Getting to Sectionals/Districts with a too big team

OnTheLine · Apr 23, 2017

So our team for 18+ is too big. 15 people.

We are currently 1/2 way through the season, having played everyone in the flight once and are tied for 1st place after this past weekend.

We are split between those who want to make a go of it and make it to the post-season and those who think we should play everyone equally, even if that means losing.

We have 2 weeks of "important" matches coming up. (to the team we are tied for 1st with and the team right below us).

Followed by 4 weeks against much weaker teams ... some that we won 5-0 and some we only won 4-1.

Our team is about 50/50 stronger versus weaker players. Including some that are playing "up" in the division.

My thought is that we need to play our best players for the next 2 match-ups against the teams that we MUST beat and then can play others to even-out playing time against teams we have a better chance of beating even without our best players involved. Our co-captain agrees with me ... our captain does not necessarily agree.

Other thoughts?

Anyone play on teams where you really compete for playing time?

S&V-not_dead_yet · Apr 23, 2017

In the "hindisght is 20/20" department, things like this should be decided before the season starts so those who disagree can find another team.

No matter what is decided, at least one faction will be unhappy. If you try and compromise, maybe both factions will be unhappy.

OnTheLine · Apr 23, 2017

yes. Hindsight. My crystal ball has been broken for years! I see what you are saying for certain!

FedLIKEnot · Apr 23, 2017

I am on a deep team tied for 1st in our league , I am playing up but still somewhere in the top 4-8 players on the team skill wise and still I likely wont get more than 3 matches if that as an unofficial poll was taken and a lot of the players my skill level despite my being ranked below them don't want to play with me as they want to be bumped and are convinced if we lose it hurts them, and these are people I know and played combo with last year and know my game well. So yes youre going to have split goals on any team. I would rather we put the best pairings despite ranking our what a loss may or may not mean, put the best foot forward and see what comes of it.

My only tip would be to make your self as available as possible for matches, go to practice and play with all the guys on your team you can to see what the various pairings may look like, and try to in a humble way pick the captains brain and see what he thinks.

atatu · Apr 23, 2017

I agree with you, play your best guys the next two weeks, then get the B team their matches. The tough part will be when you make it to sectionals, then you really have to decide what to do....that sucks. Last year, my team went as a last minute "wildcard" and we had to scramble to get 8 guys. It was the most fun I ever had at sectionals, everyone played and no one bitched.

OrangePower · Apr 23, 2017

Winning as a team while giving everyone adequate playing time is one of the hardest things for a captain to pull off - it requires walking a fine line. But it is also very satisfying for everyone when done successfully.

It's much easier if your team philosophy is win at all costs (play strongest players available each week), or fun-first (just play everyone equally).

Walking the fine line requires a lot of planning. You need to get availability and plan multiple weeks ahead so that you can figure out when you can get the weaker players in where they have a chance to win, but still not hurt the team too much if they lose.

Also, running a team this way requires some political skills to deal with the potential flack (from players who think that this is too risky and that the stronger players need to be played more to guarantee wins), while managing the expectations of weaker players (who will get to play several matches but perhaps not quite as much as the stronger players).

Anyway, by now I'm sure you have guessed my opinion

Winning is nice, but for me it's a hollow achievement unless it's done as a team. Otherwise just recruit 8 sandbaggers and be done with it.

schmke · Apr 23, 2017

OrangePower said:
Winning as a team while giving everyone adequate playing time is one of the hardest things for a captain to pull off - it requires walking a fine line. But it is also very satisfying for everyone when done successfully.

It's much easier if your team philosophy is win at all costs (play strongest players available each week), or fun-first (just play everyone equally).

Walking the fine line requires a lot of planning. You need to get availability and plan multiple weeks ahead so that you can figure out when you can get the weaker players in where they have a chance to win, but still not hurt the team too much if they lose.

Also, running a team this way requires some political skills to deal with the potential flack (from players who think that this is too risky and that the stronger players need to be played more to guarantee wins), while managing the expectations of weaker players (who will get to play several matches but perhaps not quite as much as the stronger players).

Anyway, by now I'm sure you have guessed my opinion
Winning is nice, but for me it's a hollow achievement unless it's done as a team. Otherwise just recruit 8 sandbaggers and be done with it.

I had to walk this fine line last year and almost pulled it off. And I agree doing it as a team made it more fun and I did get buy in at the start of the year on the approach we were going to take.

Our roster was 14 and I committed to the team that we were going to try to win, but I'd get everyone matches, although not necessarily an equal number of matches. I managed to get everyone at least three during the regular season so they were all Nationals eligible should we make it and I wouldn't have to worry about playing time in playoffs. Everyone available got in a match in local playoffs, and still committed to everyone that they'd get at least one match at Sectionals and they did and we came within one tie-break of beating the team that went to Nationals. So close.

But no, it wasn't easy, I didn't have a roster of ringers where I could pick anyone to play and be guaranteed of a win. Only three were bumped up at year-end, I had to do a lot of homework to plan line-ups and know when I could get guys matches and not have to play my best guys, and thankfully guys also came through for me and we had a great year falling just short.

OrangePower · Apr 23, 2017

schmke said:
I had to walk this fine line last year and almost pulled it off. And I agree doing it as a team made it more fun and I did get buy in at the start of the year on the approach we were going to take.

Our roster was 14 and I committed to the team that we were going to try to win, but I'd get everyone matches, although not necessarily an equal number of matches. I managed to get everyone at least three during the regular season so they were all Nationals eligible should we make it and I wouldn't have to worry about playing time in playoffs. Everyone available got in a match in local playoffs, and still committed to everyone that they'd get at least one match at Sectionals and they did and we came within one tie-break of beating the team that went to Nationals. So close.

But no, it wasn't easy, I didn't have a roster of ringers where I could pick anyone to play and be guaranteed of a win. Only three were bumped up at year-end, I had to do a lot of homework to plan line-ups and know when I could get guys matches and not have to play my best guys, and thankfully guys also came through for me and we had a great year falling just short.

Good stuff - congrats on a great season and doing it the right way.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 23, 2017

Why does your captain not agree? If everyone is going to be able to play (and to top it off, get more even matches), why the hell not play the good players in the critical weeks?

Moveforwardalways · Apr 24, 2017

Why are the players "playing up" complaining? If you are a 3.5 playing up at 4.0 or a 4.0 playing up at 4.5 or whatever, you really should not complain about not getting tapped for numerous matches. If they can fill the spots in a match with the true 4.0'sor 4.5's, how can you blame them for doing that? The captain is responsible for getting you the minimum number of matches to make you eligible to play at districts, if the team makes it.

Now if all players are at level, that's different. But if you are playing up, just be thankful for the experience.

J_R_B · Apr 24, 2017

As a captain, I always tailored the lineup to the competition. I got everyone in matches and used my best players in the tough matches. for the weaker teams, I always made sure I had 3 lines I thought I could count on to win and then got the rest of my team in the lineup.

schmke · Apr 24, 2017

It is also worth noting that a roster can be too small for Districts/Sectionals too. If you had only 11 for instance, that might seem great on the surface, but as soon as one gets injured and one has an emergency and can't make the trip, you are down to 9. Throw in having to play 4 or 5 matches over a three-day weekend, possibly having to play four matches over the last two days, and fatigue sets in and having a few more players to rotate in is often a good idea.

OnTheLine · Apr 24, 2017

Sounds like most of us agree. Create a balance between creating lineups with a higher likelihood of winning for critical matches but attempt to have some balance in getting everyone playing time.
This is a newly formed team and although many of us knew each other from the Fall and 40+ teams, some are newly joined.

We have 4 that are "playing up" including our captain. We have 3 that are a bit weaker but at level in the computer if not on the court.

Additionally, we have 1 who is playing up who insists on only playing singles (really really badly!) ... what a nightmare.

Couple with that, we have a team clinic with a coach that it seems only 6-8 people show up for, and what a shock, it is the stronger players that come and put in the work. That is frustrating. How do you expect to play well on Saturday if you only pick of a racquet once a week for your match?

I think for future teams, having a plan before the team is formed is a good idea and make it known!

kevrol · Apr 24, 2017

Play your strongest folks the next 2 weeks.

Jim A · Apr 24, 2017

We have this conversation before fire the season. Same with availability. If you are only open against certain teams you may play less than the normal amount. Then again we may play some of the roster more in season and cut back in playoffs. I played 3 league matches but 5 playoff out of 7 league and 5 playoff. Others played 5/1 etc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kevrol · Apr 24, 2017

schmke said:
It is also worth noting that a roster can be too small for Districts/Sectionals too. If you had only 11 for instance, that might seem great on the surface, but as soon as one gets injured and one has an emergency and can't make the trip, you are down to 9. Throw in having to play 4 or 5 matches over a three-day weekend, possibly having to play four matches over the last two days, and fatigue sets in and having a few more players to rotate in is often a good idea.

That's my philosophy. Some on my team don't like that I have 14/15 guys when we only need 8 to play a match. As someone who has been captaining for several years you can never have enough guys. so far this year I've had 1 match where I had exactly 8 guys available and 3 others where I've only had 10 available. Every guy on my team should end up playing at least 5 matches.

Max G. · Apr 24, 2017

Agreed. I've been on 14 person teams that still had to default lines because they couldn't get 8 people in a lineup one day.

S&V-not_dead_yet · Apr 24, 2017

kevrol said:
That's my philosophy. Some on my team don't like that I have 14/15 guys when we only need 8 to play a match. As someone who has been captaining for several years you can never have enough guys. so far this year I've had 1 match where I had exactly 8 guys available and 3 others where I've only had 10 available. Every guy on my team should end up playing at least 5 matches.

The people who complain haven't walked a mile in the captain's shoes and if offered the chance, they would decline. So their opinion doesn't count as much, in my book.

mikeler · Apr 24, 2017

I'm a co-captain this year and we have 15 people. I have to take over captaining duties this weekend and already 6 are not available. So if I lose 2 more, we will have a default!

As for philosophy, we try and get all our guys 3 matches in the local league just in case we make it to Nationals. At Sectionals, we generally play our best guys but after a few years of 40+, we know what teams we can put our weaker players at and still have success.

You also have the summer heat at Sectionals so you need multiple singles players and sometimes extras for doubles for those not in the best shape. Throw in summer vacations, injuries etc. and it generally works out just fine.

NTRPolice · Apr 24, 2017

The key issues here is that:

1) you need to make sure that you actually advance to the playoffs;
2) you need to put in a lineup that actually has a chance.

There really is no absolute solution to this since you havnt established lineup priority prior to "making it". Experienced captains will plan for this as much as they can before the season even starts. Inexperienced captains will have to make this decision on the fly.

You have to ask yourself "what kinda team did this start as?" to find the answer. If your team is a "just for fun" team then you should follow that path even into the playoffs. Play everyone equally. If your team was always a "going for it" team then the lineups should be clear. Every season following this one (prior to the season), you should put everyone on the same page. This is to say that "if we make it, we're playing the strongest lineup that we can. Anyone who isnt comfortable with this, please speak up."

If your team is out of the running at any point, you should do the right thing and put in the benchwarmers, especially if they have traveled, no matter what level of playoff your team is at. No team should exclude players at nationals if their worst players have attended and the team is no longer in the runnings.

OnTheLine · Apr 24, 2017

NTRPolice said:
The key issues here is that:

1) you need to make sure that you actually advance to the playoffs;
2) you need to put in a lineup that actually has a chance.

There really is no absolute solution to this since you havnt established lineup priority prior to "making it". Experienced captains will plan for this as much as they can before the season even starts. Inexperienced captains will have to make this decision on the fly.

You have to ask yourself "what kinda team did this start as?" to find the answer. If your team is a "just for fun" team then you should follow that path even into the playoffs. Play everyone equally. If your team was always a "going for it" team then the lineups should be clear. Every season following this one (prior to the season), you should put everyone on the same page. This is to say that "if we make it, we're playing the strongest lineup that we can. Anyone who isnt comfortable with this, please speak up."

If your team is out of the running at any point, you should do the right thing and put in the benchwarmers, especially if they have traveled, no matter what level of playoff your team is at. No team should exclude players at nationals if their worst players have attended and the team is no longer in the runnings.

I agree with absolutely everything that you have said. Kinda unusual.

This team started as the "team for wayward souls" people who weren't happy on their previous team for whatever reason, some new to the area, some (like me) returning to the sport, 2 that had been bumped down from a higher NTRP, along with 3 playing up.
Here it is exactly mid-season and I think we were surprised that we are in the running for playoffs ..... thus the sudden re-evaluation.

The goal of course is to both make playoffs AND get everyone played ....

SouthernCourts · Apr 24, 2017

I'm in a very similar situation as the co-captain of a team that is undefeated after 7/12 matches, but still only a match ahead of second place, who we beat 3-2 in a very tight one the first go-round. If we lose that match, and both teams finish with one loss, they will almost certainly advance by virtue of having more individual wins (I don't like this rule, for what it's worth).

It's been a balancing act for sure, which is why we've won most matches 3-2, and a handful 4-1, rather than dominating every team. Everyone is going to get a roughly equal number of matches, but there are sacrifices we're all making. For instance, I love singles, but I'm probably the 5th or 6th-best singles player on the team, and we made a choice early on that until we clinched the championship, only four players would be playing singles. Beyond that, it's very much a match-by-match situation...we try to put our best team out against the league's best, and play weaker players in situations where it won't cost as much if they don't deliver. It also involves smart lineups. In doubles, our strategy has been to put our best team at no. 2, and our second-best team at no. 3, which has resulted in a lot of 3-2 wins that might have been a bit more tricky if we did things the traditional way. Of course, that also sets up your no. 3 doubles team as potential sacrificial lambs, but I have put myself in that spot with our weaker players on occasion to show that nobody is above it.

It's worked, so far, although we're on a knife's edge. We're putting our absolute best team out against the no. 2 team this week, and trying to be smart and hopefully a little lucky when we're forced into weaker lineups against weaker teams.

We never made this strategy explicit before the season. However, it was pretty clear early on who the strategic leaders would be, and our success, plus the relatively even split of total matches—along with the fact that we have really cool people on the team who just "get" it—has helped escape any criticism or complaint.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 24, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
In doubles, our strategy has been to put our best team at no. 2, and our second-best team at no. 3, which has resulted in a lot of 3-2 wins that might have been a bit more tricky if we did things the traditional way. Of course, that also sets up your no. 3 doubles team as potential sacrificial lambs, but I have put myself in that spot with our weaker players on occasion to show that nobody is above it.

And here I had to wait 3-6 weeks to get moved up from sub to #4 singles because of anti-stacking rules.

Moveforwardalways · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
And here I had to wait 3-6 weeks to get moved up from sub to #4 singles because of anti-stacking rules.

You play 4 lines of singles?

And anti-stacking rules are not only fun killers, but also impossible to enforce. Different doubles pairings play better or worse together, etc. You can't just go by rating. Figuring out who to play where is a huge portion of a captain's job. If just go by straight rating, there are really no line ups to be made, no strategy involved, etc. Captains then become just glorified baby sitters making sure enough players show up. A good captain will have their toe in the water, know when to stack or sacrifice a court, and against who. That's part of the art of captaining.

MathGeek · Apr 25, 2017

While I like the idea of playing everyone in recreational sports, playing everyone equally simply robs too much motivation.

Better players should usually have the chance to play more. Players with more room for improvement should be rewarded for working hard, showing up, and taking advantage of playing opportunities when they arise.

Equal play means no motive to work hard or improve. No thanks.

I'm sitting out the league thing in 2017. Too much drama. Too many voices telling the captains what is wrong. Too many constraints. No thanks. Doubles teams in tourneys have enough challenges to max out my leadership skills, and I'm not afraid to admit it. If a partner gets lazy, no problem, it's easy enough to find a new partner for the next event.

The ONLY authority a captain really has is the authority to choose who plays. Asking for equal playing time essentially is asking a captain to give up all his authority.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

Moveforwardalways said:
You play 4 lines of singles?

And anti-stacking rules are not only fun killers, but also impossible to enforce. Different doubles pairings play better or worse together, etc. You can't just go by rating. Figuring out who to play where is a huge portion of a captain's job. If just go by straight rating, there are really no line ups to be made, no strategy involved, etc. Captains then become just glorified baby sitters making sure enough players show up. A good captain will have their toe in the water, know when to stack or sacrifice a court, and against who. That's part of the art of captaining.

6 singles 3 doubles. You have to play a week or two in a position before you're allowed to move up or down one.

I admit it's unenforceable when people constantly drop in and out, but it's not a fun killer. And you playing up stacking is funny because it's no different from sandbagging, and so many people are against sandbagging.

SouthernCourts · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
6 singles 3 doubles. You have to play a week or two in a position before you're allowed to move up or down one.

I admit it's unenforceable when people constantly drop in and out, but it's not a fun killer. And you playing up stacking is funny because it's no different from sandbagging, and so many people are against sandbagging.

It's actually written into the USTA rules at levels shy of 5.0 that the individual lines are not associated with talent/skill, at least in my area, so there's nothing illegal or duplicitous about putting weaker players at "higher" lines. In summer singles, for example, my team won't be gunning for states the way we are in fall, because everyone wants a crack at no. 1 singles at some point. Even if those rules weren't made explicit, these are team matches, and team implies strategy. Arrangement of the lineups is a fun part of the tactics, especially given that your best players are not available every week and you have to give yourself the best shot at winning, and that's how it should be.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
It's actually written into the USTA rules at levels shy of 5.0 that the individual lines are not associated with talent/skill, at least in my area, so there's nothing illegal or duplicitous about putting weaker players at "higher" lines. In summer singles, for example, my team won't be gunning for states the way we are in fall, because everyone wants a crack at no. 1 singles at some point. Even if those rules weren't made explicit, these are team matches, and team implies strategy. Arrangement of the lineups is a fun part of the tactics, especially given that your best players are not available every week and you have to give yourself the best shot at winning, and that's how it should be.

So, when two teams intend to sandbag each other, is this the thought process:

B1>A1>A2>B2>B3>A3

Captain A: Okay, he's going to put his #1 guy at 1, #2 at 2, and #3 at 3. So I'll do #3 at 1, #1 at 2, and #2 at 3.
Captain B: Okay, this kid's gonna sandbag me. So I'm switching the lineup. #2 at 1, #1 at 2, and #3 at 2
Captain A: But he's probably gonna sandbag us too, so I'm going outthink the chump, and put #2 at 1, #3 at 2, and #1 at 3.
Captain B: But he might see this coming, so I'm going to double switch it up. #2 you're at 3, #3 you're at 2, #1 you're at 1.
Captain A: But this guy's sneaky, so I'm expecting the double switchup! So #1 plays 1, #2 plays 2, and #3 plays 3!
Co-captain A: But sir... You're right back where you started...
Captain A: Because that's what he least expects!
Captain B: But... Maybe this guy is gonna play a standard lineup... Because he can't handle the mindgames. So I'll put #1 at 1, #2 at 2, and #3 at 3!
Co-captain B: So... We're going standard...?
Captain B: Because he won't see this one coming!
Co-captain A: Why not... Just roll a dice... It's not much different from what you're doing now... And best of all, he couldn't possibly predict that...
Captain A: That's BRILLIANT #2! *rolls dice* Okay, #3 at 1, #1 at 2, and #2 at 3!
Co-captain B: Wouldn't it have been easier just to pick the lineup out of a hat?
Captain B: Brilliant! Next level thinking! *pulls names out of a hat* Barney, you're #1! Marshal, you're #2. Ted, you're #3!

SouthernCourts · Apr 25, 2017

It's more like this:

90% of captains: I don't strategize or know the rules, so I'm just going to put my top players in the top positions.

Tactical geniuses like myself: By putting my best doubles team in the no. 2 spot and my second-best in the no. 3 spot, there's a good chance I'm creating a match-up advantage that will lead to two easy victories, in which case we need just one singles win or an upset in no. 1 doubles to win the match. And even if the other team is smart and does the same exact thing, it will just be an equal vs. equal situation, so I haven't lost anything.

It's not rocket science. Needless to say, it would also be wise to put your best singles player no. 2 for similar reasons, but I don't do this, both because I want to see great match-ups in the league, and because it's more obvious to my team that I'm transparently sacrificing someone, since we all know who plays better in singles and it would look strange to put our top dogs at no. 2.

J_R_B · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
So, when two teams intend to sandbag each other, is this the thought process:

B1>A1>A2>B2>B3>A3

Captain A: Okay, he's going to put his #1 guy at 1, #2 at 2, and #3 at 3. So I'll do #3 at 1, #1 at 2, and #2 at 3.
Captain B: Okay, this kid's gonna sandbag me. So I'm switching the lineup. #2 at 1, #1 at 2, and #3 at 2
Captain A: But he's probably gonna sandbag us too, so I'm going outthink the chump, and put #2 at 1, #3 at 2, and #1 at 3.
Captain B: But he might see this coming, so I'm going to double switch it up. #2 you're at 3, #3 you're at 2, #1 you're at 1.
Captain A: But this guy's sneaky, so I'm expecting the double switchup! So #1 plays 1, #2 plays 2, and #3 plays 3!
Co-captain A: But sir... You're right back where you started...
Captain A: Because that's what he least expects!
Captain B: But... Maybe this guy is gonna play a standard lineup... Because he can't handle the mindgames. So I'll put #1 at 1, #2 at 2, and #3 at 3!
Co-captain B: So... We're going standard...?
Captain B: Because he won't see this one coming!
Co-captain A: Why not... Just roll a dice... It's not much different from what you're doing now... And best of all, he couldn't possibly predict that...
Captain A: That's BRILLIANT #2! *rolls dice* Okay, #3 at 1, #1 at 2, and #2 at 3!
Co-captain B: Wouldn't it have been easier just to pick the lineup out of a hat?
Captain B: Brilliant! Next level thinking! *pulls names out of a hat* Barney, you're #1! Marshal, you're #2. Ted, you're #3!

When I was a captain, I studied other captains' tendencies very closely and always tried to unstack the ones who regularly stacked their lineups.

There was a team in Middle States about 5 years ago or so who won nationals at 4.5 by selecting their lineups completely randomly.
http://www.middlestates.usta.com/USTALeagueTennis/ustachamps_the_delaware_snipers/

J_R_B · Apr 25, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
It's more like this:

90% of captains: I don't strategize or know the rules, so I'm just going to put my top players in the top positions.

Tactical geniuses like myself: By putting my best doubles team in the no. 2 spot and my second-best in the no. 3 spot, there's a good chance I'm creating a match-up advantage that will lead to two easy victories, in which case we need just one singles win or an upset in no. 1 doubles to win the match. And even if the other team is smart and does the same exact thing, it will just be an equal vs. equal situation, so I haven't lost anything.

It's not rocket science. Needless to say, it would also be wise to put your best singles player no. 2 for similar reasons, but I don't do this, both because I want to see great match-ups in the league, and because it's more obvious to my team that I'm transparently sacrificing someone, since we all know who plays better in singles and it would look strange to put our top dogs at no. 2.

Many leagues are moving to weighted lines, which discourages stacking. Lines earn 6-4 in singles and 5-4-3 in doubles, so winning S1 and D1 will "tie" the match 11-11. Standings are kept by aggregate points instead of W-L record.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

J_R_B said:
There was a team in Middle States about 5 years ago or so who won nationals at 4.5 by selecting their lineups completely randomly.
http://www.middlestates.usta.com/USTALeagueTennis/ustachamps_the_delaware_snipers/

LOL YES! The name too! LOL Should've called themselves the Delaware Dice Rollers, because they're anything but snipers. They're the anti-snipers.

J_R_B said:
Many leagues are moving to weighted lines, which discourages stacking. Lines earn 6-4 in singles and 5-4-3 in doubles, so winning S1 and D1 will "tie" the match 11-11. Standings are kept by aggregate points instead of W-L record.

That sounds great.

SouthernCourts said:
It's more like this:

90% of captains: I don't strategize or know the rules, so I'm just going to put my top players in the top positions.

Tactical geniuses like myself: By putting my best doubles team in the no. 2 spot and my second-best in the no. 3 spot, there's a good chance I'm creating a match-up advantage that will lead to two easy victories, in which case we need just one singles win or an upset in no. 1 doubles to win the match. And even if the other team is smart and does the same exact thing, it will just be an equal vs. equal situation, so I haven't lost anything.

It's not rocket science. Needless to say, it would also be wise to put your best singles player no. 2 for similar reasons, but I don't do this, both because I want to see great match-ups in the league, and because it's more obvious to my team that I'm transparently sacrificing someone, since we all know who plays better in singles and it would look strange to put our top dogs at no. 2.

That's not being a tactical genius. That's being a cookie cutter. That's the most standard stack ever. A real tactical genius would outstack a stacker when an even or out-stacked situation leads to a loss. All inning off of AA and KK doesn't make your a poker genius. It means you know the basics.

schmke · Apr 25, 2017

J_R_B said:
Many leagues are moving to weighted lines, which discourages stacking. Lines earn 6-4 in singles and 5-4-3 in doubles, so winning S1 and D1 will "tie" the match 11-11. Standings are kept by aggregate points instead of W-L record.

Since I don't play where this has been adopted, I don't have any first hand experience with it. How has it worked and how has it been received?

And I believe team wins no longer matter in these formats, it is just total points accumulated over the season?

While this approach can discourage stacking, it can also make it easier for a team without a lot of depth, but with a few stronger players, to compete and even win where they wouldn't be able to otherwise, particularly if team wins do matter. Not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation of how the dynamics change.

J_R_B · Apr 25, 2017

schmke said:
Since I don't play where this has been adopted, I don't have any first hand experience with it. How has it worked and how has it been received?

It doesn't make a difference to me since at 4.5, I don't have to worry about playoffs or standings. I just show up and play to take my beatdown. I think the biggest downside is that it makes it harder to keep track of the standings.

schmke said:
And I believe team wins no longer matter in these formats, it is just total points accumulated over the season?

I think that is correct, although team wins may be a tiebreaker. The primary standings are definitely the total points, not team wins.

schmke said:
While this approach can discourage stacking, it can also make it easier for a team without a lot of depth, but with a few stronger players, to compete and even win where they wouldn't be able to otherwise, particularly if team wins do matter. Not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation of how the dynamics change.

Actually, not really, because of the total points standings. If you only have a couple good players and consistently drop lines, you'll finish behind deeper teams that have a bunch of 22-0 or 19-3 wins. It actually puts an emphasis on having deeper teams.

J_R_B · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
LOL YES! The name too! LOL Should've called themselves the Delaware Dice Rollers, because they're anything but snipers. They're the anti-snipers.

The guy changed his team name to Randomizers after they won it that year.

SouthernCourts · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
That's not being a tactical genius. That's being a cookie cutter. That's the most standard stack ever. A real tactical genius would outstack a stacker when an even or out-stacked situation leads to a loss. All inning off of AA and KK doesn't make your a poker genius. It means you know the basics.

The "tactical genius" line was tongue-in-cheek. If I ever ran across other captains at my level who even attempted to counter-act my basic stack, perhaps I'd adjust and go into

schmke · Apr 25, 2017

J_R_B said:
Actually, not really, because of the total points standings. If you only have a couple good players and consistently drop lines, you'll finish behind deeper teams that have a bunch of 22-0 or 19-3 wins. It actually puts an emphasis on having deeper teams.

Well, I did say "particularly if team wins do matter" which you said they don't (except for perhaps a tie-breaker). But if the other teams are going 22-0 or 19-3, they aren't just deep but very strong too and deep/strong will almost always beat strong at top but not deep regardless of format.

OrangePower · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
6 singles 3 doubles. You have to play a week or two in a position before you're allowed to move up or down one.

I admit it's unenforceable when people constantly drop in and out, but it's not a fun killer. And you playing up stacking is funny because it's no different from sandbagging, and so many people are against sandbagging.

Where are you located?
I've played in leagues similar to what you describe. They were different from USTA leagues in that there was no playoff - just a regular season. And so it was more about playing good competitive tennis, and less about advancing through various levels of playoffs. I think the allure of playoffs is what drives much of the shenanigans because folks then prioritize winning too much over just playing good tennis.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
The "tactical genius" line was tongue-in-cheek. If I ever ran across other captains at my level who even attempted to counter-act my basic stack, perhaps I'd adjust and go into

Okay, my bad.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

OrangePower said:
Where are you located?
I've played in leagues similar to what you describe. They were different from USTA leagues in that there was no playoff - just a regular season. And so it was more about playing good competitive tennis, and less about advancing through various levels of playoffs. I think the allure of playoffs is what drives much of the shenanigans because folks then prioritize winning too much over just playing good tennis.

It was a school league, not a USTA one. (I feel like schools should at least enforce anti-stacking, since they can easily get the same players repeatedly. I understand the same isn't always true in a league. The coach at my high school stacked every time.) Though if there is a league similar to that, I wouldn't mind playing it. There was a freakin former Davis Cup player in one of the other schools, so I don't care if sometimes the #1 is stacked. I probably won't get that spot, probably bottom 3.

OrangePower · Apr 25, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
Arrangement of the lineups is a fun part of the tactics, especially given that your best players are not available every week and you have to give yourself the best shot at winning, and that's how it should be.

You're right, assuming that the primary goal is team wins. But not if your primary goal is to have the most competitive matches at every line.

OrangePower · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
It was a school league, not a USTA one. (I feel like schools should at least enforce anti-stacking, since they can easily get the same players repeatedly. I understand the same isn't always true in a league. The coach at my high school stacked every time.) Though if there is a league similar to that, I wouldn't mind playing it. There was a freakin former Davis Cup player in one of the other schools, so I don't care if sometimes the #1 is stacked. I probably won't get that spot, probably bottom 3.

I played in a club league where the format was 6 players on a team, 9 individual matches total: 6 singles pro-sets, then 3 dubs pro-sets (using the same players). Quite a broad range of skill levels within each team (I'm guessing our strongest was 5.0, weakest maybe 3.5), but lines ordered by strength. No way to enforce or formally guarantee this, but since all the teams were on the same page about this, and everyone had the same goal of having the most competitive matches, it worked well.
But if there was playoff glory to be had, I don't think it would have worked - human nature and desire to win would have taken over. As it was, we just had 8 or 9 regular season matches per season, depending on how many teams, and all that was at stake was bragging rights for finishing at the top. It was a lot of fun and excellent tennis.

schmke · Apr 25, 2017

OrangePower said:
I played in a club league where the format was 6 players on a team, 9 individual matches total: 6 singles pro-sets, then 3 dubs pro-sets (using the same players). Quite a broad range of skill levels within each team (I'm guessing our strongest was 5.0, weakest maybe 3.5), but lines ordered by strength. No way to enforce or formally guarantee this, but since all the teams were on the same page about this, and everyone had the same goal of having the most competitive matches, it worked well.
But if there was playoff glory to be had, I don't think it would have worked - human nature and desire to win would have taken over. As it was, we just had 8 or 9 regular season matches per season, depending on how many teams, and all that was at stake was bragging rights for finishing at the top. It was a lot of fun and excellent tennis.

I like it.

But how were teams formed and how were teams able to be reasonably similar/competitive, e.g. how did you avoid one team getting 6 4.5/5.0 guys while other teams only had the 3.5-4.5 guys? Just gentleman's agreement? Or some sort of draft or distribution of players to teams? Or was there a limit to the number of players on a roster at each level?

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

OrangePower said:
I played in a club league where the format was 6 players on a team, 9 individual matches total: 6 singles pro-sets, then 3 dubs pro-sets (using the same players). Quite a broad range of skill levels within each team (I'm guessing our strongest was 5.0, weakest maybe 3.5), but lines ordered by strength. No way to enforce or formally guarantee this, but since all the teams were on the same page about this, and everyone had the same goal of having the most competitive matches, it worked well.
But if there was playoff glory to be had, I don't think it would have worked - human nature and desire to win would have taken over. As it was, we just had 8 or 9 regular season matches per season, depending on how many teams, and all that was at stake was bragging rights for finishing at the top. It was a lot of fun and excellent tennis.

We had Bo3 with 3rd set tiebreakers. Don't remember if doubles followed that format too. Could've been pro sets given that 2 Bo3's in a day could take too long. Doubles was allowed to be played with anyone, even subs. So you could have 12 players on a team without actual subs. But I don't think any team had that deep of a player pool.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

schmke said:
I like it.

But how were teams formed and how were teams able to be reasonably similar/competitive, e.g. how did you avoid one team getting 6 4.5/5.0 guys while other teams only had the 3.5-4.5 guys? Just gentleman's agreement? Or some sort of draft or distribution of players to teams? Or was there a limit to the number of players on a roster at each level?

I took it to mean a school club. In that case, you're likely to get roughly the same level of players as long as you play within state. You get the guys who failed to be on the school team or didn't have time to commit to it, as well as good amateurs/former juniors. Some schools will get lucky and get that former top 5 national junior who got burnt out early and just plays for fun but is still good enough to kick most people's asses. And other schools will get lucky and get a freakin former Davis Cup player who's doing international schooling.

In this scenario, the only real differences will be the #1s. And MAYBE the #2s (a few schools get a busted #1 and maybe a really insane #2, but the rest will be relatively even). So if you run more people, like 6, then a smaller percentage is likely to get fked because one school just happened to score big with that year's recruits.

OrangePower · Apr 25, 2017

schmke said:
I like it.

But how were teams formed and how were teams able to be reasonably similar/competitive, e.g. how did you avoid one team getting 6 4.5/5.0 guys while other teams only had the 3.5-4.5 guys? Just gentleman's agreement? Or some sort of draft or distribution of players to teams? Or was there a limit to the number of players on a roster at each level?

These were all adult club teams, so the pool of players per club was based on membership and was pretty constant season to season. We actually had several divisions (A/B/C/D), with some of the larger clubs fielding multiple teams, and the smaller ones just one or two teams. We used a promotion/relegation scheme to move teams between divisions. As far as distributing club players across for example A, B and C teams, that was up to the club but everyone did it based on strength. So as it all turned out, teams within each division were all reasonably similar in composition. I think it all worked because everyone was on the same page in terms of what we wanted to get out of it, which was just good competitive tennis each week.

J_R_B · Apr 25, 2017

schmke said:
Well, I did say "particularly if team wins do matter" which you said they don't (except for perhaps a tie-breaker). But if the other teams are going 22-0 or 19-3, they aren't just deep but very strong too and deep/strong will almost always beat strong at top but not deep regardless of format.

You could come up with scenarios where the shallow team with the ringers can beat the strong teams and weaker teams alike by the same 14-8 or something while the deeper team would lose 8-14 to that team but beat the weaker teams 22-0 or 19-3 and finish with enough points to overcome the loss to the team with the ringers.

schmke · Apr 25, 2017

J_R_B said:
You could come up with scenarios where the shallow team with the ringers can beat the strong teams and weaker teams alike by the same 14-8 or something while the deeper team would lose 8-14 to that team but beat the weaker teams 22-0 or 19-3 and finish with enough points to overcome the loss to the team with the ringers.

Yeah, thought through a few, it is possible for a less deep team to win a flight, but I think you are right, because it is based on points, you still need enough depth to win enough 2D and 3D, it can't just be 4 ringers winning the singles and 1D all the time. That is only 15 points and flight winning teams seem to average right about 17-18 per team match.

SouthernCourts · Apr 25, 2017

xFullCourtTenniSx said:
It was a school league, not a USTA one. (I feel like schools should at least enforce anti-stacking, since they can easily get the same players repeatedly. I understand the same isn't always true in a league. The coach at my high school stacked every time.) Though if there is a league similar to that, I wouldn't mind playing it. There was a freakin former Davis Cup player in one of the other schools, so I don't care if sometimes the #1 is stacked. I probably won't get that spot, probably bottom 3.

True, that's where USTA comes in to ensure, hopefully, that players of a certain level won't vary wildly in skill to the point that it's not fun. Of course, this doesn't always happen.

Personally, I play in my free time with a lot of my teammates and opponents outside of USTA, and have some very competitive matches, so as a captain my goal is absolutely to win the team match, not to ensure our best vs. their best.

xFullCourtTenniSx · Apr 25, 2017

SouthernCourts said:
True, that's where USTA comes in to ensure, hopefully, that players of a certain level won't vary wildly in skill to the point that it's not fun. Of course, this doesn't always happen.

Personally, I play in my free time with a lot of my teammates and opponents outside of USTA, and have some very competitive matches, so as a captain my goal is absolutely to win the team match, not to ensure our best vs. their best.

I'd rather go into it with the expectations that the very best will be disgustingly good rather than expect to be in a certain skill range only for teams and players to lie to me and sandbag the crap out of me.

I mean, why deal with USTA and NTRP if you aren't even going to get a fair match anyway? Entirely pointless.

Getting to Sectionals/Districts with a too big team

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Similar threads