Who Me? Sandbag? I Just Got Here!

[5sets]

Am I the only one who sees this as the biggest issue of the story? I'm curious what the details to this were. Were both women at net and did the ball hit your partner? Regardless of whether the ball hit your partner, slamming a ball at someone (during stoppage of play) has always been a declaration of ending the tennis match and starting a physical confrontation. It's all good if you want to tag me with overheads when I'm at the net during a point but if you just slam a ball when I'm not looking into my back then I'm walking to your side of the court. I'm the last person you'd consider a "tough guy" but you can't be taking free shots at me because you're angry.

would be an automatic default if it were an ATP or WTA match, lol.

Remember when Shapalavov's opponenent accused him of sandbagging and he slammed the ref in the eye with the ball? [emoji6]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

[stapletonj]

observations:

1. startzel is obviously Cindy's ex or was rejected by Cindy on Tinder or whatever (j/k)

2. re: don't give up points on purpose to make someone you are beating badly feel better. There are numerous threads on this subject. It is one thing
to perhaps work a little during a match on bringing a shot from practice level up to match level when you are up 6-0, 4-0. However, you owe it to you opponent
to go ahead and still give your best effort. To less is to insult him on top of beating him badly.

 

[tennis tom]

2. re: don't give up points on purpose to make someone you are beating badly feel better.

... It is one thing to perhaps work a little during a match on bringing a shot from practice level up to match level when you are up 6-0, 4-0.

...However, you owe it to you opponent to go ahead and still give your best effort. To less is to insult him on top of beating him badly.

Yes! I remember during a tournament, I was being beaten 0 & 0 and realized my opponent was trying to give me a "courtesy game"--no matter how hard he tried to give it to me and how hard I tried to take it, I still couldn't win the game--it was funny and we both started laughing about it during the game.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Am I the only one who sees this as the biggest issue of the story? I'm curious what the details to this were. Were both women at net and did the ball hit your partner? Regardless of whether the ball hit your partner, slamming a ball at someone (during stoppage of play) has always been a declaration of ending the tennis match and starting a physical confrontation. It's all good if you want to tag me with overheads when I'm at the net during a point but if you just slam a ball when I'm not looking into my back then I'm walking to your side of the court. I'm the last person you'd consider a "tough guy" but you can't be taking free shots at me because you're angry.

Both ladies were around the service line. My partner's back was turned (she had been at net), I was facing the opponents in no man's land. It was not an underhand shot. It was kind of like a min-overhead -- toss ball a little and smack it downward and over the net out of anger. The ball whizzed by my partner's back.

Yeah, that is something I have never seen before.

Was she deliberately and specifically trying to hit my partner in the back? Probably not.

Did she hit a ball in anger (ball abuse) without regard to how she could have really hurt someone? Definitely. My partner's guard was down because the point was over, and here comes a ball at high velocity that came flying right by her.

I'm not sure what I would have done had that ball actually hit my partner. Sure, we could have escalated and declared the match forfeited and filed a grievance. But she could have said she was just sending the ball over, and she usually does this by striking the ball hard into the ground so it bounces over the net, and she mishit it, and it barely touched my partner and blah blah blah. No telling how the league would have settled that one, but there is some chance we would have lost the grievance.

I have played opponents who "make it rain" when they are losing. Meaning they return the balls randomly by firing them over to our side and letting them rain down upon us regardless of whether we are looking, facing them, ready to catch them. I really hate that, and I think it is rude and dangerous.

 

[tennis tom]

...I have played opponents who "make it rain" when they are losing. Meaning they return the balls randomly by firing them over to our side and letting them rain down upon us regardless of whether we are looking, facing them, ready to catch them. I really hate that, and I think it is rude and dangerous.

Those who commit such offenses are card carrying members of the "slovenlies" club.

 

[edathompson2]

I'm not triggered. If I were, I might have started a thread complaining about someone calling me out for sandbagging.

Starzel calls Cindy a bold face lyre like 6 times. He doesn't even know the woman. Never met her. Somehow through reading a message board he can single handedly conclude what a person's character is.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Meh. Doesn't bother me a bit.

It's what trolls do. I'd rather have him troll me than troll someone else who might actually give a flying fig.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Starzel calls Cindy a bold face lyre like 6 times.

@Cindysphinx - I didn't know you were musically talented as well. Where did you learn to play the lyre? Aren't they hard to find?

He doesn't even know the woman. Never met her. Somehow through reading a message board he can single handedly conclude what a person's character is.

That seems to be his MO. He just needs the barest hint of sandbagging and bingo: you must be a sandbagger!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Meh. Doesn't bother me a bit.

It's what trolls do. I'd rather have him troll me than troll someone else who might actually give a flying fig.

Very accommodating of you. In chemistry, they call that the sacrificial anode.

You just went up another notch in my book.

 

[mucat]

And Becky said: "WHY ARE THEY EVEN PLAYING 3.5?" She took the ball out of her pocket and overhead slammed it at my partner's back. I responded with the ultimate snappy comeback: "Hey now, not cool." Lame, I know.

Isn't this a some kind of unsportsmanlike violation?

 

[mucat]

And Becky said: "WHY ARE THEY EVEN PLAYING 3.5?" She took the ball out of her pocket and overhead slammed it at my partner's back. I responded with the ultimate snappy comeback: "Hey now, not cool." Lame, I know.

Isn't this a some kind of unsportsmanlike violation? hitting a ball towards a player

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Isn't this a some kind of unsportsmanlike violation? hitting a ball towards a player

You would think so...

I'm just getting my head around the whole scenario..
I go away for a while and when I come back Cindy (of all people) seems to have acquired an arch enemy?
What the actual duck?

Who is this Star person?


Sent from my HTC Desire 628 using Tapatalk

 

[edathompson2]

@Cindysphinx - I didn't know you were musically talented as well. Where did you learn to play the lyre? Aren't they hard to find?

No, he's calling her a bold face musical instrument known as the lyre.

 

[jm1980]

I'm just getting my head around the whole scenario..
I go away for a while and when I come back Cindy (of all people) seems to have acquired an arch enemy?
What the actual duck?

Who is this Star person?

Cindy got bumped down to 3.5 and this Star person thinks she's a sandbagger

 

[Startzel]

I go away for a while and when I come back Cindy (of all people) seems to have acquired an arch enemy?

I’m not an arch enemy, I just find her shtick to be quite annoying.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Sounds like a match against someone playing a bit higher than they should who hates losing. I suspect Becky would be happier in 3.0 where the dink shots don't bounce so high. it's in the freaking NTRP guidelines that 3.5's should be hitting forehands with some spin.

Problem with the artifice that is USTA, your are using a discrete variable (NTRP rating) to define that which is a continuous variable (tennis skill). So a 3.74 is going to be better than a 3.26 player by the same margin as a 3.50 and 4.00 player. Yet all but one of those players will be in a 3.5 league.

In any event, embrace the drama. League tennis is often filled with trolls who can only play in leagues because otherwise no one will put up with their boorish behavior.

 

[OrangePower]

Problem with the artifice that is USTA, your are using a discrete variable (NTRP rating) to define that which is a continuous variable (tennis skill). So a 3.74 is going to be better than a 3.26 player by the same margin as a 3.50 and 4.00 player. Yet all but one of those players will be in a 3.5 league.

Actually two will be 3.5s (the 3.26 and the 3.50), and two 4.0s (3.74 and 4.00).
3.5 includes the range 3.01 through 3.50. 4.0 includes 3.51 through 4.00.
But your gist of your point is very valid.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Cindy got bumped down to 3.5 and this Star person thinks she's a sandbagger

Seems unlikely, she has worked her butt off for years to get to 4.0, I can't imagine her voluntarily going back down.

If she was bumped, then her record can't have been very good, and she's not someone to deliberately lose just so she be sent back down..

I don't buy it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I’m not an arch enemy, I just find her shtick to be quite annoying.

That's why we got a divorce, hon.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Actually two will be 3.5s (the 3.26 and the 3.50), and two 4.0s (3.74 and 4.00).
3.5 includes the range 3.01 through 3.50. 4.0 includes 3.51 through 4.00.
But your gist of your point is very valid.

Sorry, I wasn't sure where the artificial cutoff that is USTA tennis fell. I could make an even more damning statement that a 3.01 could play a 3.49 and be more of a mismatch than a 3.49 playing a 3.51 despite the latter officially being a 3.5 playing a 4.0.

Bad matchups will happen by necessity in the USTA system as there will always be a potential for people who are just barely 3.5's to end up playing people that are not quite 4.0's. With no sandbagging required.

Cindy, who has been a 4.0 player, is one of those extreme end 3.5's and will likely receive sandbagging complaints whenever she faces a "just barely" 3.5. Unfortunately not enough players look upon these mismatches as an opportunity to learn.

I liked the comment from a 15 year old Ukrainian WTA player at the Aussie Open after she was waxed by her countrywoman in straight sets. "It was great. Not easy to get a 1 hour lesson from such a good player for free."

 

[navigator]

I know I'm a broken record on this topic (and probably several others) but... who... cares? I think schmke's done enough analysis in the past to suggest that sandbagging is fairly rare (I want to say less than 5% matches or something like that?). No system is perfect. I've never played a USTA league match in my life but it doesn't appear to be filled with a sufficient number of sandbaggers to be as big an issue as a few folks make it out to be. Jesus, suck it up and move on. To complain about this stuff ad nauseam looks like an endless pity party that only a small handful of folks enjoy attending.

 

[tennis tom]

I’m not an arch enemy, I just find her shtick to be quite annoying.

Well then, most sites have "ignore" buttons so I would suggest you ignore her then--your "sandbagging" "shtick" is getting equally annoying. Cindy does have a good knowledge of league tennis and techniques that folks can learn from--and a really big top-spin moon-ball return--which must be a sight to behold. There are few enough gals here, so lets try not to run them off. She does initiate threads here that illicit many responses. Try that ignore button.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I know I'm a broken record on this topic (and probably several others) but... who... cares? I think schmke's done enough analysis in the past to suggest that sandbagging is fairly rare (I want to say less than 5% matches or something like that?). No system is perfect. I've never played a USTA league match in my life but it doesn't appear to be filled with a sufficient number of sandbaggers to be as big an issue as a few folks make it out to be. Jesus, suck it up and move on. To complain about this stuff ad nauseam looks like an endless pity party that only a small handful of folks enjoy attending.

Apparently people like Star care because he claims that sandbagging is "rampant".

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I’m not an arch enemy, I just find her shtick to be quite annoying.

If you found her merely annoying, you'd just ignore her. You, on the other hand, find something snarky to write every time she posts something. That fits more the "arch enemy" description.

 

[Startzel]

I know I'm a broken record on this topic (and probably several others) but... who... cares? I think schmke's done enough analysis in the past to suggest that sandbagging is fairly rare (I want to say less than 5% matches or something like that?). No system is perfect. I've never played a USTA league match in my life but it doesn't appear to be filled with a sufficient number of sandbaggers to be as big an issue as a few folks make it out to be. Jesus, suck it up and move on. To complain about this stuff ad nauseam looks like an endless pity party that only a small handful of folks enjoy attending.

No one created this thread to complain about sandbagging. The OP created it to try to make herself feel better after she was rightfully called out for sandbagging.

 

[Startzel]

Well then, most sites have "ignore" buttons so I would suggest you ignore her then--your "sandbagging" "shtick" is getting equally annoying. Cindy does have a good knowledge of league tennis and techniques that folks can learn from--and a really big top-spin moon-ball return--which must be a sight to behold. There are few enough gals here, so lets try not to run them off. She does initiate threads here that illicit many responses. Try that ignore button.

To be fair if I ignored her 3/4 of the threads on this forum would be ignored.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I’ve never used the ignore feature. You still see when the person is quoted by someone else, right?

I guess I can’t ignore Starzel because I would lose the chance to make him the butt of my jokes.

 

[tennis tom]

No one created this thread to complain about sandbagging. The OP created it to try to make herself feel better after she was rightfully called out for sandbagging.

FYI : You're doing it again. Maybe it would be a better use of your tennis sideline time, to read some books by Dr. Allen Fox or, some tapes by Jeff Greenwald, to help you get over your Cindy OCD.

 

[Dartagnan64]

No one created this thread to complain about sandbagging. The OP created it to try to make herself feel better after she was rightfully called out for sandbagging.

It is your "opinion" that she is sandbagging. Only she truly knows if she is or not. Your assumption doesn't offer any proof of sandbagging. What you are doing isn't "rightful", but failing to give a TW poster the benefit of the doubt. You and I do not know Cindy well enough to determine whether complaints of sandbagging are justified or not.

As I've said in previous posts, "just not quite good enough to be 4.0" 3.5 players will always get claims of sandbagging by the "barely 3.5" crowd. Doesn't mean it's right. It's usually the vagaries of a discrete variable system applied to a continuous variable skill set.

 

[OrangePower]

Sorry, I wasn't sure where the artificial cutoff that is USTA tennis fell. I could make an even more damning statement that a 3.01 could play a 3.49 and be more of a mismatch than a 3.49 playing a 3.51 despite the latter officially being a 3.5 playing a 4.0.

Bad matchups will happen by necessity in the USTA system as there will always be a potential for people who are just barely 3.5's to end up playing people that are not quite 4.0's. With no sandbagging required.

Absolutely. Since the cutoffs between levels are arbitrary, there will be some mismatches within a level, and then some matches across levels that are actually quite competitive.

Sandbagging only makes it worse, although I don't really think it's *that* prevalent.

It also depends on how one defines sandbagging... the 3.51 in your example would be eligible to auto-appeal from 4.0C to 3.5A; all quite legal and within the rules, but some might see it as a violation of the spirit of competition and label such a person a sandbagger...

 

[Startzel]

It is your "opinion" that she is sandbagging. Only she truly knows if she is or not. Your assumption doesn't offer any proof of sandbagging. What you are doing isn't "rightful", but failing to give a TW poster the benefit of the doubt. You and I do not know Cindy well enough to determine whether complaints of sandbagging are justified or not.

As I've said in previous posts, "just not quite good enough to be 4.0" 3.5 players will always get claims of sandbagging by the "barely 3.5" crowd. Doesn't mean it's right. It's usually the vagaries of a discrete variable system applied to a continuous variable skill set.

This thread was started based on the opinion of one of her peers.

Based on her playing history and her threads we have ample evidence to agree with her real life peer.

 

[penpal]

I’ve never used the ignore feature. You still see when the person is quoted by someone else, right?

Nope. The way the admins have set it up here, when you ignore a user, both their posts and quotes of their posts become invisible.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It is your "opinion" that she is sandbagging. Only she truly knows if she is or not. Your assumption doesn't offer any proof of sandbagging.

Aah, but you don't know how @Startzel uses the word "opinion". Perhaps this will clarify: on a different thread, I offered an opinion that @Topaz was not sandbagging and Startzel was of the opinion that she was. Startzel's response was classic: something along the lines of "well, you have the right to your opinion...but it's wrong."

After that I knew that logic wouldn't work.

What you are doing isn't "rightful", but failing to give a TW poster the benefit of the doubt. You and I do not know Cindy well enough to determine whether complaints of sandbagging are justified or not.

When a ball is 1% in, you're supposed to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and call it in. In Startzel's case, if there is a 1% chance someone is sandbagging, he does the opposite and takes away the benefit of the doubt.

As I've said in previous posts, "just not quite good enough to be 4.0" 3.5 players will always get claims of sandbagging by the "barely 3.5" crowd. Doesn't mean it's right. It's usually the vagaries of a discrete variable system applied to a continuous variable skill set.

Well-stated. And not only variable per person but also over time.

 

[Dartagnan64]

This thread was started based on the opinion of one of her peers.

Based on her playing history and her threads we have ample evidence to agree with her real life peer.

No we have evidence that at one point she was skilled enough to play 4.0 tennis (mostly ladies doubles mind you) and gave up league tennis for a few years (pretty much all tennis from the sounds of it), let her skills fall off and is now returning to ladies double tennis. She is at the age where regaining skills isn't like riding a bike, so she could either enter leagues as a weak 4.0 or good 3.5. Again only she knows how much her skill set has eroded. Her opponent may have suggested sandbagging but for all we know, that opponent calls every good player a sandbagger (could it have been Startzel in drag?). Only Becky knows her motivations for the claim.

I've played and dominated a few 70 year old "4.0-4.5" men as a lowly 50 year old 3.5. Just because someone was once a higher level doesn't mean they can or should remain there indefinitely. Time erodes skills and robs vision and mobility. I'm doing all I can just to stay at 3.5 these days between various nagging injuries. I don't know Cindy's personal case, but it certainly is conceivable that she has lost her mojo and fallen in skills.

In my experience with lady club members i find them very reticent to drop down levels. Your NTRP is worn as a heirarchical badge to announce your status. So I find it hard to believe Cindy would accept playing 3.5 if she was capable to play 4.0.

 

[OnTheLine]

@Dartagnan64 you put it all perfectly. Seems you have been around the leagues a whilem and actually paid attention.

 

[Startzel]

No we have evidence that at one point she was skilled enough to play 4.0 tennis (mostly ladies doubles mind you) and gave up league tennis for a few years (pretty much all tennis from the sounds of it), let her skills fall off and is now returning to ladies double tennis.

The problem with your argument is that you're starting off with a completely false premise. She's played on multiple teams every year for more than a decade. There is no time away and skills falling off. You're trying to tell me i'm wrong when you don't even know what you're talking about.

Was she a great 4.0? Nope

Is she too good for 3.5? It seems her fellow competitors feel she is.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The problem with your argument is that you're starting off with a completely false premise. She's played on multiple teams every year for more than a decade. There is no time away and skills falling off. You're trying to tell me i'm wrong when you don't even know what you're talking about.

I think your statement is factually true but potentially misleading: I seem to recall @Cindysphinx saying the amount of tennis time had decreased in the last year or two accompanied by some injuries which was the root cause for the atrophy in skills. So while she may have played on multiple teams and didn't technically stop playing, she certainly played less and didn't put as much effort into it as before.

Was she a great 4.0? Nope

Is she too good for 3.5? It seems her fellow competitors feel she is.

I don't think she ever claimed she was a great 4.0.

By "fellow competitors" you mean...Becky. One person. Who then apologized for her bad behavior after the match.

Just like your claim that sandbagging is rampant, I don't see the evidence to support your claim here. I'm not saying you couldn't ultimately be proven correct; but I think it's way premature to come to a conclusion.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

There is no time away and skills falling off. You're trying to tell me i'm wrong when you don't even know what you're talking about.

And you know this how?

 

[Startzel]

By "fellow competitors" you mean...Becky. One person. Who then apologized for her bad behavior after the match.

Just like your claim that sandbagging is rampant, I don't see the evidence to support your claim here. I'm not saying you couldn't ultimately be proven correct; but I think it's way premature to come to a conclusion.

Yes. We will see as the season progresses but it already looks like she's throwing games in the second set through two matches. Hopefully another team can keep it close with her team so it forces her and her partners to try harder. That way we can get a more accurate rating.

 

[tennis tom]

I’m not an arch enemy, I just find her shtick to be quite annoying.

That's why we got a divorce, hon.

I have a theory--it appears Starz has insider information on the OP--I postulate that they were at one time married--just a theory.

Cindy was not a 4.0 for very long before she was struck down by injury--so it's very plausible that she is now a strong 3.5 and viewed by low-grade 3.5's as too strong.

 

[navigator]

World's statisticians react to a trend-related conclusion being drawn from two (whole) matches...

 

[Keyan]

I'm what people might call a 4.0 sandbagger and it makes weaker 4.0s mad but when you get to districts and sections everyone there is sandbagging so it's an even playing field. You just have to used to players throwing fits and whining but having a ball hit at a player between points in anger is a bit extreme.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I'm what people might call a 4.0 sandbagger and it makes weaker 4.0s mad but when you get to districts and sections everyone there is sandbagging so it's an even playing field. You just have to used to players throwing fits and whining but having a ball hit at a player between points in anger is a bit extreme.

So you throw games to avoid getting bumped up?

 

[Startzel]

I'm what people might call a 4.0 sandbagger and it makes weaker 4.0s mad but when you get to districts and sections everyone there is sandbagging so it's an even playing field. You just have to used to players throwing fits and whining but having a ball hit at a player between points in anger is a bit extreme.

I respect your honesty. It’s amazing how many posters act like this isn’t the case.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I respect your honesty. It’s amazing how many posters act like this isn’t the case.

Which posters have acted like sandbagging doesn't exist? None that I can remember. We have acted like sandbagging is not rampant, though.

 

[OnTheLine]

Which posters have acted like sandbagging doesn't exist? None that I can remember. We have acted like sandbagging is not rampant, though.

Well, some of us (me) have stated that sandbagging really doesn't exist in the women's leagues as most women are trying to inflate/raise their ratings at all costs.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Well, some of us (me) have stated that sandbagging really doesn't exist in the women's leagues as most women are trying to inflate/raise their ratings at all costs.

I stand corrected. But I don't think you are what Startzel had in mind when he made his claim. He perceives that sandbagging is rampant and that many posters deny it exists.

 

[5sets]

So what is it?

Are sandbaggers in reality the strongest players at their level?

Is there really such a thing as a sandbagger?

These threads our rampant on the discussion of sandbaggers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

[Startzel]

Which posters have acted like sandbagging doesn't exist? None that I can remember. We have acted like sandbagging is not rampant, though.

He literally just said everyone at district and sectional playoffs is sandbagging. How can that be the case and the problem not be rampant?

 

[Startzel]

Well, some of us (me) have stated that sandbagging really doesn't exist in the women's leagues as most women are trying to inflate/raise their ratings at all costs.

While you certainly have a lot more women than men that have vanity NTRP ratings, the women who actually win league tennis sandbag just as much as the men do.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

He literally just said everyone at district and sectional playoffs is sandbagging. How can that be the case and the problem not be rampant?

Because "rampant" to me would imply a large %; say, 2/3. But only a small % go to post-season play. Say, one team in a league of 8. That's 12.5%. And not everyone one that team is sandbagging or everyone on all of the other teams [at least, from my experience]. So the % is actually significantly less than 12.5. You want to call that rampant? That's your choice.

If you want to change your statement to "sandbagging is rampant during post-season play", that's an easier bar to meet. I'm not even sure I'd argue with you.