USTA 3.5 Sectionals Quote of the Day

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
There’s always a bigger fish.

The USTA system of applying a discrete variable to what is essentially a continuous variable always means the winners are likely to be those arbitrary few hovering in the 3.5-4.0 border zone.

I think they need to do what we do at our club, where championships are held for Open, A, B and C level players. If you win at any of the levels below Open, you cannot compete at that level again and must “play up”.

so you go to 3.5 Nationals and win? You cannot compete in nationals at 3.5 ever again.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
so you go to 3.5 Nationals and win? You cannot compete in nationals at 3.5 ever again.
Um, they already basically do this: The move up or split up rule.

I would be willing to guess that there are very very few players who have ever gone to nationals and won their matches that were not bumped up to the next level.

Sure there may the anecdotal one or two here or there ... but I am certain the % skew heavily on those players being bumped.

And certainly you would have some grace for the player at age 37 that made it to 3.5 nationals getting slid back to 3.5 when they turned 55, no?
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Um, they already basically do this: The move up or split up rule.

I would be willing to guess that there are very very few players who have ever gone to nationals and won their matches that were not bumped up to the next level.

Sure there may the anecdotal one or two here or there ... but I am certain the % skew heavily on those players being bumped.
But is there anything stopping that person from sandbagging back down and going to Nationals again at the old level?
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
But is there anything stopping that person from sandbagging back down and going to Nationals again at the old level?
You responded while I was adding to my post.

Certainly there is not, and the board has gone round and round as to how near impossible it is to ferret out real sandbagging vs having a spell of poor play vs .... adjusting to long term injuries, and, ahem *getting older* and sliding.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
You responded while I was adding to my post.

Certainly there is not, and the board has gone round and round as to how near impossible it is to ferret out real sandbagging vs having a spell of poor play vs .... adjusting to long term injuries, and, ahem *getting older* and sliding.
It is hard to ferret it out for some, sure, but there is some pretty clear tanking that is obvious that is allowed today. Using the excuse that there isn't a 100% foolproof way to ferret out all sandbagging is not an excuse for ignoring the obvious, IMHO of course.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
It is hard to ferret it out for some, sure, but there is some pretty clear tanking that is obvious that is allowed today. Using the excuse that there isn't a 100% foolproof way to ferret out all sandbagging is not an excuse for ignoring the obvious, IMHO of course.
It would be a great opportunity to let loose a ML [machine learning] algorithm, let it learn what sandbagging looks like, and then have it flag instances. A human could always be the final arbiter but it would save the manual number crunching.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
It is hard to ferret it out for some, sure, but there is some pretty clear tanking that is obvious that is allowed today. Using the excuse that there isn't a 100% foolproof way to ferret out all sandbagging is not an excuse for ignoring the obvious, IMHO of course.
The USTA's bias is clearly towards "not guilty", perhaps reasoning that they'd risk losing a revenue stream...I mean, valued member.

But the unseen that is hard to weigh is how many people end up leaving because the egregious sandbagger was allowed to get away with it?
 

Creighton

Semi-Pro
I agree in principal but in actuality the people hovering in the 3.5-4.0 border zone are the ones getting killed at sectionals.
Yep before the playoffs I was a 3.65 is so decently into the 4.0 range as a 3.5.

I lost to two guys 2-6, 2-6 so that should put them in the 4.0-4.5 border zone. Maybe I’ll get lucky and get one more year at 3.5 but I doubt it.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
I agree in principal but in actuality the people hovering in the 3.5-4.0 border zone are the ones getting killed at sectionals.
Totally agree here. Years we were playing down in 3.5 land we lost in sectionals, and years we were all stronger we go to nationals. We all float around that pesky 3.5/4.0 border.

Anyway, to me it really isn't having to win Nationals, because knowing the level of competition I don't blame anyone for not wanting to spend the time and money to go. But, if your ultimate goal is to move up and always try to play better, why not go to compete against what is all essentially your next level of competition (aside those very few grossly out of rating players we all see)? I am looking forward to playing way too many matches for this old body, complaining about whatever comes up, and competing against the top players. Even if it is only for all the 3.5 glory. And then we already signed up back in 4.0, so that is what will see moving forward anyway.
 

maggmaster

Hall of Fame
Hey data scientist here, machine learning could probably handle this if someone were willing to go through and tag the appropriate features. Then there would be some maintenance on the algorithm to make sure that it didn’t start doing anything weird with particular patterns.
 

WhiteOut

Semi-Pro
Um, they already basically do this: The move up or split up rule.

I would be willing to guess that there are very very few players who have ever gone to nationals and won their matches that were not bumped up to the next level.
back in 2015 my wife wife went to nationals as a 4.0. her overall record for the entire year was something like 18-6. She won one match at nationals and lost another. the person she lost to had a record something like 20-2. that person played in the championship match (lost). Neither that person, nor my wife got moved up to 4.5 the next year (total head-scratcher).

the next year, while still at 4.0, my wife played up at 4.5, had far fewer matches, literally like less than 10 total matches i think (id have to go look it up -- too lazy)...and her record was something more like .500 or less. *that's* the year she got moved up to 4.5.

that's also the year i gave up caring about the stupid ratings.
 

nyta2

Professional
“I wouldn’t want to go to Nationals anyway. Why fly across the country when I can get crushed by a 4.0 at my home club any time I want?”
i have the same logic... more than enough 4.5 and up in my area to kick my butt... no need to travel far to do that.
 
Top