How much harder is it to get DQed at 3.0 than 4.0?

[time_fly]

I found out that one of the new players on our 4.0 team got DQed. He played 4 matches at 4.0 and 2 at 4.5. All were doubles matches. He lost both at 4.5 in three sets, and he won all four of his 4.0 matches. However two of those wins were also in 3 sets, and only one was even remotely lopsided (6-3, 6-1).

Meanwhile, our club has a very successful 3.0 team with a bunch of new players. I have one of their 3.0S guys playing up on my 3.5 team, and he has a 3-1 record. There are a couple of other 3.0S guys on that team that are probably better than he is. They are a combined 39-4 since joining USTA for the 2020 season. None of them has been DQed. How can that happen? I'm speculating that the USTA likes to reward newer, lower-level players with easy wins but figures that anyone who is starting at 4.0 is a veteran competitor already. But the double standard seems crazy.

 

[schmke]

The strike threshold for lower levels is larger (relative to the top of the self-rating the player is at) than for higher levels. This is done with the expectation that natural improvement at lower levels occurs faster than at higher levels, so in order to not penalize players who self-rated fairly when they naturally improve, the lower rated players get a larger threshold before they get strikes.

So yes, it is harder to get DQd at 30 than 4.0 from the standpoint of the thresholds. Whether a player gets strikes and is DQd still depends on the specifics of who they play (and play with) and the scores. One player may get DQd without a great win/loss record, while another may rack up the wins and not get DQd.

 

[J_R_B]

I found out that one of the new players on our 4.0 team got DQed. He played 4 matches at 4.0 and 2 at 4.5. All were doubles matches. He lost both at 4.5 in three sets, and he won all four of his 4.0 matches. However two of those wins were also in 3 sets, and only one was even remotely lopsided (6-3, 6-1).

Meanwhile, our club has a very successful 3.0 team with a bunch of new players. I have one of their 3.0S guys playing up on my 3.5 team, and he has a 3-1 record. There are a couple of other 3.0S guys on that team that are probably better than he is. They are a combined 39-4 since joining USTA for the 2020 season. None of them has been DQed. How can that happen? I'm speculating that the USTA likes to reward newer, lower-level players with easy wins but figures that anyone who is starting at 4.0 is a veteran competitor already. But the double standard seems crazy.

Playing up and going 3 sets at 4.5 is a good way to get DQ'd as a 4.0S. Who were his partners in those matches? If they were also 4.0s and the opponents were 4.5 rated, it's easy to see how both of those matches could be strikes.

 

[time_fly]

Playing up and going 3 sets at 4.5 is a good way to get DQ'd as a 4.0S. Who were his partners in those matches? If they were also 4.0s and the opponents were 4.5 rated, it's easy to see how both of those matches could be strikes.

Both 4.5 matches the DQ guy played were, by coincidence, against the same pair: a 4.0C guy who was a 3.5S ringer in 2019, and a 4.0A guy (appealed down after being bumped up in 2020). In one case DQ guy played with a 4.5S and the other he played with a 4.5C.

 

[Crazy Finn]

I know of a young guy who was rated at 3.0 by a 3.5 captain. He played 7 matches at 3.0 before getting DQ'ed. Mostly singles, won 1 & 4, 3 & 3, 3 & 1, 1 & 1, 4 & 5, 1 & 1, 0 & 2 (doubles), 4 & 0.

 

[Purestriker]

I know of a young guy who was rated at 3.0 by a 3.5 captain. He played 7 matches at 3.0 before getting DQ'ed. Mostly singles, won 1 & 4, 3 & 3, 3 & 1, 1 & 1, 4 & 5, 1 & 1, 0 & 2 (doubles), 4 & 0.

Sounds like the 3.5 captain wanted to test out if they had a new singles player on the horizon.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Sounds like the 3.5 captain wanted to test out if they had a new singles player on the horizon.

That’s quite possible.

He ended up captaining his own 3.5 team after he was promoted.