Originally Posted by jmnk
if you really think that 'moving up/down' a player based solely on how good/bad the team he is on is doing is in any way, shape or form better than USTA ranking than obviously your idea of what constitutes a 'fair ranking' escapes me. could you kindly explain how is that better? As in -
a) how does it more accurately describes a level of an individual player, and
b) how does it better evaluates players so matches between same-level players are at least somewhat competitive?
ALTA does a lousy job of rating individuals. THis is my single biggest issue with ALTA- a person who wins at line 1 is treated the same as someone from the same team who loses badly at line 5. (And in ALTA there is a rule that you do not play weaker lines over stronger lines)
That said- I STRONGLY prefer ALTA's way of forming a team. You can create at team from any 12 (or more) people you want and they place a team based on the 10 highest rated players. This makes team formation greatly easier. You can have players who once played in college playing on the same team with guys who started playing a few months ago. The team getting moved up in ALTA is natural and it comes out of team success so it is very tough to manipulate.
Compare that to the problem of getting bumped up in USTA. Either you have to move the entire team up to a level many do not belong at or else you need to leave the team and find a new group of players.
My ideal would be that they use ALTA's method of team formation but have more levels of team so that getting bumped an extra level wouldn't matter. But still have an individual rating and if a self rated player got DQ'd they would be ineligible for playoffs. But since 1 person's rating would only count as 10% of the team's rating there would be VERY little reason to underrate.