An early preview of the 2022 USTA League 18 & Over Nationals

It appears all of the 18 & Over Sectionals are complete, and the teams going to Nationals have been decided.  That means I can begin previewing the different events.

As a reminder, the first event at Nationals is now less than four week away with the 18 & Over 2.5 women in Oklahoma City, and the 18 & over 3.5 men and women in Surprise, AZ.

I do offer very detailed previews for teams going to Nationals that want to scout opponents and plan line-ups, what follows is just a quick summary.

Going through each event in the order they will be played, here are the ranges of each team's top player averages using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.

September 30 - October 2

The 2.5 women have 17 teams with top-5 averages ranging from 2.52 all the way up to 3.00.  Yep, there is a 2.5 team with some players into the range for a 3.5.

The 3.5 men also have 17 teams with top-8 averages from 3.45 to 3.79.  This is not as severe as the 2.5 women, but there is a 3.5 team with a top-8 average closer to being 4.0 than 3.5.

The 3.5 women have 17 teams with top-8 averages from 3.44 to 3.64.

October 7 - October 9

The 4.5 men have 16 teams, Southwest seems to be missing at this point, with top-8 averages from 4.37 to 4.59.

The 4.5 women have 15 teams, Hawaii and Caribbean don't have teams at this point, with top-8 averages from 4.26 to 4.53.

October 14 - October 16

The 3.0 men have 16 teams, Southwest doesn't have a team listed yet, with top-8 averages from 3.04 to 3.25.

The 3.0 women have 17 teams with top-8 averages from 2.93 to 3.23.

The 4.0 men have 17 teams with top-8 averages from 3.86 to 4.16.

The 4.0 women have 17 teams with top-8 averages from 3.87 to 4.11.

October 21 - October 23

The 5.0 men have 15 teams, Hawaii and Northern are missing, with top-5 averages from 4.68 to 4.98.

The 5.0 women have just 12 teams, Hawaii, Southwest, Northern, New England, and Eastern are missing, with top-5 averages from 4.59 to 4.94.

There you have it, your first preview of 2022 USTA League Nationals.

If you are interested in more detailed reports to help scout and plan, contact me!

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 they 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?

SoCal 18 & Over Sectionals may be another unflighted round-robin disaster

It is the time of year that Sectionals begin to be played, and some sections elect to use the the unflighted round-robin format to identify the teams to advance to a single elimination bracket.  In this format, each team plays the same number of matches against random opponents, and then the top-2 or top-4 teams advance to a final or semi-finals.  USTA National began using it several years ago, and more sections are using it for Sectionals when the number of teams they have doesn't nicely fit into an even number of sub-flights.

The major problem with the format is that when not done correctly, there is a chance of a team going undefeated and not advancing.  The way Nationals is run with 17 sections and each team playing four matches, there is usually a very small chance of it happening, and it has come close to happening twice but hasn't yet.  However, the way some sections implement it there has been a far higher chance of it happening and it has happened at least once in NorCal.

The typical problem is having too many teams not playing enough matches.  In NorCal's case they've had over 20 teams in some flights and played just three matches.  That is a recipe for disaster and a 5th place team that was undefeated got sent home.

Well, it appears it may happen again this weekend.  SoCal is holding its 18 & Over Sectionals and is using unflighted round robin with too many teams and not enough matches.  Specifically, using my simulation of the round-robin, the problematic levels are:

• 3.0 Women - 14 teams playing 3 matches for 4 spots - More than 3% chance of 5+ undefeated.
• 3.5 Women - 17 teams playing 3 matches for 4 spots - More than 5% chance of 5+ undefeated before the event, part way through it is now over 42%!
• 4.0 Men - 10 teams playing 3 matches for 4 spots - Less than 1% chance of 5+ undefeated, but there is a chance.

The other levels are either in sub-flights or don't have too many teams.

The 3.0 women and 4.0 men have very slim chances of it happening, but we will see how the 3.5 women finish up, but I think there is a good chance an undefeated team is sent home!

WTN lookup now available on ITF's site with additional features

After many e-mails from the USTA about it, the ITF World Tennis Number (WTN) was rolled out on usta.com about a month ago, and today I got an e-mail that it is now available on the ITF's worldtennisnumber.com site.

The player search page has a footnote that it is currently only showing USTA players.  I'm not sure why this is as the LTA launched WTN about six months ago so you'd think those players could be available too, but at least for now they aren't.

The search is interesting in that it seemingly only lets you search by surname (last name) or a tennis ID.  The type ahead last name search isn't terribly useful as there are often many players with the same last name and the player you are looking for may not be in the four they show.  So you have to finish your search and get the full list which can then be filtered by gender, country, and singles or doubles WTN.  This is an interesting way to search as if you knew the WTN, you probably wouldn't be looking!

But you can put in a range and narrow it down and presumably find who you are after, at which point you can click on them and get a page that is similarly branded to what the USTA sites shows, but with more detail!  The same animated WTN widget is there with singles and doubles WTN and Game zONe numbers, but on the overview page you additionally get:

• Match activity with a count of unique singles opponents, average singles interval, and average doubles interval
• Rating range that can show the range for singles and doubles for all time or the past year
• A chart of "player tournament matches" showing the count of wins and losses by month, filterable by singles or doubles, although it does appear to include USTA League matches too, not just tournaments
• A results summary with the win-loss record which can be filtered by singles/doubles/both and different time periods

Based on the results summary, it does appear it includes matches, for me at least, that were played in 2016, so I'm guessing that is roughly when the data starts the USTA provided to the ITF, which is consistent with what we've seen/heard elsewhere.  In fact, one can go to the Results tab and there, the date filter goes back to July 1st, 2016 so that appears to be the start date for WTN.

The Results tab is also where you can see more details with the specific matches including the players, their WTN, and the score.  They are actually grouped by event/league which is kind of nice, but oddly had a a stray match that wasn't in the right league.  The WTN shown does seem to be the WTN at the time of the match, so you can see how it changes.

Then there is a Head to Head tab where you can search for another player and see a head to head comparison of WTN ratings and if they've played, the records.  It seems to only do this for singles matches though so you can't find your stats with a partner or against a doubles opponent.  It will also show competitors in common which may be useful if you are scouting a future opponent.

All in all it is a nice presentation and it does provide more information than the USTA's site does and adds some additional useful context to help understand more about your WTN and playing history.