40 & Over Format Survey

[TennisOTM]

I received a survey link today that included a chance to rank, first choice to fifth choice, different potential formats for 40 & Over Nationals:

Option A: 5 court format with 1 singles and 4 doubles
Option B: 5 court format with 2 singles and 3 doubles
Option C: 4 court format using the current tiebreak order procedure when a match is 2-2
Option D: 4 court format using #1 doubles as the first tiebreak in the tiebreak order procedure when a match is 2-2
Option E: 4 court format using a Points Per Position format

All the "4 court format" options are 1 singles and 3 doubles, so there is only one choice that has more than one singles line. Are there enough 40+ singles lovers for that option to be competitive?

This might be a better survey than the one that helped give us the current format, but I think it's still going to be tricky to analyze the results from this one.

 

[LOBALOT]

Go back to option B and go with 5 court 2 singles and 3 doubles. This current crazy format is nuts and yes there are plenty of 40+ singles players. I have 5 of them fighting for 1 spot currently.

 

[cks]

Go back to option B and go with 5 court 2 singles and 3 doubles.

+1

 

[jaxadam]

2 singles 3 dubs

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Would be fine with 2+3 or 1+4. In fact, the 1+4 would get more players in the line up and still get a definitive best of 3 match win scenario. Best of both worlds.

it is not weekly league matches that are a limiting factor for singles. The reason that they ask all the survey questions about participating in sectionals and nationals is because playing 2 matches a day over 3-4 days is tough for 40+ players when it is singles.

 

[badmice2]

1+4 would be super fun. They should just steer clear of the 2+2 and the point system format. The idea of needing any tiebreaker system is a mess.

 

[OnTheLine]

so .... took it 4 times

They sent to me from both Intermountain and Southwest. They sent to both my email (twice) and via text (twice) ... let me do it.

My #1 is back to the 2S/3D format, #2 the 1S/4D
Dead last was the current format
#3 weighted lines
#4 is the 1D as tiebreak (oh what hell!)

 

[J_R_B]

so .... took it 4 times

They sent to me from both Intermountain and Southwest. They sent to both my email (twice) and via text (twice) ... let me do it.

My #1 is back to the 2S/3D format, #2 the 1S/4D
Dead last was the current format
#3 weighted lines
#4 is the 1D as tiebreak (oh what hell!)

I ranked them the exact same way but then added in the comments that I only ranked the bottom three because the survey required it, and I really consider ANY tiebreaking criteria completely unnecessary as long as the format is determined by a person with at least a third grade understanding of math.

 

[TennisOTM]

it is not weekly league matches that are a limiting factor for singles. The reason that they ask all the survey questions about participating in sectionals and nationals is because playing 2 matches a day over 3-4 days is tough for 40+ players when it is singles.

Perhaps, but if they change the format for Nationals, then many leagues would change to the same format for weekly matches. At least I'm sure that my area would. In fact in 2020 when Nationals was cancelled, we temporarily switched back to the locally preferred 2S/3D. But when Nationals is on, our local league officials prefer to have a matching format.

 

[J_R_B]

Perhaps, but if they change the format for Nationals, then many leagues would change to the same format for weekly matches. At least I'm sure that my area would. In fact in 2020 when Nationals was cancelled, we temporarily switched back to the locally preferred 2S/3D. But when Nationals is on, our local league officials prefer to have a matching format.

The irony of the Philly district 40+ is that they put the format to a vote and the captains voted on 2S 3D for the regular season, but MS made the decision to follow the national format for district/sectional playoffs, so we have 2S 3D in the regular season with PPP standings (i.e. where a 4-court format wouldn't be really intrusive since the standings are on total points anyway) and then 1S 3D for the critical matches in the playoffs that can end 2-2 and be decided by stupid unnecessary tiebreakers.

 

[J_R_B]

Would be fine with 2+3 or 1+4. In fact, the 1+4 would get more players in the line up and still get a definitive best of 3 match win scenario. Best of both worlds.

it is not weekly league matches that are a limiting factor for singles. The reason that they ask all the survey questions about participating in sectionals and nationals is because playing 2 matches a day over 3-4 days is tough for 40+ players when it is singles.

Teams that make the playoffs (usually) are deep enough that they can find people to cover singles if the weather is too hot or something that would be too taxing to play 2 singles matches in a day. It's the mid and lower table teams that have no prayer of playoffs that struggle to find people to play singles.

 

[LOBALOT]

Perhaps, but if they change the format for Nationals, then many leagues would change to the same format for weekly matches. At least I'm sure that my area would. In fact in 2020 when Nationals was cancelled, we temporarily switched back to the locally preferred 2S/3D. But when Nationals is on, our local league officials prefer to have a matching format.

What is the issue if they do switch to the 2s/3d locally?

 

[TennisOTM]

What is the issue if they do switch to the 2s/3d locally?

The local coordinator did not explain the reasoning when I asked. I assume they just prefer to run the league season using the same format as the playoffs, so that the best team under that format will have the best chance to get there.

 

[Purestriker]

1+4 would be super fun. They should just steer clear of the 2+2 and the point system format. The idea of needing any tiebreaker system is a mess.

Agree...1 and 4 would be great.

 

[Devil_dog]

I like the current 2-3 format but in my area, we're struggling at times to make a lineup due to lack of guys available. A 1-4 would make it even more a challenge though I like the idea. 2-2 isn't bad but definitely puts pressure on line 1 dubs to perform well every time but at least we wouldn't struggle with filling a line 3 dubs team. But I know my team's challenges are unique and doesn't apply to every team out there.

 

[atatu]

Teams that make the playoffs (usually) are deep enough that they can find people to cover singles if the weather is too hot or something that would be too taxing to play 2 singles matches in a day. It's the mid and lower table teams that have no prayer of playoffs that struggle to find people to play singles.

Not to be sexist, but I've heard that many over 40 women's teams struggle to find singles players. If that is in fact the case, then the USTA could adopt a different format for men's and women's teams.

 

[cks]

because playing 2 matches a day over 3-4 days is tough for 40+ players when it is singles.

100% agree. I'm 50+ and played a weekend tourney. I played two (2) singles matches on the first day and was totally worn out.

 

[cks]

They should just steer clear of the 2+2 and the point system format. The idea of needing any tiebreaker system is a mess.

+1

 

[LOBALOT]

100% agree. I'm 50+ and played a weekend tourney. I played two (2) singles matches on the first day and was totally worn out.

I have 6 guys begging to play singles on my team. Mix up your lineup between dubs and singles if you must. This issue is not an issue due to the 2/3 format but poor planning and lack of depth on the team.

 

[cks]

I have 6 guys begging to play singles on my team. Mix up your lineup between dubs and singles if you must.

I wish we had this problem last season. We had three players who wanted to play singles, which worked out during the season, but was obviously a problem during the tournament.

This issue is not an issue due to the 2/3 format but poor planning and lack of depth on the team.

Agreed.

 

[TennisOTM]

Not to be sexist, but I've heard that many over 40 women's teams struggle to find singles players. If that is in fact the case, then the USTA could adopt a different format for men's and women's teams.

They did ask for your details on the survey (gender, NTRP level, Section etc.) so they should be able to see whether the results are very different for different groups. Hopefully they will analyze and act on the data wisely.

 

[OnTheLine]

Not to be sexist, but I've heard that many over 40 women's teams struggle to find singles players. If that is in fact the case, then the USTA could adopt a different format for men's and women's teams.

My current team there are 2 who will ONLY play singles, another 2 who prefer singles but will play doubles and another 5 of us who would like to but rarely if ever get the chance.

I am certain there are teams that are otherwise, but this has been my experience on various teams for the past 6 years.

 

[badmice2]

They did ask for your details on the survey (gender, NTRP level, Section etc.) so they should be able to see whether the results are very different for different groups. Hopefully they will analyze and act on the data wisely.

dont think its a women issue; most men in my area prefer to play doubles. Singles players are hard to find, if you have 2 on roster its golden; let alone having enough for 2 for a match.

 

[OnTheLine]

I believe @schmke did an analysis a few years back (when this stupid format showed up) that showed the # of defaults by line by gender and by NTRP level.

I cannot actually remember the precise results.

HOWEVER, the data showing a higher number of defaults at S2 does not necessarily mean that there aren't enough willing singles players ... it can also mean that a team had 7 but not 8 people available for that match date and that dictated that they default S2 instead of playing 6 of their available players and defaulting D3 instead.

 

[J_R_B]

Not to be sexist, but I've heard that many over 40 women's teams struggle to find singles players. If that is in fact the case, then the USTA could adopt a different format for men's and women's teams.

To the extent that's true, then, yes, possibly the men's and women's formats should be different, as long as they both have odd courts (i.e. 2-3 vs 1-4). I still contend that, once you get the the playoffs where there are only league winning teams left, even the women's teams should be able to field two singles players, but again, whatever, if they prefer 1-4 regardless, then make women's 1-4, as long as there are 5 total courts.

 

[J_R_B]

What is the issue if they do switch to the 2s/3d locally?

It may cause the team that is not best suited to the playoff format to win the league over a team that is (i.e. a team loaded with singles specialists uses the 2nd singles points to beat a team of doubles players then is left with a bunch of their top players that can't even play in the playoffs).

 

[LOBALOT]

It may cause the team that is not best suited to the playoff format to win the league over a team that is (i.e. a team loaded with singles specialists uses the 2nd singles points to beat a team of doubles players then is left with a bunch of their top players that can't even play in the playoffs).

I don't follow I am sorry. Most teams I have run into in the playoffs are loaded top to bottom doubles/singles it doesn't make a difference. In my opinion those are the teams that should win. If you have 5 players sitting on the sidelines because there is only 1 singles spot certainly makes no sense as far as participation in a recreational sport.

 

[ktx]

My experience in women's 40+ is that it is very easy to find a team when you are willing to play singles. I only played 40+ after it switched to 1S/3D and I think had at least 1 default that season at the singles line. I would prefer 1S/4D or 2S/3D because the 2-2 tiebreakers were frustrating. If singles in the playoffs/nationals is an issue they can just let those players play a pro-set instead of 2/3 sets.

 

[nyta2]

i sent my response in this order:
A
B
C
E
D

i like the 1x4 format because it allows 9 players to compete.. more matches per person, especially since it's a mini vacation for everyone going... want to make sure everyone is getting enough tennis matches
definitely much prefer 2x3 over 1x3
having 5 lines is preferred... requires a deeper team to win

 

[Jack the Hack]

I came on TT today specifically to highlight this survey. I was glad to see that there is already a thread about it!

For the love of sweet baby Jesus, if you were sent a link to the survey, please fill it out and help us all rid the USTA League of the horrific 4 court format!!!

I personally prefer the old 2S/3D format, but I voted for 1S/4D as #1 and 2S/3D as #2 since I know that fielding singles players in 40 and over can be difficult (especially in back-to-back-to-back-to-back matches in one weekend like at Nationals) and I like the idea of giving 9 players an opportunity to play instead of just 8. In the comments section, I also wrote in a pitch for bringing back the old plus format for 4.5 since I feel the USTA has stranded all the older 5.0 players.

 

[TennisOTM]

I ranked them the exact same way but then added in the comments that I only ranked the bottom three because the survey required it, and I really consider ANY tiebreaking criteria completely unnecessary as long as the format is determined by a person with at least a third grade understanding of math.

I wonder if a better survey design would have been to give us a scale to rate our like/dislike of each option, rather than requiring an ordered ranking. Then people who really hate the 4-court format with 2-2 tiebreaks could just give all three of those options a "strongly dislike" rating. As is, people with that view were forced to rank one of them in 3rd place, which might give it too much credit in the overall results (depending on how the results are analyzed).

Similarly, someone who feels strongly about having 2 singles lines, but doesn't care much about even/odd courts, could give a "strongly like" to option B and dislike all the others.

 

[DCNJ]

I wonder if a better survey design would have been to give us a scale to rate our like/dislike of each option, rather than requiring an ordered ranking. Then people who really hate the 4-court format with 2-2 tiebreaks could just give all three of those options a "strongly dislike" rating. As is, people with that view were forced to rank one of them in 3rd place, which might give it too much credit in the overall results (depending on how the results are analyzed).

Similarly, someone who feels strongly about having 2 singles lines, but doesn't care much about even/odd courts, could give a "strongly like" to option B and dislike all the others.

Having the USTA offer that form of poll would assume both intelligence and integrity from the USTA. One can only hope.

 

[KaiserW]

Agree with going back to 2/3. My second vote was 1/4. At sectionals we lost a match by 2 lousy games, hate the 1/3 format. Win the match outright not relying on tiebreakers.

 

[Tennis4008]

Not 100% sure how I would want it to go yet but I do know it should be odd!! this weekend at nationals we saw so many good players and teams and lost against the 4th place team by A TIEBREAK....and the 5th place by a game which put us in 12th.
We are at nationals though..you are going to see good people and have good competition...so it's hard and a tad unfair to do the 4 court format with the level of play you are going to see.
With that said though I do know its hard to find singles players.

 

[LOBALOT]

Not 100% sure how I would want it to go yet but I do know it should be odd!! this weekend at nationals we saw so many good players and teams and lost against the 4th place team by A TIEBREAK....and the 5th place by a game which put us in 12th.
We are at nationals though..you are going to see good people and have good competition...so it's hard and a tad unfair to do the 4 court format with the level of play you are going to see.
With that said though I do know its hard to find singles players.

My team will trade you a couple singles guys for a solid 1 dubs.

Seriously, i am not sure why/where teams are reporting they struggle for singles players as every year I have at least 5 arguing over who plays when as they all want to play and with 1 court they only get 2 matches in before the playoffs max.

 

[J_R_B]

My team will trade you a couple singles guys for a solid 1 dubs.

Seriously, i am not sure why/where teams are reporting they struggle for singles players as every year I have at least 5 arguing over who plays when as they all want to play and with 1 court they only get 2 matches in before the playoffs max.

Women's teams struggle to find singles players, especially 40+, so trading them a couple guys isn't doing any good, LOL. It's entirely plausible that 1/4 is a better format for women's 40+ than 2/3 because of the scarcity of singles players. Regardless, some ridiculous format with an even number of courts is NOT the answer for any league.

 

[socallefty]

I wrote in the survey comments that I picked the 3+2 and 4+1 as the best formats because tennis scoring is set up for matches to be decided by key points and “who wins the most games, sets” being used as an arbitrary tiebreaker goes against the spirit of tennis scoring. A person who wins 0-6, 7-6, 7-6 is as much of a winner in tennis as someone who wins 6-0, 6-0 and that’s the fun of it as a match is not over until the match point is won. I picked the D1 doubles line being the TB as my 3rd option.

 

[cks]

Regardless, some ridiculous format with an even number of courts is NOT the answer for any league.

Agreed.

 

[LOBALOT]

Women's teams struggle to find singles players, especially 40+, so trading them a couple guys isn't doing any good, LOL. It's entirely plausible that 1/4 is a better format for women's 40+ than 2/3 because of the scarcity of singles players. Regardless, some ridiculous format with an even number of courts is NOT the answer for any league.

Ahhh! I am sorry.

 

[Tennis4008]

My team will trade you a couple singles guys for a solid 1 dubs.

Seriously, i am not sure why/where teams are reporting they struggle for singles players as every year I have at least 5 arguing over who plays when as they all want to play and with 1 court they only get 2 matches in before the playoffs max.

I know I don't get it...I LOVE SINGLES! I'm the singles player!

 

[LOBALOT]

I know I don't get it...I LOVE SINGLES! I'm the singles player!

There are a lot of you around me. I am actually the opposite.

 

[J_R_B]

I know I don't get it...I LOVE SINGLES! I'm the singles player!

I love singles, but my knees don't really at this point. LOL.

Plus, the team I captain is 18+, so fat slow 50 year old singles players with arthritic knees are a liability.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I love singles, but my knees don't really at this point. LOL.

Plus, the team I captain is 18+, so fat slow 50 year old singles players with arthritic knees are a liability.

This describes me more than I want to admit...

 

[romano]

In NORCAL, 40 & Over has the 4 line format (1 Singles, 3 Doubles), but the D1 line is worth 2 points, all other 1 point. I like it as it promotes better competition on D1 (less tendency to flip lines).

 

[Purestriker]

In NORCAL, 40 & Over has the 4 line format (1 Singles, 3 Doubles), but the D1 line is worth 2 points, all other 1 point. I like it as it promotes better competition on D1 (less tendency to flip lines).

I like it. They could still flip two and three lines but the two points for line 1 doubles is huge.

 

[romano]

Yeah, I with USTA would assign a point system to all lines, with D1 worth more than D2 and D2 more than D3 (same for singles). I really think it would make for better competition all around.

 

[J_R_B]

In NORCAL, 40 & Over has the 4 line format (1 Singles, 3 Doubles), but the D1 line is worth 2 points, all other 1 point. I like it as it promotes better competition on D1 (less tendency to flip lines).

This is just a simplified version of PPP. For the regular season, MS New Jersey used the 4 court format with 5-5-4-3 weights on the courts. This is fine. The problem comes in the playoffs when there needs to be a winner and the lines are no longer weighted. If all of the competitions through the national round robin used the 5-5-4-3 weighting with a total points standings, there would still be no problem, and then they could just switch to a 5 court format for the semis and finals, but that proposal is not on the table at all.

 

[schmke]

This is just a simplified version of PPP. For the regular season, MS New Jersey used the 4 court format with 5-5-4-3 weights on the courts. This is fine. The problem comes in the playoffs when there needs to be a winner and the lines are no longer weighted. If all of the competitions through the national round robin used the 5-5-4-3 weighting with a total points standings, there would still be no problem, and then they could just switch to a 5 court format for the semis and finals, but that proposal is not on the table at all.

This.

There is nothing wrong with using PPP for a 4-court format. It avoids the "who won?" questions and just lets team accumulate points. But at some point, you do need match winners, typically in playoffs, and while some playoffs may just be full round-robin with the top team advancing and PPP would work, there are times the advancing is to a semi/final where you have to decide a winner, and then the 2-2 tie just feels icky.

Switching to 5-courts at that point would work, but I'm sure the USTA doesn't want to disadvantage those teams that don't have two strong singles players when they didn't need two up until that point.

 

[TennisOTM]

In NORCAL, 40 & Over has the 4 line format (1 Singles, 3 Doubles), but the D1 line is worth 2 points, all other 1 point. I like it as it promotes better competition on D1 (less tendency to flip lines).

This is just a simplified version of PPP. For the regular season, MS New Jersey used the 4 court format with 5-5-4-3 weights on the courts.

These formats could also be used without cumulative PPP, to just determine a match winner, as it's impossible to tie on points in an individual match. The NORCAL system would be equivalent to option D in the survey (1st doubles winner as the 2-2 tie-breaker).

In the New Jersey system, 2-2 ties would be broken by ignoring the D3 result and the winner of 2/3 of the other lines gets the match win. Actually in that case, the D3 line is useless in an elimination playoff - you'd always have to win at least 2/3 of the others to advance and D3 would not even have to play, so that would not be a good choice.

 

[Creighton]

In the New Jersey system, 2-2 ties would be broken by ignoring the D3 result and the winner of 2/3 of the other lines gets the match win. Actually in that case, the D3 line is useless in an elimination playoff - you'd always have to win at least 2/3 of the others to advance and D3 would not even have to play, so that would not be a good choice.

In Middle States there is no match winner. It's just the accumulation of points over the course of the season.