Thrown match

tdhawks · Jul 12, 2013

Anyone ever been apart of a thrown match in league play?

I had one last night. Won 0,1. I lost the 1 game on purpose as I realized what he was doing. He is a benchmark 4.0, I am a self rated 4.0 in league play, (1st year in league), but have played 4.0 sanctioned tournaments the past 2 years.

Is this guy trying to protect his rating or trying to DQ me?

storypeddler · Jul 12, 2013

tdhawks said:
Anyone ever been apart of a thrown match in league play?

I had one last night. Won 0,1. I lost the 1 game on purpose as I realized what he was doing. He is a benchmark 4.0, I am a self rated 4.0 in league play, (1st year in league), but have played 4.0 sanctioned tournaments the past 2 years.

Is this guy trying to protect his rating or trying to DQ me?

Could be either---or both. If I'm correct though, matches that are 6-0, 6-0 are not figured into the dynamic rating equation since the resulting changes lie outside the parameters of the formula. Maybe someone else can verify that.

dizzlmcwizzl · Jul 12, 2013

storypeddler said:
Could be either---or both. If I'm correct though, matches that are 6-0, 6-0 are not figured into the dynamic rating equation since the resulting changes lie outside the parameters of the formula. Maybe someone else can verify that.

That used to be public knowledge ... you could find it on many websites.

However, those links are all removed from National sites ... also, posters who seem to have some inside knowledge claim that policy has been changed.

At this point I suspect they do count, but collectively we are not sure.

damazing · Jul 12, 2013

How could you tell he was throwing the match?

I was involved in one match that I only later learned my partner was trying to throw the match. He would serve 3 double faults each game and would routinely hit ground strokes into the net to lose us the point.

I was new to league play and had figured that he was just a bad player so I worked twice as hard to get the win.

tdhawks · Jul 12, 2013

Because I didn't have to try at all. He hit everything out and didn't go for a single shot. I would return a shot down the line and he would stand there after service and watch it. You could just tell.

I looked at his past matches and he played everyone very close, and these were against some solid higher rated 4.0's that I know in town.

The Isomotion31 · Jul 12, 2013

My first USTA league my then doubles partner told me to throw a game or 2. He didn't give me a reason why until changeover when he said one of the guys from our team was bumped up for winning and was paranoid I would get bumped.

I told him, I can't do that. If you want to throw a game do it on your serve, but I'm not deliberately losing my service games. I also told him that since I was returning on the Ad side he would have to work if he wanted to throw one of those games.

He ended up throwing 3 of his service games for the whole match.

anubis · Jul 12, 2013

So was he throwing the match in order to have some "losses under his belt"?, so that he could remain at 4.0?

It's just stupid IMO. I would never lose a match on purpose.

J_R_B · Jul 12, 2013

Two years ago, I was playing with a high school kid I had just recruited. He was pretty good, and I put us at #1 doubles against a team where the regular #1 doubles team was a local teaching pro and his partner who were undefeated on the season. I thought that would be a fun match, but both guys on the other team ended up missing the match and instead of rearranging their lineup, the team just put a replacement team at #1. We were at 5-0 on a changeover and the kid say "should we beat them 0 & 0? Is that bad?". I told him we needed to drop one game somewhere because at the time, I was under the impression that 0 & 0 scores didn't count towards dynamic rating, and I wanted him to get a C rating at the end of the year. But I told him otherwise, just play, it's fine. He ended up having a 3 game mental lapse at 6-0 3-0 (as kids are prone to...) and we won 6-0 6-3 without having to worry about gifting a game.

storypeddler · Jul 12, 2013

In all honesty and fairness, I can see both sides of this argument. When players view the USTA rating system as unreliable and inconsistent, and they are afraid they could inadvertently become victims of what they see as an incorrect bump-up by the flawed system, I can absolutely understand why they take steps to protect themselves from that eventuality---like winning the match 6-4, 6-4 instead of 6-1, 6-1. I am not going to say it is right or wrong. If the goal of playing is to win the match, they did that. If the goal of playing is to win every match by as large a margin as humanly possible, well...no, they didn't do that, and frankly, almost nobody does. Everyone coasts here and there.

The bottom line is winning the match, and I get the same overall result whether my opponent won 2 games against me or 8. But if a player honestly believes he may be unfairly treated by the system he sees as broken anyway, he may see no other option but to play at 75% and let the final score be close and relatively meaningless to the computer.

And incidentally---are any of us honestly going to stand here and say that in every match we have ever played, we have ALWAYS tried our absolute best to win every possible game we had any chance at winning? We never watched a forehand land in rather than try to run it down, even when we thought maybe we could have reached it? We gave 100% effort on every point of every game of every match? LOL. Please. Even professional players often tank a game in order to save their strength for the games needed to win the match. Beating you 6-2 is as good as beating you 6-1, and if you are about to hold your serve at 1-5, should I really use my last reserves of energy to break you instead of letting you hold your serve without resistance so I can focus on holding my own service and winning the set? Of course not.

brokenRPM · Jul 12, 2013

storypeddler said:
Could be either---or both. If I'm correct though, matches that are 6-0, 6-0 are not figured into the dynamic rating equation since the resulting changes lie outside the parameters of the formula. Maybe someone else can verify that.

yes, you should've won 0 and 0 then the match would've meant nothing to the computers.

SunshineJS · Jul 12, 2013

brokenRPM said:
yes, you should've won 0 and 0 then the match would've meant nothing to the computers.

That's not true anymore... had a guy DQ on a 0 & 0 match this week.

Cindysphinx · Jul 12, 2013

storypeddler said:
And incidentally---are any of us honestly going to stand here and say that in every match we have ever played, we have ALWAYS tried our absolute best to win every possible game we had any chance at winning? We never watched a forehand land in rather than try to run it down, even when we thought maybe we could have reached it? We gave 100% effort on every point of every game of every match? LOL. Please. Even professional players often tank a game in order to save their strength for the games needed to win the match. Beating you 6-2 is as good as beating you 6-1, and if you are about to hold your serve at 1-5, should I really use my last reserves of energy to break you instead of letting you hold your serve without resistance so I can focus on holding my own service and winning the set? Of course not.

I can honestly say I have never tanked a game or even a point on purpose in a league or tournament match. Yes, I might let a ball go if I don't think I can reach it. If I were injured or cramping, I would feel it OK to conserve energy or suchlike.

But I have seen people come back from 0-5 down. If I were leading 6-0, 5-0, I would not coast or let up. I would try to win that game and get out of dodge.

The longer you let the match go on, the greater your chances of having an injury that costs you the win, and the greater your chances of some fluke where your opponents start reeling off games.

Finish the thing. No mercy. No pity. Respect the opponent's ability to rally and beat you. Win as fast as you possibly can.

Then play for fun.

OrangePower · Jul 12, 2013

tdhawks said:
Anyone ever been apart of a thrown match in league play?

I had one last night. Won 0,1. I lost the 1 game on purpose as I realized what he was doing. He is a benchmark 4.0, I am a self rated 4.0 in league play, (1st year in league), but have played 4.0 sanctioned tournaments the past 2 years.

Is this guy trying to protect his rating or trying to DQ me?

You are self-rated? Well then clearly you are sandbagging. How ridiculous is it that a decent computer-rated player was only able to get 1 game off you? You should be playing at least 4.5.

brokenRPM · Jul 12, 2013

SunshineJS said:
That's not true anymore... had a guy DQ on a 0 & 0 match this week.

thanks, I had no idea that can happen??? are you sure? Names/links, pls...

schmke · Jul 12, 2013

I'd always understood that 6-0,6-0 matches could always result in a strike, even if they weren't included for updating C-rated dynamic ratings in the past.

And that makes sense, if you are a 3.5S and beat a strong 3.5 6-0,6-0, that shouldn't be ignored for strike purposes.

tdhawks · Jul 13, 2013

OrangePower said:
You are self-rated? Well then clearly you are sandbagging. How ridiculous is it that a decent computer-rated player was only able to get 1 game off you? You should be playing at least 4.5.

Let me explain, Orange. I am not sandbagging at all. I am a self rated 4.0 in league because it's the 1st year I have played, yet I am a computer rated 4.0 based off the tournaments I have played over the past 2 years. This guy clearly had no interest in playing at all. I can honestly say he didn't attempt to play the match the right way. Our longest rally was no more than 6 hits, no kidding. And I was not going for winners. He clearly wasn't hurt either. He just had no interest in winning the match.

In fact, he was playing mixed doubles last night with a client of mine and she said he was fine and played well, which jumps out at me as odd.

Their captain has a history of having their players tank matches and appeal their ratings lower so he can win. It just doesn't add up and seems too fishy to me.

tdhawks · Jul 13, 2013

Just talked to my client again this morning. She confirmed a teammate of his said he did toss the match.

His teammate told her he was afraid he was getting close to being bumped up so he needed a good loss on his record.

OrangePower · Jul 13, 2013

tdhawks said:
Let me explain, Orange. I am not sandbagging at all. I am a self rated 4.0 in league because it's the 1st year I have played, yet I am a computer rated 4.0 based off the tournaments I have played over the past 2 years. This guy clearly had no interest in playing at all. I can honestly say he didn't attempt to play the match the right way. Our longest rally was no more than 6 hits, no kidding. And I was not going for winners. He clearly wasn't hurt either. He just had no interest in winning the match.

In fact, he was playing mixed doubles last night with a client of mine and she said he was fine and played well, which jumps out at me as odd.

Their captain has a history of having their players tank matches and appeal their ratings lower so he can win. It just doesn't add up and seems too fishy to me.

That's pretty low of the guy then. Not only does he keep his own rating artificially low, but he could also cause you to get an unjustified DQ since you are self rated.

It would have been funny if once you realized what was going on you had turned the tables and started tanking the match yourself

storypeddler · Jul 13, 2013

Cindysphinx said:
I can honestly say I have never tanked a game or even a point on purpose in a league or tournament match. Yes, I might let a ball go if I don't think I can reach it. If I were injured or cramping, I would feel it OK to conserve energy or suchlike.

But I have seen people come back from 0-5 down. If I were leading 6-0, 5-0, I would not coast or let up. I would try to win that game and get out of dodge.

The longer you let the match go on, the greater your chances of having an injury that costs you the win, and the greater your chances of some fluke where your opponents start reeling off games.

Finish the thing. No mercy. No pity. Respect the opponent's ability to rally and beat you. Win as fast as you possibly can.

Then play for fun.

Cindy, for strategy purposes, you wouldn't tank a game to have a better chance at winning the set? What if you won the first set, but suffered an injury in doing so. You have a set in hand, but know for certain that you won't be able to play and win a second set. However, you believe you may be able to serve well enough to eke out a third-set tiebreak to take the match. You wouldn't basically roll over for the second set and save what little you have left for one good push in a short 10-point tie-break? Because I would. Strategy-wise, if you are trying to win the match, that seems to make a lot more sense than going down in flames for no good reason other than stubbornness.

I'm not promoting the idea of losing matches on purpose solely to try to protect a rating. I always want to win my matches. But if a 6-4, 6-4 score gets me the victory the same as a 6-1-6-1 score, what difference does it make? I still get the win.

J_R_B · Jul 13, 2013

storypeddler said:
Cindy, for strategy purposes, you wouldn't tank a game to have a better chance at winning the set? What if you won the first set, but suffered an injury in doing so. You have a set in hand, but know for certain that you won't be able to play and win a second set. However, you believe you may be able to serve well enough to eke out a third-set tiebreak to take the match. You wouldn't basically roll over for the second set and save what little you have left for one good push in a short 10-point tie-break? Because I would. Strategy-wise, if you are trying to win the match, that seems to make a lot more sense than going down in flames for no good reason other than stubbornness.

I'm not promoting the idea of losing matches on purpose solely to try to protect a rating. I always want to win my matches. But if a 6-4, 6-4 score gets me the victory the same as a 6-1-6-1 score, what difference does it make? I still get the win.

Throwing games as a valid strategy to increase your chances of winning the match (which is a rare circumstance, but comes up occasionally) is a valid tennis strategy and is a lot different than throwing games or matches to manipulate a rating. In the other case, I've been in a position where I've won big early and then just got mentally lazy and failed to close out right away. We've all been there (in 6-0 6-4 matches that should be 6-0 6-0...), but that's not throwing games purpose, that's just being an amateur.

Govnor · Jul 15, 2013

J_R_B said:
Throwing games as a valid strategy to increase your chances of winning the match (which is a rare circumstance, but comes up occasionally) is a valid tennis strategy and is a lot different than throwing games or matches to manipulate a rating. In the other case, I've been in a position where I've won big early and then just got mentally lazy and failed to close out right away. We've all been there (in 6-0 6-4 matches that should be 6-0 6-0...), but that's not throwing games purpose, that's just being an amateur.

That's happened to me so many times. Mentally weak, I am.

SunshineJS · Jul 15, 2013

brokenRPM said:
thanks, I had no idea that can happen??? are you sure? Names/links, pls...

Yes... i am sure. Here's the DQ record:

http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/....aspx?t=T-0&par1=s+xYdJqFTemJmVHBTQFtYg==&e=1

Last match was his 3rd strike... They are also counted toward year-end ratings.

the green god · Jul 15, 2013

Here's a novel thought. Play your best and if you get bumped, you get bumped. One would think this is the goal in tennis. To get better and improve. Apparently, a lot of people can't stand arse kickings.

schmke · Jul 17, 2013

SunshineJS said:
Yes... i am sure. Here's the DQ record:

http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/....aspx?t=T-0&par1=s+xYdJqFTemJmVHBTQFtYg==&e=1

Last match was his 3rd strike... They are also counted toward year-end ratings.

I believe 6-0,6-0 matches have always been candidates to count as strikes. The change in the past year or two was that they also count towards year-end ratings as SunshineJS says.

In any case, my estimates agree that the player noted had 3 strikes. While I don't know the exact threshold for a 5.0 to 5.5 strike, I had him at or above 5.15 3 times.

J_R_B · Jul 17, 2013

schmke said:
I believe 6-0,6-0 matches have always been candidates to count as strikes. The change in the past year or two was that they also count towards year-end ratings as SunshineJS says.

In any case, my estimates agree that the player noted had 3 strikes. While I don't know the exact threshold for a 5.0 to 5.5 strike, I had him at or above 5.15 3 times.

This case raises an interesting point that I don't think has been addressed yet. What if someone rates 4.5 S and plays in a 40 & Over 4.5+ league and gets three strikes against his 4.5 rating? He's bumped to 5.0, but in a + league, he would still be allowed to play as a 5.0? Are the results overturned? Does it matter if he could have been a 5.0 at the time (i.e. playing line one with no other 5.0 in the lineup)? In this case, it doesn't really matter because his strikes were against a 5.0 rating, but seeing the matches in 4.5+ got me thinking about this issue.

SunshineJS · Jul 17, 2013

J_R_B said:
This case raises an interesting point that I don't think has been addressed yet. What if someone rates 4.5 S and plays in a 40 & Over 4.5+ league and gets three strikes against his 4.5 rating? He's bumped to 5.0, but in a + league, he would still be allowed to play as a 5.0? Are the results overturned? Does it matter if he could have been a 5.0 at the time (i.e. playing line one with no other 5.0 in the lineup)? In this case, it doesn't really matter because his strikes were against a 5.0 rating, but seeing the matches in 4.5+ got me thinking about this issue.

In plus leagues all matches are reversed on a DQ, regardless of if there wasn't another plus player playing, or it was at a #1 position, etc. If the team doesn't have the max amount of + level players already on the roster then said player can still play, obviously.

I argued the other way, but lost that battle.

HookEmJeff · Jul 17, 2013

Edited response below

HookEmJeff · Jul 17, 2013

Any player that actually tanks a match purposefully is throwing a wrench in the league rating system, and that is not the fault of the USTA computer or a local league coordinator. Just remember that if you ever witness an incorrect score put in and say nothing, or witness someone legitimately tanking, you are basically complicit to this. One game incorrectly put in the computer COULD be enough to run your rating over a level when all is said and done.

If people have that much of a desire to willfully toss a match or skew results, there is really no hope to create a legitimately fair rating system for all, whether it's the USTA's or any system really.

A rating or skill-level handicapping system can not legislate ethics or morals of players, which, I would hope...would mean everyone putting their best effort forward in every match and playing to the best of their ability. That should be a given. Fortunately for most, it is and this does happen and, in the end, we all get the fun, competition and camaraderie out of it that we sought.

The toughest part is the burden of proof an accusation like that will create. I've heard of friends talking about people they were playing against tanking before, but without concrete proof, or, a person actually admitting they are tanking or were asked to how do you prove that? I heard of this a couple of years ago in a local league and heard someone filed a grievance against the players, but no one wanted to admit it from the other team when push came to shove, even though they told friends.

There is nothing that can be done in that instance to rectify the situation, sadly, other than just never ask people like that back on your teams or play for a captain who would tolerate something like that.

When someone does that and thinks they are "gaming the system" for their intended result (lower Dynamic so they can play on a team), they have to realize they are also screwing the other person(s) they are playing. That person is getting a victory that is not reflective of a likely outcome. That person SHOULD be as ****ed as anyone. This also is the same for incorrectly inputted scores in the computer by a captain. You ever notice you got three extra games on a scoreline before? Probably should speak up before you get bumped up.

If I ever heard someone was doing that or had a directive from someone to throw a match or alter a score in the system, I would confront them first and tell them they were chicken$H!t, as well as report them immediately...even my own captain or doubles partner. That's total BS, and I wouldn't want anyone like that on my team as a teammate, either. If my name is on a scoreboard somewhere, anywhere, you can damn be sure I'm laying it all out there.

If the point is to make Sectionals or whatever OVER playing to the best of your ability and being the best tennis player you can be day in and day out, then players like that are really missing the boat of what competition is about...whether it's USTA Leagues or tournaments or whatever.

The ironic thing is many of those type of people complaining about ratings anomolies (like what a tanked match would be) are often the ones engaging in this type of behavior. You wouldn't right a wrong in this case without creating another one.

Jeff

schmke · Jul 17, 2013

SunshineJS said:
In plus leagues all matches are reversed on a DQ, regardless of if there wasn't another plus player playing, or it was at a #1 position, etc. If the team doesn't have the max amount of + level players already on the roster then said player can still play, obviously.

I argued the other way, but lost that battle.

I'd support your position, but I can see how the easy way out is to just reverse the matches.

On a related note, I have another self-rated DQ question I hope you can help us all with. I know that if 2 self-rated players play each other, neither can get a rating from that match so it can't generate a strike.

But what if two self-rated players that have played only one match each play each other? Is a single match enough for each to have a dynamic rating to calculate the other's rating from? Or must an opponent have played at least 2 (or more?) matches? What I've read in various USTA documents hasn't been entirely clear.

SunshineJS · Jul 17, 2013

schmke said:
I'd support your position, but I can see how the easy way out is to just reverse the matches.

On a related note, I have another self-rated DQ question I hope you can help us all with. I know that if 2 self-rated players play each other, neither can get a rating from that match so it can't generate a strike.

But what if two self-rated players that have played only one match each play each other? Is a single match enough for each to have a dynamic rating to calculate the other's rating from? Or must an opponent have played at least 2 (or more?) matches? What I've read in various USTA documents hasn't been entirely clear.

No a single match won't calculate...

If it somehow happened that a self-rated player played 5 matches and all were against other self-rated players that only played that one given match, the original player still would not have a dynamic rating. It takes three matches that are all individually calculated with a dynamic before the rolling average takes effect.

To avoid that from happening if there's ever a flight in which 60% of the players are self-rated, all self-rates are assigned a start rate rather than them being a 0.0

tdhawks · Jul 17, 2013

Here is a question for you -

Can players actually be bumped up mid-season or at the end of the year based off how they perform in tournaments, or is it based mainly off of league play?

There is a guy in my area who makes the finals of almost every sanctioned tournament he plays in, yet he never is bumped up.

SunshineJS · Jul 17, 2013

tdhawks said:
Here is a question for you -

Can players actually be bumped up mid-season or at the end of the year based off how they perform in tournaments, or is it based mainly off of league play?

There is a guy in my area who makes the finals of almost every sanctioned tournament he plays in, yet he never is bumped up.

Can't be DQ'd ( assuming that's what you mean by mid-season, unless you're referencing early start ratings)... only Adult 18 & Over, 40 & Over and 55 & Over have the dynamic rating, which would DQ a self-rated player.

Depends if your section includes tournaments in the year-end ratings or not as some do and some don't. As for one's that do... tournaments and any local leagues (ones other than the three mentioned above) are not weighted quite as much as results in USTA league matches but definitely still count.

Thing with tournaments though is that many more people tend to play up than in leagues, some even play up two levels. Thus a player could win a tournament, but after four matches really have only played one player around his level. This is why win/loss record technically has no bearing on ratings.

tdhawks · Jul 17, 2013

SunshineJS said:
Can't be DQ'd ( assuming that's what you mean by mid-season, unless you're referencing early start ratings)... only Adult 18 & Over, 40 & Over and 55 & Over have the dynamic rating, which would DQ a self-rated player.

Depends if your section includes tournaments in the year-end ratings or not as some do and some don't. As for one's that do... tournaments and any local leagues (ones other than the three mentioned above) are not weighted quite as much as results in USTA league matches but definitely still count.

Thing with tournaments though is that many more people tend to play up than in leagues, some even play up two levels. Thus a player could win a tournament, but after four matches really have only played one player around his level. This is why win/loss record technically has no bearing on ratings.

Makes sense. Thanks.

OrangePower · Jul 17, 2013

HookEmJeff said:
Any player that actually tanks a match purposefully is throwing a wrench in the league rating system, and that is not the fault of the USTA computer or a local league coordinator. Just remember that if you ever witness an incorrect score put in and say nothing, or witness someone legitimately tanking, you are basically complicit to this. One game incorrectly put in the computer COULD be enough to run your rating over a level when all is said and done.

...

The toughest part is the burden of proof an accusation like that will create. I've heard of friends talking about people they were playing against tanking before, but without concrete proof, or, a person actually admitting they are tanking or were asked to how do you prove that? I heard of this a couple of years ago in a local league and heard someone filed a grievance against the players, but no one wanted to admit it from the other team when push came to shove, even though they told friends.

I know of only one example of a player who actively "manages" his rating... it's obvious to me that this is what he is doing, because:

- He has beaten the best players in the league (players who have lost to no-one other than this guy).
- He has lost to several weak players who have lost to practically everyone else.
- There is a perfect correlation between his wins/losses and the team matches where his win/loss would have made a difference. Meaning, he has only lost in matches that his team has won anyway, while his good wins came in matches where his team would have lost had he lost.

But even then, this is not "proof" and so I don't think the USTA would ever be able to take action against this guy.

storypeddler · Jul 17, 2013

HookEmJeff said:
Any player that actually tanks a match purposefully is throwing a wrench in the league rating system, and that is not the fault of the USTA computer or a local league coordinator. Just remember that if you ever witness an incorrect score put in and say nothing, or witness someone legitimately tanking, you are basically complicit to this. One game incorrectly put in the computer COULD be enough to run your rating over a level when all is said and done.

If people have that much of a desire to willfully toss a match or skew results, there is really no hope to create a legitimately fair rating system for all, whether it's the USTA's or any system really.

A rating or skill-level handicapping system can not legislate ethics or morals of players, which, I would hope...would mean everyone putting their best effort forward in every match and playing to the best of their ability. That should be a given. Fortunately for most, it is and this does happen and, in the end, we all get the fun, competition and camaraderie out of it that we sought.

The toughest part is the burden of proof an accusation like that will create. I've heard of friends talking about people they were playing against tanking before, but without concrete proof, or, a person actually admitting they are tanking or were asked to how do you prove that? I heard of this a couple of years ago in a local league and heard someone filed a grievance against the players, but no one wanted to admit it from the other team when push came to shove, even though they told friends.

There is nothing that can be done in that instance to rectify the situation, sadly, other than just never ask people like that back on your teams or play for a captain who would tolerate something like that.

When someone does that and thinks they are "gaming the system" for their intended result (lower Dynamic so they can play on a team), they have to realize they are also screwing the other person(s) they are playing. That person is getting a victory that is not reflective of a likely outcome. That person SHOULD be as ****ed as anyone. This also is the same for incorrectly inputted scores in the computer by a captain. You ever notice you got three extra games on a scoreline before? Probably should speak up before you get bumped up.

If I ever heard someone was doing that or had a directive from someone to throw a match or alter a score in the system, I would confront them first and tell them they were chicken$H!t, as well as report them immediately...even my own captain or doubles partner. That's total BS, and I wouldn't want anyone like that on my team as a teammate, either. If my name is on a scoreboard somewhere, anywhere, you can damn be sure I'm laying it all out there.

If the point is to make Sectionals or whatever OVER playing to the best of your ability and being the best tennis player you can be day in and day out, then players like that are really missing the boat of what competition is about...whether it's USTA Leagues or tournaments or whatever.

The ironic thing is many of those type of people complaining about ratings anomolies (like what a tanked match would be) are often the ones engaging in this type of behavior. You wouldn't right a wrong in this case without creating another one.

Jeff

I respect your opinion completely. However, it is not everyone's opinion, and it is not the only one supported by a valid argument. There is NO perfectly fair and accurate system, and when players recognize they are being victimized by some flaw in the system, they sometimes feel they have no choice but to defend themselves by "gaming the system". You are free to disagree, certainly.

I play in a reasonably small city (50,000 or so), and in the limited tennis community we have, there are any number of players who are locked into a level well above where they should be, and the ratings system keeps them there year after year. When the sample is small enough, lots of anomalies occur on a regular basis. It is, indeed, better than it used to be, but it is still not perfect.

I can't believe you have never seen a professional player "manage" the score in a match based on conditioning, injury, strategy, or whatever. I certainly have.

I completely understand that to you the only worthwhile goal is to be "the best tennis player you can be day in and day out"---but not everyone has that as their prime goal. Some people care only about improving, but to no specific end beyond that. Fine. And some players care more about winning matches, and leagues, and tournaments. There is nothing wrong with that. A lot of league players DO play for the opportunity to go to district and sectional tournaments. You don't have to agree with the value of that, but it is important to them. To simply say they are missing out on what competition is all about is a far too simplistic and narrow-minded judgment of those players. Just because they don't share your particular vision doesn't mean they are wrong.

J_R_B · Jul 17, 2013

J_R_B said:
Throwing games as a valid strategy to increase your chances of winning the match (which is a rare circumstance, but comes up occasionally) is a valid tennis strategy and is a lot different than throwing games or matches to manipulate a rating. In the other case, I've been in a position where I've won big early and then just got mentally lazy and failed to close out right away. We've all been there (in 6-0 6-4 matches that should be 6-0 6-0...), but that's not throwing games purpose, that's just being an amateur.

Govnor said:
That's happened to me so many times. Mentally weak, I am.

I won my local league playoff match tonight ... 6-0 6-4. LOL.

brokenRPM · Jul 17, 2013

SunshineJS said:
Yes... i am sure. Here's the DQ record:

http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/....aspx?t=T-0&par1=s+xYdJqFTemJmVHBTQFtYg==&e=1

Last match was his 3rd strike... They are also counted toward year-end ratings.

thanks for sharing. great info!

schmke · Jul 17, 2013

SunshineJS said:
No a single match won't calculate...

If it somehow happened that a self-rated player played 5 matches and all were against other self-rated players that only played that one given match, the original player still would not have a dynamic rating. It takes three matches that are all individually calculated with a dynamic before the rolling average takes effect.

To avoid that from happening if there's ever a flight in which 60% of the players are self-rated, all self-rates are assigned a start rate rather than them being a 0.0

Thanks. But just to confirm, are you saying an S rated player doesn't have a dynamic rating that will result in their opponents having a match rating calculated when they play, until the S rated player has played three matches and their rolling average dynamic rating is calculated?

Or put another way, when two S rated players play each other, will one generate a rating and be subject to a strike only if the other has played 3 matches against players with dynamic ratings?

I can't find one now, but I thought I'd seen some DQs where the explanation would require that an S rated player's opponents were having ratings calculated before the S rated played 3 matches.

HoustonHacker · Jul 18, 2013

SunshineJS said:
tournaments and any local leagues (ones other than the three mentioned above) are not weighted quite as much as results in USTA league matches but definitely still count.

Hmmm. Is this true? I'd never heard that there were different weights given to different leagues and tournament matches.

We have some local leagues here in Houston which count towards ratings, but I'd always assumed that a 6-3, 6-3 win over Player A in one of those leagues was the same as in the USTA 18+ league...??? kschmke, your thoughts?

For that person that has only seen one player manage their score. Yikes. A trip to Houston or Dallas would be an eye-opener for you.

schmke · Jul 18, 2013

HoustonHacker said:
Hmmm. Is this true? I'd never heard that there were different weights given to different leagues and tournament matches.

We have some local leagues here in Houston which count towards ratings, but I'd always assumed that a 6-3, 6-3 win over Player A in one of those leagues was the same as in the USTA 18+ league...??? kschmke, your thoughts?

For that person that has only seen one player manage their score. Yikes. A trip to Houston or Dallas would be an eye-opener for you.

I trust SunshineJS's knowledge, at least for how things are done in Colorado. I know each section has the option of what leagues to include and whether to include tournaments or not, and that some of these may be added in at the end of the year and not part of the running dynamic rating, and that things can be weighted, but I don't know that local leagues and/or tournaments must be weighted less than the national leagues.

rainman007 · Jul 20, 2013

OrangePower said:
That's pretty low of the guy then. Not only does he keep his own rating artificially low, but he could also cause you to get an unjustified DQ since you are self rated.

It would have been funny if once you realized what was going on you had turned the tables and started tanking the match yourself

I think when you play a self rated player the match is strickly used to establish a dynamic rating for the self rated player if your rating is B or C.. I dont think it is used for year end ratings for the player that has a B or C rating at all. The Self Rated Player doesnt have a rating so how can it affect your rating?

The system does as much as it can for you to not have your matches counted on the computer.. You play Adult, then Mixed matches dont count. Combo Matches dont count. Tri- Level Matches dont count. Tournaments dont count. Matches against self rates dont count for you. 0 and 0 matches dont count etc.... Very littles match play counts for your record for some reason where if everything counted it could deter sandbagging which is not the USTA's fault its the people that make up the systems fault. However having 40 matches in a year versus 3 would greater reflect your true rating.

schmke · Jul 20, 2013

rainman007 said:
I think when you play a self rated player the match is strickly used to establish a dynamic rating for the self rated player if your rating is B or C.. I dont think it is used for year end ratings for the player that has a B or C rating at all. The Self Rated Player doesnt have a rating so how can it affect your rating?

The system does as much as it can for you to not have your matches counted on the computer.. You play Adult, then Mixed matches dont count. Combo Matches dont count. Tri- Level Matches dont count. Tournaments dont count. Matches against self rates dont count for you. 0 and 0 matches dont count etc.... Very littles match play counts for your record for some reason where if everything counted it could deter sandbagging which is not the USTA's fault its the people that make up the systems fault. However having 40 matches in a year versus 3 would greater reflect your true rating.

Well, tournaments, tri-level, etc. may count depending on the Section/District. Some count them, some don't. For many people, it is more than just the few main adult league matches that count. In doing my reports for folks, I've seen many cases of players that have 30-40 matches that count in a year.

Also, once self-rates have played enough matches (most believe it is 3), your match against them does count. I've also heard that the USTA may find a way to make them all count in year-end calculations too.

SunshineJS · Jul 22, 2013

schmke said:
Thanks. But just to confirm, are you saying an S rated player doesn't have a dynamic rating that will result in their opponents having a match rating calculated when they play, until the S rated player has played three matches and their rolling average dynamic rating is calculated?

Or put another way, when two S rated players play each other, will one generate a rating and be subject to a strike only if the other has played 3 matches against players with dynamic ratings?

I can't find one now, but I thought I'd seen some DQs where the explanation would require that an S rated player's opponents were having ratings calculated before the S rated played 3 matches.

Yes, mostly. The third match could be between the self-rates. So the opponent could have played two prior matches.

As for there being DQ that would suggest otherwise... If it was prior to the change then you only needed two matches to calculate or if the self-rated player came form a flight where 60% were S players, then they would have been assigned a start rate and began calculating dynamics vs opponents on the first match. Lot of unknown variables that could explain the reasoning.

schmke · Jul 27, 2013

SunshineJS said:
Yes, mostly. The third match could be between the self-rates. So the opponent could have played two prior matches.

As for there being DQ that would suggest otherwise... If it was prior to the change then you only needed two matches to calculate or if the self-rated player came form a flight where 60% were S players, then they would have been assigned a start rate and began calculating dynamics vs opponents on the first match. Lot of unknown variables that could explain the reasoning.

SunshineJS, ok, this isn't a DQ, but it is an early start bump that I can't explain. Now, it isn't in your section so perhaps you can't help much, but here goes.

This player, http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/...1F0745D44A59583F0E0D7C93E2A1&par2=2013&par3=0, Katie, was a 2.5 to start the year, played 2 mixed matches that shouldn't count and played 4 adult matches that should. She ended up being on the PNW early start list as a bump up to 3.0.

First match involvved C-rated players so it would generate a result, but it was also a loss (6-3,6-2) so likely wasn't a great result.

The second match was against a self-rated player playing her 4th match, but her first match had been against a self-rated player in her first match so shouldn't have generated a rating, and her third was against a self-rated player in her first match so shouldn't have generated a rating. So this self-rated opponent only had 1 match with a rating, not 3, so this second likely couldn't generate a rating for Katie as the opponent can't have had a dynamic rating yet with only one match generating a rating.

The third match was against a self-rated opponent playing just her second match so she wouldn't have a rating yet and this match wouldn't generate a rating for Katie.

The fourth match was against a self-rated opponent playing just her second match so she wouldn't have a rating yet and this match wouldn't generate a rating for Katie.

Still, after these 4 matches, only one which should have generated a rating and it a loss, Katie was bumped up to 3.0 on the early start list.

Can you explain how this could happen? I don't think there is anywhere close to 60% self-rated players in the sub-flight (I count 38 amongst 10 teams, each team with over 10 players each) so am baffled how it could occur.

SunshineJS · Jul 29, 2013

We don't have early start ratings in the Intermountain section, so I'm not certain on the specifics of what all goes into them in terms of number of matches required and if they calculate them like YE ratings or if its purely off what their current dynamic is... so I don't think I can help you out much. Haven't ever had to deal with them, so I honestly haven't really looked into them much. You probably know more than me on that front.

She could have been a high 2.5 and maybe even with the first loss and one match dynamic with a win, it was enough to push her across the threshold. Playing up probably had a lot to do with it. Even with a 3 & 2 loss, she could have been expected to lose worse and gone up. Playing as a 2.5C against a 3.0C, even if the 3.0 is a middle of the pack player, the gap between the ratings will be such that she would probably be expected to have very lopsided matches.

schmke · Jul 29, 2013

I've been told our early start ratings are simply based on the dynamic rating on a certain date.

That said, the only explanation I can come up with is that an early start rating can be based on a dynamic rating that has been updated with a single match.

Given the self-rated situation in what I wrote above, I don't see how the player could have had a match rating from the 2nd thru 4th unless a self-rated player does have a rating that is used to calculate an opponent's match rating before their 3rd match is completed, and in fact in the situation above, before their 2nd match is completed.

J_R_B · Jul 29, 2013

schmke said:
SunshineJS, ok, this isn't a DQ, but it is an early start bump that I can't explain. Now, it isn't in your section so perhaps you can't help much, but here goes.

This player, http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/...1F0745D44A59583F0E0D7C93E2A1&par2=2013&par3=0, Katie, was a 2.5 to start the year, played 2 mixed matches that shouldn't count and played 4 adult matches that should. She ended up being on the PNW early start list as a bump up to 3.0.

First match involvved C-rated players so it would generate a result, but it was also a loss (6-3,6-2) so likely wasn't a great result.

The second match was against a self-rated player playing her 4th match, but her first match had been against a self-rated player in her first match so shouldn't have generated a rating, and her third was against a self-rated player in her first match so shouldn't have generated a rating. So this self-rated opponent only had 1 match with a rating, not 3, so this second likely couldn't generate a rating for Katie as the opponent can't have had a dynamic rating yet with only one match generating a rating.

The third match was against a self-rated opponent playing just her second match so she wouldn't have a rating yet and this match wouldn't generate a rating for Katie.

The fourth match was against a self-rated opponent playing just her second match so she wouldn't have a rating yet and this match wouldn't generate a rating for Katie.

Still, after these 4 matches, only one which should have generated a rating and it a loss, Katie was bumped up to 3.0 on the early start list.

Can you explain how this could happen? I don't think there is anywhere close to 60% self-rated players in the sub-flight (I count 38 amongst 10 teams, each team with over 10 players each) so am baffled how it could occur.

What was your match rating for her in the one match that should have counted? This was a 3.0 match, so even though it was a loss, it was moderately competitive and, without knowing the dynamics of the ratings of the other players involved, it doesn't seem counterintuitive that it could have generated a match rating in the 3.0 range (i.e. at least above 2.51). Maybe the ES rating used just that one data point as a dynamic rating in the ES calculation?

schmke · Jul 29, 2013

J_R_B said:
What was your match rating for her in the one match that should have counted? This was a 3.0 match, so even though it was a loss, it was moderately competitive and, without knowing the dynamics of the ratings of the other players involved, it doesn't seem counterintuitive that it could have generated a match rating in the 3.0 range (i.e. at least above 2.51). Maybe the ES rating used just that one data point as a dynamic rating in the ES calculation?

I'll be honest, I have a difficult time with the 2.5 level because there are so many self-rates. Trying to improve this is the reason for my questions, to try to make sure I'm generating match ratings early enough and correctly.

That said, the match rating I had for the one loss against C rated players wasn't above 2.51 so I'd think one of the others would have to count in order to get her rating above 2.51 to be early start bumped. In the loss though, she was playing with a just bumped up to 3.0 player (went 2-2 at 2.5 in 2012) and against a middle of the road 3.0 (2.74) and a low-end 3.0 (went 2-12 at 3.0 in 2012). So while they were supposed to lose, I didn't have the opponents high enough for a 6-3,6-2 loss to help her rating.

HookEmJeff · Jul 30, 2013

storypeddler said:
I respect your opinion completely. However, it is not everyone's opinion, and it is not the only one supported by a valid argument. There is NO perfectly fair and accurate system, and when players recognize they are being victimized by some flaw in the system, they sometimes feel they have no choice but to defend themselves by "gaming the system". You are free to disagree, certainly.

I play in a reasonably small city (50,000 or so), and in the limited tennis community we have, there are any number of players who are locked into a level well above where they should be, and the ratings system keeps them there year after year. When the sample is small enough, lots of anomalies occur on a regular basis. It is, indeed, better than it used to be, but it is still not perfect.

I can't believe you have never seen a professional player "manage" the score in a match based on conditioning, injury, strategy, or whatever. I certainly have.

I completely understand that to you the only worthwhile goal is to be "the best tennis player you can be day in and day out"---but not everyone has that as their prime goal. Some people care only about improving, but to no specific end beyond that. Fine. And some players care more about winning matches, and leagues, and tournaments. There is nothing wrong with that. A lot of league players DO play for the opportunity to go to district and sectional tournaments. You don't have to agree with the value of that, but it is important to them. To simply say they are missing out on what competition is all about is a far too simplistic and narrow-minded judgment of those players. Just because they don't share your particular vision doesn't mean they are wrong.

I respect your opinion as well and do agree that smaller areas have more rating challenges (typically due to players playing in a second league ABOVE their rating for the extra play opportunity and the same pool of players playing one another with frequency). Not leaving the cocoon of that smaller area to see and experience level discrepancies across a city, Section or the nation might also explain "anomalies".

What I was trying to illustrate is if anyone has to tank or manage a match to "prove" or rectify their situation, make a playoff, keep a rating down, etc., you've already lost the argument as well as some other, more important things. There isn't any "value" in that.

Remember, that argument would be boiled down to a clearly biased individual placing their subjective analysis/interpretation/knowledge of the intricacies of the rating system above that of the computer's designed, targeted and completely unbiased, completely objective interpretation. That is just ridiculous.

To say the computer is "victimizing" a player like it has some pre-set motivation to hold a team back or an individual to a certain level or push them up/down is way off base. It's just the calculator....not the crooked accountant.

No one can "defend" or "game" their rating without intentionally damaging not only their own competitive integrity, but the integrity of the system and.... others' ratings indirectly as well. That is the ultimate flaw in the system. It assumes every match is played with competitive integrity. You only have to read some of these threads to know THAT doesn't happen.

Jeff

chatt_town · Jul 30, 2013

Probably more interested in protecting his rating but I can tell you from experience that you will get dq'ed and depending on the scores you could go all the way to 5.0. or so. A s rated player beating a B player 0 and 1 looks real bad in the computer. lol Makes it look like you just got off tour and came in and started cracking the heads of players that are the bench mark for that level.

tdhawks said:
Anyone ever been apart of a thrown match in league play?

I had one last night. Won 0,1. I lost the 1 game on purpose as I realized what he was doing. He is a benchmark 4.0, I am a self rated 4.0 in league play, (1st year in league), but have played 4.0 sanctioned tournaments the past 2 years.

Is this guy trying to protect his rating or trying to DQ me?

Thrown match

Professional

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Rookie

New User

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Rookie

Legend

Professional

Professional

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

New User

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

New User

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Legend

New User

Professional

New User

Professional

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

New User

Legend

Rookie

Legend

New User

Legend

New User

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Similar threads