughts on these? I am on a team that is tied with one more ind win, and we beat our tied partner 4-1 head to head! this is an interesting focus on the tie break.

1. Team matches won
2. Individual matches won/lost
3. Sets lost
4. Games lost
5. Head to head *WHY IS HEAD TO HEAD LAST*


Is this fair system I only ask because I know that NFL puts alot of weight into head to head.

Thanks give me your feedback!

Marcus

Geezer Guy 06-13-2010 06:17 AM

I think it's that way because it's easier to program. Sorting the season results by the first four criteria you listed is incredibly easy.
Throwing in the 5th one would take more logic.

(I do agree with you, though.)

Cindysphinx 06-13-2010 06:38 AM

In our area, there was one year where the captains voted to have head-to-head as the tiebreak. The next year, it was changed back to what OP describes (except that head-to-head) was dropped.

I think the problem was that H2H isn't the best indicator of which is the stronger team. One team might have its strongest players available while the other doesn't, so it introduces an element of chance. The strongest team overall will have won more individual matches during the season, so that is how we break ties now.

markmdfw 06-13-2010 07:21 AM

I agree h2h is everyting some players could be non availiable for a match or could have a off day!

Its just weird that it came down to being so close! same record, they have one more ind win, and we beat them 4-1 and they win! LOL Too close to call maybe I like to see a tie lol I sure i might feel different if it went in my favor! I biased a bit! I admit it LOL

also I would like to have a rule that strongly penalized teams with a large roster who defaults lines. I would also like to have
a computer ranking system that keeps the best players in the top lines, lol Wow I got on a role did I LOL

Any thoughts!

Marcus

JavierLW 06-13-2010 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmdfw (Post 4761412)
What are you thoughts on these? I am on a team that is tied with one more ind win, and we beat our tied partner 4-1 head to head! this is an interesting focus on the tie break.

1. Team matches won
2. Individual matches won/lost
3. Sets lost
4. Games lost
5. Head to head *WHY IS HEAD TO HEAD LAST*


Is this fair system I only ask because I know that NFL puts alot of weight into head to head.

Thanks give me your feedback!

Marcus

#2 is fair because unlike the NFL, those individual wins are actual MATCHES and not points or touchdowns or goals or anything.

Im not sure about putting Head to Head last though before Sets and Games won. That doesnt seem right.

In USTA Tournaments Im pretty sure that Head to Head is before those. (the only time it goes down to those is when there is a 3-way head-to-head tie)

In our league we value individual wins first and team wins are meaningless and it's like this:

1) Individual Wins
2) Head to Head (individual head to head)
3) Sets Lost
4) Games Lost

Panic492 06-13-2010 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmdfw (Post 4761412)
What are you thoughts on these? I am on a team that is tied with one more ind win, and we beat our tied partner 4-1 head to head! this is an interesting focus on the tie break.

1. Team matches won
2. Individual matches won/lost
3. Sets lost
4. Games lost
5. Head to head *WHY IS HEAD TO HEAD LAST*


Is this fair system I only ask because I know that NFL puts alot of weight into head to head.

Thanks give me your feedback!

Marcus

I totally agree. We finished tied in our mens league with another team, they had one or two more individual wins than we did. Yet we beat them 4-1 head to head. They went on to win states and are moving on to Sectionals :rolleyes:

cll30 06-13-2010 08:42 AM

I don't like #4 games lost.

If you lose a set 7-6 or 7-5 you are penalized more than if you lose 6-0.

Jim A 06-13-2010 09:25 AM

we were in that boat last year, lost a match to a team we ended up tying without our best squad available yet had quite a few more individual match wins...so in the end I believe the better overall squad won..

JavierLW 06-13-2010 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cll30 (Post 4762153)
I don't like #4 games lost.

If you lose a set 7-6 or 7-5 you are penalized more than if you lose 6-0.

Ya but if that's the last and final tiebreaker (and not #4 before head to head), it's still better then flipping a coin.

They are called "GAMES" after all, not points... (another difference between this and any other sport)

tom10s 06-27-2010 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markmdfw (Post 4761412)
What are you thoughts on these? I am on a team that is tied with one more ind win, and we beat our tied partner 4-1 head to head! this is an interesting focus on the tie break.

1. Team matches won
2. Individual matches won/lost
3. Sets lost
4. Games lost
5. Head to head *WHY IS HEAD TO HEAD LAST*


Is this fair system I only ask because I know that NFL puts alot of weight into head to head.

Thanks give me your feedback!

Marcus

your #2 is incorrect. individual wins is #3

spot 06-28-2010 04:38 AM

I prefer

Individual wins
Head to Head
Sets lost
Games Lost.

To me having team wins be the primary determining factor just allows for free manipulation of ratings if a team wants to badly enough. IF your team takes 3 points then the other lines can lose matches without affecting the team goals whatsoever. When individual wins are the primary factor then taking all 5 lines has a real advantage over taking 3 and everyone has incentive to push no matter what line they play.

Sherlock 06-28-2010 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spot (Post 4811435)
I prefer

Individual wins
Head to Head
Sets lost
Games Lost.

To me having team wins be the primary determining factor just allows for free manipulation of ratings if a team wants to badly enough. IF your team takes 3 points then the other lines can lose matches without affecting the team goals whatsoever. When individual wins are the primary factor then taking all 5 lines has a real advantage over taking 3 and everyone has incentive to push no matter what line they play.

Actually I never thought about that and now that I think about it I completely agree with that. However, do you think the same order should be used for sectional and national tournaments? At this point there is no reason to manipulate things, and team wins followed by head to head record makes the most sense.

spot 06-28-2010 05:18 AM

No- I think that once you are in playoffs then it should 100% be about team wins.

Cindysphinx 06-28-2010 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spot (Post 4811435)
I prefer

Individual wins
Head to Head
Sets lost
Games Lost.

To me having team wins be the primary determining factor just allows for free manipulation of ratings if a team wants to badly enough. IF your team takes 3 points then the other lines can lose matches without affecting the team goals whatsoever. When individual wins are the primary factor then taking all 5 lines has a real advantage over taking 3 and everyone has incentive to push no matter what line they play.

I agree with your analysis, but I'm not on board with the conclusion.

The problem with having individual wins be decisive over team wins is that it becomes difficult to play your weaker players. I was on a DC team -- where the flight winner is based on individual wins -- and a few players got to play all the matches, pretty much. That's OK, and our captain did what she had to do to get us to sectionals. The upshot, however, was that she was left with a small group of players who were eligible for sectionals -- or were willing to travel to be a sub on a team that didn't value them enough to put them in the line-up.

Contrast this with my league, where it comes down to team wins. Then I can play all of my players without too much risk. I can play a lot of weaker players against weak opponent and we'll usually win three courts somehow. Or I can put out three crazy strong players and two weaker ones.

If the goal is to keep people participating in the sport of tennis, I think most rules and policies should encourage wide-spread participation rather than concentrating play among the elite few on a team. And if a league wants the strongest team to represent them at nationals, teams need depth.

Regarding the risk that two players will throw their matches . . . I don't think that happens much. Even if that is the plan, the two who throw their matches can never be sure that an upset isn't happening on another court or a match will be lost through retirement.

Cindy -- who got each of her players at least three matches this season

JavierLW 06-28-2010 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx (Post 4812230)
I agree with your analysis, but I'm not on board with the conclusion.

The problem with having individual wins be decisive over team wins is that it becomes difficult to play your weaker players. I was on a DC team -- where the flight winner is based on individual wins -- and a few players got to play all the matches, pretty much. That's OK, and our captain did what she had to do to get us to sectionals. The upshot, however, was that she was left with a small group of players who were eligible for sectionals -- or were willing to travel to be a sub on a team that didn't value them enough to put them in the line-up.

Contrast this with my league, where it comes down to team wins. Then I can play all of my players without too much risk. I can play a lot of weaker players against weak opponent and we'll usually win three courts somehow. Or I can put out three crazy strong players and two weaker ones.

If the goal is to keep people participating in the sport of tennis, I think most rules and policies should encourage wide-spread participation rather than concentrating play among the elite few on a team. And if a league wants the strongest team to represent them at nationals, teams need depth.

Regarding the risk that two players will throw their matches . . . I don't think that happens much. Even if that is the plan, the two who throw their matches can never be sure that an upset isn't happening on another court or a match will be lost through retirement.

Cindy -- who got each of her players at least three matches this season

You also try this logic on this same question.

But so what?, you can play those players 3 times a season in the individual system as well. You just may sacrifice taking first and getting your free pen or towel, but that's life.

Just because you can allow some people in for some meaningless matches is really not a huge bonus.

And if everyone is of similar level, you really shouldnt have people that are so weak that they cant win anyway, or people who are so strong that you can rely on them for your 3 wins.

Even in the team wins system, if you have your 4 strongest players and they are really in the right level, you cant guarantee they will win every single match anyway so if the pen is so important to you, you STILL cant afford to put people in that just simply wont win the match.

amarone 06-28-2010 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10s (Post 4810746)
your #2 is incorrect. individual wins is #3

What do you think is number 2 then? I think the OP's list is correct.

tom10s 06-28-2010 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarone (Post 4813500)
What do you think is number 2 then? I think the OP's list is correct.

OP is wrong.

1) team wins
2) team losses
3) individual wins

amarone 06-28-2010 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10s (Post 4814087)
OP is wrong.

1) team wins
2) team losses
3) individual wins

The OP's list matches exactly that in 3.03I of the National regulations. No mention is made of team losses.

tom10s 06-29-2010 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarone (Post 4814763)
The OP's list matches exactly that in 3.03I of the National regulations. No mention is made of team losses.

so what happens if one team is 9-3 and the other is 9-2 due to rained out match that is never played?

Islandtennis 06-29-2010 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom10s (Post 4814960)
so what happens if one team is 9-3 and the other is 9-2 due to rained out match that is never played?

USTA rules do not allow that. In your example, that final match would be a double default.

On another note, round robins have to be complete and not partial. With this rule team A and B play the exact same teams the exact same number of times. This is one reason why head to head has less relevance. In the NFL, two teams tied for their division have played different teams, therefore head to head has more significance.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse