is it time to start a coup?

[randomname]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

 

[Okazaki Fragment]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

Well, if the revolutionaries consists of only the weaker players who wouldn't play anyway...the captain may welcome your coup. If the stronger players are on your side, then it should be a relatively bloodless coup.

 

[randomname]

Well, if the revolutionaries consists of only the weaker players who wouldn't play anyway...the captain may welcome your coup. If the stronger players are on your side, then it should be a relatively bloodless coup.

He may welcome it, but history isnt exactly on his side....

 

[moonbat]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

Hmmm...what are the odds that your strong players will win the playoffs? If the odds are high, you might want to keep quiet and be satisfied that you're part of a team that wins a trophy. If the odds are low, then your coach is a back-sliding, two-faced, yellow-bellied snake and you should call him on it (with backup, of course).

 

[iplaylikeyourgrandma]

If a team is in playoff contention, I bet if the captain took a vote, the majority of the team would vote to go to the playoffs. That means the weaker players usually step aside voluntarily so their stronger teammates can play. If you don't like it you can always volunteer to be captain next time.

 

[blakesq]

Quit yer b****in, and start your own team next year.

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

 

[RestockingTues]

Why do you want weaker players to go to the playoffs? :shock:

 

[moonbat]

I have to agree with the other posters. Egalitarianism is good, but it has no place in a competitive sports team.

 

[Crusher10s]

Hmmm...what are the odds that your strong players will win the playoffs? If the odds are high, you might want to keep quiet and be satisfied that you're part of a team that wins a trophy. If the odds are low, then your coach is a back-sliding, two-faced, yellow-bellied snake and you should call him on it (with backup, of course).

LOL....I dig this Moonbat.....LOL

 

[moonbat]

LOL....I dig this Moonbat.....LOL

Thanks!! I'm a fan of yours, too!

 

[JHBKLYN]

Before the playoff match, I would try to get 4 or 5 outsiders and have them chant: Let them play... let them play .. let them play ... let them play ... let them play ...

 

[amarone]

I have to agree with the other posters. Egalitarianism is good, but it has no place in a competitive sports team.

This isn't competitive sports - it is recreational sports. How competitive an approach to take is up to the team and for the team to agree in advance.

I play people pretty much equally during the regular season, and strength during the playoff and, if needed, at the end of the regular season to clinch the playoff place. But if the stated approach was to play everyone equally, then the captain should stick to that. Players should know in advance whether the approach is going to be strength or equality, as that can be a significant factor in their decision as to which team to play on.

Posters here seem to be stating how they think a team should be captained. That is not the issue at hand. The question is whether the captain should renege on how he said he would run the team, now that the playoffs are in sight.

 

[spot]

If it was declared before the start of the season then I think you are perfectly justified in sending an email to the team reminding everyone thats what the philosophy of the team was. If the captain were smart then he would put it up to a team vote and I bet people would say "make the playoffs" as opposed to "play everyone" but even thats sort of a chicken way out- you came onto the team thinking you would play the same amount as everyone else and now you don't have a choice to leave. I run my teams saying up front hte better players will play more often beacuse I would hate to be on a team where everyone plays equally but you are totally justified in raising hell if the team was set up to be social instead of competitive.

 

[goober]

If it was declared before the start of the season then I think you are perfectly justified in sending an email to the team reminding everyone thats what the philosophy of the team was. If the captain were smart then he would put it up to a team vote and I bet people would say "make the playoffs" as opposed to "play everyone" but even thats sort of a chicken way out- you came onto the team thinking you would play the same amount as everyone else and now you don't have a choice to leave. I run my teams saying up front hte better players will play more often beacuse I would hate to be on a team where everyone plays equally but you are totally justified in raising hell if the team was set up to be social instead of competitive.

I agree. Changing philosophies midstream is BS. People join the team based on expectations: this team is built to win, this is a social team, everybody gets to play, ect. I would definitely confront the the captain about it as well as other players. This may not change anything in the short term but it may change how things are done in the future with your team.

 

[saram]

I agree with Goober here. Changing philosophies mid-season is not good. I would confront the captain (with the support of others) and address the issue. I would make sure that there are others on the team that have the same thoughts as you prior to doing this. You need to ensure that this is the concept of the team and not just your thoughts and disappointment talking here.

 

[Topaz]

If it was declared before the start of the season then I think you are perfectly justified in sending an email to the team reminding everyone thats what the philosophy of the team was. If the captain were smart then he would put it up to a team vote and I bet people would say "make the playoffs" as opposed to "play everyone" but even thats sort of a chicken way out- you came onto the team thinking you would play the same amount as everyone else and now you don't have a choice to leave. I run my teams saying up front hte better players will play more often beacuse I would hate to be on a team where everyone plays equally but you are totally justified in raising hell if the team was set up to be social instead of competitive.

Agree.

And, since the 'play everyone' philosophy worked well enough to put the team in position to be in playoffs, why wouldn't it work in playoffs?

The teams that do well in post season play have always seemed to have a deep team...not just a core of top, strong players, at least in my experience.

Then, if you make the trip to districts, sectionals, etc, and a few people can't make it, you aren't suddenly stuck with your 'weak' people who never got the experience of playing in playoffs.

 

[saram]

Agree.

And, since the 'play everyone' philosophy worked well enough to put the team in position to be in playoffs, why wouldn't it work in playoffs?

The teams that do well in post season play have always seemed to have a deep team...not just a core of top, strong players, at least in my experience.

Then, if you make the trip to districts, sectionals, etc, and a few people can't make it, you aren't suddenly stuck with your 'weak' people who never got the experience of playing in playoffs.

Good point--good chemistry amongst players can yield greater results than talent and no chemistry. Well said.

 

[cak]

It's a shame USTA doesn't offer "play everyone equally" leagues with no playoffs. There is a few of those "play everyone" social leagues around here, but you have to be female, and willing to play on weekdays. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, there are no standings, and at the end you all get lunch.

That said, if there are playoffs involved it means it's a competitive league. As Topaz points out, if there is no depth on the team there is little chance of them making it all the way. On the other hand, if the "prize" is one more round of matches, playing the strongest lineup you have available at any given point will give you the best chance of one more match.

And I suppose there does need to be clarification on the "play everyone" philosophy. Is it play everyone equally? Or play everyone at least "X" times? I know our club policy is the latter. Then again, our club policy is also any club member of that rating gets to be on the team, so you can't reject weak players outright.

 

[Cruzer]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

What are you talking about?? A "civil war on the team"?? You don't like the captain "goin (sic) back on his word". Did you sign some sort of contract with the team saying he would play everyone equally? Probably not. While this only bleeedin' recreational tennis the majority of players want to win as much as they can. Welcome to league tennis.

As any team captain will tell you being a captain is a VOLUNTEER position. If you don't like the way the team is being run feel free to step up to the plate next time around and do it yourself. Team members complainig about playing time is just one of the issues you get to deal with in this volunteer position.

While you may feel it is unfair that some of the weaker players are not getting to play the captain probably has several of the stronger players in his ear strongly suggesting only the better players should be playing since the team is likely going to make the playoffs.

 

[Ronaldo]

First year playing league tennis played a team in the distict finals. They had 16 players, 8 played the semis in the morning, other 8 the finals in the afternoon. Of course they lost. We have nearly 20 players on a team so usually weaker players are free to play with each other.

 

[moonbat]

This isn't competitive sports - it is recreational sports. How competitive an approach to take is up to the team and for the team to agree in advance.

I play people pretty much equally during the regular season, and strength during the playoff and, if needed, at the end of the regular season to clinch the playoff place. But if the stated approach was to play everyone equally, then the captain should stick to that. Players should know in advance whether the approach is going to be strength or equality, as that can be a significant factor in their decision as to which team to play on.

Posters here seem to be stating how they think a team should be captained. That is not the issue at hand. The question is whether the captain should renege on how he said he would run the team, now that the playoffs are in sight.

Well, that's why I phrased it the way I did, as a "competitive" sports team. Some recreational teams are very competitive, others aren't. The problem here is that the team was set up initially as recreational, where everyone plays, but in the playoffs wants to become a competitive team, favoring the stronger players. I think Topaz's point that the team that played everyone equally still made the playoffs, so it should go to the playoffs with the same intention is a good one. Play the weaker players in the number 3 spot and put the stronger players at 1 and 2. I also think that making the playoffs will bring out more of a competitive spirit on the team, so I have some sympathy with the coach and the stronger players as well.

 

[Schills]

How many people are on the team? Depending on the format of the play-offs/play-in, he'll need more than just the top 3 pairs. Not everyone is allowed to play every match in a play-in, which is a round-robin type affair. Also, if your team goes far, there will be automatic upgrades for quite a few, so your play time next year will increase anyway. All of this is based on how it works here in SoCal.

 

[burosky]

It's funny how team philosophy changes. This is why I never believe it when I get invited to a team that is supposed to be "for fun" or something similar like "everyone gets a chance to play". Teams like these inevitably change to "competitive" teams as soon as they get a sniff of the playoffs. The only league that I know that actually has a policy of everyone gets to play is CYO type leagues. For those who don't know, that is youth leagues for Catholic Schools.

Even then the rule doesn't really get applied the way it was intended. Specially in basketball. Those teams who have a chance to advance only use their "bench" players very sparingly. They usually sub in usually in the very early stages of the game and get subbed out at the earliest opportunity.

 

[spot]

The problem with social teams is what happens to the players who are busting their ass to get better- if they don't play any more because of it then they sure lose motivation to bust ass. Then they get frustrated because they see teammates lose a match that they know that they would win and they know those players aren't trying as hard to improve. If the team doesn't get more competitive then they end up leaving. I would really hate to be on a social team where everyone plays the same- I want a team where you get rewarded for playing well and improving.

 

[NetMaster70]

We try to give everyone an equal opportunity to play during the local league. However, once we reach the post-season, the captain only plays his best players. But our captain communicates that policy to everyone before they sign up for the team.

In this case the captain should be consistent with what he communicated to players at the beginning of the year.

 

[raiden031]

I think I might have made a mistake in joining a team that is looking to be competitive this year during the spring league. Not only that, but i was recruited for singles play, which I like but don't think I will be good enough to win. I'm worried I will be one of the worst players on the team and my $75 league fee will buy me 1 or 2 matches. I always wanted to be a higher rating, but didn't think it through enough on how that might affect the amount of playing I get. Is it better to be a contributor on a 3.5 team or a benchwarmer on a 4.0 team?

 

[Ian182]

What are you talking about?? A "civil war on the team"?? You don't like the captain "goin (sic) back on his word". Did you sign some sort of contract with the team saying he would play everyone equally? Probably not. While this only bleeedin' recreational tennis the majority of players want to win as much as they can. Welcome to league tennis.

As any team captain will tell you being a captain is a VOLUNTEER position. If you don't like the way the team is being run feel free to step up to the plate next time around and do it yourself. Team members complainig about playing time is just one of the issues you get to deal with in this volunteer position.

While you may feel it is unfair that some of the weaker players are not getting to play the captain probably has several of the stronger players in his ear strongly suggesting only the better players should be playing since the team is likely going to make the playoffs.

Could you email me please Cruzer? Would really appreciate if you are able to find the time. Thank you!

 

[goober]

Could you email me please Cruzer? Would really appreciate if you are able to find the time. Thank you!

lol- I hope that is not Cruzer's captain

 

[10sfreak]

Agree.

And, since the 'play everyone' philosophy worked well enough to put the team in position to be in playoffs, why wouldn't it work in playoffs?

The teams that do well in post season play have always seemed to have a deep team...not just a core of top, strong players, at least in my experience.

Then, if you make the trip to districts, sectionals, etc, and a few people can't make it, you aren't suddenly stuck with your 'weak' people who never got the experience of playing in playoffs.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think you have to play in the state championships to be able to play in sectionals, right? Kinda like you have to play in the regular season (at least 2 games) in order to play in the state championships.

 

[raiden031]

I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think you have to play in the state championships to be able to play in sectionals, right? Kinda like you have to play in the regular season (at least 2 games) in order to play in the state championships.

Nope, you only have to play in regular season. We had a guy miss both districts and sectionals and play for us at Nationals.

 

[cak]

In California there is no "state championships" so I'm a bit confused. Does this come before districts? Is this the equivalent of local playoffs?

Here you do need to play in two regular season matches to play in playoffs, but in most leagues you need three matches to play at Nationals. So if you played all three during regular season you don't need to play in any post season play until Nationals.

 

[NetMaster70]

I agree with the comments that captains should not change their stated philsophy now that the playoffs are near.

Seems to me that teams need to be clearly competitive (the best guys play the most) or clearly social (all players play equally). It is when you try to be both that captains run into trouble. Drive on the right side of the road or the left side but don't drive down the middle.

 

[Ronaldo]

In California there is no "state championships" so I'm a bit confused. Does this come before districts? Is this the equivalent of local playoffs?

Here you do need to play in two regular season matches to play in playoffs, but in most leagues you need three matches to play at Nationals. So if you played all three during regular season you don't need to play in any post season play until Nationals.

Doesn't California send teams from several parts of the state to Nationals? Saw 17 teams, divided into 4 flights, with a team from SoCal and NoCal. But that was 10 yrs ago.

 

[raiden031]

Doesn't California send teams from several parts of the state to Nationals? Saw 17 teams, divided into 4 flights, with a team from SoCal and NoCal. But that was 10 yrs ago.

California has multiple sections, which also contains multiple districts.

In my section (Mid-Atlantic), each state represents a district. So MD, VA, and WV are districts within that section.

 

[Ronaldo]

California has multiple sections, which also contains multiple districts.

In my section (Mid-Atlantic), each state represents a district. So MD, VA, and WV are districts within that section.

Funny, Charleston WV is in the Ohio Valley district. Once the Ohio State championships were held in Charleston.

 

[raiden031]

Funny, Charleston WV is in the Ohio Valley district. Once the Ohio State championships were held in Charleston.

Could be. Maybe it was DC, not WV that is in mid-atlantic.

 

[SJS]

Funny, Charleston WV is in the Ohio Valley district. Once the Ohio State championships were held in Charleston.

Thank-you, I just learned something. I always thought all of WV was in the Mid-Atlantic and just assumed there weren't many tennis players since they rarely have teams at Sectionals in the upper levels.
I just looked at the Mid-Atlantic site and see that only the eastern half of the state is in the Mid-Atlantic.

 

[Aldi Patron]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

If you signed up to play on a team that goes by a certain philosophy, the captain is definitely wrong to go back on his word.

If you're going to start a coup though, you're going to need guns. Lots of guns.

 

[raiden031]

What are you talking about?? A "civil war on the team"?? You don't like the captain "goin (sic) back on his word". Did you sign some sort of contract with the team saying he would play everyone equally? Probably not. While this only bleeedin' recreational tennis the majority of players want to win as much as they can. Welcome to league tennis.

As any team captain will tell you being a captain is a VOLUNTEER position. If you don't like the way the team is being run feel free to step up to the plate next time around and do it yourself. Team members complainig about playing time is just one of the issues you get to deal with in this volunteer position.

While you may feel it is unfair that some of the weaker players are not getting to play the captain probably has several of the stronger players in his ear strongly suggesting only the better players should be playing since the team is likely going to make the playoffs.

I think you are wrong about this. Its not like there is one team to choose from like in high school where you don't have options, and so the weaker players need to either suck it up or quit. This is adult rec. tennis. There are teams that play to win as much as they can, and there are teams who play just for the fun of it. The player decides what type of team is best for them. If a captain is lying to them about their intentions, then that is wrong. If a player knew they weren't going to play, then they would have picked another team. The captain took away that option by promising playing time, and then going back on their word. Its not about signing a contract, its about being a person of integrity.

 

[cak]

I actually think there are three types of teams:
1) Those that play to advance to Nationals: these teams recruit the best players of that level in the area. The rosters are huge, as they don't want to hinge their fate on players that are so underrated they may get DQ'd, (not as big a problem now that computer rated players won't receive strikes...) and most of these players are on multiple teams, so once playoffs start they have to pick a team, and might not pick this one. Players usually don't know each other, and team spirit isn't a factor at all, at least until the traveling starts. Local league is just a means of racking up wins.

2) Social teams playing for fun and to win. These are teams of buddies that party together. They'd like to win, and if they aren't in the lineup they tend to show up and cheer. Team spirit is high, everyone is friends, and the season end party is huge. These teams often make local playoffs, and occasionally make the "feel good story of the season" by making it past districts to sectionals, and very occasionally to Nationals. Bonding starts at the preseason meeting/social.

3) Everybody plays evenly teams. People join these teams to get playing time, especially if they aren't good enough to get playing time on a team trying to win. No one really cares how the team as a whole is doing in the win/loss column. Some times this is a group of friends, so they are in it for the socializing after the matches. Some times it's just a bunch of players that don't have games otherwise, so this is a way of getting more play, and they don't really know the other players. These teams are especially prevalent amongst people who want to play up. So, say teams of 3.5 players playing in the 4.0 league. I'd hesitate to call these teams "fun" teams, as I find the category two teams much more fun.

I think problems arise when folks are joining a category two team thinking it's a category three team. If you are looking for equal time the question to ask the captain is not if the team is an "everyone plays" team, or a "social" team, but will the captain be setting lineups with an intent of winning that match, or will the lineups be set with an intent to give everyone equal playing time. "Everyone plays" could mean everyone plays at least twice (or whatever the local rule is to qualify for playoffs...). And "social" could mean they have good parties, but says nothing about playing time. The quickest way to tell is if the captain sets all the lineups for the season before the first match. If they don't, it's probably a category two team.

 

[fuzz nation]

How many people are on the team? Depending on the format of the play-offs/play-in, he'll need more than just the top 3 pairs. Not everyone is allowed to play every match in a play-in, which is a round-robin type affair. Also, if your team goes far, there will be automatic upgrades for quite a few, so your play time next year will increase anyway. All of this is based on how it works here in SoCal.

Sounds right to me, too. If the playoffs have enough room for most if not all of the team to compete, then I'd say that more should obviously contribute.

I had an interesting thing happen with a team I played on that went to the regionals, though. We had one more match which would determine whether our team would advance from our round-robin group to the overall final for that weekend, so we were in a situation where that match affected everyone's weekend. Plus, everyone on our team who had made the trip had already played so far that weekend. Our captain decided to use a lineup that wasn't especially strong and our team ended up losing - not advancing to the finals and a crack at the nationals.

One of the guys on the team that I'm pals with was reeeeeally p-o'ed about it because our captain took a spot in that match over one or two of our more solid players and we only lost by one individual match. D'oh! In that case, everyone had contributed so far, but it made sense for that key match to use the stronger lineup so that the whole team could move on.

If you have a round-robin format, everyone should play. That's why they're there, right? If the playoff format is single elimination though, I think that it makes sense to put at least a couple of stronger players out there to help earn the team an advancement, but no way should other players be completely benched for the entire stretch. If that's what was decided ahead of time, the team needs to stick to it.

 

[calamansi]

I'm playing on a team that was started with the philosophy that everyone plays no matter what (playoffs included). Well, it looks like we're going to make the playoffs but as of late the captain has started giving less and less play time to the weaker players, and I was told by one of our best guys that the captain is only planning on playing the top players in the playoffs. Now, I don't want to start a civil war on the team, I think its absolutely insane that the captain is goin back on his word. The problem is, he is also the type that won't change his mind after it's been made up, so what should we do?

Practice harder and get better so you can play more.

 

[heninfan99]

I don't think a democratic team vote works. I just started as a captain and most everyone on the team thinks they should play court one singles or should be teamed up with our best player for doubles. Interestingly, the one great player we do have doesn't seem to care. He's humble. I think the captain has got to make the line-up and do what he thinks is best. If someone really whines I'll try to accommodate them next match.

How competitive an approach to take is up to the team and for the team to agree in advance.

 

[amarone]

I don't think a democratic team vote works. I just started as a captain and most everyone on the team thinks they should play court one singles or should be teamed up with our best player for doubles. Interestingly, the one great player we do have doesn't seem to care. He's humble. I think the captain has got to make the line-up and do what he thinks is best. If someone really whines I'll try to accommodate them next match.

I am not saying that the team votes democratically on who plays where - that is indeed up to the captain. But the overall philosophy should be determined in advance so that the players have the right expectations. If you are the 9th or 10th best player, it makes a big difference whether the team's philosophy is "pure strength" or "play everyone equally", or somewhere inbetween.

The issue in the OP is that the captain stated a philosophy initially, then changed it mid-season.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Say nothing. Then leave.

That's what I did regarding my DC team. In DC, you pay $72 registration up front for the season no matter how many matches you play.

I paid my money last spring. I played the first match.

After that, I was sucked into a swirling vortex black hole or something and became completely invisible to my captain. I was never again put into the line-up. I'm no Maria Sharapova, but I know I am not so feeble that I should be riding the bench to that extent.

Captain invited me back recently for this year, and I politely told her I was playing with another group of women I know from my other teams. I very much wanted to tell her the cold truth about why I am not returning, but for once in my life I showed a bit of restraint.

$72.00 for one match. I'm still cheesed off to have my money and my season wasted like that.

 

[burosky]

I agree with Cindy. A similar situation happened to me. I did it a little differently though. I did leave but I at least let my captain know about how I felt. However, it was in a polite way so we remain civil with each other.

 

[raiden031]

Say nothing. Then leave.

That's what I did regarding my DC team. In DC, you pay $72 registration up front for the season no matter how many matches you play.

I paid my money last spring. I played the first match.

After that, I was sucked into a swirling vortex black hole or something and became completely invisible to my captain. I was never again put into the line-up. I'm no Maria Sharapova, but I know I am not so feeble that I should be riding the bench to that extent.

Captain invited me back recently for this year, and I politely told her I was playing with another group of women I know from my other teams. I very much wanted to tell her the cold truth about why I am not returning, but for once in my life I showed a bit of restraint.

$72.00 for one match. I'm still cheesed off to have my money and my season wasted like that.

That is pretty bad. I can't believe she had the nerve to invite you back after that kind of season. I take it she never apologized for not getting you in and there was no obvious reason for it?

I was disappointed in the way my 8.0 mixed season turned out (2 matches), but it was a combination of 1) my planned partner missing most of the season due to medical problems and 2) I ended up on the top team and was kinda the odd-ball rookie, not having played with anyone on the team in previous years. My captain apologized for the way things were turning out and assured me a couple matches by the end of the season which I got. Luckily I won both matches. So no hard feelings from me because there was never any promise that everyone is played equally and she did what she could, obviously with the team's first place position in mind.

With all that being said, I'm highly considering starting my own team next year (mixed) so I don't have to worry about the pressures of playing well enough to earn the respect of a captain. Once a player gets on my team they are just as valuable as any other. It will be about individuals playing for themselves, but in a team format.

I have played on a championship team so I know what it truly takes to have a winning team. And finding the top players in your league and pulling them onto your team is not going to cut it. The only way to really have a winning team is to recruit self-rated players, and if you aren't willing to go all out, why bother screwing over a couple players who aren't the best on the team so you can make it to districts and lose anyways against the teams that did go all out?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Raiden, that whole season was just plain weird.

I had been on that team the year before as a 3.0 playing up. On signing up, I told the captain I cannot attend practices (because of the location and time she chose). No problem, she said. She then played me quite a lot that year.

Then I came back the following year with a shiny new 3.5 rating and stronger tennis skills to get totally benched. I think she decided to make a run for the division title once the season started, which was downright silly given how many players playing up she had.

When she called to invite me back this year, she left a message first. The message was very nice and asked whether I had a partner I'd like to bring along with me. So maybe the problem was that she wanted to stick with established partnerships and didn't play me because I didn't come to practices and didn't know anyone last year? Eh, whatever.

Regarding your thoughts on captaining, I say go for it. As you say, it is very nice to know you will be treated well on at least one team (your own!).

As you know, my teams are "equal play" teams. If you are good enough to be on the team, you are good enough to play. With this philosophy, we have only had one losing season (went 4-8 in our first season of 6.5 combo after moving up from 5.5). We have gone to the playoffs twice despite playing everyone, so benching people is not the only way to have a competitive team.

One piece of unsolicited advice if you decide to start a new 8.0 team: Get started now. I am starting a 7.5 combo team from scratch. I decided to do it for the fall 2009 season and not wait for the winter 2010 season because it is harder to hit with people when there is snow on the ground. I have 11 committed players for September, and I started asking around in *February.* Also, if you can find a good female co-captain, that will help greatly in finding good female players.

I hope you do it. I think you'd be great at it!

 

[raiden031]

Raiden, that whole season was just plain weird.

I had been on that team the year before as a 3.0 playing up. On signing up, I told the captain I cannot attend practices (because of the location and time she chose). No problem, she said. She then played me quite a lot that year.

Then I came back the following year with a shiny new 3.5 rating and stronger tennis skills to get totally benched. I think she decided to make a run for the division title once the season started, which was downright silly given how many players playing up she had.

When she called to invite me back this year, she left a message first. The message was very nice and asked whether I had a partner I'd like to bring along with me. So maybe the problem was that she wanted to stick with established partnerships and didn't play me because I didn't come to practices and didn't know anyone last year? Eh, whatever.

Regarding your thoughts on captaining, I say go for it. As you say, it is very nice to know you will be treated well on at least one team (your own!).

As you know, my teams are "equal play" teams. If you are good enough to be on the team, you are good enough to play. With this philosophy, we have only had one losing season (went 4-8 in our first season of 6.5 combo after moving up from 5.5). We have gone to the playoffs twice despite playing everyone, so benching people is not the only way to have a competitive team.

One piece of unsolicited advice if you decide to start a new 8.0 team: Get started now. I am starting a 7.5 combo team from scratch. I decided to do it for the fall 2009 season and not wait for the winter 2010 season because it is harder to hit with people when there is snow on the ground. I have 11 committed players for September, and I started asking around in *February.* Also, if you can find a good female co-captain, that will help greatly in finding good female players.

I hope you do it. I think you'd be great at it!

Give me all the unsolicited advice you want, because I know nothing about captaining a team. I know the biggest challenge will be finding females because I simply don't know many at all. Last year I almost put together a team and I had like 5 or 6 guys already on board, and came up dry with females so I dropped the idea. I think it will be a little easier this year because I will start meeting more 4.0 men who will hopefully have connections to 4.0 women to get the word out.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If you do this, what league will it be?