First victim of the questionable tie-breakers at Nationals

schmke

Legend
The "round robin" for the 18 & Over 5.0+ Nationals is done, and we have our first victim of the inequitable tie-breakers.

Consider the two teams below:

Team A - 3-1 / 8-4 / 11 sets lost, 101 games lost
Team B - 3-1 / 8-4 / 11 sets lost, 102 games lost

By the USTA's tie-breakers, team A gets the nod.

But what if I add that team A won 16 sets, but team B won 18 sets?

I would say team B would win the tie-breaker, while they lost the same number of sets, they won more, meaning they extended more of their losses to 3rd set TBs than team A did. Shouldn't a team be rewarded for losing a match 2-1 instead of 2-0? The USTA's tie-breakers as currently structured do not give such credit.

In this case, it means that Southern (team A) advances to the semis instead of Mid-Atlantic (team B).

Thoughts?
 
If I am understanding this correctly, Team A won the same amount of matches in fewer sets, so perhaps the USTA is rewarding efficiency?
 

schmke

Legend
My interpretation is that the PTB are putting more emphasis on losing fewer games vs winning more?
That is how the current tie-breakers are structured, they are sets lost, and games lost, both irrespective of the sets/games won. A fairer (IMHO) tie-breaker would be sets won/lost differential, or at least if tied on sets lost you go to sets won first.

And it should also be game differential should it get to that as that tie-breaker is even more flawed. Consider a set lost 6-0, that is 6 games lost. Consider a set lost 7-5 or 7-6, that is 7 games lost. The team that does the latter is going to be in a worse tie-breaker position because they kept sets close vs getting blown out. How does that make sense?
 

schmke

Legend
If I am understanding this correctly, Team A won the same amount of matches in fewer sets, so perhaps the USTA is rewarding efficiency?
If you are going to lose, lose quick in straights and don't keep it close and try to win in a 3rd set TB as that is taking up more of our precious court time? :eek:
 

schmke

Legend
Hah, yeah. With the "sets lost" and "games lost" tiebreaker, losing 6-0 6-0 is better than losing 7-6 6-7 1-0.
Exactly, and what I wrote about years ago about the tie-breaker being flawed, and again when the new Nationals format came out. Perhaps the USTA will listen at some point.
 

schmke

Legend
And, not that this is part of any tie-breaker, but Mid-Atlantic beat SoCal and SoCal beat Southern. Yet Southern advances to the semis instead of Mid-Atlantic.
 

schmke

Legend
A few more details.

Each team had three court wins where the match was extended to a match tie-break. But all of Southern's losses were in straight sets, while two of Mid-Atlantic's losses were extended to match tie-breaks, but they are given no credit for doing so.
 
Wonder if sets difference (sets won minus sets lost), and games difference might be better tiebreakers. Just like soccer leagues that use goal difference.
 

schmke

Legend
Wonder if sets difference (sets won minus sets lost), and games difference might be better tiebreakers. Just like soccer leagues that use goal difference.
Yes, this is what I've advocated for years and pointed out as soon as the new format came out, that the tie-breakers were flawed for this Nationals format and it was going to come up. And I'm confident the USTA knew that I'd pointed this out but took no steps to change it.

Pretty much every other league with similar type of standings with potential for ties uses game/score differential and also incorporates how teams do against common opponents to break ties before going to something as inconsequential and subject to opponent strength as games lost. In this case, Southern lost to SoCal while Mid-Atlantic beat them and it is a far more objective measure than games lost where southern happened to have perhaps the weakest doubles pair at the event as an opponent in one 3D match that they won 6-0,6-0 and that is why they won the games lost tie-breaker by 1 game and advanced.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
I had a thought, what if team B realized they were outclassed and retired after 3 games in a match, how would that factor in to the tirebreaker? 3 games and 1 set lost instead of 12 games and 2 sets lost?

@schmke

J
 

schmke

Legend
I had a thought, what if team B realized they were outclassed and retired after 3 games in a match, how would that factor in to the tirebreaker? 3 games and 1 set lost instead of 12 games and 2 sets lost?

@schmke

J
Excellent question. But it is covered in the regulations and no loophole:

2.03N Scoring of Retirements - In case of a retirement, for the purpose of determining standings, the non-retiring player/doubles team shall be credited with such number of additional games as would have been won if the match was completed and the non-retiring player/doubles team won every subsequent game. For NTRP computer data entry in TennisLink, mark as retired and submit actual scores of match at the point of retirement.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
That is a good question too. They count as a set for the sets lost (and sets won if that was adopted) stats, but just as a single game for the games lost (and games won if that was adopted) stats.

I mean bad enough to lose 13-11 or something that is nearly a tie but you get hit with an individual loss, set loss, and game loss and could have more games lost than someone who lost 0&0.

J
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Example I won the metro playoff last year 6-7, 7-6, 1-0 in 3 hours, 96F, and 98% humidity. A couple weeks later at sectionals the team rested me for the final match by putting me in 3rd doubles and I won 0&1.

Currently that's

Match 1: 1 IW, 1 SL, 13 GL vs. 0 IW, 2 SL, 14 GL
Match 2: 1 IW, 0 SL, 1 GL vs. 0 IW, 2 SL, 12 GL

Using game and set differential and not counting the super that would be.

Match 1: 1 IW, 0 SD, +1 GD vs. 0 IW, 0 SD, -1 GD
Match 2: 1 IW, +2 SD, +11 GD vs. 0 IW, -2 SD, -11 GD

Which is more representative of what actually transpired?

J
 
Top