Should you be able to play down too?

[smarog]

There's been some talk on this forum about playing up in USTA leagues - some are for it, some are against it (personally, I'm against it) and it got me thinking; if you can play up then why shoudln't you be able to play down too? If you're a 4.0 then you can play on a 4.5 team - people on here say that it's good to play up to get experience against a player that is supposedly at a higher skill level. Using this logic, wouldn't you be able to play down a level too? Wouldn't these same players who want to play up all the time also want to play down so they can work on their weaknesses or try new tactics against a player that is supposedly a skill level lower than theirs? Or would the players that play up not want to waste their time playing below their level?

I'm just curious - would all of you who play up a level in USTA leagues also play down a level if you could?

[gmatheis]

dumbest post ever

[smarog]

Originally Posted by gmatheis

dumbest post ever

Care to elaborate?

[spot]

Originally Posted by smarog

Care to elaborate?

People manipulate their ratings to extreme measures to be able to play down so they can put together a team that would go deep into the playoffs. Letting people play down would completely defeat the purpose of having different rating levels.

[jdubbs]

I dont get playing down. I hate playing less skilled players, so now i play deep into the playoffs and play even worse matches?

Even 4.0 has turned into a pushers paradise. Cant stand it, which is why i take my lumps at 4.5 or 5.0.

[J_R_B]

You can't let people play down in official league matches. That's dumb. If you want to play down, it's easy enough. Just call someone at the level lower than you. Odds are, they will be more than happy to hit with you.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by smarog

Care to elaborate?

Playing down is also called "sandbagging."

What you are saying is, "should we be able to sandbag?"

Do a search on sandbagging and you'll see why this was nominated for dumbest post ever.

[penpal]

I think I see the point you're making smarog. The thing is, USTA league play is supposedly a competition, with the goal being to make it to the next level (e.g., District Championships, Regional Championships, National Championships). So, in theory, players competing in USTA leagues shouldn't mind if they're facing players who are playing up, as their chances of defeating these players are improved. On the flip side, a 4.0 team playing in a 4.0 league wouldn't want to face a team full of 4.5 players because that will hurt their chances of moving on to the championships.

[Unfrozen Caveman]

Playing down can have benefits and could be workable in limited situations. Take me for example. I am rated a 4.5 but highly doubt that is accurate. I believe that I am a 4.0 but my appeal to be moved down was unsuccessful. I was a state/ sectionally ranked junior that played division I college tennis. I only played doubles, not singles since I was not good enough. Sometimes, I did not play at all. After college, I played off and on for 8 years, then not at all for 14 years.

We have a flex league in my area. When I signed up, I had to certify that my 4.5 level was my true self-rated level. Since I had unsuccessfully appealed, it was. Because I am coming back to tennis, I believe that playing 4.0 players would be beneficial because: (1) I would not really be playing down since my game is at a 4.0 level despite what the USTA says; and (2) even if 4.0 is playing down, I would benefit by getting practice at certain things, including generating my own pace and winning matches.

If all the league participants consent to players playing down, what is the problem. Full disclosure instead of sandbagging is better. A lot more 5.0s could play in league play. For example, leagues could consent to a 4.5 team having one 5.0 player per team. That would be better than teams just gaming the system.

[jdubbs]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman

Playing down can have benefits and could be workable in limited situations. Take me for example. I am rated a 4.5 but highly doubt that is accurate. I believe that I am a 4.0 but my appeal to be moved down was unsuccessful. I was a state/ sectionally ranked junior that played division I college tennis. I only played doubles, not singles since I was not good enough. Sometimes, I did not play at all. After college, I played off and on for 8 years, then not at all for 14 years.

We have a flex league in my area. When I signed up, I had to certify that my 4.5 level was my true self-rated level. Since I had unsuccessfully appealed, it was. Because I am coming back to tennis, I believe that playing 4.0 players would be beneficial because: (1) I would not really be playing down since my game is at a 4.0 level despite what the USTA says; and (2) even if 4.0 is playing down, I would benefit by getting practice at certain things, including generating my own pace and winning matches.

If all the league participants consent to players playing down, what is the problem. Full disclosure instead of sandbagging is better. A lot more 5.0s could play in league play. For example, leagues could consent to a 4.5 team having one 5.0 player per team. That would be better than teams just gaming the system.

You're a former D1 player in your 40's who wants to play 4.0? You're better off dusting off the rust and getting back to a higher level. No way you should be playing 4.0 as a former D1 player.

[burosky]

"If all the league participants consent to players playing down, what is the problem."

So, for the sake of argument, let's say all the league participants consented to players playing down. This means a section could possibly send a team full of 5.0s to the 2.5 adult league nationals. Yes, this is extreme but it can happen in theory. I am a 4.5. If this is allowed in the league I'm in and I see a team full of 5.0s playing down, I'll just request for a refund of my registration fee. If I wanted to play against 5.0s I can always just ask my 5.0 buddies to play and I don't have to pay. Of course, bringing a six pack for after playing can be considered payment but that's different.

[J_R_B]

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman

Playing down can have benefits and could be workable in limited situations. Take me for example. I am rated a 4.5 but highly doubt that is accurate. I believe that I am a 4.0 but my appeal to be moved down was unsuccessful. I was a state/ sectionally ranked junior that played division I college tennis. I only played doubles, not singles since I was not good enough. Sometimes, I did not play at all. After college, I played off and on for 8 years, then not at all for 14 years.

We have a flex league in my area. When I signed up, I had to certify that my 4.5 level was my true self-rated level. Since I had unsuccessfully appealed, it was. Because I am coming back to tennis, I believe that playing 4.0 players would be beneficial because: (1) I would not really be playing down since my game is at a 4.0 level despite what the USTA says; and (2) even if 4.0 is playing down, I would benefit by getting practice at certain things, including generating my own pace and winning matches.

If all the league participants consent to players playing down, what is the problem. Full disclosure instead of sandbagging is better. A lot more 5.0s could play in league play. For example, leagues could consent to a 4.5 team having one 5.0 player per team. That would be better than teams just gaming the system.

I have less of a problem with it in flex leagues. In fact, if you want to play down in a flex league, just sign up for 4.5. Most of the people signing up will probably be 4.0s (or weak 4.5s).

[Unfrozen Caveman]

Originally Posted by jdubbs

You're a former D1 player in your 40's who wants to play 4.0? You're better off dusting off the rust and getting back to a higher level. No way you should be playing 4.0 as a former D1 player.

Play 4.0 long term? No. Short term? Perhaps. Since my return to tennis I have not seen enough 4 and 4.5 players to really judge accurately who is what (including me). Anyway, since I am 4.5, I will play 4.5 to the extent a team will take me. I have a few months to improve before rosters are due for leagues, so as long as I play once a week or so, I should be okay.

[Unfrozen Caveman]

Originally Posted by burosky

"If all the league participants consent to players playing down, what is the problem."

So, for the sake of argument, let's say all the league participants consented to players playing down. This means a section could possibly send a team full of 5.0s to the 2.5 adult league nationals. Yes, this is extreme but it can happen in theory. I am a 4.5. If this is allowed in the league I'm in and I see a team full of 5.0s playing down, I'll just request for a refund of my registration fee. If I wanted to play against 5.0s I can always just ask my 5.0 buddies to play and I don't have to pay. Of course, bringing a six pack for after playing can be considered payment but that's different.

I think you would need to make the rules a little tighter. For example, if you were signing up for a 4.5 league: "Do you consent to playing teams that have, at a maximum, one 5.0 rated player on their team?"

[gameboy]

You can already play down if you wish. It is called Flex League.

[smarog]

This is my point - No one would want to play down because they don't want to play "lesser" competition, but the majority of people will play up and force someone that's playing at their correct level to play someone rated lower than them. It's hypocritical to me and doesn't make much sense.

[darrinbaker00]

Originally Posted by smarog

This is my point - No one would want to play down because they don't want to play "lesser" competition, but the majority of people will play up and force someone that's playing at their correct level to play someone rated lower than them. It's hypocritical to me and doesn't make much sense.

That's fine, but it should be obvious to you that you're in the minority. Besides, no one is forcing anybody to do anything. If you know your opponent is rated lower than you, and you don't want to play him, you can always walk off the court. It's your choice.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by smarog

This is my point - No one would want to play down because they don't want to play "lesser" competition, but the majority of people will play up and force someone that's playing at their correct level to play someone rated lower than them. It's hypocritical to me and doesn't make much sense.

Yea, when I played HS varsity basketball I really wanted to play JV too. So hypocritical that I couldn't do this because of a silly rule. I could've dominated JV as a senior and crushed people.

[smarog]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Yea, when I played HS varsity basketball I really wanted to play JV too. So hypocritical that I couldn't do this because of a silly rule. I could've dominated JV as a senior and crushed people.

So, when you played varsity hs basketball did you also want to play up a level and suit up for the Florida Gators too? You know, just for the experience of playing with better players?

My point has nothing to do with sandbagging - that's an entirely different issue.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by penpal

I think I see the point you're making smarog. The thing is, USTA league play is supposedly a competition, with the goal being to make it to the next level (e.g., District Championships, Regional Championships, National Championships). So, in theory, players competing in USTA leagues shouldn't mind if they're facing players who are playing up, as their chances of defeating these players are improved. On the flip side, a 4.0 team playing in a 4.0 league wouldn't want to face a team full of 4.5 players because that will hurt their chances of moving on to the championships.

Good answer. Although things are messy because there are competing goals: (1) the "this is a competition" goal of getting to playoffs or whatever, and (2) the "getting in some good tennis" goal of playing people of similar skill level to yourself.

Playing down goes against both goals. Playing up does not interfere with goal (1) but is contrary to goal (2).

Which is why I personally am against allowing players to both play up and play at their rated level. That's just having your cake and eating it too, which is the point I think Smarog was trying to make - it's kinda selfish to force better players to endure playing you, while you yourself still get the opportunity to play at your own level where you are immune from competing against the better players.

So I think if someone wants to play up, they should have to appeal their rating up (and USTA should allow this within reason), and then they can play at the higher level (but not their old level). Make them decide on one level or the other, similar to the way higher-rated players don't have the choice of playing down.