Given the stats, why did my Team end in 3rd place?

ncgator

Rookie
Based on tiebreak with 2nd place team, you tied on individual wins and sets lost but lost more games.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
What @ncgator said is correct. The USTA, in their "infinite" wisdom, ignores sets won when breaking ties (where you had more) and also goes straight to games lost as the next tie-breaker, ignoring games won, where you lost more games and thus finished behind the team you were tied with in 3rd.
 

FiguringItOut

New User
8 matches played in a 5 team group, so I'm assuming they played each team twice and that they split with the 2nd place team. So it went to the next tiebreaker (and then the next one after that.)
Pretend I'm an idiot and could you write out an example of what this would look like?
 

FiguringItOut

New User
What @ncgator said is correct. The USTA, in their "infinite" wisdom, ignores sets won when breaking ties (where you had more) and also goes straight to games lost as the next tie-breaker, ignoring games won, where you lost more games and thus finished behind the team you were tied with in 3rd.
"Breaking ties" - is that 7-6 in 1st or 2nd set, 1-0 10 Point 3rd set tiebreakers, or "breaking ties" for standings using other statistics...? Sorry, I'm learning - hence, my handle ;-) Thanks!
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
2.03H(2) For National Championships, in the event of a tie, the tie shall be broken by the first of the following procedures that does so:

2.03H(2)a Individual Matches. Winner of the most individual matches in the entire competition.
2.03H(2)b Head-to-Head. Winner of head-to-head match only if all tied teams have played each other and one team defeated all the teams that are tied.
2.03H(2)c Sets. Loser of the fewest number of sets.
2.03H(2)d Games. Loser of the fewest number of games.
2.03H(2)e Game Winning Percentage: Total games won divided by total games played
2.03H(2)f A Method to be Determined by the Championships Committee. Procedure to be announced prior to commencement of championship competition.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
"Breaking ties" - is that 7-6 in 1st or 2nd set, 1-0 10 Point 3rd set tiebreakers, or "breaking ties" for standings using other statistics...? Sorry, I'm learning - hence, my handle ;-) Thanks!
No, ties in the standings.

You both had 5 team wins and 3 team losses so you were tied by the first criteria for the standings. So we move to the next criteria to break the tie.

The next is court record where you were both 14-10, so still tied.

The next is head to head where you have indicated to split matches so 1-1 there and still tied.

The next (and this is where the USTA's tie-breakers are flawed) is sets lost where you both lost 21 sets so still tied.

The next (and this is where the flaw continues) is games lost where you lost more games (195) than they did (185) so they finally win the standings tie-breaker and get the 2nd place spot.

The flaws I mention are that it is silly to use sets lost as the sole tie-breaker when looking at the sets criteria as it is ignoring sets won where you won more sets and had a higher sets won/lost differential and set winning percentage. The other flaw is similarly ignoring games won where you again had a larger won/lost differential and winning percentage.
 

Purestriker

Professional
"Breaking ties" - is that 7-6 in 1st or 2nd set, 1-0 10 Point 3rd set tiebreakers, or "breaking ties" for standings using other statistics...? Sorry, I'm learning - hence, my handle ;-) Thanks!
Breaking ties as in your overall record to determine who advances if you have the same record, not in each game. So if your team and team B both finished 5-3 for the season, they determine as schmke outlines.
 

Purestriker

Professional
No, ties in the standings.

You both had 5 team wins and 3 team losses so you were tied by the first criteria for the standings. So we move to the next criteria to break the tie.

The next is court record where you were both 14-10, so still tied.

The next is head to head where you have indicated to split matches so 1-1 there and still tied.

The next (and this is where the USTA's tie-breakers are flawed) is sets lost where you both lost 21 sets so still tied.

The next (and this is where the flaw continues) is games lost where you lost more games (195) than they did (185) so they finally win the standings tie-breaker and get the 2nd place spot.

The flaws I mention are that it is silly to use sets lost as the sole tie-breaker when looking at the sets criteria as it is ignoring sets won where you won more sets and had a higher sets won/lost differential and set winning percentage. The other flaw is similarly ignoring games won where you again had a larger won/lost differential and winning percentage.
In our league if the games are also somehow tied it comes down to a coin flip by the committee chair.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
No, ties in the standings.

You both had 5 team wins and 3 team losses so you were tied by the first criteria for the standings. So we move to the next criteria to break the tie.

The next is court record where you were both 14-10, so still tied.

The next is head to head where you have indicated to split matches so 1-1 there and still tied.

The next (and this is where the USTA's tie-breakers are flawed) is sets lost where you both lost 21 sets so still tied.

The next (and this is where the flaw continues) is games lost where you lost more games (195) than they did (185) so they finally win the standings tie-breaker and get the 2nd place spot.

The flaws I mention are that it is silly to use sets lost as the sole tie-breaker when looking at the sets criteria as it is ignoring sets won where you won more sets and had a higher sets won/lost differential and set winning percentage. The other flaw is similarly ignoring games won where you again had a larger won/lost differential and winning percentage.
I thought using sets lost makes more sense than using sets won.

Sat you have a team that wins in straight sets always. And another team that wins match tiebreaks always.

if you use sets won as a tiebreaker, the team that splits sets will prevail over the team that always wins in straight sets.
 

BallBag

Professional
I thought using sets lost makes more sense than using sets won.

Sat you have a team that wins in straight sets always. And another team that wins match tiebreaks always.

if you use sets won as a tiebreaker, the team that splits sets will prevail over the team that always wins in straight sets.
Both teams always win 2 sets per match so they would still be tied.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
I thought using sets lost makes more sense than using sets won.

Sat you have a team that wins in straight sets always. And another team that wins match tiebreaks always.

if you use sets won as a tiebreaker, the team that splits sets will prevail over the team that always wins in straight sets.
I was not saying to use sets won "instead", but both should be used either as sets won/lost differential or sets won percentage.
 
Top