40 and over how to win with four courts

[HBK4life]

Now that we are only doing one singles court can someone explain how a team wins when the courts spilt. People around clubs have tried to tell me but they don’t really understand either.

 

[mikeler]

My guess would be it goes by the tiebreaks currently used for Round Robin play. Not that I care, I probably won't participate unless they change it back to the original format.

 

[schmke]

Now that we are only doing one singles court can someone explain how a team wins when the courts spilt. People around clubs have tried to tell me but they don’t really understand either.

It depends on where you are playing.

Some sections (PNW and NorCal for example) have changed to points per position so a team "win" doesn't matter. A team simply accumulates points based on court wins. PNW and NorCal are using 1 point for 1S, 2D, and 3D and 2 points for 1D. Other sections like Eastern and Middle States have used points per position for a few years and use different points allocations, and it does vary some.

If your section is sticking with team wins for standings, should a match end in a 2-2 tie, the tie-breakers from National are:

• Fewest sets lost
• Fewest games lost
• Game winning percentage (which is meaningless, if you are tied on games lost both teams have a 50% game winning percentage, why have this as a tie-breaker!)
• ?

I put a question mark as there is no documented tie-breaker at that point. Some sections will treat it as a tie at this point, but have to calculate standings manually as TennisLink can't do this. If it is left up to TennisLink, I've observed that the win has been awarded to the visiting team at this point (sort of makes sense, if the visiting team can scratch out a tie, give the win to them), but I've also heard this is being changed to award it to the home team going forward (doesn't really make sense, to me at least).

So, you really need to ask your league coordinate which of the above options is being used. And even then, they might not know or tell you something wrong. It is quite a mess, not sure National thought this through very well.

I've written a bunch more on my blog. I'm not permitted to post links here (others can), but Google "schmidt computer ratings 4 court format" and you should see links to several of my blog posts.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Basically the new system rewards severe blow outs and the issuing of embarrassing losses. If you are playing against your buddy and ahead 5-0, you can’t afford to give him a couple to make the post game beers more palatable at 6-2. You’ve got to crush him out and out. If there is a chance of a 2-2 tie, there will be blood.

 

[schmke]

Basically the new system rewards severe blow outs and the issuing of embarrassing losses. If you are playing against your buddy and ahead 5-0, you can’t afford to give him a couple to make the post game beers more palatable at 6-2. You’ve got to crush him out and out. If there is a chance of a 2-2 tie, there will be blood.

It also discourages a captain from playing the weaker players on a roster if stronger players are available. Before, especially with 5 courts, you could afford to run weak players out if you otherwise had a strong line-up . You could still win the match 3-2 even if you lost another court, and the score of the weaker player's match didn't really matter as the team win is what mattered. Now, with just 4 courts, if you run weak players out that are a likely loss, you have to go 3 for 3 on the other courts, going 2-1 on them likely means a 2-2 tie, and if those weak players get blown out, those games lost (and not won) could mean that 2-2 tie ends up being a loss.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It also discourages a captain from playing the weaker players on a roster if stronger players are available. Before, especially with 5 courts, you could afford to run weak players out if you otherwise had a strong line-up . You could still win the match 3-2 even if you lost another court, and the score of the weaker player's match didn't really matter as the team win is what mattered. Now, with just 4 courts, if you run weak players out that are a likely loss, you have to go 3 for 3 on the other courts, going 2-1 on them likely means a 2-2 tie, and if those weak players get blown out, those games lost (and not won) could mean that 2-2 tie ends up being a loss.

Agree. It ups the intensity of a USTA match in many ways that were probably not intended or predicted. If you have 3 strong players, you can steamroll the singles match and one doubles match 6-0 6-0 each, and then just call the match because the other team can’t catch you. Or if you win them each 1-1, just get one your other courts to win four games and then call it. This really rewards stacking and/or sandbagging even more than the old system. Basically just find 3 ringers and it doesn’t matter who else fills out your roster. And the value of being a quality 40+ singles player has just gone through the roof.

 

[justinmadison]

In our PNW 40+ league ( 4 courts - three doubles and one singles) court 1 doubles is worth 2 points. You really have to win court 1 doubles. I think you should have you 5.0 on this court every time.

 

[schmke]

In our PNW 40+ league ( 4 courts - three doubles and one singles) court 1 doubles is worth 2 points. You really have to win court 1 doubles. I think you should have you 5.0 on this court every time.

That is one of the reasons they did it, to encourage teams to play their 5.0 in doubles in a 4.5+ flight, so that the 4.5s aren't completely eliminated from having a chance to play singles (assuming the 5.0 would take the one singles slot without this incentive).

 

[zaskar1]

Now that we are only doing one singles court can someone explain how a team wins when the courts spilt. People around clubs have tried to tell me but they don’t really understand either.

usta decided that no one wants to play singles anymore, especially those over 40
just like the koman scoring, kind of ????
D1 is worth 2 pts, other 3 matches are worth one. team with most points wins the team match.
makes stacking the doubles less effective.
z

 

[Chalkdust]

usta decided that no one wants to play singles anymore, especially those over 40
just like the koman scoring, kind of ????
D1 is worth 2 pts, other 3 matches are worth one. team with most points wins the team match.
makes stacking the doubles less effective.
z

Well, by making these changes they have pretty much alienated many of us over 40 that actually do want to play singles. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[schmke]

usta decided that no one wants to play singles anymore, especially those over 40
just like the koman scoring, kind of ????
D1 is worth 2 pts, other 3 matches are worth one. team with most points wins the team match.
makes stacking the doubles less effective.
z

Well, this format with 2 points for 1D is being used in several sections, but not all. Some are sticking with normal W/L standings and dealing with the possibility of 2-2 ties that the tie-breakers don't decide, and some are using points per position but with different points allocations.

Note, for those using PPP with 2 points for 1D, the team "win" is mostly meaningless, standings aren't based on wins. Instead you just accumulate points and that determines the standings.

 

[J_R_B]

It depends on where you are playing.

Some sections (PNW and NorCal for example) have changed to points per position so a team "win" doesn't matter. A team simply accumulates points based on court wins. PNW and NorCal are using 1 point for 1S, 2D, and 3D and 2 points for 1D. Other sections like Eastern and Middle States have used points per position for a few years and use different points allocations, and it does vary some.

If your section is sticking with team wins for standings, should a match end in a 2-2 tie, the tie-breakers from National are:

• Fewest sets lost
• Fewest games lost
• Game winning percentage (which is meaningless, if you are tied on games lost both teams have a 50% game winning percentage, why have this as a tie-breaker!)
• ?

I put a question mark as there is no documented tie-breaker at that point. Some sections will treat it as a tie at this point, but have to calculate standings manually as TennisLink can't do this. If it is left up to TennisLink, I've observed that the win has been awarded to the visiting team at this point (sort of makes sense, if the visiting team can scratch out a tie, give the win to them), but I've also heard this is being changed to award it to the home team going forward (doesn't really make sense, to me at least).

So, you really need to ask your league coordinate which of the above options is being used. And even then, they might not know or tell you something wrong. It is quite a mess, not sure National thought this through very well.

I've written a bunch more on my blog. I'm not permitted to post links here (others can), but Google "schmidt computer ratings 4 court format" and you should see links to several of my blog posts.

Middle States has had PPP scoring in regular season leagues for a couple years. I'm not necessarily for or against it, at least with an odd number of courts, but everyone understands it and it's fair. The section sent out a questionnaire this winter asking whether we wanted 1-3 or 2-3 for the local league, but word is that they will use the nationals format with no PPP scoring for all playoffs (no mention of the tiebreak procedure). I responded to the questionnaire that adopting a format with an even number of courts for a competition that requires a winning team is the single dumbest thing that the USTA has ever done, topping a very long list of f-ing stupid things they've done over the years, and that it will 100% guaranteed ruin nationals at multiple levels by advancing teams (even in the national semis or finals) based on some stupid arbitrary unfair tiebreaker like games lost. Although I did also say that, while I'm definitely not in favor of the 1-3 format in the local league either, it would at least not totally ruin the league since the standings are done PPP for the local league. I heard that we will be using 2-3 in the local league, so I guess others felt the same way I did. The captain's meeting for spring league is this Saturday, so I should have more information at that time.

 

[J_R_B]

Note, for those using PPP with 2 points for 1D, the team "win" is mostly meaningless, standings aren't based on wins. Instead you just accumulate points and that determines the standings.

This is pretty dumb, too. The point of the 1D=2 points is to get 5 points per match so that you can determine a winner (i.e. to make 1D the tiebreaker, which I like much better than the other stupid tiebreakers because at least the tie is broken by winning a match and not just sets or games). If they're just doing PPP, what's the difference between having an extra point for 1D and not? I guess it makes a difference for 4.5+ to encourage the 5.0s to play doubles, but for other levels, if you want to avoid ties, it's far better to use a more weighted format like 4-6-4-3 that should create a bigger spread in the total standings over 3 or 4 matches and less likely to have ties.

 

[SaltyDDDog]

It depends on where you are playing.

Some sections (PNW and NorCal for example) have changed to points per position so a team "win" doesn't matter. A team simply accumulates points based on court wins. PNW and NorCal are using 1 point for 1S, 2D, and 3D and 2 points for 1D. Other sections like Eastern and Middle States have used points per position for a few years and use different points allocations, and it does vary some.

If your section is sticking with team wins for standings, should a match end in a 2-2 tie, the tie-breakers from National are:

• Fewest sets lost
• Fewest games lost
• Game winning percentage (which is meaningless, if you are tied on games lost both teams have a 50% game winning percentage, why have this as a tie-breaker!)
• ?

I put a question mark as there is no documented tie-breaker at that point. Some sections will treat it as a tie at this point, but have to calculate standings manually as TennisLink can't do this. If it is left up to TennisLink, I've observed that the win has been awarded to the visiting team at this point (sort of makes sense, if the visiting team can scratch out a tie, give the win to them), but I've also heard this is being changed to award it to the home team going forward (doesn't really make sense, to me at least).

So, you really need to ask your league coordinate which of the above options is being used. And even then, they might not know or tell you something wrong. It is quite a mess, not sure National thought this through very well.

I've written a bunch more on my blog. I'm not permitted to post links here (others can), but Google "schmidt computer ratings 4 court format" and you should see links to several of my blog posts.

Schmke - Regarding your comment on the tie-breakers above; I shared your confusion on the meaning of the Game Winning Percentage breaker, until this weekend. Copied from an email, keeping names out of it:

So, what happens when everything is equal. This is what I was afraid of when they announced that the league was going to 4 courts. Yesterday, a match ended in a 2-2 tie, with each team winning and losing exactly 38 games. Each match was straight sets. What happens when you get past #4 tie breaker with no winner?
In looking at the score sheet, it appears that the game winning percentage is being used from the full season results, not for the match (if both teams lose the same number of games, game winning percentage for the match is going to be 50 for both teams so this tie breaker is useless). If the outcome of an individual match is being determined by who has won the highest percentage of games for the whole season, that is garbage. Not every team has played the same schedule.

Happy to share more details if needed, but the point of this post is to let you know the Game Winning Percentage breaker was NOT explained, and many of us assumed what you posted above.

 

[schmke]

Schmke - Regarding your comment on the tie-breakers above; I shared your confusion on the meaning of the Game Winning Percentage breaker, until this weekend. Copied from an email, keeping names out of it:

So, what happens when everything is equal. This is what I was afraid of when they announced that the league was going to 4 courts. Yesterday, a match ended in a 2-2 tie, with each team winning and losing exactly 38 games. Each match was straight sets. What happens when you get past #4 tie breaker with no winner?
In looking at the score sheet, it appears that the game winning percentage is being used from the full season results, not for the match (if both teams lose the same number of games, game winning percentage for the match is going to be 50 for both teams so this tie breaker is useless). If the outcome of an individual match is being determined by who has won the highest percentage of games for the whole season, that is garbage. Not every team has played the same schedule.

Happy to share more details if needed, but the point of this post is to let you know the Game Winning Percentage breaker was NOT explained, and many of us assumed what you posted above.

You are correct that the GWP shown on an individual match does appear to be the season long GWP, and if it is used to break the tie that is nonsense. I brought this to the attention of the USTA and was told that was a bug in what was displayed and it would be fixed. I told them this going on 3+ months ago though and not fixed yet

What I have heard is that the actual tie-breaker used at that point is not documented, and in the past has been to award the win to the visiting team. This sort of makes sense in that the visiting team managed a complete tie despite being at the disadvantage of being the visiting team, so give them the win. But I also heard this was changing to give the win to the home team in this situation. I do not know the reason for this change and have not 100% confirmed it, but have seen indication it is happening.

In any case, if season GWP is being used, that is silly. If home/visitor is being used, IMHO this sort of makes sense if the visitor gets the win so if it has been changed to give the home team the win that is silly as well. A mess like I predicted when this all was changed.

Note that in some areas, home/away is somewhat meaningless as teams don't play out of home clubs but instead just play matches at whatever facility the LC arranged for the match to be played at. This means home/visitor is arbitrary and it really is a flip of the coin to determine the winner.

 

[Traffic]

Since D1 is 2pts, if you win D1 and say D2 every single match, you will be 3-2 (points) throughout the season.
However, it is possible that another team wins 5-0 or 4-1 many of their matches, but lose to you 2-3 and win the season.

You have the better record in terms of Win-Loss. However, the other team has the higher accumulation of points.

Seems like this is the biggest significance other than loading up your D1 to try to grab that extra point each match.

 

[schmke]

Since D1 is 2pts, if you win D1 and say D2 every single match, you will be 3-2 (points) throughout the season.
However, it is possible that another team wins 5-0 or 4-1 many of their matches, but lose to you 2-3 and win the season.

You have the better record in terms of Win-Loss. However, the other team has the higher accumulation of points.

Seems like this is the biggest significance other than loading up your D1 to try to grab that extra point each match.

Correct and what I wrote about several months ago. The use of Points Per Position certainly changes the standings dynamic and how captains should plan line-ups and strategize for the season. It is no longer about winning team matches but accumulating points, and one bad team match can be overcome like you describe. I don't know that PPP is better or worse than wins/losses, but it is different.

 

[J_R_B]

Ok, I was at the captains meeting in Middle States yesterday. Everything that I had heard is true. For local league, they are going to poll the captains for each individual league about 1-3 or 2-3, but standings are PPP either way. For all 40+ playoffs, they are using the 1-3 format with team match standings, not PPP, so the ridiculous tiebreakers will come into play. They said they discussed this at length and decided it best to use the national format for all MS playoffs. Obviously, for a neutral site playoff, you can't use home-away as a tiebreaker. The LLC said "it will be something" for the tb after games won/lost, and that they will publish it before the season starts, so it seems that even some sections are still unsure how to handle this. What a stupid, league-ruining decision at the national level. The USTA has done objectively dumb things in the past, but this is the first time it's really maddening.

 

[Nacho]

Now that we are only doing one singles court can someone explain how a team wins when the courts spilt. People around clubs have tried to tell me but they don’t really understand either.

Probably explained already, but this is usually agreed on by the local league directors. It depends on the amount of teams and matches, but for for a 2-2 match it goes by sets won, then games won. So for instance, if you lose singles 6-2 6-2, win 1 doubles 4-6 6-2 6-3, win 2 doubles 6-4 6-4 and lose 3 doubles 6-2 5-7 6-2, the sets won would be tied, and the games won would be 38 to 47, so you would lose the match. Tennislink figures all this out for you and assigns the extra win based on the formula decided

 

[mikeler]

USTA, creating more mathematicians than tennis players.

 

[schmke]

Probably explained already, but this is usually agreed on by the local league directors. It depends on the amount of teams and matches, but for for a 2-2 match it goes by sets won, then games won. So for instance, if you lose singles 6-2 6-2, win 1 doubles 4-6 6-2 6-3, win 2 doubles 6-4 6-4 and lose 3 doubles 6-2 5-7 6-2, the sets won would be tied, and the games won would be 38 to 47, so you would lose the match. Tennislink figures all this out for you and assigns the extra win based on the formula decided

Well, technically the tie-breaker is sets lost and games lost, but in a head to head match using won or lost is the same thing.

The question and big debate is, what happens if teams are tied after those two tie-breakers? Different people are being told different things, stay tuned, I'm looking for examples of ties to see if one can figure out what the rule is since it is not documented.

 

[Nacho]

Well, technically the tie-breaker is sets lost and games lost, but in a head to head match using won or lost is the same thing.

The question and big debate is, what happens if teams are tied after those two tie-breakers? Different people are being told different things, stay tuned, I'm looking for examples of ties to see if one can figure out what the rule is since it is not documented.

I believe you over me...I will message you privately for an example you may like.

 

[schmke]

With there being a month of 2020 40 & Over league play being in the books in several sections, I went about looking for 2-2 ties not broken by the documented tie-breakers and found 10 such cases. And yes, I made sure these are in leagues that are not using PPP.

I tried to identify a pattern in who was awarded the win and there wasn't a clear pattern. Sometimes the visiting team took the win. Sometimes the home team. Sometimes the team with the higher season GWP had the win but not all the time. See my blog for more details and examples.

At this point, my best guess is that it is home/visitor that determines the winner and prior to February, the visiting team got the win. But since February, the home team is now getting the win. This makes no sense to change it mid-year, and seems very arbitrary, especially in areas where teams don't play at a home facility, but it is my only explanation at this point.

 

[travlerajm]

They should give the tie to the team with the higher average secret dynamic rating. That would discourage sandbagging.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

With there being a month of 2020 40 & Over league play being in the books in several sections, I went about looking for 2-2 ties not broken by the documented tie-breakers and found 10 such cases. And yes, I made sure these are in leagues that are not using PPP.

I tried to identify a pattern in who was awarded the win and there wasn't a clear pattern. Sometimes the visiting team took the win. Sometimes the home team. Sometimes the team with the higher season GWP had the win but not all the time. See my blog for more details and examples.

At this point, my best guess is that it is home/visitor that determines the winner and prior to February, the visiting team got the win. But since February, the home team is now getting the win. This makes no sense to change it mid-year, and seems very arbitrary, especially in areas where teams don't play at a home facility, but it is my only explanation at this point.

Wait. Are you saying that for 2-2 ties, the win was assigned based on who was home or visitor? So that match was not decided based on tennis outcomes? Good grief that’s terrible.

 

[J_R_B]

Wait. Are you saying that for 2-2 ties, the win was assigned based on who was home or visitor? So that match was not decided based on tennis outcomes? Good grief that’s terrible.

Just when you thought they couldn't actually make this even more stupid...

If all of your listed tbs are tied, then the match needs to just be a tie in the standings. Once you get to the playoffs, there needs to be an incontrovertible final tiebreaker, even if it is something stupid like a racket spin or a single point played by the D1 team or something.

 

[schmke]

Wait. Are you saying that for 2-2 ties, the win was assigned based on who was home or visitor? So that match was not decided based on tennis outcomes? Good grief that’s terrible.

Just when you thought they couldn't actually make this even more stupid...

If all of your listed tbs are tied, then the match needs to just be a tie in the standings. Once you get to the playoffs, there needs to be an incontrovertible final tiebreaker, even if it is something stupid like a racket spin or a single point played by the D1 team or something.

Yes, if the documented tie-breakers don't decide the match, undocumented tie-breakers are apparently used, the last one being to award the win to the visiting team from what I've heard.

I've also now heard that the GWP used in the tie-breaker was supposed to be the GWP in the match (which will always be 50% for each team if they are tied on games lost, so a pointless tie-breaker), but unbeknownst to the USTA (how wouldn't they know?), TennisLink has been using the season GWP as of the playing of the match!

This makes absolutely no sense! If team 1 has a hard opponent in their first match and team 2 has an easy opponent in theirs, team 1's GWP will be low compared to team 2's and they'll end up taking the loss due to having a tougher first match.

But to make things more confusing, the GWP shown on the team match is not the GWP at the time of the match, it is instead the current GWP for the season. This means if the time-of-match GWP is really used, what is shown on the team match later in the season may no longer explain why the winner won as the GWP will have changed.

The frustrating thing is I wrote about this 3+ months ago and specifically raised these issues to USTA staff, and nothing happened. Well, they said the showing the current GWP for the season on the team match was wrong and would be fixed, but it still isn't. And I've again heard this will be fixed, but I don't know when, nor if the "fix" will retroactively correct mis-scored under the new rules matches.

It is all a mess and could have been avoided with a little forethought or listening to what I said. Oh well, I'm glad my section switched to points-per-position so we don't have this issue. A few other sections switched too, and several were already using PPP so they are avoiding the issue, but quite a few sections are still using team wins and having tied matches now.

 

[brettatk]

Providing we get to State this year, I hope they have this figured out by then in Southern (Atlanta). Up until State we are still playing the 1/4 format.

Here's a link to Schmke's blog: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2020/02/its-happening-unbroken-2-2-ties-occur.html

 

[J_R_B]

Yes, if the documented tie-breakers don't decide the match, undocumented tie-breakers are apparently used, the last one being to award the win to the visiting team from what I've heard.

I've also now heard that the GWP used in the tie-breaker was supposed to be the GWP in the match (which will always be 50% for each team if they are tied on games lost, so a pointless tie-breaker), but unbeknownst to the USTA (how wouldn't they know?), TennisLink has been using the season GWP as of the playing of the match!

This makes absolutely no sense! If team 1 has a hard opponent in their first match and team 2 has an easy opponent in theirs, team 1's GWP will be low compared to team 2's and they'll end up taking the loss due to having a tougher first match.

But to make things more confusing, the GWP shown on the team match is not the GWP at the time of the match, it is instead the current GWP for the season. This means if the time-of-match GWP is really used, what is shown on the team match later in the season may no longer explain why the winner won as the GWP will have changed.

The frustrating thing is I wrote about this 3+ months ago and specifically raised these issues to USTA staff, and nothing happened. Well, they said the showing the current GWP for the season on the team match was wrong and would be fixed, but it still isn't. And I've again heard this will be fixed, but I don't know when, nor if the "fix" will retroactively correct mis-scored under the new rules matches.

It is all a mess and could have been avoided with a little forethought or listening to what I said. Oh well, I'm glad my section switched to points-per-position so we don't have this issue. A few other sections switched too, and several were already using PPP so they are avoiding the issue, but quite a few sections are still using team wins and having tied matches now.

I really want it to be the season long GWP so that previous matches and league standings can change during the season based on the result of future matches. This whole ill-conceived thing with 4 court leagues needs to go as poorly as it possibly can and plss off as many people as it possibly can so that it dies a very quick death (even before nationals this year, if possible...). Nothing the USTA could possibly do could be any more stupid.

 

[schmke]

Nothing the USTA could possibly do could be any more stupid.

Wait for it, it could happen.

 

[J_R_B]

Wait for it, it could happen.

That wasn't a challenge. LOL.

 

[schmke]

I just wrote more on my blog on this topic with what I've learned. Mostly expands on what I wrote earlier/below.

It is the USTA so I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised by the level of negligence in getting ahead of this when they had every opportunity to do so.

Yes, if the documented tie-breakers don't decide the match, undocumented tie-breakers are apparently used, the last one being to award the win to the visiting team from what I've heard.

I've also now heard that the GWP used in the tie-breaker was supposed to be the GWP in the match (which will always be 50% for each team if they are tied on games lost, so a pointless tie-breaker), but unbeknownst to the USTA (how wouldn't they know?), TennisLink has been using the season GWP as of the playing of the match!

This makes absolutely no sense! If team 1 has a hard opponent in their first match and team 2 has an easy opponent in theirs, team 1's GWP will be low compared to team 2's and they'll end up taking the loss due to having a tougher first match.

But to make things more confusing, the GWP shown on the team match is not the GWP at the time of the match, it is instead the current GWP for the season. This means if the time-of-match GWP is really used, what is shown on the team match later in the season may no longer explain why the winner won as the GWP will have changed.

The frustrating thing is I wrote about this 3+ months ago and specifically raised these issues to USTA staff, and nothing happened. Well, they said the showing the current GWP for the season on the team match was wrong and would be fixed, but it still isn't. And I've again heard this will be fixed, but I don't know when, nor if the "fix" will retroactively correct mis-scored under the new rules matches.

It is all a mess and could have been avoided with a little forethought or listening to what I said. Oh well, I'm glad my section switched to points-per-position so we don't have this issue. A few other sections switched too, and several were already using PPP so they are avoiding the issue, but quite a few sections are still using team wins and having tied matches now.

 

[J_R_B]

I just wrote more on my blog on this topic with what I've learned. Mostly expands on what I wrote earlier/below.

It is the USTA so I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised by the level of negligence in getting ahead of this when they had every opportunity to do so.

The first match on your blog (Ventura 1/11) highlights just how unfair the GWP tiebreaker is. This match was between the teams that are currently undefeated and in first place and winless and in last place. The undefeated first place team got the win on the basis of GWP. Why? Everyone loves an underdog story. The lowly last place team played the match of their season and played the top team in the league to a dead even draw and get no credit for playing above their heads against the best the league has to offer. If you have to have such a ridiculous tiebreaker, it should be the underdog that overachieves that gets credit for the victory not the powerhouse frontrunner who can't even put away the last place team.

It's the same thing with the sets lost tiebreaker. The team that cruises to a straight set victory gets the nod over a team that battled back against superior opponents after losing the first set. Why? I think the underdog who rallies from being down to save the match is showing more mental toughness and deserves the win more than a team cruising against overmatched competition.

 

[schmke]

The first match on your blog (Ventura 1/11) highlights just how unfair the GWP tiebreaker is. This match was between the teams that are currently undefeated and in first place and winless and in last place. The undefeated first place team got the win on the basis of GWP. Why? Everyone loves an underdog story. The lowly last place team played the match of their season and played the top team in the league to a dead even draw and get no credit for playing above their heads against the best the league has to offer. If you have to have such a ridiculous tiebreaker, it should be the underdog that overachieves that gets credit for the victory not the powerhouse frontrunner who can't even put away the last place team.

It's the same thing with the sets lost tiebreaker. The team that cruises to a straight set victory gets the nod over a team that battled back against superior opponents after losing the first set. Why? I think the underdog who rallies from being down to save the match is showing more mental toughness and deserves the win more than a team cruising against overmatched competition.

Yeah, in the Ventura case, both teams had played one match prior to playing each other, the visiting team having won theirs 3-1 against the current 7th place team, while the home team lost 4-0 against the current 5th place team. The home team then plays a great match to get the "tie", but because they perhaps played a tougher opponent in their first match and has a current GWP that is lower, the tie turns into a loss for them.

Of course, if this were the first match of the season, neither would have a GWP yet so I'm guessing tie win would go to the visiting team, which in this case is the team that won on GWP anyway.

 

[J_R_B]

Yeah, in the Ventura case, both teams had played one match prior to playing each other, the visiting team having won theirs 3-1 against the current 7th place team, while the home team lost 4-0 against the current 5th place team. The home team then plays a great match to get the "tie", but because they perhaps played a tougher opponent in their first match and has a current GWP that is lower, the tie turns into a loss for them.

Of course, if this were the first match of the season, neither would have a GWP yet so I'm guessing tie win would go to the visiting team, which in this case is the team that won on GWP anyway.

It's not even just the GWP at the time (the "strength of schedule thusfar" issue is a little different), it's the whole season (even though that doesn't necessarily enter into the W/L determination). This is the season long first place team vs the season long last place team. Had the result gone the other way, it would have been the biggest upset in their whole league season, a signature win that that team could hang their hat on, one in which the pre-match expectation (regardless of how you measure that) would be for a big win for the top team. I think it would be much better to give the win to the team that outperforms expectations than to make it so the front runner only have to tie to get credit for a win they don't really deserve.

 

[sam_p]

This is all totally nuts of course. Furthermore, there is no indication yet of how this will be handled at Nationals.

In Norcal there also seems to be no indication of how this will work at Districts/Sectionals either as yet.

If PPP used at sectionals then a team could definitely go 2-1 in individual matches and advance over a team that goes 3-0, where is the justice in that? Would be such a ridiculous outcome if one team had a PPP of 12 but was 2-1 (2 5-0 wins and a 2-3 loss) and goes over a team that has a PPP of 9 but beat all opponents 3-2. This isn't at all an unlikely scenario really since teams frequently mail sectionals in if they lose the first day.

 

[schmke]

This is all totally nuts of course. Furthermore, there is no indication yet of how this will be handled at Nationals.

In Norcal there also seems to be no indication of how this will work at Districts/Sectionals either as yet.

If PPP used at sectionals then a team could definitely go 2-1 in individual matches and advance over a team that goes 3-0, where is the justice in that? Would be such a ridiculous outcome if one team had a PPP of 12 but was 2-1 (2 5-0 wins and a 2-3 loss) and goes over a team that has a PPP of 9 but beat all opponents 3-2. This isn't at all an unlikely scenario really since teams frequently mail sectionals in if they lose the first day.

I'm guessing the USTA will make some decision regarding how to handle it at Nationals soon. They will likely leave it up to sections to decide what they will do for any local/district/sectional playoffs. The unfortunate thing is that any decision no matter how soon, is still too late for a lot of leagues that have already started.

I would not be surprised if they change to PPP for Nationals. You are right, it is arguably not equitable in scenarios like you describe, but it at least is objective and not coming down to effectively a coin-flip. I see PPP as not right/wrong or better/worse, but just different. Rather than being rewarded by winning team matches, you are rewarded by accumulating points, no matter how you do that.

Note of course, your examples used 5-courts where PPP is not required to have something objective . The place this will be an issue is 40+ as most if not all sections will use 4-court formats in most playoff rounds, and National certainly will be.

 

[Papa Mango]

This is all totally nuts of course. Furthermore, there is no indication yet of how this will be handled at Nationals.

In Norcal there also seems to be no indication of how this will work at Districts/Sectionals either as yet.

If PPP used at sectionals then a team could definitely go 2-1 in individual matches and advance over a team that goes 3-0, where is the justice in that? Would be such a ridiculous outcome if one team had a PPP of 12 but was 2-1 (2 5-0 wins and a 2-3 loss) and goes over a team that has a PPP of 9 but beat all opponents 3-2. This isn't at all an unlikely scenario really since teams frequently mail sectionals in if they lose the first day.

Oh It WILL happen......

 

[J_R_B]

This is all totally nuts of course. Furthermore, there is no indication yet of how this will be handled at Nationals.

In Norcal there also seems to be no indication of how this will work at Districts/Sectionals either as yet.

If PPP used at sectionals then a team could definitely go 2-1 in individual matches and advance over a team that goes 3-0, where is the justice in that? Would be such a ridiculous outcome if one team had a PPP of 12 but was 2-1 (2 5-0 wins and a 2-3 loss) and goes over a team that has a PPP of 9 but beat all opponents 3-2. This isn't at all an unlikely scenario really since teams frequently mail sectionals in if they lose the first day.

While I would clearly prefer to have 5 court matches and the 3-0 team advance regardless of what the points total would be in PPP, is having a 2-1 team advance over a 3-0 team on points really worse than having a 3-0 team advance because they won a 2-2 match via a tiebreaker?

 

[sam_p]

I'm guessing the USTA will make some decision regarding how to handle it at Nationals soon. They will likely leave it up to sections to decide what they will do for any local/district/sectional playoffs. The unfortunate thing is that any decision no matter how soon, is still too late for a lot of leagues that have already started.

I would not be surprised if they change to PPP for Nationals. You are right, it is arguably not equitable in scenarios like you describe, but it at least is objective and not coming down to effectively a coin-flip. I see PPP as not right/wrong or better/worse, but just different. Rather than being rewarded by winning team matches, you are rewarded by accumulating points, no matter how you do that.

Note of course, your examples used 5-courts where PPP is not required to have something objective . The place this will be an issue is 40+ as most if not all sections will use 4-court formats in most playoff rounds, and National certainly will be.

I was referring to Norcal where there are 4 lines but 5 points. At sectionals not clear to me if they will use PPP or win/loss as first pass to decide who advances. Very possible to have one team win all three matches 3-2 and another win 4-1, 4-1 and lose 2-3 to the undefeated team. In that setting, who advances?

 

[sam_p]

While I would clearly prefer to have 5 court matches and the 3-0 team advance regardless of what the points total would be in PPP, is having a 2-1 team advance over a 3-0 team on points really worse than having a 3-0 team advance because they won a 2-2 match via a tiebreaker?

Agreed, that is just as bad. It is all part of this stupid decision to go to 4 lines...

 

[schmke]

I was referring to Norcal where there are 4 lines but 5 points. At sectionals not clear to me if they will use PPP or win/loss as first pass to decide who advances. Very possible to have one team win all three matches 3-2 and another win 4-1, 4-1 and lose 2-3 to the undefeated team. In that setting, who advances?

Ahhh, got it. And yes, I've pointed out that PPP allows for scenarios like this. It happening at playoffs is especially interesting like you note.

 

[schmke]

There have now been at least 23 2-2 matches not broken by the documented tie-breakers. It appears they continue to have the winner determined by season GWP going into the match, and then the visiting team if that GWP is still tied.

 

[TennisOTM]

There have now been at least 23 2-2 matches not broken by the documented tie-breakers. It appears they continue to have the winner determined by season GWP going into the match, and then the visiting team if that GWP is still tied.

So strange. I wonder if they really think the GWP tie-breaker is working as intended. I'm curious how often this is happening percentage-wise. I think based on past years you had predicted that matches would be tied on sets lost & games lost about 3% of the time - is that turning out to be about right?

 

[J011yroger]

Imagine if they go to 5 courts for Nationals?

Imagine?

J

 

[schmke]

So strange. I wonder if they really think the GWP tie-breaker is working as intended. I'm curious how often this is happening percentage-wise. I think based on past years you had predicted that matches would be tied on sets lost & games lost about 3% of the time - is that turning out to be about right?

I don't think they think it is right, but it is what is being done. Changes to TennisLink seem to take time ... Why this wasn't tested/discovered earlier I don't know, especially when I pointed out that TennisLink was showing season GWP on team matches nearly 4 months ago.

 

[DailyG&T]

Argh.....we had a 2-2 tie today that hasn't been entered into Tennislink yet. The stats are SO close for both of our teams but our opponents have played one more match than us to date since we had a rainout day. Our GWP to date is 1% away (we are lower.) Everything from today's match was an exact symmetrical tie including two courts that were double bagels -- one each way - then the other two courts went to three sets with the same number of games won for each. (Edited to add -- each team won and lost the exact same # sets overall - we each won 5 sets and lost 5 sets and each team won 45 total games.) At this point it really feels like TL is going to give us a coin flip honestly. My preference would be that if USTA ever does an even number of lines again, to weight the lines or maybe just weight D1. I am the captain of this particular team today and I don't even know how to verify that when TL decides who wins, that decision is accurate. I'm a member of someone else's team that also had a symmetrical tie that was settled by GWP to date and it was super early in the season (I believe our second match of the season) and it went our way but honestly nobody wants to win that way either. Just ugh all around.

 

[DailyG&T]

Okay so here's what I heard back from our area coordinator. First off, my math was wrong lol! We were NOT evenly tied. So we did win fair and square so I feel a lot better about that. She also said in her reply that my area is changing next weight to prioritizing D1 for the win. Here's her response:

What a close match (and some really close and not close scores).
The least sets lost was tied however if input correctly, FB actually lost fewer games than EC. 44 vs 46. This was not tied so the GW% was not a factor at all. (Your team won one more game in each of the 3 set matches which gave you the win. Every game counts!)
If games lost had been tied, the GW% would be 50% and 50% for the match. The GW% that shows on the scorecard today is the cumulative number for each team so it is being removed. They will be making a change in TennisLink next week that will be for matches tied down to the least games lost, the winner will be the team who won line 1 doubles. We are still getting the communication on this tiebreaking change however, it has only happened twice in all of the hundreds of matches in San Diego this season so far. I’ll email captains once it’s finalized Nationally.

 

[schmke]

Okay so here's what I heard back from our area coordinator. First off, my math was wrong lol! We were NOT evenly tied. So we did win fair and square so I feel a lot better about that. She also said in her reply that my area is changing next weight to prioritizing D1 for the win. Here's her response:

What a close match (and some really close and not close scores).
The least sets lost was tied however if input correctly, FB actually lost fewer games than EC. 44 vs 46. This was not tied so the GW% was not a factor at all. (Your team won one more game in each of the 3 set matches which gave you the win. Every game counts!)
If games lost had been tied, the GW% would be 50% and 50% for the match. The GW% that shows on the scorecard today is the cumulative number for each team so it is being removed. They will be making a change in TennisLink next week that will be for matches tied down to the least games lost, the winner will be the team who won line 1 doubles. We are still getting the communication on this tiebreaking change however, it has only happened twice in all of the hundreds of matches in San Diego this season so far. I’ll email captains once it’s finalized Nationally.

Yeah, the fact that you are having to do the math and then wonder if TL will do it the same and not come up with a different winner is just silly. But yes, it looks like your team was two better on games lost.

I too have been told that the season to-date GWP is wrong and is being removed, but I was told that 3+ months ago so unclear when it will actually happen. And I think TL not yet supporting having 1D be the deciding factor may have been why several sections switched to points-per-position for this year.

It is also nice that they try to diminish the issue by saying it has only happened twice so far in San Diego. But that is just a small part of the country and the league isn't over yet, and in fact it has happened 3 times in San Diego (the 3rd on 2/3, not just recently) and 7 times in SoCal, and it only takes the one situation where it involves teams vying for 1st for it to really matter.

 

[Traffic]

Wow. So glad our area is weighting D1 with 2 points. Makes the math so much easier.

Interesting consequence of line-ups though. Usually best players are on D1. Then D3 seems to be stronger than D2. I guess a lot of teams are going for D1 + D3 for higher shot at a win.