As a reminder, the USTA changed 40 & Over to a 4-court format for 2020, and there was, and still is, much angst over it, primarily because of the problems it causes in determining a match winner, but also because it removed a playing spot (7 players required for a match instead of 8) and singles playing opportunity. In any case, we have the format for now, and this will be the first time it is used at Nationals since none were held in 2020.
When you have four courts, there is no longer always a clear winner based on court wins as you can have 2-2 ties. At one point, the regulations allowed for unbroken ties, but that was fixed finally, but it is still good to understand how it all works.
Various sections handled 40 & Over differently. Some elected to change to a Points Per Position format instead of team wins for standings, others elected to have the winner of court 1 doubles be the tie-breaker, but the standard rule and what will be used at Nationals as is follows.
Should a match end in a 2-2 tie, the first tie-breaker is sets lost, the loser of the fewest getting the team win.
If the teams lost the same number of sets, then it goes to games lost, again the loser of the fewest games getting the win.
If the teams are still tied, then the regulations call for using game winning percentage next, but this is pointless since if both teams are tied on games lost, they both won the same number of games and GWP is 50% for both teams. Duh.
If things remain tied, then as the last tie-breaker the winner of court 1 doubles gets the win. Note, this last tie-breaker was missing in the original 2020 regulations and it was possible for there to be team matches without a documented way to determine a winner!
This is all understandable, but it does mean it is not simple to know who won. Every set and game counts, and should it come to it, court 1 doubles matters even more. IMHO, I still think 4 courts for Nationals there a team match winner must be decided is a bad idea.
But what could happen as a result? There could be some strange standings.
Take for example a team that has three strong players that play singles and one of the doubles courts. These players could win their courts while their teammates lose every other court and the team matches are all 2-2. If the strong players win easily and/or the other lost courts are close enough, the team would win each of these 2-2 matches and go 4-0 in round-robin despite a court record of 8-8. If another team won three matches 4-0 and then happened to "lose" 2-2, they would be 3-1 with a court record of 14-2 and potentially not make the semis, losing out to other 4-0 teams including the one that is 8-8 on courts.
Or, a team could win three 2-2 matches and lose their other match 4-0 leading to a 3-1 record and 6-10 on courts. Another could win two matches 4-0 then lose two 2-2 matches going 2-2 with a court record of 12-4. If the competition is very close like my simulation of 40 & Over 4.0 men this weekend says it could be, the team that won only 6 courts over 4 matches could beat out a 2-2 team that won 12 courts for a semi-final position.
Are either of these scenarios wrong? Not necessarily, but they certainly change the dynamic of how a team can advance.
What do you think? Will the 4-court format make for more drama and excitement? Or is it not the most equitable way to determine team match winners and ultimately who advances to the semis?
No comments:
Post a Comment