An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
The strawberries and cream of Wimbledon is arguably the most iconic concession associated with any of the Grand Slam tournaments. Noshing on that dish is the perfect way to get into the tennis spirit as the fortnight gets underway tomorrow morning.
2 responses
One of the primary arguments that people make in support of voluntary consolation is that it prevents players from having to wait around a day (or more) before back draw play begins. That line of reasoning conveniently neglects to consider that a traditional voluntary consolation draw requires ALL the players to wait even longer than the worst case scenario from the traditional First Match Loser’s Consolation (FMLC) back draw. You cannot make a voluntary consolation draw without knowing the exact number of players that will elect to participate.
1 response
Voluntary consolation is a variation of the First Match Loser’s Consolation (FMLC) draw. In that format, players that lose their first match have the option of signing up to participate in a back draw. Participation is not mandatory and the player has to explicitly opt-in. A significant number of players and organizers believe that voluntary consolation would be a good thing for tournament tennis. They’re wrong. Voluntary consolation is like scratching a mosquito bite. It feels like the right thing to do in the moment, but ultimately it only makes the problem worse.
1 response
Happy Father’s Day! To commemorate the annual celebration of fatherhood this year, I am sharing the story of the Trophy Husband. I hope that the Trophy Husband and all the other tennis playing dads out there enjoy their special day. By that I mean, please grill something for us before you head to the courts today.
2 responses
Yesterday I took a cut at creating a survey to collect data on player sentiment and preferences associated with the USTA tournament ranking system. The questions were designed in an attempt to collect useful data that might help as the USTA considers potential updates to the regulations. This post introduces that survey and shares my thought process. If you follow this site for the tennis related musings of an overthinking engineer… this content will resonate with you.
The email from the USTA contains a link and the following text: “Thank you for playing in the USTA National Women’s 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85 & 90 Clay Court Championships in March. Would you please take a moment and share your experience?” I didn’t complete my survey until this week because I actually got tripped up by one of the questions.
From my perspective, it is a pretty shortsighted argument that preventing a subset of players from participating creates opportunities for others. Fostering and encouraging participation should maximize the number of players that are engaged in tennis. Period.
The USTA National League Regulations contain some interesting requirements for players who advance to Championships on more than one team. The procedures are spelled out at both the Sectional and National level. Some Sections also allow Districts to create rules intended to encourage and foster league play at the local level.
The post “Ranking Points and Divisional Fragmentation” last Saturday, outlined how NTRP age divisions divides otherwise minimally viable draws completely out of existence. That post observed that ranking point fragmentation is yet another depressive factor in Adult tournament participation. I previously proposed that elimination of the NTRP age divisions could make an immediate positive difference. In the interim, I realized that there is another obvious “easy” way to mitigate the problem. The USTA should award ranking points in both the division entered as well as the division that was actually played for Adult and Family tournaments.
Back in 2018, the USTA decided that it would be a good idea to create a new age-based NTRP division for tournament play. That new division was for 50+ players. Bifurcating by age did not increase participation in NTRP leveled tournaments, at least not in Texas per my analysis. Perhaps the USTA has more complete data at the national level that tells a different story. In any case, it was later decided that what tournament tennis really needed was three age based divisions. Now tournaments can offer 18+, 40+, and 55+ NTRP divisions.
3 responses