Any USTA rules changes you'd like to see?

[Shaggy]

Ok, I know that this is going to seem like grousing, which it probably is, but I'm also actually curious.

One thing that drives me nuts is when I'm playing doubles and someone on the other team yells "OUT!" when the ball is still in the air. I know this is completely legal, but it often creates some amount of confusion: "Was that a line call?" "Were they just telling their partner to let it bounce?" "Hmmm. They yelled 'out,' but then the ball bounced close to the line and their partner didn't make a call, so... do I assume it's in?" Or, "They yelled 'out,' but then their partner hit a lazy sitter back over the net. I feel like I should assume the point is still going on, but I have this nagging feeling if I hit a winner, they're gonna say the 'out' was a line call even though no actual line call was made."

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with them yelling any other word or words. Just 'out.'

So my wish for a USTA rule change would be that when the ball is in play, the word "out" should be reserved ONLY for line calls. It wouldn't be that hard of a rule to follow, would eliminate confusion, and (hopefully) would be one less thing to bicker about.

I know it ain't gonna happen, but it's what I wish.

How about you? Any rules you encounter fairly often that you'd like to see changed or at the very least clarified?

 

[jonnyjack]

I'm pretty sure yelling "out" is making a call so it's not legal to do so before the ball bounces.

 

[JonC]

Return to emphasizing tournaments instead of leagues.

 

[g4driver]

I'm pretty sure yelling "out" is making a call so it's not legal to do so before the ball bounces.

Nope- you are incorrect.

 

[TobyTopspin]

I would go back to the days of no self rating. Those were the days when a pro had to rate new players and give them ratings.

Sure there were players that would try hard to be bad, but it wasn't hard to tell which ones were doing it.

 

[g4driver]

The problem with the self rating system or visual verifiers is that there is no good method to deal with less than honest verifiers, players and Captains.

USTA doesn't see it as a problem and chooses to ignore the Captains and players who are less than honest.

Enjoy tennis for the good and forget the bad - those 1% knuckleheads no longer bother me. It really isn't worth wasting any effort dealing with them.

 

[BMRSNR27]

I'd have standard rules for leagues across the country. The fact that sections have their own autonomy on who advances, who's eligible, etc., for the national competition makes it an uneven playing field. Standardize it.

 

[cknobman]

My #1 requested change:

Go back to full 3rd sets in leagues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[anubis]

My #1 requested change:

Go back to full 3rd sets in leagues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I second this! I hate playing 10 point tie breaks.

 

[Gemini]

I would go back to the days of no self rating. Those were the days when a pro had to rate new players and give them ratings.

Sure there were players that would try hard to be bad, but it wasn't hard to tell which ones were doing it.

It would be great if they brought this back. The self-ratings system is all very sketchy.

 

[jonnyjack]

Nope- you are incorrect.

Thanks, I stand corrected. I just looked it up and couldn't find it as a rule either. I always say bounce.

 

[dlk]

I second this! I hate playing 10 point tie breaks.

I could go for a full third set.

 

[NoSkillzAndy]

I would like to see more of a human presence in monitoring and regulating the computer rating system, which does seem to work well for the most part. It's the rare outliers, self-rating abuse, sand-bagging, and so on, where the system needs to have a safety net of actual people who have the authority to make a call on incorrect ratings or suspect activities. From what I have been told, the section league coordinators have their hands tied as far as making adjustments or rulings because the national level wants things to be consistent nation-wide. I think that is a weak excuse that lets the USTA off the hooks and they get to avoid dealing with some potentially tough cases. While I agree that it's a small percentage of the overall whole, I believe it's somewhat negligent to just say that ratings problems with the system will work themselves out over time...

Also, I'm definitely in favor of going back to full 3rd sets. Probably the best way to make that happen would be for a grassroots movement to start up, with players across the country petitioning the local leagues to change their own city's format to play out the 3rd. If enough cities start playing their regular season that way, it'll send a strong message to national USTA. However, there's going to be some resistance to this, as there are some definite benefits to running a 10 pt tie-break system in the playoffs. Match times become more consistent so it's easier to coordinate court time, which is important when dealing with entire teams, and from my experience the common league player is not usually in shape to play multiple matches in one day so a shortened format allows more people to be able to hack it at the playoff level and more participation is always good for USTA's bottom line.

 

[Gemini]

The problem with the self rating system or visual verifiers is that there is no good method to deal with less than honest verifiers, players and Captains.

USTA doesn't see it as a problem and chooses to ignore the Captains and players who are less than honest.

Enjoy tennis for the good and forget the bad - those 1% knuckleheads no longer bother me. It really isn't worth wasting any effort dealing with them.

The thing about having visual verifiers (certified pros, etc.) is that in the big scheme of things, it's much more objective than self-rating. As far as I know, the people doing the verification shouldn't have any hidden agendas. What would they gain by rating a complete stranger a 3.5 when he/she actually has 4.5 skills?

 

[schmke]

The thing about having visual verifiers (certified pros, etc.) is that in the big scheme of things, it's much more objective than self-rating. As far as I know, the people doing the verification shouldn't have any hidden agendas. What would they gain by rating a complete stranger a 3.5 when he/she actually has 4.5 skills?

The challenge is two fold.

First, having to get rated by a pro to join a league puts a barrier to entry in place and some players not join if they have to jump through that hoop.

Second, compounding the first is that requiring a certified pro to do the rating doesn't scale well, or to get enough raters and expand the pool, you have to use pros that may have a bias or agenda in order to scale.

 

[Gemini]

The challenge is two fold.

First, having to get rated by a pro to join a league puts a barrier to entry in place and some players not join if they have to jump through that hoop.

Second, compounding the first is that requiring a certified pro to do the rating doesn't scale well, or to get enough raters and expand the pool, you have to use pros that may have a bias or agenda in order to scale.

Self-rating doesn't scale well either. There have been plenty of discussions about "4.5 Florida doesn't translate to 4.5 North Dakota" as a general example. At least with an outside verifier, there's a greater chance of objectivity.

 

[tenniscasey]

Self-rated players should be barred from any USTA-sponsored playoff systems. Make everyone play for a year and generate a computer rating before letting them into postseason stuff.

Yes, you can still game that system, but doing so would require a significant time investment that would discourage some sandbagging.

 

[g4driver]

The thing about having visual verifiers (certified pros, etc.) is that in the big scheme of things, it's much more objective than self-rating. As far as I know, the people doing the verification shouldn't have any hidden agendas. What would they gain by rating a complete stranger a 3.5 when he/she actually has 4.5 skills?

If you don't think visual verifiers have any hidden agendas, you are naive.

I wonder have many 4.5 guys would be 3.5 guys in Greenwood, SC? I am guessing every single one. I can't remember if it was Greenwood or Hilton Head that had two 3.5S double bumped to 4.5 last year, but I do remember both guys being doubled bumped. Maybe it was Greenwood with six 3.5S rated guys all be bumped to 4.0, and HH with the two double bumps. It gets a little murky.

Greenwood SC seems to have had more complaints than any place I have ever seen. I've played USTA in CA, GA, TX and SC.

The main problem is system is designed for honest people. There are few is any safeguards for dishonest players, Captains and yes verifiers. Most people follow the rules, and a few don't, including visual verifiers. I really don't care any more. The USTA doesn't care, and when you find peace in that truth, tennis is much more fun IMO. There are a lot of things the USTA could do, but they really don't care.

1) National Standards
2) No more ESR and fall leagues that are used to tank
3) Add anti-tanking code in the algorithm
4) Ban self-rated players from post season

Those four things would be a great start, but I am not holding my breath for any of them.

Tennis is still fun for me. When it stops being fun, I will move on. Until then I just enjoy the time with friends.

As for as three sets go, I play non-USTA singles ladder matches. Best of three sets. In my area, the men's league follow the women who are SUPPOSE to start at 6pm. The men weren't getting on the courts until after 9 pm, so the men asked for the 10 pt TB, because of the 3.0 and 3.5 women who take 5 mins on every change over and don't actually step on the courts until 625 pm. The slow playing and women who start matches late are now on notice from our league that Captain following them can file grievances against them for not starting on time. It's going to get interested to see a few grievances filed next spring.

Our team had a match start at 730 a few months back. They guys were off the court at 853 pm and the 7.5 Women's match that "started" at 6pm wasn't over until 912 pm. hmmm, so 3+ hours for two sets and a 10 pt TB. Guys in my area hate following slow playing women. That's not sexist. It is factual. Husbands and boyfriends telling their wives to get going. lol It's worse than being on a golf course, without a marshaller, behind a slow playing 5some that doesn't get it. :shock:

But the red and white picnic cloth between the second and third set on the court with Domino's pizza takes the grand prize. :evil: The local guy at Maybank Tennis Center who assigns courts actually walked onto the court and told them to getting playing or forfeit the courts. One lady scoffed "But this is a social match." To which the guy replied, "No ma'am, these are USTA matches governed by rules. Start playing or vacate the courts." And yes, we clapped loudly.

 

[g4driver]

Self-rating doesn't scale well either. There have been plenty of discussions about "4.5 Florida doesn't translate to 4.5 North Dakota" as a general example. At least with an outside verifier, there's a greater chance of objectivity.

I was visually verified back in the day. I could have played like a 3.0 and been rated as such, but instead was verified as a 4.0, while my buddy played lights out and got the 4.5 tag.

Do you understand just how that system worked? You sign up and hit with a registered verifier, who then rated you. Surely nobody would play poorly and get underrated?

Again, you forget the system is designed for honesty.

 

[Gemini]

If you don't think visual verifiers have any hidden agendas, you are naive.

I wonder have many 4.5 guys would be 3.5 guys in Greenwood, SC? I am guessing every single one. I can't remember if it was Greenwood or Hilton Head that had two 3.5S double bumped to 4.5 last year, but I do remember both guys being doubled bumped. Maybe it was Greenwood with six 3.5S rated guys all be bumped to 4.0, and HH with the two double bumps. It gets a little murky.

Greenwood SC seems to have had more complaints than any place I have ever seen. I've played USTA in CA, GA, TX and SC.

The main problem is system is designed for honest people. There are few is any safeguards for dishonest players, Captains and yes verifiers. Most people follow the rules, and a few don't, including visual verifiers. I really don't care any more. The USTA doesn't care, and when you find peace in that truth, tennis is much more fun IMO. There are a lot of things the USTA could do, but they really don't care.

1) National Standards
2) No more ESR and fall leagues that are used to tank
3) Add anti-tanking code in the algorithm
4) Ban self-rated players from post season

Those four things would be a great start, but I am not holding my breath for any of them.

Tennis is still fun for me. When it stops being fun, I will move on. Until then I just enjoy the time with friends.

As for as three sets go, I play non-USTA singles ladder matches. Best of three sets. In my area, the men's league follow the women who are SUPPOSE to start at 6pm. The men weren't getting on the courts until after 9 pm, so the men asked for the 10 pt TB, because of the 3.0 and 3.5 women who take 5 mins on every change over and don't actually step on the courts until 625 pm. The slow playing and women who start matches late are now on notice from our league that Captain following them can file grievances against them for not starting on time. It's going to get interested to see a few grievances filed next spring.

Our team had a match start at 730 a few months back. They guys were off the court at 853 pm and the 7.5 Women's match that "started" at 6pm wasn't over until 912 pm. hmmm, so 3+ hours for two sets and a 10 pt TB. Guys in my area hate following slow playing women. That's not sexist. It is factual. Husbands and boyfriends telling their wives to get going. lol It's worse than being on a golf course, without a marshaller, behind a slow playing 5some that doesn't get it. :shock:

But the red and white picnic cloth between the second and third set on the court with Domino's pizza takes the grand prize. :evil: The local guy at Maybank Tennis Center who assigns courts actually walked onto the court and told them to getting playing or forfeit the courts. One lady scoffed "But this is a social match." To which the guy replied, "No ma'am, these are USTA matches governed by rules. Start playing or vacate the courts." And yes, we clapped loudly.

Can you narrow this rant down and tell me exactly how this relates to a pro at ratings clinic getting a group people together and saying...person 1 is a 3.0, person 2 is 3.5, etc. based on watching them play? The pro has now assigned the ratings and there is no longer this label of sandbagging placed upon the player himself because an outside agent/agency has placed him at a given level.

 

[heninfan99]

for USTA teams the captain should be able to make two substitutions during match.

 

[Gemini]

I was visually verified back in the day. I could have played like a 3.0 and been rated as such, but instead was verified as a 4.0, while my buddy played lights out and got the 4.5 tag.

Do you understand just how that system worked? You sign up and hit with a registered verifier, who then rated you. Surely nobody would play poorly and get underrated?

Again, you forget the system is designed for honesty.

Ok..you must have been typing this one at the same time I was typing my previous message.

Once again, if you try to game the system, so be it. But you still have to play at whatever level you're placed at pro-verified or self-rated. If you leave the rating to an outside party, the liability lies with verifying party regardless of whether the player sandbagged or not. That doesn't mean that pro-verified players shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as self-rated guys. Everyone falls under the same umbrella in this case. You're never going to stop folks from gaming the system.

Removing self-rating simply takes away a variable. It also increases the chance that you're attempt to play like 3.0 will be caught and you'll still get rated closer to where you should be.

 

[g4driver]

Can you narrow this rant down and tell me exactly how this relates to a pro at ratings clinic getting a group people together and saying...person 1 is a 3.0, person 2 is 3.5, etc. based on watching them play? The pro has now assigned the ratings and there is no longer this label of sandbagging placed upon the player himself because an outside agent/agency has placed him at a given level.

How about you ask nicely before judging people who have years more background with the subject matter than you?

Just because you don't understand a system that existed before the self-rating process began doesn't mean it wasn't exploited.

The old system was exploited just like the current system. Do you think they blackballed the verifiers who "missed" a rating? People were still bumped up and down. Verifiers still had rating clinics.

The fixes I proposed were in my "rant". Those are the keys IMO. And there are lot of people I have finally convinced that the lack of a National Standard is the starting point.

I really don't care if the USTA fixes them or not. I really don't. Life is too short to fight windmills. I have played tennis for over 30 years and am comfortable with my knowledge of the game and how to deal with those who need to define their self-worth on a tennis court by underrating their ability so they can win because of their cowardice decision to choose to play people beneath them.

Gemini, how about I be nice to you and you be nice to me? Much better that way IMO.

 

[BMRSNR27]

Once again, make the rules and regulations the same nationwide and you remove a LOT of the issues. There will always be cheaters. You're not going to get rid of that. You make it harder and more obvious with standards, though.

 

[Gemini]

How about you ask nicely before judging people who have years more background with the subject matter than you?

Just because you don't understand a system that existed before the self-rating process began doesn't mean it wasn't exploited.

The old system was exploited just like the current system. Do you think they blackballed the verifiers who "missed" a rating? People were still bumped up and down. Verifiers still had rating clinics.

The fixes I proposed were in my "rant". Those are the keys IMO. And there are lot of people I have finally convinced that the lack of a National Standard is the starting point.

I really don't care if the USTA fixes them or not. I really don't. Life is too short to fight windmills. I have played tennis for over 30 years and am comfortable with my knowledge of the game and how to deal with those who need to define their self-worth on a tennis court by underrating their ability so they can win because of their cowardice decision to choose to play people beneath them.

Gemini, how about I be nice to you and you be nice to me? Much better that way IMO.

You're making assumptions about my age and experience and once again...you're ranting. I've played tennis for 30+ years as well, but that's neither here nor there.

It's obvious you're passionate about this issue. I get it. But I'll say it once again, allowing people to self-rate only introduces another variable into the mix. As it was mentioned, maybe being officially verified creates an obstacle to accessing more players but it can also temper those that would game the system. I hear more complaints now about players "not being at the correct level" than I did in the early-mid 90s. No person is perfect and a verifier is bound to get it wrong for some folks, but at least it takes the burden off of the player that holds that rating.

 

[g4driver]

Goodnight all

 

[kylebarendrick]

The issue with some of the verifiers was that some of them would systematically rate players too low. Why you ask? If the verifier happened to be a club pro they could point out their awesome USTA teams to potential customers as reasons why they should join the club or take lessons.

Why were their USTA teams awesome? Because they had rated 4.0 players at 3.0.

I agree with the theory that you can't really design a system to defend against someone that is willing to flat out cheat. The fault in those cases is with the cheater rather than the system. Reducing the motivation to cheat (like no playoffs for self rated players) may help.

 

[Bionic slice]

I think some instant DQ for blatant cheaters but also ban the player for a year and captain as they know this guy or gal is clearly over the level.
i think if a player is clearly beating ops 0,1, or 1,2, even 2,2 they should be pulled up unless that op was a level down competition.

I think most players want to improve or would hope to see some improvement but its really sad when you a 3.0 team win nationals and not get DQed...especially when they have a 3.0 player during nationals only lost 11 games total in 10 sets. DQ them...yet this player also on a 4.0 in the same calendar year and is undefeated. I would be harsh and strip the whole team. I understand its the best of the best but at 3.0 come on USTA...6-0 6-0, 6-0 6-0, 6-3 6-2, 6-3 6-3 6-0 6-0....i would ban the whole team for a year and maybe ban the captain for 2 years from being captain and playing. This would clean this up a bit.

 

[directionals]

How about no automatic appeal or medical appeal? Just play and if you're overrated, you'll come back down. Meanwhile, you get to really challenge yourself by playing players at or above your level instead of sandbagging people.

 

[PBODY99]

Split the ratings

As a player who has played League tennis since the start, doing away with separate Singles vs doubles rating was an error that needs to be fixed.
In my area, when 18 + self raters get bumped up only playing guys who never play singles, except in a few league matches, I have a a problem.
My most irritating experience, 3 teams , 3 SR under 30. All play guys who are both computer rated and over 45, win each gets three strikes, before they played each other. Three captains ticked off. None of the guys had a winning record when bumped up to 4.0 that same season. Lost 2/3 of the players as they could not get the experience they wanted on a 4.0 team.
There is no reason to not track the singles vs doubles ranking, computing cost are much lower than they were 15 years ago.
Just my pet peeve, as a doubles only player.

 

[McLovin]

Aside from 10-point tiebreaker and no 'no-ad' scoring, my biggest pet peeve is that players are allowed to continue on through the championships with a team they only played regular season with. What do I mean? Well, in my area (DC-Metro), you have Northern VA, DC and Maryland. This season, a friend of mine played for two different NoVA teams, a DC team, and a Maryland team.

He went to Virginia Districts with us. We didn't advance to Sectionals, but his NoVA team did. However...

He played Sectionals with his DC team. They didn't advance either. However, his NoVA team did.

So, he gets to go to Nationals with a team he only played the regular season with. That just seems odd to me.

Imagine in the NFL, playing the regular season with 3 different teams, and all make it to the playoffs. You play 1st round w/ team #1 and lose. Play the 2nd round with another, and lose again. Yet your 3rd team makes it to the Super Bowl, and you get to go? Somethings not right w/ that.

I'd allow a player to play w/ multiple teams, but once they chose a team to play w/ in a championship round, thats it. No more. You lose, you're out.

 

[time_fly]

I agree with the theory that you can't really design a system to defend against someone that is willing to flat out cheat. The fault in those cases is with the cheater rather than the system. Reducing the motivation to cheat (like no playoffs for self rated players) may help.

If they did this, they would need to create a system to assign official ratings to new team members. It would be unfair and demotivating not to let new USTA players into playoffs for the year or so that it takes for their rating to become official.

But I agree that something needs to be done about the sandbagging. I've been on a couple teams in the space of just one year that were in contention for the playoffs, and suddenly the other contenders had a whole new roster for the last two matches with sketchy players -- in one case from a club that was 2 hours away from the team's home.

 

[time_fly]

I think most players want to improve or would hope to see some improvement but its really sad when you a 3.0 team win nationals and not get DQed

That's the problem with leveled national tournaments. Which ever team wins should automatically be DQed and punished, because clearly their players are way above average for that level, right? So maybe the prize for winning Nationals in any non-open category should be a trophy and a ban from USTA.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

a point system making #1 singles and #1 doubles worth more so people will stop stacking all the time.

just this season I won a #1 doubles match 6-0 6-0 against some 70+ guy they decided to throw to the wolves on line one singles since their regular singles player was probably going to lose to me anyway (maybe 6-3 6-3 or something to that effect) so they put him on line 2 instead.

Well it was no fun for me...and absolutely no fun for the old guy- start of the match he said " yep I am your punching bag for today"

and seemed pretty bummed - like I am sure he payed to play USTA just to become a whipping post as much as I payed to play a match against someone who can't chase down a drop shot that lands at the back of the service box.

they need to make the lines worth more so at minimum the best doubles teams and singles players get to go head to head each week and probably have a better team go to state.

say the stacking works out for that team...that singles guy is gonna go to state and get killed anyway where I might have had a better chance having gone undefeated at singles all season.

I say

#1 singles = 1.5
#2 singles=1
#1 doubles = 2
#2 dbls =1
#3 dbls = 1

 

[mikeler]

a point system making #1 singles and #1 doubles worth more so people will stop stacking all the time.

just this season I won a #1 doubles match 6-0 6-0 against some 70+ guy they decided to throw to the wolves on line one singles since their regular singles player was probably going to lose to me anyway (maybe 6-3 6-3 or something to that effect) so they put him on line 2 instead.

Well it was no fun for me...and absolutely no fun for the old guy- start of the match he said " yep I am your punching bag for today"

and seemed pretty bummed - like I am sure he payed to play USTA just to become a whipping post as much as I payed to play a match against someone who can't chase down a drop shot that lands at the back of the service box.

they need to make the lines worth more so at minimum the best doubles teams and singles players get to go head to head each week and probably have a better team go to state.

say the stacking works out for that team...that singles guy is gonna go to state and get killed anyway where I might have had a better chance having gone undefeated at singles all season.

I say

#1 singles = 1.5
#2 singles=1
#1 doubles = 2
#2 dbls =1
#3 dbls = 1

I'm in a local league now that awards points like this:

Line 1 singles = Each set won is 4 points
Line 1 doubles = Each set won is 5 points
Line 2 doubles = Each set won is 3 points
Line 3 doubles = Each set won is 3 points

 

[J_R_B]

Sight rating is subject to A LOT more bias and subjectivity than computer self-rating. Some of it is intentional manipulation like a pro at a club who also runs the USTA program wanting to get good players at each level for the clubs' team or a friend of a pro getting a loose rating or a guy intentionally playing poorly for an evaluation.

On top of that, leaving it to people to do the rating also introduces a natural bias based on human nature. One sight rater may evaluate "4.0" or "4.5" differently than the next one, even with the same instructions or training. One guy might be impressed with a big serve and ignore weak groundstrokes whereas the next might see the flaws and ignore the weapon. One guy might look at gorgeous topspin as relatively better than an underspin pusher who can crush him on the court every time whereas another may recognize that hitting 50 strokes in a row without an error is more important than the pace and spin. That's just the way human see things differently.

As long as there are people trying to manipulate the system, nothing will be perfect.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

I'm in a local league now that awards points like this:

Line 1 singles = Each set won is 4 points
Line 1 doubles = Each set won is 5 points
Line 2 doubles = Each set won is 3 points
Line 3 doubles = Each set won is 3 points

Nice! I wish! I have been on both teams that flip line ups and played against teams that flip line ups and can't stand either...

it's just captains taking a gamble...if you want to gamble play poker ...this is tennis just let us all play straight up and the competition week to week should be more reliable and probably work out better for the Dynamic ratings.

but most importantly the fun factor - 6-0 6-0 between players both with the same computer rating should not happen ( outside of someone having a really off day) but even still.

 

[schmke]

Nice! I wish! I have been on both teams that flip line ups and played against teams that flip line ups and can't stand either...

it's just captains taking a gamble...if you want to gamble play poker ...this is tennis just let us all play straight up and the competition week to week should be more reliable and probably work out better for the Dynamic ratings.

but most importantly the fun factor - 6-0 6-0 between players both with the same computer rating should not happen ( outside of someone having a really off day) but even still.

I don't know if this was the case for your match against the older gentleman, but part of the problem is not just stacking and sacrificing a court, but doing so with a player playing up. This is especially an issue in the plus leagues.

Imagine a 5.0 on 1S in a 4.5+ league playing a 4.0 playing up. It shouldn't be and likely isn't competitive or fun for either player.

Doing away with allowing playing up is probably too severe, but particularly in plus leagues where there is a rule about the plus playing having to play court 1, perhaps there should be a rule that a player playing up cannot play on a lower numbered court than teammates who are playing at level.

 

[damazing]

I'd vote for different points for the different courts as someone mentioned. It can be frustrating to pay for court time, fight rush hour traffic, only to have a non-competitive match.

Something I think would be interesting, but would have to reserve judgement based on how it would work in practice, would be to eliminate net calls on serves like they do in College tennis.

Full third sets instead of tie breakers.

A tighter limit on the number of players playing out of level - I'm not sure what the percentage allowed is for my area, but there were a few teams this year that had more players playing up on a team than people on level.

 

[J_R_B]

I'd vote for different points for the different courts as someone mentioned. It can be frustrating to pay for court time, fight rush hour traffic, only to have a non-competitive match.

Something I think would be interesting, but would have to reserve judgement based on how it would work in practice, would be to eliminate net calls on serves like they do in College tennis.

Full third sets instead of tie breakers.

A tighter limit on the number of players playing out of level - I'm not sure what the percentage allowed is for my area, but there were a few teams this year that had more players playing up on a team than people on level.

I think in MS, the rule is at least 60% at level, although there are exceptions for nationals move-up teams and teams in two-team leagues. This is a rule that is hard to enforce, however, because the registration deadline is not until well into the season so a team just might not have it's "at level" players signed up yet, but by the deadline when 2/3 of the matches are played, what are you going to do? Forfeit all of the previous matches and kick the team out? I've never seen that happen. They just play out the season.

The other thing to consider is that the NUMBER of players at level is sometimes as important as the percentage. Last year, I had a 4.0 move up team in a 4.5 league that had a bunch of 4.0s on it (I'm not sure if we met the 60% rule because we were exempt anyway), but I had a roster well over 20 and the 4.5s on the roster played in much larger proportion than the 4.0s.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

I don't know if this was the case for your match against the older gentleman, but part of the problem is not just stacking and sacrificing a court, but doing so with a player playing up. This is especially an issue in the plus leagues.

Imagine a 5.0 on 1S in a 4.5+ league playing a 4.0 playing up. It shouldn't be and likely isn't competitive or fun for either player.

Doing away with allowing playing up is probably too severe, but particularly in plus leagues where there is a rule about the plus playing having to play court 1, perhaps there should be a rule that a player playing up cannot play on a lower numbered court than teammates who are playing at level.

see they can keep playing up but if you have a point system in place captains would be fools to sacrifice anyone to a line.

which would create better matches - and more enjoyment for everyone.

 

[schmke]

see they can keep playing up but if you have a point system in place captains would be fools to sacrifice anyone to a line.

which would create better matches - and more enjoyment for everyone.

I disagree that the point system eliminates the reasons to sacrifice a line.

If you know the opposition has a singles stud and another very good singles player, and the only singles players you have available are both a notch below them, running out your players in order of strength may just result in you losing both courts. If you stack/sacrifice, you may still win one court even if it isn't court 1.

This is particularly true in a plus league if you don't have a plus player available. Why run out your best 4.5 singles player to play the oppositions 5.0 and lose, when you could play him on court 2 and be reasonably sure of the points from that court?

 

[geom]

Couple things...

1) I was one of the 5.0's on a 40+ 4.5 team. I'm wondering why they only allow 2 "+" rated players to be rostered. I understand only being able to field 2 "+" players per match, but why restrict the roster to only 2?

The way I see it, this creates the opportunity for more out of balance matches (i.e. a 5.0 vs a 4.5 in singles, or 2 5.0's vs 2 4.5's in doubles) as inevitably there are occasions where one or both of a team's 5.0 will not be able to make a match.

Also, while I love playing and am happy to play every match, it does create a sense of "obligation" for the 5.0's to play every match in order to field the strongest possible team lineup.

So I think upping the roster limit for + players to be able to add a few more would be helpful.

2) I hate no-ad scoring. I think 1-ad / no-ad is a much better option, where the score can go to deuce once, and then if it gets to deuce again the next point would be a deciding point.

 

[mikeler]

Couple things...

1) I was one of the 5.0's on a 40+ 4.5 team. I'm wondering why they only allow 2 "+" rated players to be rostered. I understand only being able to field 2 "+" players per match, but why restrict the roster to only 2?

The way I see it, this creates the opportunity for more out of balance matches (i.e. a 5.0 vs a 4.5 in singles, or 2 5.0's vs 2 4.5's in doubles) as inevitably there are occasions where one or both of a team's 5.0 will not be able to make a match.

Also, while I love playing and am happy to play every match, it does create a sense of "obligation" for the 5.0's to play every match in order to field the strongest possible team lineup.

So I think upping the roster limit for + players to be able to add a few more would be helpful.

2) I hate no-ad scoring. I think 1-ad / no-ad is a much better option, where the score can go to deuce once, and then if it gets to deuce again the next point would be a deciding point.

That is a strange rule considering that in 5.0+ leagues, you can only play one 5.5 at a time but there is no limit on how many can be on the team.

 

[schmke]

That is a strange rule considering that in 5.0+ leagues, you can only play one 5.5 at a time but there is no limit on how many can be on the team.

The difference in how many can play is because 5.0+ is usually (always?) 3 courts (1S and 2D) while 4.5+ is usually 5 courts. But that supports the idea that 4.5+ should allow 3 or perhaps even 4 5.0s to be rostered.

 

[RobFL]

We just lost out at Nationals on an illogical USTA tiebreaker rule.
We tied for 1st place in our pool, both teams with 2-1 records. We beat the other 1st place team in our head-to-head match. They advanced to the semis because they won one more individual match than we did. The other team won their semi, lost in the final.

Why would the USTA not use the head to head result as the tiebreaker in pool play?

The 2 bottom teams in pool play don't always play hard once they lose early in pool play.

 

[mikeler]

The difference in how many can play is because 5.0+ is usually (always?) 3 courts (1S and 2D) while 4.5+ is usually 5 courts. But that supports the idea that 4.5+ should allow 3 or perhaps even 4 5.0s to be rostered.

The goal of the 4.5+ league is to give 5.0 more playing opportunities so the rules doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[mikeler]

We just lost out at Nationals on an illogical USTA tiebreaker rule.
We tied for 1st place in our pool, both teams with 2-1 records. We beat the other 1st place team in our head-to-head match. They advanced to the semis because they won one more individual match than we did. The other team won their semi, lost in the final.

Why would the USTA not use the head to head result as the tiebreaker in pool play?

The 2 bottom teams in pool play don't always play hard once they lose early in pool play.

I never liked that rule.

 

[themachinestl]

We just lost out at Nationals on an illogical USTA tiebreaker rule.
We tied for 1st place in our pool, both teams with 2-1 records. We beat the other 1st place team in our head-to-head match. They advanced to the semis because they won one more individual match than we did. The other team won their semi, lost in the final.

Why would the USTA not use the head to head result as the tiebreaker in pool play?

The 2 bottom teams in pool play don't always play hard once they lose early in pool play.

The rule book for the national championships indicates that the first tiebreak is individual matches. (I think the rule book should be clarified to indicate "courts", not "matches"---although it would not be a tiebreak if "matches" was intended to mean team matches as opposed to individual matches.)

I think the reason courts is the first tiebreak is that a situation could arise whereby three teams go 2-1 and one goes 0-3. That would mean that there would be a "circle" in head-to-head.

It is my understanding that the second tiebreak, head-to-head, goes away if more than two teams are tied at the end of pool play due to the "circle" that would certainly exist in the four team pools (but possibly not the five team pool.)

I understand the frustration of defeating the team that ultimately advanced to the semi-finals. But your comment regarding teams that lose early not playing hard, would apply to your team and the other team as well, given that in the second round both your team and the other faced a team which lost in the first round.

 

[jmc3367]

Self-rated players should be barred from any USTA-sponsored playoff systems. Make everyone play for a year and generate a computer rating before letting them into postseason stuff.

Yes, you can still game that system, but doing so would require a significant time investment that would discourage some sandbagging.

That would probably be the best solution. I think it would eliminate most of the "sandbagging" that goes on.