Why?

[iLose]

Obviously not call captains are jerks, but it seems like a considerable amount of them just simply care too much or are jerks. It seems like the area I am from all the tennis players work downtown and are big corporate business people and maybe the money has gotten to them but I don't think that could account for it all.

I am the captain for a terrible 4.0 teams with most 3.5 players and a couple 4.0, we could care less as long as there is beer at the sports bar after were done. I could not think of doing some of the things that other captains do or say, it is incredible to me. I mean, I would consider myself a solid 4.0 and one of the better players on my team, at the same time I would consider myself a hacker when it comes to the sport of tennis, I would not expect anyone to be impressed by my tennis skill but some of these captains act like 4.0 tennis is davis cup and they have to give their players a pep talk loudly before matches. (this happened 4 different times)

Most the players on other teams are pretty cool guys as well it just seems like the captains of the other teams are a different breed of person, I have stories on top of stories from just one year but thats for a different time.

Anyone else notice this about other teams captains and how competitive they are? If you have not noticed this I would like to hear your 2 cents as well, it is just kinda a shocker to me but maybe I am just getting certain people wrong.

 

[Crusher10s]

At the club level, 4.0 tennis just might BE Davis Cup...or at least as close as most people will ever get to Davis Cup.

Lighten up Cap, they had a little pep rally pre-match, no big deal and what does the fact that they work downtown have to do with it? You think money has gone to their head and affected their tennis?

Look, people crave positive feedback, reinforcement a pat on the back even. For some people, their 15 minutes of fame is winning a USTA match on Wednesday night and going all the way to Regionals, Sectionals or Nationals. We all want to be viewed as winners, on a winning team or whatever.

My .02 is that you live and let live.

Caio

 

[iLose]

^^^^

You make a good point, I never really looked at it like that.


However I guess I needed to talk a bit more about my experience. Here is a few that come to mind, (I wont try to make them worse then they are just so it's better for my side)

I'll start with the one that made me the most frustrated

-After exchanging line ups the other captain of one of the top teams in our league (I believe 2nd or 3rd) yells to his team "lets clean up here boys, we need all five matches"
....If you need all five matches thats fine, and sometimes I know players will figure "hey we already got the match so I'm not going to sweat it" but I feel its rude to say out loud.


-Now about the money thing here is more what I was talking about. If it rains here some teams sign up to go inside that very same night, it cost 15 dollars PER PLAYER even if you only have a couple of games left.
-- Now most my players are in college including myself, we are broke. Every time it looks like rain in the forecast I call the other captain at explain to him that we would rather try to make up the match on a day that they can are available or if that is absolutely not possible them we will forfeit the match. 3 different times I have felt the opposing captain was actually mad at me for my team not having the income to throw out 15 dollars just to get a match done that night.


- I overheard two other captains talking about they hated playing the worse team in our league (who is the same team every year, an innercity team predominantly African American) and that they were a waste of everyones time, and should not be given home matches because where their home courts are located.


Now these are obviously not every captain or anything but just with the examples I have given you were about 6 or 7 different captains and our league only has about 18 teams.

 

[consistency wins]

Ever look at what you chose to call yourself here at TW? How can you complain about people wanting to win like it is the Davis Cup when you call yourself a loser? Can't complain if that is your outlook--sorry.

 

[iLose]

You are kidding right? I don't care about what my name is on TW, I could hide behind the internet and make my name wherever I want. I just though it would be funny because of ipod, itouch, ect. and because I like most people can joke about losing.

 

[LawnChairGeneral]

iLose, I hear ya! If you play league tennis long enough and you'll realize that...
...every flight has a team that nobody likes to play.
...every flight has a team with the worst home courts.
...every flight has a team(s) that stack their roster by putting their best singles player at #2, and their best doubles team at #3.
...every flight has a team of sandbaggers who get moved up every year. And every year they challenge their rating, move back down, and run the table to qualify for Districts/Sectionals. Whenever we play this particular team in my flight, I often hear the other captain and players chastising the guy who lost his match. I don't mean that they lost a team match one week... they razz a guy because he lost one individual match all year!

So why does all this happen? Hard to pinpoint. Everyone has their reasons. I know guys that have captained the same team for decades. It's just what they love to do. Usually they are natural leaders and are looking for ways to motivate their team. I think these guys love to win. They crave it more and more year after year. Maybe they love the power/control. Maybe they do it because nobody else will. I also know captains that are the worst players on the team and play sparingly. Their goal is to recruit talent from around the city, put together a juggernaut team, and watch those guys take him to Districts year after year. He likes to boast about his recruiting skills.

I've learned to not let any of this bother me and focus on the quality time spent with the guys on my team. Not only do we have fun playing together but we have even more fun grilling brats and drinking beer after the match. Sounds like you do the same. After a while, other captains' reasons for doing what they do just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

But it can be stressful to deal with some of these captains. You should never feel obligated to pay court fees just to complete the match indoors. If another captain insists on it, respectfully decline unless his team pays for all the court fees. We all have busy lives and your league night is likely the only free night most people have for tennis. Rain is an inconvenience, but makeup matches are a part of league tennis. When you get rained out, exchange rosters with the other captain complete with all players contact info, then distribute to your players. Put the burden on the individual players to make up the match on their own time (but within league makeup deadlines). It is impossible to get all players from both teams together for a makeup and you are relieved of the pressure of managing everyones schedule.

If you've got a good nucleus of guys on your team, pitch the idea of rotating captains each season. You can share the stress of running a team and focus more on your tennis during the seasons when you are not the captain. Those who never captain quickly learn to respect the role that most take for granted.

That is probably way more than my $0.02.

 

[spot]

iLose- I think you are a little oversensitive. You had your feelings hurt because the opposing team said that they need to take 5 points? Loosen up. You felt like a couple teams the opposing captain might have not been happy that you guys didn't want to pay to play inside? Its not like you got chewed out, everyone wants to play so they probably were disappointed. But if the money just isn't worth it for your team then why do you care? You need to get a thicker skin I think.

 

[Cindysphinx]

iLose, I hear what you are saying. You aren't crazy.

Yeah, some of the top captains are Not Nice. They sometimes say and do things that would be breathtakingly rude in any other setting.

In our league, there is no limit on the number of players on a team that can be playing up. Captains have e-mail exchanges with the league officials at the beginning of the season, so by hitting "Reply All," you are sending your e-mail to every captain. We have one captain who does not like it when others play up (even though she played up every season for years). So she makes a big deal out of saying that captains shouldn't have too many people playing up, how it is a waste of her players' time to play weak opponents, how everyone should play their level.

I cannot imagine that the captains who *are* willing to captain the weaker teams with players playing up feel good about such remarks. Me, I think the captains who are willing to take a bunch of weak players who can't get on any other team are saints.

 

[Moz]

The captain may be a saint but should well expect that their saintliness is unlikely to be appreciated when it spoils the competitiveness, time and money of players who are actually playing at the correct level.

 

[Topaz]

-After exchanging line ups the other captain of one of the top teams in our league (I believe 2nd or 3rd) yells to his team "lets clean up here boys, we need all five matches"
....If you need all five matches thats fine, and sometimes I know players will figure "hey we already got the match so I'm not going to sweat it" but I feel its rude to say out loud.

To me, this isn't much different than saying 'ok, c'mon, we need this next point' or something like that. I really wouldn't let this bother you, rather let it motivate you to possibly mess up their plans!

-Now about the money thing here is more what I was talking about. If it rains here some teams sign up to go inside that very same night, it cost 15 dollars PER PLAYER even if you only have a couple of games left.
-- Now most my players are in college including myself, we are broke. Every time it looks like rain in the forecast I call the other captain at explain to him that we would rather try to make up the match on a day that they can are available or if that is absolutely not possible them we will forfeit the match. 3 different times I have felt the opposing captain was actually mad at me for my team not having the income to throw out 15 dollars just to get a match done that night.

The negative feedback you are feeling may be directed more at the fact that rescheduling can be a huge pain in the arse. People have commitments, families, etc; and if you are trying to reschedule a match that actually hasn't been rained out, then I'm not surprised you are getting that kind of reaction.

Also, these guys signed up to play tennis. It seems you are willing to forfeit an entire match, and that would make me wonder why you are playing in this particular league. Yes, it is competitive. I totally understand the money part (that's how much we pay for indoor matches around here), but maybe your team should be in a rec league and not USTA? And be careful with the forfeiting...in some areas, if you do that too many times, you'll get your team kicked out of the league.

I overheard two other captains talking about they hated playing the worse team in our league (who is the same team every year, an innercity team predominantly African American) and that they were a waste of everyones time, and should not be given home matches because where their home courts are located.

Like someone else said, just ignore this stuff...there are people like this in every flight it seems. Would you feel comfortable saying something to these people if you heard them talk like this again?



Every team and every captain has a goal or philosophy for their team, whether it is to just play and have fun or to have a shot at Nationals. You seem to be very clear with your players and they seem to be okay with that, but you are playing in a competitive league where people do want to win. So, unfortunately, you are going to run into this kind of behavior. If it gets to be too much for you and your team, maybe there are other, less competitive options for you guys to look into?

 

[smoothtennis]

iLose - Yeah, I don't like rude commnets - however, in this case, I don't think it's anything slanted at you or your team. Just normal. (5 games comment)

When you do a competitive sport, where there is only one winner, I mean, c'mon, of course you know they want to win, whether they say it out loud or not. And they want to win 'em all too.

I am kinda with Spot on stuff like this. I am a huge boxing fan, and have played many sports. LOL, in boxing the corners are SCREAMING the whole match to HIT HIM !- HE'S WEAK, HE'S FINISHED - LEFT HOOK!! I mean, BOTH guys are right there listening, it's almost funny.

And other sports are like this too, even soccer, football, basketball, etc. The list goes on.

OMG - even in billiards of all sports, the mind games and comments are just amazing.

So, look, some of these guys wear their underwear VERY tight, we've all seen it, and some of us are those people, hehe. They think this is their Davis Cup - however twisted - it's their little thing. That is their world, their reality, their way to have fun. It's not personal. It's nothing against you guys personally.

Find a way to make it fun, don't get down about it.

 

[iLose]

Huh, alot of different ways to look at this a guess, I value all of them.

I think some of you misunderstood me though, when I called about a match that might be rained out ahead of time, I call and say IF IT WERE TO RAIN then possibly we could make it up, I don’t just look at the forecast and if it looks bad call and say we cant play.

Also, I won’t be told that I should be able to fork over 15 dollars to go inside when we have plenty of outdoor courts in my area and it's summer, my team should not have to either. The USTA needs tennis players more now than ever, they also push that tennis is not a wealthy sport so forgive me for protecting myself and broke team.

I am not hurt, just like the matches I let everything roll off my shoulders by the time I get to the sports bar, I just cant believe how rude people are in general. I just don't understand how some people can care sooo much, that’s all.

As for playing in a rec league, I tend to think not. Of course my team and I could have all self rated 3.5 and I am sure we would have been the best team in my area but you have to play better people to get better.

 

[raiden031]

The captain may be a saint but should well expect that their saintliness is unlikely to be appreciated when it spoils the competitiveness, time and money of players who are actually playing at the correct level.

I think all of the players playing up that I've seen actually belong at that level, not the one in which they are currently rated. Not many people want to play up only to get blown out every match. The only time I see the blowouts like this is when someone self-rates too high.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Moz, the rules say that players can play up, so I don't see why they should be treated badly for doing so. If someone is only playing up one level, I don't have a problem with it. The idea that the Oh-So-Valuable-And-Precious-Time of some 3.5 player is being wasted by having to play a high-end 3.0 is rather haughty, IMHO. Go fire off a double-bagel on the person playing up if you're such hot stuff.

Also, I think it silly for captains of dominant, playoff-bound teams to complain. Captains that are bound for the playoffs need to get 2 matches for each of their players. Having super-weak teams makes it less risky to play your own weak players. Even for teams like mine that aren't going to the playoffs, the teams with lots of players playing up mean we will not finish in last place no matter how disastrous our season is.

For that, I am grateful.

 

[Moz]

Me, I think the captains who are willing to take a bunch of weak players who can't get on any other team are saints.

Moz, the rules say that players can play up, so I don't see why they should be treated badly for doing so. If someone is only playing up one level, I don't have a problem with it. The idea that the Oh-So-Valuable-And-Precious-Time of some 3.5 player is being wasted by having to play a high-end 3.0 is rather haughty, IMHO. Go fire off a double-bagel on the person playing up if you're such hot stuff.

Also, I think it silly for captains of dominant, playoff-bound teams to complain. Captains that are bound for the playoffs need to get 2 matches for each of their players. Having super-weak teams makes it less risky to play your own weak players. Even for teams like mine that aren't going to the playoffs, the teams with lots of players playing up mean we will not finish in last place no matter how disastrous our season is.

For that, I am grateful.

Well, first you talk about weak players who can't get on another team playing up then suddenly it's a high-end player playing up. Make your mind up. You may get pleasure from beating a lower ranked player easily but for people with busy schedules who can only get out once a weak it's a waste of time. We were not discussing high end players playing up - that's different.

That's life and I accept that - as people should accept that people will complain if you are tilting for windmills in league play where you have your own league level to play in. I'm not sure that qualifies as being treated badly.

As for your relief that there are teams playing up so you can guarantee your weaker players have a really good chance of winning - well, hooray for dumbing it all down. Where do you draw the line? 2 levels down, 3? someone's hamster being added to the roster?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Moz, most players who play up are at the high end of their own rating level. I had two 3.0s playing up on my 3.5 team. They were the two strongest 3.0s from my old 3.0 team. In my experience, those who are getting destroyed at their own level are not interested in playing up. Those players do not even ask to play up, in my experience.

When I talked about "saint" captains taking on players who can't get on other teams, I meant this: A strong 3.0 often cannot get on a 3.5 team because those teams are full and 3.5 captains often would prefer a computer-rated 3.5 than a strong 3.0. I did not mean to imply that the 3.0 hoping to play up is a weak 3.0.

Sorry for the confusion.

But I say that a 3.5 who shows up to play a 3.0 who is playing up ought to go for the double-bagel. If she feels that is a waste of time, perhaps she is too strong for 3.5 and should play 4.0.

What should the limit be? Should we have 2.5s playing up at 4.0? No, if the levels are to mean anything. I don't think our league has a rule limiting how far up anyone can play. I suppose the reason is that such a rule is unnecessary, 'cause people have the common sense to only play up one level.

Say, are you also against allowing a 3.5 guy and a 3.0 woman playing 7.0 mixed? 'Cause that too is technically "playing up."

 

[Moz]

Moz, most players who play up are at the high end of their own rating level. I had two 3.0s playing up on my 3.5 team. They were the two strongest 3.0s from my old 3.0 team. In my experience, those who are getting destroyed at their own level are not interested in playing up. Those players do not even ask to play up, in my experience.

When I talked about "saint" captains taking on players who can't get on other teams, I meant this: A strong 3.0 often cannot get on a 3.5 team because those teams are full and 3.5 captains often would prefer a computer-rated 3.5 than a strong 3.0. I did not mean to imply that the 3.0 hoping to play up is a weak 3.0.

Sorry for the confusion.

But I say that a 3.5 who shows up to play a 3.0 who is playing up ought to go for the double-bagel. If she feels that is a waste of time, perhaps she is too strong for 3.5 and should play 4.0.

What should the limit be? Should we have 2.5s playing up at 4.0? No, if the levels are to mean anything. I don't think our league has a rule limiting how far up anyone can play. I suppose the reason is that such a rule is unnecessary, 'cause people have the common sense to only play up one level.

Say, are you also against allowing a 3.5 guy and a 3.0 woman playing 7.0 mixed? 'Cause that too is technically "playing up."

Well, if my understanding is correct the difference between a strong 3.0 and a very weak 3.5 can be as little as 0.02 so that would be fine - particularly as the strong 3.5 my be ahead of rating. I do see people who aren't that competitive at their own level playing up though. Common sense is not something that seems particularly prevalent in the tennis general public.

Doubles is less clear cut - particularly in mixed as doubles has a way of evening out. Also, if the opponent is fielding two 3.5's then technically only half the court is playing one level up - if that makes sense. Also technically that person isn't playing up as 3.0 can legitimately be paired with a 4.0 with that team - perhaps they were short that night.

Ideally that wouldn't be the case though and there are enough players in the area I am familiar with to not require people to play up to make a league.

 

[iLose]

Well, first you talk about weak players who can't get on another team playing up then suddenly it's a high-end player playing up. Make your mind up. You may get pleasure from beating a lower ranked player easily but for people with busy schedules who can only get out once a weak it's a waste of time. We were not discussing high end players playing up - that's different.

That's life and I accept that - as people should accept that people will complain if you are tilting for windmills in league play where you have your own league level to play in. I'm not sure that qualifies as being treated badly.

As for your relief that there are teams playing up so you can guarantee your weaker players have a really good chance of winning - well, hooray for dumbing it all down. Where do you draw the line? 2 levels down, 3? someone's hamster being added to the roster?

Moz I think you are a very good poster and I catch up on the blog you have about every 2 weeks so dont get my wrong when I say this...but if you honestly only have time for one 2 hour match per a week, then you need to drop something. Either tennis or something else that takes up all your time.
Also, if you are are a 4.0 player, chances are you don't just play once a week, or else you are very talented. However I understand that somepeople have gotten to a 4.0 level or 4.5 level and cut back on tennis and only plan on playing once a week but this is why you fill a roster with more than just 8 players or however is the minimum.

I have never felt bad for forcing someone to play me when they are a higher level, and If they are upset they have to play me, then hand me two goose eggs. Same with myself, if I play a much worse player I simply go out and do what I have to do to get off the court quick as possible. I have never however felt that some player does not deserve my time, because A) I am only a 4.0 which is still good. and B) If they are really THAT bad, I should be able to get on and off the court in under 40 minutes.

 

[Topaz]

There are people who have families and obligations who still want to play tennis...and have to actually schedule it in...so that one match may well be the one time they get to play. Why should they have to give that up?

It sounds like you are younger and don't have those commitments tying you up right now...doesn't mean that others who do shouldn't get to play.

 

[Moz]

Moz I think you are a very good poster and I catch up on the blog you have about every 2 weeks so dont get my wrong when I say this...but if you honestly only have time for one 2 hour match per a week, then you need to drop something. Either tennis or something else that takes up all your time.

Thanks mate! I was playing devils advocate - as i know a few people in that situation.

I play about 2-3 hours a day - more with matches included.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Moz I think you are a very good poster

Ditto that.

I have never felt bad for forcing someone to play me when they are a higher level, and If they are upset they have to play me, then hand me two goose eggs. Same with myself, if I play a much worse player I simply go out and do what I have to do to get off the court quick as possible. I have never however felt that some player does not deserve my time, because A) I am only a 4.0 which is still good. and B) If they are really THAT bad, I should be able to get on and off the court in under 40 minutes.

Yeah, I kind of agree.

Now, in my case I would say I am a mid-level 3.5. Win some, lose some.

Even though this is my first season at 3.5., I tried to get on a 4.0 team for the spring. I was not successful (or, I should say I wasn't able to get an offer from a team in our league, and I didn't wish to travel huge distances to the one team that would take me).

Had I gotten on a 4.0 team, I would have felt no shame in showing up and getting spanked. I would have given it my all and played my game. Who knows, maybe I would have surprised someone. I don't see anything wrong with that.

At the same time, I am unwilling to try to play 8.0 mixed, even though that isn't even technically considered "playing up" for a 3.5. Why? I'm just not ready. It wouldn't be any fun. I don't do especially well in 7.0 mixed, so why waste my time at 8.0.

I guess what I find objectionable about what this particular captain does (writing e-mails dissing teams with lots of players playing up) is that she does it right to their faces rather than lobbying for a rules change. It feels like intimidation, school yard bullying. *I* will decide if I am ready to play 8.0 mixed, and I don't feel like anyone should scorn my efforts if I did think I was ready but turned out to be wrong.

Oh, and one more thing. Just because someone has a poor record at their own level does not mean they are not at the top of their level, in doubles anyway. Most of my losses earlier this year were with very weak partners, so a casual observer evaluating my readiness for 4.0 would perhaps be misled and think I am weaker than I am.

 

[Topaz]

I would like to state for the record that my 4.0 matches (I was playing up) had better scores than 99 percent of my 3.5 matches. Not sure what that means, but the different doubles partner has a LOT to do with that.

 

[OrangePower]

Way off-topic of the OP, but I find it ironic that many of the same folks who think it's perfectly ok for people to play up are also the ones who moan about how unfair it is when people appeal to play down (or that are otherwise stronger than level).

Mathematically, people appealing down are closer to the average for the level than those playing up. Ah yes, but of course, those playing up are usually not better than you...

Personally (I'm a 4.0C), I would much rather play a 4.0A (although I'd probably lose) than a 3.5C. It's just more enjoyable tennis for me. No disrespect to 3.5's... I'm sure a 4.5 would feel the same way about me playing up

BTW, I also think that if playing up were not allowed, there would be far less sandbagging self-raters and people appealing down. As it stands, if you appeal down, you can have your cake and eat it - you can play at the lower level and still get in a few matches at the higher level. But if forced to choose, most I think would stay at the higher level.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Cindysphinx]

Way off-topic of the OP, but I find it ironic that many of the same folks who think it's perfectly ok for people to play up are also the ones who moan about how unfair it is when people appeal to play down (or that are otherwise stronger than level).

I don't see an inconsistency in my own position (playing up should be allowed, appealing down should not be allowed).

It is perfectly consistent with the entire premise of USTA: Levels keep superior players from destroying inferior players.

Now, if the inferior player *volunteers* to be destroyed, that's fine. What we can't have is superior players getting their jollies by beating up on people the computer has said are at a lower level, as these victims did not volunteer to be thrashed.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to pick a level (e.g. not allowing people to play two levels). Many of us improve at a glacial pace, so there can be a period where we straddle two levels, doing OK at the lower level but struggling at the higher level. That's part of the learning process, and I see no harm done.

But if you forced players to choose, I think most would opt to play the lower level. That's because it can be awfully tough to get match time on a team when you are playing up. Better to have more matches where you dominate than hardly any matches at a higher level.

 

[JavierLW]

Obviously not call captains are jerks, but it seems like a considerable amount of them just simply care too much or are jerks. It seems like the area I am from all the tennis players work downtown and are big corporate business people and maybe the money has gotten to them but I don't think that could account for it all.

I am the captain for a terrible 4.0 teams with most 3.5 players and a couple 4.0, we could care less as long as there is beer at the sports bar after were done. I could not think of doing some of the things that other captains do or say, it is incredible to me. I mean, I would consider myself a solid 4.0 and one of the better players on my team, at the same time I would consider myself a hacker when it comes to the sport of tennis, I would not expect anyone to be impressed by my tennis skill but some of these captains act like 4.0 tennis is davis cup and they have to give their players a pep talk loudly before matches. (this happened 4 different times)

Most the players on other teams are pretty cool guys as well it just seems like the captains of the other teams are a different breed of person, I have stories on top of stories from just one year but thats for a different time.

Anyone else notice this about other teams captains and how competitive they are? If you have not noticed this I would like to hear your 2 cents as well, it is just kinda a shocker to me but maybe I am just getting certain people wrong.

I think you just have a big difference of opinion and from this post you seem to be looking down on people who view this differently than you.

It may be all well and good that you are on a crummy 4.0 team and all you care about is drinking beer, but just because someone else actually cares about whether they win or not doesnt mean you should think anything about them.

What's wrong with giving a pep talk. Look, I dont care what level you play at 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, some people actually care if they win or not and the captain may actually care about doing whatever they can to pump their players up and helping them win the match.

I think your attitude is insulting to that because it suggests that there is something wrong with having some pride and being successful just because someone is not on TV.

Now if they are cheating or being rude, or doing underhanded things to gain an advantage, then you have a point. But you dont mention any of those things so it just sounds like you're putting down people who are trying to win.

It's a tennis LEAGUE, some people choose to take that seriously and actually try to do well as a TEAM, and a lot of teams just look at it like some sort of tennis ladder where their members just show up play tennis and drink beer.

Either of them is fine (but I LOVE playing the beer teams), but dont put someone down just because they are trying to be successful and you are not.

 

[JavierLW]

Way off-topic of the OP, but I find it ironic that many of the same folks who think it's perfectly ok for people to play up are also the ones who moan about how unfair it is when people appeal to play down (or that are otherwise stronger than level).

Mathematically, people appealing down are closer to the average for the level than those playing up. Ah yes, but of course, those playing up are usually not better than you...

Personally (I'm a 4.0C), I would much rather play a 4.0A (although I'd probably lose) than a 3.5C. It's just more enjoyable tennis for me. No disrespect to 3.5's... I'm sure a 4.5 would feel the same way about me playing up

BTW, I also think that if playing up were not allowed, there would be far less sandbagging self-raters and people appealing down. As it stands, if you appeal down, you can have your cake and eat it - you can play at the lower level and still get in a few matches at the higher level. But if forced to choose, most I think would stay at the higher level.

Just my 2 cents...

It doesnt matter what it is mathmatically. Percentage wise it can sometimes be very rare that you get rated up. So why should the line be drawn at .05 over and not .00 over?? If you are over, you're over.

Also the USTA acknowledged that a lot of people were in the wrong rating to begin with so for every one person who FINALLY gets rated up there are probably 10 more who should be.

The reason why playing up should be allowed is because we play a lot of doubles in our leagues. To win at doubles you have a to have a good partner and it helps to be used in situations where you can be successful.

At least at men's 3.0 and 3.5 it's pretty common to find players who struggle in 3.0 doubles with bad partners, but in 3.5 doubles they are doing great when they've found a good partner.

By yourself you will not win a 3.0 match with a bad 3.0 partner, even if you are a 3.5 (unless you are a ringer for 3.5 perhaps). So that creates a sort of distorted picture.

If you only played singles though then it's more clear, if you cant win a lot at 3.0 then you probably wont do well at 3.5. It's just the nature of how singles works versus doubles.

(again my current 3.5 team that I run, started out with 8 3.0 players and we took 3rd place out of 8 teams in our first year. We're the 6th best team in our league this year out of 22 teams (2nd best 2nd place team))

Complaining about playing up and complaining about appealee is two totally different things.

 

[OrangePower]

... the entire premise of USTA: Levels keep superior players from destroying inferior players.

I agree with you, that should be the premise, but clearly that does not hold when an inferior player plays up. So I do think that playing up is not consistent with this premise.

Now, if the inferior player *volunteers* to be destroyed, that's fine.

I think you are looking at it just from the perspective of the inferior player. It may be fine for the inferior player to be destroyed because he/she volunteered for the beating... but what about the stronger player looking to get a good game, rather than handing out a one-sided beat-down? He/she currently has no choice in the matter. How is that fine or fair?

My premise is that *most* people want good, evenly matched games, and would prefer this to getting easy victories. Based on this premise, playing up should be discouraged. Also based on this premise, when forced to choose just one level, most people will play at the level closest to that of their own game.

 

[OrangePower]

It doesnt matter what it is mathmatically. Percentage wise it can sometimes be very rare that you get rated up. So why should the line be drawn at .05 over and not .00 over?? If you are over, you're over.

Quite right! And by the same token, if you're under, you're under

The reason why playing up should be allowed is because we play a lot of doubles in our leagues. To win at doubles you have a to have a good partner and it helps to be used in situations where you can be successful.

At least at men's 3.0 and 3.5 it's pretty common to find players who struggle in 3.0 doubles with bad partners, but in 3.5 doubles they are doing great when they've found a good partner.

By yourself you will not win a 3.0 match with a bad 3.0 partner, even if you are a 3.5 (unless you are a ringer for 3.5 perhaps). So that creates a sort of distorted picture.

If you only played singles though then it's more clear, if you cant win a lot at 3.0 then you probably wont do well at 3.5. It's just the nature of how singles works versus doubles.

Ok, I can (kind of) buy that. I was thinking more about singles.

Of course, I trust that a person in the scenario you describe, that is really at the 3.5 skill level rather than the 3.0 level but can't get a good enough partner at 3.0 to get bumped up, but does ok playing up at 3.5... this person would then not dream of playing 3.0 as well, right?

(again my current 3.5 team that I run, started out with 8 3.0 players and we took 3rd place out of 8 teams in our first year. We're the 6th best team in our league this year out of 22 teams (2nd best 2nd place team))

Well done, that means you are all improving, and that's great. Again, I hope your 8 3.0 players are not also playing 3.0... if they are good enough to be so competitive at 3.5 then this would be sandbagging, no? And really no different in spirit to the 3.5 appealing down to 3.0...

Complaining about playing up and complaining about appealee is two totally different things.

I still maintain that one encourages the other.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I agree with you, that should be the premise, but clearly that does not hold when an inferior player plays up. So I do think that playing up is not consistent with this premise.

OK, go on . . .

I think you are looking at it just from the perspective of the inferior player.

Absolutely. As it should be.

The whole system is designed and should be designed to protect the inferior player above all else. Many of us have been doing this for years. But we ought to be able to remember what it was like to take those first steps into competitive play. The last thing that player needs (or the sport needs) is to have inferior players facing off against superior players when the inferior player did not sign up for a beatdown.

That is why we have the hardcore DQ rules for self-rates, for instance. We want to protect the people at the lower levels.

It doesn't have to be that way. Deciding it was important to protect inferior players was a policy choice of USTA. I think it was the right choice.

but what about the stronger player looking to get a good game, rather than handing out a one-sided beat-down? He/she currently has no choice in the matter. How is that fine or fair?

It's fair.

The superior player has options. He/she can appeal up. He/she can play up. He/she can play opens. Or he/she can show up and do the best thing for the team: give up as few games as possible so that the team wins and is better positioned in case the team finishes tied for another team.

My premise is that *most* people want good, evenly matched games, and would prefer this to getting easy victories.

True.

Also based on this premise, when forced to choose just one level, most people will play at the level closest to that of their own game.

Not so fast.

In our area, there are more playing opportunities at the lower levels than the upper levels. So if I am a 3.5 but choose only to play 4.0, my team may have fewer matches. As a weak member of the team, I would likely have a hard time earning a spot in the line-up.

Last year, I was a 3.0. I played 3.0 and 3.5. Had I been put to the choice, I would have chosen 3.0. Trying to be on a 3.5 team and winding up with only 2 matches for the entire season (so I would be eligible for playoffs) is no way to spend a tennis season. So I would have stuck with 3.0.

Really, I think if we took a poll of those who play at two USTA levels, only a few people would say they would choose to play the higher level if the league forced them to choose.

 

[OrangePower]

It's fair.

The superior player has options. He/she can appeal up. He/she can play up. He/she can play opens. Or he/she can show up and do the best thing for the team: give up as few games as possible so that the team wins and is better positioned in case the team finishes tied for another team.

Well Cindysphinx, I'm happy to just agree to disagree with you on this topic... but... here's a hypothetical question:

Say you're a middle-of-the-road 3.5. Your objective is to play some close, competitive matches, so you're forgoing playing 4.0 or open, because, well, you'll get killed. So you've signed onto a 3.5 team and expect to get say six matches during the season. This will cost you some of your hard-earned $$$ (league fees, court fees, etc), and perhaps more importantly, some of your limited free time.

You get your six matches. By a weird twist of fate, you end up playing only 3.0s playing up. So you do what you are supposed to do, and win them all by an average score of 6-1, 6-1.

At the end of the season, you reflect back. Are you:

(1) Delighted and pumped, because you are unbeaten and the hero of your team, or,

(2) Disappointed, because you did not get the opportunity to play good matches, and don't know what else you could have done to ensure this.

Ok, I admit this is an extreme example, but in some areas playing up is very prevalent. As a personal example, out of four doubles matches I played this 4.0 season, two were against 3.5 pairings. That's 50%! Fortunately, I play mostly singles, and it seems that playing up is less frequent in singles.

In our area, there are more playing opportunities at the lower levels than the upper levels. So if I am a 3.5 but choose only to play 4.0, my team may have fewer matches. As a weak member of the team, I would likely have a hard time earning a spot in the line-up.

Good point. Ironically, much the same argument that many others make for appealing down. A 3.5 that just got bumped to 4.0 would be viewed by many 4.0 captains as weaker than 'established' 4.0s. So if this person declined to appeal, "his/her team may have fewer matches. As a weak member of the team, he/she would likely have a hard time earning a spot in the line-up"

 

[raiden031]

Well Cindysphinx, I'm happy to just agree to disagree with you on this topic... but... here's a hypothetical question:

Say you're a middle-of-the-road 3.5. Your objective is to play some close, competitive matches, so you're forgoing playing 4.0 or open, because, well, you'll get killed. So you've signed onto a 3.5 team and expect to get say six matches during the season. This will cost you some of your hard-earned $$$ (league fees, court fees, etc), and perhaps more importantly, some of your limited free time.

You get your six matches. By a weird twist of fate, you end up playing only 3.0s playing up. So you do what you are supposed to do, and win them all by an average score of 6-1, 6-1.

At the end of the season, you reflect back. Are you:

(1) Delighted and pumped, because you are unbeaten and the hero of your team, or,

(2) Disappointed, because you did not get the opportunity to play good matches, and don't know what else you could have done to ensure this.

Ok, I admit this is an extreme example, but in some areas playing up is very prevalent. As a personal example, out of four doubles matches I played this 4.0 season, two were against 3.5 pairings. That's 50%! Fortunately, I play mostly singles, and it seems that playing up is less frequent in singles.



Good point. Ironically, much the same argument that many others make for appealing down. A 3.5 that just got bumped to 4.0 would be viewed by many 4.0 captains as weaker than 'established' 4.0s. So if this person declined to appeal, "his/her team may have fewer matches. As a weak member of the team, he/she would likely have a hard time earning a spot in the line-up"

This is no worse than a guy who doesn't get bumped up the previous year, but improves enough to blow out everyone at his current level the next year. I think he deserves to get some competitive matches by playing up until the rating system catches up with him.

This scenario is more likely to happen than the one of playing a majority of your matches against players playing up who shouldn't be.

 

[JavierLW]

Quite right! And by the same token, if you're under, you're under



Ok, I can (kind of) buy that. I was thinking more about singles.

Of course, I trust that a person in the scenario you describe, that is really at the 3.5 skill level rather than the 3.0 level but can't get a good enough partner at 3.0 to get bumped up, but does ok playing up at 3.5... this person would then not dream of playing 3.0 as well, right?



Well done, that means you are all improving, and that's great. Again, I hope your 8 3.0 players are not also playing 3.0... if they are good enough to be so competitive at 3.5 then this would be sandbagging, no? And really no different in spirit to the 3.5 appealing down to 3.0...



I still maintain that one encourages the other.

You're assuming way too much about people who are playing up.

What happens many times is this:

1) Players initially rate themselve at 3.0 (in some cases clubs encourage them to do so). Because they play mostly doubles they can remain at 3.0 for many years if they are not playing 3.5 even though they would of done fine in 3.5.

It's not really an issue of sandbagging because there is a lot of overlap between 3.0 and 3.5.

2) Players do poorly and 3.5 and get moved down to 3.0. Again this happens sometimes because the player is weak, but it happens a lot just because the player gets put in a bad situation.

My players were mostly in those two categorys. And of course they played both for that year (they had a 3.0 rating, why wouldnt they play 3.0?)

The funny thing was in 3.0 we took 3rd place (although we had some other 3.0 players that I wouldnt let on the 3.5 team) and it was a major disapointment and wasnt a lot of fun. At 3.5 meanwhile it was a lot of fun.

When the year end ratings came out that year we only had 4 3.0 players left. (and I think I was the only one who did both the next year and I experienced the same thing where I had better results in 3.5 then in 3.0)

The reason why people frown on appealees and not on players who play up is because there is a general feeling that people who play down are cheaters.

If you play up you are not a cheater. It's true that it may make some decent players unhappy if it's not competitive, but at least it's not cheating. (and in some areas if you didnt have players playing up, the leagues would be a lot smaller, if you have to choose between playing weak opponents or not having a match at all, which would you choose??)

The deal with appealees (and Ive felt this way ever since they came out with the stupid appeal system) is finally you've seen someone who's been rated up and they've choosen to appeal back down. Im sorry but to some that makes them look like a cheater, and it's different then the person who you just "think" shouldnt be at your level but has your same rating.

(although I would agree it's not cheating since that's the rule, I just think the rule is dumb when it comes to that. It makes no sense to rate people up if they can just appeal back down)

 

[OrangePower]

Javier I understand everything you're saying, and in general don't have a problem with any of it. Again, I just find it ironic because all the arguments used to justify playing up also apply equally to players appealing down. So when you say

It's not really an issue of sandbagging because there is a lot of overlap between 3.0 and 3.5.

to justify your strong 3.0s playing both 3.5 and 3.0, I'd agree. But the same argument of having a lot of overlap also justifies a marginal 3.5 appealing down. It really is no different. But as you've pointed out,

The reason why people frown on appealees and not on players who play up is because there is a general feeling that people who play down are cheaters.

which is I think is hypocritical.

So my point of view is either leave things as is, with people playing up, but then stop all the whining about appeals (I don't mean you personally, I mean in general), or else ban playing up, which I think will also cut down on the appeals. But we can't have it both ways.

Oh, and I don't personally have a dog in this fight - unfortunately, I am still far away from getting bumped and having the opportunity to appeal down

 

[Tarboro]

The superior player has options. He/she can appeal up. He/she can play up. He/she can play opens. Or he/she can show up and do the best thing for the team: give up as few games as possible so that the team wins and is better positioned in case the team finishes tied for another team.

Cindy is looking at it as a team captain, as I would expect. Some people, particularly singles players, play USTA strictly for the match play. While I would never be so bold as to say that they don't care if their team wins or loses, their primary concern is the quality of their matches. If a USTA league is the way they choose to get match play in (vs. tournament or ladder or whatever) I think it's natural for them to expect competitive matches. They don't want to play up or play open because they know they are (or believe themselves to be) 4.0 or 3.5 or 3.0 or whatever.

 

[JavierLW]

Javier I understand everything you're saying, and in general don't have a problem with any of it. Again, I just find it ironic because all the arguments used to justify playing up also apply equally to players appealing down. So when you say



to justify your strong 3.0s playing both 3.5 and 3.0, I'd agree. But the same argument of having a lot of overlap also justifies a marginal 3.5 appealing down. It really is no different. But as you've pointed out,



which is I think is hypocritical.

So my point of view is either leave things as is, with people playing up, but then stop all the whining about appeals (I don't mean you personally, I mean in general), or else ban playing up, which I think will also cut down on the appeals. But we can't have it both ways.

Oh, and I don't personally have a dog in this fight - unfortunately, I am still far away from getting bumped and having the opportunity to appeal down

Well that's going to be the central point of disagreement.

Some people feel that playing down (including appealing) is cheating. You dont feel that way (obviously) but others do.

You cant make a point that playing up is cheating. It does have drawbacks but nobody in their right mind would say someone playing up was cheating.

And the general point of contention always is going to be about where the overlap is occuring. If it's occuring from players who are mis-rated down then playing up helps to right the system on those.

So that would bring you to the same argument. You can say because of the overlap it's okay to play up, but that's still not saying that's the same thing as being able to play down (because the consensus is that if you play down you are cheating, at least it has that stigma attached to it).

So the point is playing down or playing up could both be views as wrong like you are trying to say, but it's not for the same reasons.

In fact usually (not saying you are one of them) the only people I see who really whine about players who play up are the players who are on the elite first place teams who are clobbering everyone so they try to claim that they are at the "real" level and everyone else belongs in the lower one.

Im (hopefully) in the same boat as you, I probably cant appeal back to 3.0, and Im not ready to play 4.0 yet. But I trust myself that I will know when Im ready, I dont need to gain some 4.0 rating from playing 3.5 to prove it.

 

[OrangePower]

Well that's going to be the central point of disagreement.

Some people feel that playing down (including appealing) is cheating. You dont feel that way (obviously) but others do.

You cant make a point that playing up is cheating. It does have drawbacks but nobody in their right mind would say someone playing up was cheating.

And the general point of contention always is going to be about where the overlap is occuring. If it's occuring from players who are mis-rated down then playing up helps to right the system on those.

So that would bring you to the same argument. You can say because of the overlap it's okay to play up, but that's still not saying that's the same thing as being able to play down (because the consensus is that if you play down you are cheating, at least it has that stigma attached to it).

So the point is playing down or playing up could both be views as wrong like you are trying to say, but it's not for the same reasons.

In fact usually (not saying you are one of them) the only people I see who really whine about players who play up are the players who are on the elite first place teams who are clobbering everyone so they try to claim that they are at the "real" level and everyone else belongs in the lower one.

Im (hopefully) in the same boat as you, I probably cant appeal back to 3.0, and Im not ready to play 4.0 yet. But I trust myself that I will know when Im ready, I dont need to gain some 4.0 rating from playing 3.5 to prove it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't mean to attack the concept of playing up. My argument is with people that feel that appealing is cheating, but that playing up is justified. I see them as two sides of the same coin, since the same arguments used to justify one can just as easily be used to justify the other. So either you accept them both, or you renounce them both. Personally, I'm quite happy with the system the way it is now, appeals, playing up, and all.

 

[OrangePower]

Cindy is looking at it as a team captain, as I would expect. Some people, particularly singles players, play USTA strictly for the match play. While I would never be so bold as to say that they don't care if their team wins or loses, their primary concern is the quality of their matches. If a USTA league is the way they choose to get match play in (vs. tournament or ladder or whatever) I think it's natural for them to expect competitive matches. They don't want to play up or play open because they know they are (or believe themselves to be) 4.0 or 3.5 or 3.0 or whatever.

Caring whether your team wins or loses and desiring quality matches are not mutually exclusive concepts. For most people and teams, the thrill of winning (or disappintment of losing) as a team is diminished when the winning or losing is taking place to folks well above or below your level.

The exception are those teams who are happy to win regardless of the quality of play. Such teams would indeed be happy to have only uncompetitive one-sided matches with weaker opponents playing up. Such teams are also the ones likely to have all the sandbaggers on board since winning is prioritized above enjoying good tennis...

 

[iLose]

I think you just have a big difference of opinion and from this post you seem to be looking down on people who view this differently than you.

It may be all well and good that you are on a crummy 4.0 team and all you care about is drinking beer, but just because someone else actually cares about whether they win or not doesnt mean you should think anything about them.

What's wrong with giving a pep talk. Look, I dont care what level you play at 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, some people actually care if they win or not and the captain may actually care about doing whatever they can to pump their players up and helping them win the match.

I think your attitude is insulting to that because it suggests that there is something wrong with having some pride and being successful just because someone is not on TV.

Now if they are cheating or being rude, or doing underhanded things to gain an advantage, then you have a point. But you dont mention any of those things so it just sounds like you're putting down people who are trying to win.

It's a tennis LEAGUE, some people choose to take that seriously and actually try to do well as a TEAM, and a lot of teams just look at it like some sort of tennis ladder where their members just show up play tennis and drink beer.

Either of them is fine (but I LOVE playing the beer teams), but dont put someone down just because they are trying to be successful and you are not.

I have made at least 2 other post after my first post and before you made this post that went more into detail about what I was talking about, did you not read them?

I agree from my first post I can see where people would think what you think, which is valid.

A pep talk is 100% fine, I give my team a "lets get one for the skipper" peep talk all the time just in good sprit. If a captain were to say "OKAY BOYS WE REALLY NEED THIS MATCH, LETS GO OUT AND GET IT" that is perfect I am glad the guy is having fun and the team wants to go out and get a win no harm done. I can not understand saying "lets go out and get all 5 here" because the captain is hinting at the fact that we are a bad team and we should be able to be beatin badly. If you play basketball you often hear a coach say lets go out there and win, you do not hear a coach say "lets go out and beat them 99 to 20"

 

[JavierLW]

I have made at least 2 other post after my first post and before you made this post that went more into detail about what I was talking about, did you not read them?

I agree from my first post I can see where people would think what you think, which is valid.

A pep talk is 100% fine, I give my team a "lets get one for the skipper" peep talk all the time just in good sprit. If a captain were to say "OKAY BOYS WE REALLY NEED THIS MATCH, LETS GO OUT AND GET IT" that is perfect I am glad the guy is having fun and the team wants to go out and get a win no harm done. I can not understand saying "lets go out and get all 5 here" because the captain is hinting at the fact that we are a bad team and we should be able to be beatin badly. If you play basketball you often hear a coach say lets go out there and win, you do not hear a coach say "lets go out and beat them 99 to 20"

Actually in our league, individual matches count (not team wins) so maybe our captains would say "lets go out and win all 5!!!!". It wouldnt be to rub it in anyone's face but it would be for the fact that you may need to win all 5 to stay in contention.

Although I think generally it's not a good idea to tell your team that you need X number of wins even in our situation because ultimately each player or team needs to go out on the court and just worry about themselves until the match is over. It doesnt serve any purpose to know that your team is depending on you to win just because you need to win all the matches. You should just want to win anyway.

 

[JavierLW]

^^^^

You make a good point, I never really looked at it like that.


However I guess I needed to talk a bit more about my experience. Here is a few that come to mind, (I wont try to make them worse then they are just so it's better for my side)

I'll start with the one that made me the most frustrated

-After exchanging line ups the other captain of one of the top teams in our league (I believe 2nd or 3rd) yells to his team "lets clean up here boys, we need all five matches"
....If you need all five matches thats fine, and sometimes I know players will figure "hey we already got the match so I'm not going to sweat it" but I feel its rude to say out loud.


-Now about the money thing here is more what I was talking about. If it rains here some teams sign up to go inside that very same night, it cost 15 dollars PER PLAYER even if you only have a couple of games left.
-- Now most my players are in college including myself, we are broke. Every time it looks like rain in the forecast I call the other captain at explain to him that we would rather try to make up the match on a day that they can are available or if that is absolutely not possible them we will forfeit the match. 3 different times I have felt the opposing captain was actually mad at me for my team not having the income to throw out 15 dollars just to get a match done that night.


- I overheard two other captains talking about they hated playing the worse team in our league (who is the same team every year, an innercity team predominantly African American) and that they were a waste of everyones time, and should not be given home matches because where their home courts are located.


Now these are obviously not every captain or anything but just with the examples I have given you were about 6 or 7 different captains and our league only has about 18 teams.

I think I would be really annoyed with the other team if they forced my team to reschedule or forfeited the match as well.

We have the exact same system here (indoor clubs charge around $15 for a rainout fee). Most teams simply pay it and get the match over with. It's really worth it compared to rescheduling the match because most adults (who are out of college) have activitys on other nights in the summer and they really only planned on playing for your team on a certain night during the week.

Besides Im sure you're going to drop $15 at the sports bar anyway, so you might as well pay to get some tennis out of the way.

Rescheduling is a big pain for everyone. But since you are seem willing to forfeit it's likely you wouldnt put the effort in to do that anyway.

And teams that just forfeit matches left and right are the worst. It's no wonder that they are giving you a hard time about that.

If you were in my area we would give you a hard time as well. Like most college kids your age you look at everyone from only your own perspective, but if you stopped and considered the 20+ other teams who know that paying $15 for a rainout is just part of being in the league, you'd understand why you'd be annoying to them.

As far as the "win all five" comment, who cares? You apprently dont care if you win or not, so why does that bother you. (although I do think that giving that speech is a little ******** but Id just think less of that captain and leave it at that, it's not worth a post on a forum)

As far as the desire not to want to play the worst team, I agree that those two captains are being ******** as well, but that's their problem, not yours.

Sometimes teams that play in country clubs and indoor facilitys hate playing in what they call "playground teams". But I relish in that fact (since I basically run a playground team).

Tennis is an expensive sport and you'll meet all sorts of hoity toity, stuck up, snobbish people along the way. If you care too much about how OTHER people act and what they say to you then you probably wont handle it, but I tend to just let them be and wont have much to do with them.

 

[BreakPoint]

Also, I won’t be told that I should be able to fork over 15 dollars to go inside when we have plenty of outdoor courts in my area and it's summer, my team should not have to either. The USTA needs tennis players more now than ever, they also push that tennis is not a wealthy sport so forgive me for protecting myself and broke team.

I am not hurt, just like the matches I let everything roll off my shoulders by the time I get to the sports bar, I just cant believe how rude people are in general. I just don't understand how some people can care sooo much, that’s all.

Wait, so you guys don't have $15 each to pay for indoor courts but you guys have $15 each to spend on beer at the sports bar? Would you guys prefer to be playing tennis or drinking beer? If it's the latter, then perhaps you guys should just skip the tennis and head straight for the sports bar instead? Or better yet, maybe just skip the weekly tennis league and instead meet once a week at the sports bar? But if you guys rather be playing tennis, then perhaps put the funds towards the court time and skip the sports bar afterwards?

Like someone else mentioned, everyone has busy lives and everyone wants to play so people get extremely disappointed when they don't get to play on the only day they've set aside to play that week.

 

[burosky]

I just want to add my .02 cents to the mix here. It is not just in the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 levels where you see people playing up. It happens at every level for different reasons. As most people probably know, the higher the rating goes, the fewer players there are. This is why for example at the 5.0 level you typically have a league where a team only plays 1 single and 2 doubles matches. Now, even at that you will still see teams that has a lot of 4.5s on the roster. Of course some are there because they want to play up. However, there are also some who were recruited just to fill the rosters. This is quite prevalent in private clubs that don't allow non-members to play for their teams.

I don't understand why it is a problem playing against those who play up. This is league tennis. You have to understand you have no control over who you are going to play. If you want to be assured of having a competetive match, arrange for one. Otherwise, this playing up issue shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[OrangePower]

I just want to add my .02 cents to the mix here. It is not just in the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 levels where you see people playing up. It happens at every level for different reasons. As most people probably know, the higher the rating goes, the fewer players there are. This is why for example at the 5.0 level you typically have a league where a team only plays 1 single and 2 doubles matches. Now, even at that you will still see teams that has a lot of 4.5s on the roster. Of course some are there because they want to play up. However, there are also some who were recruited just to fill the rosters. This is quite prevalent in private clubs that don't allow non-members to play for their teams.

I don't understand why it is a problem playing against those who play up. This is league tennis. You have to understand you have no control over who you are going to play. If you want to be assured of having a competetive match, arrange for one. Otherwise, this playing up issue shouldn't even be an issue.

It isn't a problem. The point I have been trying (failing, it appears) to make is that exactly the same logic applies to playing against those that have appealed down. However, many people on these boards seem to consider the appeal system as legalized cheating, and don't want to acknowledge that the reasoning behind it is similar and as valid as that for playing up.

 

[JavierLW]

I just want to add my .02 cents to the mix here. It is not just in the 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 levels where you see people playing up. It happens at every level for different reasons. As most people probably know, the higher the rating goes, the fewer players there are. This is why for example at the 5.0 level you typically have a league where a team only plays 1 single and 2 doubles matches. Now, even at that you will still see teams that has a lot of 4.5s on the roster. Of course some are there because they want to play up. However, there are also some who were recruited just to fill the rosters. This is quite prevalent in private clubs that don't allow non-members to play for their teams.

I don't understand why it is a problem playing against those who play up. This is league tennis. You have to understand you have no control over who you are going to play. If you want to be assured of having a competetive match, arrange for one. Otherwise, this playing up issue shouldn't even be an issue.

Awesome post. The trouble is a lot of players treat LEAGUE tennis just as their personal means of playing tennis like it was some sort of ladder.

I guess that's the only thing that I would agree with OrangePower on, the people who complain about it from a purely competitive match perspective are wrong about playing up and appealees.

But there is still a stigma that if you play down you are cheating and if you are playing up you are not which is a whole different matter.

 

[JavierLW]

Wait, so you guys don't have $15 each to pay for indoor courts but you guys have $15 each to spend on beer at the sports bar? Would you guys prefer to be playing tennis or drinking beer? If it's the latter, then perhaps you guys should just skip the tennis and head straight for the sports bar instead? Or better yet, maybe just skip the weekly tennis league and instead meet once a week at the sports bar? But if you guys rather be playing tennis, then perhaps put the funds towards the court time and skip the sports bar afterwards?

Like someone else mentioned, everyone has busy lives and everyone wants to play so people get extremely disappointed when they don't get to play on the only day they've set aside to play that week.

I was thinking the same thing.

I dont believe $15 is enough that anyone can give the poor college student excuse as not being able to cover it. I was in college, you spend way more than $15 on beer, night clubs, and other necessitys that go along with college.

I believe this has nothing to do with the money. If playing tennis was important to someone and they wanted to get it in that day they would dish out the $15. It's not like it rains every single week, it happens once in awhile.

But if they dont want to pay $15 for that, but they will head to the sports bar where they are sure to dish out more that tells me that they dont care at all about their match.

And Im sorry but playing teams full of players who simply dont even care about playing is annoying. (because regardless of how cut throat or not a team is most players signed up to play, not to win by forfeit)

Like I said we have the same exact system here. It's a team's right to refuse to move indoors and force the other team to reschedule, but I would be pissed if the other team did that.

It happened to a friend of mine a few weeks ago (they force us to reschedule here if you dont they ban you), and it's been a huge nightmare trying to get 16 people together, even though they are trying to have the players reschedule their own matches. No thanks!

 

[burosky]

Not having the money to pay for the courts is perfectly acceptable. It is just a fact of life that not everyone has the means. However, saying the money is not there for the courts but is there for the local watering hole is a different story.

 

[burosky]

There is another thread here about having their team sponsored by a sports bar. That just might be the ticket!

 

[smoothtennis]

There is another thread here about having their team sponsored by a sports bar. That just might be the ticket!

You nailed it!

 

[PushyPushster]

We have the exact same system here (indoor clubs charge around $15 for a rainout fee). Most teams simply pay it and get the match over with. It's really worth it compared to rescheduling the match because most adults (who are out of college) have activitys on other nights in the summer and they really only planned on playing for your team on a certain night during the week.

I'm not paying an extra $15 because Johnny Country Club has a tee time tomorrow. If $15 doesn't mean anything to an opponent, then $30 probably doesn't either. Pay for both, or suck it up and reschedule.

 

[BreakPoint]

I'm not paying an extra $15 because Johnny Country Club has a tee time tomorrow. If $15 doesn't mean anything to an opponent, then $30 probably doesn't either. Pay for both, or suck it up and reschedule.

Have you ever been a captain? If so, you should know that rescheduling is the biggest pain in the ass in the world. Especially, if your home courts are at a facility that hosts lots of USTA teams so that all the courts are reserved months in advance. Good luck in trying to find an open block of time for 5 courts at the same time when everyone is available anytime in the near future.