Can They Do That?

The 2023 Texas Adult Masters was severely impacted by rain. In fact, the majority of the divisions were not fully completed. On the tournament’s final day, it was announced to the players that winners would be declared in all divisions that had completed at least 50% of the scheduled matches. Additionally, assurances were made that all players would receive the full points based on the order of finish in the round robin on those partial results.

That sparks a few questions:

1. Where is the 50% completion criteria defined in the tournament ranking and sanctioning regulations?
2. What ranking points were actually awarded to players following the event?
3. What procedures are used to determine the order of finish in a partial round-robin?

The 2023 USTA Friend at Court does not define any threshold for the number of matches required to declare a winner in a partially completed round robin. The USTA Adult and Family Tournament & Sanctioning Regulations are also silent on any specific criteria for completion. It’s not in the USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System document either.

Since I was unable to find any criteria for match completion defined in USTA policy and procedures, the answer to Question #1 remains unresolved. I would appreciate a pointer to where this is formally documented by the USTA. This is apparently not the tournament where this policy has been applied. I don’t think it’s wrong, but it probably should be written down in an authoritative source.

For Question #2 I spot checked my own ranking history and can confirm that I received first place points for “winning” the 4.5 Women’s Doubles division based on incomplete results. I should note that when the tournament was declared a washout that my partner and I had already mathematically clinched the Championship had all remaining matches been played. It may seem self-serving, but I think that is the correct outcome.

The first draw listed on the tournament page was the Men’s Open draw. Two players were 5-0 with two matches remaining when the tournament was suspended. One of the undefeated five win players was awarded Level 4 first place points. The other undefeated five win players was awarded Level 4 second place points.

Based on these two spot checks, it appears that the ranking points were consistent with what would have been earned from equivalent order of finish had the bracket been completed. The answer to #2 is that players were awarded the same full ranking points as they would have received if all matches were completed.

The executive summary for Question #3 is that it appears that the tie-break procedures applied are the ones that appear in the USTA Friend at Court for a fully completed round-robin. There are no specific tie-break provisions for partial round robins.

For reference here is the tiebreak criteria from the USTA Friend at Court:

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:

1. The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving just the tied players;
2. The player with the highest percentage of sets won of all sets completed in the round robin;
3. The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
4. The player with the highest percentage of games won of all games completed in the round robin;
5. The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied;
6. 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;
7. The player with the highest percentage of games won of games completed among the players under consideration; and
8. The head-to-head win-loss record in matches involving the players who remain tied.

2023 USTA Friend at Court, USTA Regulation II.B.6.c

For the Men’s Open example, criteria #1 does not apply to two undefeated players because they obviously have not met head to head. In that case, the second criteria is the highest percentage of sets won. The first place player won all sets he played which is hard to beat. The second place player dropped only one. In the Fast4 shortened format, that is a razor thin margin.

I also took a look at the tie-break used for the Men’s 3.5 doubles, which featured a quagmire of four teams sitting at 3-1 when the tournament was suspended. Application of the tie break criteria to this situation is a little more complex.

The first criteria of head to head matches among the four tied teams, does not apply. These four teams did not all play each other. The second criteria of the highest percentage of sets won was enough to declare a winner from that group.

The procedure from that point is to consider if the three remaining players had all met head to head, and they had not. That eliminated criteria 1 and brought criteria 2 back into play. That was enough to differentiate the team that was awarded second place. Determination of the 3rd and 4th teams came down to the highest percentage of games won.

That exercise convinced me that the tie break procedure used appears to be the full tiebreak procedure as if the round robin had been completed. That fully answers question #3.

In years past, I have directly experienced a washout of the finals Masters. In that case, the two finalists were both awarded second place points. Had the traditional Masters format been used this year, then the ranking points awarded from this tournament would have been reduced across the board.

From a strict ranking point perspective, the round robin format is arguably preferable to other draw types if the event cannot be completed. This is the rare time when there might have actually been something better than the Traditional Masters format for the event. You probably won’t hear me say that ever again.

---

1. Level 4 Closed: 2023 Roger Beasley Mazda Texas Adult Masters Championships, USTA Tournament Page, viewed November 10, 2023.
2. Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2023
3. 2023 USTA Adult Tournaments Ranking System, USTA hosted document, last viewed April 28, 2023.
4. USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, USTA Regulation, as amended March 14, 2023.