Breaking the Round Robin

The format of the USTA NTRP National Championships presumes a field of 32 participants. It is designed to be conducted in two stages. The initial rounds are played as eight four-player/team Round Robin pools. The participants are then slotted into four follow-on brackets based on the order of finish during the initial Round Robin stage.

Despite the assertions that this tournament is gaining popularity, the reality is that most draws attract significantly fewer than 32 entries. For example, the 2023 18+ Women’s 4.5 doubles division only had 15 teams entered in the tournament. That is three more than participated in that division in 2022.

Last year the players that entered the 18+ Women’s 4.5 doubles division were split into two six-team pools for the Round Robin stage. That guarantees four/five Fast4 matches during the initial phase of the tournament. Unfortunately, that departure from the standard format broke the ranking points awarded to the competitors. Those excruciating details are explored in the “More Tennis, Less Points” post.

The tournament administration of this year’s event decided to divide the 15 teams that entered the Women’s NTRP 4.5 doubles division into 3/4-team preliminary Round Robin groupings. The only logical alternative would be dividing the competitors into two 8/7-team Round Robin pools. That creates significantly more matches and requires a lot more court capacity. Unfortunately, I also think that the USTA was aware of rankings point deviations created by the larger groupings last year, thanks in part to “More Tennis, Less Points.” Oops, my bad.

Regardless of the size of the groupings, it is mathematically possible for Round Robin pools to end in a standings tie. That phenomenon only occurs when no team goes undefeated. It happens more frequently than you would think in the format because matchups matter in tennis. As a case in point, two of the four Round Robin pools in this year’s Women’s 4.5 Doubles division at the NTRP National Championships ended in a standings tie based on the win-loss records of each team.

That means that criteria has to be used to determine the order of finish of each team in the pool. That, in turn, dictates which teams advance to the Championship bracket and which competitors are relegated to what are essentially consolation draws.

The USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations is the first place to look for authoritative Round Robin tie-break procedures. That document contains a process for single-set and timed matches. However, it ultimately references USTA Regulation II.B.6.c, which is published in the USTA Friend at Court, for more standard match formats.

Determining order of finish. The player who wins the most matches is the winner. If two players are tied, then the winner of their head-to-head match is the winner. If three or more players are tied, the Referee shall use the following steps in the order listed to break all ties. The Referee shall break as many ties as possible using a given step before using the next step. These steps are:

• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving just the tied players;
• The player with the highest percentage of sets won of all sets completed in the round robin;
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of games won of all games completed in the round robin;
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of sets won of sets completed among players in the group under consideration; The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
• The player with the highest percentage of games won of games completed among the players under consideration; and
• The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied.

USTA Regulation II.B.6.c

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Round Robin tie-break procedures. However, the short set match format used at the NTRP National Championships means that every game is crucial when the “percentage of games won” criteria is applied. Because so few games are played, every single one matters a lot.

My doubles partner and I were assigned to the 3-team Round Robin group, which is an unavoidable side-effect of only having 15 teams. One of the mathematical realities of a three-team pool is that all matches necessarily occur one at a time. We lost our opening match 4-2, 4-2 to the team from SoCal. Intermountain, the third team in our group, enjoyed the luxury of scouting our first match to gain competitive insight against both teams.

The following morning, when I watched the matchup between SoCal and Intermountain, it was with full knowledge that to keep our National Championship hopes alive, we needed Intermountain to win in straight sets, but also to give up 5 or 6 games in the process. (Yes, there was a spreadsheet.) Intermountain delivered exactly what we needed with a 4-3, 4-3 win.

When we walked onto the court against Intermountain for the final match of the initial Round Robin stage, it was with full knowledge that we had to win in straight sets and also that we could lose no more than two games in the process. We won the first set 4-2. Unfortunately, our National Championship dreams ended when we dropped a game early on in the second set.

However, Intermountain was still alive. Had they won the second set of that match, they would have been the winning team in the pool, off the “percentage of sets won criterion.” However, my doubles partner and I were playing fairly loose at that point. We went on to win the second set 4-2.

Consequently, all three teams in the pool wound up with 1-1 records. Additionally, all the matches were in straight sets. That dispenses with the first three items in the Round Robin tie-break criteria. Based on the percentage of games won, the team from SoCal advanced to the Championship stages. The next criterion is head-to-head between the remaining tied teams. Since we won the match against Intermountain, we advanced to the “Silver” draw. Intermountain was slotted into the “Bronze” bracket.

As we shook hands at the net, I did so with full knowledge that if the match score was turned in as 4-1, 4-1, both teams involved would have fared better during the final standings. In that case, my partner and I would have been in the Championship bracket based on the percentage of games won. Intermountain would have been in the “Silver” group on the basis of their head-to-head win with SoCal.

It is insanely bizarre that Intermountain could have ended up in a better position if they had performed worse in that final match as measured by games won.

I think the vast majority of players aren’t detail-oriented enough to know the exact ramifications of the game count in their matches. I also want to believe that the fraction of the population who did, would not consider turning in an invalid game count. However, I also think it naive to believe something like that never happens.

This story illustrates some key things about competing in Round Robins in general. This is particularly true for two-stage events when the initial stages are played using shortened format. First, it is imperative for all players to make sure the accurate score is turned in for all matches. That includes matches that the player does not directly participate in.

Additionally, this illustrates how impactful individual points can be in no-ad scoring shortened format. It is mathematically possible for the final standing to hinge on a bad line call made early on in the tournament on a single deuce point. Longer format play is less sensitive to single-point gyrations of this nature.

The final placement of teams from this Round Robin pool should have profoundly impacted the rankings points that each team ultimately earned during this event. Of course, that presumes that the ranking point system is functionally working for the draw format used.

The fact that this is the topic of the post for tomorrow… isn’t a positive sign.

---

1. USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, USTA Regulation, as amended July 31, 2021. (Editorial note: Assumed to be current. This is the one off the USTA “About Adult Tournaments” page.)

Women’s 3.5 doubles, arguably the most populous USTA division, attracted 28 teams.