For the men, Texas won both events and did so with two teams with the same captain and very similar rosters and roster construction. Twelve players played matches for the 40 & Over team, and 8 of the 12 and the 7 highest rated by my ratings were also on the 18 & Over team.
On one hand, this is a tremendous accomplishment! But when you think about it, with level based play, it isn't terribly surprising that a strong 40+ team could augment themselves with some younger players and have a strong 18+ team too.
When doing my simulations, both teams were far and away the favorites to win it all. And they came through with the 40+ team going 14-2 in round-robin, and while the semi was a 2-2 win, the two lost courts were retired after they already had it wrapped up, and the final was 3-1.
The 18+ team went 18-2 in round-robin and won their semi 3-2, yes the two losses were retirements, and then won the final 3-2, yes the two losses were retirements where they were up a set on both. So they really only lost two courts.
The 18+ team had a top-10 average of 3.72, an unheard of 0.09 ahead of the next team, and a 99% chance of making the semis, and the 40+ team had a top-10 average of 3.69 and a 99.8% chance of making the semis. Teams so strong and clearly better than the opponents don't come along very often.
This begs the question, how did they do it? How does a 3.5 team (e.g. NTRP ratings between 3.01 and 3.50) end up with a top-10 average of 3.72?
I'm sorry to say it doesn't appear either team was formed in a way that follows the spirit of the rules and good sportsmanship. And this isn't the first time this team/captain has done this.
For those that don't want to read all the details below, the tldr is that to win 3.5 Nationals, you need a group of 4.0 players that alternate winning one year, and tanking matches the next so they get bumped down to 3.5, or are close enough to appeal down. Rinse and repeat, ideally with two groups of players so you always have one group that has tanked down to 3.5 to make a run to Nationals with.
On to the details. Specifically, the majority of both rosters, at least the portions that played the bulk of the matches at Nationals, have serious questions about how they arrived at their 3.5 level. Here is a summary of the 18+ team with an asterisk denoting those also on the 40+ team:
- Player 1 - DQ'd to 4.5 in 2017, 2017 year-end 4.5C, then didn't play, self-rate as 4.5 in 2021 and somehow appeals down to 4.0, then has three lopsided losses in 2022 to get a 3.5C. Goes 18-1 this year, including 6-0 at Nationals losing just 5 sets all year.
- Player 2 - 2012 and 2013 (perhaps earlier too) 4.5C, then a 4.0C thru 2021 when they appealed down to 3.5. The 4.0 matches thru 2018 were all competitive, but in 2021 they were suddenly lopsided losses leading to the bump down. Goes 11-1 this year including 5-1 at Nationals losing 3 sets all year.
- Player 3 - Self rated in 2022 as a 4.5, then somehow got it appealed down to 3.5. As a self-rate somehow had close scores in the regular season, e.g. a win 0-6,6-3,1-0, before winning seven playoff matches in a row all in straight sets, losing an average of 1.9 games per set. Was DQ'd to 4.0 after 18+ Nationals where he went 4-0 losing just 2.25 games per set.
- Player 4 - Self-rated in 2023, went undefeated all year (18-0) until the Nationals final when he retired up a set when the team clinched the win, so likely would have been 19-0.
- *Player 5 - Self-rated 3.5 in 2020, played two matches, both lopsided losses, but didn't play three so remained self-rated for 2021 where he did play three, all lopsided losses, and got a 3.5C. Proceeds to go 27-1 in 18+ and 40+ including 11-0 at Nationals, only losing 4 sets all year.
- *Player 6 - A 4.0C from 2015 thru 2021 when he was able to appeal down to 3.5. In 2017 went 8-0 at 4.0 (two retirement losses in playoffs when match was clinched) including going to 4.0 Nationals, but then in 2018, 2019, and 2021 can't win a set with 9 lopsided losses to get low enough to appeal down at 2021 year-end. In 2023 goes 18-5 including 9-1 at Nationals.
- Player 7 - A self-rated 3.5 in 2021 and gets a 3.5C and somehow keeps it in 2022. Goes 7-1 in 18+, but only plays twice at Nationals.
- *Player 8 - Bounced back and forth between 3.5 and 4.0 since 2012, but was 4.0C in 2019 after playing on same team winning 40+ Nationals, then 9 lopsided losses in 2021 didn't get him bumped down, but then 0-11 all lopsided in 2022 did get him bumped down. Goes 16-1 this year, 4-0 at 40+ Nationals.
- *Player 9 - A 4.5 in 2013 and then a 4.0 2014 thru 2022, but was close enough to appeal down to 3.5. Got close enough to appeal with 3 lopsided losses not winning a game in any of them. 2021 also had lopsided losses but wasn't enough to get bumped down or to appeal. Goes 15-1 this year, 7-0 at Nationals ignoring a retirement when up a set. Was on same team that went to 2017 18+ Nationals where they won the title.
- *Player 10 - A 4.0 at the end of 2019 and 2021, and went to Nationals 3 times (18+ and 40+ 3.5, 55+ 8.0) in 2019. A bunch of losses, some lopsided, in 2021, then nothing but lopsided losses in 2022, leading to the bump down. This year goes 28-3 including 4-0 at Nationals this weekend losing just one set.
I could go on, the theme continues. You see the majority of players have been a 4.0 or even 4.5, or were required to self-rate at 4.0 or higher, have lopsided losses to get bumped down or establish a 3.5C, and once that is done, suddenly can't lose. My ratings have every one of these players at 3.70 or higher, and those with playing histories have been that high or higher in past years, so they are clearly have mid/upper 4.0 ability. The only way to become a 3.5 is to tank matches which most of them do.
And this is not the first time this team or these players have done this. This captain has taken teams to Nationals many times, sometimes at both 18+ and 40+ like this year, and has use this same or similar approach to roster construction in those years.
Now, one can argue that once you get to Nationals, every team has above level players and that is true. But there is a difference between legitimate 3.5s improving during the year, and 4.0s that have tanked just going back to their real ability. The 4.0s have a proven upside that is likely higher than any normally improving 3.5, and that gives an unfair advantage at Nationals as was proven the past two weekends.
You can also make the case that this Texas team isn't the only one that has players that tank matches, and that is true too. But I have not seen an entire roster created in this way. Most other Nationals teams have a few players bumped down or appealed down, or a few inappropriate self-rates that have avoided a DQ, but Texas has an entire roster of such players.
The end result is that the 18+ and 40+ 3.5 men's Nationals were a bit of a joke. When analysis before the event clearly has such dominate favorites that deliver, there is no real competition, and if the USTA can't offer teams competitive matches in level-based play at Nationals, has the promise of level-based play been entirely lost?
It would be great of the USTA were to crack down on this somehow, but it hasn't happened to date as this keeps occurring. I would never encourage other teams to follow this model, but in the absence of any action being taken, other teams may have to just to be able to compete. Or maybe if more teams do it the USTA will do something about it.
What do you think? Is this just the way Nationals is? Or should there be a line that shouldn't be crossed and Texas is crossing it?
Note: To try and identify roster construction issues ahead of time, I've created a Shenanigans Score.
