40 Over Men Format Next Year

[KaiserW]

My Captain is saying next year will be 1 singles and 4 doubles. It doesn't seem 100% confirmed, anyone else hear this?
We went 2-2 in Sectional Final to advance to Nationals but lost 2 more sets. Very frustrating to lose that way, looking forward to this new format.

I personally voted on survey to go back the 2 singles and 3 doubles format. Preferred that as my team has good depth at singles.

 

[schmke]

Yeah, I wrote a few months ago on my blog about the planned change for 2024. Individual sections/districts can still use alternate formats if they want.

 

[LOBALOT]

I still don't get the thought USTA has that old people can't or don't want to play singles.

They also need to address the 55+ format as 3 courts of dubs doesn't cut it.

 

[KaiserW]

ok thanks

One of our best singles guy is 57, in great shape.

 

[schmke]

I still don't get the thought USTA has that old people can't or don't want to play singles.

They also need to address the 55+ format as 3 courts of dubs doesn't cut it.

Some teams, perhaps more women's teams than men's teams, do have some challenges fielding two singles courts for every match. That is perhaps because the strong singles players all try to get on the contending teams, but I'm sure the USTA heard complaints from some captains that they couldn't field teams. This doesn't excuse the flat out bad math the USTA employed when evaluating the survey data that led to switching to the 4-court format (I've written about it).

I also heard that some facilities complained that league play was taking up too many courts and that was a factor. But if that was the case, why would the switch be back to a 5-court format?

But even if some areas lack singles players, or women's teams lack singles players, the format for Nationals could remain 2 singles / 3 doubles, and individual sections/districts/areas can run their local leagues using the format that works best for them. If women's flights need to be 4 courts or even 3 courts, that can be done. National doesn't have to change the format used for Nationals to allow that to happen.

 

[Purestriker]

My Captain is saying next year will be 1 singles and 4 doubles. It doesn't seem 100% confirmed, anyone else hear this?
We went 2-2 in Sectional Final to advance to Nationals but lost 2 more sets. Very frustrating to lose that way, looking forward to this new format.

I personally voted on survey to go back the 2 singles and 3 doubles format. Preferred that as my team has good depth at singles.

1 and 4 doubles is way better than 1 and 3.

 

[Purestriker]

I still don't get the thought USTA has that old people can't or don't want to play singles.

They also need to address the 55+ format as 3 courts of dubs doesn't cut it.

Those people can play 18 plus and get all the singles they want.

 

[atatu]

I think my local league is sticking with the 1/3 format which is ridiculous.

 

[KaiserW]

1 and 4 doubles is way better than 1 and 3.

Yes agree, can't stand a match being decided because of sets lost.

 

[badmice2]

Yes agree, can't stand a match being decided because of sets lost.

I was fine with 1/3 had they stick to using sets/games as deciding factors. For Norcal where I find it inconsistent is in local play D1 is worth 2 points; yet at sectional everything is even and tie breaking comes down to h2h. I will say that most captains build teams around player strength but have to account for 2 unique format is lame.

 

[ATX Tennis]

I think my local league is sticking with the 1/3 format which is ridiculous.

Austin will be 1/4

 

[KaiserW]

I was fine with 1/3 had they stick to using sets/games as deciding factors. For Norcal where I find it inconsistent is in local play D1 is worth 2 points; yet at sectional everything is even and tie breaking comes down to h2h. I will say that most captains build teams around player strength but have to account for 2 unique format is lame.

Wow that is a strange format.

 

[badmice2]

Wow that is a strange format.

As a sandbagging 4.0 I get placed at D1 often to lock in that 2 points . There goes my rating I guess

 

[LOBALOT]

Those people can play 18 plus and get all the singles they want.

They do. It still doesn't explain the decisions that USTA has made in this area. While I have never been a singles player I know quite a few guys at 60 that are pretty good singles players. Age shouldn't be a factor in their decision on a format.

 

[KaiserW]

They do. It still doesn't explain the decisions that USTA has made in this area. While I have never been a singles player I know quite a few guys at 60 that are pretty good singles players. Age shouldn't be a factor in their decision on a format.

From what I have heard the reason is because the woman didn’t want 2 singles. But I don’t get why men can’t have different format.

To me 2/3 is much better as it will prove what teams have best balanced team. The 1/4 puts too much weight on doubles.

 

[LOBALOT]

From what I have heard the reason is because the woman didn’t want 2 singles. But I don’t get why men can’t have different format.

To me 2/3 is much better as it will prove what teams have best balanced team. The 1/4 puts too much weight on doubles.

Exactly! All this about old guys not wanting to play dubs or should just play 18s is crazy talk.

 

[TennisOTM]

Main problem with the 1/4 format here is needing 9 players per match. We do 40+ season in the summer, and vacations make it tough to avoid defaults. Some of the regular captains are going to struggle with roster size if we switch to 1/4 locally. The 2/3 format is better for so many reasons, and one of them is only needing 8 players instead of 9.

 

[cks]

The 2/3 format is better for so many reasons, and one of them is only needing 8 players instead of 9.

Agreed. But 1/4 is still better than 1/3. I hated when we would split matches at 2/2, then have to figure out a complicated tie break procedure.

 

[bobbybob14]

At least they switched it so you can't tie in matches. I think there is probably arguments on both sides for 2/3 vs 1/4 but they did something about 1/3 which is a good thing.

 

[LOBALOT]

I will keep pushing on 55+ for an additional court even if it is a 4 dubs (tie break) format. Anything with more courts is better than the current 3 dubs court format.

This is my first time captaining/playing in this format and as we played in our flight and have marched through the playoffs so far every team including mine has had ineligible players because they have not played 2 matches. There is just no place to hide a weaker player with the tight matches (2-1, 1-2) with most courts ending in match tie breakers.

So we have players interested in signing up/playing but not playing.

 

[atatu]

I will keep pushing on 55+ for an additional court even if it is a 4 dubs (tie break) format. Anything with more courts is better than the current 3 dubs court format.

This is my first time captaining/playing in this format and as we played in our flight and have marched through the playoffs so far every team including mine has had ineligible players because they have not played 2 matches. There is just no place to hide a weaker player with the tight matches (2-1, 1-2) with most courts ending in match tie breakers.

So we have players interested in signing up/playing but not playing.

Please no, the four court format is the absolute worst. If you need to qualify more players then talk to your league coordinator and schedule more matches, work your weaker players in after you've clinched. We only had 2 teams in our 55+ 9.0 league but we scheduled 6 matches.

 

[LOBALOT]

We had 4 in our flight. I still would take the goofy tie break in order to include more players. I have spoken to our league coordinator. It is not just us. We are now headed to states and I am seeing the same when reviewing the teams we play. Ineligible players. You just don't see that at 18+ and 40+.

 

[atatu]

We had 4 in our flight. I still would take the goofy tie break in order to include more players. I have spoken to our league coordinator. It is not just us. We are now headed to states and I am seeing the same when reviewing the teams we play. Ineligible players. You just don't see that at 18+ and 40+.

Just out of curiousity, how many players are on your roster ?

 

[schmke]

We had 4 in our flight. I still would take the goofy tie break in order to include more players. I have spoken to our league coordinator. It is not just us. We are now headed to states and I am seeing the same when reviewing the teams we play. Ineligible players. You just don't see that at 18+ and 40+.

You only had 4 matches in your season? That is the issue, not the number of courts.

 

[LOBALOT]

Sure that is a good question, probably a tad too many but as I said it was my first time captaining at this level.

We have 13 with 2 ineligible players including me. We had 1 match during the middle of summer/vacation time where we almost had to void a court so we were fortunate we had the players.

The team we played in districts had 15 with 4 ineligible players. The first team we play in states has 11 with 1 ineligible player.

In our flight the other teams had 12 (1 Ineligible), 18 (Bring on Free Agent/Sandbaggers toss weaker players team) (6 Ineligible), 15 (2 Ineligible)

 

[LOBALOT]

You only had 4 matches in your season? That is the issue, not the number of courts.

No no no... 4 in the flight. We played 9 matches (each team 3 times) and finished our flight with a 6-3 record so I did my best to distribute play and still win our flight.

 

[Fighting phoenix]

I hate the 1/4 format - as a 51 yr old primarily singles player, I find it to be age discriminatory. I just started playing a lot the last two years, and was hoping to start really ramping up to kick butt at 55+, only to see that 55+ doesn't have singles (I guess we're too old to play singles), and now they're taking it away even further for 40+. Doubles is great, but as someone who loves singles, and based on TV ratings the world does too, this stuff makes me really disappointed.

 

[schmke]

No no no... 4 in the flight. We played 9 matches (each team 3 times) and finished our flight with a 6-3 record so I did my best to distribute play and still win our flight.

Sure that is a good question, probably a tad too many but as I said it was my first time captaining at this level.

We have 13 with 2 ineligible players including me. We had 1 match during the middle of summer/vacation time where we almost had to void a court so we were fortunate we had the players.

The team we played in districts had 15 with 4 ineligible players. The first team we play in states has 11 with 1 ineligible player.

In our flight the other teams had 12 (1 Ineligible), 18 (Bring on Free Agent/Sandbaggers toss weaker players team) (6 Ineligible), 15 (2 Ineligible)

With 9 matches and six spots per match, you have 54 playing spots. With a roster of 13 that is 4+ matches per player on average. That seems sufficient to me to get everyone at least two matches. If you aren't able to do that your, player's unavailability is high in which case the player(s) can't expect to get a lot of matches, or it all aligns with the same matches, or you are just making decisions to not play some players when they are available in an effort to play your better players to win.

On the last point, this is just captaining and what you take on when you have someone on the team. And the other teams you are playing likely have the same challenges so it should all be equitable. You have to decide if you are putting the priority on getting everyone at least two matches, or playing your best available to try to win. Those two goals don't always mesh.

 

[ttwarrior1]

80th post about it, its so we don't have 2 to 2 ties and goes down to stupid tiebreakers

 

[LOBALOT]

With 9 matches and six spots per match, you have 54 playing spots. With a roster of 13 that is 4+ matches per player on average. That seems sufficient to me to get everyone at least two matches. If you aren't able to do that your, player's unavailability is high in which case the player(s) can't expect to get a lot of matches, or it all aligns with the same matches, or you are just making decisions to not play some players when they are available in an effort to play your better players to win.

On the last point, this is just captaining and what you take on when you have someone on the team. And the other teams you are playing likely have the same challenges so it should all be equitable. You have to decide if you are putting the priority on getting everyone at least two matches, or playing your best available to try to win. Those two goals don't always mesh.

My point is I wasn't the only one that had the problem. You don't see that in 18+, 40+ so obviously there is an issue and it is not an arithmetic question.

One can ignore the problem but it is there.

 

[schmke]

My point is I wasn't the only one that had the problem. You don't see that in 18+, 40+ so obviously there is an issue and it is not an arithmetic question.

One can ignore the problem but it is there.

Well, did you have guys that weren't available for more than one match? Or they were available and you chose not to play them?

If the guys that didn't get two matches are weaker players and you chose not to play them because you can't hide them, why is that a problem with the format? You can win a match 2-1 so can afford to lose a court. And other teams are in the same boat as you, so captains that choose to not play weaker players for fear of losing a court are just making a decision to not play them.

And I think you said you were one of your ineligible, I'm curious why you didn't play yourself in a second match? Were you really only available for one? I'm guessing you had some players with 6-8 matches played so certainly you could have gotten yourself and your other ineligible in there for another match if that was a priority without significantly diminishing the playing opportunity for your better players.

 

[LOBALOT]

Well, did you have guys that weren't available for more than one match? Or they were available and you chose not to play them?

If the guys that didn't get two matches are weaker players and you chose not to play them because you can't hide them, why is that a problem with the format? You can win a match 2-1 so can afford to lose a court. And other teams are in the same boat as you, so captains that choose to not play weaker players for fear of losing a court are just making a decision to not play them.

And I think you said you were one of your ineligible, I'm curious why you didn't play yourself in a second match? Were you really only available for one? I'm guessing you had some players with 6-8 matches played so certainly you could have gotten yourself and your other ineligible in there for another match if that was a priority without significantly diminishing the playing opportunity for your better players.

I am pretty sure you know who I am from previous posts and I do value your opinion.

So I guess the question is ... Is the USTA attempting to grow the sport?

If so then we should be attempting to have marginal players be on our teams, have them play, and have them feel they are part of the overall success and contribution.

If not then I suppose one can call it hiding and then I am in the wrong and the USTA with their league is really more about competition and one should only have players on the team that are on the top fringe of their level.

As a captain I didn't play because:

A. I tend to let others have a spot in the lineup before me.
B. If I could play another player that needed to qualify before me I did that.

My point is I don't need to do that in the other age divisions and I think the other teams I shared information about are having the same issues with 55+.

 

[schmke]

Yeah, I took a look at your team and who played how many.

And I do see your point, I am just of the opinion that if I have someone join a team I captain, I'm going to find a way to get them two matches if they are reasonably available. It is fine if a team takes the the other approach of focusing on winning instead, even if that means not everyone gets qualified for playoffs, that is just a decision the team/captain make. Neither choice is good/bad or write/wrong, just a choice that is made.

I guess I'd ask you, if you felt getting marginal players a second match was a challenge since you couldn't "hide" them without risking a team loss, would you plan to play them in playoffs if you had 4 or 5 courts and could "hide" them there? Or since you are trying to win they might not get in matches in playoffs since it is riskier there as you are playing tougher teams?

If your point is that the USTA makes it hard to compete to win and have a roster that has weaker players on it, I'll admit that is true. Even if you were able to "hide" the players in the regular season and get them qualified though, at some point to keep winning against stronger opponents you can't keep hiding weaker players and have to stop playing them lest you risk a loss. Is that something you would do? Or would you still aim to get all the players in matches and you just need more courts to do so while diminishing the risk of a loss?

Also, even 18+ and 40+ teams often end up with ineligible players. Those teams just sometimes have larger rosters because they need more players for the 4 or 5 courts, but not everyone gets in enough matches to qualify.

 

[LOBALOT]

Yeah, I took a look at your team and who played how many.

And I do see your point, I am just of the opinion that if I have someone join a team I captain, I'm going to find a way to get them two matches if they are reasonably available. It is fine if a team takes the the other approach of focusing on winning instead, even if that means not everyone gets qualified for playoffs, that is just a decision the team/captain make. Neither choice is good/bad or write/wrong, just a choice that is made.

I guess I'd ask you, if you felt getting marginal players a second match was a challenge since you couldn't "hide" them without risking a team loss, would you plan to play them in playoffs if you had 4 or 5 courts and could "hide" them there? Or since you are trying to win they might not get in matches in playoffs since it is riskier there as you are playing tougher teams?

If your point is that the USTA makes it hard to compete to win and have a roster that has weaker players on it, I'll admit that is true. Even if you were able to "hide" the players in the regular season and get them qualified though, at some point to keep winning against stronger opponents you can't keep hiding weaker players and have to stop playing them lest you risk a loss. Is that something you would do? Or would you still aim to get all the players in matches and you just need more courts to do so while diminishing the risk of a loss?

Thank you. Again, I really do appreciate your help.

I tend not to play them in playoffs until sectionals when I think team depth becomes more a factor with so many back to back to back to back matches. It is like the fine line during the season where you want to be lean but want to have enough players to cover the lineup for when you canvass for availability before your next match and find out that 3/4 of your team is on vacation.

I have already come to the realization that in 55+ the team is going to have to be leaner and so again with that I am not "including" more guys in this sport that I am so fond of and want to help grow. I have even asked my team if they want to jettison me next year and have them go it on their own but for some reason they find my administrative skills helpful. I am hoping they find my tennis skills helpful.

They have mentioned I am going to have to have some hard discussions with some longtime tennis friends prior to next season and I am not looking forward to them. That is not what we should be doing just because a player is on the lower range of their NTRP.

My point is in 18+ and 40+ I can keep them engaged. That is my point. I guess us old guys at 55+ need to toss them aside.

 

[schmke]

My point is in 18+ and 40+ I can keep them engaged. That is my point. I guess us old guys at 55+ need to toss them aside.

I'd like to think that at 55+, there are naturally more players lower in the level and so a team can still be competitive while still playing them enough as the other teams have a similar make-up. But yes, at some point you will run into a team that has stronger players from 7-12 and they will likely be the team to advance anyway. That is just the nature of level based play.

 

[LOBALOT]

I'd like to think that at 55+, there are naturally more players lower in the level and so a team can still be competitive while still playing them enough as the other teams have a similar make-up. But yes, at some point you will run into a team that has stronger players from 7-12 and they will likely be the team to advance anyway. That is just the nature of level based play.

I am not seeing that. there are some crafty dudes out there.

Do they move or crush the ball like they did? No.

Do they put the ball in the absolute worst spot you want it and generate an easy winner on the next shot? 100%

Don't sell us old guys out so quickly

Thank you again for all your help and this is just a difference of opinion so thank you for the great exchange of thoughts.

 

[schmke]

Don't sell us old guys out so quickly

Well, I'm one of you now too, so we'll agree on that point!

 

[LOBALOT]

Well, I'm one of you now too, so we'll agree on that point!

That is so funny! I am really having a blast. Not sure if you checked me out on FB but I have a great group of pals and we really are all about tennis.

I am really disappointed we didn't pull it off in 40+ because we would have been really good. I am not sure if it was my poor captaining skills or just we didn't execute that day.

The team that beat us is going to be very tough this year.

 

[TennisOTM]

Why not switch to 3S/2D for 40+ and 4S/1D for 55+? Whip our nation's aging population into shape with singles tennis!!

*post sponsored by the national society of orthopedic surgeons

 

[LOBALOT]

Why not switch to 3S/2D for 40+ and 4S/1D for 55+? Whip our nation's aging population into shape with singles tennis!!

*post sponsored by the national society of orthopedic surgeons

That is funny.... Man I am so banged up from all the summer tennis!!!!