Revamping 40+ league?

[Cawlin]

There are USTA Singles leagues. Why not start one in your area? USTA offers many different formats, but it takes someone willing to administer a new league to get it going. Contact your Sectional office and find out how to go about starting a new league in your area.

I'm a dubs player... I was just asking because so many folks seemed to be worried about losing singles aspects of the USTA teams...

I'm already the captain of a team - based on that, administering a league would be about ten trillion times more headache than I would ever want...

 

[Moveforwardalways]

At the risk of asking a stupid question - why aren't there "singles only" leagues for USTA?

There are. But they do not count for USTA ratings and they do not advance to nationals. Therefore, it’s essentially just a hobby league to get experience, lots of guys playing up, not taken seriously, etc.

 

[Cawlin]

There are. But they do not count for USTA ratings and they do not advance to nationals. Therefore, it’s essentially just a hobby league to get experience, lots of guys playing up, not taken seriously, etc.

Ahhh... well... sounds like something USTA ought to consider changing if there is this much interest, no?

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Ahhh... well... sounds like something USTA ought to consider changing if there is this much interest, no?

Agree. If singles-only leagues factored into ratings and advanced to nationals, there would be much more interest.

 

[catfish]

Singles league is a straight rating league and does count toward year end ratings in some Sections. It does have District Championships in some areas. I may be mistaken, but there may be Sectionals in some sections. Currently, there is no National Championship for Singles League.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Singles league is a straight rating league and does count toward year end ratings in some Sections. It does have District Championships in some areas. I may be mistaken, but there may be Sectionals in some sections. Currently, there is no National Championship for Singles League.

Singles-only league is like mixed. It only counts if you don’t play regular adult league.

 

[chatt_town]

It's always been 4 courts of doubles with 1 court of singles here in GA (Atlanta) for 40+. But once you get to State and beyond it goes to 3 courts of doubles and 2 courts of singles. I'd love if they made it where it didn't change once you got to state.

That's not true in all of atlanta. I'm playing a league right now and it's 2 singles and 3 doubles.

 

[chatt_town]

So we are getting wind that USTA is considering on revamping the 40+ league format (and supposedly voting in it soon). Anyone know any more about this? From what we were told, supposedly it would go to 1 court of singles and 3 courts of doubles, with some sort of system to ensure no ties (I am assuming a point system for each court). Anyone know anything about this??? Supposedly one person locally got some survey regarding this from USTA. Does anyone have more details about this?!?

John

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Although I've gotten raked over the coals this year because of health issues, I actually like the 2-3 format even in the 40's division. It adds a different element to the game.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Geez, for crying out loud. Just don’t get fat, and go running to stay in shape. These 3.5 and 4.0 players who can’t play singles because they are weak and have no physical stamina need to just quit tennis altogether. Honestly, if you are 45 years old, otherwise healthy, and don’t have the stamina to play singles tennis for 90 minutes against another 45 year old, then you have bigger problems than which new cheap poly string to play with. Quit posting on these forums about equipment minutia, put the bag of potato chips down, and get in shape. Good grief.

Um . . .

I am 58, and I have has two knee surgeries from injuries that occurred trying to play singles. I can run and do many things, but what I can’t do is start and stop and change direction to play singles.

I will default before I will set foot on a singles court again.

Plus, I hate singles and far prefer the teamwork of doubles.

And I will eat potato chips whenever I please, thanks.

 

[brettatk]

That's not true in all of atlanta. I'm playing a league right now and it's 2 singles and 3 doubles.

It must be in an area outside of Atlanta then. When I say Atlanta I mean registering and playing under Atlanta. There are several area's within close proximity of Atlanta such as EVTA and SCTA for example that do not have to follow USTA Atlanta rules. But if it's Atlanta then it's the 1/4 format for 40+.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Um . . .

I am 58, and I have has two knee surgeries from injuries that occurred trying to play singles. I can run and do many things, but what I can’t do is start and stop and change direction to play singles.

I will default before I will set foot on a singles court again.

Plus, I hate singles and far prefer the teamwork of doubles.

And I will eat potato chips whenever I please, thanks.

And as I said, “otherwise healthy”.

But that isn’t really the point anyway. People can prefer whatever they want. If you want to play only doubles, that’s fine. No one is preventing that. But singles is huge part of tennis, and it should not be an after thought when it comes to USTA rating calculations. If someone is not a successful singles player, for whatever reason, that’s all well and good. But singles is a significant component of tennis, and that player’s USTA rating should reflect a gap in their skill set.

 

[catfish]

Singles-only league is like mixed. It only counts if you don’t play regular adult league.

That is not correct. Some Sections count singles league toward year end ratings regardless of whether you played in Adult leagues or not. Some sections do not count it at all. Some sections may treat it like mixed and only count toward YE ratings if someone did not participate in Adult 18/40/55/65 leagues.

 

[kevrol]

Told you all before our local league 40+ is just 3 doubles courts. Of course once you reach Districts you have to play 3 doubles, 2 singles so we are at a significant disadvantage.

 

[Nostradamus]

Told you all before our local league 40+ is just 3 doubles courts. Of course once you reach Districts you have to play 3 doubles, 2 singles so we are at a significant disadvantage.

That is so stupide. that is just unfair. should keep the format the same all the way to the nationals.

 

[brettatk]

Told you all before our local league 40+ is just 3 doubles courts. Of course once you reach Districts you have to play 3 doubles, 2 singles so we are at a significant disadvantage.

Wow. And I thought it was bad going from 1/4 to 2/3. I can see some advantages with that if you happen to have a couple of strong singles players on the roster. At our best all 4 lines of doubles are pretty strong but typically we are missing a couple of people which makes one line very vulnerable. Only having to field 3 lines of doubles would mean all three would be strong. But then less lines means less playing time. How many matches do ya'll play? I don't think we'd be able to get everyone qualified only playing 6 guys per match. We typically only play 5-6 matches in season.

 

[OnTheLine]

Um . . .

I am 58, and I have has two knee surgeries from injuries that occurred trying to play singles. I can run and do many things, but what I can’t do is start and stop and change direction to play singles.

I will default before I will set foot on a singles court again.

Plus, I hate singles and far prefer the teamwork of doubles.

And I will eat potato chips whenever I please, thanks.

Going back in my magic memory ..... wasn't it just about a year ago that you posted that maybe you would just play singles? I think you had just been attacked by a legion of Becky wannabes and trying to escape.

But the key sentence here is : prefer teamwork of doubles.

Many people are perfectly fit enough to play singles ... sometimes more fit than singles players ... but they prefer doubles because of the teamwork.

How many adult players started on another sport ... typically a team sport .... for them switching to an individual sport is too isolating ... they want a team.

I respect that.

 

[kevrol]

Wow. And I thought it was bad going from 1/4 to 2/3. I can see some advantages with that if you happen to have a couple of strong singles players on the roster. At our best all 4 lines of doubles are pretty strong but typically we are missing a couple of people which makes one line very vulnerable. Only having to field 3 lines of doubles would mean all three would be strong. But then less lines means less playing time. How many matches do ya'll play? I don't think we'd be able to get everyone qualified only playing 6 guys per match. We typically only play 5-6 matches in season.

Supposed to be 8-10 matches but sometimes only 7.

 

[sam_p]

Changing to this format would be problematic for sure for the 4.5+ level where 5.0's are included in the mix. Currently two can play in a match at 1S or 1D.

If the format is changed to 1 + 3 then what will be the default plan for the 5.0's?

Change to only one allowed to play per match? Then you have 40+ 5.0's who are locked out
Keep it to two at 1S and 1D? Then no 4.5s will get a chance to play another 4.5 in the singles line since every competitive team will put a 5.0 at 1S and another at 1D

Just leave it alone, it isn't broken at all

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh, I have tried to become a singles players a few times over the years. I went back to doubles when I realized I would have to put a huge amount of time and effort into singles to develop those skills.

And I have told myself that if I hurt my knee again, I'm quitting tennis. Doubles, I can handle safely.

 

[CHtennis]

Changing to this format would be problematic for sure for the 4.5+ level where 5.0's are included in the mix. Currently two can play in a match at 1S or 1D.

If the format is changed to 1 + 3 then what will be the default plan for the 5.0's?

Change to only one allowed to play per match? Then you have 40+ 5.0's who are locked out
Keep it to two at 1S and 1D? Then no 4.5s will get a chance to play another 4.5 in the singles line since every competitive team will put a 5.0 at 1S and another at 1D

Just leave it alone, it isn't broken at all

This is my concern as well. I am not yet eligible for 40 and over but in 2 years I will be and at the moment I am a 5.0 and I would prefer them to keep it the same way. I was just going to like your post but that option seems to have gone away.

 

[ACTG]

I mean you’re in your 40s not dead. Insane they can’t play at least two singles courts.

 

[undecided]

I mean you’re in your 40s not dead. Insane they can’t play at least two singles courts.

Precisely, 40 is the new 20, 50 the new 30. 60 is the new 40.

 

[ChaelAZ]

A little transparnecy would be nice by the USTA here. If they are saying they did get this feedback on survey's from captains, and it was the majority that asked for this adjustment to format, then simply show the data that supports it. If it is a small section of certain levels or sections that have issues with it, let them deal with it instead of hamping play in the larger sections or the majority overall.

As one of the USTA singles players for leauges, I might stay for dubs but I'll probably drop at some point.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

To get a complete picture of a player’s skill level, a valid USTA C rating should require two singles results and two doubles results (4 matches instead of the current 3 matches). In addition, to be eligible for post season play, a player should have to play minimum one singles and one doubles match (same as current two match minimum).

This would prevent players from being able to hide their weakness. No more “doubles specialists” or “singles specialists”. Let the rating reflect the player’s overall tennis skill set.

 

[Cindysphinx]

To get a complete picture of a player’s skill level, a valid USTA C rating should require two singles results and two doubles results (4 matches instead of the current 3 matches). In addition, to be eligible for post season play, a player should have to play minimum one singles and one doubles match (same as current two match minimum).

This would prevent players from being able to hide their weakness. No more “doubles specialists” or “singles specialists”. Let the rating reflect the player’s overall tennis skill set.

You'll feel differently when you start suffering the injuries and problems associated with aging.

 

[schmke]

To get a complete picture of a player’s skill level, a valid USTA C rating should require two singles results and two doubles results (4 matches instead of the current 3 matches).

And then those that play just doubles or singles never get a rating and remain self-rated forever and you have zero picture of their skill level and they can play at too low a level in perpetuity? Great idea ...

 

[Moveforwardalways]

You'll feel differently when you start suffering the injuries and problems associated with aging.

1. That’s what age group leagues are for.

2. Age is definitely a factor. Age is a primary factor in professional rankings for sure. It’s why Pete Sampras and Jonny Mac aren’t ranked on tour anymore. Likewise, if someone cannot play singles because of their age, that should be reflected in their USTA rating.

At the very least, if a rating is based doubles only or singles only, there should be a qualifier placed on it. Like, 3.5(d) or something.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

And then those that play just doubles or singles never get a rating and remain self-rated forever and you have zero picture of their skill level and they can play at too low a level in perpetuity? Great idea ...

Sure, why not. They will be ineligible for post season play though, so they will not be able to advance or play playoffs. So there would be no point.

 

[Pro Kenneth]

In my area, begging for singles volunteers (and the awkward pause that follows) is an anxiety fraught task even with younger players. Nobody wants the brutal workout and extra pressure. The local non Usta league got rid of singles years ago, nobody could stand it. I marvel that Usta would still have any singles in leagues, especially 40+. Tournaments are better suited for singles competition, as by definition you are really playing for yourself anyway.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

In my area, begging for singles volunteers (and the awkward pause that follows) is an anxiety fraught task even with younger players. Nobody wants the brutal workout and extra pressure. The local non Usta league got rid of singles years ago, nobody could stand it. I marvel that Usta would still have any singles in leagues, especially 40+. Tournaments are better suited for singles competition, as by definition you are really playing for yourself anyway.

I’m not discounting your personal experience, but in my area it’s the opposite. Good singles players are heavily sought after and given high levels of respect on USTA teams. If you win at singles for your team, it gives you leverage and makes you a shot caller. The reason is that if you find only 2 guys who can play ball, you are likely to win any given match, and you just need to pull one of the doubles courts, which is usually easily done by sandbagging a good pairing to court 3.

 

[catfish]

To get a complete picture of a player’s skill level, a valid USTA C rating should require two singles results and two doubles results (4 matches instead of the current 3 matches). In addition, to be eligible for post season play, a player should have to play minimum one singles and one doubles match (same as current two match minimum).

This would prevent players from being able to hide their weakness. No more “doubles specialists” or “singles specialists”. Let the rating reflect the player’s overall tennis skill set.

The goal of USTA adult league tennis is to offer recreational tennis for a variety of levels with a variety of formats. The purpose of having NTRP ratings is to keep the competition as even as possible and offer league play for different levels. Some players do not like singles and some do not like doubles. Many players simply want to play tennis with people of about the same level and are not especially interested in improving their tennis skills. They just want a fun way to stay active and healthy. USTA offers something for everyone. Some players work on their skills and move up to higher rating levels. Some people are happy being 3.0's for life, because tennis is just some spring and summer recreation for them and it doesn't take a high priority in their life. If the USTA became so restrictive that it required singles and doubles play in order to generate a computer rating and to participate in post season play, they would alienate most of their players.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

The goal of USTA adult league tennis is to offer recreational tennis for a variety of levels with a variety of formats. The purpose of having NTRP ratings is to keep the competition as even as possible and offer league play for different levels. Some players do not like singles and some do not like doubles. Many players simply want to play tennis with people of about the same level and are not especially interested in improving their tennis skills. They just want a fun way to stay active and healthy. USTA offers something for everyone. Some players work on their skills and move up to higher rating levels. Some people are happy being 3.0's for life, because tennis is just some spring and summer recreation for them and it doesn't take a high priority in their life. If the USTA became so restrictive that it required singles and doubles play in order to generate a computer rating and to participate in post season play, they would alienate most of their players.

But isn’t it becoming restrictive by reducing singles play? If it is supposed to be offering a variety of formats, how does reducing singles play accomplish this? And yes, USTA should be pairing players up with people of similar skill level, which is why being able to hide your lack of a backhand but still call yourself a 4.0 is a problem.

 

[ACTG]

Im sure I will get crushed for this but to me singles and doubles are almost different sports. The lack of movement and hitting almost one groundstoke exclusively makes it almost apples to oranges.

Doubles players can do one thing well and be very successful in doubles while essentially hiding the rest (backhand, fitness, speed,etc). I will
Play singles until my body doesn’t allow it. Doubles is cool that you are in it with a partner and the thinking element goes up and strategy plays much more. Then again I play my best tennis when I’m not thinking which is why I love singles tennis so much. I do respect the doubles game a lot but it’s so different. Seems to me the people that grew up playing tennis are your singles players and the people that got into it later in life lean doubles but maybe it’s just my area.

 

[catfish]

But isn’t it becoming restrictive by reducing singles play? If it is supposed to be offering a variety of formats, how does reducing singles play accomplish this? And yes, USTA should be pairing players up with people of similar skill level, which is why being able to hide your lack of a backhand but still call yourself a 4.0 is a problem.

Not when the vast majority of players prefer doubles and feedback has been that many 4O & over teams have trouble fielding 2 singles per match. As I said before, every area is different. You area may have way more singles players than most. League administration has to go with the majority. USTA administration can't please everyone.

 

[Nacho]

Even Martina Navratilova said 90 % of the club tennis players play doubles 90 % of the time. so USTA should be mostly doubles. with exception of singles tournaments.

Depends on the level, lots of guys who like to play singles but older than 60 its almost all dubs. Women rec players prefer doubles

 

[schmke]

Depends on the level, lots of guys who like to play singles but older than 60 its almost all dubs. Women rec players prefer doubles

I wonder if they considered leaving the 40+ men 2/3 and just changing the women to 1/4?

 

[Nacho]

At the risk of asking a stupid question - why aren't there "singles only" leagues for USTA?

These don't draw many as man rec players like to play under an organized team as it is more social. Our club used to have a singles only league that had tons of guys, but in the last few years it dwindled to just a small group and then went away. One of the big factors, and I have said this many times on here, is that the Jr's and college players have no idea where to play after college. They can't afford memberships, and in many case have to move around for jobs after school. Its a whole segment of players that should be consistently filling the play vacated by players who drop out of leagues. Instead we all stand around and watch the rec leagues just appeal to old people, and there is no one who can fill things like singles leagues.

 

[Nacho]

I wonder if they considered leaving the 40+ men 2/3 and just changing the women to 1/4?

The only thing I heard, second hand, was they were considering was going to a 1/2 format for mens....There are quite a few leagues that actually do this already, and then switch to 2/3 for districts. Any switch should also consider the qualifications for a player for districts.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

To get a complete picture of a player’s skill level, a valid USTA C rating should require two singles results and two doubles results (4 matches instead of the current 3 matches). In addition, to be eligible for post season play, a player should have to play minimum one singles and one doubles match (same as current two match minimum).

This would prevent players from being able to hide their weakness. No more “doubles specialists” or “singles specialists”. Let the rating reflect the player’s overall tennis skill set.

Isn't this literally the exact opposite of what everyone wants? All I hear on this board is how much sandbagging is a problem, players playing below their rating, etc.

Your solution is tailor-made to create massive sandbagging problems. A player who doesn't like singles plays the minimum two singles matches, loses badly because they value preserving their body more than winning the match (and so they don't run for balls). Their ranking drops, they then play only doubles when it actually matters. They keep doing this - dominate doubles, lose badly in singles - and become the most desired players at their rating level.

The ratings become totally meaningless, because the players who actually DO play both singles and doubles are likely to be outclassed all the time when they're playing doubles specialists (who are a lower level because of their singles results) or singles specialists (who are at a lower level because of their doubles results).

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Isn't this literally the exact opposite of what everyone wants? All I hear on this board is how much sandbagging is a problem, players playing below their rating, etc.

Your solution is tailor-made to create massive sandbagging problems. A player who doesn't like singles plays the minimum two singles matches, loses badly because they value preserving their body more than winning the match (and so they don't run for balls). Their ranking drops, they then play only doubles when it actually matters. They keep doing this - dominate doubles, lose badly in singles - and become the most desired players at their rating level.

The ratings become totally meaningless, because the players who actually DO play both singles and doubles are likely to be outclassed all the time when they're playing doubles specialists (who are a lower level because of their singles results) or singles specialists (who are at a lower level because of their doubles results).

Sure, but sandbagging is a problem anyway. Any rating system can be sandbagged and gamed.

But what my proposal does do, is make every player on a team play at least some singles and doubles. And if you are on a team that is competing for the league title, throwing a match on lack of effort will be costly for the team. Also, your score will of course be posted on the USTA website for all to see. Public shaming would be the penalty for not developing a well round game. No more hiding weaknesses. If you can’t play net in doubles, we are going to know and your rating will reflect that. If you can’t hit 3 backhands in a row in singles, your rating will reflect that. If you are obese and not working on your conditioning, it will be exposed for all to see.

 

[Pro Kenneth]

Interesting, problem is the vast majority of players hate playing singles, and your plan increases that. You mentioned singles players are highly valued... That's the problem, they are so because nobody else wants to play it.

They need to call it a doubles league and be done with it. Notice the local associations have less singles or none at all... Because they are more locally controlled and reflect actual player demand more than the scaled up Usta establishment.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

But what my proposal does do, is make every player on a team play at least some singles and doubles.

No, it doesn't MAKE people do any such thing.

It puts in a ratings penalty for people who don't. People who care more about playing the matches they find fun than about their rating just won't do it, so you'll have a huge number of people without ratings, which will make the ratings system pointless.

And if you are on a team that is competing for the league title, throwing a match on lack of effort will be costly for the team.

On the other hand, winning a whole bunch of matches because you've got specialists whose level is above what their rating indicates for most of the time will be beneficial for the team.

You're gonna have to have a lot of special cases and rules to make this work, which is just going to end up penalizing the people who just LIKE to play one form more than the other, and rewarding the people who game it to their advantage.

Also, your score will of course be posted on the USTA website for all to see. Public shaming would be the penalty for not developing a well round game. No more hiding weaknesses. If you can’t play net in doubles, we are going to know and your rating will reflect that. If you can’t hit 3 backhands in a row in singles, your rating will reflect that. If you are obese and not working on your conditioning, it will be exposed for all to see.

Why do you care about shaming people? It sounds like a terrible idea. Making the league ratings about shaming its participants is a good way to chase away all those participants to UTR, Ultimate Tennis, or other leagues.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

No, it doesn't MAKE people do any such thing.

It puts in a ratings penalty for people who don't. People who care more about playing the matches they find fun than about their rating just won't do it, so you'll have a huge number of people without ratings, which will make the ratings system pointless.



On the other hand, winning a whole bunch of matches because you've got specialists whose level is above what their rating indicates for most of the time will be beneficial for the team.

You're gonna have to have a lot of special cases and rules to make this work, which is just going to end up penalizing the people who just LIKE to play one form more than the other, and rewarding the people who game it to their advantage.



Why do you care about shaming people? It sounds like a terrible idea. Making the league ratings about shaming its participants is a good way to chase away all those participants to UTR, Ultimate Tennis, or other leagues.

You missed part of my post. If they don’t do it, they are not eligible for postseason. So if they do not play the matches, their team will not advance, at least not with them. So who cares if they don’t have a valid rating.

And when it comes to shaming people. Yes, there are a lot of people with what are essentially vanity ratings. They should be humbled and have to play people at their own ability level.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

For reference: if you required players to have 2 singles and 2 doubles matches for someone to get rated, on one of my teams 1 of the 24 people would get ratings. On the other team, it would be 2 of 17.

You would instantly invalidate all of the ratings of basically everyone that plays USTA, making it into, effectively, a non-advancing league where everyone is just self-rated.

 

[Pro Kenneth]

"Are you willing to play singles?" Trepidiciously asked the team captain.

"Are you willing to play doubles?" Said no team captain ever.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

For reference: if you required players to have 2 singles and 2 doubles matches for someone to get rated, on one of my teams 1 of the 24 people would get ratings. On the other team, it would be 2 of 17.

You would instantly invalidate all of the ratings of basically everyone that plays USTA, making it into, effectively, a non-advancing league where everyone is just self-rated.

Amazing. You have that many players who are afraid of playing singles? Why? If they are not in shape enough or not confident enough or don’t have the mental toughness for singles, this is an example of why adult tennis players have the reputation we all know they do. They will get in petty arguments over line calls, but ask them to put in the work to get in shape? Nah, not a chance.

And no, I do not think that massive numbers of players would go unrated creating a non-advancing league. There is already a lot of incentive to go to state or districts or playoffs. People get their juice from going to 3.5 states, etc, and that will not change.

 

[schmke]

Amazing. You have that many players who are afraid of playing singles? Why? If they are not in shape enough or not confident enough or don’t have the mental toughness for singles, this is an example of why adult tennis players have the reputation we all know they do. They will get in petty arguments over line calls, but ask them to put in the work to get in shape? Nah, not a chance.

And no, I do not think that massive numbers of players would go unrated creating a non-advancing league. There is already a lot of incentive to go to state or districts or playoffs. People get their juice from going to 3.5 states, etc, and that will not change.

I have to bring facts to your fantasy based opinions, but very few teams advance to States/Districts or even local playoffs. In most cases, the top team in a flight of 8 or fewer advances and perhaps the top-2 advance if a flight has 9 or more teams. This is at best 20% of the teams. And there are probably only 40% of the teams that really have a shot at advancing, the others are there to just play competitive recreational tennis and have no designs on advancing to playoffs so the incentive you state really isn't an incentive for them.

But let's also look at some factual stats from the 2018 championship year. There were over 223K players that played at least 3 matches in an advancing league and so would get a rating from that. Only 51K or 23% played at least 2 singles and 2 doubles matches which would be required to get a rating under your proposal. Even if your system encouraged more players to play both, that is an awfully large gap to make up and I'd hypothesize that a very large number wouldn't play both and thus you'd end up with large numbers of players that don't get a year-end rating. Not a good thing IMHO.

And what would you do about 55+ leagues where there is no singles? These players would be required to play 18+ or 40+ and get two singles matches in?

But logistically, is it even possible to do what you are describing? Let's take a roster of 20 that is in a flight of 10 teams with a 9 match season. With a 2 singles/3 doubles format, that is 18 singles matches available to be played. Even if you played a different pair of singles players every match, you can't even get the full roster into one singles match let alone two! By design, your proposal has fewer than 50% of players even having a chance of getting a year-end rating.

Nice try, but your idea needs a lot more thought to be realistic.

 

[catfish]

Give up Schmke, Max and Pro Kenneth. Moveforwardalways lives in a dream world if he thinks public shaming and forcing people to play tennis that they don't want to play would be a great addition to RECREATIONAL tennis. People have different attitudes and ability levels, and that is why there are different levels. If a 50 year old woman who has never played sports wants to start playing league tennis because it's a fun way to get exercise, meet people and improve her health, good for her. If she doesn't want to play singles, that's OK. If others want to spend a lot of time honing their skills and improving their game, well that's OK too. Tennis snobbery in adult recreational tennis is so ridiculous, and it's a barrier to new players and beginners.

The computer rating system does a pretty good job of making a level playing field. Plenty of people make it to the 4.0 level with holes in their game. So what, who cares? Their strengths are obviously good enough to balance out their weaknesses. I hit with a lot of 4.0 men who have terrible backhands. But the rest of their game makes up for it.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Give up Schmke, Max and Pro Kenneth. Moveforwardalways lives in a dream world if he thinks public shaming and forcing people to play tennis that they don't want to play would be a great addition to RECREATIONAL tennis. People have different attitudes and ability levels, and that is why there are different levels. If a 50 year old woman who has never played sports wants to start playing league tennis because it's a fun way to get exercise, meet people and improve her health, good for her. If she doesn't want to play singles, that's OK. If others want to spend a lot of time honing their skills and improving their game, well that's OK too. Tennis snobbery in adult recreational tennis is so ridiculous, and it's a barrier to new players and beginners.

The computer rating system does a pretty good job of making a level playing field. Plenty of people make it to the 4.0 level with holes in their game. So what, who cares? Their strengths are obviously good enough to balance out their weaknesses. I hit with a lot of 4.0 men who have terrible backhands. But the rest of their game makes up for it.

No one is making anyone do anything. You can still play rec tennis, just with a lower rating. Should a player really be rated 3.95 on TR if they cannot hit a topspin backhand? This year I played a guy who had a 4.05 rating on TR but had a 3.5 level backhand. Why was he rated there? When he was a 4.0 he only returned deuce side and no one ever hit to his backhand. Then he got bumped. But even one 4.0 singles match would have exposed his backhand and prevented the bump.

Singles is part of tennis and should be factored in to the USTA rating system.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I have to bring facts to your fantasy based opinions, but very few teams advance to States/Districts or even local playoffs. In most cases, the top team in a flight of 8 or fewer advances and perhaps the top-2 advance if a flight has 9 or more teams. This is at best 20% of the teams. And there are probably only 40% of the teams that really have a shot at advancing, the others are there to just play competitive recreational tennis and have no designs on advancing to playoffs so the incentive you state really isn't an incentive for them.

But let's also look at some factual stats from the 2018 championship year. There were over 223K players that played at least 3 matches in an advancing league and so would get a rating from that. Only 51K or 23% played at least 2 singles and 2 doubles matches which would be required to get a rating under your proposal. Even if your system encouraged more players to play both, that is an awfully large gap to make up and I'd hypothesize that a very large number wouldn't play both and thus you'd end up with large numbers of players that don't get a year-end rating. Not a good thing IMHO.

And what would you do about 55+ leagues where there is no singles? These players would be required to play 18+ or 40+ and get two singles matches in?

But logistically, is it even possible to do what you are describing? Let's take a roster of 20 that is in a flight of 10 teams with a 9 match season. With a 2 singles/3 doubles format, that is 18 singles matches available to be played. Even if you played a different pair of singles players every match, you can't even get the full roster into one singles match let alone two! By design, your proposal has fewer than 50% of players even having a chance of getting a year-end rating.

Nice try, but your idea needs a lot more thought to be realistic.

Maybe it does indeed need more thought. But my main point is that singles should be factored in to the USTA rating in some way.