Game the system or stop playing USTA?

[jmverdugo]

Sometimes, is not that the other guys are "sandbaggers" sometimes you are just not good enough, at least at the 4.0 level the gap is huge between the low 4.0s and the high 4.0s, and it is very usual that when the first get to play with the second there are some "sandbagging" comments.

It happened to me on my past league match, we were playing line 3, I am a decent 4.0 and my partner too, the other guys were low 4.0s and they kept talking between each other (loud enough so we could hear it) and they kept saying "it's ok we lost that point, they are 4.5s".

There are other cases where the computer keeps bumping up a guy to 4.5 by mid season, he gets creamed at 4.5 and then is bumped down to 4.0 where he wins every match, although I think this last case is more about the guy getting use to 4.5 pace, what I am trying to show that difference of level within a single rating point (basically the difference between good 4.0s and low 4.0s).

I would say that a good way to measure yourself within your rating is to sign up for a big tournament, if you get your behind kicked in the first round you are probably in the low end of the spectrum, if you make it to the third round you are on the top end. Of course it also depends on you draw, but usually this is a good way to measure yourself.

[F L O B B E R]

When I look at pics of National teams I don't envy them or even respect them. I assume they are a bunch of sandbagging asshats.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by jmverdugo

There are other cases where the computer keeps bumping up a guy to 4.5 by mid season, he gets creamed at 4.5 and then is bumped down to 4.0 where he wins every match, although I think this last case is more about the guy getting use to 4.5 pace, what I am trying to show that difference of level within a single rating point (basically the difference between good 4.0s and low 4.0s).

Our team, and me personally, have gone to and played well at sectionals for the last three years. I believe I am among those at the top of the 4.0 band and my results have shown that.

My experiences support what jmverdugo says here. I have clobbered lower tier 4.0s in our league and they have complained that I should be up. However, against top computer rated 4.0's in our league, at districts and sectionals I am merely one of the better players ... clearly not dominant. I have never complained when a player with an established computer rating, as defined by the USTA, has beaten me ... and it has happened plenty.

Every year at sectionals almost every match featuring computer rated players is competitive. However, what irritates the snot out of me is that the non-competitive matches almost always involve a self rated player crushing a computer rated player. Furthermore, the teams that have advanced every year come with at least a few of these self rated difference makers.

What this tells me is that the USTA algorithm does a pretty nice job of putting players where they need to be ... but the players not vetted by the USTA throw the balance of power to captains that know how to game this system.

[Winning Ugly]

Originally Posted by F L O B B E R

When I look at pics of National teams I don't envy them or even respect them. I assume they are a bunch of sandbagging asshats.

Too bad. Your stereotype is far from universal.

Just got back from MS 3.5 Sr. regionals. The team which won were better than us and the other teams, but not THAT much, and clearly not sandbaggers. Some will, deservedly, move up to 4.0, as will a couple players from our team. I can vouch for the players on our team who may move up to 4.0 that they are not sandbaggers at all -- most have played MANY years at 3.5 with good but not great records. But, as a team we practice a lot, work with the club pro, and believe that even pushing 60 we can improve. As a result, some guys who never even made it to Districts until 3 years ago have participated in their second Sectionals, actually winning a few courts this time around. That is a thrill, and getting pushed to the 4.0 level, where they will probably not live long enough to see District or Sectional play, is its own reward. A few of the guys on our team went to Nationals as 3.0's 20 years ago. Now, are they sandbagging today playing 3.5? Were they azzhats then because they got the thrill of topping out at their level? Baloney...

Talking about it afterward, we saw much of the same in the winning team. Good guys, good players who will compete OK at 4.0 when they get bumped but certainly at the low end of the band. From talking to them I could see they were about getting better and competing against the best (within reason) players they could. I RESPECT that, and there is no envy. Indeed, I will follow how they do at Nationals and wish them the best.

[Winning Ugly]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

Our team, and me personally, have gone to and played well at sectionals for the last three years. I believe I am among those at the top of the 4.0 band and my results have shown that.

My experiences support what jmverdugo says here. I have clobbered lower tier 4.0s in our league and they have complained that I should be up. However, against top computer rated 4.0's in our league, at districts and sectionals I am merely one of the better players ... clearly not dominant. I have never complained when a player with an established computer rating, as defined by the USTA, has beaten me ... and it has happened plenty.

Every year at sectionals almost every match featuring computer rated players is competitive. However, what irritates the snot out of me is that the non-competitive matches almost always involve a self rated player crushing a computer rated player. Furthermore, the teams that have advanced every year come with at least a few of these self rated difference makers.

What this tells me is that the USTA algorithm does a pretty nice job of putting players where they need to be ... but the players not vetted by the USTA throw the balance of power to captains that know how to game this system.

I agree with you, having had almost the exact same experience at 3.5 (mostly Senior play) over the past 4 years. Perhaps I am even closer to the dividing line -- I got "early started" to 4.0 two years ago, but stunk at Sectionals (not vs. sandbaggers; I choked) so my final rating was 3.5.

There are just not enough levels and so I find playing up at 4.0 on Court 3 is usually more competitive (and, for me at least, much more fun) than my Court 1 matches against bad 3.5 teams.

I have seen some self-rated sandbaggers get DQ'd this year so by and large the system works. Now we'll see if my final computer rating stays at 4.0 since I did not stink at Sectionals this year