norcal
Legend
Our local league has always had strong singles representation, this year it's 3S/2D. It's 18+ but the vast majority are 40+. 1S/3D is terrible imo, let alone 0S!
Only 1 singles for Nationals 40+ :(
- Thread starter OnTheLine
- Start date
Our local league has always had strong singles representation, this year it's 3S/2D. It's 18+ but the vast majority are 40+. 1S/3D is terrible imo, let alone 0S!
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Good point. Guess I'll have to become captain to guarantee I get to play a few matches!
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
You just playing friendly pickup matches, or are you playing UTR tournaments?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Friendlies. Most of my list is made up of guys I played against in league.
CHtennis
Rookie
I really hope this goes away by 2021 when I will be eligible for 40+, I know that it is unlikely, but I HATE this. Losing a singles is annoying especially since if you had a good 40+ 4.5 singles player he could play well and still lose to a 5.0 every week. If he could be able to play 2 singles and play against other 40 year old 4.5s that would likely be more enticing. As it is, a buddy of mine and I were planning on playing singles in 2021 and we were starting to train this year by playing more. I had forgotten how much fun singles can be and it has been fun playing with a goal of being good at singles in 2021, but this saps his motivation (which is unfortunate for me since I still may have to play a lot of singles as 5.0 and I would lose my main practice partner).
The most frustrating thing about this is the possibility of ties. This is infuriating, if they are going to go to 4 lines, at least weight them so there is a winner each time. I dislike this a lot and I hope they change this quickly.
I get @schmke point of clubs only having 4 courts, but why make this a national rule? In my area the 40+ 4.5+ league does play 4 lines for this reason, but when they go to playoffs they have the courts so they can play all 5 lines. Just let the local leagues do what works for them and then they can progress through the playoffs as normal. I dont understand the need for this.
The most frustrating thing about this is the possibility of ties. This is infuriating, if they are going to go to 4 lines, at least weight them so there is a winner each time. I dislike this a lot and I hope they change this quickly.
I get @schmke point of clubs only having 4 courts, but why make this a national rule? In my area the 40+ 4.5+ league does play 4 lines for this reason, but when they go to playoffs they have the courts so they can play all 5 lines. Just let the local leagues do what works for them and then they can progress through the playoffs as normal. I dont understand the need for this.
am1899
Legend
schmke
Legend
To be clear, this isn't a National rule that local leagues and local/district/section playoffs must follow, but instead it is the format that will be used at Nationals and each section/district/area may elect to use it or the previous format or even other alternate formats through the different phases of the season. This year for example with Nationals using 2 singles and 3 doubles, there are some areas that have done 1 singles and 4 doubles in local league and then have to switch to 2/3 for Districts/States/Sectionals.
So if you prefer the 2/3 format, let your League Coordinator know and perhaps they will stick with it for your local league. Even with your feedback though, it will be easy for them to just fall in line with the National format to be consistent so many may just do that ...
Playing 4 courts at nationals in a system where court count is the determinant is definitely the worst part of this. The USTA's tiebreaking procedure is flawed at best and sucks and produces the wrong winner at worst. There will be a lot of 2-2 scores. The next tiebreaker is fewest sets lost. That will likely be tied a substantial amount of the time as well, leading to many key matches at nationals determined by something random and flawed like fewest games lost. That really sucks.
I strongly prefer keeping the 2/3 format because (at least around here), there are plenty of 40+ singles players, so singles scarcity won't be an issue. If that is the issue, then 1/4 or even 1/2 is much better than 1/3 because at least the odd numbered courts produce a winner every time.
schmke
Legend
One alternative to avoid the 2-2 ties is to go to a points per position format for standings. This does weight the courts and eliminates the need for a team win/loss for a given team match. Perhaps this is the USTA's subtle hint to push more local leagues to use points per position instead of traditional team wins.
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
Points per position works fine for the round robin if you base standings on total points, but for the semis and finals, you need a winner and PPP for a single match is likely to make 3rd doubles completely irrelevant or one court (i.e. 1S or 1D) too important. That just kicks the can down the road to the most critical matches of the entire year.
schmke
Legend
I think they did ask, there was a survey earlier this year, so I bet they have data that supports a change. The problem with a survey like this is that by the old format, 2 of the 8 players played singles, just 25%, so they are surveying a population that is already biased towards doubles. What do you think two thirds to three quarters of the respondents are going to say when asked about singles or doubles? They'll vote for more doubles, so of course the survey responses will say to reduce it to one court of singles.
The context of the question and understanding the survey respondents is kind of important with any survey or poll ...
Then throw in listening to facilities that want to keep more courts for members and not have nights/weekends where every court has a league match on it asking for fewer courts to be used, and you get 1 singles and 3 doubles with some poor attempt at a tie-breaker should it end up being 2-2.
chatt_town
Hall of Fame
Didn't think of it this way but you are so correct. I play both pretty well, but I think it should stay either 2/3 or drop it to 1/2. That is fair for everybody.
kylebarendrick
Professional
I did see a lot of teams (especially women) defaulting a singles line at Norcal districts/sectionals over the last few years. This rule may just relate to a lack of singles-willing players in the 40+ leagues coupled with matches on Fridays and travel.
schmke
Legend
I don't dispute that there may be pockets of areas where there are few singles players, but often times bad scheduling of playoffs and conflicts with other events is what leads to situations like you describe.
But if it was a consistent issue, I'd expect to see 2 singles defaulted more frequently in 40+ than in 18+, and per what I wrote earlier on this thread, 18+ actually has a higher percentage of default on 2S than 40+ does.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
None of this makes sense to me.
As a captain, of course I would love to decrease the number of 40+ singles players I had to find for my team.
But I think USTA is getting this wrong.
There are three kinds of players: Those who only want singles; those who only want doubles; those who want some of both.
The way to accommodate everyone while still keeping the number of people playing as high as possible is separate singles and doubles. Have singles leagues and doubles leagues running at the same time, and that's it. Anyone who wants both will have to join two teams.
Singles leagues could be best 2 out of 3, or could be 4 courts with tiebreaker rules. Same for doubles.
Seriously, why doesn't USTA do that instead of forcing singles and doubles onto the same team?
In our area where all matches are indoors, the doubles players subsidize the court fees of the singles players. Each player in the team match pays $20, so a doubles court is paying $80 while a singles court is $40. It was decided long ago not to charge singles players more to play (the correct decision IMO given how hard it already is to scrape up some singles players). But if folks really want singles, if they love getting to hit twice as many balls, they can pay twice as much. They can't expect to be subsidized by doubles players who aren't even on the same team. Seems fair.
There is one additional issue no one has mentioned yet (I think). When you have two singles courts out of five courts, it is easier for singles players to develop their skills. If you only have one singles court, every team will have a few Beast Women who are crazy strong at singles, and no one else will ever get a shot. As things stand, a woman wishing to play up or just try her hand at singles can tip toe out on Court Two against a weaker team and maybe have a chance. Keeping singles to one court will scare off all but the most devoted singles players.
As a captain, of course I would love to decrease the number of 40+ singles players I had to find for my team.
But I think USTA is getting this wrong.
There are three kinds of players: Those who only want singles; those who only want doubles; those who want some of both.
The way to accommodate everyone while still keeping the number of people playing as high as possible is separate singles and doubles. Have singles leagues and doubles leagues running at the same time, and that's it. Anyone who wants both will have to join two teams.
Singles leagues could be best 2 out of 3, or could be 4 courts with tiebreaker rules. Same for doubles.
Seriously, why doesn't USTA do that instead of forcing singles and doubles onto the same team?
In our area where all matches are indoors, the doubles players subsidize the court fees of the singles players. Each player in the team match pays $20, so a doubles court is paying $80 while a singles court is $40. It was decided long ago not to charge singles players more to play (the correct decision IMO given how hard it already is to scrape up some singles players). But if folks really want singles, if they love getting to hit twice as many balls, they can pay twice as much. They can't expect to be subsidized by doubles players who aren't even on the same team. Seems fair.
There is one additional issue no one has mentioned yet (I think). When you have two singles courts out of five courts, it is easier for singles players to develop their skills. If you only have one singles court, every team will have a few Beast Women who are crazy strong at singles, and no one else will ever get a shot. As things stand, a woman wishing to play up or just try her hand at singles can tip toe out on Court Two against a weaker team and maybe have a chance. Keeping singles to one court will scare off all but the most devoted singles players.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Avoiding a default in Singles Two is harder here in spring (18+) than winter (40+). The spring season coincides with spring break, Easter, Mother's Day, Father's Day, college visits, graduation season, and early summer vacations. If you really want to see what spikes defaults around here, run an analysis of major holidays, etc.
schmke
Legend
I did a poor job at hinting at this in what I wrote on my blog regarding fewer opportunities, but you nailed it.
When just 1 in 7 playing spots is singles, how are aspiring singles players, whether they are a singles player just bumped up or a doubles player wanting to dip their toe in it, going to get real match reps and show they are worthy of playing singles?
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
Exactly.
And I applaud @Cindysphinx who is a notoriously NON-singles player for pointing it out. I really want to become better at singles, but I won't dare replace a "real" singles player when there is only one line.
So bring on that singles league ... how do we do it?
CHtennis
Rookie
I am finding this frustrating as well because of the strategic implications for 4.5+ (the league that I think about the most). With only 4 matches there will be many more ties and it makes having a good 5.0 singles player much better (when it was really good before this as well). If you have a guy that can regularly beat 4.5's no more than 2 and 2 that is going to be huge for the tiebreakers. The could put 2 5.0's in doubles and I doubt they would win more than 3 and 3 against good 4.5's, and they could be playing a 5.0 and 4.5 combo as well. Before the 5.0 is just one match and if you dont have a good 5.0 singles player you could just duck it and look for three other courts. Now if you duck them you are going for every other court because your tiebreakers will likely be bad.
schmke
Legend
Ummm, something that slipped by me earlier is that they also modified the language regarding the number of plus players that may play in a match. In the past, if there were 3 or fewer courts played, only one plus player could play and if more than 3, two could play. Now the rule states if there are 4 or fewer courts just one plus player can play.
So for any leagues that adopt the 4 court format, 40+ 4.5+ just went from two 5.0s being able to play to just one. Another way to decrease participation or encourage 5.0s to sandbag their way down just so they have playing opportunities.
Last edited:
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
schmke
Legend
I may be rationalizing or trying to find a silver lining, but is it possible that by only allowing one 5.0 in each 4.5+ team match, teams will roster fewer 5.0s allowing the 5.0s to get distributed amongst the other teams more, or perhaps even result in another team or two being formed for the extra 5.0s to play on?
I'm wondering what Southern, well more specifically Georgia will do with these new rules. They've petitioned before about keeping the 1/4 format when USTA wanted everyone to go to the 2/3 and won. It might get confusing to play the 1/4 format for league play, switch to 2/3 for State/Sectionals, and then 1/3 for Nationals. If I had to guess I'd say we stick to the 1/4 format for league and then for State and beyond it'll be 1/3. Not really against the 1/3 format for league play except you lose a lot of playing time and it'll be that much harder to qualify people.
schmke
Legend
Yep, if one person is missing, 2S is the court defaulted so of course it is the highest.
But back on the "good stuff". I did a bunch more analysis on "what if 4 courts were used?" and wrote up a detailed blog on the topic. A bunch of stats in there, but the bottom line is that 26% of matches would have ended in 2-2 ties and of those 3% would not be broken by any of the tie-breakers in the rules. It is "only" 3%, but still, TennisLink has no way to keep track of ties so unclear what happens then.
Also, the addition of game winning percentage is pointless in this head to head case. If both teams have lost the same number of games, well, they've won the same number of games too and this will just be 50% for both teams so decide nothing. I'm not sure why someone thought this addition to the tie-breaker had any benefit.
I can't link to my blog, but someone else can if they so choose.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Look, this league stuff has been going on for what, 30 years? Shouldn't we be figuring out how to have fewer ties?
J
J
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
Here locally we have 2 different leagues that run on the 4 match format: Ladies' weekday for Spring and Fall, and Adult Fall league. The weekday league is 4 courts of dubs, the Fall league is 1 court of singles, 3 courts of dubs ....
Although I want to argue against everything about this 40+ league change, I can say in doing a total of 14 seasons of these leagues I have only ever had ONE team match end in a dead tie. Tennislink seems to do a good job of counting sets and games.
In that ONE instance Tennislink gave the win to the visiting team. But that is in our local rules that in the event of a dead tie the visiting team gets the W.
Although I want to argue against everything about this 40+ league change, I can say in doing a total of 14 seasons of these leagues I have only ever had ONE team match end in a dead tie. Tennislink seems to do a good job of counting sets and games.
In that ONE instance Tennislink gave the win to the visiting team. But that is in our local rules that in the event of a dead tie the visiting team gets the W.
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
Yes we already know how .... lose fewer games.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
It feels like the USTA is always trying to find a way for us to play less tennis. No ad scoring, 10-point tiebreakers instead of third sets, Fast Four format, and now less lines in a team match. This all feels really gimmicky, and an erosion of the sport. No wonder many of my friends are fleeing to pickleball, which I despise.
Yep, and you never see league fees go down with a cut in play.
schmke
Legend
Ummm, might league fees go up? Just 7 players needed for a match, roster size drops a player or two, and unless those dropped players form their own new team, overall participation in 40+ goes down, so league fees go up to recoup the losses!
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
schmke
Legend
Yes, it is in the latest regulations document on the USTA regulations and info page: https://www.usta.com/en/home/organize/program-resources/national/resources---tools.html
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
UTR tournaments?
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
League. Not tournaments. League .... Unless you can have a tournament with one match a week for 10-12 weeks culminating with a play off system.
I enjoy the occasional tournament but usually cannot, due to work and family obligations, set aside an entire weekend for 3-8 matches, and at the end even with a plastic trophy don't feel like I accomplished anything aside from being a little more sore than I prefer.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Here in central Oregon the 40+ league literally runs for just one weekend!
So, tournaments are the only option to get much singles in!
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Just moved here!
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say central Oregon is a lifestyle upgrade over Iowa.
There are way better options than $50 per usta match. First of all the USTA is "non profit" they use the entire NYC infrastructure for the US Open, roads/hotels, trains, police, security, sewer/water, power, million other things, as a non profit do they keep all that money. They should be letting people play at the US Open for near free/subsidized. No way it should cost $50 a match. UTR please speed up
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
What's UTR going to do? Rent the courts at the NTC for $68/hour?
J
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Tennis is so expensive in your part of the country! It really does cut out participation in the sport for a large sector of people, which is opposite of the mission of the USTA. In contrast, I pay $160 a month for a family membership to our nearby country club, which includes unlimited use of the 7 indoor courts, indoor basketball and racquetball, indoor pool and sauna, weight and cardio rooms, and fitness classes. If I paid more, I could also add on unlimited golf.
Not long ago, the USTA took over a facility in my city that used to be $90 a month for an individual membership with unlimited court time. They got rid of the monthly unlimited membership, and went to New York City level hourly pricing. People left in droves, and the facility was empty for weeks. That forced them to drop the hourly court fee dramatically, and the people are coming back now. So, yay capitalism... the consumer decides!
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis is so expensive in your part of the country! It really does cut out participation in the sport for a large sector of people, which is opposite of the mission of the USTA. In contrast, I pay $160 a month for a family membership to our nearby country club, which includes unlimited use of the 7 indoor courts, indoor basketball and racquetball, indoor pool and sauna, weight and cardio rooms, and fitness classes. If I paid more, I could also add on unlimited golf.
Not long ago, the USTA took over a facility in my city that used to be $90 a month for an individual membership with unlimited court time. They got rid of the monthly unlimited membership, and went to New York City level hourly pricing. People left in droves, and the facility was empty for weeks. That forced them to drop the hourly court fee dramatically, and the people are coming back now. So, yay capitalism... the consumer decides!
What part of the country are you in? Sounds super nice.
J
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
Follow the lead of IowaGuy, and come west young man!
Similar threads
- Poll
