2023 Nationals Week 3 Simulation Posted - 40+ 4.5 Men

schmke

schmke

Legend
I posted one of my simulations for this coming weekend a little earlier than normal, but quite a few TT members here fall into the category and are interested in it, so let the discussion begin of the 40+ 4.5 men.

I did add a little shenanigans score discussion this time and my original score was very high for many teams. This is because top tier 4.5 men over 40 have likely been 5.0s in their younger past, and that is a factor in the score so most teams had a lot of these and scored high. To remove that and get a closer look at the other factors, I did an alternate score that is much lower but perhaps tells a bit more about roster construction.

FWIW:

Favorites: Caribbean, Florida, SoCal, Southern
Contenders: Mid-Atlantic, Eastern, Texas

We'll see what happens!
 
Last edited:
Texas’s main singles guy won’t lose more than 4 games per match I’m sure if it. He’d beat most 5.0s pretty handily let alone 4.5s.
 
schmke said:
So his three losses this year were managing his A rating?
Click to expand...
I think you're talking about their 2nd best singles guy. The guy I'm talking about is self-rated not appeal-rated. And he has a 3rd set breaker loss to two 4.0s in doubles while simultaneously winning 6-2 6-0 and 6-1 6-1 over guys rated 4.6, 4.45, and 4.51 at the time at sectionals. So yes, he has managed results.
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
If it's Houston again can we start saying Houston and not Texas lol, hate to lump the whole state into it if it is just Houston.
Click to expand...
It's Austin. Two years ago it was San Antonio when they won nationals. From the people I know who were there they said he was clearly at least a 5.5 (they said he was comparable to a local 23yr old 6.0) and was head and shoulders the most out of level guy there amongst plenty of other guys who probably were 5.0 level themselves. I believe he was self-rated as well.

Honestly I'm not trying to slander the state, just predicting the player who will fit that "should be at least 5.5" role this year.
 
Last edited:
schmke said:
I posted one of my simulations for this coming weekend a little earlier than normal, but quite a few TT members here fall into the category and are interested in it, so let the discussion begin of the 40+ 4.5 men.

I did add a little shenanigans score discussion this time and my original score was very high for many teams. This is because top tier 4.5 men over 40 have likely been 5.0s in their younger past, and that is a factor in the score so most teams had a lot of these and scored high. To remove that and get a closer look at the other factors, I did an alternate score that is much lower but perhaps tells a bit more about roster construction.

FWIW:

Favorites: Caribbean, Florida, SoCal, Southern
Contenders: Mid-Atlantic, Eastern, Texas

We'll see what happens!
Click to expand...
Yeah, your "shenanigans score" in 40+ 4.5 definitely should not include just being a former 5.0, unless maybe they were 5.0 last year. It's hard as F to continue to compete with 5.0s when you're over 40. I played an interclub match this weekend against a guy in his early 60s who played satellites and got his ranking up to about 650 in the mid-80s. He's currently 4.5 C rated, which is down from 6.0-6.5 at his peak, but there are no shenanigans with him at all, and he plays for a team that typically makes the playoffs, but he is not a nationals level 4.5 ringer (his 55+ 9.0 team is going to nationals this year, but there were no district playoffs and only 2 teams in sectionals at that level, so it's a little different than the meat grinder in 18s or 40s).

He was 5.0 rated until 2012, when he would have been about 50.
 
Vox Rationis said:
It's Austin. Two years ago it was San Antonio when they won nationals. From the people I know who were there they said he was clearly at least a 5.5 (they said he was comparable to a local 23yr old 6.0) and was head and shoulders the most out of level guy there amongst plenty of other guys who probably should've been 5.0 themselves. I believe he was self-rated as well.

Honestly I'm not trying to slander the state, just predicting the player who will fit that "should be at least 5.5" role this year.
Click to expand...
I believe you, was just hoping I could pile on Houston, it's a fun passtime of people not from Houston, heck sometimes people in and from Houston pile.on Houston.
 
J_R_B said:
Yeah, your "shenanigans score" in 40+ 4.5 definitely should not include just being a former 5.0, unless maybe they were 5.0 last year. It's hard as F to continue to compete with 5.0s when you're over 40. I played an interclub match this weekend against a guy in his early 60s who played satellites and got his ranking up to about 650 in the mid-80s. He's currently 4.5 C rated, which is down from 6.0-6.5 at his peak, but there are no shenanigans with him at all, and he plays for a team that typically makes the playoffs, but he is not a nationals level 4.5 ringer (his 55+ 9.0 team is going to nationals this year, but there were no district playoffs and only 2 teams in sectionals at that level, so it's a little different than the meat grinder in 18s or 40s).

He was 5.0 rated until 2012, when he would have been about 50.
Click to expand...
I'm working on adding a time factor to the prior above level.
 
Maybe he woke up after the first set on 6/24. It would be so easy for the USTA algorithm to throw away these dubious results.
 
schmke said:
I'm working on adding a time factor to the prior above level.
Click to expand...
This is really most relevant for 40+, especially 4.5 40+ because 5.0 is top level current D3 players, which is an awfully high level to continue to compete on the downside of your athletic career. A guy who's a 20 year old 4.0 and comes back 10 years later at 3.5 is much more likely to be a ringer than a 40 year old 5.0 who comes back 10 years later as a 4.5.
 
atatu said:
Are you talking about the guy who played for Auburn and played in the NCAA tournament three times ?
Click to expand...

Vox Rationis said:
haha yeah that one
Click to expand...
Man, that shatters my unscientific profile of trophy hunters, most of them have no college success so USTA means something. That guy would need to gain 150 pounds to make 4.5 a challenge. Comparable players who played legit USTA were some of the Baylor national championship guys won a 5.0 + or whatever the competition is that has a mix of 5.0 and 5.5 players national contest, they did that once and then had enough of USTA.
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
Man, that shatters my unscientific profile of trophy hunters, most of them have no college success so USTA means something. That guy would need to gain 150 pounds to make 4.5 a challenge. Comparable players who played legit USTA were some of the Baylor national championship guys won a 5.0 + or whatever the competition is that has a mix of 5.0 and 5.5 players national contest, they did that once and then had enough of USTA.
Click to expand...
Competes in triathlons and is the fittest guy on the team by far :D
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
Man, that shatters my unscientific profile of trophy hunters, most of them have no college success so USTA means something. That guy would need to gain 150 pounds to make 4.5 a challenge. Comparable players who played legit USTA were some of the Baylor national championship guys won a 5.0 + or whatever the competition is that has a mix of 5.0 and 5.5 players national contest, they did that once and then had enough of USTA.
Click to expand...

Really just makes it hard for me to understand how anyone can believe you can win without cheating.
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
Certainly in particular years in particular categories, but not every year at every level.
Click to expand...
Blatant cheating is more likely in 18+ and at 3.0-3.5 and perhaps 4.0 level. Not to say it doesn't happen in 40+ (Texas 3.5 men an example) or higher levels, but it is harder to do, or older and/or higher level players are less likely to succumb to the pressures to do so.

The Texas 40+ 4.5M player noted is probably pushing the envelope a bit, the self-rating as a 4.5 given the collegiate history seems questionable, but it is possible that was a self-rate appeal down from 5.0 and the process was followed. One may question the granting of the appeal if that was done of course. Were scores managed? Just the one loss appears blatant so hard to conclude that, but he did play doubles a fair amount where is match ratings were lower so perhaps he is a better singles player and we'll see him shine this weekend.
 
atatu said:
Competes in triathlons and is the fittest guy on the team by far :D
Click to expand...
And in his early 40s so will be amongst the youngest at nationals. Sorry but there’s zero excuse for him being on the team. They know what they are doing. The excuse they’ll use is probably “well other teams will have guys like him too” but what happens when he walks through everyone instead?

I hope I’m wrong about it.
 
schmke said:
Blatant cheating is more likely in 18+ and at 3.0-3.5 and perhaps 4.0 level. Not to say it doesn't happen in 40+ (Texas 3.5 men an example) or higher levels, but it is harder to do, or older and/or higher level players are less likely to succumb to the pressures to do so.

The Texas 40+ 4.5M player noted is probably pushing the envelope a bit, the self-rating as a 4.5 given the collegiate history seems questionable, but it is possible that was a self-rate appeal down from 5.0 and the process was followed. One may question the granting of the appeal if that was done of course. Were scores managed? Just the one loss appears blatant so hard to conclude that, but he did play doubles a fair amount where is match ratings were lower so perhaps he is a better singles player and we'll see him shine this weekend.
Click to expand...
Well he took a legit loss at 18's sectionals against Dallas in doubles playing with a solid 4.5 partner, so it's safe to say that there are other guys playing 4.5 at the same level. Interestingly that Dallas team that swept Austin 5-0 lost to Waco in the finals, and Waco went winless at 18's Nationals I believe.
 
Day one is done for the men and there are 6 2-0 teams, Texas, Florida, Southern, Eastern, Middle States, and *******. Just two of these play each other, Eastern and Middle States, so it is possible there will be 5 4-0 teams.

SoCal is the most likely one loss team to try to spoil things as their loss was a 2-2 loss to Eastern, but they'll need to beat Texas to do it.
 
Vox Rationis said:
Only won his first match 3 and 4. So hopefully that does mean I was overreacting and he’s competitive with the rest.
Click to expand...
the guy he was playing was pretty good as well, but the TX guy was in total control of the match. at one moment between points the opponent turned to his teammates at the back of the fence and said "this guy is f*cking good".
 
Last edited:
Southern, Texas, and Eastern all 3-0 and should make the semis. Who will join them? Florida and SoCal are near equals for the last spot.
 
Southern, a spot nearly wrapped up already, loses to New England 2-2 giving them an outside shot of slipping in at 3-1.

SoCal has second 2-2 loss taking them out of it.

Florida/NorCal play, the winner has a chance to get past New England for a semi spot.
 
Looks like our top 4 are set. Eastern vs Florida and Texas vs Southern. Any predictions @schmke ?

I could see “upsets” happening. Texas has looked beatable in doubles and Eastern has gotten to play two of the weakest teams which helped them finish at the top. I could see these semis being 50/50 toss ups.
 
Last edited:
Vox Rationis said:
Looks like our top 4 are set. Eastern vs Florida and Texas vs Southern. Any predictions @schmke ?

I could see “upsets” happening. Texas has looked beatable in doubles and Eastern has gotten to play two of the weakest teams which helped them finish at the top. I could see these semis being 50/50 toss ups.
Click to expand...
Really closely matched overall. Quite possibly 2-2 matches in each semi (until a team has it wrapped up and then retires).

Two teams stronger in singles (Texas, Florida) but just one court there and strength in doubles may sway things for the opponents.
 
i'm really confused as to how Estevam Strecker (yeah, i'll say his name) of Texas was able to self-rate as a 4.5. he's 44 years old and see his bio below.

A native of Novo Hamburgo, Brazil, Strecker played collegiate tennis at Auburn from 1999 to 2002. While a Tiger, Strecker claimed 86 singles victories, which ranks eighth on the all-time list. He led Auburn to three NCAA Tournament appearances. His senior season, he was team captain and led his team to a best-ever NCAA DI #11 ranking and an Elite Eight tournament finish. Strecker was named Academic All-American his senior season and named Academic All-SEC three times while at Auburn.
 
Presumably the guidelines said he had to self-rate as a 5.0 but was able to appeal it down to 4.5. Why the appeal would have been granted, I don't know.
 
Texas and Southern into the final, both winning 3-1. But both had a match tie-break go their way, so close.

And Strecker won 6-1,6-1 but he didn't play Southern's best singles player, so perhaps not as lopsided as it looks.
 
NumbersGuy said:
According to my records he initially self-rated 4.0 before upgrading it to 4.5 a month or two later
Click to expand...
Which would only happen if you left off you played at Auburn lol. I know someone that got suspended for 6 months for leaving off her bottom tier NAIA background when they tried to rate her for women’s combo. She was a former international student so she let her captain fill out the self-rate form for her which was a big mistake.

If someone had known to submit a grievance on him he certainly should have received equal punishment to the woman I know.
 
Last edited:
atatu said:
Florida won the 2/2 split with Texas, hopefully this is the last time we will ever have to calculate game winning percentages to figure out who win the match.
Click to expand...
Yeah tennis has always traditionally been a sport where it doesn’t matter if you win more points. You just have to win the right points. One could win 0-6 7-6 7-6 losing many fewer points than the opponent while winning the match. To make it so that how many games plays such a large factor in deciding who wins is a disservice to the competitors.
 
atatu said:
Florida won the 2/2 split with Texas, hopefully this is the last time we will ever have to calculate game winning percentages to figure out who wins the match.
Click to expand...
Yep, Florida won 2 more games, they get the title.

Courts 1 and 3 doubles were won by the same scores, just one for Florida and one for Texas, and the other two courts were very nearly mirror scores as well, 2-6,6-2,1-0 for Texas on 1S and 6-2,4-6,1-0 for Florida on 2D. That second set loss on 3D getting 4 games was the difference.
 
schmke said:
Yep, Florida won 2 more games, they get the title.

Courts 1 and 3 doubles were won by the same scores, just one for Florida and one for Texas, and the other two courts were very nearly mirror scores as well, 2-6,6-2,1-0 for Texas on 1S and 6-2,4-6,1-0 for Florida on 2D. That second set loss on 3D getting 4 games was the difference.
Click to expand...
That's rough, there will be a lot of what ifs in the minds of TX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

schmke
2023 Nationals Week 2 Simulations Posted - 40+ 3.5
Replies
33
Views
2K
ATX Tennis
A
schmke
Week 4 of Nationals - 40+ 4.5+ and 55+ 7.0
2
Replies
70
Views
7K
SlapShot
S
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 2 Simulations Posted - 18+ 4.5
Replies
44
Views
3K
schmke
schmke
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 4 Simulations
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
CiscoPC600
CiscoPC600
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 5 Simulations
Replies
45
Views
3K
fundrazer
fundrazer
Back
Top