I want to go to Nationals ... just once

[matrix]

I am asking because I dont know .. not because I want to argue.

How many of those players were self rated ... and how many of them are now playing college tennis?

No starter on the team was a self rate player and no one went on to play college tennis.

 

[jmnk]

No starter on the team was a self rate player and no one went on to play college tennis.

ok, so while most here seem to believe the sandbagging is almost a 'norm' - how do you explain what matrix is saying? It seems that the team he is referring to was by all accounts a fair group of folks, properly ranked, that happened to play well. Are you suggesting it is just one outlier?

 

[KFwinds]

Have two national championship trophies at 4.0 and 4.5. I was legitimate at 4.0 but computer rated at 4.5 there were 3 seasons in between in which I was bumped to 4.5 where i was winning and improving and hoping to get to
5.0. That didn't happen until winning 4.5 nationals even after 2 trips to sectionals with 3-1 recorsds both years in singles and dubs. Both were played in Tucson at a less than stellar facility. Sectionals both years was more competitive and fun in the southern section...once in charleston and the other time in Mobile. Reaching nationals is a lot of fun because of the anticipation and the willingness to get out there and practice. As an open level player at this point, I just like to have something to practice for...whether it be a charity went or a national tournament. Then, as a 5.0 last year, my only league option was 9.0 mixed which I played and won every match but got bumped back down to 4.5. This is another way teams get good players. Now I have a 4.5 rating despite beating 5.0s and 5.5s frequently in singles and doubles.

I like the part where you mention that you were "legitimate" at 4.0, but you are now beating 5.5's...

I'm a fairly decent 4.0 - can you send me some of the "juice"?

8)

 

[OrangePower]

No starter on the team was a self rate player and no one went on to play college tennis.

ok, so while most here seem to believe the sandbagging is almost a 'norm' - how do you explain what matrix is saying? It seems that the team he is referring to was by all accounts a fair group of folks, properly ranked, that happened to play well. Are you suggesting it is just one outlier?

I don't know who matrix is and perhaps his team did it the 'right' way. However, I find his statement to be the kind of thing a politician might say: No *starter* on the team was a self rate player and no one *went on* to play college tennis. While technically true, one wonders what constitutes a starter, and whether team members played college tennis in the past. In fact, here's a snippet from a previous matrix post:

...I went on to play college tennis...

Just to clarify: I don't think sandbagging is as rampant as some make it out to be, and also not all sandbagging is deliberate. But I do think that in order to win nationals you need a healthy dose of out-of-level players on your team, and by out of level I mean that should not have been playing that level to begin with, not that they improved during the course of the season.

 

[matrix]

I don't know who matrix is and perhaps his team did it the 'right' way. However, I find his statement to be the kind of thing a politician might say: No *starter* on the team was a self rate player and no one *went on* to play college tennis. While technically true, one wonders what constitutes a starter, and whether team members played college tennis in the past. In fact, here's a snippet from a previous matrix post:



Just to clarify: I don't think sandbagging is as rampant as some make it out to be, and also not all sandbagging is deliberate. But I do think that in order to win nationals you need a healthy dose of out-of-level players on your team, and by out of level I mean that should not have been playing that level to begin with, not that they improved during the course of the season.

Just to clarify: I was not a member of this 4.0 team but I know most of the players since I'm from the same section. The team was built around 6-7 college students that never played college tennis prior to nationals or after nationals. Most if not all of these players has been playing 3.5-4.0 USTA league for two to three years...Can they hang and even beat 4.5 players? Sure. But that should be expected if they win at nationals correct?

As for me, yes I did play college tennis, but like I said, I was not a part of this 4.0 team.

 

[kylebarendrick]

^^^Listen to this. I was on a team that placed third at Nationals in 2006 (Tucson). Yeah, I had a good time going on a weekend tennis vacation with the team, but it was pretty expensive for what it was. It was, well, kind of...meh...

What level did you play? I was on a team (3.0) that took fourth at nationals in 2006 in Tucson.

I agree with your assessment. It was a fun tennis trip with some friends and it was exciting to have some success in the round robin. I also have no need to do it again. I was almost dissappointed that we made it to the semis because I had planned to do some sightseeing on the last day of the tournament!

 

[tennismonkey]

4.0 national qualifier will need at least two 5.0's to have a shot a winning.

lol. this isn't true. it might "feel" true - especially if you're on teams that don't ever make it to districts or sectionals. but you don't have to have 5.0 players sandbagging to make it to nationals.

i think more important is depth. not good enough to have 2 ringers and a mediocre team. far better to have no ringers but an entire roster of guys who are solid. and i guess best of all would be to have some ringers and a roster full of guys who are solid.

"An army will march only as fast as its slowest unit"
-Sun Tzu

 

[Matt H.]

I don't know who matrix is and perhaps his team did it the 'right' way. However, I find his statement to be the kind of thing a politician might say: No *starter* on the team was a self rate player and no one *went on* to play college tennis. While technically true, one wonders what constitutes a starter, and whether team members played college tennis in the past. In fact, here's a snippet from a previous matrix post:



Just to clarify: I don't think sandbagging is as rampant as some make it out to be, and also not all sandbagging is deliberate. But I do think that in order to win nationals you need a healthy dose of out-of-level players on your team, and by out of level I mean that should not have been playing that level to begin with, not that they improved during the course of the season.

Seeing has how I played against the runner-up team (Texas) at the 2011 Nationals and watched the championship match of Texas vs. Seattle I can confidently say it’s an over exaggeration.

There was 1 guy on the Texas team who was clearly head and shoulders better than everyone, and the word was he had a D1 scholarship but chose not to play. Other than that it was really solid play. I can assure you that my team had no ringers, and we won 2 matches at Nationals. We just had some really good 4.0 players…which is the whole point of 4.0 Nationals. To have the best 4.0 teams in the Nation play.

 

[Ronaldo]

Seeing has how I played against the runner-up team (Texas) at the 2011 Nationals and watched the championship match of Texas vs. Seattle I can confidently say it’s an over exaggeration.

There was 1 guy on the Texas team who was clearly head and shoulders better than everyone, and the word was he had a D1 scholarship but chose not to play. Other than that it was really solid play. I can assure you that my team had no ringers, and we won 2 matches at Nationals. We just had some really good 4.0 players…which is the whole point of 4.0 Nationals. To have the best 4.0 teams in the Nation play.

Think of the quality of play if out of thousands of teams only 17 qualify for Nationals.

 

[goober]

There was 1 guy on the Texas team who was clearly head and shoulders better than everyone, and the word was he had a D1 scholarship but chose not to play. Other than that it was really solid play. I can assure you that my team had no ringers, and we won 2 matches at Nationals. We just had some really good 4.0 players…which is the whole point of 4.0 Nationals. To have the best 4.0 teams in the Nation play.

Are they just really good 4.0 players or are they really 4.5 players that have 4.0 ratings? Every single person that I have seen that went to nationals could easily win at 4.5. The whole idea of having a national championship at some artificial and arbitrary cutoff point for a sport is absurd. Could you imagine having a national basketball amateur championship with 5 different levels?

 

[Matt H.]

Are they just really good 4.0 players or are they really 4.5 players that have 4.0 ratings? Every single person that I have seen that went to nationals could easily win at 4.5. The whole idea of having a national championship at some artificial and arbitrary cutoff point for a sport is absurd. Could you imagine having a national basketball amateur championship with 5 different levels?

it's impossible to have a perfect cutoff point. it's very gray, sure.

the very best 4.0's stand a good shot at beating weak 4.5's.

plus you're dealing with ratings system that is comparative performance, so the best 4.0 in Montana might not be as good as the best in Florida or California.

 

[tennismonkey]

a strong 4.0 player can beat a weak 4.5 player. does that mean the 4.0 player is really a 4.5 player?

a weak 4.5 player can lose to a strong 4.0 player. does that mean the 4.5 player is really a 4.0 player?

a strong 4.0 player should (according to the USTA) beat a weak 4.0 player by an average score of 6-0, 6-0.

a train leaves philadelphia at 3pm. another train leaves new york at 2pm. how long would a train ride to arizona take?

 

[Ronaldo]

Players can improve in a season. Especially with coaching and tons of matches.

 

[maggmaster]

it's impossible to have a perfect cutoff point. it's very gray, sure.

the very best 4.0's stand a good shot at beating weak 4.5's.

plus you're dealing with ratings system that is comparative performance, so the best 4.0 in Montana might not be as good as the best in Florida or California.

This is most definitely true, ratings don't change until the algorithim catches up but skills change fluidly.

 

[DANMAN]

I like the part where you mention that you were "legitimate" at 4.0, but you are now beating 5.5's...

I'm a fairly decent 4.0 - can you send me some of the "juice"?

8)

I sure will for 3 easy payments of $39.95. I started playing year around my senior year of high school and quit playing basketball and soccer...both of which were my primary sports before that point. I played a year at 4.0 and won nationals straight out of high school. I got bumped to 4.5 then began playing more and more and was playing 5.0 level tennis within a year or two. The year we won 4.5 nationals I was playing 5.0 level, but was well within the rules and had a computer rating. I was teaching at that time and was on court hours a day while finishing college. Now, I've sort of peaked out playing 5.0 singles and 5.0-5.5 dubs. The biggest thing I find I am improving on now is not pressing and playing within myself.

 

[tennis_tater]

LOL this is what happens when you take this stuff so seriously. It cost you time and money to travel to sectionals to play tennis, but you boycott games after your self rates get DQ'ed? It is crazy... this is recreational tennis.

I know a bunch of people who basically quit USTA after a similar happening. The captain threw a bunch of matches to get his year end rating down to 4.0. He then went about forming his super team. He breeezed through league and districts . He had only 1 self rated ringer. Unfortunately this ringer got DQ'ed during sectionals and turned a 3-2 win into 2-3 loss and subsequently cost them a trip to nationals. They all vowed never to play USTA again and I actually haven't seen them on any USTA teams, tournaments or anything since then.

I thought the results for player DQ'd at the Championship level stood, but that the DQ'd player simply could not advance and play at the next level, whether it be Sectionals or Nationals?

 

[tennis_tater]

That is not one of the questions. I had the option to rate 4.5 to 5.5.

Just curious, but if you already won a NC at 4.5 level and you won all of your matches playing mixed 9.0 as a 5.0 last year, and you routinely beat 5.0 and 5.5 players in both singles and doubles, can you honestly say that you answered the self-rate assessment truthfully by assigning yourself the 4.5 self-rate when given higher options to select from?

 

[DANMAN]

Just curious, but if you already won a NC at 4.5 level and you won all of your matches playing mixed 9.0 as a 5.0 last year, and you routinely beat 5.0 and 5.5 players in both singles and doubles, can you honestly say that you answered the self-rate assessment truthfully by assigning yourself the 4.5 self-rate when given higher options to select from?

I answered all questions truthfully 100%. At the end of the questionnaire, it said select your rating 4.5, 5.0, 5.5. We don't have any leagues higher than 4.5 around here, so I took the 4.5 rating. I'm going to play every match 100% and am at risk of getting DQ'd, but I don't care about my rating as much as playing good tennis. I'll get one season out of the gig and will likely never get down to 4.5 again if the loophole that allowed me a 4.5 closed. I didn't play elite tennis in college, and I didn't have any junior rankings that would put me higher than 4.5 based on the questions. If you would know the DQ USTA has pulled on some of my people before (undeserved non-college players), you would understand why I am playing as a 4.5...simply to beat one team who cheats and then will file any grievance to win if they don't win by cheating.

 

[J_R_B]

I thought the results for player DQ'd at the Championship level stood, but that the DQ'd player simply could not advance and play at the next level, whether it be Sectionals or Nationals?

This varies by section. Sections are allowed to choose between running strike reports after each match or after the whole tournament is finished. If they only run the strike reports after the tournament is done, then the results stand and the DQ'd players are simply not allowed to advance. If the section chooses to run strike reports after each match, then the DQ'd player's results are overturned for the strikes even if they occurred during sectionals since they can make the adjustment immediately.

 

[tennis_tater]

I started playing year around my senior year of high school and quit playing basketball and soccer...both of which were my primary sports before that point. I played a year at 4.0 and won nationals straight out of high school.

So you started playing tennis your last year of high school and directly out of high school, self-rate as a 4.0? I thought you going from 4.0 to 5.5 level was pretty impressive...however, the jump from a beginner 2.5 player to a 4.0 national player in one year's time is probably more impressive to me.

I got bumped to 4.5 then began playing more and more and was playing 5.0 level tennis within a year or two. The year we won 4.5 nationals I was playing 5.0 level, but was well within the rules and had a computer rating.

So about three to four years out from the time you started playing tennis, you went from a 2.5 to a 5.0 level? That's pretty impressive. Those 3 payments of 39.99 are looking much cheaper than what I've been paying others for tennis lessons. I'm with the other poster...I need to have whatever juice you've been drinking.

Have two national championship trophies at 4.0 and 4.5. I was legitimate at 4.0

Ok, since you were fresh out of high school and since you didn't have a junior/sectional ranking and self-rated as a 4.0 properly, and getting back to one of the original posters points, just curious whether you can say that your team had any players who self-rated improperly or who were playing out of their level from the get-go? Was your team "put together" with the intent to make a run at Nationals?

If you would know the DQ USTA has pulled on some of my people before (undeserved non-college players), you would understand why I am playing as a 4.5...simply to beat one team who cheats and then will file any grievance to win if they don't win by cheating.

With all of your national championship trophies, seems like your team is the one always winning. All that aside, good luck with your 4.5 season.

 

[DANMAN]

So you started playing tennis your last year of high school and directly out of high school, self-rate as a 4.0? I thought you going from 4.0 to 5.5 level was pretty impressive...however, the jump from a beginner 2.5 player to a 4.0 national player in one year's time is probably more impressive to me.



So about three to four years out from the time you started playing tennis, you went from a 2.5 to a 5.0 level? That's pretty impressive. Those 3 payments of 39.99 are looking much cheaper than what I've been paying others for tennis lessons. I'm with the other poster...I need to have whatever juice you've been drinking.



Ok, since you were fresh out of high school and since you didn't have a junior/sectional ranking and self-rated as a 4.0 properly, and getting back to one of the original posters points, just curious whether you can say that your team had any players who self-rated improperly or who were playing out of their level from the get-go? Was your team "put together" with the intent to make a run at Nationals?



With all of your national championship trophies, seems like your team is the one always winning. All that aside, good luck with your 4.5 season.

You've got it all wrong my friend. I played tennis in high school, but summer months only when not heavily into basketball and soccer. I played summer tournaments from the age of 12. Starting to play year around right in senior year of high school (with a sound base), I was a legitimate but high end 4.0. I had several losses to 4.5 players that season, but pulled one or two wins. Everyone on my 4.0 team that won nationals was legit. The 4.5 team had one non-legit guy overall...but he had a computer rating so we used him. So the jumps aren'as as extreme as it may have appeared. I've won a lot of men's stuff, but it's the mixed that the people who underrate like to partake in, which is really why I'm using 4.5 rating. I'm tired of having the weakest player on the court playing a weak 5.0 guy and a 5.0 woman rated 4.0 (which is easier to get away with here than the same rating with a man) and having to fight to the death to win matches (and this fact and a few close 9.0 matches got me down to 4.5).