Texas Sectionals 4.0 and up

[wings56]

What a weekend. I took my barely pieced together 5.0+ team to sectionals this past weekend. It sure was a blast and it sure has opened my eyes. First of all, I went into this weekend as a self-rate 5.5 since I played on a d1 team in college. I felt that this was excessive given that I only played a handful of matches and I fit in nicely with our local 4.5 team that went to sectionals.

Good news, I was right! I'm not a 5.5! The 5.0+ level ranged from the 40-50 year old doubles specialist to the mid to late 20s ex futures player/top 50 d1 team player.

I'm looking forward to hopefully getting the end of year double bump down to 4.5 to see how I can really compete against those of my skill set.

I was very impressed with the 4.5 sectional level. There are complaints at the local level of players saying we shouldn't stack our best 4.5s on one team to try to do well at sectionals. From my observation, most of the 4.5s at our local level could not compete at the 4.0 sectional level.

Just goes to show how different things can be.

I'm looking forward to next year!

 

[HoustonHacker]

Good luck with the double bump down.

Texas Sectionals, as always, was a blast.

 

[JLyon]

well you should at least get down to 5.0, but double bump will be tougher.

 

[atatu]

Good luck with the double bump down.

Texas Sectionals, as always, was a blast.

You guys won 4.5 again ? Damn Houston has a dynasty going right now.

 

[wings56]

You guys won 4.5 again ? Damn Houston has a dynasty going right now.

not next year

 

[Vik]

Victim of Houston 4.5 here
Thought we had a pretty strong team until Sunday. No, we had a really good team. Just picked a bad year to go up against Houston.

Atatu - Enjoyed our match against your team. Bad luck that we were in the same flight.

 

[wings56]

Victim of Houston 4.5 here
Thought we had a pretty strong team until Sunday. No, we had a really good team. Just picked a bad year to go up against Houston.

Atatu - Enjoyed our match against your team. Bad luck that we were in the same flight.

you should've seen the houston 5.0s. cant believe dallas squeaked a win out against them. houston was by far the best 5.0 team there. guess thats why they play the matches in person and not on paper...

 

[HoustonHacker]

You guys won 4.5 again ? Damn Houston has a dynasty going right now.

Yeah, Jason Freeman again captained teams to Nationals...in 4.0 and 4.5. Houston's 3.5 team made it to Nationals as well.

Best league tennis in the nation in Houston?

 

[wings56]

Yeah, Jason Freeman again captained teams to Nationals...in 4.0 and 4.5. Houston's 3.5 team made it to Nationals as well.

Best league tennis in the nation in Houston?

At this point, possibly. Knowing the ins and outs of getting certain players rated to certain levels is the biggest part of the battle. I know he doesn't care about hurting anyone's feelings so he WILL play his team accordingly to getting a win while trying to maintain the highest level players and preventing bump ups.

I know there's a fair amount of leagues to filter people through in Houston to secure the necessary rating to complete each team.

It's impressive to see the consistency year after year. He definitely knows what he is doing.

 

[Brian11785]

I was at 3.5 sectionals. Wasn't in the flight with Houston, but I saw the team practicing. They beat Dallas in the semis, who was an insanely stacked team of solid 4.0s. The Houston team consisted of what seemed to be all really young guys. One wearing a HS tennis team t-shirt from one of the largest high schools in the area. Not sure why a 20-year old presumably ex-HS player has any interest in playing 3.5 USTA (hates losing?), but who am I to judge?

 

[CrocodileRock]

It was a great weekend of food, fun, and tennis. Nice to finally meet you in person atatu. We were one of the victims of the "Category 5" Hurricanes, but not complaining. They were excellent players and good sports as well. I'm predicting great things form them at nationals. Best of luck.

 

[wings56]

It was a great weekend of food, fun, and tennis. Nice to finally meet you in person atatu. We were one of the victims of the "Category 5" Hurricanes, but not complaining. They were excellent players and good sports as well. I'm predicting great things form them at nationals. Best of luck.

have to admit. all teams at the 5.0 level couldnt have been nicer or more honest/cordial!

 

[HoustonHacker]

I didn't see the 3.5 champs from Houston, but I do know they've had 3 players DQ'd. Hard to imagine they have enough talent remaining to make an impact at Nationals. I'm guessing their captain might give Freeman some competition in the coming years as he moves up.

 

[Brian11785]

I didn't see the 3.5 champs from Houston, but I do know they've had 3 players DQ'd. Hard to imagine they have enough talent remaining to make an impact at Nationals. I'm guessing their captain might give Freeman some competition in the coming years as he moves up.

When did this happen? After sectionals?

Edit: Looked it up. The answer to my question is 'yes'.

What happened here, you think? Another captain did some investigating, maybe?

 

[Brian11785]

Just looked up their #1 singles guy that was DQed. It was the guy wearing the Plano Sr. High Tennis shirt at sectionals. He is on the Cornell University club team. Hmmm....

 

[schmke]

I didn't see the 3.5 champs from Houston, but I do know they've had 3 players DQ'd. Hard to imagine they have enough talent remaining to make an impact at Nationals. I'm guessing their captain might give Freeman some competition in the coming years as he moves up.

I just took a look, and 2 of the DQs appear to have happened prior to Sectionals.

One player didn't play a 3.5 match after 4/11, and was a pretty clear DQ by my calculations, my having him at 3.89 after the 4/11 match.

The second played at Area playoffs thru 7/14 but not at Sectionals, and by my calculations wasn't at a 3rd strike yet, so wonder if this was an administrative DQ?

The third is the #1 singles guy someone else mentioned and played at Sectionals and was also a pretty clear 3-strike DQ by my calculations.

The team is still pretty strong it appears, and they won Sectionals without two of the DQ'd players. I show they still have 6 players rated above 3.5. It is interesting to note that 5 of these 6 are self-rated or appeals ...

 

[goober]

Just looked up their #1 singles guy that was DQed. It was the guy wearing the Plano Sr. High Tennis shirt at sectionals. He is on the Cornell University club team. Hmmm....

We had a guy play college club tennis (no prior junior national or sectional ranking) and they gave him a 4.5 rating. Considering there are current D2 and D3 players and ex D1 players that populate 4.5, I thought that was an unfair rating. He wasn't even one of the starters on his college club team, just a practice player and extreme backup.

 

[Nostradamus]

I just took a look, and 2 of the DQs appear to have happened prior to Sectionals.

One player didn't play a 3.5 match after 4/11, and was a pretty clear DQ by my calculations, my having him at 3.89 after the 4/11 match.

The second played at Area playoffs thru 7/14 but not at Sectionals, and by my calculations wasn't at a 3rd strike yet, so wonder if this was an administrative DQ?

The third is the #1 singles guy someone else mentioned and played at Sectionals and was also a pretty clear 3-strike DQ by my calculations.

The team is still pretty strong it appears, and they won Sectionals without two of the DQ'd players. I show they still have 6 players rated above 3.5. It is interesting to note that 5 of these 6 are self-rated or appeals ...

in the playoffs, officials were going around and asking if any of us were self-rated players or not. and they needed this because they were looking for players to DQ. what did they mean by that ? if you are self rated, is there a high risk of being DQed in the playoffs ??

 

[goober]

in the playoffs, officials were going around and asking if any of us were self-rated players or not. and they needed this because they were looking for players to DQ. what did they mean by that ? if you are self rated, is there a high risk of being DQed in the playoffs ??

Yes there actually is a pretty high risk. You have self rated players playing against computer rated players at the top of their ratings. Winning or even playing them close will earn a strike. I can't believe that an official would have to ask if you were a self rated player or not. What is the point of that? They already have all the info on your team if they want it and it should not change the way the officiate.

 

[Brian11785]

We had a guy play college club tennis (no prior junior national or sectional ranking) and they gave him a 4.5 rating. Considering there are current D2 and D3 players and ex D1 players that populate 4.5, I thought that was an unfair rating. He wasn't even one of the starters on his college club team, just a practice player and extreme backup.

Perhaps. But 3.5 is unfair the other direction. This DQ'ed guy beat a guy 6-1, 7-6 (probably intentionally let up in the second set) who had beaten one of our best singles players 6-0, 6-0 in city playoffs. (The guy on my team who got double bageled is better than me, and I won two matches at sectionals.....)

 

[Nostradamus]

Yes there actually is a pretty high risk. You have self rated players playing against computer rated players at the top of their ratings. Winning or even playing them close will earn a strike. I can't believe that an official would have to ask if you were a self rated player or not. What is the point of that? They already have all the info on your team if they want it and it should not change the way the officiate.

That is awesome. so many self rated cheaters in our game anyway.

 

[Nostradamus]

If you are 4.5 and played in 40 and over playoff matches, does that mean you will be benchmarked as 4.5 in all divisions ? like 18 and over and 40 and over. I am not sure if they separate out the age division bench marking ?

 

[goober]

Perhaps. But 3.5 is unfair the other direction. This DQ'ed guy beat a guy 6-1, 7-6 (probably intentionally let up in the second set) who had beaten one of our best singles players 6-0, 6-0 in city playoffs. (The guy on my team who got double bageled is better than me, and I won two matches at sectionals.....)

College club tennis does not confer a minimum level of tennis competence- well at least not beyond 3.0-3.5 IMO. Many college clubs accept any student who applies and shows up for practices. Yes the actual team that plays matches are generally higher level players, but they usually only represent a fraction of the college club. We have many people of this forum (including college coaches and players) that claim there are some D3 players that are no better than 3.5, so I don't get how a college club player is higher than this.

 

[schmke]

If you are 4.5 and played in 40 and over playoff matches, does that mean you will be benchmarked as 4.5 in all divisions ? like 18 and over and 40 and over. I am not sure if they separate out the age division bench marking ?

Your rating and being benchmarked or not applies to all leagues/divisions. So if you become a 4.5B that will be the rating you use for all leagues/divisions you play in next year.

 

[Brian11785]

College club tennis does not confer a minimum level of tennis competence- well at least not beyond 3.0-3.5 IMO. Many college clubs accept any student who applies and shows up for practices. Yes the actual team that plays matches are generally higher level players, but they usually only represent a fraction of the college club. We have many people of this forum (including college coaches and players) that claim there are some D3 players that are no better than 3.5, so I don't get how a college club player is higher than this.

Being a club player alone doesn't make him a higher-level player, but this guy is in particular is higher than this. But the fact that he played on the #1 tennis team in the uber-competitive tennis state of Texas (a school that has won 4 5A state championships since 2001) means that he is not a 3.5.

 

[Nostradamus]

Your rating and being benchmarked or not applies to all leagues/divisions. So if you become a 4.5B that will be the rating you use for all leagues/divisions you play in next year.

That doesn't seem fair to me. So if I get bumped up because I did really well in 4.5, 40 and over division to 5.0. then I can't play in 4.5, 18 and over division next year ?? That is not fair. There is not really a co-relation on how well you do in 40 and over division and 18 and over division.:???:

 

[goober]

Yeah, Jason Freeman again captained teams to Nationals...in 4.0 and 4.5. Houston's 3.5 team made it to Nationals as well.

Best league tennis in the nation in Houston?

No best captains at managing people's ratings and getting everyone to buy into the whole concept of making sectionals and nationals is the most important goal.

The key to winning year after year is to make sure your C rated players remain at your level. If they get bumped up, get them back down as quick as possible. Get your out of level self rates to buy into your system so they can get a C rating below their actual level. Recruit players off other teams that fit into your mold. Become a LC or get the "ins" with the LC so you know about all new players wanting to join so you can check them out first. If they aren't any good let other teams take them. I found by the time I tried out new players who claimed to have prior college or high level junior experience, they were already evaluated by the top teams several weeks to months before.

 

[schmke]

That doesn't seem fair to me. So if I get bumped up because I did really well in 4.5, 40 and over division to 5.0. then I can't play in 4.5, 18 and over division next year ?? That is not fair. There is not really a co-relation on how well you do in 40 and over division and 18 and over division.:???:

Fairness is a common thread with you :shock:

The rating is intended to be division independent, and given that enough 40+ players play in 18+ divisions, the ratings are connected, e.g. if a 45 year old 4.5 that plays in the 18+ division gets thumped there, his rating will go down appropriately and when he then plays matches in the 40+ division the players he plays will have their ratings calculated appropriately and players should not get bumped up to 5.0 if they can't at least compete there. There will always be a few edge cases of course, the system is perfect and no system will be 100% "fair".

Trying to have ratings represent the same level across divisions only breaks down if you don't have enough players that play in both divisions, but that is rarely the case from what I've seen.

 

[Brian11785]

No best captains at managing people's ratings and getting everyone to buy into the whole concept of making sectionals and nationals is the most important goal.

The key to winning year after year is to make sure your C rated players remain at your level. If they get bumped up, get them back down as quick as possible. Get your out of level self rates to buy into your system so they can get a C rating below their actual level. Recruit players off other teams that fit into your mold. Become a LC or get the "ins" with the LC so you know about all new players wanting to join so you can check them out first. If they aren't any good let other teams take them. I found by the time I tried out new players who claimed to have prior college or high level junior experience, they were already evaluated by the top teams several weeks to months before.

Nailed it.

 

[goober]

Being a club player alone doesn't make him a higher-level player, but this guy is in particular is higher than this. But the fact that he played on the #1 tennis team in the uber-competitive tennis state of Texas (a school that has won 4 5A state championships since 2001) means that he is not a 3.5.

According to the latest experienced player guidelines, he should not have been able to self rate below 4.0 if he played in state high school championship. If he had a sectional or national ranking and did not play college he would have to rate 5.0 if he is under 35. I think this last rating regulation is pretty harsh. You could easily have a low level sectional rating and be in your early 30s out of tennis for 10+ years and be nowhere close to a 5.0 rating.

I see they also have new club tennis guidelines.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf

 

[Nostradamus]

Fairness is a common thread with you :shock:

The rating is intended to be division independent, and given that enough 40+ players play in 18+ divisions, the ratings are connected, e.g. if a 45 year old 4.5 that plays in the 18+ division gets thumped there, his rating will go down appropriately and when he then plays matches in the 40+ division the players he plays will have their ratings calculated appropriately and players should not get bumped up to 5.0 if they can't at least compete there. There will always be a few edge cases of course, the system is perfect and no system will be 100% "fair".

Trying to have ratings represent the same level across divisions only breaks down if you don't have enough players that play in both divisions, but that is rarely the case from what I've seen.

What if you did well in 18 and over division but didn't make the playoffs and you played really well in 40 and over division and made the playoffs and did well there too. would they bump this person up ?

 

[coyote]

Being a club player alone doesn't make him a higher-level player, but this guy is in particular is higher than this. But the fact that he played on the #1 tennis team in the uber-competitive tennis state of Texas (a school that has won 4 5A state championships since 2001) means that he is not a 3.5.

Plano West wins a lot of championships but Plano HS does not. There is no way you could get through the system as a former Plano West player. Plano West cuts Super Champs and SCs must self rate at 4.5. I can tell you that unmentioned Captain you don't like is a very smart guy and would have had that information.

Since you are 3.5 Dallas, I watched the 'ringer laden' 3.5 team you mentioned. It was a very good 3.5 team but it was not ringer laden. If you think that Captain had a ringer laden team, those were just his leftovers from the previous year. I saw the Houston team too and considered it a down year in Texas for that level. I've been around awhile and can tell you this year was down. You should have seen the levels prior to 2009... Those of us around before the great-bump/low level purge will attest.

If you really wanted to see the ringers... you should have seen the 4.0 & 4.5 Houston teams. Now Freeman got it together this year. If he has all of his players, he may win both 4.0 and 4.5 this year. Those teams are STACKED!!!

Houston really took it to Dallas and Texas this year. My hat goes off to the Category 5 Hurricanes... Well done!

 

[Brian11785]

Plano West wins a lot of championships but Plano HS does not. There is no way you could get through the system as a former Plano West player. Plano West cuts Super Champs and SCs must self rate at 4.5. I can tell you that unmentioned Captain you don't like is a very smart guy and would have had that information.

Since you are 3.5 Dallas, I watched the 'ringer laden' 3.5 team you mentioned. It was a very good 3.5 team but it was not ringer laden. If you think that Captain had a ringer laden team, those were just his leftovers from the previous year. I saw the Houston team too and considered it a down year in Texas for that level. I've been around awhile and can tell you this year was down. You should have seen the levels prior to 2009... Those of us around before the great-bump/low level purge will attest.

If you really wanted to see the ringers... you should have seen the 4.0 & 4.5 Houston teams. Now Freeman got it together this year. If he has all of his players, he may win both 4.0 and 4.5 this year. Those teams are STACKED!!!

Houston really took it to Dallas and Texas this year. My hat goes off to the Category 5 Hurricanes... Well done!

I thought his shirt was Plano Sr. High. But I researched more, and he was actually at Plano West

http://www.mckinneymessenger.com/articles/2006/09/20/plano_star-courier/sports/sports_20.prt

The guy is mentioned as being a Plano West player (who won a match 6-1, 6-0, btw.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've used the word ringer in this thread. I said the team was stacked and that the players were solid 4.0s. I don't think that's an outrageous claim.

 

[schmke]

Related to whether a team is stacked or not and really playing at level, I took a look at a couple 3.5 teams headed to Nationals, this Houston team included. See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/08/can-35-usta-league-team-make-it-to-35.html

 

[wrxinsc]

I just took a look, and 2 of the DQs appear to have happened prior to Sectionals.

One player didn't play a 3.5 match after 4/11, and was a pretty clear DQ by my calculations, my having him at 3.89 after the 4/11 match.

The second played at Area playoffs thru 7/14 but not at Sectionals, and by my calculations wasn't at a 3rd strike yet, so wonder if this was an administrative DQ?

The third is the #1 singles guy someone else mentioned and played at Sectionals and was also a pretty clear 3-strike DQ by my calculations.

The team is still pretty strong it appears, and they won Sectionals without two of the DQ'd players. I show they still have 6 players rated above 3.5. It is interesting to note that 5 of these 6 are self-rated or appeals ...

that is good work.

 

[Brian11785]

I can tell you that unmentioned Captain you don't like is a very smart guy and would have had that information.

Also, where is this coming from? Who are you talking about?

 

[cneblett]

In jacksonville over 40 4.5 we may have had the ultimate under rate. He did not win all his matches and I think he took it easy. But mike leach, former world 29 in singles and 15 in doubles played as a self rate 4.5. Did not get dqed and lost a couple of matches.

 

[coyote]

I thought his shirt was Plano Sr. High. But I researched more, and he was actually at Plano West

http://www.mckinneymessenger.com/articles/2006/09/20/plano_star-courier/sports/sports_20.prt

The guy is mentioned as being a Plano West player (who won a match 6-1, 6-0, btw.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've used the word ringer in this thread. I said the team was stacked and that the players were solid 4.0s. I don't think that's an outrageous claim.

In the past, you have made some comments about his team having 4.5 players. Whether you intend it or not, that insinuates ringer. Also, his team has ZERO 4.5 ringers. He may have 2 or 3 that will translate up (in a year or two). Most will be in 4.0 mediocrity.

Regardless, that was a 2006 article so if he was Super, that does not matter (outside 5 years). He played Lake Highlands (usually very weak) and probably a case of the Plano West coach emptying the bench.

That was 2006, the rules in Texas change after 5 years. I saw him play. He would have been thrashed at 4.0 playoffs. He will be able to move up but he will not be on Freeman's playoff roster next year. I guess I have just been around long enough to realize this is how the game is played and accept it.

By your own admission, you won twice at sectionals. You sound like you handled yourself well enough. You were competitive.

 

[schmke]

In jacksonville over 40 4.5 we may have had the ultimate under rate. He did not win all his matches and I think he took it easy. But mike leach, former world 29 in singles and 15 in doubles played as a self rate 4.5. Did not get dqed and lost a couple of matches.

Looking at his matches, I'm guessing he just avoided being DQ'd and will be bumped up to 5.0 at year-end.

 

[coyote]

Also, where is this coming from? Who are you talking about?

The very well liked and very smart captain that you tore into after your city championships. You know who I am talking about.

Does this sound familiar?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=470952

You called him self satisfied and then both of your teams made the semi-finals of sectionals.

 

[cneblett]

Looking at his matches, I'm guessing he just avoided being DQ'd and will be bumped up to 5.0 at year-end.

That would make 3 5.0's I played this year then.

 

[Brian11785]

In the past, you have made some comments about his team having 4.5 players. Whether you intend it or not, that insinuates ringer. Also, his team has ZERO 4.5 ringers. He may have 2 or 3 that will translate up (in a year or two). Most will be in 4.0 mediocrity.

For someone with 30 posts, you sure keep track of me well. And seeing that in a previous post, I never mentioned where I lived when venting about a certain person's impolite attitude on a specific day, you must have been there to witness it. Hmmm....

Regardless, that was a 2006 article so if he was Super, that does not matter (outside 5 years). He played Lake Highlands (usually very weak) and probably a case of the Plano West coach emptying the bench.

That was 2006, the rules in Texas change after 5 years. I saw him play. He would have been thrashed at 4.0 playoffs. He will be able to move up but he will not be on Freeman's playoff roster next year. I guess I have just been around long enough to realize this is how the game is played and accept it.

You make no sense. First you state that he wouldn't have been able to get through the system as a 3.5 being a Plano West graduate, then you say that it is irrelevant because of the number of years that have passed. I think we are making different arguments here. Yours: "Is he legal to play?" Me: "Is he a 3.5?"

Also, of course he couldn't be on the 4.0 ringer Houston team going to nationals. But he could be the best player on an average 4.0 team. Because he couldn't be a ringer on a 4.0 team doesn't mean he isn't a ringer on a 3.5 team.

You really are coming off as an apologist for the stacking captains. That's fine. If gaming the system to nationals with underrated players is your idea of success, that is fine. But don't expect everyone to respect it.

By your own admission, you won twice at sectionals. You sound like you handled yourself well enough. You were competitive.

This isn't a matter of me being butthurt over losing, personally or my team. My team didn't even have 8 guys who could've made it out to nationals in AZ. It's the principle of the matter. I accept the way things are, but I am not going to pretend they are otherwise. Sometimes, you gotta call a spade a spade. And a ringer a ringer.

 

[cneblett]

Looking at his matches, I'm guessing he just avoided being DQ'd and will be bumped up to 5.0 at year-end.

I also sort of wonder if he avoided it by playing only in the over 40 league and not 18. Where he could have been dqed but it would make no difference. Wonder if that happened at all for self rates only in the over 40 4.5 or 18 5.0 this year

 

[Brian11785]

The very well liked and very smart captain that you tore into after your city championships. You know who I am talking about.

Does this sound familiar?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=470952

You called him self satisfied and then both of your teams made the semi-finals of sectionals.

I like him just fine (had met him previously - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=464314), but he was definitely a d*** to my teammates that day. As I said in that thread, a few of my teammates got on to me for even acknowledging him later in the afternoon. That's how sucky of an impression he made on them.

Again, unless you were there, how would you know which area/section I am from? My location isn't listed in the thread.

 

[J_R_B]

In jacksonville over 40 4.5 we may have had the ultimate under rate. He did not win all his matches and I think he took it easy. But mike leach, former world 29 in singles and 15 in doubles played as a self rate 4.5. Did not get dqed and lost a couple of matches.

Oh brother. He was born in 1960, which makes him 53. Self-rate guidelines for former pros (top 400) would be 5.5. I wonder who granted him a two level appeal for a former ATP top-30 singles player (and two-time NCAA champ)? Stuff like this really does make a mockery of self-rating.

 

[goober]

Oh brother. He was born in 1960, which makes him 53. Self-rate guidelines for former pros (top 400) would be 5.5. I wonder who granted him a two level appeal for a former ATP top-30 singles player (and two-time NCAA champ)? Stuff like this really does make a mockery of self-rating.

As far as I can tell the self rate guidelines are not enforced consistently across the board. Appeal process can be random and depend on who you know. Maybe a starstruck person was tickled pink that a former top player wanted to play in their little ol' 40+ league.

 

[schmke]

As far as I can tell the self rate guidelines are not enforced consistently across the board. Appeal process can be random and depend on who you know. Maybe a starstruck person was tickled pink that a former top player wanted to play in their little ol' 40+ league.

That was my thought too.

And doesn't enforcement require someone to file a grievance? Or is an LC supposed to proactively notice and correct self-rates that don't follow the guidelines?

 

[cneblett]

As far as I can tell the self rate guidelines are not enforced consistently across the board. Appeal process can be random and depend on who you know. Maybe a starstruck person was tickled pink that a former top player wanted to play in their little ol' 40+ league.

I don't think 5.5 would have been fair either though. In our match he did not seem so far above everyone else to say he is now a 5.5.

 

[coyote]

I like him just fine (had met him previously - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=464314), but he was definitely a d*** to my teammates that day. As I said in that thread, a few of my teammates got on to me for even acknowledging him later in the afternoon. That's how sucky of an impression he made on them.

Again, unless you were there, how would you know which area/section I am from? My location isn't listed in the thread.

I was there looking for future players for tri-level. Good 3.5s are hard to find.

I didn't see any of what you said. I figured it out who you were a long time ago. By your earlier post, I knew which team you had to come from and your moniker made it easy. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure these things out. Heck, Larry Holmes could have figured that out.

Since when does a post total matter? I've been reading for years (longer than you have played tennis) but post little. We will eventually run into each other. The Dallas Tennis world is small. You will soon learn this; you probably just did.

As for the Plano West 3.5 kid. You made it sound like he just graduated High School. He did not, the rules change after 5 years out of super champs. What I said may not make sense to you because you do not understand. Ask your captain, he should know these rules back and forth.

Apparently, the kid had a grievance filed against him and it did not stick. He played under the exact same rules as you and eventually he got DQ'd by the computer. Apparently, the system worked. His team gets to go to nationals; he may get to go but he only gets to watch.

 

[Brian11785]

I was there looking for future players for tri-level. Good 3.5s are hard to find.

I didn't see any of what you said. I figured it out who you were a long time ago. By your earlier post, I knew which team you had to come from and your moniker made it easy. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure these things out. Heck, Larry Holmes could have figured that out.

Since when does a post total matter? I've been reading for years (longer than you have played tennis) but post little. We will eventually run into each other. The Dallas Tennis world is small. You will soon learn this; you probably just did.

As for the Plano West 3.5 kid. You made it sound like he just graduated High School. He did not, the rules change after 5 years out of super champs. What I said may not make sense to you because you do not understand. Ask your captain, he should know these rules back and forth.


Apparently, the kid had a grievance filed against him and it did not stick. He played under the exact same rules as you and eventually he got DQ'd by the computer. Apparently, the system worked. His team gets to go to nationals; he may get to go but he only gets to watch.

Again, I never mentioned which area/section I was from in that thread. Something makes me think we've already met. If not, we should get together to hit some time!

Regardless, I wouldn't take anything back I posted in that linked thread other than calling the guy self-satisfied. That was judgy and written in the heat of the moment with the bad taste of questionable sportsmanship still in my mouth.

Still stand by:
- There was some serious gamesmanship going on in that singles match at area.
- The captain was rude to my teammates for no comprehensible reason.
- I still feel that, in the hypothetical, stacking your team with underrated players is akin to taking 5th graders to compete in a 1st grade spelling bee.

(Going to ignore the borderline threatening nature of this last post.)