And with the new format for Nationals, we get to see how the ties play out, how large the group tied is and what tie-breakers are ultimately used, and how equitable they are.
Here are the standings for the top-4 and ties teams listed in the order TennisLink shows. You'll note I'm including schedule strength (using my top-7 average ratings for opponents through all matches played), sets won, and games won, all not included on TennisLink.
| Section | Record | Schedule | Courts | Sets | Games |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 4-0 | 4.86 | 11-1 | 23-3 | 148-90 |
| NorCal | 4-0 | 4.91 | 8-4 | 18-10 | 127-107 |
| Caribbean | 3-1 | 4.82 | 10-2 | 20-6 | 129-83 |
| Southern | 3-1 | 4.94 | 8-4 | 16-11 | 126-101 |
| Mid-Atlantic | 3-1 | 4.85 | 8-4 | 18-11 | 120-102 |
| MoValley | 3-1 | 4.84 | 7-5 | 14-10 | 125-106 |
We see there was a 2-way tie for first at 4-0 and it was pretty easily broken by the individual courts won/lost tie-breaker.
But then there were 4 teams for 2 spots, and Caribbean took the first on individual courts won/lost. MoValley was last in the tie-breaker also on courts, leaving Southern and Mid-Atlantic both tied on courts and sets lots (what the USTA uses) leaving it to games lost where Southern lost 1 fewer game, thus they get the nod.
But is this tie-breaker equitable? I say no, and the reason is bolded above. While both Southern and Mid-Atlantic both lost 11 sets, Mid-Atlantic won 2 more sets than Southern, 18 vs 16, and in my opinion, this should be the next tie-breaker used instead of games lost.
What this tie-breaker is basically saying is that if you lose an individual court, there is no difference between losing in straight-sets vs losing in a 3rd set tie-break. In this case, Mid-Atlantic lost as many sets, but took more matches to third set tie-breaks, but gets no credit for doing so.
What do you think? Should Mid-Atlantic have won the tie-breaker? Is the use of this tie-breaker unfair to the teams?
Update: Another observation is that Mid-Atlantic beat SoCal who beat Southern. Record against common opponents is not part of the USTA's tie-breaker, but this is another data point and perhaps this should be part of the tie-breaker for the new format.
If first team won 6–4, 6-4 and second team won 7-6, 5-7, 1-0 it does not seem right that the second team is credited with more games won. Nor does it seem right that both teams in second match get same number of games won. I guess that’s why they look at games lost, and sets won, right?
ReplyDeleteYes, another issue is extended sets. Since they count games lost, it is better to lose 6-0 than 7-5 or 7-6 as with the former, you only lost 6 games while the latter you lost 7. This is another reason why the tie-breakers are broken.
Delete