Revamping 40+ league?

[schmke]

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.

Or having separate doubles and singles ratings. That would be more accurate than a rating where players are forced to play the discipline they don't like which would potentially depress their rating allowing them to be rated too low. Do you really want a doubles guy who is decent 4.5 doubles player to be forced to play singles and get a 4.0 year-end rating because of it, and then get to be a ringer for a 4.0 team?

Now, separate ratings introduces a whole different set of issues, the primary one being how captains assemble their rosters and are allowed to do their line-ups when they have players with different singles and doubles year-end ratings.

 

[chatt_town]

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.

I agree with this. Singles should be included and it should require 2 singles and not 4 doubles lines. Teams will then just load up the doubles and use singles as the "score managing line"

 

[Pro Kenneth]

You have that many players who are afraid of playing singles? Why? If they are not in shape enough

Guilty

or don’t have the mental toughness for singles

Guilty

 

[J_R_B]

Or having separate doubles and singles ratings. That would be more accurate than a rating where players are forced to play the discipline they don't like which would potentially depress their rating allowing them to be rated too low. Do you really want a doubles guy who is decent 4.5 doubles player to be forced to play singles and get a 4.0 year-end rating because of it, and then get to be a ringer for a 4.0 team?

Now, separate ratings introduces a whole different set of issues, the primary one being how captains assemble their rosters and are allowed to do their line-ups when they have players with different singles and doubles year-end ratings.

I don't think there is enough match experience to truly have separate ratings, but you could have a system where a C rating is computer rated for both, meaning you have experience at both. Then, maybe D rating means you are computer rated for doubles but considered self-rated for singles, and S rating means the opposite (or choose whatever letters you want if you want S and D to keep their current meaning).

 

[Cawlin]

So why can't you have a "Dubs Only" rating and/or a "Singles Only" rating as an adult rec player?

 

[Doan]

Now, separate ratings introduces a whole different set of issues, the primary one being how captains assemble their rosters and are allowed to do their line-ups when they have players with different singles and doubles year-end ratings.

Yeah the only way would be to run only singles or doubles teams and leagues. Some sections already run a singles league ( 3 lines of singles). You could have that separate from a doubles league ( 3 lines of dubs). Make those advance to Nationals and then could do away with the 2S, 3D league format. That would keep the singles only and doubles only players both happy.

 

[Cawlin]

I think a lot of this sounds just like the usual stuff that all adult rec tennis team captains deal with - player availability and skill level. OK so your regular singles players aren't available for a week's match, and your only other people who will even agree to play singles are also on your two best dubs lines, so if you split them, you have only middling chances of taking the singles lines and also have eroded your chances to take 2 of your 3 dubs lines - this is what captains in all tennis leagues deal with.

Be glad it's not ALTA where if you default a line, you must default all lines "below" that... so if your regular line 1 players aren't available, your choices are to push everyone up a line or put some subs at line 1 and leave the rest of your lines where they usually play... however if your "subs" played any lower than line 3 most recently, you're not allowed to move them all the way up to 1...

I guess the bottom line is that adult rec tennis for captains is always a juggling act... and while going to nationals sounds like a pretty fun thing, it also sometimes sounds like more of a battle of attrition than a legit competition where everyone puts their best team on the court.

The bottom line is that if there is enough interest in your area for whatever league format then there will be enough players to support it... if there isn't, then, hopefully there is an area with enough interest within comfortable driving distance to make it worth your effort to play whatever league format they have.

The USTA needs to provide league play options that suit what they players want to do in various areas - and maybe not all league play options have a "nationals" playoff option if there isn't enough widespread interest in that format, but at the least, players could get together on a team and play, even if there is no post season play in store for them.

Nobody playing this level of tennis is going to break onto the tour - league play options must meet as many peoples' needs as possible.

 

[Cindysphinx]

This is a byproduct of the decision in 2011 to change the 50+ 3 doubles league to 40+ with 2 singles. I thought it was wrong then and is wrong now.

People who want to play singles should play 18+, period.

Any player over 55 would be allowed to play down one level for singles.

I’m 58, so maybe I could hang with a 3.0 in singles.

 

[OnTheLine]

This is a byproduct of the decision in 2011 to change the 50+ 3 doubles league to 40+ with 2 singles. I thought it was wrong then and is wrong now.

People who want to play singles should play 18+, period.

Any player over 55 would be allowed to play down one level for singles.

I’m 58, so maybe I could hang with a 3.0 in singles.

So I can play 3.5 singles or doubles, I can play up to 4.0 at either singles or doubles and I can play down at 3.0 in singles ... well, in 5 years time ....

The by-product is that every smart captain at 3.0/3.5/4.0 will recruit 55 year old 3.5/4.0/4.5C singles players and younger players will simply not be able to play singles.

Unless they actually cannot move at all, I am certain that any 4.0 or 4.5 singles player aged 55 would handily beat down most 3.5 or 4.0 player no matter their age.

I think having age levels is a nice thing. Although I tend to do better at 18+ than I do at 40+ for whatever unknown reason.

What you are doing is telling the legions of singles players that there are even fewer opportunities for them to play league .... and yet there is no singles league out there.

 

[Pro Kenneth]

They have tournaments, a format well suited for singles... That the Usta has 40+ leagues with two singles lines, is amazingly ridiculous. Almost nobody wants to play singles in these leagues. It has helped local leagues replace Usta ones, it is much easier to manage a doubles only team.

How singles is part of a rec "team sport" I don't get at all. It makes sense for doubles as it is harder to arrange matches for four people. The main problem is what the usta is selling (singles for not Juniors or pros but middle age people, half of whom have bionic knee braces) does not have the equivalent demand.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Hey! I really like league singles!
I haven’t played tournaments in ages and don’t really plan to, but leagues are great.

 

[Doan]

They have tournaments, a format well suited for singles... That the Usta has 40+ leagues with two singles lines, is amazingly ridiculous. Almost nobody wants to play singles in these leagues. It has helped local leagues replace Usta ones, it is much easier to manage a doubles only team.

Much easier to find 90mins to play a singles league match then a whole weekend for a tournament. Especially if you have kids. You must play in one of the smaller areas of the country.

Like I said - have an advancing 18+ and 40+ singles and doubles league would solve this problem. And if it was only 3 courts - might also solve the scheduling issues from lack of courts that some areas also have.

 

[undecided]

There's almost no USTA tourneys where I live so leagues are the way to go. And, there are 55+ players who are still mobile enough to play singles. Ibuprofen does wonders. I am over 50 and I played against ~30 year olds in 18+ league. Their speed is disconcerting but there is a reason they have the same ranking as I. Their other skills are not as good so it evens out. If their other skills were as good as mine plus they have the quicker feet, they would be playing at a higher level. So, I think it makes sense to have singles ratings at 18+ only. The older guys will have to just move down .5 ranking or so to compensate for the difference in speed.

 

[LOBALOT]

Sorry for revisiting an old thread but this 40+ 1 singles/3 dubs format is really crazy. The last time we made sectionals was August 2019 and it was 2 courts of singles shortly after that was the pandemic.

Has anyone heard anything about the USTA revisiting this decision? I am getting all sorts of flack from my team as we head into the playoffs.

It is complete crap the USTA feels that there is no interest in singles at 40+.

Heck, with the poor job they have done in developing youth tennis probably 3/4 of their members are 40+ singles players.

 

[schmke]

Sorry for revisiting an old thread but this 40+ 1 singles/3 dubs format is really crazy. The last time we made sectionals was August 2019 and it was 2 courts of singles shortly after that was the pandemic.

Has anyone heard anything about the USTA revisiting this decision? I am getting all sorts of flack from my team as we head into the playoffs.

It is complete crap the USTA feels that there is no interest in singles at 40+.

Heck, with the poor job they have done in developing youth tennis probably 3/4 of their members are 40+ singles players.

There were a lot of complaints when the new format for 40+ was announced (I probably stirred the pot a bit with my blog ...) but the gist of what I heard is that it was done in response to complaints from those who couldn't field singles courts and were having to default courts. We can debate whether this was an over-rotation to a small problem and there are far more complaints the other way now, or not, but the impression I got is that the USTA was going to stick with the change but was willing to revisit it later, my guess is perhaps after two years.

Well, 2020 didn't happen, so 2021 is really year one so I suspect we'll have to endure 2022 with the format unchanged, and then hope their surveys or feedback cause them to change back. I doubt it will happen though, I'm sure those that support the change will find a way to construe surveys or participation data in a way to make them think it was the right thing.

 

[LOBALOT]

There were a lot of complaints when the new format for 40+ was announced (I probably stirred the pot a bit with my blog ...) but the gist of what I heard is that it was done in response to complaints from those who couldn't field singles courts and were having to default courts. We can debate whether this was an over-rotation to a small problem and there are far more complaints the other way now, or not, but the impression I got is that the USTA was going to stick with the change but was willing to revisit it later, my guess is perhaps after two years.

Well, 2020 didn't happen, so 2021 is really year one so I suspect we'll have to endure 2022 with the format unchanged, and then hope their surveys or feedback cause them to change back. I doubt it will happen though, I'm sure those that support the change will find a way to construe surveys or participation data in a way to make them think it was the right thing.

Thanks for your response. I have not actually seen your blog but would be interested in following.

Throughout my time playing 40+ (I am now 58) I have probably sent 8 teams to sectionals, more than that to states, and more than that to districts. In all that time I have not seen a singles court default in the playoffs. Not one.

It is the captain's responsibility to identify if they have enough interested singles/dubs/both players prior to the season. If the captain does not have the players they should find another team to combine with that does. Heck, presumably they would have an even better team.

This problem caters to ill prepared captains and planning at the expense of the players. They should make this change across the board including 18+ as captaining at that level I see plenty of poor captaining there as well. Just another in a long list of very poor decisions made by the USTA. The whole leadership structure needs to be swept aside.

This has nothing to do with lack of interest in 40+ singles play.

 

[serveandvolE]

My sentiments are with you LOBALOT. I don't buy the lack of courts argument because if that was the case, why doesn't 18+ have the issue? 18+ has 2 lines of singles and there are more 18+ teams in my section than 40+. With the shortened schedule (at least in Norcal), and a reduced # of leagues offerings (no singles league this year plus there's an age limitation that leaves out a group of 40 and 50 year olds), singles really does get the short end of the stick.

 

[LOBALOT]

My sentiments are with you LOBALOT. I don't buy the lack of courts argument because if that was the case, why doesn't 18+ have the issue? 18+ has 2 lines of singles and there are more 18+ teams in my section than 40+. With the shortened schedule (at least in Norcal), and a reduced # of leagues offerings (no singles league this year plus there's an age limitation that leaves out a group of 40 and 50 year olds), singles really does get the short end of the stick.

Some of the best singles play I have seen is at 40+. The first year we made it to sectionals my one singles went in undefeated and a team from another state marched out with this guy that was amazing. My guy would hit behind him to his backhand as he recovered to the center of the court and the player would do this backwards spinarama one-handed backhand down the line winner shot repeatedly and made it every time. He also made a tweener passing shot during the match.

The USTA needs to encourage this kind of play not discourage it.

 

[ATX Tennis]

The 4 line format has lead to some heartbreaking 2-2 losses in my league. Most of my guys are neutral about 1 or 2 lines of singles, but they HATE 2-2 ties being decided by sets or games lost.

 

[serveandvolE]

Some of the best singles play I have seen is at 40+. The first year we made it to sectionals my one singles went in undefeated and a team from another state marched out with this guy that was amazing. My guy would hit behind him to his backhand as he recovered to the center of the court and the player would do this backwards spinarama one-handed backhand down the line winner shot repeatedly and made it every time. He also made a tweener passing shot during the match.

The USTA needs to encourage this kind of play not discourage it.

Agreed

 

[serveandvolE]

The 4 line format had lead to some heartbreaking 2-2 losses in my league. Most of my guys are neutral about 1 or 2 lines of singles, but they HATE 2-2 ties being decided by sets or games lost.

I don't know how it works in other sections but 40+ with 1 singles and 3 dubs has the #1 dubs worth double. It forces teams to play their best dubs players at #1 dubs and thus address stacking...kind if. It seems that most on my team like that. I would prefer a 2nd singles line.

 

[atatu]

I think it's mostly women's over 40 teams that can't field two singles players and the USTA made the change to accommodate them. That's fine, but I really don't understand why the USTA can't have a different format for women and men ? I mean they have a different format for 5.0 vs. everyone else and the world didn't end.

 

[LOBALOT]

I don't know how it works in other sections but 40+ with 1 singles and 3 dubs has the #1 dubs worth double. It forces teams to play their best dubs players at #1 dubs and thus address stacking...kind if. It seems that most on my team like that. I would prefer a 2nd singles line.

We do not play 1 dubs counting doubles. They do the sets won then games won for the tiebreaker.... and get this... if those are all tied they do a coin flip to decide it.

It is stupid.

 

[schmke]

I think it's mostly women's over 40 teams that can't field two singles players and the USTA made the change to accommodate them. That's fine, but I really don't understand why the USTA can't have a different format for women and men ? I mean they have a different format for 5.0 vs. everyone else and the world didn't end.

They absolutely could have different formats for men and women.

And even if women's 40+ teams tend to be short on singles players, I doubt that is the case in every section. Those that do have the issue have always been allowed to use alternate formats in local league or even all the way through Sectionals, so they could/should have just done this to accommodate the unique situation in the section/district/area. There are a number of areas that used alternate formats like 3 courts (1 singles, 2 doubles) or 5 courts (1 singles, 4 doubles) in the past so clearly there is not a barrier to doing it.

Having National change their format was IMHO an overreaction to the feedback they'd received from a small number of players and captains.

As a reminder, wrote about this on my blog pointing out the faulty use of surveys and math, but here is the official statement from National on why they changed:


Background: The regulation proposal 1.04A from the FL Section for the 40 & Over League “team match” championship format of one singles match and four doubles matches was tabled to gather further data. For the past 5 years, players have been surveyed as to the preferred 40 & Over League “team match” format. In the 2018 player survey, players were asked if they preferred 2S/3D or 1S/4D for this league and it revealed that 60% preferred 1S/4D. This survey did not offer the 1S/3D option. In April 2019, a survey was sent to players age 39 and over, asking which “team match” championship format they preferred, and results showed 25% for 1S/4D; 26% for 1S/3D; 39% for 2S/3D; ie. greater than 50% preferred only one singles match. In May 2019, League program providers and volunteers were surveyed with 58% preferring 1S/3D. Section League Coordinators were asked their choice at the May 2019 Joint Staff meeting. Two SLCs preferred 2S/3D, while all others preferred 1S/3D.

Summary: With convincing input received from players, providers, and Section League Coordinators in favor of one singles match, we’ve learned that it’s time to consider a change in the 40 & Over League “team match” championship format. This will address the majority of our players’ preference for a one singles “team match” championship format and the challenges with limited court availability for many facilities, the magnitude of league offerings, and the complaints that teams have difficulty in recruiting singles players. The 40 & Over League program is the second largest program and represents just over 25% of the total participation this year. Improving the player experience for this population is critical to the continued success and growth of this program.

 

[J_R_B]

Throughout my time playing 40+ (I am now 58) I have probably sent 8 teams to sectionals, more than that to states, and more than that to districts. In all that time I have not seen a singles court default in the playoffs. Not one.

Of course not. In their infinite wisdom, the USTA attacked the problem exactly the opposite of how it should be attacked. The problem is that the run of the mill teams were having trouble fielding 2 singles lines while playoff caliber teams were not, but the survey from which they gleaned the results were open to all people, not just the playoff representatives. So, the USTA reacted by eliminating a singles line from the playoff formats - the place where it was NOT needed - and allowing local leagues to determine individually whether or not to eliminate the line. There is nothing about this decision that is not mind-numbingly stupid. I'm definitely done with running 40+ teams after this year. It's just too stupid and unnecessarily difficult.

 

[serveandvolE]

Schmke, that polling that the USTA did seems very sketchy.

" In April 2019, a survey was sent to players age 39 and over, asking which “team match” championship format they preferred, and results showed 25% for 1S/4D; 26% for 1S/3D; 39% for 2S/3D; ie. greater than 50% preferred only one singles match"

So the USTA comes to the conclusion that over 50% favor only 2 singles match?? And then reverting to a line of 1S 3D when they didn't even have that as an option on the poll? Not only does 1S 3 D eliminate singles options, it obviously also eliminates playing opportunities in general versus what it had originally (2S 3D) and what they actually asked as an option in the poll (1S 4D). Weak.

 

[ATX Tennis]

I don't know how it works in other sections but 40+ with 1 singles and 3 dubs has the #1 dubs worth double. It forces teams to play their best dubs players at #1 dubs and thus address stacking...kind if. It seems that most on my team like that. I would prefer a 2nd singles line.

We use sets lost then games lost. If still tied then we use winner of 1 doubles. Not many matches get to winner of 1 doubles…games lost usually ends it.

 

[Jack the Hack]

In 2019, when they announced the change of 40+ to only 4 lines, I complained mightily about it to every USTA contact I know. Our Section coordinator wrote me back and said that he understood the concerns, but they were being mandated by the National USTA organization. He asked me to be patient and "just try the new format out."

Well, here's an example of how the 4 line format has worked in 40+ 4.5 this year in the PNW:

BTW, here, we play 1 singles and 3 doubles lines, with 2 points being awarded to the winner of #1 doubles. This gives you the possibility of 5 points in a match and determines who won like the old scoring. 8 teams total qualify for the Sectional tournament. However, to qualify, there are no local district tournaments this year and the first and second place teams by the number of accumulated "points" advance.

• In the Northern Oregon district (Portland), there were only 6 teams this year, which is down from 12 in 2019. Currently, the first place team has a 5-0 record in head-to-head competition against the other teams and has 1 match to play. The second place team is 5-1, having lost last week to the #1 team. However, the third place team is 3-2 right now. With this new wonderful format, if they have a 1-4 loss or better this weekend, they will leapfrog the current second place team that is 5-1 by virtue of having more "points" from the matches. I'm positive that the first place team will win, only the margin is unknown, and I'm sure the third place team will win at least one match. That means that Northern Oregon will likely be sending a 6-0 team and a 3-3 team, while a 5-1 team that has a direct win over the 3-3 team misses out.
• In the Northwest Washington district (Seattle), there were 11 teams this year compared to 17 in 2019. Their first place team is 8-0 and their second place team is 5-3. Three other teams tied for third with the same number points, which were less than the #2 team. The records for those teams are 5-3, 6-2, and 6-2. Both of the 6-2 teams "tied" for third place had direct head-to-head wins over the 5-3 second place team, but that second place team gets to go to Sectionals over them because they had an easier schedule and scored more points. (Because there were 11 teams, not every team had to play everyone else, so some teams had an easier schedule than others.)
• In the Eastern Washington district, there were only 3 teams, who played there local season over one weekend. This is the same number of teams that they had in 2019. The first place team was 4-0, second place was 2-2, and last place was 0-4. Both the 4-0 and 2-2 teams have been invited to Sectionals.
• In the Southwest Washington district (Tacoma/Olympia), there were also only 3 teams this year, down from 5 in 2019. The first place team was 5-1, second place was 3-3, and last place was 1-5. Both the first and second place teams are invited to Sectionals.
• In Southern Oregon, no teams were fielded this year after having 2 in 2019.

To summarize, with the new format:

1. In the PNW, there are 16 less 40+ 4.5 teams this year than in 2019.
2. The eight teams that are going to Sectionals have records of 8-0, 6-0, 4-0, 5-1, 5-3, 3-3, 3-3, and 2-2.
3. There are teams with 6-2, 6-2, and 5-1 records that not going to Sectionals despite having superior records and head-to-head wins over the teams that advanced instead of them.
4. Apparently, winning team matches against your rivals does not matter anymore. Only the luck of how easy your schedule might be.

I don't know how any of this makes sense or is fair. Members of the teams that should have been going to Sectionals because they earned it with superior records have to be really pissed. On the other hand, I heard that Sectionals this year will have the same team entry fee (around $250), but will not include t-shirts, a player party, or any other swag. Plus, all of the matches will be played on public courts, like the high school courts they used for the mixed doubles Sectionals a couple weeks ago. So maybe nobody really cares. It certainly seems like the USTA doesn't.

I'm interested in @schmke's take this because we are in the same section and playing at the same level.

 

[ATX Tennis]

Re: above post. I hate minimizing the importance of actually winning matches. As a captain, I like the strategy component. If we’re just adding points up, I’m basically an admin assistant.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Re: above post. I hate minimizing the importance of actually winning matches. As a captain, I like the strategy component. If we’re just adding points up, I’m basically an admin assistant.

I agree. All of my favorite moments of USTA League for the past 15+ years have either been cases where we strategized a specific line-up to beat a rival or where it was 2-2 and it came down to winning that final match. This new format defeats both scenarios, especially if head-to-head team results don't matter anymore.

 

[ATX Tennis]

I agree. All of my favorite moments of USTA League for the past 15+ years have either been cases where we strategized a specific line-up to beat a rival or where it was 2-2 and it came down to winning that final match. This new format defeats both scenarios, especially if head-to-head team results don't matter anymore.

Absolutely. Hard to top the feeling of predicting an opponent’s lineup, setting your lineup in response, and having your team execute in the way you hoped.

 

[LOBALOT]

Of course not. In their infinite wisdom, the USTA attacked the problem exactly the opposite of how it should be attacked. The problem is that the run of the mill teams were having trouble fielding 2 singles lines while playoff caliber teams were not, but the survey from which they gleaned the results were open to all people, not just the playoff representatives. So, the USTA reacted by eliminating a singles line from the playoff formats - the place where it was NOT needed - and allowing local leagues to determine individually whether or not to eliminate the line. There is nothing about this decision that is not mind-numbingly stupid. I'm definitely done with running 40+ teams after this year. It's just too stupid and unnecessarily difficult.

I wish I could quit but the camaraderie on my team I captain is amazing. I have a geeky surgeon paired with a former hippie lathering up in CBD oil before his matches. I have a guy who makes and sells hot sauce paired with a guy that heads up an accounting firm. I have a guy who is a bit uptight partnered with a guy who barely speaks English and can mutter at his partner in some eastern European language when his partner gets too bossy. My parings go on and on like that. We go out for post match dinner and beer until all hours of the night and if I need advice from the lawyer or the surgeon or the hot sauce guy or the hippie they are there for me any time.

I think 40+ is more than just tennis and the USTA does not get it at all.

 

[LOBALOT]

Absolutely. Hard to top the feeling of predicting an opponent’s lineup, setting your lineup in response, and having your team execute in the way you hoped.

1/2 my team has been doing analysis of the team all week. I am on a work call and it is this guy on the team.... "Hey I heard last year this team played that and their first singles guy was so and so and he is beatable"... 2 hours later I get another call from another guy.... I have my spreadsheets going. It is really a lot of fun!

 

[schmke]

Schmke, that polling that the USTA did seems very sketchy.

" In April 2019, a survey was sent to players age 39 and over, asking which “team match” championship format they preferred, and results showed 25% for 1S/4D; 26% for 1S/3D; 39% for 2S/3D; ie. greater than 50% preferred only one singles match"

So the USTA comes to the conclusion that over 50% favor only 2 singles match?? And then reverting to a line of 1S 3D when they didn't even have that as an option on the poll? Not only does 1S 3 D eliminate singles options, it obviously also eliminates playing opportunities in general versus what it had originally (2S 3D) and what they actually asked as an option in the poll (1S 4D). Weak.

All points I made two years ago with this reg change came out, writing on my blog, and talking to my Section Coordinator, and e-mailing folks at National. Just incredibly poor use of survey data and using said view to make a decision that clearly hasn't been well received.

Here is what I sent to someone, did not receive a response. It is the same stuff I wrote on my blog so am not sharing anything secret.
=====
First, the survey results from the April survey were listed as 25% preferring 1S/4D, 26% 1S/3D, and 39% for 2D/3D. This adds up to just 90%, not 100%. The survey is no longer available but I only recall these three options so why don't these add up to 100%? Did 10% of respondents really abstain from answering this question?

Second, I think a mistake was made in adding the 25% and 26% and coming to the conclusion that over 50% prefer 1S. It is simply not sound statistics to add together the results of two separate survey questions that themselves are composite questions, and conclude the common piece of the two questions is the reason everyone chose those options. It is entirely possible that players chose one of those options not because of 1S, but for another reason

For example, someone may have chosen 1S/4D because that would get 9 players in a match and not because it had one singles court. The 1S/3D option would actually be their last choice as it only gets 7 players in a match and so combining them misrepresents the player's real preference.

Also, by having two options with 1S and just one with 2S, there is a natural bias against 2S. Had the survey had a 2S/2D option the survey would have been more sound, but then some number of 1S/3D votes may have gone to 2S/2D, and adding 2S/2D with 2S/3D may have indicated more than 50% preferred two singles courts!

Third, while you are willing to combine two options to arrive at the greater than 50% number, you fail to acknowledge that the actual choice you went with had only 26% support and the existing 2S/3D format was way ahead of that at 39%.

Given that my survey with nearly 200 respondents is still saying 83% prefer 2S/3D to 1S/3D, I have serious concerns about the methodology and conclusions you arrived at from your survey. I really don't think it represents the USTA 40 & Over preference as a whole. I know you said something had to be done, but I'm still not seeing the issue and suspect it was just a handful of constituents that were very vocal, but do not represent the population as a whole.

 

[schmke]

In 2019, when they announced the change of 40+ to only 4 lines, I complained mightily about it to every USTA contact I know. Our Section coordinator wrote me back and said that he understood the concerns, but they were being mandated by the National USTA organization. He asked me to be patient and "just try the new format out."

Well, here's an example of how the 4 line format has worked in 40+ 4.5 this year in the PNW:

BTW, here, we play 1 singles and 3 doubles lines, with 2 points being awarded to the winner of #1 doubles. This gives you the possibility of 5 points in a match and determines who won like the old scoring. 8 teams total qualify for the Sectional tournament. However, to qualify, there are no local district tournaments this year and the first and second place teams by the number of accumulated "points" advance.

• In the Northern Oregon district (Portland), there were only 6 teams this year, which is down from 12 in 2019. Currently, the first place team has a 5-0 record in head-to-head competition against the other teams and has 1 match to play. The second place team is 5-1, having lost last week to the #1 team. However, the third place team is 3-2 right now. With this new wonderful format, if they have a 1-4 loss or better this weekend, they will leapfrog the current second place team that is 5-1 by virtue of having more "points" from the matches. I'm positive that the first place team will win, only the margin is unknown, and I'm sure the third place team will win at least one match. That means that Northern Oregon will likely be sending a 6-0 team and a 3-3 team, while a 5-1 team that has a direct win over the 3-3 team misses out.
• In the Northwest Washington district (Seattle), there were 11 teams this year compared to 17 in 2019. Their first place team is 8-0 and their second place team is 5-3. Three other teams tied for third with the same number points, which were less than the #2 team. The records for those teams are 5-3, 6-2, and 6-2. Both of the 6-2 teams "tied" for third place had direct head-to-head wins over the 5-3 second place team, but that second place team gets to go to Sectionals over them because they had an easier schedule and scored more points. (Because there were 11 teams, not every team had to play everyone else, so some teams had an easier schedule than others.)
• In the Eastern Washington district, there were only 3 teams, who played there local season over one weekend. This is the same number of teams that they had in 2019. The first place team was 4-0, second place was 2-2, and last place was 0-4. Both the 4-0 and 2-2 teams have been invited to Sectionals.
• In the Southwest Washington district (Tacoma/Olympia), there were also only 3 teams this year, down from 5 in 2019. The first place team was 5-1, second place was 3-3, and last place was 1-5. Both the first and second place teams are invited to Sectionals.
• In Southern Oregon, no teams were fielded this year after having 2 in 2019.

To summarize, with the new format:

1. In the PNW, there are 16 less 40+ 4.5 teams this year than in 2019.
2. The eight teams that are going to Sectionals have records of 8-0, 6-0, 4-0, 5-1, 5-3, 3-3, 3-3, and 2-2.
3. There are teams with 6-2, 6-2, and 5-1 records that not going to Sectionals despite having superior records and head-to-head wins over the teams that advanced instead of them.
4. Apparently, winning team matches against your rivals does not matter anymore. Only the luck of how easy your schedule might be.

I don't know how any of this makes sense or is fair. Members of the teams that should have been going to Sectionals because they earned it with superior records have to be really pissed. On the other hand, I heard that Sectionals this year will have the same team entry fee (around $250), but will not include t-shirts, a player party, or any other swag. Plus, all of the matches will be played on public courts, like the high school courts they used for the mixed doubles Sectionals a couple weeks ago. So maybe nobody really cares. It certainly seems like the USTA doesn't.

I'm interested in @schmke's take this because we are in the same section and playing at the same level.

All fair observations and excellent points.

I think what you are pointing out is that going to Points Per Position (PPP) format when standings are based on points has "interesting" side-effects, like not rewarding a team for winning close, and instead being able to thump most of the teams and lose close enough in a few matches can move you ahead. In essence, team wins are meaningless, it is all about accumulating points.

In Seattle we had just one flight of 11 and we did a partial round-robin (season started a bit late so were calendar constrained) so only played 8 of the other 10 teams. Standings were based on PPP as @Jack the Hack said but we took the top 4 teams into a semi-goofy two bracket format and teams had to win team matches to advance, a team win being whomever got 3 or more of the 5 points. So still PPP, but not using cumulative points for standings. This helped avoid an undeserving team from advancing as the top-4 had a shot and you had to win head to head to advance. I agree simply taking the top-2 based on points wouldn't seem equitable coming from traditional team wins standpoint, but one just has to think of it being different.

Now, why was PPP used? That ties in directly to the 40+ format change to 4 courts, as the format change was made without fully considering how to deal with 2-2 ties. TennisLink was outright broken for awhile for leagues that didn't use PPP and there was a lot of confusion. To avoid this, PNW decided to change to PPP as you described. Another option would have been to keep team wins for standings and just determine the match winner using PPP, but I think TennisLink may not have supported it at the time so the section decided PPP with 1D counting for 2 points was the best option.

So, I don't know that I'd say PPP is necessarily bad. It is just brand new to PNW and changes the dynamic of how you do your line-ups and how you form your team. Other sections have had PPP for a number of years and generally say good things about it.

And yes, I talked with our SC and got the same "try it for a year or two" response

On the skimping on Sectionals, I agree that stinks, but also am guessing our section was hit hard with a largely canceled 2020 and that hurt revenues and budgets, and I know folks had to be let go. I hope the skimping is a one year thing as they get the ship righted.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

In 2019, when they announced the change of 40+ to only 4 lines, I complained mightily about it to every USTA contact I know. Our Section coordinator wrote me back and said that he understood the concerns, but they were being mandated by the National USTA organization. He asked me to be patient and "just try the new format out."

Well, here's an example of how the 4 line format has worked in 40+ 4.5 this year in the PNW:

BTW, here, we play 1 singles and 3 doubles lines, with 2 points being awarded to the winner of #1 doubles. This gives you the possibility of 5 points in a match and determines who won like the old scoring. 8 teams total qualify for the Sectional tournament. However, to qualify, there are no local district tournaments this year and the first and second place teams by the number of accumulated "points" advance.

• In the Northern Oregon district (Portland), there were only 6 teams this year, which is down from 12 in 2019. Currently, the first place team has a 5-0 record in head-to-head competition against the other teams and has 1 match to play. The second place team is 5-1, having lost last week to the #1 team. However, the third place team is 3-2 right now. With this new wonderful format, if they have a 1-4 loss or better this weekend, they will leapfrog the current second place team that is 5-1 by virtue of having more "points" from the matches. I'm positive that the first place team will win, only the margin is unknown, and I'm sure the third place team will win at least one match. That means that Northern Oregon will likely be sending a 6-0 team and a 3-3 team, while a 5-1 team that has a direct win over the 3-3 team misses out.
• In the Northwest Washington district (Seattle), there were 11 teams this year compared to 17 in 2019. Their first place team is 8-0 and their second place team is 5-3. Three other teams tied for third with the same number points, which were less than the #2 team. The records for those teams are 5-3, 6-2, and 6-2. Both of the 6-2 teams "tied" for third place had direct head-to-head wins over the 5-3 second place team, but that second place team gets to go to Sectionals over them because they had an easier schedule and scored more points. (Because there were 11 teams, not every team had to play everyone else, so some teams had an easier schedule than others.)
• In the Eastern Washington district, there were only 3 teams, who played there local season over one weekend. This is the same number of teams that they had in 2019. The first place team was 4-0, second place was 2-2, and last place was 0-4. Both the 4-0 and 2-2 teams have been invited to Sectionals.
• In the Southwest Washington district (Tacoma/Olympia), there were also only 3 teams this year, down from 5 in 2019. The first place team was 5-1, second place was 3-3, and last place was 1-5. Both the first and second place teams are invited to Sectionals.
• In Southern Oregon, no teams were fielded this year after having 2 in 2019.

To summarize, with the new format:

1. In the PNW, there are 16 less 40+ 4.5 teams this year than in 2019.
2. The eight teams that are going to Sectionals have records of 8-0, 6-0, 4-0, 5-1, 5-3, 3-3, 3-3, and 2-2.
3. There are teams with 6-2, 6-2, and 5-1 records that not going to Sectionals despite having superior records and head-to-head wins over the teams that advanced instead of them.
4. Apparently, winning team matches against your rivals does not matter anymore. Only the luck of how easy your schedule might be.

I don't know how any of this makes sense or is fair. Members of the teams that should have been going to Sectionals because they earned it with superior records have to be really pissed. On the other hand, I heard that Sectionals this year will have the same team entry fee (around $250), but will not include t-shirts, a player party, or any other swag. Plus, all of the matches will be played on public courts, like the high school courts they used for the mixed doubles Sectionals a couple weeks ago. So maybe nobody really cares. It certainly seems like the USTA doesn't.

I'm interested in @schmke's take this because we are in the same section and playing at the same level.

Participation is down in all usta leagues partially because of covid, this year isn't the best indicator to decide if it mainly due to any rules changes. But, I supposed if you know if there was zero decline in the PNW for 18+ leagues, you could say it's all because of the rules changes. Although Dallas somehow added 1,000 players to USTA leagues past 12 months and won an award for it, I think that is just the fact the entire country is moving to the giant blob that is now the Metro-mega-lo-plex.

 

[mikelikesgatorad]

If there are 4 courts for a league match of any combination of singles and doubles, I'd rather see ties stand during the regular season and have tiebreakers decided at the end of the season. This allows for a much larger sample size of sets/games when it comes to breaking a tie between 2 or more teams. I haven't been on a 4 court format yet but if I was playing on one of these teams I'd be doing a **** ton of math every time I'm watching the final match when the score is 2-1.

 

[J_R_B]

If there are 4 courts for a league match of any combination of singles and doubles, I'd rather see ties stand during the regular season and have tiebreakers decided at the end of the season. This allows for a much larger sample size of sets/games when it comes to breaking a tie between 2 or more teams. I haven't been apart of a 4 court format yet but if I was playing on one of these teams I'd be doing a **** ton of math every time I'm watching the final match when the score is 2-1.

For the regular season, the PPP format was 4-4-3-2 for the singles and three doubles. That's fine with me. Four courts with a PPP format is OK because really just the points count, not the "winner" or "loser" of a 7-6 match. The problem is the playoffs where they are not using PPP and every match requires a winner and loser. Who the F would be so stupid to pick ANY format with an even number of courts for a match that REQUIRES a winner?!? That level of stupidity is really beyond comprehension. Can you imagine losing a sectional final for a trip to nationals because your team lost more GAMES than the other team?!? How stupid is that? And it's 100% going to happen and it's 100% completely avoidable by anyone with at least a 3rd grade level of math understanding.

 

[ATX Tennis]

If there are 4 courts for a league match of any combination of singles and doubles, I'd rather see ties stand during the regular season and have tiebreakers decided at the end of the season. This allows for a much larger sample size of sets/games when it comes to breaking a tie between 2 or more teams. I haven't been apart of a 4 court format yet but if I was playing on one of these teams I'd be doing a **** ton of math every time I'm watching the final match when the score is 2-1.

Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is one team is down 1-2, with one match still playing. That line lost the first set but came back and won the second set! It goes to a 3rd set tiebreaker BUT it does NOT matter. Even if they win the tiebreaker, their team loses the sets lost match tiebreaker. It is what it is, but it devalues line wins too. “Great comeback Suresh! Too bad you lost a set and cost us the match.” Of course, no one would say that, but that’s what happened.

 

[Creighton]

I’m not old enough for 40+ yet but I originally thought the 4 courts was a bad idea.

However, the more I’ve thought about it the more I like it. It makes tanking a match much more difficult for the good teams. You have to be extremely confident you’re going to win 3 out of 4 lines. Because if you don’t, you very well could screw your team over in the games lost tiebreaker.

So it seems like it could be a control measure to make ratings more accurate as more players have to give their best effort.

 

[mikelikesgatorad]

Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is one team is down 1-2, with one match still playing. That line lost the first set but came back and won the second set! It goes to a 3rd set tiebreaker BUT it does NOT matter. Even if they win the tiebreaker, their team loses the sets lost match tiebreaker. It is what it is, but it devalues line wins too. “Great comeback Suresh! Too bad you lost a set and cost us the match.” Of course, no one would say that, but that’s what happened.

That last line didn't blow it for the team, the lines that already lost in straight sets lost it for the team

 

[schmke]

I’m not old enough for 40+ yet but I originally thought the 4 courts was a bad idea.

However, the more I’ve thought about it the more I like it. It makes tanking a match much more difficult for the good teams. You have to be extremely confident you’re going to win 3 out of 4 lines. Because if you don’t, you very well could screw your team over in the games lost tiebreaker.

So it seems like it could be a control measure to make ratings more accurate as more players have to give their best effort.

PPP on its own can address that if that is your concern, you don't need 4 courts to do PPP. And not all 40+ 4 court leagues use PPP.

 

[schmke]

That last line didn't blow it for the team, the lines that already lost in straight sets lost it for the team

Yeah, and the kicker that misses the 25 yard FG down 2 as time expires didn't lose the game, the DB that gave up a 5 yard out on 3rd and 2 to let the other team get in FG in the 1st quarter did

 

[ATX Tennis]

Yes, you guys are right, of course. But the tiebreakers do have a way to make close line wins feel like a loss.

 

[BallBag]

We need a USTA version of the PTPA to represent the voice of players. We can call it the Unprofessional Tennis Players Association (UTPA)

 

[Creighton]

PPP on its own can address that if that is your concern, you don't need 4 courts to do PPP. And not all 40+ 4 court leagues use PPP.

I'm not sure PPP incentivizes playing your best in each game the same way the national regulations does. In PPP a 7-6, 7-6 win is the same as a 6-0, 6-0 right? In the default regulations you're incentivized to win every match 6-0, 6-0.

 

[J_R_B]

I'm not sure PPP incentivizes playing your best in each game the same way the national regulations does. In PPP a 7-6, 7-6 win is the same as a 6-0, 6-0 right? In the default regulations you're incentivized to win every match 6-0, 6-0.

Right, but the dumb tiebreakers like games lost are only used in the playoff matches. At that point, I think very few people are "managing" scores. I don't know, you're from Southern where this goes on a lot more, so maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in that position, I'd rather use someone who has no DQ risk and can play all out in a playoff match rather than have someone have to try to manage a score in a match where losing could end the season.

 

[damazing]

I was on a team this year with the new format and we had 3 matches that split the lines 2-2. The first we tied in sets and lost in games 34 to 33 and the second two we won in sets with both winning sets coming via a deciding point.

 

[KaiserW]

I am going to 40 over sectionals as well. All year we played 2 singles and 3 doubles now for playoffs it’s just one singles.

I don’t like the fact that it can be 2-2 and rely on some dumb tiebreaker to determine winner of match. Really lame imo. Oh well.

 

[Creighton]

Right, but the dumb tiebreakers like games lost are only used in the playoff matches. At that point, I think very few people are "managing" scores. I don't know, you're from Southern where this goes on a lot more, so maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in that position, I'd rather use someone who has no DQ risk and can play all out in a playoff match rather than have someone have to try to manage a score in a match where losing could end the season.

So in my district and the other district near us, the tiebreaker is for the regular season as well.