An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
A couple of years ago, the USTA unveiled a new unified adult tournament framework. One of the breathless exhortations about it touted “ONE nationwide points-per-round ranking system.” It is a perplexing statement because neither the current nor any of the legacy ranking systems are in actuality points-per-round systems. The misnomer may be at the root of misunderstanding on how an effective ranking system should be structured within the USTA.
2 responses
Against my better judgement, I decided to don my “Peril Sensitive Sunglasses” and create a points calculation table for the back draw participants in a recent tournament division. In retrospect, a helmet would have been a good idea as well.
When the USTA unveiled the new Adult tournament framework, the word ONE was emphasized. The USTA information page uses ONE over and over. “ONE nationwide structure of tournaments. ONE nationwide points-per-round ranking system. ONE standing list.” Today’s topic deals with ONE problem with the way Round Robin ranking points are structured in the current regulations.
I made a startling discovery in the USTA Adult Ranking System document last week. There are actually two Round Robin tables that were in effect in 2021. Additionally, the change opens a tiny window into the thought process of the USTA Adult Competition Committee. (ACC) To top it off, I also realized there is an alternate way to look at a recent error I documented in Round Robin tournament ranking points calculations.
If I had to guess, most avid tennis players are not aware that the USTA has been searching for a new CEO. Additionally I believe that most couldn’t name his predecessor even if their lives depended on it. Today is a paragraph by paragraph dissection of the USTA press release announcing the selection of Lew Sherr as the new CEO. Specifically I am looking for clues about what the new era might portend for the organization. As a reminder, overthinking such things is the hallmark of this site.
4 responses
The Women’s 4.5 division at the 2022 USTA 18+ NTRP Doubles National Championships had exactly 12 teams in the final entry list. That number provides a lot of options on how to divide the players into round robin groups. The ultimate decision was to conduct the first round robin stage as two six team pools. The downstream side effects on this one are pretty wild.
The USTA NTRP National Championships informational web pages, as well as the individual tournament event pages for the 2022 tournaments, all claim that the scoring format is played as best of three short sets. However, at least one division this year was contested using full six game sets including a full third. The question is… Why?
1 response
After my examination of the rankings points issues from the Men’s 3.0 brackets at the USTA National 18+ NTRP Singles Championships, I had planned to dig around other brackets to see if previously reported issues with the rankings points awarded had been resolved. I kind of already knew the answer and it didn’t take long to find more illuminating examples.
2 responses
I am going to start this post with a provocative statement. Whoever came up with the USTA Adult Tournament Ranking System does not understand how tournament rankings should work. Period. I am astonished that these errors ever existed in the first place. It is profoundly disappointing that attempts to highlight these issues have gone unaccepted and unacknowledged.
2 responses
I have previously written a lot about the the USTA NTRP National Championships as well as the shortened scoring format used at that event. Today’s post is an executive summary specifically written to bring Senior competitors up to speed on this (relatively) new USTA initiative. I am an active Senior age group Level 1 tournament player who has also participated in the NTRP National Championship tournament. I don’t think there are a large number of people that have competed in both event types.