Men's 4.0 Nationals

[tennis_tater]

Anyone playing in the tournament this weekend? Thoughts on favorite to win it all? Looks like the Southern team from Alabama is going to be tough with their singles players. Not quite sure how their their #1 singles player is a computer rated 4.0 after looking at his scores. 4 out of 5 matches at state were 6-0 6-0. 4 out of his 5 at sectionals were non-competitive and now his two matches at nationals are 6-0 6-1 and 6-1 6-1. Looks like the guy has won a number of open and 4.5 tournaments as well.

 

[Z-Man]

That is a very solid team, and it was also well-recruited--meaning their ringers had computer ratings. That's why their best singles player was able to win so many matches 6-0, 6-0 without fear of being DQ'd. Their #2 singles player is excellent, but beatable, and one of their lines of doubles is good but not great. A team with 1 awesome singles player and 2 excellent lines of doubles could beat them with the right lineup. It will be interesting to see how they do at Nationals. A lot of it will come down to who was able to get through state and sectionals without having key players DQ'd.

 

[vizsla]

"quadruple" bump????!!!

Note: Looks like their (Southern team) best singles player (initials W.M.) got the "quadruple" bump from 4.0 to 6.0. Google search shows a college player but also played in a Davis Cup qualifier (Kenya?).

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

Note: Looks like their (Southern team) best singles player (initials W.M.) got the "quadruple" bump from 4.0 to 6.0. Google search shows a college player but also played in a Davis Cup qualifier (Kenya?).

He was only the 3rd or 4th best player on the team. The odd thing is that the computer had moved him down to 4.0 based on actual league results over the last 4 years. He self rated 5.0 when he got out of college and the computer moved him down twice. A team filed against him at sectional which resulted in the huge bump because of the davis cup thing. There are only probably a dozen people in Kenya that even play tennis. Willis was a very good 4.0, and would be a slightly above average 4.5 if allowed to play. Moving to 6.0 is an absolute joke. More evidence of the infinite wisdom of the computer.

 

[vizsla]

Agree (based on USTA league results) that the quad bump was too much BUT he did play in the D Cup qualifier. That's where some people, especially some current and former junior players don't realize that even if they play a match (and lose) in a satellite tournament, they are automatically subject to being a 6.0. Kind of sucks, but maybe they should look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Ques: He was their 3rd best? Wow. Then would love to see their one and two (TM and AM) play.

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

Todd Meckes can play. Never seen anyone improve as much as him in just a few years. He was computer rated 3.5 just 3 years ago. Quick as a cat and plays smart. Doesn't try to do things beyond his ability like most people and patiently waits for the opportunity. Works out with Austin Powell when AP is home, and has occasionally won a set.

 

[tennis_tater]

Todd Meckes can play. Never seen anyone improve as much as him in just a few years. He was computer rated 3.5 just 3 years ago. Quick as a cat and plays smart. Doesn't try to do things beyond his ability like most people and patiently waits for the opportunity. Works out with Austin Powell when AP is home, and has occasionally won a set.

So what's TM's past tennis history, besides being computer rated 3.5 at some point in time? Did he play juniors, or college? Looking at his scores against top competition, I find it hard to believe he was ever a true 3.5 at some point in time. I could see someone who is just getting back into the game self-rating as a 3.5 at some point in time, then generating a computer rated 3.5 after playing one year of league in 3.5...but that doesn't necessarily mean he was truly a 3.5. Not losing at game at Alabama state would tell me either he is a ringer or Alabama state league was weak. But then he destroyed the competition at sectionals and now looks like he is doing the same at nationals.

 

[tennis_tater]

He was only the 3rd or 4th best player on the team. The odd thing is that the computer had moved him down to 4.0 based on actual league results over the last 4 years. He self rated 5.0 when he got out of college and the computer moved him down twice. A team filed against him at sectional which resulted in the huge bump because of the davis cup thing. There are only probably a dozen people in Kenya that even play tennis. Willis was a very good 4.0, and would be a slightly above average 4.5 if allowed to play. Moving to 6.0 is an absolute joke. More evidence of the infinite wisdom of the computer.

Seems odd that he would be DQ'd if he rated properly in the first place (5.0 as college player) and then the computer bumped him down after playing at the 5.0 level. If he was moved down by the computer, then he should have been "computer rated," which I thought was not subject to dynamic disqualification or grievance???

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

So what's TM's past tennis history, besides being computer rated 3.5 at some point in time? Did he play juniors, or college? Looking at his scores against top competition, I find it hard to believe he was ever a true 3.5 at some point in time. I could see someone who is just getting back into the game self-rating as a 3.5 at some point in time, then generating a computer rated 3.5 after playing one year of league in 3.5...but that doesn't necessarily mean he was truly a 3.5. Not losing at game at Alabama state would tell me either he is a ringer or Alabama state league was weak. But then he destroyed the competition at sectionals and now looks like he is doing the same at nationals.

He did not play junior or college, or even high school - took up the game casually while in college, I think because his girlfriend liked to play. Just someone with a real aptitude for the game and did not start playing until he was in his early 20's. He was a legit 3.5 at one time. He had no backhand at all and could not volley to save his life.

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

Seems odd that he would be DQ'd if he rated properly in the first place (5.0 as college player) and then the computer bumped him down after playing at the 5.0 level. If he was moved down by the computer, then he should have been "computer rated," which I thought was not subject to dynamic disqualification or grievance???

Tater, we thought the same thing. Something to do with full disclosure concerning the DC issue. My understanding is that he was actually bumped by committee to 6.0, not by the computer.

 

[jdawgg]

So are the guys at nationals all 4.5/5.0s?

 

[JoelDali]

Of course...the top tier self rated 4.0 players are 4.5 - 5.0.

 

[Z-Man]

Tall Bama Guy:
It's good to hear the real story on TM. I think there was some mis-information going around at Sectionals that was confusing him with the other guy on their team who got DQ'd. I only got to see a few games, but it was interesting watching him play. He really didn't have an overpowering game, but he moved very well, and his placement was excellent. He seemed to hit a lot of balls medium-paced, but he didn't miss much, and if he got his opponent out of position, the point was over. Our guy (who is a great player) gave him a very good match, but the guy was just too steady, and he was completely un-phased by the heat.

 

[Z-Man]

Side Note:
The guys I played against on the Alabama team were extremely nice, and their captain was a nice guy too. I think everyone on the team was gracious with the exception of one young punk who called everyone he played a F#$@&!^ Cheater. I can't fault them for putting together a great team. I hope they win.

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

Who did you play Z? Pretty much all good guys and Paul (capt) did put together a strong team.

 

[Z-Man]

I played BWM and HP. Great guys. I'm guessing that's really their #3 team, but they played them at #2. I think they used the "anti-stacking stack" a lot. Meaning #1 plays #3, #2 plays #1 and #3 plays #2. We won a singles match against them, and my partner and I won our doubles match, so I think we could have beaten them with a lucky lineup. I would like to try out their best doubles team with my regular partner (who got DQ'd and could not play at sectionals.) It's so hard to tell how good someone is unless you step on the court with them, but they looked solid.

That team was put together just to win state and beyond. They were recruited from all over Alabama, and great care was taken to find guys with computer ratings. It's tough to beat a team like that.

 

[jdawgg]

I played BWM and HP. Great guys. I'm guessing that's really their #3 team, but they played them at #2. I think they used the "anti-stacking stack" a lot. Meaning #1 plays #3, #2 plays #1 and #3 plays #2. We won a singles match against them, and my partner and I won our doubles match, so I think we could have beaten them with a lucky lineup. I would like to try out their best doubles team with my regular partner (who got DQ'd and could not play at sectionals.) It's so hard to tell how good someone is unless you step on the court with them, but they looked solid.

That team was put together just to win state and beyond. They were recruited from all over Alabama, and great care was taken to find guys with computer ratings. It's tough to beat a team like that.

What's the advantage of having a computer rating? Does that mean you wont get bumped up until the next season no matter what -- including usta tournaments?

Anyone know the 4.0 team that won it last year?

 

[tennis_tater]

What's the advantage of having a computer rating? Does that mean you wont get bumped up until the next season no matter what -- including usta tournaments?Anyone know the 4.0 team that won it last year?

According to the usta regulations, a computer rated player is not subject to dynamic disqualification, whereas a mixed player, self-rated player, and/or an appeal player is subject to DQ.

I saw Alabama's singles player, TM, did lose one match at Sectionals, which appears to have been his only competitive match this season. However, when you look up the player he lost to from Kentucky, it looks like that player is an assistant coach for some small college in Kentucky. I don't know, but I would think that player for Kentucky, as an assist. coach, probably played college somewhere and probably shouldn't have been a 4.0 himself.

Looks like Alabama made it through to the semifinals. Looks like the team that was put together off the court to win it all is doing a great job on the court!

 

[Z-Man]

Dawg:
Like Tater said, the computer rating makes players like TM totally immune from being DQ'd. That's why he felt free to double bagel everyone. They really thought it out in a way my team did not. I think we could have won sectionals if one of our key players hadn't been DQ'd, but we weren't thinking that far ahead when the team was put together. This Alabama team didn't leave anything to chance.

 

[Tall Bama Guy]

Congrats to the boys from BAMA - national 4.0 champs!! Way to go guys!!

 

[Bama Bear]

He was only the 3rd or 4th best player on the team. The odd thing is that the computer had moved him down to 4.0 based on actual league results over the last 4 years. He self rated 5.0 when he got out of college and the computer moved him down twice. A team filed against him at sectional which resulted in the huge bump because of the davis cup thing. There are only probably a dozen people in Kenya that even play tennis. Willis was a very good 4.0, and would be a slightly above average 4.5 if allowed to play. Moving to 6.0 is an absolute joke. More evidence of the infinite wisdom of the computer.

True the infinite wisdom of the computer needs some adjusting however its my understanding after conferring with TM that humans program the computers. The problem I see is that our local and state officials have let the game of tennis past them by. Are the coordinators doing whats best for the game or whats best for them? Also soon to come will be the Southern Tennis Players Association. The PLAYERS are the SHOW not the COORDINATORS!. Isn't it time the players had alot more say in the everyday operation?

 

[tennis_tater]

Good luck to the guy who got bumped to 6.0, he'll never win another USTA match

At 6.0, he may not get to play another league match, much less win one. That's a shame if the computer truly bumped him down over the years after rating himself as a 5.0. However, looking back at his tennis history, kind of hard to figure out how he got bumped down considering his past match resullts. Doesn't look like he played much other than mixed (1-3 matches per year), but he did win matches at Mixed 9.0 and Mixed 10.0.

 

[Bama Bear]

True the infinite wisdom of the computer needs some adjusting however its my understanding after conferring with TM that humans program the computers. The problem I see is that our local and state officials have let the game of tennis past them by. Are the coordinators doing whats best for the game or whats best for them? Also soon to come will be the Southern Tennis Players Association. The PLAYERS are the SHOW not the COORDINATORS!. Isn't it time the players had alot more say in the everyday operation?

So are the guys at nationals all 4.5/5.0s?

Make the journey and find out my friend. We did and had a BLAST!

 

[tennis_tater]

True the infinite wisdom of the computer needs some adjusting

It doesn't sound like it was the computer that did this, but rather the committee. I recently read an article by a represenative on one of the sectional grievance committees who explained that players who have attempted to "game the system" by not disclosing their true tennis history have their ratings adjusted to a much higher level than if they had answered the questions truthfully at the initial self-rating. From the information posted on here, it seems like the Alabama player, while disclosing his college experience at self-rating, did not disclose the Davis Cup experience. Of course, had he done so, his rating would have been off the charts to begin with and he would have likely been stuck going through the appeal process at the very beginning trying to get his rating down from a 6.0 to a 5.0. Looks like all the commitee did with him is send him back to square one today and now he will have the opportunity to appeal and explain his complete tennis history and why his rating should be lowered.

That being said, I could really care less if a kid played some Davis Cup tie for a third world country if he played small time college tennis without great success and his USTA league results say he should be 4.0-4.5. Hopefully this player will be able to appeal his 6.0 rating and get to play league again one day soon.

 

[Bama Bear]

So what's TM's past tennis history, besides being computer rated 3.5 at some point in time? Did he play juniors, or college? Looking at his scores against top competition, I find it hard to believe he was ever a true 3.5 at some point in time. I could see someone who is just getting back into the game self-rating as a 3.5 at some point in time, then generating a computer rated 3.5 after playing one year of league in 3.5...but that doesn't necessarily mean he was truly a 3.5. Not losing at game at Alabama state would tell me either he is a ringer or Alabama state league was weak. But then he destroyed the competition at sectionals and now looks like he is doing the same at nationals.

TM was never a 3.5 computer rated player. TM was a 3.5 appeal player! As far as the Alabama State league being weak come get you some. We Welcome ALL from local, state and NATIONALS!

 

[vizsla]

Bama Bear:

Were you on the Match Point team? If so, congrats!!

 

[decades]

4.0 really brings out the ringers don't it?

 

[Bama Bear]

Bama Bear:

Were you on the Match Point team? If so, congrats!!

Captain. Don't care to let people know who I am.

 

[Bama Bear]

It doesn't sound like it was the computer that did this, but rather the committee. I recently read an article by a represenative on one of the sectional grievance committees who explained that players who have attempted to "game the system" by not disclosing their true tennis history have their ratings adjusted to a much higher level than if they had answered the questions truthfully at the initial self-rating. From the information posted on here, it seems like the Alabama player, while disclosing his college experience at self-rating, did not disclose the Davis Cup experience. Of course, had he done so, his rating would have been off the charts to begin with and he would have likely been stuck going through the appeal process at the very beginning trying to get his rating down from a 6.0 to a 5.0. Looks like all the commitee did with him is send him back to square one today and now he will have the opportunity to appeal and explain his complete tennis history and why his rating should be lowered.

That being said, I could really care less if a kid played some Davis Cup tie for a third world country if he played small time college tennis without great success and his USTA league results say he should be 4.0-4.5. Hopefully this player will be able to appeal his 6.0 rating and get to play league again one day soon.

If the state and sectional coordinators would stand up for what is right Willis would be playing next year. Some people are busy kissing the wrong end just to move up in the usta ranks. They got a worse problem than the folks in Washington, DC. By the way his rating has been appealed to the same closet case that bumped him to 6.0 (All political my friend).

 

[vizsla]

Bama Bear:

Just sent you an email.

Vizsla

 

[SlapShot]

Looks like the MN team came in second - they are a solid team. Quite a few of them were ESR'd to 4.5 this year.

That's the second good showing for a men's Northern team at Nationals recently (last year the 4.5 team won it). Can we finally put the "cold states have weaker NTRP" to rest?

 

[SmackDown]

According to the usta regulations, a computer rated player is not subject to dynamic disqualification, whereas a mixed player, self-rated player, and/or an appeal player is subject to DQ.

I saw Alabama's singles player, TM, did lose one match at Sectionals, which appears to have been his only competitive match this season. However, when you look up the player he lost to from Kentucky, it looks like that player is an assistant coach for some small college in Kentucky. I don't know, but I would think that player for Kentucky, as an assist. coach, probably played college somewhere and probably shouldn't have been a 4.0 himself.

Looks like Alabama made it through to the semifinals. Looks like the team that was put together off the court to win it all is doing a great job on the court!

Funny Fact: The Kentucky team from 4.0 Southern Sectionals was the team that filed the grievance against WM - unfortunately for them - they had one
guy DQ'd before Sectionals for self-rating under 2 different names - and 2 players DQ'd after Sectionals for self-rating 4.0 when they were former college tennis players.

Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

 

[tennis_tater]

Funny Fact: The Kentucky team from 4.0 Southern Sectionals was the team that filed the grievance against WM - unfortunately for them - they had one
guy DQ'd before Sectionals for self-rating under 2 different names - and 2 players DQ'd after Sectionals for self-rating 4.0 when they were former college tennis players.

Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

Looking at the roster of the Kentucky team that Alabama beat in the finals, it doesn't look like any of their rostered players have had their ratings changed or increased from any point in the season, either before or after sectionals. Looks like they are all still rated 4.0's. However, if you are correct, and Kentucky had two former college players on their roster and still got beat, how stacked was Alabama to have a bunch of "4.0's" beat a team with former college players?

And what's the deal with all of these college players playing 4.0? If they are truly all ex-college players, I hope they are at least over the age of 40 or 50.I've heard of self-rate QB's with former college players sandbagging at the 4.5 level. Why would they even want to play at the 4.0 level? Does that USTA golden ball really mean anything when you are playing a whole level or two below what you should be playing?

And looking back at WM's tennis history, it looks like he didn't even play any matches at Southern sectionals. Are you saying that the Kentucky team, who wasn't even in the same division of 4.0 as Alabama and could not meet them unless they both went to the finals, filed a grievance against WM as a preemptive strike? I could see Kentucky filing a grievance if WM played against them, or if they even saw the kid play a match or two at sectionals, but you are saying they did it before?

 

[ohplease]

And what's the deal with all of these college players playing 4.0? If they are truly all ex-college players, I hope they are at least over the age of 40 or 50.I've heard of self-rate QB's with former college players sandbagging at the 4.5 level. Why would they even want to play at the 4.0 level? Does that USTA golden ball really mean anything when you are playing a whole level or two below what you should be playing?

Forget 4.5 - the top of just 4.0 often features former college players and full time teaching pros, and can feature some very, very good players. To the point that guys that currently hold or used to hold ATP tour points are sometimes caught playing at that level.

It is what it is. The only real fix is to get rid of the artificial demarcations.

 

[OrangePower]

Forget 4.5 - the top of just 4.0 often features former college players and full time teaching pros, and can feature some very, very good players. To the point that guys that currently hold or used to hold ATP tour points are sometimes caught playing at that level.

It is what it is. The only real fix is to get rid of the artificial demarcations.

Without demarcations, 99% of USTA membership would never get the chance to play in playoffs. Personally I would be fine with that, but most people like having playoffs as an achievable goal. So it ain't gonna happen.

There is another simple fix that I think will work and can be easily implemented: Don't allow self-rated players to participate in playoffs. For the legit self-rated players, it means they have to 'suffer' for a year, but hey, most people don't get to playoffs every year anyway.

This would remove the incentive for having self-rated sandbaggers. And if a sandbagger is that dedicated that he/she is willing to throw games and sacrifice a year just to get a lower computer rating for the next year, then there's nothing that will stop this kind of person from cheating anyway.

 

[Bama Bear]

Seems odd that he would be DQ'd if he rated properly in the first place (5.0 as college player) and then the computer bumped him down after playing at the 5.0 level. If he was moved down by the computer, then he should have been "computer rated," which I thought was not subject to dynamic disqualification or grievance???

Willis did rate properly and provided all the pertinent info about his tennis history. The computer suggested a 5.0 rating. Willis' 4.0 rating was generated by playing mixed league which left Willis vunerable for another team to file a greivance against him which they did. Kentucky filed the greivance although they had 4 college players playing and 1 player who rated in under a different name. Explain to me how the state coordinator from KY. didn't know that the KY. team was using under-rated players????????? and in some cases illegal players. Ray Charles would have figured this out!!!!!!!!

 

[tennis_tater]

Willis did rate properly and provided all the pertinent info about his tennis history. The computer suggested a 5.0 rating. Willis' 4.0 rating was generated by playing mixed league which left Willis vunerable for another team to file a greivance against him which they did. Kentucky filed the greivance although they had 4 college players playing and 1 player who rated in under a different name. Explain to me how the state coordinator from KY. didn't know that the KY. team was using under-rated players????????? and in some cases illegal players. Ray Charles would have figured this out!!!!!!!!

I guess my question is this. It doesn't look like Willis every played a single match at sectionals. That being said, since you all did not play Kentucky until the finals, are you saying that Kentucky filed a grievance before the start of the tournament against your Willis just based upon their scouting of teams on a side of the bracket that they were not even in? If that's the case, it looks like Kentucky was trying to win off of the court before they even won on the court.

Also, you keep pointing out that Kentucky had 4 college palyers and one who rated under a different name. Just curious, since you all beat them. How many college guys, besides Willis, did Alabama have?

 

[rallyjunkie]

TM beat a DQed guy 3 and 1 yet wasn't DQed himself? Come on. How is this guy not DQed?

Eastern had a top singles player DQed before sectionals but there were several singles players better than him out there. Why would Eastern strip it's team of one of its top singles players?

USTA Leagues are so corrupt. It seems more about the smartest cheaters winning than authentic 4.0 tennis.

 

[Bama Bear]

TM beat a DQed guy 3 and 1 yet wasn't DQed himself? Come on. How is this guy not DQed?

Eastern had a top singles player DQed before sectionals but there were several singles players better than him out there. Why would Eastern strip it's team of one of its top singles players?

USTA Leagues are so corrupt. It seems more about the smartest cheaters winning than authentic 4.0 tennis.

Sounds like a rated 4.0 player who is actually a low level 3.5 who can't win at the 4.0 level. Probably played against his next door neighbor every match and won! Run home and told the wife he won again! Great for the ego but not the ratings. Great local player.

 

[Bama Bear]

I guess my question is this. It doesn't look like Willis every played a single match at sectionals. That being said, since you all did not play Kentucky until the finals, are you saying that Kentucky filed a grievance before the start of the tournament against your Willis just based upon their scouting of teams on a side of the bracket that they were not even in? If that's the case, it looks like Kentucky was trying to win off of the court before they even won on the court.

Also, you keep pointing out that Kentucky had 4 college palyers and one who rated under a different name. Just curious, since you all beat them. How many college guys, besides Willis, did Alabama have?

1 college guy. Dr. Meares our team chiropractor-3.5

 

[J_R_B]

TM beat a DQed guy 3 and 1 yet wasn't DQed himself? Come on. How is this guy not DQed?

Eastern had a top singles player DQed before sectionals but there were several singles players better than him out there. Why would Eastern strip it's team of one of its top singles players?

USTA Leagues are so corrupt. It seems more about the smartest cheaters winning than authentic 4.0 tennis.

He wasn't DQ'd because he was C-rated from playing 4.0 leagues the previous 2 years (and was not a former Davis Cup player, LOL). It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[Bama Bear]

Without demarcations, 99% of USTA membership would never get the chance to play in playoffs. Personally I would be fine with that, but most people like having playoffs as an achievable goal. So it ain't gonna happen.

There is another simple fix that I think will work and can be easily implemented: Don't allow self-rated players to participate in playoffs. For the legit self-rated players, it means they have to 'suffer' for a year, but hey, most people don't get to playoffs every year anyway.

This would remove the incentive for having self-rated sandbaggers. And if a sandbagger is that dedicated that he/she is willing to throw games and sacrifice a year just to get a lower computer rating for the next year, then there's nothing that will stop this kind of person from cheating anyway.

Spoke with the National league coordinator last week in Tucson at length about this very subject. Will be on the agenda at next national meeting. Only 2.5 and 3.0 may play in the state through national tournament as a self-rate. Great ideal!

 

[XFactorer]

I was rootin' for Northern only because my team was beaten by Northern.

We would have liked to say that we lost to the champions in round robin.

I'm surprised SoCal got beaten up on so badly in round robin play. They were the team that we feared to play. Luckily they rolled over on the last day of play. We had a singles guy on the team go from 0-5 in the first to win it 7-6, 6-2.

 

[Bama Bear]

Looks like the MN team came in second - they are a solid team. Quite a few of them were ESR'd to 4.5 this year.

That's the second good showing for a men's Northern team at Nationals recently (last year the 4.5 team won it). Can we finally put the "cold states have weaker NTRP" to rest?

The so called cold states have a great team. No shame in their game. Great people on and off the courts. Congrats to the whole team from the Southern Boys. See you next year!
"The Bear"
P.S.-How Bout an invite up North for some Ice Fishing?

 

[Bama Bear]

Anyone playing in the tournament this weekend? Thoughts on favorite to win it all? Looks like the Southern team from Alabama is going to be tough with their singles players. Not quite sure how their their #1 singles player is a computer rated 4.0 after looking at his scores. 4 out of 5 matches at state were 6-0 6-0. 4 out of his 5 at sectionals were non-competitive and now his two matches at nationals are 6-0 6-1 and 6-1 6-1. Looks like the guy has won a number of open and 4.5 tournaments as well.

When you practice against the best you become the best. TM is the best 4.0 in the Nation. I don't consider him a great player however I do consider him a great PERSON! There it is Sports Fans the secret is Out. Great people make great Players!

 

[rallyjunkie]

He wasn't DQ'd because he was C-rated from playing 4.0 leagues the previous 2 years (and was not a former Davis Cup player, LOL). It's not that hard to figure out.

But if you beat a former Davis Cup player you are obviously sandbagging your results to look 4.0. they both should have been DQed. a 4.o does not beat a former DC player.
it should have been immediate dismissal of both. We know there are many many examples of sophisticated cheating and corruption in USTA league tennis, especialy in 4.0. Alabama is the best at it.

 

[rallyjunkie]

When you practice against the best you become the best. TM is the best 4.0 in the Nation. I don't consider him a great player however I do consider him a great PERSON! There it is Sports Fans the secret is Out. Great people make great Players!

How did that world class ingrate Marcelo Rios become a great player?

 

[rallyjunkie]

Sounds like a rated 4.0 player who is actually a low level 3.5 who can't win at the 4.0 level. Probably played against his next door neighbor every match and won! Run home and told the wife he won again! Great for the ego but not the ratings. Great local player.

actually a true 4.5 player who would have beat Mecks.

 

[tennis_tater]

When you practice against the best you become the best. TM is the best 4.0 in the Nation. I don't consider him a great player however I do consider him a great PERSON! There it is Sports Fans the secret is Out. Great people make great Players!

If TM is the best 4.0 in the nations, where does that 4.0 singles player from Kentucky who beat TM in the finals of Southern Sectionals rank?

 

[tennis tom]

USTA Leagues are so corrupt. It seems more about the smartest cheaters winning than authentic 4.0 tennis.

After being on several teams that made it to play-offs, this is my view of it also. League tennis is destroying tennis. I used to play with everyone at my club. Now payers only play with their posse--why waste any time playing with anyone not on your team? Club owners give away free memberships (that I paid good money for) to decorate their fences with $10 tin signs. I go out on a weekend to play some tennis and my entire club's courts are taken, during prime time, by players who I don't recognize. I can't tell who is playing for my club and who's a mercenary.

When the match is over, the club empties out and no one is left playing tennis on a beautiful summer afternoon--why bother playing with someone not on your team?

You used to have club ladders where you could legitimately measure your abilities against people you knew. Now you have 3.0 housewives, delusional about their abilities, vying to be the best of the mediocre nationally, who don't even know if the line is in or out.

League tennis has decimated Senior Age Group tournaments with more being lost every year. These are tournaments where you can legitimately measure your abilities. It makes no sense at all for a 50 year old to be playing against an 18 year old, or a 35 year old for that matter. The people who figured out the five year increments for age groups knew what they were doing. There's a reason ATP players are old at 29 and Andre Agassi, one of the most fit, retired at 35.

Instead of being judged by one's abilites, some computer, that has never seen a player hit a ball, makes a decision how good a player is. I've never seen an explanation of how the computer comes to its decisions that's made any sense in the discussions at this board. Everyone who has tried to figure out the computer generated rankings is befuddled by it.

This all makes perfect sense in today's "reality" where our lives are increasingly controlled by the "smartest cheaters" politicians/lawyers.