For the captains that have been to nationals....

[BMRSNR27]

I'm prepping for nationals and hearing from people locally that the competition there is pretty unbelievable and we'll see some 4.5 quality players at 3.5, etc. While I believe that to an extent, given that we've seen that type of play at sectionals before, I can't help but think they bring weaker teams to nationals and get beat up on by quality teams.

My question is, how do you account for the relative strength of the sections. It's pretty obvious, for example, that No. Cal, Southern, Texas and Caribbean are consistent winners while Missouri Valley, Eastern, *******, etc., consistently struggle.

By that logic, a 3.65 player in No. Cal should be better than a 3.65 player in the Eastern section. How do you measure HOW much better, though?

I'm sure there's not a fast, hard answer, but I'm curious how others have prepared for this part.

 

[maggmaster]

As a first time post season player this year, I can speak only to states and only to Ohio. The level at states was high but not insurmountable. If you managed to make it through the regular season my guess is a lot of your guys are already playing at a higher level than the majority of 3.5s. I would just sit back, put the best lineup that you can together and have fun!

 

[205bacdoc]

Overall, the high school sports classification holds true, typically a 5A school is bigger/better than a 2A school, although occasionally you can have a smaller area from a non-traditionally good tennis area with a really good team.
Same with tennis, typically the larger "loaded" tennis cities and clubs can stack a really good team. However, by the time sectionals or nationals arrive, conflict of schedules or injuries could cause that team to not shine.

 

[J_R_B]

I'm prepping for nationals and hearing from people locally that the competition there is pretty unbelievable and we'll see some 4.5 quality players at 3.5, etc. While I believe that to an extent, given that we've seen that type of play at sectionals before, I can't help but think they bring weaker teams to nationals and get beat up on by quality teams.

My question is, how do you account for the relative strength of the sections. It's pretty obvious, for example, that No. Cal, Southern, Texas and Caribbean are consistent winners while Missouri Valley, Eastern, *******, etc., consistently struggle.

By that logic, a 3.65 player in No. Cal should be better than a 3.65 player in the Eastern section. How do you measure HOW much better, though?

I'm sure there's not a fast, hard answer, but I'm curious how others have prepared for this part.

This actually really isn't true at all. Mid Atlantic has won the last two 4.0 nationals, for example, and my team from Middle States came in second at 4.0 40 & Over last year, where we beat Southwest 5-0, Hawaii, and Southern Cal on the way to the finals.

I found that the best way to scout competition is to look at the players on the team, their records, and their history. If you see a team that plowed through their league and sectionals without dropping many courts and has players rated down from the higher level or who played at nationals in the past or self-rates that dominated earlier playoffs, those are the teams that will be toughest regardless of what section they are from. I actually went through every player on the roster of every team in our group and compiled their league and playoff record for the past three years, their latest TLS rating, and the lineup tendencies in a big spreadsheet. Once you see everything laid out side by side, it's easy to tell not only who the best teams are, but who are the best players on each team and what you have to watch out for in every match.

This really paid off. Last year, our group included SW, Missouri Valley, and Hawaii. Based on my research, it was very easy to see that Hawaii would be our toughest competition. They had a core of players that had won their group and finished 4th in 18s nationals in the previous two years, more or less the same team had just played in 18s nationals, and they had lineup patterns that they used in every crucial match. I designed my lineup schedule around having our best lineup on the court for Hawaii and to match up with the lineup I expected to see, and we squeaked by them 3-2 to win the group while pretty much dominating the other teams. I talked to one of the guys the on Missouri Valley team at the banquet and he said their captain told them he expected SW to be the strongest team because they were a large section in a tennis "hotbed" (AZ & West Texas) and Hawaii to be the weakest because they were in a small section, when the exact opposite was actually true and I knew it going in. They played Hawaii first and were unprepared and lost 3-2.

 

[BMRSNR27]

This actually really isn't true at all. Mid Atlantic has won the last two 4.0 nationals, for example, and my team from Middle States came in second at 4.0 40 & Over last year, where we beat Southwest 5-0, Hawaii, and Southern Cal on the way to the finals.

I found that the best way to scout competition is to look at the players on the team, their records, and their history. If you see a team that plowed through their league and sectionals without dropping many courts and has players rated down from the higher level or who played at nationals in the past or self-rates that dominated earlier playoffs, those are the teams that will be toughest regardless of what section they are from. I actually went through every player on the roster of every team in our group and compiled their league and playoff record for the past three years, their latest TLS rating, and the lineup tendencies in a big spreadsheet. Once you see everything laid out side by side, it's easy to tell not only who the best teams are, but who are the best players on each team and what you have to watch out for in every match.

This really paid off. Last year, our group included SW, Missouri Valley, and Hawaii. Based on my research, it was very easy to see that Hawaii would be our toughest competition. They had a core of players that had won their group and finished 4th in 18s nationals in the previous two years, more or less the same team had just played in 18s nationals, and they had lineup patterns that they used in every crucial match. I designed my lineup schedule around having our best lineup on the court for Hawaii and to match up with the lineup I expected to see, and we squeaked by them 3-2 to win the group while pretty much dominating the other teams. I talked to one of the guys the on Missouri Valley team at the banquet and he said their captain told them he expected SW to be the strongest team because they were a large section in a tennis "hotbed" (AZ & West Texas) and Hawaii to be the weakest because they were in a small section, when the exact opposite was actually true and I knew it going in. They played Hawaii first and were unprepared and lost 3-2.

Thanks for the feedback. I've done that, and my section is one of the traditionally weaker sections. That's why I posed the question. By my spreadsheet, and all of the data I have, we're very even two of the traditionally stronger sections, but I assume, based on past results, that our numbers are likely skewed a bit higher.

My team did fly through sectionals pretty easily and we're very experienced (4th year in a row winning districts) with improving players, so I assume we'll compete. I was just curious what others' experiences were with section-by-section inequality. Great feedback.

 

[schmke]

I'm prepping for nationals and hearing from people locally that the competition there is pretty unbelievable and we'll see some 4.5 quality players at 3.5, etc. While I believe that to an extent, given that we've seen that type of play at sectionals before, I can't help but think they bring weaker teams to nationals and get beat up on by quality teams.

My question is, how do you account for the relative strength of the sections. It's pretty obvious, for example, that No. Cal, Southern, Texas and Caribbean are consistent winners while Missouri Valley, Eastern, *******, etc., consistently struggle.

By that logic, a 3.65 player in No. Cal should be better than a 3.65 player in the Eastern section. How do you measure HOW much better, though?

I'm sure there's not a fast, hard answer, but I'm curious how others have prepared for this part.

In theory, the year-end benchmark calculations should help even things out so that a 3.65 is relatively the same in different sections. But it isn't perfect and you will get some variation.

I think the bigger factor that affects one section's 3.5 team being stronger than another is simply the individual ratings and how much players have improved (or unfortunately how well they tanked the prior year sometimes). There are some sections that typically do well, but that is is usually because they simply have higher rated players, perhaps pulling from a larger pool as someone else noted, not because their 3.65 is better than another section's 3.65. And those sections that typically do well aren't always the ones that win it all as J_R_B has said.

You brought up Missouri Valley and I looked back at last year's 3.5 team that went 1-2 in their flight, and my ratings showed they simply had a weaker roster with just a few players rated over 3.5, while other teams had more "future bumps" rostered. So they went 1-2 not because their 3.65s were weaker, but because their team was just lower rated overall.

Dynamic ratings and my estimates are not perfect, and there are variations from match to match and due to match-ups that can cause "upsets", but the ratings actually are a pretty good indicator of who is stronger and is likely to win.

--
NTRP Ratings FAQ

 

[mikeler]

Last year at Nationals, we ranked our 3 opponents in the flight beforehand. We were correct on the weakest team but had the top two teams in the wrong order.

 

[dode]

In theory, the year-end benchmark calculations should help even things out so that a 3.65 is relatively the same in different sections. But it isn't perfect and you will get some variation.

I think the bigger factor that affects one section's 3.5 team being stronger than another is simply the individual ratings and how much players have improved (or unfortunately how well they tanked the prior year sometimes). There are some sections that typically do well, but that is is usually because they simply have higher rated players, perhaps pulling from a larger pool as someone else noted, not because their 3.65 is better than another section's 3.65. And those sections that typically do well aren't always the ones that win it all as J_R_B has said.

You brought up Missouri Valley and I looked back at last year's 3.5 team that went 1-2 in their flight, and my ratings showed they simply had a weaker roster with just a few players rated over 3.5, while other teams had more "future bumps" rostered. So they went 1-2 not because their 3.65s were weaker, but because their team was just lower rated overall.

Dynamic ratings and my estimates are not perfect, and there are variations from match to match and due to match-ups that can cause "upsets", but the ratings actually are a pretty good indicator of who is stronger and is likely to win.

--
NTRP Ratings FAQ

I was actually the captain of that MV team. In our case last year I would say that our better players were as good or better than those of the other teams we played even though on paper we didn't do very well. Unfortunately even though that team was put together to go to nationals (3 of us had been the year before), we had 3 of our better players that could not make the trip. In addition, I had literally only hit one time prior to going to tucson in the preceding 6 weeks because of a severely strained calf. We also had another major player that moved about two months before nationals to a different state and was not able to play much. That really hurt us. I really couldn't move and got sick and disoriented in my second match of the day because I was severely out of shape. The Northern team had a similar issue and actually had to default some courts. Their can definitely be other factors in play, not just better players. The top two teams in our flight both had pretty complete rosters there, and I think that our full roster would have competed with any team there (that was not the case the year before).

For reference, the top 3 players on our team were a combined 39-14 at 4.0 (only one match common between the three players) this season on two different teams, with both advancing to district playoffs. The funny part of all of this is that a HUGE number of players from our district got early start bumped this fall even though we don't do that well on the national level.

I did much of the same data analysis that J_R_B discussed, and basically I saw about the lineup expected each match. It definitely would have been much more useful if I had had more and better cards in the deck to play with. Even if you don't win, Nationals is a fun experience. You will see some good players, but I think the number is fewer due to usta's more stringent self rating rules (even though I still found 2 or 3 in our group that had not truly self rated but you can do nothing about it by then).

Have a good time and don't sweat what you can't control.

John

 

[schmke]

I was actually the captain of that MV team. In our case last year I would say that our better players were as good or better than those of the other teams we played even though on paper we didn't do very well. Unfortunately even though that team was put together to go to nationals (3 of us had been the year before), we had 3 of our better players that could not make the trip. In addition, I had literally only hit one time prior to going to tucson in the preceding 6 weeks because of a severely strained calf. We also had another major player that moved about two months before nationals to a different state and was not able to play much. That really hurt us. I really couldn't move and got sick and disoriented in my second match of the day because I was severely out of shape. The Northern team had a similar issue and actually had to default some courts. Their can definitely be other factors in play, not just better players. The top two teams in our flight both had pretty complete rosters there, and I think that our full roster would have competed with any team there (that was not the case the year before)

Thanks for the additional color. And this goes to show that there are factors other than just ratings that determine who wins a match (imagine that!).

But regarding the ratings, my comment was more about the depth of your team compared to others. A lot of teams have a couple stars that can compete with any other team's stars, but some don't go as deep with the higher rated players and either because a team wants to get everyone in or due to injury or fatigue, a team isn't able to play their best 8 in every match, and that can sometimes be the difference between winning your flight or not.

 

[BMRSNR27]

I was actually the captain of that MV team. In our case last year I would say that our better players were as good or better than those of the other teams we played even though on paper we didn't do very well. Unfortunately even though that team was put together to go to nationals (3 of us had been the year before), we had 3 of our better players that could not make the trip. In addition, I had literally only hit one time prior to going to tucson in the preceding 6 weeks because of a severely strained calf. We also had another major player that moved about two months before nationals to a different state and was not able to play much. That really hurt us. I really couldn't move and got sick and disoriented in my second match of the day because I was severely out of shape. The Northern team had a similar issue and actually had to default some courts. Their can definitely be other factors in play, not just better players. The top two teams in our flight both had pretty complete rosters there, and I think that our full roster would have competed with any team there (that was not the case the year before).

For reference, the top 3 players on our team were a combined 39-14 at 4.0 (only one match common between the three players) this season on two different teams, with both advancing to district playoffs. The funny part of all of this is that a HUGE number of players from our district got early start bumped this fall even though we don't do that well on the national level.

I did much of the same data analysis that J_R_B discussed, and basically I saw about the lineup expected each match. It definitely would have been much more useful if I had had more and better cards in the deck to play with. Even if you don't win, Nationals is a fun experience. You will see some good players, but I think the number is fewer due to usta's more stringent self rating rules (even though I still found 2 or 3 in our group that had not truly self rated but you can do nothing about it by then).

Have a good time and don't sweat what you can't control.

John

I was shocked at how your singles players struggled, and that's really what has me concerned. You had two great singles players - might call them ringers - and they both struggled at nationals. If I'm not mistaken, they've lost three matches between the two of them at 4.0 this year.

Since I've pretty much outed my identity at this point, I'd go ahead and say I wish we could have played your last year team with our this year team. Talk about an epic battle!

 

[robert]

Some sections always got good teams. Like, Southern, So. Cal, No. Cal, Texas, Hawaii, Florida, Mid-Atlantic, Intermountain and Caribbean.

Some sections are usually weak, e.g. Eastern, Middle States, Pacific NW, and Missouri Valley.

Good sections are usually more serious in competition. Other teams just go to National to have fun. And you will see those teams to have more fun at player party.

 

[schmke]

I was shocked at how your singles players struggled, and that's really what has me concerned. You had two great singles players - might call them ringers - and they both struggled at nationals. If I'm not mistaken, they've lost three matches between the two of them at 4.0 this year.

Since I've pretty much outed my identity at this point, I'd go ahead and say I wish we could have played your last year team with our this year team. Talk about an epic battle!

The beauty is, we can play "what if"!

Using the line-ups used in the Sectional final/last match for each team, here is what the ratings for each player prior to the match say might have happened.

1S - Virtual tie
2S - Comfortable win for 2014
1D - Comfortable win for 2014
2D - Close win for 2014
3D - Comfortable win for 2014

Now, ratings from year to year are not necessarily comparable particularly for predicting purposes. But if my analysis has any validity, it appears this year's MV team may be a little stronger than last years.

Of course, it is how they compare to the other teams in their flight that really matters.

 

[dode]

I was shocked at how your singles players struggled, and that's really what has me concerned. You had two great singles players - might call them ringers - and they both struggled at nationals. If I'm not mistaken, they've lost three matches between the two of them at 4.0 this year.

Since I've pretty much outed my identity at this point, I'd go ahead and say I wish we could have played your last year team with our this year team. Talk about an epic battle!

I was pretty sure based on previous posts in other threads...

I wouldn't say the singles players struggled per se. MS only lost one in a tiebreak to a very solid player. He did win in 3 sets against another that took him a set to figure out. BH was more mental and style of play versus skill. Our third match would have been played differently if we were still in it, but I knew we were out of it by then.

I just wish we would have had a full lineup. I think we would have won our group as our doubles pairings would have been much stronger. I don't think we had the full lineup in any match last year, yet we still did not lose until our second match in tucson.

The two singles players were 26-7 at 4.0 this year in singles and doubles combined and one of them was battling injury half of the year.

I will say that playing in tucson is much different physically than anything we play. Your depth will help. By the way, make sure your singles guys know that they will be playing on courts with singles sticks. It is different.

John

 

[schmke]

I will say that playing in tucson is much different physically than anything we play. Your depth will help. By the way, make sure your singles guys know that they will be playing on courts with singles sticks. It is different.

John

And may be playing on a singles only court with no doubles alleys.

 

[robert]

And may be playing on a singles only court with no doubles alleys.

That is strange. That likes ATP year end final. Waste of space.

 

[dode]

The beauty is, we can play "what if"!

Using the line-ups used in the Sectional final/last match for each team, here is what the ratings for each player prior to the match say might have happened.

1S - Virtual tie
2S - Comfortable win for 2014
1D - Comfortable win for 2014
2D - Close win for 2014
3D - Comfortable win for 2014

Now, ratings from year to year are not necessarily comparable particularly for predicting purposes. But if my analysis has any validity, it appears this year's MV team may be a little stronger than last years.

Of course, it is how they compare to the other teams in their flight that really matters.

LOL what is this matchup? 2013 mv 18+ last match of sectionals lineup vs 2014 mv 40+ sectional finals lineup? Heck I dont even know who was in either lineup!

 

[dode]

And may be playing on a singles only court with no doubles alleys.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. I warmed up on one of those courts and man was it weird!

John

 

[BMRSNR27]

Some sections always got good teams. Like, Southern, So. Cal, No. Cal, Texas, Hawaii, Florida, Mid-Atlantic, Intermountain and Caribbean.

Some sections are usually weak, e.g. Eastern, Middle States, Pacific NW, and Missouri Valley.

Good sections are usually more serious in competition. Other teams just go to National to have fun. And you will see those teams to have more fun at player party.

I promise you we'll have fun at the player party if we're out of it!

 

[BMRSNR27]

I was pretty sure based on previous posts in other threads...

I wouldn't say the singles players struggled per se. MS only lost one in a tiebreak to a very solid player. He did win in 3 sets against another that took him a set to figure out. BH was more mental and style of play versus skill. Our third match would have been played differently if we were still in it, but I knew we were out of it by then.

I just wish we would have had a full lineup. I think we would have won our group as our doubles pairings would have been much stronger. I don't think we had the full lineup in any match last year, yet we still did not lose until our second match in tucson.

The two singles players were 26-7 at 4.0 this year in singles and doubles combined and one of them was battling injury half of the year.

I will say that playing in tucson is much different physically than anything we play. Your depth will help. By the way, make sure your singles guys know that they will be playing on courts with singles sticks. It is different.

John

I know we can't wait. We've been wanting to knock you guys off for two years and came really close both years but couldn't finish the job! I guess it took you getting bumped up.

And like I said, if we don't win our flight, I guarantee we'll win the player party!

 

[schmke]

LOL what is this matchup? 2013 mv 18+ last match of sectionals lineup vs 2014 mv 40+ sectional finals lineup? Heck I dont even know who was in either lineup!

18+ vs 18+, but yeah. It struck me it might be interesting to compare. And now we can see how 2014 MV 18+ does at Nationals compared to how 2013 did.

 

[dode]

I promise you we'll have fun at the player party if we're out of it!

it is over halloween weekend isnt it? That made things interesting, but the afterparty was a lot more fun :twisted:

John

 

[dode]

18+ vs 18+, but yeah. It struck me it might be interesting to compare. And now we can see how 2014 MV 18+ does at Nationals compared to how 2013 did.

Ohhhhhhhhh...you are talking about the team that won 18 plus from okc. We beat most of those guys along with the guys they lost to bumps both of the last two years. They are a solid team though.

John

 

[BMRSNR27]

Ohhhhhhhhh...you are talking about the team that won 18 plus from okc. We beat most of those guys along with the guys they lost to bumps both of the last two years. They are a solid team though.

John

We were tiebreakers away both years. It was a battle for sure. Last year, your singles guys were pretty great.

 

[mikeler]

it is over halloween weekend isnt it? That made things interesting, but the afterparty was a lot more fun :twisted:

John

Last year our whole team dressed up but hardly anybody else did.

 

[RobFL]

Any tips for a Florida har-tru team transitioning to hard courts for nationals? Most of our team hasn't seen a hard court in 10 years. I play in about 3-4 hard ct tournaments a year so I'm ok but not so for the rest of the team. Our plan is to play 2 practice matches on hard at home then one day of practice at Surprise.

 

[mikeler]

Any tips for a Florida har-tru team transitioning to hard courts for nationals? Most of our team hasn't seen a hard court in 10 years. I play in about 3-4 hard ct tournaments a year so I'm ok but not so for the rest of the team. Our plan is to play 2 practice matches on hard at home then one day of practice at Surprise.

Rob,

You absolutely need to practice at both sites before you start match play. The courts at Indian Wells are gritty. The play very slow and high bouncing while the courts at La Quinta play like normal hard courts. We were the Florida Har-Tru team last year.

 

[RobFL]

Hey Mikeler, we're in the 55& over 8.0 so we're in Surprise, AZ at the end of October rather than IW. I've played IW twice in the 55 hard courts and you're absolutely right of course, perhaps the slowest hard courts in the world. A great venue to play needless to say.

 

[mikeler]

Hey Mikeler, we're in the 55& over 8.0 so we're in Surprise, AZ at the end of October rather than IW. I've played IW twice in the 55 hard courts and you're absolutely right of course, perhaps the slowest hard courts in the world. A great venue to play needless to say.

Another team of ours went to 18+ Nationals in Arizona. I'll try and find out how they play and report back.

 

[BMRSNR27]

Anyone have any advice for the "gift exchange" that supposedly takes place between competing teams? We're striking out here.

 

[mikeler]

Anyone have any advice for the "gift exchange" that supposedly takes place between competing teams? We're striking out here.

Only the ladies do that from what I was told. So if you are a dude, then ignore it.

 

[J_R_B]

Only the ladies do that from what I was told. So if you are a dude, then ignore it.

All of the teams we played in the group round last year had gifts for us, and we had nothing, so all we gave them was a NJ-style beat down. It's was just little stuff like a key chain with the town name on it or something. The best gift was the Iowa team that gave us t-shirts that said "Des Moines - Hell Yes!".

 

[schmke]

All of the teams we played in the group round last year had gifts for us, and we had nothing, so all we gave them was a NJ-style beat down. It's was just little stuff like a key chain with the town name on it or something. The best gift was the Iowa team that gave us t-shirts that said "Des Moines - Hell Yes!".

We were told it was optional but to try and make it a regional type item. So we gave Starbucks gift cards (we are from Seattle). Not all the other teams did something, but I think we got a tennis instruction book (team's captain helped write it or something) and Tennis Hall of Fame string dampeners from the New England team.

 

[mikeler]

I stand corrected. So dudes 4.5 and above don't do it.

 

[schmke]

I stand corrected. So dudes 4.5 and above don't do it.

To be honest, we didn't do it but were shamed into it when we showed up for our first match and got the book and had nothing in return. So we ran out to Starbucks. And several other teams didn't either.

 

[dode]

The first year we did it, and we got one thing in return. They were some kinda cool Hawaiian warrior leis or something like that from the Hawaii team. We had some trinkets, but they were nothing exciting. Last year, I did not see any men's teams exchange anything. We couldn't come up with anything good (well we did but it didn't work out).

John

 

[BMRSNR27]

The first year we did it, and we got one thing in return. They were some kinda cool Hawaiian warrior leis or something like that from the Hawaii team. We had some trinkets, but they were nothing exciting. Last year, I did not see any men's teams exchange anything. We couldn't come up with anything good (well we did but it didn't work out).

John

Thanks, John. We'll go ahead and skip it unless we find something cool. One less thing for me to stress about.