USTA League Participation Numbers

[schmke]

I took a look at how many players are playing Adult leagues (advancing 18+, 40+, 55+, 65+) and it does appear there has been a small decline the past few years. From my analysis there were just over 2% fewer players in these leagues this year compared with 2013.

See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2015/12/2013-2015-usta-league-participation-by.html for more details.

 

[schmke]

Original image had the wrong labels. Fixed now. There are quite a few more women that play than men.

 

[OrangePower]

What I've observed here in Norcal is that there are more USTA leagues, but less participation in each league.

Five years ago, we had five leagues: Adult, Combo, Mixed, Senior (50+), and Senior Mixed. (We also had Super Senior 60+ and 65+, but that rarely clashes with anything else.)

Now, we have seven: Adult, Combo, Mixed, Adult 40+, Mixed 40+, Adult 55+, Mixed 55+. (And we also still have 2 older age group leagues, 65+ and 70+.)
Plus, USTA is pushing Trilevel (same-gender and mixed).

In order to fit the new leagues in, the seasons for the historical leagues were shortened. So that makes the historical leagues less appealing to some. Plus some players who are now participating in more leagues seem to at some point experience league burn-out. And of course, there is more pressure on those brave souls who are willing to captain, since they rarely get a break any more.

In a way it's chicken-and-egg: It seems that with all the new age-group leagues that were added, USTA is catering more and more to the older demographic, which makes sense if that's the demographic USTA thinks is most interested in league. But at the same time there are fewer league opportunities for younger players, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[schmke]

Broke it out by the 18+, 40+, and 55+ divisions. See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2015/12/2013-2015-usta-league-participation-by_20.html

Interestingly, 18+ has the largest number of unique players as you'd expect, and it is actually down over 3% since 2013, but 40+ and 55+ are both up over the same period. I don't have the data, but I'm guessing the average age of USTA League players is going up.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

anectdotally, it seems like folks I play (ntrp 4.5-5.0, age 30-40's, 2.5 kids, etc...) are migrating away from usta due to logistics. oft times cite "can't get to a match because I work in the city (nyc)", and prefer interclub leagues at a private club which is usually more flexible, tournaments, or just rely on their circle of contacts to keep the (tennis) workouts going.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Played in a doubles tourney a couple weekends ago,... where the first/only match was the finals
Was talking to the tournament director, and he was lamenting over the decline of participation since the 80's, when it was common to have 64 person draws...

my first sad thought during this convo was, "am i putting all my efforts trying to master a dying sport"?

We discussed the why's.. and hypothesized:
* tennis on the decline (eg. 80's, one in five adults played tennis, whereas now one in twenty play...)
* too many other activities for adults to participate in (marathons, obstacle races, cross fit training, (public) golf, better tv, etc...)
* dads much more involved with family time
* lack of americans in the top 10
* game has gotten too fast (80's tennis look attainable by the average person,... these days the tour guys are physical specimen's and the technique needs to be learned)

any other ideas? or perhaps are my perceptions wrong (and tennis participation is the same and/or increasing)?

 

[schmke]

All valid points. I think your 2nd and 4th points are the big ones, although it is really the effects of the lack of Americans in the top-10 for the last 10-15 years and lack of a grand slam champion that we are seeing now, as I don't think teens played tennis as much during that period because there was no tennis hero to follow and emulate and they have a lot of other sports to occupy them. Fewer tennis playing the past 10-15 years means fewer 20 and 30 somethings playing now. Those that grew up in the 80's when we had the plethora of Americans playing are still playing but are that bubble of 40+ now that has caused that league to grow.

In a way, the USTA recognized this and created the 40+ league to appeal to them which was good for these members and good for the USTA's coffers, but at some point that bubble is going to move on and needs to be replaced.

 

[Adles]

If I were in charge... I'd get rid of all age brackets and have more ability brackets (In NH, all men are cramped into 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5). Our schedules are compressed to make room in the calendar for the over-40s, so the seasons are shorter, but there is a very big disparity in abilities within each level. As a result, we only have seven or eight matches in a season and some of those matches are sure to be not competitive. Therefore it seems to me like a lot of cost, trouble, and driving for only a very few good matches per season.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

All valid points. I think your 2nd and 4th points are the big ones, although it is really the effects of the lack of Americans in the top-10 for the last 10-15 years and lack of a grand slam champion that we are seeing now, as I don't think teens played tennis as much during that period because there was no tennis hero to follow and emulate and they have a lot of other sports to occupy them. Fewer tennis playing the past 10-15 years means fewer 20 and 30 somethings playing now. Those that grew up in the 80's when we had the plethora of Americans playing are still playing but are that bubble of 40+ now that has caused that league to grow.

In a way, the USTA recognized this and created the 40+ league to appeal to them which was good for these members and good for the USTA's coffers, but at some point that bubble is going to move on and needs to be replaced.

Ironically I find the 40+ teams stronger than the 18s...
and the 18's are typically the same as the 40's team, with a few more 30 somethings...

I definitely don't see kids playing on their own like I used to as a kid. I remember "playing" on the platform courts or on the wall, or even volleying over a fence, while waiting for a real court to play on.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

If I were in charge... I'd get rid of all age brackets and have more ability brackets (In NH, all men are cramped into 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5). Our schedules are compressed to make room in the calendar for the over-40s, so the seasons are shorter, but there is a very big disparity in abilities within each level. As a result, we only have seven or eight matches in a season and some of those matches are sure to be not competitive. Therefore it seems to me like a lot of cost, trouble, and driving for only a very few good matches per season.

that's where I thought the UTR rating would help... since we don't have enough folks playing to fill a single category (eg. men's open)... combine everyone, so folks can find challenges of similar level (regardless of age, sex, etc...).

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Played in a doubles tourney a couple weekends ago,... where the first/only match was the finals
Was talking to the tournament director, and he was lamenting over the decline of participation since the 80's, when it was common to have 64 person draws...

my first sad thought during this convo was, "am i putting all my efforts trying to master a dying sport"?

We discussed the why's.. and hypothesized:
* tennis on the decline (eg. 80's, one in five adults played tennis, whereas now one in twenty play...)
* too many other activities for adults to participate in (marathons, obstacle races, cross fit training, (public) golf, better tv, etc...)
* dads much more involved with family time
* lack of americans in the top 10
* game has gotten too fast (80's tennis look attainable by the average person,... these days the tour guys are physical specimen's and the technique needs to be learned)

any other ideas? or perhaps are my perceptions wrong (and tennis participation is the same and/or increasing)?

I remember this commercial on the Tennis Channel with 2 kids waiting outside a court. Mr. Clipboard comes out an announces their names and they spring up a make a mad dash for the court, as if it's going to disappear if they don't claim it.

Such was the excitement back then [of playing tennis or being a kid or both].

My thinking ran mostly along the lines of "lack of Americans in the top 10". All of the other reasons are more or less true in other countries but have they seen a similar decline?

I heard about the "game too fast" hypothesis but I don't agree. I didn't pick up the game because I thought I was going to be a pro: I picked it up because I enjoyed it. If that logic was true, no kid would ever pick up ANY sport because all sports have progressed to a greater or lesser degree. Look how much taller and athletic BB players are? 6' 9" dudes playing GUARD? In a bygone era they would have been relegated to playing center. Or these 270lb football players who can move like Baryshnikov [albeit a very large Baryshnikov]?

Me? I want to see excellent tennis. Their country of birth or citizenship matters little to me. Did I love watching Sampras battle it out with Agassi? Heck yeah! Just as I enjoy watching Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray [whose countries all begin with "S"; must be a conspiracy], etc.

 

[penpal]

that's where I thought the UTR rating would help... since we don't have enough folks playing to fill a single category (eg. men's open)... combine everyone, so folks can find challenges of similar level (regardless of age, sex, etc...).

Frankly, I'm stunned at the lack of interest in UTR displayed by members of this forum ... and in the lack of interest in combining men's and women's rating in general. It seems like such a no-brainer solution to significantly increase the sheer volume of potentially evenly matched competitors.

I mean, as the NTRP rating system stands right now, we are essentially taking half the tennis-playing population at several rating levels and saying, "Nope, you can't play with/against them because they have different genitalia."

 

[OrangePower]

Frankly, I'm stunned at the lack of interest in UTR displayed by members of this forum ... and in the lack of interest in combining men's and women's rating in general. It seems like such a no-brainer solution to significantly increase the sheer volume of potentially evenly matched competitors.

I mean, as the NTRP rating system stands right now, we are essentially taking half the tennis-playing population at several rating levels and saying, "Nope, you can't play with/against them because they have different genitalia."

Probably because the concept of a gender-neutral rating has been brought up and discussed several times in the past already.

Most people agree that it's a good idea in theory. Most also think that there is no way USTA is going to go in this direction, for a variety of reasons. So it's pretty moot.

If you want to find like-level opponents regardless of gender for play outside of USTA, then you can standardize by just subtracting 0.5 from womens' ratings as a reasonable approximation.

 

[DuckServe]

1. Economics. Americans are getting poorer. Tennis takes a lot of time and money to get kids started and if you don't have courts readily available to you, you can't play.

2. Family structure. Most American families have both parents working now compared to 30 years ago.

3. Obesity and aging population. Both can't play well for tennis.

In many parts of the world, tennis is considered a $$$ sport. It's no soccer.

 

[DuckServe]

10 characters.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

1. Economics. Americans are getting poorer.

It would be interesting to do a study that filters participation by income. I saw a distribution of ham radio licenses and there was an obvious correlation.

But if this were the reason, then does the data show that Americans who are getting richer are playing MORE tennis?

Tennis takes a lot of time and money to get kids started and if you don't have courts readily available to you, you can't play.

But is this more of a factor now than during, say, the 90s when Agassi and Sampras were on top?

Also, it doesn't take a lot of time and money: that's for the parents who want junior to play Juniors and get a college scholarship. For kids who just want to have fun, a cheapo racquet is, well, cheap. Courts are the big factor.

2. Family structure. Most American families have both parents working now compared to 30 years ago.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown by age groups. If your hypothesis was true, the data would show significant decline among households with both parents working outside the home but not among other age groups.

Also, it's a misnomer to call a stay-at-home mom "not working". When I see how much time and effort my sister puts in with her kids, it makes me appreciate all that our mom did for us.

3. Obesity and aging population. Both can't play well for tennis.

The Baby Boom was the last very large bulge in the demographic. One could argue the population as a whole has been aging since the late 50s or early 60s when the BB ended [there was an echo boom I think in Gen Y]. But that didn't stop the popularity of the game in the 90s.

Japan has the oldest population among the G8 and I'm pretty sure that Nishikori's success has boosted interest. I believe Italy is the 2nd oldest in the G8 and I'm sure Vinci, Errani, Schiavone, Fognini, Bolleli have their followers. If aging population was a factor, interest should be declining in these 2 countries particularly.

As for obesity, I'm not sure how long that's been trending up and by what degree.

In many parts of the world, tennis is considered a $$$ sport. It's no soccer.

In which part of the world is it NOT? When I was a lad, tennis and golf were always $ sports. Anyone could get a BB or soccer [sorry, football for everyone else] or baseball game together but tennis was a lot harder. And then there's the image projected about everyone having to be quiet at a tennis match or wearing all white and bowing to the queen or having attendants carry your towels, etc.

I wonder if tennis is surging in popularity in Russia, despite all of the above factors, because of the success of all of the Russians in the last 5-10 years? How many converts are there in Switzerland due to Federer or in Scotland due to Murray or Serbia due to Djokovic or Spain due to Nadal [although, to be fair, Spain already had a very strong tennis culture before Nadal]. Maybe Kyrgios and Tomic in Australia or Pospisil, Raonic, and Bouchard in Canada will spark interest in their home countries.

Maybe schmke can branch out his analysis!

 

[schmke]

Maybe schmke can branch out his analysis!

Would love to! But need the raw data

FWIW, I have heard from somewhere that more than 3/4 of USTA League players are age 40 or higher. That would at least partially explain the growth of the 40+ and 55+ leagues while 18+ shrinks.

 

[penpal]

Probably because the concept of a gender-neutral rating has been brought up and discussed several times in the past already.

Most people agree that it's a good idea in theory. Most also think that there is no way USTA is going to go in this direction, for a variety of reasons. So it's pretty moot.

If you want to find like-level opponents regardless of gender for play outside of USTA, then you can standardize by just subtracting 0.5 from womens' ratings as a reasonable approximation.

Fair points as to why the seeming lack of interest about the subject in this community.

Still, it is inherently odd if "most people agree that it's a good idea" and yet "there is no way USTA is going to go in this direction." I realize that is only your opinion and shouldn't be taken as a statement from the USTA, but it's still telling.

Why wouldn't the USTA listen to its membership? If most members really did want gender-neutral ratings/leagues, what would the USTA have to gain by refusing to make such a change and going against the will of most members? Especially as such a change would likely result in increased league options and increased league participation - and increased $$ for USTA.

While you may be correct OrangePower, I would humbly submit that the reason gender-neutral ratings/leagues don't currently exist is because either most USTA members are against the idea or, more likely IMO, there hasn't been a groundswell of demand such as to push the USTA to make a change (ambivalence). I think among the values a forum like this provides is that it can act as a central organizing point for USTA members dispersed throughout the country. If there were a strong current of support displayed here, USTA members from around the country would begin discussing the topic and generating a broader buzz - and eventually, if there were enough support, the USTA would be forced to listen.

Or, maybe the idea will just remain something most of us would like to see happen, but because Tennis People [are] Controlled and Manipulated by the Tennis Establishment it will never come to pass .

And sure, I can setup a match here of there with women who are rated 0.5 higher than me. But that's only a very partial solution and doesn't solve the problem of adequate numbers of players to establish leagues in which most players are competitively matched, and more importantly, the sexist rating system that is currently in place.

 

[J_R_B]

Fair points as to why the seeming lack of interest about the subject in this community.

Still, it is inherently odd if "most people agree that it's a good idea" and yet "there is no way USTA is going to go in this direction." I realize that is only your opinion and shouldn't be taken as a statement from the USTA, but it's still telling.

Why wouldn't the USTA listen to its membership? If most members really did want gender-neutral ratings/leagues, what would the USTA have to gain by refusing to make such a change and going against the will of most members? Especially as such a change would likely result in increased league options and increased league participation - and increased $$ for USTA.

While you may be correct OrangePower, I would humbly submit that the reason gender-neutral ratings/leagues don't currently exist is because either most USTA members are against the idea or, more likely IMO, there hasn't been a groundswell of demand such as to push the USTA to make a change (ambivalence). I think among the values a forum like this provides is that it can act as a central organizing point for USTA members dispersed throughout the country. If there were a strong current of support displayed here, USTA members from around the country would begin discussing the topic and generating a broader buzz - and eventually, if there were enough support, the USTA would be forced to listen.

Or, maybe the idea will just remain something most of us would like to see happen, but because Tennis People [are] Controlled and Manipulated by the Tennis Establishment it will never come to pass .

And sure, I can setup a match here of there with women who are rated 0.5 higher than me. But that's only a very partial solution and doesn't solve the problem of adequate numbers of players to establish leagues in which most players are competitively matched, and more importantly, the sexist rating system that is currently in place.

I disagree that most people think it's a good idea. That was just one opinion.

 

[OrangePower]

What I meant was that I think most people on this forum think it would be a good idea to have a gender-neutral rating. However this forum is not representative of USTA players as a whole, and I don't think most people in the broader USTA community think it's a good idea. Most people in this forum are pretty sophisticated in terms of understanding NTRP and how it works, whereas you'd be surprised at how clueless the typical USTA player is regarding the whole topic.

What gave me the impression that most on the forum like the idea is based on the discussion in several threads we've had about the topic. Of course that's hardly a scientific study

 

[J_R_B]

What I meant was that I think most people on this forum think it would be a good idea to have a gender-neutral rating. However this forum is not representative of USTA players as a whole, and I don't think most people in the broader USTA community think it's a good idea. Most people in this forum are pretty sophisticated in terms of understanding NTRP and how it works, whereas you'd be surprised at how clueless the typical USTA player is regarding the whole topic.

What gave me the impression that most on the forum like the idea is based on the discussion in several threads we've had about the topic. Of course that's hardly a scientific study

There were only a couple very vocal advocates (or one really) of gender-neutral ratings. That would pretty much kill higher level mixed leagues because of the inequality in the gender distribution of ratings over a certain level, so anyone who enjoys playing mixed (above 7.0) should be against this.

 

[schmke]

There were only a couple very vocal advocates (or one really) of gender-neutral ratings. That would pretty much kill higher level mixed leagues because of the inequality in the gender distribution of ratings over a certain level, so anyone who enjoys playing mixed (above 7.0) should be against this.

You make a valid point that the nature of Mixed would change, but I hardly think anything above 7.0 would die off. There are certainly enough 4.0 women (who would likely become 3.5s) to play with 4.5 men in 8.0 Mixed leagues. And in many areas there are 4.5 women (who would become 4.0s presumably) that could play with 5.0 men in 9.0 Mixed leagues.

So does it shrink the upper levels of Mixed some? Sure. But it wouldn't kill them off. And the advantage would be that the pairings become more balanced. The 4.5/3.5 or 5.0/4.0 pairs I mention above would indeed be just 2 levels apart rather than effectively 3 levels apart we get today with those pairings.

Of course, I still think there is merit to making Mixed leagues all x.5 where the players cannot be more than a single level apart, e.g. a 7.5 league can only have 4.0/3.5 or 3.5/4.0 pairs (or could allow 3.5/3.5 to play up). This would make it even more balanced. This does not require gender-neutral ratings and is arguably an alternative to them for Mixed to balance pairings and play.

 

[penpal]

There were only a couple very vocal advocates (or one really) of gender-neutral ratings. That would pretty much kill higher level mixed leagues because of the inequality in the gender distribution of ratings over a certain level, so anyone who enjoys playing mixed (above 7.0) should be against this.

I honestly don't understand this argument. How would a gender-neutral rating system kill mixed leagues above 7.0? In other words, how would a gender-neutral rating system prevent men and women from establishing a league that requires teams made up of one man/one woman, and that each team's combined rating must fall within a given rating range?

It seems to me this would still be eminently doable.

Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, to achieve a gender-neutral rating system all current women's rating were bumped down 0.5 (Mind you, I don't think this is the best way to achieve a gender-neutral rating system, but again - for the sake of simplicity). So, every current 4.0 woman is now rated 3.5, every 3.5 is now rated 3.0 ... and so on.

Why couldn't the newly minted 3.5 women still play with 4.0 men in a mixed league? Sure, instead of labeling it an 8.0 league they might have to label it 7.5, but how does that really change the reality of the people playing in the league?

In a 9.0 mixed league now you might have a team made up of a 5.0 man and a 4.0 woman. And because a woman's rating doesn't actually equate to a man's rating using NTRP, that woman is the equivalent of, let's say, a 3.25-3.5 man. Clearly, there is no problem allowing wide playing ability discrepancies in the current league structure. My point is, no matter the rating system there is nothing to prevent leagues being established that allow for large discrepancies in playing ability - just like they are now - if that's what people want.

 

[penpal]

You make a valid point that the nature of Mixed would change, but I hardly think anything about 7.0 would die off. There are certainly enough 4.0 women (who would likely become 3.5s) to play with 4.5 men in 8.0 Mixed leagues. And in many areas there are 4.5 women (who would become 4.0s presumably) that could play with 5.0 men in 9.0 Mixed leagues.

So does it shrink the upper levels of Mixed some? Sure. But it wouldn't kill them off. And the advantage would be that the pairings become more balanced. The 4.5/3.5 or 5.0/4.0 pairs I mention above would indeed be just 2 levels apart rather than effectively 3 levels apart we get today with those pairings.

Of course, I still think there is merit to making Mixed leagues all x.5 where the players cannot be more than a single level apart, e.g. a 7.5 league can only have 4.0/3.5 or 3.5/4.0 pairs (or could allow 3.5/3.5 to play up). This would make it even more balanced. This does not require gender-neutral ratings and is arguably an alternative to them for Mixed to balance pairings and play.

Ok, that helped clarify things for me a bit.

J_R_B, if how schmke understood your post is accurate, then I think the confusion centers around the misconception that a change in the rating system wouldn't be accompanied by a change in league labeling. That is, while 9.0 mixed leagues might become a thing of the past, the same players who played in them would still be able to play together in leagues, the leagues just might need to be re-labeled as 8.5 mixed leagues. Although, that's another reason to like UTR - it just gets rid of the NTRP labels altogether, which I think would be needed.

Having said that, I like schmke's idea of improved balanced pairings even better.

 

[mmk]

Frankly, I'm stunned at the lack of interest in UTR displayed by members of this forum ... and in the lack of interest in combining men's and women's rating in general. It seems like such a no-brainer solution to significantly increase the sheer volume of potentially evenly matched competitors.

I mean, as the NTRP rating system stands right now, we are essentially taking half the tennis-playing population at several rating levels and saying, "Nope, you can't play with/against them because they have different genitalia."

I play in two men's 3.5-4.0 singles leagues at my club, one on Monday nights, the other Thursday nights. When the tennis coordinator had a hard time getting enough guys for the Monday summer session I suggested checking with 4.0-4.5 women. Unfortunately none were interested. It wouldn't have bothered me to lose to a woman, I'd rather do that than play the same three guys over and over again.

 

[kevrol]

I would think there are a lot of folks who wouldn't want to play with members of the opposite sex. IMO it would lead less people to play rather than more if the divisions based on sex done away with. Personally I know a ton of guys now that have no desire to play mixed and wouldn't play USTA at all if not for men's leagues.

 

[penpal]

I would think there are a lot of folks who wouldn't want to play with members of the opposite sex. IMO it would lead less people to play rather than more if the divisions based on sex done away with. Personally I know a ton of guys now that have no desire to play mixed and wouldn't play USTA at all if not for men's leagues.

But the division's based on sex wouldn't need to be done away with. Simply, new opportunities would be created.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Another thought,... maybe the gender-neutral-based leagues via utr, is really just a bandaid for declining participation.
If we still had dozens of people playing at every level, both genders, the discussion of merging genders would never come up (since there's more than enough competition to go around).

 

[OrangePower]

I would think there are a lot of folks who wouldn't want to play with members of the opposite sex. IMO it would lead less people to play rather than more if the divisions based on sex done away with. Personally I know a ton of guys now that have no desire to play mixed and wouldn't play USTA at all if not for men's leagues.

I am one of those guys who under the current system has zero desire to play mixed. But it's not because I have any problem playing with or against women, whether it be doubles or singles. Rather, the problem is that the current mixed structure allows for pairings that are extremely unbalanced in terms of actual play level, and I just don't enjoy that. As others have already pointed out, one side effect of having gender neutral ratings is that it would reduce the actual gap between mixed partners. So in today's world 8.0 mixed can have a 4.5 guy and a 3.5 gal who is actually equivalent to a 3.0 guy, with unified ratings, you'd have at worst a 4.5 guy playing with a 'real' 3.5 lady (equivalent to what is today a 4.0 lady). So, someone like myself would actually be more inclined to play mixed in this scenario.

 

[J_R_B]

I honestly don't understand this argument.

Of course you don't. LOL.

 

[J_R_B]

You make a valid point that the nature of Mixed would change, but I hardly think anything above 7.0 would die off. There are certainly enough 4.0 women (who would likely become 3.5s) to play with 4.5 men in 8.0 Mixed leagues. And in many areas there are 4.5 women (who would become 4.0s presumably) that could play with 5.0 men in 9.0 Mixed leagues.

So does it shrink the upper levels of Mixed some? Sure. But it wouldn't kill them off. And the advantage would be that the pairings become more balanced. The 4.5/3.5 or 5.0/4.0 pairs I mention above would indeed be just 2 levels apart rather than effectively 3 levels apart we get today with those pairings.

Of course, I still think there is merit to making Mixed leagues all x.5 where the players cannot be more than a single level apart, e.g. a 7.5 league can only have 4.0/3.5 or 3.5/4.0 pairs (or could allow 3.5/3.5 to play up). This would make it even more balanced. This does not require gender-neutral ratings and is arguably an alternative to them for Mixed to balance pairings and play.

It's just a numbers game. If you require who are within a half level of the men's rating, then at 4.0 and above there will be at least 4 or 5 guys for every woman. It's great for women, but good luck finding a team if you're a guy. The solution is to artificially re-establish the equality of the distribution of ratings to even out the number of men & women (maybe by pairing 4.0-4.5 guys with 3.0-3.5 women or something), but that seems like a really convoluted way to restate the women's ratings back to 4.0-4.5 where they were and calling it 9.0.

BTW, the issue is the opposite at the lower end, where in something like 6.0, you'll have half the women's playing population paired with 15% or something of the men.

 

[penpal]

Of course you don't. LOL.

Not sure I understand the reason for your snark, but whatever. I'd argue you pretty clearly don't understand my argument either.

You have stated before that you like the wide discrepancies in playing ability that Mixed offers. I argue that there is nothing inherent in a gender-neutral system that would prevent the creation of leagues that allow for wide discrepancies in playing abilities.

Let me make that point more clear. Let's say John and Jane are a Mixed team. John is a 5.0 and Jane is a 4.0 and they play on a Mixed 9.0 team. Now, let's say a gender-neutral system is implemented and, again for the sake of simplicity, we'll just implement a system whereby every woman is bumped down 0.5 and we continue to use NTRP rating numbers. So now Jane is a 3.5. What is to prevent the establishment of an 8.5 Mixed league, in which John and Jane are still able to play together? Nothing, obviously. Those of you who like to play with/against people who are vastly different in ability level can still have your fun.

In other words, the impact on Mixed is non-existent. Higher rated men would still be able to play Mixed in exactly the same manner they do currently, and have exactly the same amount of Mixed playing opportunity.

Ok, so you might say (and I think you have said in another thread), "Fine, but then what's the point of changing the rating system to be gender neutral?"

Well, let's look at another hypothetical woman - we'll call her Joan. Joan is a 4.5 in the current system. In her area there are barely enough women to put together two 4.5 women's teams. In fact, some years they aren't able to do so and so USTA league play is sporadic, and even when it happens it's just the two teams playing each other over and over again. But enter a gender-neutral system and Joan (and the rest of the 4.5 women) all are now 4.0-rated players and can play in the abundant 4.0 leagues that are made of up of both men and women. Maybe the men used to have enough players to put together four teams, but now with the addition of new blood they can put together 5-6 teams. Everybody is pretty evenly rated, so a good time is had by all.

Or, maybe there are still only enough 4.0s to put together four teams because some of the men were only moved up to 4.0 by the USTA because more 4.0 men were needed to create a viable 4.0 league. Well, now that there are plenty of 4.0 players, those men can be bumped back down to 3.5, which is the correct level for them based on their playing ability. So, by combining men and women you end up with more competitive levels - less disparity of playing ability within each level.

Uh oh, but what about the guys who want to play in a men's-only 4.0 league? They're screwed now right? I mean some of the men were bumped down to 3.5 (where they actually belong) and so can't play in the 4.0 league.

Hold on a tick - sure they can. USTA allows people to play up all the time. Or, alternatively, the men's league could just change its designation to 7.5. Problem solved.

At the end of the day, the numbers used for ratings and league formats are just arbitrary. No rating system prevents leagues from being formed in whatever way players prefer. What a gender-neutral system would do, however, is significantly expand the number of players in most levels. In doing so, it would also promote more balance of playing ability within each level (players of different abilities wouldn't have to be forced into the same level in an effort to have enough players within a level to form leagues). And, most importantly, it would place women on an equal footing with men.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

Off topic post but i was curious if anyone or @schmke had data of the percentage of total USTA matches won by losing both singles courts and winning all 3 doubles courts?

 

[schmke]

Working on it!

 

[schmke]

Thinking about this reminded me I'd written on a similar subject in the past. Specifically, the winning percentage by court for the winning team. See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-interesting-usta-league-stats.html for what I wrote a couple of years ago.

At that time, the numbers were:

Court Winning %
1S 72.9
2S 73.8
1D 74.9
2D 76.2
3D 75.5

I just looked at the same numbers for 18+ and 40+ matches that were 2 singles / 3 doubles that were part of the 2015 championship year.

Court Winning %
1S 72.1
2S 72.7
1D 73.4
2D 75.0
3D 74.0

So the numbers have changed a bit, but generally the same trend. The winning team wins doubles more than singles and 2D is won the most.

Working on more, a new blog coming soon.

 

[dgold44]

I would only guess that tennis participation is low in every country but maybe higher in Spain and France ??

Most Americans don't watch tennis unless it's maybe Wimbledon or US open final

 

[Startzel]

Do you guy really think a .5 would be enough?

In my area, it would have to be a full point.

 

[schmke]

Thinking about this reminded me I'd written on a similar subject in the past. Specifically, the winning percentage by court for the winning team. See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-interesting-usta-league-stats.html for what I wrote a couple of years ago.

At that time, the numbers were:

Court Winning %
1S 72.9
2S 73.8
1D 74.9
2D 76.2
3D 75.5

I just looked at the same numbers for 18+ and 40+ matches that were 2 singles / 3 doubles that were part of the 2015 championship year.

Court Winning %
1S 72.1
2S 72.7
1D 73.4
2D 75.0
3D 74.0

So the numbers have changed a bit, but generally the same trend. The winning team wins doubles more than singles and 2D is won the most.

Working on more, a new blog coming soon.

Back to the original question on what percentage of matches are won by winning the doubles courts while losing the singles.

For 2015 championship year matches in 18+ and 40+ where the format was 2 singles and 3 doubles, 5.9% of matches were won 3-2 winning the doubles and losing the singles.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

Back to the original question on what percentage of matches are won by winning the doubles courts while losing the singles.

For 2015 championship year matches in 18+ and 40+ where the format was 2 singles and 3 doubles, 5.9% of matches were won 3-2 winning the doubles and losing the singles.

Thanks for the stat. 5-10% is where i expected it to be. Alot of teams like to strategize their doubles courts but it goes to show that at least 'splitting' the singles courts is key in big matches or you might be on the wrong side of the 5.9%.

 

[schmke]

Thanks for the stat. 5-10% is where i expected it to be. Alot of teams like to strategize their doubles courts but it goes to show that at least 'splitting' the singles courts is key in big matches or you might be on the wrong side of the 5.9%.

Yep, my 40+ team was stronger on doubles last year (76% vs 50%), but we didn't have a team win that didn't have a singles win. We won at least 2 doubles courts every match but one, and swept the doubles 3 times, but when we swept we always won a singles court too.

 

[schmke]

And FWIW, if the 16 potential winning permutations were evenly distributed, a 3-2 win with all the doubles courts would be 6.25%. So it appears to happen slightly less often than you might expect. This is probably more because a team strong enough to win all 3 doubles courts probably has at least one decent singles guy and/or a team weak enough to lose all the doubles courts probably has at least one weak singles player.

 

[Startzel]

And FWIW, if the 16 potential winning permutations were evenly distributed, a 3-2 win with all the doubles courts would be 6.25%. So it appears to happen slightly less often than you might expect. This is probably more because a team strong enough to win all 3 doubles courts probably has at least one decent singles guy and/or a team weak enough to lose all the doubles courts probably has at least one weak singles player.

This was my initial criticism of the statistic. Do you have the total percentage of matches where all three doubles were won?

 

[schmke]

This was my initial criticism of the statistic. Do you have the total percentage of matches where all three doubles were won?

Working on a more detailed blog post on all the scenarios and their percentages, but why does 5.9% seem suspect to you?

 

[Startzel]

Working on a more detailed blog post on all the scenarios and their percentages, but why does 5.9% seem suspect to you?

Sorry if I was confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that the 5.9% was wrong.

I just meant that I'm not sure that statistic tells whether or no it is worth to try to put all your eggs in the doubles basket. I would imagine some teams that put their emphasis on doubles end up winning one of the two singles points. So you're more likely to win by going for all three doubles points than just 5.9%

 

[schmke]

Sorry if I was confusing. I didn't mean to suggest that the 5.9% was wrong.

I just meant that I'm not sure that statistic tells whether or no it is worth to try to put all your eggs in the doubles basket. I would imagine some teams that put their emphasis on doubles end up winning one of the two singles points. So you're more likely to win by going for all three doubles points than just 5.9%

Yep. Hard to factor in to my analysis what a team's strategy was going in to the match. But it is a fair point that a team will win a singles court even if they do put their best players in doubles. See what I noted about my team where we had stronger doubles players and went 6-2 on the year, but none of our wins was a 3 doubles and no singles scenario.

 

[schmke]

Started a new thread on analysis of the scores the winning team most often has: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...gue-winning-team-courts-won-scenarios.551412/

 

[J_R_B]

Not sure I understand the reason for your snark, but whatever. I'd argue you pretty clearly don't understand my argument either.

You have stated before that you like the wide discrepancies in playing ability that Mixed offers. I argue that there is nothing inherent in a gender-neutral system that would prevent the creation of leagues that allow for wide discrepancies in playing abilities.

Let me make that point more clear. Let's say John and Jane are a Mixed team. John is a 5.0 and Jane is a 4.0 and they play on a Mixed 9.0 team. Now, let's say a gender-neutral system is implemented and, again for the sake of simplicity, we'll just implement a system whereby every woman is bumped down 0.5 and we continue to use NTRP rating numbers. So now Jane is a 3.5. What is to prevent the establishment of an 8.5 Mixed league, in which John and Jane are still able to play together? Nothing, obviously. Those of you who like to play with/against people who are vastly different in ability level can still have your fun.

In other words, the impact on Mixed is non-existent. Higher rated men would still be able to play Mixed in exactly the same manner they do currently, and have exactly the same amount of Mixed playing opportunity.

Ok, so you might say (and I think you have said in another thread), "Fine, but then what's the point of changing the rating system to be gender neutral?"

Well, let's look at another hypothetical woman - we'll call her Joan. Joan is a 4.5 in the current system. In her area there are barely enough women to put together two 4.5 women's teams. In fact, some years they aren't able to do so and so USTA league play is sporadic, and even when it happens it's just the two teams playing each other over and over again. But enter a gender-neutral system and Joan (and the rest of the 4.5 women) all are now 4.0-rated players and can play in the abundant 4.0 leagues that are made of up of both men and women. Maybe the men used to have enough players to put together four teams, but now with the addition of new blood they can put together 5-6 teams. Everybody is pretty evenly rated, so a good time is had by all.

Or, maybe there are still only enough 4.0s to put together four teams because some of the men were only moved up to 4.0 by the USTA because more 4.0 men were needed to create a viable 4.0 league. Well, now that there are plenty of 4.0 players, those men can be bumped back down to 3.5, which is the correct level for them based on their playing ability. So, by combining men and women you end up with more competitive levels - less disparity of playing ability within each level.

Uh oh, but what about the guys who want to play in a men's-only 4.0 league? They're screwed now right? I mean some of the men were bumped down to 3.5 (where they actually belong) and so can't play in the 4.0 league.

Hold on a tick - sure they can. USTA allows people to play up all the time. Or, alternatively, the men's league could just change its designation to 7.5. Problem solved.

At the end of the day, the numbers used for ratings and league formats are just arbitrary. No rating system prevents leagues from being formed in whatever way players prefer. What a gender-neutral system would do, however, is significantly expand the number of players in most levels. In doing so, it would also promote more balance of playing ability within each level (players of different abilities wouldn't have to be forced into the same level in an effort to have enough players within a level to form leagues). And, most importantly, it would place women on an equal footing with men.

You're not allowed to play mixed with ratings more than 1 rating level apart, so the 5.0-3.5 pairing is not allowed. If you're going to screw up the whole rating system and then simultaneously re-write the rules so that you have leagues with this sort of lopsided pairing, why not just leave everything as it is (with balanced distribution of players for each gender)? Just so you can have mixed gender leagues that no one (except you, I suppose) really wants? Makes no sense.

 

[penpal]

If you're going to screw up the whole rating system and then simultaneously re-write the rules so that you have leagues with this sort of lopsided pairing, why not just leave everything as it is (with balanced distribution of players for each gender)? Just so you can have mixed gender leagues that no one (except you, I suppose) really wants? Makes no sense.

Please re-read everything I wrote following the line "Ok, so you might say (and I think you have said in another thread), "Fine, but then what's the point of changing the rating system to be gender neutral?"" in my post that you quoted. I believe this answers your question.

 

[Nacho]

Adding in 2 cents here to some already good points:

20-30 years ago "leagues" really belonged to local tennis groups (such as ALTA in Atlanta). The USTA got on board with this and over saturated the market with leagues of their own, so this didn't help. In some cities the old style leagues still dominate because they are better run and USTA is not as important. For instance I am in a club singles league that plays every Thursday night after work. I know I am going to get a good match because the club administers it, and I know what time I am playing. There is no confusion and the club has its own rating system. Most Adults don't want to have to think, they just want to show up and play.

What has really gone down hill is the adult tournament play. Outside of the National tournaments there really is no structure or incentive to play in tournaments, and the ranking system is confusing.

However I do think adults are competitive. If there were a way to merge the two together (Leagues and Tournaments)? Incentivize the league play. I have been on a USTA team for 12 years and only gone to the playoffs twice. What if there was individual performance in a league ranked, and a tournament at the end of a season within the section and nationally? Sometimes I don't play because we can't field a good team, but miss out on winning a match. What if your league performance was ranked in some way, this might spark some to investigate tournament play a little more. Clubs could sponsor players, and do the job of promoting events, which they don't do now. And how do you account for age? This seems to be a big issue as some Sr's are better then their age group, while others just want to play in their age group.

USTA was sending out surveys not to long ago, hopefully you all got one and spoke up!

 

[Cindysphinx]

I would think there are a lot of folks who wouldn't want to play with members of the opposite sex. IMO it would lead less people to play rather than more if the divisions based on sex done away with. Personally I know a ton of guys now that have no desire to play mixed and wouldn't play USTA at all if not for men's leagues.

And I know a ton of women who do not want to play with or against men, even if the men have the same skill set.

I think if you changed ladies day league to allow men to play at one level higher than their rating, there would be a revolt. It wouldn't bother me -- I play mixed -- but it would bother a lot of other women.