Latest Posts

Aces and Places: Harry Hopman Doubles Selection Criteria for the NTRP National Championships The CalfPRO Deep Calf Stretcher Tennis Beyond the Headlines: January 20, 2025 Show me the Schedule Automating USTA Tennis Tournament Withdrawals T-Shirt Size Shouldn’t be a Complicated Question

Where Do I Sign Up?

On the first Friday of each month this year, this site is publishing a deep dive on one of the 12 “Gifts” you can treat yourself with to improve your tennis life. The focus this month enumerates the reasons why tennis players and fans should engage with the organizations that promote our great sport. Advocacy is essential for the future health of the tennis ecosystem. We are stronger together than we are individually.

Errata and Running the Numbers

There is a cap to the number of tournaments that count toward a player’s USTA ranking under the current cumulative tournament performance ranking system. The primary purpose of this post is to correct a misstatement I made about that on this site a couple of weeks ago. Additionally, it is a perfect opportunity to preview my emerging thinking on how to structure tennis tournaments to build the robust participation needed for a healthy competitive ecosystem.

What, me worry? (NTRP and the World Tennis Number)

The USTA has been busy filling my inbox with announcements heralding the imminent deployment of the World Tennis Number. The messages are infused with reassurances directing players to not “worry” that the NTRP system might go away. I have been trying to find someone who is actually concerned about that happening. If I could find such a person, I could try to pinpoint the root causes of the fear. So far I have failed in that endeavor.

Yes I Am! (Going to League Nationals)

My 55+ 9.0 NTRP USTA League Team qualified for the National Championships last weekend. In related news, I have a history of asserting that elimination of NTRP “National Championships” would eliminate the majority of unsportsmanlike behavior that plagues the USTA League system. Additionally, I have also railed at the absurdity of conducting NTRP competition with age based restrictions. Will I make the trip with my team? Absolutely.

2 responses

USTA Scheduling Guidelines

The USTA Friend at Court contains a table of guidelines for the maximum number of daily matches for a player within a division in a USTA tennis tournament. Per the tennis triple constraint model that was the subject of yesterday’s post, the various scoring methods in that table are the qualitative aspects of match play that constrains the calendar time and schedule for the tournament.

2 responses

Tournament Triple Constraint Model

A popular joke about project management goes like this: “All projects can be done well, fast, and cheap. Pick two.” That joke is based on the triple constraint theory of project management. It is elegantly conceptualized as a triangle that represents the trade-offs between scope, cost, and time. The idea is that changes to any of those vertices forces adjustment in one or both of the other two. I recently had the revelation that I had been unconsciously using the triple constraint model as I have been ruminating on tournament scheduling, draw formats, and ranking systems.

1 response

FICQ for More Tennis

It is no secret that Feed in Consolation through the Quarterfinals (FICQ) is my favorite draw format. It is commonly used for Junior Sectional championship tournaments as well as Level 1 tournaments for both Junior and Adult competition. This “double elimination” format is the gold standard for tournament competition when the stakes are high.

Voluntary Consolation

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. Doing so is not required. When the USTA unveiled the 7 tier unified national tournament system, the voluntary consolation draw was explicitly included as an option at every tier of competition. Today’s post outlines the case for why the format arguably shouldn’t be used.

1 response