The 40 & Over 2-2 tie - How often is it happening in 2022?

The USTA switched the 40 & Over league at the National level to be a 4-court format a few years ago meaning matches could end in 2-2 ties and have the winner of the team match be determined by a set of tie-breakers.  There has been angst and criticism of this format, some by me, but it remains with us today.

While this is the format used for Nationals, sections are free to use alternate formats for league play, or even their playoffs through Sectionals, and some have.  Some have chosen to use a points per position (PPP) format where the team win doesn't matter, and others have elected top play three courts (one singles / two doubles) or five courts (one singles / four doubles or 2 singles / 3 doubles) to have an odd number of courts and avoid the possibility of the 2-2 tie.  And this isn't just for local leagues, a recent Sectionals used the 1S / 4D format to not have to deal with 2-2 ties.

As a reminder, should a 2-2 tie occur, the tie is first broken by:

• The team that lost the fewest sets - This is the equivalent of the team that won the most sets in a head-to-head situation, so if all the courts were straight-sets for one team or the other except for one that went to a match tie-break, the that got the loss to a match tie-break wins the tie-breaker because they won an extra set, or hung an extra set loss on their opponent.
• The team that lost the fewest games - Given the above, this is self-explanatory, whoever lost the fewest games (or won the most games) wins.

Now, this is where the issue occurred in the original rule.  The next tie-breaker was game winning percentage.  The USTA apparently thought this would always break the tie.  Ummm, if the teams both won/lost the same number of games, game winning percentage will always be 50% for both teams so this is in fact a meaningless tie-breaker to include.  So what next?

Originally there was no stated next tie-breaker, although TennisLink may have been programmed to give the win to either the home or away team at this point, or perhaps even the team with the better game winning percentage in the league to date, it was never clear, and obviously any of these aren't terribly equitable or satisfying.

After initial reaction (I may have said something to some at the USTA ...), it was finally cleared up and documented that the last tie-breaker would be the team that won court one doubles.  This at least cleared it up, and in a way provides an anti-stacking incentive as you wouldn't want to throw court one doubles only to have that decide the winner in your opponent's favor.

Now, some may say these ties requiring the court one doubles tie-breaker will never happen.  Well, that would be wrong.  It certainly doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen.

I took at look at the 2021 40 & Over Nationals and that showed that 32% of the matches were 2-2 ties, of which 59% were decided by sets lost, leaving 41% to go to games and yes, there were two (3%) that had to be decided by the court one doubles winner.

I also did a what-if analysis of 2019 and it also showed that 3% of 2-2 ties would have gone to the court one doubles tie-breaker.

What about 2022?

Looking at just recent 40 & Over playoffs, I show that there have been 36 matches tied 2-2 requiring the court one doubles winner tie-breaker.  Of those, 14 occurred at Sectionals, and all of the 40 & Over Sectionals are not complete yet!

I'll post again once Sectionals are complete, but I've also heard some interesting 2-2 tie stories and I'll share some of those too.  But if you have a story, please let me know (e-mail ratings@teravation.net if you don't want to leave a comment).

USTA League National Championships are almost here! Time to starting scouting opponents

It is late August, and for those that follow USTA League, that means Sectionals are in progress or wrapped up, and Nationals is right around the corner.  In fact, the first Nationals starts in just over five weeks on September 30.

I've written about the full schedule already, but Nationals starts slow with just the 18 & Over 2.5 women playing in Oklahoma City, and 18 & Over 3.5 men and women in Surprise, AZ.  It gets busier after that with three or four events all for both genders the next three weekends.

The early Nationals schedule always tends to have more 18 & Over events, and that means 18 & Over Sectionals are generally completed first, and I believe most if not every section has completed their events.  Teams have already registered for Nationals and we are seeing them show up on TennisLink, in some cases, 14 teams are listed already, and others will likely show up this week.

The 40 & Over events are a little behind, but it appears they will be wrapped up in the next couple weeks.

For those that are new to Nationals or need a refresher, here is a post I did last year on how Nationals work and it is largely the same this year so give it a read.

What all this means is we can begin taking a look at the events and prognosticating who the favorites are and what interesting story lines there might be, and I'll be writing my previews as teams are set and schedules established.

It also means teams that are headed to Nationals are beginning their planning and scouting of opponents.  For those that are analytical and want to know what to expect out of their opponents, I continue to offer my popular suite of reports for Nationals teams.

A great value is the flight report which gives a summary of each opponent including their full roster average, top-8 average, and played averages by court so you can see trends on line-ups and stacking.

If one wants more detail on the individual players on a team, I offer team reports that give my estimated rating for each player on the roster along with their record and courts played, and some history on their rating so you can see the direction they are headed.  You also get the partner report to see who played with who and how they did together.  This can be a great tool for your own team, or on opponents, to know what to expect and get line-ups right.

Then, since Nationals uses the unflighted round-robin format where each team plays four random opponents and schedules can be radically different, I do a simulation report that takes the strength of each team and their actual schedule, and simulations the matches a million times to determine the most likely record for each team and chances they will make the semis, along with the chances of each possible record.  This lets a team know what is likely required to make the semis and who the competition is which can aid in planning and which matches matter the most.

There is no wrong way to do Nationals.  Some teams just go to have fun and enjoy the experience and get everyone a few matches and that is awesome.  Others go there intending to win and plan to play their best players as much as possible and figure out the best strategy to advance.  For those I've done reports for, both categories of teams have found my reports valuable, and I've been lucky enough to work with numerous teams that have used my reports to help them win Nationals for many years now.  A sampling of some of the feedback I've gotten on my testimonials page.

If you are interested in the reports I offer, contact me and I can provide more details.  If you are doing your own research or just going to have fun, enjoy and have a great Nationals.

A subtle rule change for PNW I missed until this weekend!

Each year when USTA League regulations are published, I review for changes and share what I see on my blog.  I don't read every section's regulations to see what they have changed, but usually look at my section (PNW) but apparently didn't for 2022 as there was a rule change I missed!

The rule has to do with how three-strike DQs are handled during playoffs and Sectionals.  Specifically, the National regulations give sections two options of what to do, those being to check strikes after each match and DQ the player and reverse results at that event, or to only check strikes after the finish of the event and DQ the player going forward but let the matches played at that event stand.

In the past, PNW elected the first option, and strikes were checked after each match.  This meant that if a player got their third-strike in their first match, they'd be ineligible for the rest of the event, and if they won their match it would be reversed.

It also meant that if a player got their third-strike in their last/third match in their flight, and they'd won all three matches and their team had won all the matches 3-2 and won their flight, this would all be reversed.  The player would be ineligible going forward, but each of those 3-2 wins would be reverse to 3-2 losses and that team that won the flight would in fact now be 0-3.

This seems pretty severe, and can have a major impact on a team and the standings, but in my opinion seemed fair as the team had benefited from a player that has been deemed to be out of level, so taking away that benefit seemed equitable and fair to the opponents.

Well, for 2022 PNW has changed the rule for Sectionals and now they will only check strikes after the event is over and all matches played stand.  For local playoffs, the prior rule is still in effect.

Here are the two rules, first for local playoffs:

2.04B(2)a1 (PNW REG) - Dynamic rating calculations will be run throughout play at all Local League Playoffs.

And for Sectionals:

2.04B(2)b1 (PNW REG) - Dynamic rating calculations will be run after the conclusion of all Sectional Championships

I am not a fan of this change an don't know what prompted it, but have asked.  Should I find out I will share what I hear.

The reasons I don't like it include:

• A team that has hidden out of level players during the regular season can let them loose in every match at Sectionals with no fear of implications for the team.  Sure, they'll lose them for Nationals, but the benefit in getting there.
• The team that wins Sectionals and represents the section at Nationals very well not be the best team to represent the section.  If they've lost players that carried them to the win, they aren't the same team, and a team they unfairly beat could be a better representative for the section.
• Forcing opponents to have to face out of level players, who are proven to be out of level, and just accept the loss, is not fair or equitable to all of the opponents at Sectionals.

This rule change is in effect encouraging captains to find out of level players and hide them in local league play so they can benefit from having them at Sectionals with very few negatives.  It is the exact opposite of what I'd think we want league play to be and is trying to be "fair" to teams with questionable players by letting them play, at the expense of being "fair" to all the other teams who have to play against them.  That seems backwards to me.

What do you think?

An undefeated team does not advance at SoCal 18 & Over Sectionals

A couple weeks ago I wrote about the Southern Cal 18 & Over Sectionals and some scenarios where the use of the un-flighted round-robin format was liable to cause some issues.  Specifically, the use of it with too many teams and/or not enough matches can lead to more teams being undefeated than there are to advance to the semis/final.

I had focused on the 3.5 women, where going into the last match it was possible for six teams to be undefeated and only four would advance.  But the USTA was bailed out by two of the teams losing so it was just four undefeated teams.

What I failed to highlight sufficiently was the 4.5 women where there were only 10 teams, but for this flight they only played three matches and just the top-2 advanced.  My simulation said there was an 18% chance of three undefeated teams, and indeed it did happen.

Here were the standings:

• SD Peninsula TC - 3-0 / 12-3
• SD Barnes TC - 3-0 / 11-4
• SFV Let's Play - 3-0 / 10-5

Note that the team that finished third did, by my ratings, have a tougher schedule than the first place team.  So SFV goes to Sectionals and doesn't lose a match, playing a reasonably hard schedule, and doesn't get to advance.  Meanwhile, the team that finished second had the easiest schedule.

This doesn't seem terribly fair.  What do you think?