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.
Hey Kevin. Big fan of your work, and wanted to ask an off-topic question. Anecdotally, every year I have gone to sectionals (in the past 3/4 past years), the general level of the teams has gotten better. I have only been playing for around four years total, but I was wondering if there has been a rating "deflation" problem. Is the level of 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 getting better every year (at least on men's side, cannot say for women's)? Or is that just me. It would seem to me that the constant (and increasingly egregious) sandbagging/getting out-of-level players could theoretically push the relative level of each NTRP bucket up ever so slightly each year. I am not sure if this is a factor, but if benchmarking players occurs also the Sectionals level, it would further push the relative level of NTRP ratings if sufficient/increasing sandbagging occurs due to three-strike dqs being possible at most sections.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question. On the surface one might think that each of the levels should remain static as far as the range of abilities within each level. But there is really no way to enforce that, and the benchmarking and leveling that is done at year-end will of course change the definition of a level within a section/district/area a bit each year. If your section did poorly at Nationals, fewer players will be bumped up and by remaining at level, it may seem that the top of the level has gotten better.
DeleteWhat section are you in?
I’m Midwest. I also heard somewhere that Michigan wasn’t doing well in sectionals so they started keeping people from getting promoted to next level to increase their chances at sectionals, but definitely unconfirmed.
DeleteAbout this last comment: can districts/sections dictate ratings of their own players? I thought the ratings are coming from National. I wouldn't think each district coordinator can alter that. Kevin, do you know if this can happen?
DeleteI don't know what ability an individual section/district has to influence year-end ratings. I think there is some degree of review with sections before publishing, but I'd think that is only for systemic things to be found, not for individual adjustments.
DeleteThat said, the benchmark calculations can and do cause players in a section at a given gender/level to be moved up or down, and there are times National would seem to have done some sort of manual adjustments to sections too.
Missouri valley 4.5 mens sectional had a US beats Soviets “Miracle on Ice” level finish - will that be in your report?
ReplyDeleteSounds like there is a story there. I'd love to hear it!
DeleteBut yeah, my reports include all matches played so whatever the result from Sectionals was would be used to calculate the ratings I use.
Yea, what do you mean? I was there but not at the Final. All I know was that it was a modified version of Fast4(tiebreak at 4-4, though I heard the tiebreaks were still win by 2 points which is confusing if all the other games are no-ad, but I could be wrong about this) indoors for the SF/F.
Delete