USTA's biggest blunder (Adult divisions)

Choose your favorite USTA blunder

  • Moving away from Tennislink before the new platform was functional

    Votes: 18 26.5%
  • Changing the over 40 league format (1 singles, 3 doubles)

    Votes: 40 58.8%
  • Adopting "fast four" for the NTRP Championships (individual not team)

    Votes: 9 13.2%
  • Eliminating Gold Balls for Indoor National Championships

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
For me, it's not just ruining the 40 and over division with the 1 singles/3 doubles format, but also eliminating the "+" part of that equation as well. But I suppose that only effects 4.5+ guys.

By the way, how many of those over age 40 5.0 guys have signed up for the 40s 5.0 league in your area (the new one that doesn't have a Nationals)?

In our entire Section, there are only 3 teams total and none in my local area. Therefore, I'd say that idea was a total bust, which was entirely predictable given how that category fared the last time we had it.
 

atatu

Legend
For me, it's not just ruining the 40 and over division with the 1 singles/3 doubles format, but also eliminating the "+" part of that equation as well. But I suppose that only effects 4.5+ guys.

By the way, how many of those over age 40 5.0 guys have signed up for the 40s 5.0 league in your area (the new one that doesn't have a Nationals)?

In our entire Section, there are only 3 teams total and none in my local area. Therefore, I'd say that idea was a total bust, which was entirely predictable given how that category fared the last time we had it.
Yeah, this was a terrible decision for 5.0 players. I guess there is now an open league which is only for 5.0 and up players that will be advancing. It really kills the older 5.0 players who now have to compete against 18+ 5.0 and 5.5 players (assuming they can even get on a team). My understanding was the USTA made this choice because women's teams were having trouble finding singles players. Also, for 2-2 splits we have to resort to rely on some ridiculous tiebreakers.
 

McLovin

Legend
The Mid Atlantic did 1 singles and 2 doubles for 40 & over, at least for 4.5. No idea about other divisions, but I presume the change was for all.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I have to say I'm surprised that option #2 is beating out option #1....
Not surprised at all. Going any format with an even number in a contest where a winner is required, thereby ensuring that a significant number of the contests will be needlessly decided by a ridiculous tiebreaker is just about as dumb a decision as a human with at least a 4th grade math level can possibly make.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
I only voted for the over 40 blunder because it effects my play directly, but all are just crap moves. 1,3 4 are tied together so tourney players get that triple threat blunderfest.
 

ttbrowne

Hall of Fame
Nah...the 1 singles thing was great. Most private clubs I know celebrated that move. You still have 18+ singles.i vote for the USTA just sucking in general.
 
Yes, I would vote for all of the above. Especially 2 and 3 are stupid decisions and 1 reeks of utter incompetence.
One would think they did research on how these decisions would impact their bottom line so even if we the players don't like it, they have concluded the malcontents would be outweighed by the don't cares.

Not sure how #4 helps them; it just gives incentive for someone to come up with an alternative that does have the Gold Ball.
 

Papa Mango

Semi-Pro
One would think they did research on how these decisions would impact their bottom line so even if we the players don't like it, they have concluded the malcontents would be outweighed by the don't cares.
Atleast in NorCal they did the research and took action, look no further than the thread about the "facility use fee" ... :cool:
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
In terms of player development, it is not building training centers for top juniors with red clay courts in major regional cities and then having many prestigious junior tournaments on red clay. Even Australia is doing this.

If you don’t have a complete game that can win on slow courts as a junior, you won’t make it to the very top as a pro in the age of poly.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Nah...the 1 singles thing was great. Most private clubs I know celebrated that move. You still have 18+ singles.i vote for the USTA just sucking in general.
It's not really specifically the one singles part of it that is so stupid, it's changing the format to something with an even number of courts. 1 singles and 4 doubles is fine (although I'd prefer 2 singles) because there are no ties with 5 courts. Having arbitrary tiebreakers like fewest games lost that are totally meaningless to the game of tennis decide crucial playoff matches and having a situation like that that is intentional and totally avoidable with even a tiny bit of common sense is what is so stupid about it.
 

Ruark

Professional
The new platform sucks. I can't view my playing history and the results aren't really tracked at all.
I agree. Cripes, it's a mess. I finally found one tournament I knew about (not as a player, though). We USED to be able to click on a player's name and get their playing history, previous scores and opponents, etc. No wonder nobody gets into tennis, beyond hit-and-giggle in the local park. You need a PhD just to understand it all.
 
Last edited:

Creighton

Rookie
It's not really specifically the one singles part of it that is so stupid, it's changing the format to something with an even number of courts. 1 singles and 4 doubles is fine (although I'd prefer 2 singles) because there are no ties with 5 courts. Having arbitrary tiebreakers like fewest games lost that are totally meaningless to the game of tennis decide crucial playoff matches and having a situation like that that is intentional and totally avoidable with even a tiny bit of common sense is what is so stupid about it.
This is what I don't understand. The magic number is 3 or 5. If you went to 1 singles and 2 doubles you don't have to worry about ties. Cutting out 3 players also opens up the opportunity for more teams to be formed.
 
USTA has always been about making USTA its first priority. Make as much money as quickly as possible by shortening play any way possible and charging as much as members will pay. Eventually, expect to see a fast four, best of 3, 10 point tie breaker or pro set match formats w/no add. College tennis has already ruined doubles and they play a let in singles and doubles. As this comes to pass why bother w/USTA?
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
This is what I don't understand. The magic number is 3 or 5. If you went to 1 singles and 2 doubles you don't have to worry about ties. Cutting out 3 players also opens up the opportunity for more teams to be formed.
Personally, I prefer 5 with 2 singles and 3 doubles, but I'd live with 3 over 5 instead of 4.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
USTA has always been about making USTA its first priority. Make as much money as quickly as possible by shortening play any way possible and charging as much as members will pay. Eventually, expect to see a fast four, best of 3, 10 point tie breaker or pro set match formats w/no add. College tennis has already ruined doubles and they play a let in singles and doubles. As this comes to pass why bother w/USTA?
Even pro level WTT matches have shortened format.
 
Top