How many matches do you play?

[randzman]

I'm curious to know:
- how many matches you will likely play in your 10-week USTA adult league - singles or doubles.
- if you team has any in-person meetings or practice before the season starts to meet new team members and surmise their real-world skill.
- how team members are selected for matches.

 

[Cashman]

I'm not American.

 

[randzman]

Australian?

 

[WhiteOut]

- how many matches you will likely play in your 10-week USTA adult league - singles or doubles.
I cap three teams. Each session usually has 8-10 matches. on average each player typically get 3-4 matches in the session

- if you team has any in-person meetings or practice before the season starts to meet new team members and surmise their real-world skill.
no meetings. on occasion i might shoot a message out and pull the guys together for a couple hours of mixing up partners, etc. but most everyone is already playing or getting stuff done so they *can* play, so not really.

- how team members are selected for matches.
this depends on the goal of the team/captain. for the teams i cap, the #1 goal is to get a chance to actually play tennis in a consistent schedule that fits with work, family, etc. #1A have fun while being competitive, and making friends. we are competitive for the flight and have advanced to state finals before, but never sectionals...always right on the cusp, but with travel, work, families, injuries, it's just too hard to always get the 'right players' on the 'right night'...so we are all generally on the lookout for solid players, but who are not asses. if we advance, great! if not, we often come in 2nd or 3rd in the flight and get to play spoiler late in the session...

i guess for me as cap, i like to get stronger at-level players, not so much to try to advance, but to make the experience/matchups more enjoyable for the players already on the team. in my case, the 3.5/18 i cap is the 'strong' team where we are always in contention. the 3.5/40 is composed of guys who are also on the 18, but where i funnel/add new players, recent bump-ups from 3.0, guys coming back to the sport, and sort of use the 3.5/40 as the 'farm team' for the 3.5/18.

 

[Matthew ATX]

1. Depends on the season. Advancing season, I play every week. Non-advancing, play time is more evenly distributed, but I have open availability to sub in so I still end up playing at least 5 matches.

2. My team has a weekly Thursday night practice. New players try out at one of those.

3. If you're talking about lineups, it again depends on the season. Advancing season, top-8 play each week if available. Non-advancing, we try out different pairings in doubles and have some of the doubles guys (like me) try their hand at singles.

 

[randzman]

WhiteOut, that's my expectation as well and it's good to know it's actually done that way.

Matthew ATX, also reasonable. Thank you.

(I asked the question because I joined a team, first time with any league, was available to play every week, and now in week 4 I asked why I hadn't be chosen and the answer was they want to get to first place and I will probably play twice.)

 

[am1899]

In 8.0 mixed:

There were 10 matches. I played in the first 9 matches. I went 8-1.

No formal practices or meetings. Although we did play several impromptu practice matches throughout the season. We routinely ate together after matches to socialize.

I didn’t captain this team, so how players were selected for matches is a guess...but it was a balancing act between getting people qualified for playoffs, adjusting to injured players, and trying to ensure we continued to win to protect our lead. It was a very competitive league with 6 teams. We were fortunate to finish on top.

In 9.0 mixed:

There were 5 matches, 2 teams.

I co-captained, played in 2 matches of which I went 1-1.

No formal meetings or practices. Some of us got together and played some practice matches prior to the season starting.

Team members were selected for most matches based on qualification for playoffs - everyone needed to get in 2 matches. I went to nationals in this league last year, and the one thing that maybe hurt us was lack of depth. So we tried to recruit a bigger roster. The catch is, need to qualify everyone.

We still managed to win the league at the local level. Regional playoff tournament is next.

 

[WhiteOut]

WhiteOut, that's my expectation as well and it's good to know it's actually done that way.

Matthew ATX, also reasonable. Thank you.

(I asked the question because I joined a team, first time with any league, was available to play every week, and now in week 4 I asked why I hadn't be chosen and the answer was they want to get to first place and I will probably play twice.)

this is a good lesson for anyone looking to join a league -- ASK the cap what their intentions are, and be up front about yours! you would ave been much better of joining a smaller team, mid or lower inthe flight...then you'd be playing every week, against the top players in the flight. also applies to playing up, and partly why i started capping a 4.0 team. i personally am amid-hi 3.5, and regularly play with/against 4.0 players outside of league play, so i like to get a few league matches in @ 4.0 when possible (I also play 8.0 mixed w/ 4.5 ladies). every year, since our 3.5/18 is strong, we usually get 1-3 players who bump up...so then they don't have a place to go...well-established 4.0 teams don't want 'new' 4.0 players, and *really* don't want any 3.5's...so rather than trying to get onto one, and barely ever playing, i said i'll just cap one, and pick my spots.

mainy any team i cap:
rule #1: is there any whiff of assish-ness? not invited....
rule #2: does he have a cooler? *that* guy is in the lineup every week!

 

[Matthew ATX]

WhiteOut, that's my expectation as well and it's good to know it's actually done that way.

Matthew ATX, also reasonable. Thank you.

(I asked the question because I joined a team, first time with any league, was available to play every week, and now in week 4 I asked why I hadn't be chosen and the answer was they want to get to first place and I will probably play twice.)

This is an acceptable way to run a team, BUT it should be clearly stated before anyone hands over any money that that is the way it's going to be run. It's not cool to take money from those lower in the pecking order without telling them they may only get the two matches.

 

[WhiteOut]

This is an acceptable way to run a team, BUT it should be clearly stated before anyone hands over any money that that is the way it's going to be run. It's not cool to take money from those lower in the pecking order without telling them they may only get the two matches.

*exactly*! I actually learned this from coaching youth soccer. our club was not quite premier, but about a step below that, so still very good...players who, around middle school, would def be going on to play high school, and also some who were already making plans to go for premier club / college play...our particular team was one of the strongest club-wide. towards the end of that run, due to numbers, the club decided to combine some of the rec players with this established team. the problem was, the skill gap was just too wide to really run an effective, progressive practice session.

i always started the year with a team meeting w/ the parents to discuss goals, direction, how i run the team, etc. as these were 12-14s who started with me @ 4-5 years old, my main goal n the early years was to make them the most fundamentally/technically sound players around, so that tactics and more complex technical skills/concepts could be introduced, as these were now pre-high-school kids. everyone on board with that...and this also meant that in game time, especially tournaments, because most were more serious, there would be some disparity in playing time. that was all stated/agreed upon up front, everyone happy, never had a disgruntled kid or parent. well when the rec kids got infused, that basically blew up that deal. the serious kids split and went to play at the premier club, and the recs were left not having a team due to numbers that season. as sad as that was, looking back it was actually better to get that figured out early on versus promising these rec families something they would never see happen...

btw -- out of the core group of 8 players, 6 of them were made offers to play at various d1 schools, and 5 of them actually went -- all because of ME! hahaha...

 

[randzman]

This is an acceptable way to run a team, BUT it should be clearly stated before anyone hands over any money that that is the way it's going to be run. It's not cool to take money from those lower in the pecking order without telling them they may only get the two matches.

Is that too much to ask?

Why allow someone to join without tryout if there's little intent to play them?
My best guess is to fulfill an implicit quota. If you can have up to 25 on a team then why not accept any qualified person.

 

[am1899]

(I asked the question because I joined a team, first time with any league, was available to play every week, and now in week 4 I asked why I hadn't be chosen and the answer was they want to get to first place and I will probably play twice.)

Yeah this sucks. Captains should tell you their intentions up front. But unfortunately, some won’t. Or worse, they’ll tell you one thing and do another.

Sucks but probably the only thing you can do is ask the potential captain up front what kind of playing time you can expect - before you sign up. And if they don’t deliver close to what you discussed, and there’s no extenuating circumstances, then don’t play for that captain again.

 

[Max G.]

Last year, I was injured for most of the season, so I only played 4 matches across the two teams I was on. (1 and 3, respectively).

The year before that, I played 13 matches across two teams (8 and 5 split).

The year before that, I played 16 matches across 3 teams (4, 7, 5 split).

This year, looks like on one of my teams I'm on track to play probably like 4-5 or matches, and for the other team probably 7-8, the way things are going now. Maybe a few more if one of the teams goes to playoffs/districts.

None of the teams I've been on have had an official "practice session". For two of the teams a bunch of us go to a regular get-together to play, so any new people get directed there. (The two teams have pretty high overlap in players). That's not an official "team practice" - some people never go (bad time or far to drive?) and a bunch of people go there who are not on the team. One of the teams this year tried to set up an official practice, I'm not sure if anyone went. Sometimes people email the team list saying "hey does anyone want to hit" and set up matches/practices that way.

I don't know how team members are selected for the matches. There's a few different captains for the different teams, of course. One of the captains is pretty focused on winning and will play the better people more, but trying to make sure everyone gets qualified (2+ matches). Another team was definitely the rec kind, everyone got about an even number of matches. One of the teams I'm on right now has a dearth of singles players so it seems like any time I'm willing to play singles I'll be in the lineup...

 

[SavvyStringer]

I'm curious to know:
- how many matches you will likely play in your 10-week USTA adult league - singles or doubles.
- if you team has any in-person meetings or practice before the season starts to meet new team members and surmise their real-world skill.
- how team members are selected for matches.

3-4 maybe more matches depending on my and other players availability.

No 'meetings'. Typically our captain sends out the calendar with more important matches sort of highlighted to get a feel for availability from the start. I know he used to do an excel sheet to keep track of availability on each date. We do practice about once a week as a team but not everyone does consistently.

Members selected based on availability as well as relative level based on the match. If it's a match against the team in the basement, most of our guys who aren't as strong get to play. If it's against the other team that is at the top it's usually the same 8 guys that play just different combos.

 

[randzman]

I would have more understanding for the desire to win if this was a 4.5 team.
But a 3.0 team with the goal of reaching nationals is slightly absurd if you're not 65+.
Otherwise a better goal for the team would be to get people to complete at 3.5.
What is the ego that comes with telling someone "Our team are USTA champions ... 3.0."
?!?!?!?

 

[SavvyStringer]

I would have more understanding for the desire to win if this was a 4.5 team.
But a 3.0 team with the goal of reaching nationals is slightly absurd if you're not 65+.
Otherwise a better goal for the team would be to get people to complete at 3.5.
What is the ego that comes with telling someone "Our team are USTA champions ... 3.0."
?!?!?!?

It depends on how competitive you are and if you actually care what the sign says. I know guys that were top end 3.0s that played 3.5 teams and consistently won who signed up for 5.5 mixed and 5.5 combos. These guys won both and went to sectionals for 5.5 mixed. They were proud of it despite the fact it's some of the most awful tennis you've ever seen. We're talking guys who were like 40-5 or even more skewed win/loss on the year being proud of winning 5.5 mixed states. Guys that were playing 3.5 and still winning 60-75% of their matches.

 

[ShaunS]

But a 3.0 team with the goal of reaching nationals is slightly absurd if you're not 65+.
Otherwise a better goal for the team would be to get people to complete at 3.5.

I disagree with this mindset at any level. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be the best at your level. Otherwise, why try to succeed at anything if you aren't the best?

Similarly, the idea that trying to reach nationals is somehow different than working to improve your game isn't true either. If someone already has a strong team of 3.0s the best way to make that next step will be improving their game.

What is the ego that comes with telling someone "Our team are USTA champions ... 3.0."

How is that any different for 3.5, 4.0, 4.5? They're all artificial boundaries of amateur tennis players.

I understand your annoyance with joining a team, but not being put in the lineup to play. That's BS, and it shouldn't happen. However, don't let that jade your thoughts on everything else.

 

[randzman]

No problem ... fair question.

It's different because the skill difference between levels isn't linear.

Most everyone who is a 3.0 can go to 3.5 if they're not physically limited.

Few can go from 4.5 to 5.0.

So a 65+, 3.0, going to nationals is certainly a real accomplishment.

But a 45YO recreational player who wants a merit badge for winning as a 3.0 is like winning a National Spelling Bee where words are limited to five-letters.

"There's nothing wrong with wanting to be the best at your level."

Yes! ... if that's your actual max level ... not a level that you decide never to get better at on purpose so you can win at certain competitions.

Why would anyone want to artificially limit their performance in order to win ... and it's not even like there's money awarded, which would make it understandable!

Oh, also, in this scenario I described I told them at the outset my 3.0 was a guess and I may actually be a 3.5 and I'd be ok if you asked me to play on another team ... would you like to meet with me to estimate my actual level? (The answer doesn't matter, it's the fact that *I* didn't want to play on a 3.0 team if I was really 3.5.)

 

[ShaunS]

Yes! ... if that's your actual max level ... not a level that you decide never to get better at on purpose so you can win at certain competitions.

Why would anyone want to artificially limit their performance in order to win

I should make a distinction here. If someone is abusing the system to compete then that's unfair, and it isn't something to be celebrated. Precisely for the reasons you say, this is more of a personal achievement than any sort of glory. Reading the threads on this board you would think every team that makes it to nationals is fully of cheaters and sandbaggers. In my experience, I've seen nothing like that at all. Granted I've not played at nationals, but I've played on good teams at sectionals without seeing opponents who were outside our range.

However, I still strongly disagree with the logic that winning on a legitimate team cannot be celebrated.

Most everyone who is a 3.0 can go to 3.5 or better if they're not physically limited.

If we're being serious, I can't imagine even 1% of all USTA league players are actually at their "physical limit". It's almost always going to be a question of effort they put into the game/improvement. So it remains an arbitrary decision to say "this level is good enough to celebrate" because these people aren't really at peak performance.

Sports themselves are largely a slew of arbitrary rules thrown together to create a common ground for competition. Adding a skill range is just one more distinction. Finding a way to be the best within your subset is impressive to me, regardless if it's 2.5 or 5.0.

 

[randzman]

"However, I still strongly disagree with the logic that winning on a legitimate team cannot be celebrated."

(Who said otherwise?)

"If we're being serious, I can't imagine even 1% of all USTA league players are actually at their "physical limit"

I stated 'if they're not physically limited' ... meaning they do have the capacity to improve ... and of course that also means they're making the judgement call about what effort they want to invest.

" If someone is abusing the system to compete then that's unfair, and it isn't something to be celebrated."

Exactly. We're in agreement.

 

[5sets]

I would have more understanding for the desire to win if this was a 4.5 team.
But a 3.0 team with the goal of reaching nationals is slightly absurd if you're not 65+.
Otherwise a better goal for the team would be to get people to complete at 3.5.
What is the ego that comes with telling someone "Our team are USTA champions ... 3.0."
?!?!?!?

Lmao, “we’re the best at being the worst, the biggest Losers!” Rofl [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk