Tips for first time captain ...

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Putting together a team for the first time (upcoming USTA 4.0 18+ league). Any tips for:
Team Communication
Roster Strategy

I've already submitted tentative roster to league coordinator (waiting for team number) and have arranged for home courts with a local club. Am I missing anything?

Thanks
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
So much!! :)

For communication, decide if you want to just use email or use one of the team organization sites. I've used MyTennisGroup and TennisPoint. TennisPoint is better. Send out an email reminder a couple of days before the match and get everyone to confirm. Then send out the same message again on match day.

Second, don't take it too seriously. There is a lot outside of your control.

Third, make sure you have a roster that is large enough so you don't default courts. If your matches are always the same day of the week, you can live with a smaller roster. Here, matches can be any day of the week, so I carry a full roster of 20 and sometimes that is not enough (e.g. spring break).

On line-ups, just ask the players to email you privately about their preferred partners. Be prepared to hear that everyone wants to partner with the strongest player. I recommend putting strong players together (rather than pair them with weak players in the hope the strong player will carry the weak one through to the win). Giving weak partners to strong players is frustrating and can make strong players irritated with you.

Good luck!!
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Putting together a team for the first time (upcoming USTA 4.0 18+ league). Any tips for:
Team Communication
Roster Strategy

I've already submitted tentative roster to league coordinator (waiting for team number) and have arranged for home courts with a local club. Am I missing anything?

Thanks
For communications, you have to feel out how the people on your roster prefer to communicate and customize your communications for each person. Some people prefer email, others only respond to text. Some people want to plan out their whole season at the start, others don't know if they can play until 3 days before the match. I have group emails, group text, and individual texts depending on who I am communicating with and plan lineups and schedule matches for people at all times. If you try to enforce just one type of communication & scheduling, you will have difficulty getting responses from the people who don't prefer that method.
 
Lineups: get preferences [singles v doubles; Ad v Deuce; paper v plastic; etc.].

Think about the strengths and weaknesses of the doubles pairs: try to combine complementary strengths [ie big server with a great net person] and use the strengths of one to compensate for the weaknesses of the other [ie a quick player who can cover more court to help out the slower player].

Get responsible and flexible people; it will make your life a lot easier. Great players who are primadonnas will usually cause more problems than they're worth. Then again, if your goal is to get to Nationals, you'll likely have to make compromises.
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
I think the most important thing to establish is whether the team is a win-at-all-costs or if it is just a bunch of people who want to compete hard but where everyone gets their fair share of playing time. You also have to make sure you establish expectations for conduct and then deal directly with any transgressions.

The other stuff, like communications, has been secondary to making sure everyone is on the same page as far as team goals and how everyone behaves.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Lineups: get preferences [singles v doubles; Ad v Deuce; paper v plastic; etc.].

Think about the strengths and weaknesses of the doubles pairs: try to combine complementary strengths [ie big server with a great net person] and use the strengths of one to compensate for the weaknesses of the other [ie a quick player who can cover more court to help out the slower player].

Get responsible and flexible people; it will make your life a lot easier. Great players who are primadonnas will usually cause more problems than they're worth. Then again, if your goal is to get to Nationals, you'll likely have to make compromises.
First time doing this. Goal is to get to sectionals, see about creating a core group for future teams. That's it.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
I think the most important thing to establish is whether the team is a win-at-all-costs or if it is just a bunch of people who want to compete hard but where everyone gets their fair share of playing time. You also have to make sure you establish expectations for conduct and then deal directly with any transgressions.

The other stuff, like communications, has been secondary to making sure everyone is on the same page as far as team goals and how everyone behaves.
Already considered this before asking guys. All like minded, competitive and relaxed. Want to win, but enjoy tennis regardless of the outcome.
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Already considered this before asking guys. All like minded, competitive and relaxed. Want to win, but enjoy tennis regardless of the outcome.
I would recommend a communication to all players on the team that states the goal for the team, and that playing time will be determined based on best possibility of winning versus metering out matches evenly. It might also help to establish a ladder so that those not playing often are getting a chance to compete to play more often - otherwise they may feel it was not worthwhile to join the team at all.

Of course, if you think your team really has a chance to make it to post-season play, you should also find out who can give you a commitment to go, and then juggle your roster so that you get enough qualifying matches for the team you want to take. If you want to take everyone, then you have to make sure that when you play the weaker players, the other teams are your strongest teams so you can absorb a possible loss.

Good luck! I'm captaining a team that is sectional bound and we can't wait until June to get in there and rock it.
 
Teach 'em not to foot-fault--if you get to playoffs there will be roving referees who will be calling them. Seen players totally lose it when called for ff-ing and start arguing with ref--and argue their team out of contention due to it.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Teach 'em not to foot-fault--if you get to playoffs there will be roving referees who will be calling them. Seen players totally lose it when called for ff-ing and start arguing with ref--and argue their team out of contention due to it.
Thanks
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Well, the 18+ 4.0 league never materialized.

We are beginning an 18+ 8.5 combo league. Only 3 lines of doubles. Any help/strategy on managing the line-ups? Do you always play your best team at line 1? Ever switch the lineup to gamble that you take 2 lines assuming you'll lose one line?
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
Are you trying to win or just have fun? If you are trying to win, the barrier to entry is high. If you are not actively recruiting guys from the local tennis scene, you are already behind. You need to identify the guys who check TLS and TR daily to make sure they throw enough games to come in just below the bump threshold but still win consistently. Those are your target. Approach them respectfully but be upfront about your intentions. Offer them a minimum of USTA league fees, season court fees, and gas for travel to matches. Almost all of these guys are getting at least a deal that includes those, so to recruit them you will have to beat what they are getting now. Most will also want assurances that they will play only with partners of their choosing and hold veto power over lineups they are in. If the team makes sectionals or nationals, travel fees will be expected also. I would also recommend throwing in beers after matches as a gesture of good faith. I do know at least one captain who tried to arrange for Hooters waitresses to come by the courts after their shift to cheer, but that was inconsistent. The top teams in larger metro areas are often held together by a salary system, funded either by well off captains or the clubs themselves.

If you just want to have fun with your buddies that’s fine. But you will never compete in the larger metros without playing the game as captain. Atlanta and Dallas 4.0 leagues are notorious for this.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Are you trying to win or just have fun? If you are trying to win, the barrier to entry is high. If you are not actively recruiting guys from the local tennis scene, you are already behind. You need to identify the guys who check TLS and TR daily to make sure they throw enough games to come in just below the bump threshold but still win consistently. Those are your target. Approach them respectfully but be upfront about your intentions. Offer them a minimum of USTA league fees, season court fees, and gas for travel to matches. Almost all of these guys are getting at least a deal that includes those, so to recruit them you will have to beat what they are getting now. Most will also want assurances that they will play only with partners of their choosing and hold veto power over lineups they are in. If the team makes sectionals or nationals, travel fees will be expected also. I would also recommend throwing in beers after matches as a gesture of good faith. I do know at least one captain who tried to arrange for Hooters waitresses to come by the courts after their shift to cheer, but that was inconsistent. The top teams in larger metro areas are often held together by a salary system, funded either by well off captains or the clubs themselves.

If you just want to have fun with your buddies that’s fine. But you will never compete in the larger metros without playing the game as captain. Atlanta and Dallas 4.0 leagues are notorious for this.
Thanks for the tips. Competition and fun first, obviously we want to win, but I'm not down with sandbagging (there's a special place in hell for those guys) and I'm not paying someone to play. You're not doing me a favor playing, you either want to compete or you don't. What you've described is straight up cheating. Pretty pathetic that anyone would engage in these shenanigans. BTW, not in a major metro area.

Back to my question about arranging the line-up, any advice?

Thanks
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
...I'm not down with sandbagging (there's a special place in hell for those guys) and I'm not paying someone to play. You're not doing me a favor playing, you either want to compete or you don't. What you've described is straight up cheating. Pretty pathetic that anyone would engage in these shenanigans. BTW, not in a major metro area.

Back to my question about arranging the line-up, any advice?

Thanks
You are already asking whether to play your best pairing at #1 doubles, which means you are open to “cheating” and sandbagging despite your claims otherwise. That’s the first step, and it’s how all these captains start. You are not far from paying court fees for your better players.

But also remember, clubs have a stake in being able to hang that blue USTA banner where people enter the club that says “USTA 3.5 (or whatever) state champions”. If you can build a team like that as captain, a club that wouldn’t otherwise consider you for membership may bump you to the top of the waiting list. So there is something in it for you too.

But as far as lineup advice, if your intentions are pure and honorable, play your best pairing on court 1. But just remember, other captains will not be so honorable. If you believe that as captain you owe it to your team to give them the best chance to win, take that first step and send your best pairing out at court 3. Your team will stand a better chance of winning, and then go ahead and start saving up $$ for next years recruiting cycle.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
@Moveforwardalways .... Good read!

What I cannot totally figure out is if you are being facetious. You write quite well, with just enough detail that I think there is a 10% chance of your being totally serious here.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
You are already asking whether to play your best pairing at #1 doubles, which means you are open to “cheating” and sandbagging despite your claims otherwise. That’s the first step, and it’s how all these captains start. You are not far from paying court fees for your better players.

But also remember, clubs have a stake in being able to hang that blue USTA banner where people enter the club that says “USTA 3.5 (or whatever) state champions”. If you can build a team like that as captain, a club that wouldn’t otherwise consider you for membership may bump you to the top of the waiting list. So there is something in it for you too.

But as far as lineup advice, if your intentions are pure and honorable, play your best pairing on court 1. But just remember, other captains will not be so honorable. If you believe that as captain you owe it to your team to give them the best chance to win, take that first step and send your best pairing out at court 3. Your team will stand a better chance of winning, and then go ahead and start saving up $$ for next years recruiting cycle.
Sorry, I asked the question poorly. I'll try again. Let's say I have 6 guys, ranked 1-6 from strongest to weakest. Do people generally pair 1-2 at #1, 3-4 at #2 and 5-6 at #3? Never captained before so sorry if this seems like a dumb or loaded question. Just trying to understand IF there is a standard strategy and WHAT that would be so I don't provide the team a disservice, that's all.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Sorry, I asked the question poorly. I'll try again. Let's say I have 6 guys, ranked 1-6 from strongest to weakest. Do
people generally pair 1-2 at #1, 3-4 at #2 and 5-6 at #3? Never captained before so sorry if this seems like a dumb or loaded question. Just trying to understand IF there is a standard strategy and WHAT that would be so I don't provide the team a disservice, that's all.
Having captained a few teams ..... it is not that simple a process. Your #1 & #2 players may play terribly together and would lose to your #5 & 6

Most likely your group has some established pairings .... yes?
In general against most other teams you put your strongest pairing in #1

If you are facing a team that you think *may* be better than yours and you are looking to win the team match then you put your weakest at #1, strongest at #2 and middle at #3

BUT .. have a discussion with your team before the season starts. Everyone has to be on the same page. If this team wants good competitive matches but doesn't care about post-season glory then you would never sacrifice a line like that. If the team wants to get to post-season at all costs then that is exactly what you would be doing.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Having captained a few teams ..... it is not that simple a process. Your #1 & #2 players may play terribly together and would lose to your #5 & 6

Most likely your group has some established pairings .... yes?
In general against most other teams you put your strongest pairing in #1

If you are facing a team that you think *may* be better than yours and you are looking to win the team match then you put your weakest at #1, strongest at #2 and middle at #3

BUT .. have a discussion with your team before the season starts. Everyone has to be on the same page. If this team wants good competitive matches but doesn't care about post-season glory then you would never sacrifice a line like that. If the team wants to get to post-season at all costs then that is exactly what you would be doing.
Thanks for the straight answer. I appreciate it.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Thanks for the straight answer. I appreciate it.
No problem.

I cannot stress enough to have a discussion with your team BEFORE the season starts. Is everyone on the same page? Are there players willing to be sacrificed on line 1 in order to have a team win?

It is okay to have a team that is competitive and going for post-season glory.
It is okay to have a team that plays competitive matches but not a lock to win.
It is okay to have a team that enjoys competing and socializing and not necessarily winning.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
No problem.

I cannot stress enough to have a discussion with your team BEFORE the season starts. Is everyone on the same page? Are there players willing to be sacrificed on line 1 in order to have a team win?

It is okay to have a team that is competitive and going for post-season glory.
It is okay to have a team that plays competitive matches but not a lock to win.
It is okay to have a team that enjoys competing and socializing and not necessarily winning.
We're not wired that way. We'll play our best team at 1, second best at 2 and weakest at 3. Results will be what they are.
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
We're not wired that way. We'll play our best team at 1, second best at 2 and weakest at 3. Results will be what they are.
Kudos to you for taking the honorable approach. Just beware of opposing captains talking to your best players after the match and getting their number “so they can get together and hit sometime”.
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
Where does it say that the strongest player / pair should play line 1,etc?
It doesn’t. That why captains do what they do.

But, after all, why else would they be called line 1 or line 2, etc? If the numbers don’t mean anything, why not just have three matches set up?
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Where does it say that the strongest player / pair should play line 1,etc?
The only times you have to play your strongest players on line 1 are in the "plus" leagues where those above rating must play on #1 singles or #1 doubles. Otherwise, any local requirements to play in order of strength are not allowed by national regulations. See the first question, here:


That being said, in many leagues it is expected that the teams are organized by strength, to ensure the best, most competitive matches for the players. Captains who don't do so eventually get a "reputation" and the resulting varied repercussions that come with that. Whether or not that captain cares is another story.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
It doesn’t. That why captains do what they do.

But, after all, why else would they be called line 1 or line 2, etc? If the numbers don’t mean anything, why not just have three matches set up?
I heard this a lot as a kid:

"Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should"
 

Chalkdust

Rookie
It doesn’t. That why captains do what they do.

But, after all, why else would they be called line 1 or line 2, etc? If the numbers don’t mean anything, why not just have three matches set up?
Well you need some way to identify courts so that after exchange of lineups you can determine who is supposed to play who. But if it is expected that line 1 is strongest why wouldn't USTA just say so?
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Seems like a contradiction then.
It is a contradiction, and I don't know the history of why the USTA came to this decision. What occurs to me is that the USTA doesn't publish exact ratings (like that I'm a 4.26 and my opponent is a 4.33) so it is still subjective who is stronger. I'm sure the USTA doesn't want a flood of complaints that if the lines are supposed to be strength based, that some time didn't play the teams in that order, and the USTA wasn't want to be arbiter.

What we can take is that in plus leagues, the strongest players are on line 1, so that seems to define the intention, and most leagues/captains abide by that.
 

Chalkdust

Rookie
It is a contradiction, and I don't know the history of why the USTA came to this decision. What occurs to me is that the USTA doesn't publish exact ratings (like that I'm a 4.26 and my opponent is a 4.33) so it is still subjective who is stronger. I'm sure the USTA doesn't want a flood of complaints that if the lines are supposed to be strength based, that some time didn't play the teams in that order, and the USTA wasn't want to be arbiter.

What we can take is that in plus leagues, the strongest players are on line 1, so that seems to define the intention, and most leagues/captains abide by that.
That makes sense.

And actually strongest *is* subjective within a level even if there were exact ratings, since there are so many variables involved - current form, injury situation, singles vs dubs, stylistic match-up against opponent, how a pair complement each other in dubs, etc.

Even in plus leagues a plus rated player is not necessarily stronger because of some of the same reasons - as a 4.5 singles player I've beaten several 5.0s who are more dubs players but were put in the singles spot (this is back when there were two 5.0s allowed in the lineup).
But the plus players will most often be stronger, so makes sense to have them match up against each other where possible.

OP was asking about combo? That's going to be even more of a crapshoot because having players of different levels on the court changes the dynamic as well. E.g. do you play orthodox shot selection or do you target the weaker player? And how will the pairs adjust? Etc.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it would make sense for USTA to mandate that anyone playing up should be on line 3, just like they require plus players to be on line 1. Why don't they do that?
 

2ndServe

Hall of Fame
Putting together a team for the first time (upcoming USTA 4.0 18+ league). Any tips for:
Team Communication
Roster Strategy

I've already submitted tentative roster to league coordinator (waiting for team number) and have arranged for home courts with a local club. Am I missing anything?

Thanks
If it's not too late.

DON'T

you'll come back here in a few months read this and think.

"F I really should have heeded this warning"
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
If it's not too late.

DON'T

you'll come back here in a few months read this and think.

"F I really should have heeded this warning"
Funny. You may be right. However, something turning into a total cluster never stopped me from trying new things :)
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
And actually strongest *is* subjective within a level even if there were exact ratings, since there are so many variables involved - current form, injury situation, singles vs dubs, stylistic match-up against opponent, how a pair complement each other in dubs, etc.
There you go. Figured it out. It's not the ATP, there's no seedings. As a captain, I'll put people were I think they have the best shot to succeed. That's what I do.

Our lower level players used to lose a lot even on D3. But, we tried different combos and found a few that seemed like it might work and kept throwing them out there (not every match, because we try to get everyone 4-7 matches a season), and low and behold, a year later, they're actually winning more than losing on D3.

We don't really have a definitive D1 team, just several D1.5-2 teams, so we just try to come up with a matchup that could work.

Familiarity breeds success. The more you have a consistent partner, the better that team will do, in the long haul.
EDIT: Thinking about it, it would make sense for USTA to mandate that anyone playing up should be on line 3, just like they require plus players to be on line 1. Why don't they do that?
I think they generally try to keep their fingers out of regulating lineups as much as possible. I don't seen anything wrong with that.
 

Chalkdust

Rookie
I think they generally try to keep their fingers out of regulating lineups as much as possible. I don't seen anything wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with it, just seems odd because they do regulate lineups in making higher rated players in 'plus' leagues play the 1 line, so then it seems fair they should make lower rated players play the 3 line. Or else keep completely out of it, and let anyone play any line.
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
Nothing wrong with it, just seems odd because they do regulate lineups in making higher rated players in 'plus' leagues play the 1 line, so then it seems fair they should make lower rated players play the 3 line. Or else keep completely out of it, and let anyone play any line.
I don't know anything about plus leagues.
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Nothing wrong with it, just seems odd because they do regulate lineups in making higher rated players in 'plus' leagues play the 1 line, so then it seems fair they should make lower rated players play the 3 line. Or else keep completely out of it, and let anyone play any line.
I think the reason the USTA doesn't do this is because you are only allowed two plus-level players per team, whereas I believe half of your roster can be lower rated. Confining half of the team to the third could probably would make it difficult or impossible to get every one of these players their required number of qualifying matches for post-season play, and would really discourage players from playing up. On the flip side, the USTA has made enough anti-player decisions already so I wouldn't put it by them that they would implement something like this either.
 

Chalkdust

Rookie
I think the reason the USTA doesn't do this is because you are only allowed two plus-level players per team, whereas I believe half of your roster can be lower rated. Confining half of the team to the third could probably would make it difficult or impossible to get every one of these players their required number of qualifying matches for post-season play, and would really discourage players from playing up. On the flip side, the USTA has made enough anti-player decisions already so I wouldn't put it by them that they would implement something like this either.
Didn't realize you could have so many lower rated players even in a plus league. Not sure that is a good thing for having competitive play which should be the goal. But your reasoning makes sense.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I think the reason the USTA doesn't do this is because you are only allowed two plus-level players per team, whereas I believe half of your roster can be lower rated. Confining half of the team to the third could probably would make it difficult or impossible to get every one of these players their required number of qualifying matches for post-season play, and would really discourage players from playing up. On the flip side, the USTA has made enough anti-player decisions already so I wouldn't put it by them that they would implement something like this either.
Well, you could easily modify that by saying the people playing up have to fill the lineup from the bottom up, so D3 first then D2/S2 then D1/S1 if necessary, although by that point, hopefully not many teams have so many playing up players that they are bleeding into the line 1s.
 

Doan

Rookie
Well, you could easily modify that by saying the people playing up have to fill the lineup from the bottom up, so D3 first then D2/S2 then D1/S1 if necessary, although by that point, hopefully not many teams have so many playing up players that they are bleeding into the line 1s.
Some sections limit # of people playing up. Ours has no limit so you can see a whole team playing up with one or two at level who couldn't get onto any other team. I think they use that as a "team practice"
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Some sections limit # of people playing up. Ours has no limit so you can see a whole team playing up with one or two at level who couldn't get onto any other team. I think they use that as a "team practice"
Middle States has written rules on the percent of rostered players that can be lower level but to my knowledge no limits on individual match lineups. I've never seen an entire lineup of 3.5s in a 4.0 match though in 15 years in the league, though.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Middle States has written rules on the percent of rostered players that can be lower level but to my knowledge no limits on individual match lineups. I've never seen an entire lineup of 3.5s in a 4.0 match though in 15 years in the league, though.
We have a team like that this year in our flight. Its a group of women who have played together since 2.5, went to 3.0 nationals and all got moved up to 3.5. They now are fielding both a 3.5 team and a 4.0 team ... only roster difference between the teams are 2 4.0C players.

Lots of team losses but a surprising number of very close match scores and lots of 3rd set breakers.
 

Doan

Rookie
We have a team like that this year in our flight. Its a group of women who have played together since 2.5, went to 3.0 nationals and all got moved up to 3.5. They now are fielding both a 3.5 team and a 4.0 team ... only roster difference between the teams are 2 4.0C players.
I just looked again and there was actually 2 teams of 4.0 Women playing at 4.5. One of the team did have 2 4.5C players.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Scheduled to play our first match tomorrow. So far so good. Simple communication via email and text. Toughest thing has been coming up with the line-up as I don't know everyone's game. I asked about each players preferred playing style and matched them accordingly. Will see how it goes.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Sorry, I asked the question poorly. I'll try again. Let's say I have 6 guys, ranked 1-6 from strongest to weakest. Do people generally pair 1-2 at #1, 3-4 at #2 and 5-6 at #3? Never captained before so sorry if this seems like a dumb or loaded question. Just trying to understand IF there is a standard strategy and WHAT that would be so I don't provide the team a disservice, that's all.
Pair 1,2. 3,4. 5,6. I never put a strong player with a weak player if I can avoid it, unless both players request it.

if you want to retain strong players, you have to keep them happy. Forcing them to carry a weak partner around like a sack of potatoes For two hours will not keep them happy.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Pair 1,2. 3,4. 5,6. I never put a strong player with a weak player if I can avoid it, unless both players request it.

if you want to retain strong players, you have to keep them happy. Forcing them to carry a weak partner around like a sack of potatoes For two hours will not keep them happy.
This is what I did. I also asked everyone what style of partner they prefer (baseline, S&V, etc.) and if there was a style they didn't want to be paired with.
For the first match we only had 6 guys available. We lost 3-0, but it was way closer than it should have been, in a good way. Our 8.5 team lost to their 8.5 team in a 3rd set tiebreak. Our 8.0 team lost to their 8.5 team in a 3rd set tie break. Our 7.5 team lost to their 8.5 team 4 and 4. We did great for having a skeleton crew and will be better when our 4.5s can play.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
So, just finished the last match of the league. There were 3 teams in the league (8.5 combo). I played our lineups straight up (strongest at 1, weakest at 3). We finished in last place. Here are a few observations.

Each match was very close (virtually all were 2-1, 2 of 3 matches going to 3rd set tiebreakers). The team in 1st went undefeated. The other 2 teams beat each other at least once. The team that won has an experienced captain. The other 2 teams were first time captains. The winning team did NOT play lines straight up. Many times the strongest team played line 2 or 3. Even those matches were very close, maybe line management was the deciding factor (he was better at it than the other 2 teams).

Had a good time, learned some things and got the first one out of the way. Knowing that our team was competitive (from a player perspective), what tips do you have as far as line management is concerned? I obviously didn't know who was going to play which line for the opposing teams before hand. Your experiences and suggestions are appreciated. Will be starting the next league in 2 weeks with 3.5/4.0/4.5 Trilevel.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Well, you won't have options about who plays what line in Tri! :)

Regarding whether the undefeated team played its strongest players at various positions . . . maybe. But my experience is that when a team is very strong, it doesn't much matter who plays what position.

But yeah, sure. Mix it up if you want. I sometimes like to put my strongest team at second position. I usually won't put any pair in third position unless I am willing for them to receive a default -- this can cause a problem when you're trying to get someone qualified for playoffs.

What, if anything, did you learn about creating doubles pairs?
 
Top