USTA League Nationals start in four days

[djkahn86]

Don't Sleep on Middle States. They breezed thru sectionals. Several are headed to 18s in vegas as well. Waiting for the scouting report. Does anyone know about this team?

 

[Tiafoe]

Yeah, the Intermountain captain has a history of doing well at nationals - winning 3.5 last year, finishing third at 40s and going 3-1 on prior trip not making it out of flight. ONLY team to beat his teams were the eventual champs from Texas. This IM team has the ringers from last years 3.5 winners, to go along with a number of former 4.5 bump downs. That said, Intermountain and Houston will be the favorite for both 4.0 18s and 40s.

I have watched what he does for awhile. You can crown him along with the Texas captain as the shadiest ones year in and year out. He's had 1-2 teams go to Nationals 4 or 5 years in a row and most of them lost maybe 2-3 courts total in their Sectionals out of 20. I think his strategy is getting most of his players computer rated and then they don't need to sandbag, they just blow people out in districts and sectionals. Something is shady when a 3.5 team goes a combined 86-11 in matches (league through nationals finals) and a captain is doing it year after year. If I ever played against or knew the guy, I would ask him, is it really worth rigging all of these teams year in and year out?

 

[tennis_tater]

well, think you hit the nail on the head. For all of the teams he takes to nationals, they are almost always with a new set of players and it’s almost always in their second year - the year immediately following their self rate.

 

[OnTheLine]

well, think you hit the nail on the head. For all of the teams he takes to nationals, they are almost always with a new set of players and it’s almost always in their second year - the year immediately following their self rate.

My question on this is how can one possibly find that many "new" players year after year in both 18s and 40s ... especially in UT not exactly a highly populated state (although the Salt Lake area is rapidly growing) ?

 

[schmke]

well, think you hit the nail on the head. For all of the teams he takes to nationals, they are almost always with a new set of players and it’s almost always in their second year - the year immediately following their self rate.

I (and others) have pointed out some questionable players and tactics of the Texas captain, so this deserves a little research and comparison.

The Texas team that just won 18+ 3.5 had:

• Two self-rated players (both playing well above level), and a third that didn't play enough matches to be eligible
• Four players who were self-rated last year (two as 3.5s and two as 4.0s) and managed to get 3.5C year-end ratings
• Two players to appealed down from 4.0
• Eight players that were 4.0s last year and managed to get 3.5C year-end ratings

All told, 16 players that perhaps were really 4.0 (or higher) level players to start the year that "somehow" became 3.5C or were self-rated.

The 40 & Over Texas team to be playing this weekend has:

• Four self-rated players (one ineligible for Nationals), two of which were 4.5C in the past (4 and 5 years ago) and somehow managed to self-rate as 4.0 now
• Two players who were self-rated last year and managed to get 4.0C year-end ratings
• Six players who appealed down from 4.5
• Twelve players that were 4.5C last year and managed to get 4.0C year-end ratings (one ineligible for Nationals)

That is 24 players that perhaps were really 4.5 (or higher) level players to start the year that "somehow" became 4.0C or were self-rated.

The 40 & Over Intermountain team also playing this weekend has:

• Three self-rated players (one ineligible for Nationals), one was a 4.5 8 years ago and managed so self-rate as 4.0 now
• One was self-rated last year and managed to get a 4.0C year-end rating
• Zero players that appealed down
• Zero that were 4.5s last year and managed to get 4.0C year-end ratings

This is 4 players that perhaps were really 4.5 (or higher) level players to start the year that "somehow" became 4.0C or were self-rated.

Everyone can form their own opinion, but to me there is no comparison. Many Nationals teams probably have the make-up of the Intermountain team, few, if any others, have the make-up of the Texas teams.

Note of course that not every player that was a 4.5 (or 4.0) and is now a 4.0 (or 3.5), or that was/is self-rated and is eligible at level, is eligible due to shenanigans or tanking matches, but when 16 or 24 players on a roster fall into the suspicious category, it is unlikely all are clean.

 

[Tiafoe]

All interesting stuff @schmke. I do think they do things differently. The TX captain is blatantly obvious, the IM one is subtle. If you get computer rated by playing a few matches in the fall season and then destroy everyone the following year to get to Nationals it is equally shady to me, just more subtle. Edit: I probably shouldn't say equally shady, TX is more shady for obvious reasons, but both are rigging things in their favor if you dig deep enough.

 

[schmke]

All interesting stuff @schmke. I do think they do things differently. The TX captain is blatantly obvious, the IM one is subtle. If you get computer rated by playing a few matches in the fall season and then destroy everyone the following year to get to Nationals it is equally shady to me, just more subtle.

Are you suggesting the IM captain is shady because he had one player in the category you just described? I think a lot of Nationals teams probably have one player that was a self-rate the prior year, so I guess that makes them all shady?

I'm not trying to defend the IM team/captain, someone else brought them up as just as bad so I thought I'd compare is all. The point is more how much of an outlier the Texas team is.

To be fair, to make it to Nationals you do have to have players playing above level, that is just the nature of level based play. The question is where do you draw the line on how someone achieves that level or the controls you have in place to detect and prevent players and teams from benefiting from crossing that line.

 

[djkahn86]

I guess this it the way ou get to nationals and win. Game the system and then be patient for things to fall into place.

 

[Tiafoe]

Are you suggesting the IM captain is shady because he had one player in the category you just described? I think a lot of Nationals teams probably have one player that was a self-rate the prior year, so I guess that makes them all shady?

I'm not trying to defend the IM team/captain, someone else brought them up as just as bad so I thought I'd compare is all. The point is more how much of an outlier the Texas team is.

To be fair, to make it to Nationals you do have to have players playing above level, that is just the nature of level based play. The question is where do you draw the line on how someone achieves that level or the controls you have in place to detect and prevent players and teams from benefiting from crossing that line.

I edited my statement before you replied that they are really not the same, the TX captain is obviously more shady. However, if you're a dynasty and your teams destroy virtually everyone in their path year after year, something shady is going on. You don't even need to look at statistics to figure it out. It's more than having a handful of above level players on your teams. It's having your entire team full of above level players. I mean, there have to be some 3-2 results somewhere yet they are almost nowhere to be found prior to Nationals for most of the guy's teams.

 

[schmke]

I edited my statement before you replied that they are really not the same, the TX captain is obviously more shady. However, if you're a dynasty and your teams destroy virtually everyone in their path year after year, something shady is going on. You don't even need to look at statistics to figure it out. It's more than having a handful of above level players on your teams. It's having your entire team full of above level players. I mean, there have to be some 3-2 results somewhere yet they are almost nowhere to be found prior to Nationals for most of the guy's teams.

Agreed. And unfortunately, at the 3.5 level, since that is often not the peak ability of many players if someone starts there and gets a 3.5C legitimately or not, if they play/practice more and devote more time and energy to it, they improve and get closer to their peak ability, be that 4.0 or even 4.5.

So it is perhaps splitting hairs trying to identify those that were 4.0 level players and "cheated" to get their 3.5 and are now playing 4.0 level tennis, vs those that got their 3.5 fairly and put in the work to improve and are now playing 4.0 level tennis. Both players are now playing 4.0 level tennis so it should be a fair match-up. I just prefer that putting in the work to improve be the route that is rewarded, not the other.

Edit: Oh, and our friend @Startzel would say both are cheating as they both know they are 4.0 level players so should self opt out of playing 3.5

 

[leech]

Agreed. And unfortunately, at the 3.5 level, since that is often not the peak ability of many players if someone starts there and gets a 3.5C legitimately or not, if they play/practice more and devote more time and energy to it, they improve and get closer to their peak ability, be that 4.0 or even 4.5.

So it is perhaps splitting hairs trying to identify those that were 4.0 level players and "cheated" to get their 3.5 and are now playing 4.0 level tennis, vs those that got their 3.5 fairly and put in the work to improve and are now playing 4.0 level tennis. Both players are now playing 4.0 level tennis so it should be a fair match-up. I just prefer that putting in the work to improve be the route that is rewarded, not the other.

Edit: Oh, and our friend @Startzel would say both are cheating as they both know they are 4.0 level players so should self opt out of playing 3.5

One other explanation of an arguably more legitimate way of putting together a team with a ton of above-level players -- finding undervalued players and putting them together (as opposed to orchestrating such a result with players under their control). This is easier in an area with a large and dense population of tennis players; doubt that SLC falls into this category, but Dallas or Houston might.

 

[Tiafoe]

Agreed. And unfortunately, at the 3.5 level, since that is often not the peak ability of many players if someone starts there and gets a 3.5C legitimately or not, if they play/practice more and devote more time and energy to it, they improve and get closer to their peak ability, be that 4.0 or even 4.5.

So it is perhaps splitting hairs trying to identify those that were 4.0 level players and "cheated" to get their 3.5 and are now playing 4.0 level tennis, vs those that got their 3.5 fairly and put in the work to improve and are now playing 4.0 level tennis. Both players are now playing 4.0 level tennis so it should be a fair match-up. I just prefer that putting in the work to improve be the route that is rewarded, not the other.

Edit: Oh, and our friend @Startzel would say both are cheating as they both know they are 4.0 level players so should self opt out of playing 3.5

Yeah, I do not agree with Starzel that everyone sandbags their way to Nationals. I also agree that players can improve throughout a season. I do wonder how some of the teams are built, like what incentive is given to the particular players that I'm sure know they are better than 3.5. Does the captain tell a self-rated to sandbag or play poorly enough to get computer rated with the plan that the next year they will have so much fun going to Nationals? What about the kids on the Kansas City team? Hey kid, join this 3.5 USTA team, it will be fun killing all these older low level guys. It will be a nice change from your high school tennis matches.

 

[2ndServe]

Gotta go with Intermountain in Men's 4.0...the same Utah team is coming for 40 plus and 18 plus Nationals the next two weeks. Just looking at scores, they beat down everyone at both Sectionals and it wasn't competitive in either case...also looks like some of their top players were missing so expect them to be even stronger at Nationals. This has to be the best 4.5 team still playing in the 4.0 division

I wonder if there are people that are qualifying for 3 or 4 nationals and going to then all. Got to be expensive and tiring.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

18+ 3.5M Hawaii 0-4, 0 for 20 on courts, 2 sets won.
Actually is 1 set better than their 2018 performance at this level.



Wonder what their team composition is? Probably different than Texas I'd imagine.

 

[BMRSNR27]

I wonder if there are people that are qualifying for 3 or 4 nationals and going to then all. Got to be expensive and tiring.

There's one guy on the Texas team that's on both 3.5 teams and both 4.0 teams. All going to nationals.

 

[tennis_tater]

18+ 3.5M Hawaii 0-4, 0 for 20 on courts, 2 sets won.
Actually is 1 set better than their 2018 performance at this level.



Wonder what their team composition is? Probably different than Texas I'd imagine.

At first, I thought they must have had a terrible draw and got 1-2 of the 4 semi finalist. But they drew none of the top 4 teams.

 

[BMRSNR27]

One other explanation of an arguably more legitimate way of putting together a team with a ton of above-level players -- finding undervalued players and putting them together (as opposed to orchestrating such a result with players under their control). This is easier in an area with a large and dense population of tennis players; doubt that SLC falls into this category, but Dallas or Houston might.

That's definitely the way we've done it, but if you look at the Houston teams per schmike's post, they're definitely tanking to get bumped down or lock in a rating, then going all out for a championship. In some cases, over and over again. Houston's 3.5 team won in 2015, 2017 and now 2019 with much of the same core.

 

[TypeRx]

Okay, figured it was time to contribute to this thread as someone that actually competed at last weekend's 3.5 Nationals. First off, major congratulations and hats off to Texas on the win. They definitely brought a strong team and deserved to win, although you can see it was by a slim margin to the teams finishing 2 and 3. Skill was certainly not the only factor in winning -- other factors like the draw, player fatigue/injuries, lineup strategy vs. lineup strategy, luck, etc. could have easily given the title to any of the 4 teams that made it to Sunday. Now, many here have been complaining about shadiness, sandbagging, gray areas, etc. I get it, trust me I do. But, if they won within the context of the USTA rules so be it. The fault is with the rules and policing of them. Also, there are some within this thread that refuse to believe that there are significantly higher level players at a 'lowly' 3.5 event. Trust me, they were here. IMO, there were a couple TRUE 3.0s, many 3.5s, many 4.0s, some weak 4.5s, and a few strong 4.5s. By strong I mean that they would absolutely be able to complete in 4.5 tourneys at various places around the country. No doubt about it. Also, their dynamic ratings and UTRs many times poorly reflected their playing ability. Sometimes massively.

Facilities/Environment:

The facility was a good one (kind of the middle of nowhere within Sunrise, which feels like a retirement-focused distant suburb of Phoenix). They did a great job making sure they was plenty of ice and water for players and there were generally 2 trainers on site I believe (I never used them). While the pro-shop and what not was fine, there was only one bathroom facility and that only had a couple stalls/urinals/showers. So, more would have been nice although I never saw a traffic jam. Also, it would have been great if they setup many more canopies/shade areas or misting stations.

There were some food truck options on-site and plenty of restaurants within a couple minutes drive.

The courts were in great shape and were all generally slow playing. Interestingly, even within the courts there were noticeable differences in the amount of "grit" on the playing surfaces leading to slightly different play depending on the court. The lights were very bright and illuminated the courts well but some were angled in a way that could blind players. There were a few participants that even wore sunglasses at night to counter this.

Temperatures throughout the event ranged from 93-96 degrees F (air) with on-court temps well into the 100-110 range I am sure. There wasn't much wind in the 3 days and no clouds. Consistent with AZ weather, it was dry out...bone dry (<20% humidity). At least 2 participants were hospitalized for heat exhaustion/dehydration with many more experiencing cramping and other problems during the event. Participants from states that don't have year-round outdoor tennis complained about the conditions and some had issues with the transition from primarily indoor club play to playing outside. Oh well, not sure how you can complain about that. But maybe AZ/Vegas, etc. in October is not the best place for this sort of event.

Overall, the event was run reasonably well and stuck to schedule. I do think they should do full 3 sets for the semis and finals though.

Playing Experience:

I am not going to go into a ton of detail other than to say that I got 6 matches in, and, outside of TX, did well. The sleuths here can figure out who I am if they are so inclined, LOL. The TX singles lineup was strong throughout the tourney although their "ringer" primarily played line 3 dubs and I believe lost when he actually played singles (close match with 3rd set TB though). He was a good player but there were others on that team with 0.5 lower dynamic ratings that were considerably stronger IMO. Actually, not IMO...it was apparent to anyone.

Except for Sunday, I'd say that you didn't really see many great singles matches. Doubles there were some really fun matches all 3 days. So, I guess my takeaway is that there were just a handful of good singles players at the event but plenty of good doubles players. In general, the best singles players were young and fit and the best doubles players were older and likely wiser/more strategic. I guess that is a no-brainer.

Back to singles, I played against TX and it was clear there was no way I was winning the match. And, although scores don't reflect # of games that go to deuce, etc., I can happily say I played well even though I got rocked. I tried to mix up my game to counter his weapons (I unfortunately couldn't find a real weakness) but it didn't help. I didn't make an uncharacteristic amount of unforced errors and only had, I think, 2 double faults in the 2 sets. He had no issue hammering a very high-bouncing kicker to the backhand whereas just about everyone else I played couldn't figure out how to return my simple serve. So, I was simply outplayed by a player with greater capability. Funny though because after the match, a USTA official proactively approached me and congratulated me on my match. "You did everything right and ran your ass off. He was not a 3.5 player, maybe not even a 4.5 player. Juniors should not be allowed to self-rate. I don't know how this happened but it is something we need to address." Well, whatever, maybe the new 2020 rules will prevent juniors from playing in adult leagues. Also, maybe in the future they will address people playing on multiple teams locally (that compete with each other) to hedge their way to states/sectionals/nationals. But like I said at the very beginning, congratulations to TX on the win -- they earned it.

Someone asked about the finals singles earlier in the thread -- well, I only saw a few minutes of it but let's just say that the line 2 match was what you would expect to see at a state HS competition. Well, it was more like if you had a state top 5-10 guy play singles against a top 50-100 guy. Very clearly tennis at a much higher level than 3.5 on both ends but even then quite lopsided.

This was my first time going to Nationals and it was a great experience. Yeah, yeah, complain about USTA and how some teams game the system and what not. But in the end, there is good tennis to be had. I'd love to do it again, probably at another level!

 

[schmke]

I wonder if there are people that are qualifying for 3 or 4 nationals and going to then all. Got to be expensive and tiring.

Last year, I show 783(!) players were rostered on more than one Nationals team. 18 of these were rostered on four or more and one player was on 7! Note this is including Adult (18/40/55/65) and Mixed (18/40/55) so there are quite a few combinations someone can put together.

If I limit it to just Adult 18/40/55, the count drops to 322. And if just 18/40, then 249.

Of these 249 rostered, 141 actually played in multiple Nationals.

 

[BMRSNR27]

Okay, figured it was time to contribute to this thread as someone that actually competed at last weekend's 3.5 Nationals. First off, major congratulations and hats off to Texas on the win. They definitely brought a strong team and deserved to win, although you can see it was by a slim margin to the teams finishing 2 and 3. Skill was certainly not the only factor in winning -- other factors like the draw, player fatigue/injuries, lineup strategy vs. lineup strategy, luck, etc. could have easily given the title to any of the 4 teams that made it to Sunday. Now, many here have been complaining about shadiness, sandbagging, gray areas, etc. I get it, trust me I do. But, if they won within the context of the USTA rules so be it. The fault is with the rules and policing of them. Also, there are some within this thread that refuse to believe that there are significantly higher level players at a 'lowly' 3.5 event. Trust me, they were here. IMO, there were a couple TRUE 3.0s, many 3.5s, many 4.0s, some weak 4.5s, and a few strong 4.5s. By strong I mean that they would absolutely be able to complete in 4.5 tourneys at various places around the country. No doubt about it. Also, their dynamic ratings and UTRs many times poorly reflected their playing ability. Sometimes massively.

Facilities/Environment:

The facility was a good one (kind of the middle of nowhere within Sunrise, which feels like a retirement-focused distant suburb of Phoenix). They did a great job making sure they was plenty of ice and water for players and there were generally 2 trainers on site I believe (I never used them). While the pro-shop and what not was fine, there was only one bathroom facility and that only had a couple stalls/urinals/showers. So, more would have been nice although I never saw a traffic jam. Also, it would have been great if they setup many more canopies/shade areas or misting stations.

There were some food truck options on-site and plenty of restaurants within a couple minutes drive.

The courts were in great shape and were all generally slow playing. Interestingly, even within the courts there were noticeable differences in the amount of "grit" on the playing surfaces leading to slightly different play depending on the court. The lights were very bright and illuminated the courts well but some were angled in a way that could blind players. There were a few participants that even wore sunglasses at night to counter this.

Temperatures throughout the event ranged from 93-96 degrees F (air) with on-court temps well into the 100-110 range I am sure. There wasn't much wind in the 3 days and no clouds. Consistent with AZ weather, it was dry out...bone dry (<20% humidity). At least 2 participants were hospitalized for heat exhaustion/dehydration with many more experiencing cramping and other problems during the event. Participants from states that don't have year-round outdoor tennis complained about the conditions and some had issues with the transition from primarily indoor club play to playing outside. Oh well, not sure how you can complain about that. But maybe AZ/Vegas, etc. in October is not the best place for this sort of event.

Overall, the event was run reasonably well and stuck to schedule. I do think they should do full 3 sets for the semis and finals though.

Playing Experience:

I am not going to go into a ton of detail other than to say that I got 6 matches in, and, outside of TX, did well. The sleuths here can figure out who I am if they are so inclined, LOL. The TX singles lineup was strong throughout the tourney although their "ringer" primarily played line 3 dubs and I believe lost when he actually played singles (close match with 3rd set TB though). He was a good player but there were others on that team with 0.5 lower dynamic ratings that were considerably stronger IMO. Actually, not IMO...it was apparent to anyone.

Except for Sunday, I'd say that you didn't really see many great singles matches. Doubles there were some really fun matches all 3 days. So, I guess my takeaway is that there were just a handful of good singles players at the event but plenty of good doubles players. In general, the best singles players were young and fit and the best doubles players were older and likely wiser/more strategic. I guess that is a no-brainer.

Back to singles, I played against TX and it was clear there was no way I was winning the match. And, although scores don't reflect # of games that go to deuce, etc., I can happily say I played well even though I got rocked. I tried to mix up my game to counter his weapons (I unfortunately couldn't find a real weakness) but it didn't help. I didn't make an uncharacteristic amount of unforced errors and only had, I think, 2 double faults in the 2 sets. He had no issue hammering a very high-bouncing kicker to the backhand whereas just about everyone else I played couldn't figure out how to return my simple serve. So, I was simply outplayed by a player with greater capability. Funny though because after the match, a USTA official proactively approached me and congratulated me on my match. "You did everything right and ran your ass off. He was not a 3.5 player, maybe not even a 4.5 player. Juniors should not be allowed to self-rate. I don't know how this happened but it is something we need to address." Well, whatever, maybe the new 2020 rules will prevent juniors from playing in adult leagues. Also, maybe in the future they will address people playing on multiple teams locally (that compete with each other) to hedge their way to states/sectionals/nationals. But like I said at the very beginning, congratulations to TX on the win -- they earned it.

Someone asked about the finals singles earlier in the thread -- well, I only saw a few minutes of it but let's just say that the line 2 match was what you would expect to see at a state HS competition. Well, it was more like if you had a state top 5-10 guy play singles against a top 50-100 guy. Very clearly tennis at a much higher level than 3.5 on both ends but even then quite lopsided.

This was my first time going to Nationals and it was a great experience. Yeah, yeah, complain about USTA and how some teams game the system and what not. But in the end, there is good tennis to be had. I'd love to do it again, probably at another level!

Your singles scores outside of the Texas guy:

6-1, 6-0
6-3, 6-3
6-1, 6-0
6-1, 6-0
6-1, 6-3

You're a self-rated, first year USTA league player. I'm not surprised you think this is normal. Nor do I blame you. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but these scores are not normal at nationals for a player who has self-rated at the correct level.

 

[OnTheLine]

Temperatures throughout the event ranged from 93-96 degrees F (air) with on-court temps well into the 100-110 range I am sure. There wasn't much wind in the 3 days and no clouds. Consistent with AZ weather, it was dry out...bone dry (<20% humidity). At least 2 participants were hospitalized for heat exhaustion/dehydration with many more experiencing cramping and other problems during the event. Participants from states that don't have year-round outdoor tennis complained about the conditions and some had issues with the transition from primarily indoor club play to playing outside. Oh well, not sure how you can complain about that. But maybe AZ/Vegas, etc. in October is not the best place for this sort of event.

I had not realized that the Nats in AZ was a full 10 degrees hotter than Vegas. The 5.0 crowd that was here this weekend were gifted with absolutely perfect weather: mid-80Fs sunshine and just a whisper of a breeze. Bone dry as one expects.

Typically October in Vegas is ideal.

 

[TypeRx]

You're a self-rated, first year USTA league player. I'm not surprised you think this is normal. Nor do I blame you. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but these scores are not normal at nationals for a player who has self-rated at the correct level.

Nope, not at all. I completed the self-rate questions with complete honesty when I became a USTA member. I absolutely self-rated at the correct level. I have since worked heavily to improve my game and anticipate receiving a corresponding computer rating at the end of this year. Shoot, even since sectionals I have absolutely killed myself to improve.

Also, I am not sure why you state that I think this is "normal". I don't know what context you are using nor did I ever state anything in my post above about anything being normal (or using that word even).
**Update -- I think you meant that I think that me coasting through most of my matches was normal? It definitely was easier than I was expecting, especially compared with my sectionals which were more challenging. But, I believe my section is likely more difficult than most and that NTRPs are really not universal across the country, even if they are supposed to be.**

I will say this -- I would have appreciated more competitive matches across the board. Maybe next year...

Oh, and I do think that USTA has a lot of things to fix with their system, rules, etc. Maybe they don't want to though, I dunno.

 

[BMRSNR27]

Nope, not at all. I completed the self-rate questions with complete honesty when I became a USTA member. I absolutely self-rated at the correct level. I have since worked heavily to improve my game and anticipate receiving a corresponding computer rating at the end of this year. Shoot, even since sectionals I have absolutely killed myself to improve.

Also, I am not sure why you state that I think this is "normal". I don't know what context you are using nor did I ever state anything in my post above about anything being normal (or using that word even).
**Update -- I think you meant that I think that me coasting through most of my matches was normal? It definitely was easier than I was expecting, especially compared with my sectionals which were more challenging. But, I believe my section is likely more difficult than most and that NTRPs are really not universal across the country, even if they are supposed to be.**

I will say this -- I would have appreciated more competitive matches across the board. Maybe next year...

Oh, and I do think that USTA has a lot of things to fix with their system, rules, etc. Maybe they don't want to though, I dunno.

I apologize if my message came off as accusatory. It wasn’t intended that way.

My experience at nationals was that singles was very competitive with a few guys that didn’t belong at that level. That certainly played out that way this year. Doubles tends to be much more even, on level, which when you’ve worked hard as a 3.5 typically puts you at a low-mid 4.0 by nationals.

Anyway, congrats on your success there. Any more info on that Texas team would be appreciated since a bunch of them will be in OKC for nationals in a couple weeks!

 

[schmke]

But, if they won within the context of the USTA rules so be it. The fault is with the rules and policing of them.

Except they didn't win within the context of the rules.

This is straight out of the 2019 regulations:

1.04E(4) PlayerAgreement. All players participating in the USTA
League, as a condition of said participation, agree to abide and be bound
by the USTA Constitution and Bylaws; the USTA LEAGUE
REGULATIONS; the FRIEND AT COURT - The USTA Handbook of Tennis
Rules and Regulations including THE CODE and Wheelchair Rules of
Tennis (unless modified by these USTA LEAGUE REGULATIONS); and
the standards of good conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship.


Tanking matches to manipulate ratings is certainly not abiding by the standards of good conduct, fair play, and good sportsmanship.

I'll admit, the language here is not that specific, it could be much stronger, but you are correct regarding the policing of them. The USTA either refuses to police rules like this, or requires other players to file grievances and effectively discourages it by requiring payment to file one, and so we have the situation we are in.

Nope, not at all. I completed the self-rate questions with complete honesty when I became a USTA member. I absolutely self-rated at the correct level. I have since worked heavily to improve my game and anticipate receiving a corresponding computer rating at the end of this year. Shoot, even since sectionals I have absolutely killed myself to improve.

Honestly answering the questions is not necessarily correctly self-rating.

Again, from the regulations:

When players are rating themselves, if they question at which
level they should play, they should place themselves in the higher NTRP level of
play.

Note: Players who are good athletes or intend to spend a great deal of
time taking lessons and practicing should be aware that their
improvement may be significant enough to surpass their original self rating during the local league season or championship play. To avoid
NTRP Dynamic Disqualification, these players should enter at a higher
NTRP level of play at the beginning of the local league season.


The self-rating questionnaire identifies a minimum a player may self-rate at, that isn't necessarily the correct level to self-rate at.

Now, in your case, you say you worked on your game and improved so a credit to you for that. But given results, it doesn't appear 3.5 was the "correct" self-rating for you, just the one the rules allowed you to use.

Oh, and I do think that USTA has a lot of things to fix with their system, rules, etc. Maybe they don't want to though, I dunno.

I don't think they really want to fix them. National is too isolated from what goes one at the district and area level, and those coordinators aren't empowered to "do the right thing" as they don't think they'll be supported, and sections arguably have the incentive to cast a blind eye to these issues as it will make for a stronger team representing the section if they do nothing.

Yet we see participation in USTA League shrinking in many areas ...

 

[tennis_tater]

TypeRx, congrats on your semi final run and thanks for your comments and your honesty. I understand you believe you answered the questions honestly. Maybe you did and maybe you did make significant improvements in less than one years time. It’s just not normal for a player to start out the year as a 3.5 and then six months later describe himself as a strong 4.0/low 4.5 as you did in another post. I would also think it’s not normal for a 3.5 player who views himself as a strong 4.0/low 4.5 player to lose to another 3.5 rated player at nationals 0,2.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

1. You guys have no idea, there are teams at 4.0 that made a run for 3.5 nationals recently that lost every single line at 4.0 league play for 2 seasons on purpose to go for it. Another team beat them and represented Texas at 3.5. So imagine how interesting that 1st place team was if the 2nd place team was all former 4.0 rated players.

2. I have no doubt nationals was fun. But, was it fun dominating regular season matches? I mean, if you win pretty easily at nationals until the finals, how silly were regular season matches? If I played truly 3.5, and I was borderline 4.5, it would be annoying to say the least.

Although I believe you, worked to get better and are better at tennis as time went on. I don't get much joy out of beating people who aren't at my level. I will say the Texas teams relish every victory and especially nationals, even if they were playing against first year tennis players the joy would be the same. That's the disconnect, what I can't understand. I think some would even buy a trip to nationals if it was for sale.

 

[am1899]

Four self-rated players (one ineligible for Nationals), two of which were 4.5C in the past (4 and 5 years ago) and somehow managed to self-rate as 4.0 now

Just to clarify with respect to Texas...isn’t there a recent rule enacted that says players who sit out a couple years to let their rating expire must self rate at their highest previous computer rating?

 

[tennis_tater]

Just to clarify with respect to Texas...isn’t there a recent rule enacted that says players who sit out a couple years to let their rating expire must self rate at their highest previous computer rating?

Yes, there is that rule. But once you re rate at your former rating, you can then go through the appeal process. Some districts are more lenient on granting these medical appeals. Next thing you know, these players who purportedly have medical limitations find their ways on teams making runs for nationals and, come post season time, their medical limitations disappear and they are back playing at their former level.

 

[schmke]

Just to clarify with respect to Texas...isn’t there a recent rule enacted that says players who sit out a couple years to let their rating expire must self rate at their highest previous computer rating?

Yes, which is why I said "somehow".

There are provisions for someone to appeal their self-rating so that is the proper way to do it, but then someone in the Texas section actually approved said appeal and should be held accountable for granting appeals for players that end up being bumped up. The other "somehow" might be that TennisLink isn't enforcing this rule correctly and let them self-rate as 4.0s.

 

[TypeRx]

I apologize if my message came off as accusatory. It wasn’t intended that way.

Its all good. I'm a big boy/old man

Anyway, congrats on your success there. Any more info on that Texas team would be appreciated since a bunch of them will be in OKC for nationals in a couple weeks!

Wish I could help, but can't. Other than trying to predict their lineup and altering yours in your favor...not sure what else you can do. Best of luck!

Except they didn't win within the context of the rules.

Tanking matches to manipulate ratings is certainly not abiding by the standards of good conduct, fair play, and good sportsmanship.

I'll admit, the language here is not that specific, it could be much stronger, but you are correct regarding the policing of them. The USTA either refuses to police rules like this, or requires other players to file grievances and effectively discourages it by requiring payment to file one, and so we have the situation we are in.

Yup, USTA has to step up and do something if there is reasonable evidence they are not operating within the spirit of the rules. I will say I am still miffed how a 17 year old can play in an adult 18 and over league. But whatever...I operate on the motto that I can only control what I can control. The rule makers and enforcers definitely have some work to do. It's silly.

Now, in your case, you say you worked on your game and improved so a credit to you for that. But given results, it doesn't appear 3.5 was the "correct" self-rating for you, just the one the rules allowed you to use.

Look, I did not want my post to be about me but rather a trip report from someone actually there rather than people afar. Anyways, here goes. My situation is an unusual one perhaps. After a 20 year break from even picking up a tennis racket, I started playing and registered for USTA ~Nov 2017. I self rated completely accurately at the time. Did the questionnaire, watched the videos, looked at the NTRP guide, etc. I even played some non-USTA matches locally and won/lost like 50/50 with local "3.5" guys. Trust me, I was initially embarrassed and shocked at myself that I was only a 3.5, LOL. I tried to get on to a USTA league team immediately thereafter as well as a year later. But, I was never placed on a team or there was no interest to take me. I played in non USTA local leagues/ladders/WTT instead. But their rating systems aren't NTRP. I put in a ton of effort, lost a lot of weight (also dealt with a lot of injury), watched gobs of youtube videos, bought a ball machine, started playing regularly, and was steadily improving. Finally this spring I got picked up by a team and I kept working on my game. I played a few matches with the team at singles and won like 3 matches. I also joined a tri-level team and am 2-2 at the 3.5 level. This summer I played a USTA Open tourney and lost both matches to UTR 7 and 8 players and played another USTA tourney at 4.0 and lost in the first round. Then at league sectionals I won 3 matches to help get us to nationals. I have never nor will ever tank a match. Just like I will never purposely hook. This is rec tennis, there is no point to any of that.

So, whats the flaw? That my self rate lasted since Nov 2017? That I registered for USTA and couldn't get on a team? That I didn't get on a USTA team until this spring? That I didn't find time to play a USTA tourney until earlier this summer? I dunno...all I know is that I have played by the book. And, based on my results for this year, I will receive an appropriate computer rating for 2020. The powers that be can decide what that is.

TypeRx, congrats on your semi final run and thanks for your comments and your honesty. I understand you believe you answered the questions honestly. Maybe you did and maybe you did make significant improvements in less than one years time. It’s just not normal for a player to start out the year as a 3.5 and then six months later describe himself as a strong 4.0/low 4.5 as you did in another post.

I figured some of the sleuths here would go back through all my posts, maybe even look up my home address (j/k), etc. Look, I'm transparent and have nothing to hide.

First, my self rate which still stands is from 2017 through no control of my own. It is what it is. Today, if someone asks me to describe myself I believe I am a mid-range 4.0 player. On good days I can beat a "4.5" when he is a bit off and on normal days be very competitive with typical "4.0". The issue is that my terminology, although using what appears to be NTRP, isn't really USTA levels, at least not where I live. Trust me, playing a true USTA league 4.5 singles player in my area, I will get rocked. Shoot, same case with many of the computer USTA 4.0s. I got bageled by a local 4.0C just 2 weeks ago (single set). And, last winter I double bageled a TT member that told me he was "4.5 level". He was a 3.0-3.5 in my estimation when we actually started hitting. I played with a TT member this summer that is a UTR 8. In 2 sets he rocked me 6-1, 6-0. I also played with a TT Member "4.0" and beat him in straight sets...maybe 6-3, 6-1 (don't remember). Haha, so what is right in the end? I don't know. All I know is that I love this sport and prefer competitive matches. I get nothing from easy matches and would rather be completely out-played (and have to try and figure out a plan to gain ground) than steamroll. I was disappointed that my sectionals matches were noticeably harder than nationals matches!! And, I am not going to whine about getting rocked at nationals because the kid absolutely beat me silly. And, I have to have faith that USTA is doing their job or my option is simply not to participate in USTA events.

I would also think it’s not normal for a 3.5 player who views himself as a strong 4.0/low 4.5 player to lose to another 3.5 rated player at nationals 0,2.

Haha, definitely something we agree on!! I don't view myself as a 3.5 currently. But that is where I am at, for what its worth. And the guy that destroyed me, if I had to NTRP him he would be a mid-range 4.5...maybe better because I never pressured him enough to really see where he would fall apart. Would love to play with him again so I could get better. But then again I might have to drive him home after the match then.

 

[am1899]

So let’s see here...tanking matches, appealing ratings (when it isn’t justified), bending (or breaking) the rules, etc. for a whole season...just to spend a bunch of money to go to a far away place, tool all of your opponents, and go home with a title there’s no way you could lose? Where’s the fun in that?

 

[TypeRx]

1. You guys have no idea, there are teams at 4.0 that made a run for 3.5 nationals recently that lost every single line at 4.0 league play for 2 seasons on purpose to go for it. Another team beat them and represented Texas at 3.5. So imagine how interesting that 1st place team was if the 2nd place team was all former 4.0 rated players.

That is so lame. This is rec tennis. Adult rec tennis at that. None of us make any money doing this, right?

2. I have no doubt nationals was fun. But, was it fun dominating regular season matches? I mean, if you win pretty easily at nationals until the finals, how silly were regular season matches? If I played truly 3.5, and I was borderline 4.5, it would be annoying to say the least.

My local matches, especially sectionals, were more difficult than nationals!! I am telling you, the section I am in must be more competitive than others. Its as simple as that.

Although I believe you, worked to get better and are better at tennis as time went on. I don't get much joy out of beating people who aren't at my level. I will say the Texas teams relish every victory and especially nationals, even if they were playing against first year tennis players the joy would be the same. That's the disconnect, what I can't understand. I think some would even buy a trip to nationals if it was for sale.

Look, a national title would be cool and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want one. So, I can understand the desire TX has, but if what is purported throughout this thread is true, the methods are beyond shady.

In the end, I am 100% okay losing to someone as long as I gave it my all. While I can't say I played my absolute best in my TX singles match, I played well. Well enough to completely accept the result and walk away with no regret. Steamrolling someone is quite boring, especially when in 95 degree heat when you have another match in a couple hours and people around you are dropping to the ground screaming with seized up legs (true story).

 

[TypeRx]

So let’s see here...tanking matches, appealing ratings (when it isn’t justified), bending (or breaking) the rules, etc. for a whole season...just to spend a bunch of money to go to a far away place, tool all of your opponents, and go home with a title there’s no way you could lose? Where’s the fun in that?

Well, the only thing I'll say to this is that TX did not get that title without a fight. Honestly, 2nd and 3rd place could have easily gotten it if the surrounding circumstances were just slightly different.

 

[am1899]

Well, the only thing I'll say to this is that TX did not get that title without a fight. Honestly, 2nd and 3rd place could have easily gotten it if the surrounding circumstances were just slightly different.

Sure, maybe it was closer than some thought it would be. And kudos to those teams who made it less of a foregone conclusion for Texas.

Still, it’s a real shame - to see how low some teams are willing to go.

 

[schmke]

Yup, USTA has to step up and do something if there is reasonable evidence they are not operating within the spirit of the rules. I will say I am still miffed how a 17 year old can play in an adult 18 and over league. But whatever...I operate on the motto that I can only control what I can control. The rule makers and enforcers definitely have some work to do. It's silly.

Excellent attitude to have. One can try to be an advocate for change to improve things in the future, but once a match starts or the rules are established, just go play and do your best.

 

[am1899]

Good point @schmke.

 

[Vox Rationis]

I edited my statement before you replied that they are really not the same, the TX captain is obviously more shady. However, if you're a dynasty and your teams destroy virtually everyone in their path year after year, something shady is going on. You don't even need to look at statistics to figure it out. It's more than having a handful of above level players on your teams. It's having your entire team full of above level players. I mean, there have to be some 3-2 results somewhere yet they are almost nowhere to be found prior to Nationals for most of the guy's teams.

His Intermountain team went 38-2 combined in individual matches at 18+ and 40+ sectionals. Nothing to see here.

 

[Jack the Hack]

After a 20 year break from even picking up a tennis racket, I started playing and registered for USTA ~Nov 2017. I self rated completely accurately at the time.

I'm not going to beat you up on your self rating. I really appreciate your honestly and willingness to report your experiences from Nationals first hand. The only question I had was about the line above... what was your tennis background before you took the 20 year break?

Anyway, I can't bring myself to give any kudos or congratulations to the Texas 3.5 team for the way that they got their title. There is nothing honorable or sporting about cheating like this, and they don't deserve any respect. That captain and that club have been doing this for years, and the USTA has done absolutely nothing about it in my opinion. A few things that could help curb this:

• Ban self rated players from advancing to Sectionals or Nationals for their first year.
• Suspend captains or clubs from the USTA League for 3 years for ratings abuses.
• Fire/suspend USTA League coordinators or committee members that approve appeals for players that end up advancing into a certain level of DNTRP above where their appeal was granted. For example, if a 4.5 is allowed to appeal down to a 4.0, but then plays his way into a range 4.25 or above into the season, there should be consequences for the people that allowed this to happen. As it is, local and Sectional USTA personnel are almost incentivized to allow cheating because if teams from their Section do well, they get positive publicity. For example, I have no doubt that the Texas Section will be advertising heavily about their success having their (legit) 5.0 and (illegitimate) 3.5 team win the National USTA League title.

My favorite part of your Nationals overview was this: "Funny though because after the match, a USTA official proactively approached me and congratulated me on my match. "You did everything right and ran your ass off. He was not a 3.5 player, maybe not even a 4.5 player. Juniors should not be allowed to self-rate. I don't know how this happened but it is something we need to address.""

Perhaps if the USTA officials onsite at Nationals had the power to disqualify a player based on an obvious ratings abuse, that could also curb the problem. They used to do this when they had "visual verifiers" at the tournaments. I know that old solution had issues of subjectivity, but when someone is clearly two levels over where they should be (as that USTA official believed), then they should be able to do something about it.

(BTW, the comment above also tells me that the USTA official didn't think that you were out of line for a 3.5 player at Nationals... where most 3.5s should be playing at the top of the level/bottom of the 4.0 range. It sounds like he didn't see you as an outlier, but definitely felt that the Texas kid was.)

 

[2ndServe]

so the usta official thought this kid was possibly even a 5.0 player at 3.5 nationals?

 

[Vox Rationis]

A few things that could help curb this:

• Ban self rated players from advancing to Sectionals or Nationals for their first year.
• Suspend captains or clubs from the USTA League for 3 years for ratings abuses.
• Fire/suspend USTA League coordinators or committee members that approve appeals for players that end up advancing into a certain level of DNTRP above where their appeal was granted. For example, if a 4.5 is allowed to appeal down to a 4.0, but then plays his way into a range 4.25 or above into the season, there should be consequences for the people that allowed this to happen. As it is, local and Sectional USTA personnel are almost incentivized to allow cheating because if teams from their Section do well, they get positive publicity. For example, I have no doubt that the Texas Section will be advertising heavily about their success having their (legit) 5.0 and (illegitimate) 3.5 team win the National USTA League title.

1. I'm against banning self-rates just because I think it will drive people away from playing USTA. Numbers are already declining, I don't think reducing playing opportunities is the way to do this.

2. I think they already ban captains. When I first joined, there was a notorious captain in my area who recruited from around the state to form his teams. At the time I was told he'd been suspended for 1 year a couple years earlier for something related to how he recruited players. (Side story: In my 2nd year he emailed my captain and asked to join forces with my captain's top 6 players. My captain emailed us, the top 5 + himself, and we were like no let's not screw over the rest of the team.)

3. I think the real problem lies in your third point. Local, district, and sectional coordinators seeing it but not taking action. My old district actually took action against people they deemed to be cheating like the notorious captain. They actually took grievances and everything pretty seriously too. Rumor is Texas turns a blind eye.

 

[Tiafoe]

His Intermountain team went 38-2 combined in individual matches at 18+ and 40+ sectionals. Nothing to see here.

Yeah, his level of domination is eye opening. Even at Sectionals, going off memory here, but I think his teams usually go about 17-3 in matches there but sometimes even better than that. Someone on this site PM'ed me a couple years ago after I commented on the guy's domination and said his team played them and any self rated players they had were tanking games by double faulting them away so the scores looked closer.

 

[Tiafoe]

Going to Nationals is awesome (I went there a few years ago in 3.5), maybe even the pinnacle of some people's athletic history. If you get along with people on your team it's probably even better. It's also great to meet others that won their sections. I'm not sure it would be as euphoric if you were a part of something shady. I don't know, maybe it is. I don't understand it though.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Facilities/Environment:

The facility was a good one (kind of the middle of nowhere within Sunrise, which feels like a retirement-focused distant suburb of Phoenix). They did a great job making sure they was plenty of ice and water for players and there were generally 2 trainers on site I believe (I never used them). While the pro-shop and what not was fine, there was only one bathroom facility and that only had a couple stalls/urinals/showers. So, more would have been nice although I never saw a traffic jam. Also, it would have been great if they setup many more canopies/shade areas or misting stations.

There were some food truck options on-site and plenty of restaurants within a couple minutes drive.

The courts were in great shape and were all generally slow playing. Interestingly, even within the courts there were noticeable differences in the amount of "grit" on the playing surfaces leading to slightly different play depending on the court. The lights were very bright and illuminated the courts well but some were angled in a way that could blind players. There were a few participants that even wore sunglasses at night to counter this.

Temperatures throughout the event ranged from 93-96 degrees F (air) with on-court temps well into the 100-110 range I am sure. There wasn't much wind in the 3 days and no clouds. Consistent with AZ weather, it was dry out...bone dry (<20% humidity). At least 2 participants were hospitalized for heat exhaustion/dehydration with many more experiencing cramping and other problems during the event. Participants from states that don't have year-round outdoor tennis complained about the conditions and some had issues with the transition from primarily indoor club play to playing outside. Oh well, not sure how you can complain about that. But maybe AZ/Vegas, etc. in October is not the best place for this sort of event.

Overall, the event was run reasonably well and stuck to schedule. I do think they should do full 3 sets for the semis and finals though.

This is my home facility so good to read the feedback. Surfaces will fluctuate among courts because they resurface in groups. They were doing some just last week, so those would be very gritty compared to ones that had been done over a year ago. The brightest lights are the new LED setups on the outside courts. I have to wear a hat at night to shade my eyes, but having played many other AZ facility in leauges where you need nightvision, I'll take the brightness! lol. I have lost plenty an overhead ball in our lights though.

I was up watching a bit this weekend and agree it was an interesting mix of levels for 3.5.

 

[schmke]

I was up watching a bit this weekend and agree it was an interesting mix of levels for 3.5.

There's a loaded statement!

 

[TypeRx]

I'm not going to beat you up on your self rating. I really appreciate your honestly and willingness to report your experiences from Nationals first hand. The only question I had was about the line above... what was your tennis background before you took the 20 year break?

I played tennis in HS. I played #1-#3 singles sophomore-senior year at a MW public school (~750 in our graduating class) that was consistently on the weaker side for tennis (no state championships ever, etc.). I don't know my exact record but it was probably around .600 and I never advanced to state. After HS, I played on a co-ed team tennis team for one season but then dropped as I started working and couldn't balance that plus a very full school load. This was all in the early-mid 90s. Although I played here and there over the next few years, it was sporadic at best. I didn't participate in any leagues, belong to any clubs, etc. My rackets went into storage ~1998 and didn't resurface until mid-late 2017.

My favorite part of your Nationals overview was this: "Funny though because after the match, a USTA official proactively approached me and congratulated me on my match. "You did everything right and ran your ass off. He was not a 3.5 player, maybe not even a 4.5 player. Juniors should not be allowed to self-rate. I don't know how this happened but it is something we need to address.""

Perhaps if the USTA officials onsite at Nationals had the power to disqualify a player based on an obvious ratings abuse, that could also curb the problem. They used to do this when they had "visual verifiers" at the tournaments. I know that old solution had issues of subjectivity, but when someone is clearly two levels over where they should be (as that USTA official believed), then they should be able to do something about it.

(BTW, the comment above also tells me that the USTA official didn't think that you were out of line for a 3.5 player at Nationals... where most 3.5s should be playing at the top of the level/bottom of the 4.0 range. It sounds like he didn't see you as an outlier, but definitely felt that the Texas kid was.)

I was wondering why nobody else here picked up on that quote in my trip report post. I found it really telling, especially since the official (a She, not a He) approached me in a completely unsolicited manner. I was actually sitting somewhere away from the action with my teammates at the time. I was shocked to hear her use the term "junior" when she described the guy I had just played. I knew he was young but figured he was 19 or so. But then it began to make sense, especially when I saw his parents (probably my age or maybe just a couple years older than me) cheering him on during/after the match.

The official did make a separate comment that didn't seem true, so I didn't include it previously. She also indicated that anyone that makes the semis or finals will get bumped next year. I am absolutely fine with that (actually happy to get to a 4.0C), but I doubt it is true as almost everyone on my team at nationals has a dynamic rating (per TR) under 3.5. But we will see what the powers that be do.

so the usta official thought this kid was possibly even a 5.0 player at 3.5 nationals?

I think the quote from her above says it all. It was pretty clear. I don't think he was a 5.0, but solid 4.5 for sure. Maybe better, who knows. But at that point, what does it matter....

 

[JLyon]

maybe it is time to bring back visual verifiers at the Sectional and National Level, but for crying out loud at least look incognito so players won't all of a sudden forget how to play while they are watching.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I played tennis in HS. I played #1-#3 singles sophomore-senior year at a MW public school (~750 in our graduating class) that was consistently on the weaker side for tennis (no state championships ever, etc.). I don't know my exact record but it was probably around .600 and I never advanced to state. After HS, I played on a co-ed team tennis team for one season but then dropped as I started working and couldn't balance that plus a very full school load. This was all in the early-mid 90s. Although I played here and there over the next few years, it was sporadic at best. I didn't participate in any leagues, belong to any clubs, etc. My rackets went into storage ~1998 and didn't resurface until mid-late 2017.

I was wondering why nobody else here picked up on that quote in my trip report post. I found it really telling, especially since the official (a She, not a He) approached me in a completely unsolicited manner. I was actually sitting somewhere away from the action with my teammates at the time. I was shocked to hear her use the term "junior" when she described the guy I had just played. I knew he was young but figured he was 19 or so. But then it began to make sense, especially when I saw his parents (probably my age or maybe just a couple years older than me) cheering him on during/after the match.

The official did make a separate comment that didn't seem true, so I didn't include it previously. She also indicated that anyone that makes the semis or finals will get bumped next year. I am absolutely fine with that (actually happy to get to a 4.0C), but I doubt it is true as almost everyone on my team at nationals has a dynamic rating (per TR) under 3.5. But we will see what the powers that be do.

I think the quote from her above says it all. It was pretty clear. I don't think he was a 5.0, but solid 4.5 for sure. Maybe better, who knows. But at that point, what does it matter....

Not that you need my approval, but it totally sounds like your 3.5 self rating was legit. Congrats on the hard work and improvement, and for making it to the National semifinals so soon after coming back to the game!

The reason I was asking is because we had a couple guys in recent years that came back to tennis after 10-20 year layoffs that totally self rated wrong. One was a 2 time high school state champion and played on scholarship at a D1 school, and the other was a national junior college singles champion. They both "forgot" to include this on their self rate forms and got 4.0 ratings, and I'm glad to hear you weren't one of those type of guys.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Some more spice to this delicious league meal discussion. So representing Texasis hard, have to overcome Houston for 3.5-4.0. I think tanking at 4.5, 5.0, and 5.0+ isn't a Texas thing.

So, Houston has done this before....assembled a team of the best players in the city regardless of club or prior team. Impressive since usually a city has more than one captain trying to assemble a super team. But, yes, almost as much effort as college football recruiting on a smaller level including paying the usta member and league fees of desirable players.

 

[tennis_tater]

So, in looking at the Utah roster, I see they have a self rated player, who played three matches all year. Two matches locally in doubles, where the player lost more than 5 games. Then, at State, he played one singles match - losing five games. Nothing seems out of the ordinary for this player until you google him. He has a tennis recruiting profile which shows he graduated HS in/around 2013, had a very impressive high school tennis career, and had a Utah ranking of #2, a "Mountain" ranking of 5 and a National ranking of 258. Tennis Recruiting had him rated as a 3 star player. He has also played on BYU's club team where he has played at the USTA On Campus national championships this year.

Two questions:

1. Did this player self-rate appropriately? I'm not sure how accurate Tennis Recruiting is on player's rankings, but from my reading of the guidelines and his section and national ranking, it appears that this player, at a minimum,should have rated as a 5.0. From my experience playing league, I have found players with tennis recruiting ratings of 0-1 stars can play at the 4.0, level, while many 1-2 star players are typically HIGH 4.5 players. I've never played a 3 star recruit. But I would venture a guess that he's probably a HIGH 4.5 or 5.0.

2. Now that this player has qualified and is not subject to a NTRP Grievance, what are the odds that this player will play more matches at Nationals next week than he did for this team all season?

 

[OnTheLine]

So, in looking at the Utah roster, I see they have a self rated player, who played three matches all year. Two matches locally in doubles, where the player lost more than 5 games. Then, at State, he played one singles match - losing five games. Nothing seems out of the ordinary for this player until you google him. He has a tennis recruiting profile which shows he graduated HS in/around 2013, had a very impressive high school tennis career, and had a Utah ranking of #2, a "Mountain" ranking of 5 and a National ranking of 258. Tennis Recruiting had him rated as a 3 star player. He has also played on BYU's club team where he has played at the USTA On Campus national championships this year.

Two questions:

1. Did this player self-rate appropriately? I'm not sure how accurate Tennis Recruiting is on player's rankings, but from my reading of the guidelines and his section and national ranking, it appears that this player, at a minimum,should have rated as a 5.0. From my experience playing league, I have found players with tennis recruiting ratings of 0-1 stars can play at the 4.0, level, while many 1-2 star players are typically HIGH 4.5 players. I've never played a 3 star recruit. But I would venture a guess that he's probably a HIGH 4.5 or 5.0.

2. Now that this player has qualified and is not subject to a NTRP Grievance, what are the odds that this player will play more matches at Nationals next week than he did for this team all season?

Prior to Nationals starting why wouldn't he be subject to a grievance if filed immediately? Based on that data it is doubtful that he filled out the questionnaire honestly and got a 4.0 .....

The only thing that might not be a factor is the On Campus Nat championship .... it likely happened after he did the S rating.