Team selection strategy?

[Fintft]

In no so distant past, I was nominated team captain for the Club's "B" team.

Traditionally the club "A" team is always doing great at the city level, while the "B" (I believe up to NTPR 4 or even 3.5) struggles, but that was the only year in club's history when both teams went undefeated!!!

That was unheard for team "B".

The difference being that I've selected three beautiful girls(well women) to be part of the team

Care to guess why it made all the difference in the world?

Giveaways:

Of course, me ending up playing more singles matches then expected wasn't the reason, just a fringe benefit for me...

Some of my friends that joined the team were in between 3.5 and 4.0 while the team was supposed to be up to 3.5 (I think).

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Building a dynasty, eh?

It surely can't hurt having beautiful women around. Even if one of them happens to be named "Shirley".

 

[OnTheLine]

For the record, most of us female types want to be selected for a team for our talent not our looks.

For accomplished women, it is our worst nightmare to think that we were selected for ANYTHING based on our appearance.

 

[Fintft]

For the record, most of us female types want to be selected for a team for our talent not our looks.

For accomplished women, it is our worst nightmare to think that we were selected for ANYTHING based on our appearance.

Ok, but did you answer the poll?

B/c that's what happens in reality.

 

[MathGeek]

For the record, most of us female types want to be selected for a team for our talent not our looks.

For accomplished women, it is our worst nightmare to think that we were selected for ANYTHING based on our appearance.

My wife is an accomplished woman (Harvard PhD, six figure salary, a top scientist in her field, routinely wins or makes the finals of tourneys, etc.) That's not how she feels about it at all.

She's smart enough to know that when appearance plays a role in being selected for something, it is never the only consideration. She's confident enough to know that her appearance may open the door, but her actual skill is going to accomplish the goal. She's definitely never threatened by appearance being part of a selection criteria.

 

[Nashvegas]

Other than my wife lacking the PhD, I'm with you on the rest of it, MG.

I think OTL has an issue with the selection being based almost exclusively on appearance. I'm sure these ladies wouldn't like to hear over drinks after the final match that they were only on the team because of how they looked.

If instead they were told that they are good players and it didn't hurt the team that they are also attractive... well, how do you propose to prevent that?

 

[MathGeek]

I think OTL has an issue with the selection being based almost exclusively on appearance. I'm sure these ladies wouldn't like to hear over drinks after the final match that they were only on the team because of how they looked.

I doubt even Hooters waitresses get picked exclusively on appearance, so I imagine it would be exceedingly rare when putting together a sports team. Certainly there will nearly always be other selection criteria: a minimum skill level, an ability to show up on time in the right place, the ability to be a minimally functional player.

 

[Nashvegas]

I doubt even Hooters waitresses get picked exclusively on appearance, so I imagine it would be exceedingly rare when putting together a sports team. Certainly there will nearly always be other selection criteria: a minimum skill level, an ability to show up on time in the right place, the ability to be a minimally functional player.

Hmm... Hooters might be one of the better examples of "almost exclusively".

Say his club had 20 female players of roughly equal skill level and he chose the three most attractive?

 

[MathGeek]

Hmm... Hooters might be one of the better examples of "almost exclusively".

Say his club had 20 female players of roughly equal skill level and he chose the three most attractive?

That would not offend my wife at all, since the selection criteria included a requirement for "roughly equal skill." Given comparable skill levels of the women, having attractive women on a tennis team confers a number of real competitive advantages including most likely attracting more talented male team members, distracting opposing males, and making opposing females jealous.

My wife would likely be selected applying that criteria to some groups (40+) but not to others (18+) because she is fit and attractive when compared to her age peers, but won't win many beauty contests with ladies 20-30 years younger than she is.

As scientific consultants, she and I are both aware that appearance is part of what we are selling in our consulting businesses. Our clients are free to hire consultants based on whatever criteria they want. There are cases where it is pretty clear our clients are picking a consultant based on their likelihood of being convincing to jury or opposing legal counsel of a certain make-up or composition. It would be foolish to think appearance is not a part of that. Colleagues and I often give appearance due consideration when choosing which team member will make a pitch or presentation.

Appearance-based choices can optimize the probability of success in situations where human factors are powerful. There are many of these in recreational tennis, just as there are in scientific consulting.

 

[Nashvegas]

Don't disagree with anything there.

 

[OrangePower]

As scientific consultants, she and I are both aware that appearance is part of what we are selling in our consulting businesses. Our clients are free to hire consultants based on whatever criteria they want. There are cases where it is pretty clear our clients are picking a consultant based on their likelihood of being convincing to jury or opposing legal counsel of a certain make-up or composition. It would be foolish to think appearance is not a part of that. Colleagues and I often give appearance due consideration when choosing which team member will make a pitch or presentation.

Appearance-based choices can optimize the probability of success in situations where human factors are powerful. There are many of these in recreational tennis, just as there are in scientific consulting.

That all sounds swell in theory. But you and I both know that in reality, appearance-based criteria are applied much more often with respect to women than they are with respect to men. And they are applied more broadly than can be justified by the 'economic return'.

Case in point, this thread. It's not the first of its kind. But how many of these threads are about choosing male team-members based on their hunkiness?

So as a male, I find your justification an obfuscation. As a female I would probably find it insulting.

 

[kevrol]

Case in point, this thread. It's not the first of its kind. But how many of these threads are about choosing male team-members based on their hunkiness?

I wish that's how teams were chosen for males. My looks far exceed my tennis ability.

 

[MathGeek]

That all sounds swell in theory. But you and I both know that in reality, appearance-based criteria are applied much more often with respect to women than they are with respect to men. And they are applied more broadly than can be justified by the 'economic return'.

Case in point, this thread. It's not the first of its kind. But how many of these threads are about choosing male team-members based on their hunkiness?

So as a male, I find your justification an obfuscation. As a female I would probably find it insulting.

Dunno about that. Do you know how many times it has been suggested to me (a male) that my long hair may be preventing me from being hired for certain jobs? Lots and lots. I've never heard of a comment on hair length being made to any professional woman. And that advice is probably right. If a man needs to succeed in a profession where he needs the trust of law enforcement or military types (and some conservative religious types), short hair is a definite advantage.

The advice to cut my hair is not sexist. It is just realistic, and I'd give the same advice to my sons until their accomplishments, skills, profession, and other circumstances allow them the luxury of not needing to fit certain appearance molds in order to succeed in their desired tasks.

In my experience, hunkiness in a man does not convey nearly the advantage in MxD as an attractive appearance does for a woman. Attractiveness for a woman offers significant benefits in terms of attracting more talented male team members, distracting opposing males, and making opposing females jealous. Similar benefits may not be zero for the hunky man, but they seem to be much smaller. Men tend to be much more visually oriented than women, and there tend to be more women tennis players who are not even interested in men. There is also a factor that talented men in MxD tend to be in shorter supply than talented women.

My daughter (also a highly accomplished woman) was not insulted at all when it was clear that her five figure shooting sponsorship was, in part, based on her physical attractiveness and not just her shooting skills. The company writing the checks wanted someone who looked great in their marketing materials.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I wish that's how teams were chosen for males. My looks far exceed my tennis ability.

I'm screwed on both accounts

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Option2 and option3 are similar IMO... ie. the reason no one skipped a match was...

 

[OnTheLine]

That all sounds swell in theory. But you and I both know that in reality, appearance-based criteria are applied much more often with respect to women than they are with respect to men. And they are applied more broadly than can be justified by the 'economic return'.

Case in point, this thread. It's not the first of its kind. But how many of these threads are about choosing male team-members based on their hunkiness?

So as a male, I find your justification an obfuscation. As a female I would probably find it insulting.

Very well put.

And yes, basic everyday double-standards are a huge hang up for me.

I am not the least bit concerned that I "don't look good enough" ... I've got the all-american blond buxom and legs for miles thing going on, nor hung up on wondering if I have the talent ... it is that double-standard that seems to be in play.

Add that to the comments on threads here there and everywhere that complain about a mixed partner followed up with, "at least she is hot" or "it would have been okay if she were hot but women who play mixed are all middle-aged"

It is amusing how men are described here by their height, sometimes their weight, but mostly by their skill level and play style. Can you say the same thing about how women (adult women BTW) are described on threads?

 

[Startzel]

I wish that's how teams were chosen for males. My looks far exceed my tennis ability.

Luckily my hair is stunning. Never have I been on a court where my opponent had better.

 

[OrangePower]

Dunno about that. Do you know how many times it has been suggested to me (a male) that my long hair may be preventing me from being hired for certain jobs? Lots and lots. I've never heard of a comment on hair length being made to any professional woman. And that advice is probably right. If a man needs to succeed in a profession where he needs the trust of law enforcement or military types (and some conservative religious types), short hair is a definite advantage.

You're making a false equivalence here. Your example here is about conforming to an appearance norm over which you have full control. This is not the same as being valued substantively based on inherent appearance traits.

In my experience, hunkiness in a man does not convey nearly the advantage in MxD as an attractive appearance does for a woman. Attractiveness for a woman offers significant benefits in terms of attracting more talented male team members, distracting opposing males, and making opposing females jealous. Similar benefits may not be zero for the hunky man, but they seem to be much smaller.

Even if I were to agree with your rationalization, what you are effectively saying here is that it is justified for an individual to be sexist, because society as a whole is sexist.

My daughter (also a highly accomplished woman) was not insulted at all when it was clear that her five figure shooting sponsorship was, in part, based on her physical attractiveness and not just her shooting skills. The company writing the checks wanted someone who looked great in their marketing materials.

It's a fine line. Would you be ok with her appearing in a skimpy bikini (or less) in the marketing materials? If not, would you think the sponsor justified in dropping her in favor of someone who would?

 

[MathGeek]

You're making a false equivalence here. Your example here is about conforming to an appearance norm over which you have full control. This is not the same as being valued substantively based on inherent appearance traits.

Most of the unattractive women on the local courts are unattractive in large measure due to being over weight. Most have a lot of control over that.

Even if I were to agree with your rationalization, what you are effectively saying here is that it is justified for an individual to be sexist, because society as a whole is sexist.

I don't accept your premise that weighing appearance when selecting for a tennis team (or a scientific consultant) is necessarily inherently sexist, or related to society as a whole being sexist.

One can always stretch an argument to the point that due consideration of human factors is racist or sexist or somehow discriminatory. But if the purpose of assembling a team (or hiring a scientific consultant) is to "win," one is foolish not to give the human factors some reasonable consideration.

The whole NTRP thing levels the playing field in terms of "ability." Other than trying to cherry pick sandbaggers above their rating or pick all your players near the top end of their NTRP range, astute focus on the human factors is how winning is accomplished.

It's a fine line. Would you be ok with her appearing in a skimpy bikini (or less) in the marketing materials? If not, would you think the sponsor justified in dropping her in favor of someone who would?

Since she was a minor at the time she entered into the sponsorship agreement, there was due parental consideration of the "fine print" of the agreement terms before it was finalized. The stipulations allowed our daughter (in consultation with her parents) to select her own clothing and to exercise full editorial control over photographs which were then forwarded to the sponsor for use in their materials. Later demanding a bikini would have been a substantive change in the agreement, so odds are good they'd have been on the hook for the regular payments for the duration of the contract.

They wanted a pretty, young, female face to attract their main demographic and also to increase sales to a young female target audience.

 

[OnTheLine]

@MathGeek .... so, you would not be okay with your daughter actually selling sex by showing skin, but knowingly being used to attract males like bait, particularly older males (main shooting demographic) by her appearance is fine. that seems pretty gross and reprehensible to me.

Additionally, you also hold men in low regard if you think they are distracted by attractive females while playing a sport.

Finally, fact that you think women are instantly jealous of good looking women making them play worse .... we don't think that way, we watch how opponents PLAY TENNIS and exploit their weaknesses and avoid their strengths ... that is it.

 

[MathGeek]

@MathGeek .... so, you would not be okay with your daughter actually selling sex by showing skin, but knowingly being used to attract males like bait, particularly older males (main shooting demographic) by her appearance is fine. that seems pretty gross and reprehensible to me.

What do conservative Christian males do that is not reprehensible to feminazis?

Would you have been less offended had I told my 16 year old daughter, "No, you cannot accept the five figure sponsorship, because you are being used like bait to attract older males?" Would that not have been acting the domineering patriarch? Daughter was ok with it. Wife was ok with it. I allowed it to happen.

Additionally, you also hold men in low regard if you think they are distracted by attractive females while playing a sport.

I've seen it enough and heard the locker room talk. Sure, there may be exceptions. I like to think I am one. But I wouldn't fault someone putting together a team by playing the odds and trying to distract opposing males.

Finally, fact that you think women are instantly jealous of good looking women making them play worse .... we don't think that way, we watch how opponents PLAY TENNIS and exploit their weaknesses and avoid their strengths ... that is it.

Maybe you do. But if the person putting together a team chooses to exercise a strategy based on female emotions which may or may not be in play in the opposing team, what is morally wrong with that?

It may be a strategic error, but it is their lost opportunity if it is. My bottom line is that I am not going to fault someone for a team selection strategy of favoring attractive females over unattractive ones, other factors being comparable. If they think their strategy gains an advantage, they have a right to give it a try.

There are probably situations where it will not work, and probably situations where it will.

 

[OnTheLine]

You "allowed it to happen" pretty much is the definition of domineering patriarch don't you think?

Someday I would like to think that especially on the tennis court and other sports fields, women can stop being judged by their looks, or even have their looks commented on by anyone. Pipe dream I guess.

 

[OrangePower]

I don't accept your premise that weighing appearance when selecting for a tennis team (or a scientific consultant) is necessarily inherently sexist, or related to society as a whole being sexist.

If males and females were both to be selected for tennis teams predominantly or significantly because of their looks, then I agree that's not sexist (just silly). What makes it sexist is when looks are factored in significantly when selecting women for a team, but are factored in much less (if at all) when selecting men. Your argument amounts to saying that looks are a more important attribute for female players than for male players (as valued by other tennis players, not necessarily by you), and thus it's rational to select female players based on looks. This would be a rationalization of individual behavior based on a perpetuation of societal prejudices.

I doubt I'm going to change your point of view, but perhaps someone else reading this will get something out of it.

 

[MathGeek]

You "allowed it to happen" pretty much is the definition of domineering patriarch don't you think?

How is it the "definition of a domineering patriarch" when both parents have equal veto power over any proposed activity they consider to be unsafe or immoral for their minor children?

Who is sexist now? I submit it is the one assuming an unequal exercise of power in the home.

Yes, there were activities I said "no" to through the years due to considerations of safety or morality. But our children and my wife exercised their veto powers as often or more often than I did. My wife also exercises her veto powers over my proposed activities when she has concerns for my safety. I take the instruction of Scripture seriously, "The husband's body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife."

Some object to just about any exercise of parental authority in the home. But it is dishonest to describe equal veto powers (shared by both parents) over their childrens' activities as a "domineering patriarchy."

But the "domineering patriarchy" is really an assumption of the feminazi mind, rather than a valid conclusion. The evidence is irrelevant. A white Christian male who exercises power in the home is a domineering patriarch, even if the exercise of power is shared equally with his wife.

Perhaps even more offensive to the feminazi mind is that such powerful and accomplished women come from the homes of us "domineering patriarchs." My wife's father was a conservative Christian minister who actually wrote a book on the "Spirit of Jezebel." Her affirmative reply to my marriage proposal was contingent on her father's approval. Yet she earned a full scholarship to Michigan State, completed an engineering degree, then won a prestigious National Science Foundation fellowship and earned a PhD in Physics from Harvard. She is a leading scientist in her field, and also regularly competes (and wins!) both tennis and rifle tournaments, including a couple of NRA national championships. But she'd tell you a marriage can only have one steering wheel if it is to succeed. Our daughter, not yet 20, has a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications, is attending a top 30 University as a scholar of the American Chemical Society, and serves as president of the fencing club at her school. She also is an accomplished shooter with a couple NRA national championships.

 

[Fintft]

Option2 and option3 are similar IMO... ie. the reason no one skipped a match was...

True except one(#4) was politically correct while #2 wasn't according to the police here

 

[Fintft]

I doubt even Hooters waitresses get picked exclusively on appearance, so I imagine it would be exceedingly rare when putting together a sports team. Certainly there will nearly always be other selection criteria: a minimum skill level, an ability to show up on time in the right place, the ability to be a minimally functional player.

To your former point: my strategy did wonders though
To the later: of course, that's granted, but even our courts were dubbed the most beautiful in Canada (too bad it kinda closed/morphed just now);

 

[Fintft]

Duplicate post

 

[Fintft]

My bottom line is that I am not going to fault someone for a team selection strategy of favoring attractive females over unattractive ones, other factors being comparable. If they think their strategy gains an advantage, they have a right to give it a try.

There are probably situations where it will not work, and probably situations where it will.

Oh I don't think that I "favored attractive females over unattractive ones" as a team captain; if memory serves me well, I think we had a shortage of women and for starters I invited the most gorgeous one at the club (a Belgian ex handball player on their national squad- affinities there), and then a couple more...

Like the Romans, I'm an aesthete, I like beautiful things and it wonders for team chemistry and attracting more male talent.

 

[Fintft]

You "allowed it to happen" pretty much is the definition of domineering patriarch don't you think?

Someday I would like to think that especially on the tennis court and other sports fields, women can stop being judged by their looks, or even have their looks commented on by anyone. Pipe dream I guess.

Lol
Let's try this:

Do most people watch WTA tournaments because of:
a) Tennis?
b) Girl looks?

People have already voted, since there 35 million viewers in this thread:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...best-legs-and-other-best-female-issues.87961/

 

[AJR1316]

You're making a false equivalence here. Your example here is about conforming to an appearance norm over which you have full control. This is not the same as being valued substantively based on inherent appearance traits.


Even if I were to agree with your rationalization, what you are effectively saying here is that it is justified for an individual to be sexist, because society as a whole is sexist.


It's a fine line. Would you be ok with her appearing in a skimpy bikini (or less) in the marketing materials? If not, would you think the sponsor justified in dropping her in favor of someone who would?

So...I see you troll just about every forum on here...what do you think drives your need to create conflict? Given your transparent attempts to be condescending based on your misguided belief that vocabulary will make you sound knowledgeable, I would definitely say this burning desire to start arguments thinly disguised as debate springs from some pretty deep insecurities. This probably isn’t the place to work those issues out. But I sincerely hope you find a way to do so without having to poison every topic on this site.

 

[OrangePower]

So...I see you troll just about every forum on here...what do you think drives your need to create conflict? Given your transparent attempts to be condescending based on your misguided belief that vocabulary will make you sound knowledgeable, I would definitely say this burning desire to start arguments thinly disguised as debate springs from some pretty deep insecurities. This probably isn’t the place to work those issues out. But I sincerely hope you find a way to do so without having to poison every topic on this site.

You mad bro? Did I offend your newbie sensitivity somehow? I've been posting here for 10 years or so, whereas all I've seen so far from you is disparaging comments on the 'identity the level' thread going on. So how about you do us all a favor and just show yourself out, and spare us the hassle of having to ignore you?

 

[OnTheLine]

So...I see you troll just about every forum on here...what do you think drives your need to create conflict? Given your transparent attempts to be condescending based on your misguided belief that vocabulary will make you sound knowledgeable, I would definitely say this burning desire to start arguments thinly disguised as debate springs from some pretty deep insecurities. This probably isn’t the place to work those issues out. But I sincerely hope you find a way to do so without having to poison every topic on this site.

I am the one that took issue on this subject not @OrangePower. In fact, I would consider his words quite thoughtful and gentile. I can be a bit of a bull in a china shop compared to his finesse. On this and many other threads, I find his take usually informative and sometimes particularly insightful.

 

[AJR1316]

You mad bro? Did I offend your newbie sensitivity somehow? I've been posting here for 10 years or so, whereas all I've seen so far from you is disparaging comments on the 'identity the level' thread going on. So how about you do us all a favor and just show yourself out, and spare us the hassle of having to ignore you?

Just amused...good job with the ignoring so far. Hahaha

 

[AJR1316]

I am the one that took issue on this subject not @OrangePower. In fact, I would consider his words quite thoughtful and gentile. I can be a bit of a bull in a china shop compared to his finesse. On this and many other threads, I find his take usually informative and sometimes particularly insightful.

Oh, he has been trying to pick fights on another forum where everyone else seems to be having a grand ‘ol time. Seemed like a similar pattern here. That is my mistake and you have my apologies. I will leave you to it. Glad you are getting value out of it! Cheers!

 

[Cindysphinx]

Some seriously ignorant sexist statements going on here.

I’m glad to see that Math Geek is so comfortable telling us what his wife thinks. Well, there’s a cover for every pot. Even Neanderthals can find a mate, I guess.

Don’t tell Math Geek, but there are plenty of accomplished, beautiful women who don’t wish to be objectified, don’t need to trade on their looks to get ahead, would be insulted to think they had been selected for a tennis team as eye candy, and would not give the time of day to any guy who thought that was appropriate.

 

[SouthernCourts]

Just chiming in here to say that MathGeek's posts all give me the creeps.

 

[Fintft]

Even Neanderthals can find a mate, I guess.

No need for insults.

 

[OnTheLine]

Really? In this entire thread, that is the only insult you noticed?

 

[Fintft]

Really? In this entire thread, that is the only insult you noticed?

Yes

 

[OnTheLine]

wow. I think @Cindysphinx just needed to throw the net a little wider.

 

[Fintft]

wow. I think @Cindysphinx just needed to throw the net a little wider.

Good luck with that lol

 

[Fintft]

wow. I think @Cindysphinx just needed to throw the net a little wider.

Good luck with that lol