Nationals - this is how you do it!

OrangePower

OrangePower

Legend
So I was looking at the roster of an 8.5 Combo team that we will be playing against. I know most of the 4.5s but not much about the 4.0s so I was looking some of them up on the Norcal site (we have our own site and don't use tennislink).

Turns out one of them played on the 4.0 Adult team that is going to Nationals. That team's roster and record makes for an interesting read!

Nationals_Team.jpg


A few interesting observations:
- There are 3 players on the team who went to Nationals last year. That's the most you can have under the move up / split up rule.
- Large roster
- A healthy dose of self-rates!
- But their most successful players in terms of match wins are C rated
- The team won all 10 regular season matches, dropping only 3 individual matches total
- Both local playoff matches won 5-0
- Won all District and Sectional matches 4-1 or 5-0
- Team is so deep that they played 20 (!!) different players at Sectionals

Ladies and gents, this is how you do it - gather the best C rated players in the area, complement them with some self rates, dominate, and off to Nationals we go!
 
Startzel said:
Jeez. I wish my area had that many players that were just naturally improving so well.
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone on this team - different level, and not an area I play in a lot.
But from what I can tell they have gathered the top players from a large catchment area, plus the self rates...
 
Last edited:
OrangePower said:
So I was looking at the roster of an 8.5 Combo team that we will be playing against. I know most of the 4.5s but not much about the 4.0s so I was looking some of them up on the Norcal site (we have our own site and don't use tennislink).

Turns out one of them played on the 4.0 Adult team that is going to Nationals. That team's roster and record makes for an interesting read!

Nationals_Team.jpg


A few interesting observations:
- There are 3 players on the team who went to Nationals last year. That's the most you can have under the move up / split up rule.
- Large roster
- A healthy dose of self-rates!
- But their most successful players in terms of match wins are C rated
- The team won all 10 regular season matches, dropping only 3 individual matches total
- Both local playoff matches won 5-0
- Won all District and Sectional matches 4-1 or 5-0
- Team is so deep that they played 20 (!!) different players at Sectionals

Ladies and gents, this is how you do it - gather the best C rated players in the area, complement them with some self rates, dominate, and off to Nationals we go!
Click to expand...

Oh, now I see where the "collared shirt/cell phone/dogs/jeans" thread came from.
 
I know at least one of the self-rates had played 10 years ago and simply re-rated at his previous level (I've played with him before). That doesn't change your points about how to build a nationals team, but not all self-rated players are created equal.
 
kylebarendrick said:
I know at least one of the self-rates had played 10 years ago and simply re-rated at his previous level (I've played with him before). That doesn't change your points about how to build a nationals team, but not all self-rated players are created equal.
Click to expand...
Of course. I'm not trying to imply that there is any cheating going on - there may or may not be, I have no idea, I don't know this team or the players. Just making observations about the overall makeup of the team and the success that they have had.
 
It's a shame the best player on the Southern section team got disqualified.

Otherwise it may have been an interesting match.
 
I am very familiar with this team and the way it was constructed from playing at the same club on the 4.5 teams. The same captain has been to Nationals with 3 out of the last 4 years with 4.0 teams I believe. In addition, the 4.0 40+ team from our club also is going to Nationals this year and did 2 years ago as well I think.

OrangePower's ideas of how the teams are constructed in this thread are fairly on point - recruiting widely and convincing strong players that this is their best path to a Nationals berth. One of the side effects is that our club has so many 4.5 players now (because of bump ups) that we have had 3 4.5 teams the last couple of years. Interestingly, we are a private club that requires membership, so part of the deal is convincing guys to join, at least for a few months.
 
FWIW, my ratings show this team does have the highest top-8 average of the teams at Nationals so are the favorite on paper. And they are in the easiest flight so should definitely make the semis.

The tough flight on paper is flight 8 with Hawaii, Mid-Atlantic, Pacific Northwest, and Texas with three of those teams in the top-six of the top-8 average.

But back to the NorCal team. They do have a few self-rate and appeal players, but six of their top-8 are computer rated none of those were 4.5s last year. And the highest rated self-rated player is at 4.05 and the only self-rate over 4.0. So either they self-rated reasonably correctly or have managed things. But they didn't manage by losing matches really as only 5 players were on a losing court in the regular season.
 
coyote said:
Texas is not strong this year.
Click to expand...
Well, they are not one of the favorites like last year, but they are certainly not weak. They are squarely mid-pack, but being in a tough flight could have their record in flight be worse than if they were in a balanced or weak flight.
 
schmke said:
Well, they are not one of the favorites like last year, but they are certainly not weak. They are squarely mid-pack, but being in a tough flight could have their record in flight be worse than if they were in a balanced or weak flight.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean they were weak but not nearly as strong as many years. They are a good group of guys and I am hoping they over-achieve and win it all.

They are 2-0 and couldn't be happier for these guys but still a little surprised. I hope they keep it up. They don't have a single ringer and this is a team that is what league should be about.
 
Last edited:
Thanks coyote, those are generous words. Agree that several more-loaded Texas teams have been here before. Nobody was more surprised than us at winning Sectionals, but anything seems possible at the moment for a team with average age of 45+. The match against Mid-Atlantic was a heckuva nailbiter and played in great spirit across the board against an extraordinary team. Nice to see that Nationals can be like that. Work yet to do and sleep to get. PNW may have lost 5-0 to MidAtl, but four were in 3STBs. They’re still in it so we’re expecting no quarter tomorrow.
 
NumbersGuy said:
Thanks coyote, those are generous words. Agree that several more-loaded Texas teams have been here before. Nobody was more surprised than us at winning Sectionals, but anything seems possible at the moment for a team with average age of 45+. The match against Mid-Atlantic was a heckuva nailbiter and played in great spirit across the board against an extraordinary team. Nice to see that Nationals can be like that. Work yet to do and sleep to get. PNW may have lost 5-0 to MidAtl, but four were in 3STBs. They’re still in it so we’re expecting no quarter tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Good job, #sguy. Good skill and make us TTers proud!
 
I just looked at the 5.0 nationals. The captain of the Wildcard Southern team is a former quarterback at the University of South Carolina and looks like he won nationals two years ago at 5.0.

Must be a nice life to hit that genetic lottery.
 
Startzel said:
I just looked at the 5.0 nationals. The captain of the Wildcard Southern team is a former quarterback at the University of South Carolina and looks like he won nationals two years ago at 5.0.

Must be a nice life to hit that genetic lottery.
Click to expand...

I think that statement is unfair:
- It wasn't a lottery in the sense of randomness: if it was genetic, and there's no proof that it is, then it came from his parents. If you mean "lottery" in the sense that he didn't earn those traits, I'd agree
- if it did come from his parents, maybe they weren't athletically gifted but worked hard at it and passed those genes on
- it minimizes any effort he made to become a 5.0, unlike, say, a lottery winner whose only effort was buying a ticket [OK, several tickets]

I don't have any information about the guy so I can't draw any conclusions. His transition from FB to tennis would seem easier if I knew that he achieved 5.0 in only a few years' time.
 
Why are self rates permitted to play post season in their first year? Seems like this would solve many of the sandbagging issues. Just make a rule that you need a C rating to play post season.
 
Startzel said:
I just looked at the 5.0 nationals. The captain of the Wildcard Southern team is a former quarterback at the University of South Carolina and looks like he won nationals two years ago at 5.0.

Must be a nice life to hit that genetic lottery.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean about the lack of true elite athletes playing tennis. Guy isn't even NFL caliber, but is immediately a 5.0 nationals player, so effectively a 5.5. Put that in perspective when talking about futures players complaining about not getting paid. Futures players are about on the same level as a former lower level D1 football athlete who plays tennis as a hobby. Let that sink in. Why should they be making the big $$ again?
 
Moveforwardalways said:
This is what I mean about the lack of true elite athletes playing tennis. Guy isn't even NFL caliber, but is immediately a 5.0 nationals player, so effectively a 5.5. Put that in perspective when talking about futures players complaining about not getting paid. Futures players are about on the same level as a former lower level D1 football athlete who plays tennis as a hobby. Let that sink in. Why should they be making the big $$ again?
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't exactly call South Carolina a lower level D1 school. So anyone who is playing QB for them is going to be an exceptional athlete. Maybe not quite good enough to play in the NFL, but nevertheless in the 99.9th percentile.
Otherwise I agree with what you're saying about prize money etc.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
I think that statement is unfair:
- It wasn't a lottery in the sense of randomness: if it was genetic, and there's no proof that it is, then it came from his parents. If you mean "lottery" in the sense that he didn't earn those traits, I'd agree
- if it did come from his parents, maybe they weren't athletically gifted but worked hard at it and passed those genes on
- it minimizes any effort he made to become a 5.0, unlike, say, a lottery winner whose only effort was buying a ticket [OK, several tickets]

I don't have any information about the guy so I can't draw any conclusions. His transition from FB to tennis would seem easier if I knew that he achieved 5.0 in only a few years' time.
Click to expand...
I think he just meant that the guy is a gifted athlete, for whatever reasons (probably a combination of genetics and work ethic).
 
So the Southern team playing for the 5.0 national championship later today didn't win their district nor did they win sectionals. That would be an amazing feat to win nationals.

The team that beat them in both districts and sectionals went 1-3 in their group.
 
Startzel said:
So the Southern team playing for the 5.0 national championship later today didn't win their district nor did they win sectionals. That would be an amazing feat to win nationals.

The team that beat them in both districts and sectionals went 1-3 in their group.
Click to expand...
Winning/losing a given match often has more to do with who specifically plays and the match-ups, and not who is the stronger team overall. And once the teams were in different flights at Nationals, who advances out of the flight or not can have more to do with the opponents than comparing the teams head-to-head.

The wildcard team that is in the final actually has a higher overall roster average, so is arguably deeper and more suited for doing well at Nationals.

And based on who played in the Sectional final, each court went as expected. And in their match at State where the wildcard team lost 3-0, two of the three matches went as expected.

Then at Nationals, the wildcard team has had every single one of their individual courts go as expected, winning 2-1, 3-0, 3-0, and 2-1. So either they were in a weak flight or just happened to get the right match-ups. But them winning their flight was not unexpected.

The Sectional winner in their flight did have three individual courts with upsets in their flight at Nationals, but one was an offsetting pair in one match so wouldn't have changed the team result, and the other was a upset loss in a match they would have lost 2-1 anyway. So based on who played, them not winning their flight was also not unexpected. They were likely in a tougher flight or didn't bring/play their better players or just got bad match-ups.

And my ratings show, going into Nationals, flight 4 where the Sectional champ was was by far the toughest flight with the three highest top-8 averages coming from that flight. The wildcard team's flight? It was the most balanced with a group of mid-pack teams.
 
schmke said:
Winning/losing a given match often has more to do with who specifically plays and the match-ups, and not who is the stronger team overall. And once the teams were in different flights at Nationals, who advances out of the flight or not can have more to do with the opponents than comparing the teams head-to-head.

The wildcard team that is in the final actually has a higher overall roster average, so is arguably deeper and more suited for doing well at Nationals.

And based on who played in the Sectional final, each court went as expected. And in their match at State where the wildcard team lost 3-0, two of the three matches went as expected.

Then at Nationals, the wildcard team has had every single one of their individual courts go as expected, winning 2-1, 3-0, 3-0, and 2-1. So either they were in a weak flight or just happened to get the right match-ups. But them winning their flight was not unexpected.

The Sectional winner in their flight did have three individual courts with upsets in their flight at Nationals, but one was an offsetting pair in one match so wouldn't have changed the team result, and the other was a upset loss in a match they would have lost 2-1 anyway. So based on who played, them not winning their flight was also not unexpected. They were likely in a tougher flight or didn't bring/play their better players or just got bad match-ups.

And my ratings show, going into Nationals, flight 4 where the Sectional champ was was by far the toughest flight with the three highest top-8 averages coming from that flight. The wildcard team's flight? It was the most balanced with a group of mid-pack teams.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I was just pointing out the good fortune of the wildcard team. They received two wild cards.

They did manage to beat the winner of the hardest group so it looks like they are a great team.

Also looks like they didn't have their best singles player at sectionals. Guessing they may have won sectionals with him.
 
Startzel said:
Makes sense. I was just pointing out the good fortune of the wildcard team. They received two wild cards.

They did manage to beat the winner of the hardest group so it looks like they are a great team.

Also looks like they didn't have their best singles player at sectionals. Guessing they may have won sectionals with him.
Click to expand...
Yep, but them making the final would seem to justify the preference Southern seemed to receive in getting the wildcard (http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2016/09/does-usta-give-preference-to-southern.html)
 
Startzel said:
So the Southern team playing for the 5.0 national championship later today didn't win their district nor did they win sectionals. That would be an amazing feat to win nationals.

The team that beat them in both districts and sectionals went 1-3 in their group.
Click to expand...
More importantly, how is the NorCal 4.0 team from this thread doing?!?
 
schmke said:
Yep, but them making the final would seem to justify the preference Southern seemed to receive in getting the wildcard (http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2016/09/does-usta-give-preference-to-southern.html)
Click to expand...

So I've seen you mention in the past that Nationals is a completely different experience than sectionals.

Do you think Southern Sectionals are similar to nationals considering we have so many states? Based on your old blog post GA alone is bigger than FL and TX that have their own sections. California has two sections so i'm not sure how their numbers match up with GA when you split the state. Then you have NC at 4th and SC at 7th.

That's an extremely large section where you have to win a comparatively large district playoff unlike say Topaz in DC where just winning her local league put her in sectionals.
 
Startzel said:
So I've seen you mention in the past that Nationals is a completely different experience than sectionals.

Do you think Southern Sectionals are similar to nationals considering we have so many states? Based on your old blog post GA alone is bigger than FL and TX that have their own sections. California has two sections so i'm not sure how their numbers match up with GA when you split the state. Then you have NC at 4th and SC at 7th.

That's an extremely large section where you have to win a comparatively large district playoff unlike say Topaz in DC where just winning her local league put her in sectionals.
Click to expand...
I've never been to let alone played in a Sectionals in Southern, but looking at it from just a numbers perspective, Sectionals in Southern is probably about as close to Nationals as any Sectionals is because of what you say.

With nine States/Districts, you generally end up having two flights of five teams each (there is a wildcard) so each team has to play four matches to win their flight, then play a final. Then consider that each team had to play at States/Districts and potentially local playoffs to get there and teams are playoff tested a fair amount similar to teams at Nationals.

Nationals of course generally has four flights with four or give teams and throws in semis as well as a final, but Southern Sectionals is similar and most other sections have just a single flight of four or five teams, or two flights of three or four teams and so aren't quite as big.
 
NorCal beat us in the semi 3-2. Every bit as good as the ratings said they'd be. Came down to a 3STB in the end, as it always seems to. Played in great spirit as well. The Nevada old guys surprised Florida winning all three 3STBs. NorCal probably too much for them, but like Joaquin Andujar's favorite word in English, youneverknow.
 
And as far as wild cards go, in our Section when they grant wild cards for Sectionals, they essentially put one slip of paper in the hat for every team in your local league, and then draw. By that method, Southern should get the highest number of wild cards so maybe that's what they do at Nationals too.
 
OrangePower said:
I think he just meant that the guy is a gifted athlete, for whatever reasons (probably a combination of genetics and work ethic).
Click to expand...
I don't know Tommy, but he is from Concord where I live. He started playing USTA as 4.5 player, and was bumped to 5.0 in 2014 after playing on a 5.0 team that went to Nationals in 2013. His mother is a very good 4.5 tennis player, and coaches a high school, and his younger brother was a good high school QB and tennis player, but I don't think he plays USTA (yet).
 
NumbersGuy said:
NorCal beat us in the semi 3-2. Every bit as good as the ratings said they'd be. Came down to a 3STB in the end, as it always seems to. Played in great spirit as well. The Nevada old guys surprised Florida winning all three 3STBs. NorCal probably too much for them, but like Joaquin Andujar's favorite word in English, youneverknow.
Click to expand...
Sorry you lost, but go NorCal!
I'm assuming some of them will be bumped up and I am looking forward to giving them some humble pie at 4.5 should we meet on the court :)
 
ncgator said:
I don't know Tommy, but he is from Concord where I live. He started playing USTA as 4.5 player, and was bumped to 5.0 in 2014 after playing on a 5.0 team that went to Nationals in 2013. His mother is a very good 4.5 tennis player, and coaches a high school, and his younger brother was a good high school QB and tennis player, but I don't think he plays USTA (yet).
Click to expand...

Congrats to Tommy for winning the national championship.
 
OrangePower said:
Sorry you lost, but go NorCal!
I'm assuming some of them will be bumped up and I am looking forward to giving them some humble pie at 4.5 should we meet on the court :)
Click to expand...

Well they seemed humble enough to begin with, so you don't have far to go. They just won it all 3-2.
 
NumbersGuy said:
And as far as wild cards go, in our Section when they grant wild cards for Sectionals, they essentially put one slip of paper in the hat for every team in your local league, and then draw. By that method, Southern should get the highest number of wild cards so maybe that's what they do at Nationals too.
Click to expand...
Yep, either that is the case, or simply because they have way more teams at a given level, they are given the wildcard.
 
looks like Southern is doing well this weekend. They've won 3 groups so far and are 2-0 in the fourth with two more matches to go.
 
Funny how the self rates were the ones who won the three lines needed for a team win in the semis and finals.

Don't let the computer ratings fool you either, they were self rates on last year's Nationals team.
 
At the 3.0 level, it appears you have to have self-rates to make semis. I took a look at the rosters of the 18+ 3.0 Men semi-finalists here: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-does-it-take-to-win-usta-league.html. Except for one team, the majority of players are self-rated, and overall, over 50% of the players in the semis that have played at Nationals are self-rated. You expect quite a few self-rates at the 3.0 level, but this is certainly higher than the average 3.0 team.
 
schmke said:
At the 3.0 level, it appears you have to have self-rates to make semis. I took a look at the rosters of the 18+ 3.0 Men semi-finalists here: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-does-it-take-to-win-usta-league.html. Except for one team, the majority of players are self-rated, and overall, over 50% of the players in the semis that have played at Nationals are self-rated. You expect quite a few self-rates at the 3.0 level, but this is certainly higher than the average 3.0 team.
Click to expand...

Did you factor in how many of the Southern players were self rated when the season started? Looks like several were only c rated because they played in an ESL.
 
Mixed sectionals in NorCal was this past weekend. The 9.0 team that won it all had a self rate 4.5 girl who played at Sonoma State just 5 years ago. She even self rated as a 4.0 last year for mixed but was bumped up to 4.5 during combo. She proceeded to go undefeated ever since she joined usta last year. 26-0 and going to nationals now, I'm sure that's the correct rating for her haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Mixed Nationals
Replies
10
Views
1K
schmke
schmke
2
usta needs to change rule about players being able to play on 2 teams in the same div
Replies
19
Views
5K
2ndServe
2
L
Limiting self-rated players in Adult league postseason?
2
Replies
88
Views
7K
Startzel
S
Unforced Terrors
So Cal 4.0 Sectionals DQ's
Replies
36
Views
7K
Moveforwardalways
Moveforwardalways
V
Is this what sandbagging for nationals looks like?
2 3
Replies
135
Views
9K
badmice2
badmice2
Back
Top