What are acceptable tactics when assembling/running a team?
- Thread starter schmke
- Start date
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
Let's assume someone is a much better singles player than doubles player. If they only have singles games is their ntrp rating accurate? Or will it be more accurate if they have equal doubles and singles games? I know there can be sizable disparities in these ratings between doubles and singles but do people think this is a significant way to manipulate ratings? If you have someone that is much better at singles they can be used to reduce doubles partners ratings as well as their own rating.
If someone is much better at doubles they can play some singles to get their rating down. But then when they play doubles again it would inflate their partners rating.
If someone is much better at doubles they can play some singles to get their rating down. But then when they play doubles again it would inflate their partners rating.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
Just a question as someone who doesn't play in this sort of system - do players actually go along with the tactics listed in the poll?
If I was a good player, investing time and money into playing in a league, a lot of these tactics would really **** me off. Not getting to play singles because you are too good at it? Getting paired with someone because they need their rating protected rather than because we are a good team? Telling me or my partner to manage their performance for rating reasons?
Don't people just want a captain that will let them get out and play good tennis?
If I was a good player, investing time and money into playing in a league, a lot of these tactics would really **** me off. Not getting to play singles because you are too good at it? Getting paired with someone because they need their rating protected rather than because we are a good team? Telling me or my partner to manage their performance for rating reasons?
Don't people just want a captain that will let them get out and play good tennis?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
USTA should have separate ratings for singles and doubles just like UTR does. Most players older than 40 might be much better at doubles than in singles while there are younger players and some singles specialists who rarely play doubles. In my experience captaining teams, it is common to see a difference of at least an NTRP rating level (4.0 vs 4.5 or 3.5 vs 4.0) between singles and doubles with many players.
I think it is bad if a captain asks a player to tank or lose on purpose. Otherwise, most options in the poll seem to be within USTA rules. The whole situation of having so many levels in NTRP to somehow mandate that players play only others close in level to them is artificial and it is not a surprise if some unscrupulous people find a way to bend these artificial guidelines. I would like it if we went back to a league/tournament system of only levels divided into three categories of beginner, intermediate and open categories with national championships given only to the open category. The irony of someone who can’t win the local club tournament walking around and saying they are a national champion in tennis (albeit at 4.0) is lost on me.
I think it is bad if a captain asks a player to tank or lose on purpose. Otherwise, most options in the poll seem to be within USTA rules. The whole situation of having so many levels in NTRP to somehow mandate that players play only others close in level to them is artificial and it is not a surprise if some unscrupulous people find a way to bend these artificial guidelines. I would like it if we went back to a league/tournament system of only levels divided into three categories of beginner, intermediate and open categories with national championships given only to the open category. The irony of someone who can’t win the local club tournament walking around and saying they are a national champion in tennis (albeit at 4.0) is lost on me.
Last edited:
I agree that singles and doubles proficiency can vary greatly among players (when I first joined league play as a 3.5, I was probably low 4.0-level in singles and high 3.0-level in doubles; now I feel equally mediocre in both as a 4.0), but I think it will make league administration unfeasibly complex to have two sets of NTRP ratings in play for each player.
GrassCourtFan
Legend
Some of these things would obviously be noticed by the player, such as being told to tank. But plenty of others would just seem normal. "Oh, this week you're playing with Bob at D3. Have fun!" Especially if the player is new, they wouldn't necessarily notice or care who they're being paired with or what line. Or even something like "yeah, I only got you 3 matches at the regular season, we're saving you for districts/sectionals/nationals" wouldn't feel bad at all for the player - if over the course of the season they get a good number of matches (just, some other players get more matches early, the ringer gets more matches in postseason). So a captain absolutely could keep the players happy while still managing their rating.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I know some people that I consider much better at singles then doubles and vice versa. Just based on net game versus ground strokes. I think algorithm can deal with this to some extent. Basically by having the rating lean toward the stronger type of play. So if after the same number of doubles and singles game the ratings if done separately would be 3.72 singles and a 3.51 doubles they would be something like a 3.67 ntrp. In other words you would cheat toward the higher of the two ratings. The problem with that is this person would be slightly over rated in doubles even after many doubles games.
Or they could have completely seperate ratings and if you are a 3.0 singles and a 3.5 doubles you could only play singles on a 3.0 team. With such a small pool of data for singles they may need to do something to increase the data points so accuracy could be maintained.
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Was told 6 out of 7 days you can play folks that will beat you down but on the Seventh day.....................put on the fins.
Ian10s
New User
I remember back in early 2000-2003 they would have visual verifiers who would Dq players during sectionals events. Even got Dq'ed players in semis. Then, for a few years they let the computer run during sectionals and it would Dq players as well. This took away from a lot of the sandbagging.
In the end, I feel good captains need to file protests or grievances on player who are self rated out of level.
In the end, I feel good captains need to file protests or grievances on player who are self rated out of level.
In my experience, I have never had anyone who would "manage" (i.e. manipulate) scores, nor have I ever asked/suggested that they should. If I tell someone we need to start you in a couple doubles matches first, then work you into singles, people generally understand that, especially since 6 of the 8 lineup spots (or 6 of 7 in the ridiculously stupid 40+ format) are doubles. I generally don't discuss with other people my pairing strategies, other than to ask everyone at the start of the season to contact me privately if they have a problem playing doubles with anyone on the roster for any reason. Especially on a guys' team, people are generally OK playing with whomever.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
That is the way USTA works. If you are too good there may not be a league for you and they have made decisions which make tournaments unattractive because they solely focus on leagues.
In my very limited experience captains do want players to play their best tennis. For the team I am on now and the one my wife was on it was not easy to win your local league let alone win state, regionals, or nationals. Now when you play against a really weak team some players can easily let a few games slip and still win all the sets. I believe the sets are the first tie break. I am not sure how much of a problem this is. It might be better to have games won and lost be the first tie break so every game may cost you from moving on. This might prevent some sandbagging.
But if your local league only has teams that are much weaker than your own team then these sorts of issues may be more of an issue.
The other issue is USTA should not have levels so wide that you can win 6-0 6-0 and still not have your rating go up very much.
"A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player."
http://assets.usta.com/assets/646/15/FAQ_on_Dynamic_Disqualification.pdf
That is obviously stupid for several reasons. This leads to a huge amount of confusion about what level someone is supposed to be in. Since you don't know if the opponent you played is a 3.01 or a 3.49 you have no idea if you are out of level. They keep that secret. Plus it makes it very easy for players at the top of their level to "take it easy" for a few games and lose rating points even though they win a match 6-2 6-2.
So between the silly self rate and the very wide levels you end up with many people snarling about those that win saying they are "not playing fair" or they are being "bad sports." I think we all agree that throwing games is cheating. We mostly agree that someone should self rate themselves higher if they are 100% sure, at the time they self rate, that they are higher rated than the questionnaire minimum. But what if you are only 99% sure or it is only about 50/50? What if after you self rate and then as you play in leagues and play tennis generally you improve and it then becomes clear you will likely get a bump? Are you required to tell your team (that is relying on you to show up) that you can't make it anymore because you have become convinced you are now playing at a higher level than what you originally self rated at? The rest of this "unsportsman" like behavior is mostly just people getting angry that some are playing to win according to really bad USTA rules. The rules actually seem designed to encourage the ill will that often happens against teams that win.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
These are really good questions, and it must seem insane from abroad, it's not "normal" behavior, but the extremes mentioned here garner a lot of attention. Maybe this will help you understand, these are all personal experience, people I actually know and play around or against or with, from two areas of the US. The percentage of captains who do this is lower than 2%, but the behavior "pops" because it is so strange and they win over and over and over again year after year.
Who doesn't do these things:
1. People who played in college and are satisfied with that experience, who generally see rec tennis as fun, but not the same as the college competition. They will play with no effort toward going to nationals, but gladly go if they happen to make it "naturally". They don't self-rate low, they, like you, want competition.
2. People who have demanding careers time-wise, not saying they are better, just they chose professions that well, spending time doing this stuff to win at tennis would just confuse them.
3. People with robust social or family life outside of tennis.
4. People who aren't trophy hunting.
5. In general people that are very high 4.5 or 5.0 plus in the USTA rating system, very very good players.
6. Country club/tennis club members, in general.
7. People who prefer singles tournaments and competition, if you love singles tournaments, your rating isn't manageable, you can't hide/manage a rating and enjoy the tournament grind, it won't work.
Who does this:
1. Usually captains that are wealthy or retired, no kids at home, lots of free time
2. Players who grind up to 4.5 but didn't play college and this is their tennis glory days, usta is their "thing", they also probably don't like hard matches at 4.5.
3. Young kids who graduate college and get roped into the team by a captain and also the high school graduates. Usually the captains don't tell them ahead of time they will be asked to tank at some point, I doubt the captains lay out the plan, probably just say "my teams win every year" blah blah.
4. People whose social circle is all tennis.
But, just to save the reputation of US tennis, these captains are maybe 10 or so nationwide, it's just something getting a lot of chatter here on the web because most of us, like you Cash, don't get it.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
You can still do this. it was around 2006 I think, I've had a teammate disqualified, a team we weren't even playing, another captain with too much free time, filmed his matches and turned them in to USTA TX, he was DQ'ed. In Texas that means all matches are a loss retroactively. He wasn't trying to cheat, he was just really good and his strokes looked really good. He wasn't a former college player, just really athletic and played in high school, we were kind of surprised. He was a 4.0 singles player and did destroy everyone he played. Go figure.
You can't self rate at 3.0 if you're a high school or college champion unless you lie about it. Otherwise, the system will give you a higher minimum. If you lie about it, you should be disqualified and possibly suspended (along with your captain if he/she is complicit), depending on the egregiousness of the situation.
silverwyvern4
Semi-Pro
I wonder if there is a rash of match tanking this week, the final week before year end ratings are lockrd in?
silverwyvern4
Semi-Pro
Isn't it usually the end of November after nationals?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't see how the cutoff date can be this weekend since my season doesn't end until mid-December.
Fall leagues that count toward rating... gross
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
USTA needs to do something to prevent sandbagging!!! Honestly if there’s a a way to catch them. They need to suspend them forever!!! To much of this is going on especially with self ratings. Have to find way to fix/prevent this.
OnTheLine
Hall of Fame
Our Fall leagues (non-advancing) count towards ratings but also don't end until December. They had used the roughly 10/31 cut off for ratings before.
If one gets bumped on Dec1 you can validly use your pre-bump rating to finish what remains of the season. I think this may be the same for early start leagues, but not certain.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
You would get a rating by playing rated players in matches.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
And how would those matches be arranged since an unrated player is not in the system? Would he be inserted on to a team at random? Or would it be done on an individual basis and the LC would set up those matches?
And how would the organizer know what NTRP the unrated player's opponents should be? Pick one from every level? And what if he sandbags and loses to players he should beat just to get a lower rating? How is that different from the system we have now other than it would take a lot more time and energy?
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
They could do it the same way UTR or ITF or numerous other tennis rating systems work. It's not that hard.
In the UTR system they have tournaments with various players and people can guesstimate their rating - just like they do with Self rate under USTA. The only difference is the guesstimate is not the only input. There is no reason to guesstimate wildly outside of you level in a tournament as they are designed to have winners play winners and losers play in consolation brackets.
If a player is going to throw games to cheat there is no system that can work to prevent that. The current USTA self rate system certainly won't work. The only way to address that is to make people realize that having a 4.22 rating is a bigger achievement than winning state at a 3.5 level with a 3.88 rating. In other words help players understand the rating system and encourage them to set goals about gaining rating points instead of the constant push to win a t-shirt in Surprise Arizona. Once that shift happens people will stop trying to lose rating points and start trying to set goals to gain them - improving their game along the way.
Edit: I would also point out that a good rating system and tournaments have a symbiotic relationship. Leagues have the post season as a reason to play and try to win in leagues. Gaining rating points is a good reason to play in tournaments - otherwise tournaments may seem fairly pointless. Why not just play an informal match whenever you want? So when USTA guts its rating service by keeping the important information hidden they also doom the chances they will build a solid tournament culture. If they ever chose to change course you will see the tournament culture build. Winning and losing matches with no goal or end point seems well pointless. Ratings can be that overarching cause d'etre for tournaments.
That is what happens in chess and UTR is trying that. Again the problem with UTR is their rating system is very bad for adult rec players. But what they are doing with tournaments to promote and try to establish their rating system is smart. All of these systems have confounding variables that can easily lead people to draw the wrong conclusions about what works and what doesn't.
Last edited:
GrassCourtFan
Legend
I signed up for a UTR league without having a rating. When UTR was trying to do adult leagues this summer. I was able to just pick which level to join. How is that different from USTAs self-rating?
USTA has a questionnaire, and UTR didn’t even have that. Just a signup form, and hope that people guess their level right.
Still have never played a UTR tournament and don’t intend to. I prefer the league format.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
If UTR is setting up their league that way then I agree they are just as bad, if not worse than USTA. Both should require you to get a rating before you join a league that is rating restricted. My point is you can easily get UTR rating before you join a UTR league and USTA should make it easier to do that as well.
This is beside the point, but are you sure you do not have a UTR rating? They usually pull any USTA match data and give you one.
GrassCourtFan
Legend
At the time in joined that league I did not, because that was after the big gap in 2020 when I had not played a league match in over a year, and so I was unrated according to Utr.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
@PK6 claimed that getting rid of self-rating would fix the problem.
I don't see it as bad at all. When I've played UTR, I've gotten matches that correlated pretty well with rating: I beat someone one UTR below me fairly easily, I barely beat someone with the same UTR, and I lost to someone one UTR above.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
Getting rid of self rating will substantially help the problem. Based on Schmke's data in the other thread it would decrease the number of new players playing in the wrong level by a substantial amount. But it would do very little for new players that are willing to throw games right at the start. It is really impossible to tell how big of a problem that is. For that we need players to start valuing their rating more than winning nationals. It seems women tennis players value their rating more than the men. Based on Schmke's data from 2015 it seems the women were more likely to over rate themselves rather than under rate themselves. IMO that is a better problem to have because it indicates the women desire a healthier goal - getting a higher rating. I say that is "healthier" than the goal of winning state regionals or nationals because just about the only way to really get a higher rating in tennis is to actually improve your game. But as we know one way to win nationals is by cheating and throwing games. So it is healthier for the overall USTA system and image etc.
I guess I see UTR as a net good. But in a way it is filling in what tennis needs with a bad system for most adult rec players. If the UTR rating is accurate in your area it is probably because you are in an area that has many active tennis players posting matches. UTR pulls usta matches so areas that are already well served by USTA also have an additional tool with UTR. But for areas not well served by USTA, UTR is of little to no help. I think UTR would be much better if they just dropped the 12 month drop off. For areas where many players may play fewer than 10 matches a year rating system seems very unstable - especially when those matches are completely divided between singles and doubles. They can reduce the importance of earlier games but completely dropping people into the Unrated category means it is next to worthless for many adult rec players. I like the seperation of singles and doubles but I think people will get a more accurate rating if they allow the extra data to influence ratings until players have a certain number of matches in each of the categories. The much better approach would just be to include games from further back but the problem of the 12 month drop off is just exaggerated by the division.
But they are better than USTA by not having completely separate rating systems for men and women. Mixed games are simply more data that USTA refuses to give its rating system. If you want your rating system to work well you must feed it data.
