Yesterday, I wrote about an extraordinarily convivial match that occurred a couple of weeks ago at the USTA Texas 40+ League Sectional Championships. I remarked that it was surprising, given how much was actually on the line for both teams. It is an interesting case study of how very little separates teams in the standings in this form of competition. It also illustrates an ambiguity in the USTA League tie-breaker procedures that should probably be tidied up. As an aside, I also found a math error in the USTA League standings calculations that I will break down next Wednesday.
The following table shows the actual final results as they appear on the official TennisLink page for “Flight 2” of the 4.5 Women’s League Texas Sectional Championships this year. By winning against all three other teams, Houston was cleanly through to the Championship Finals without requiring tie-break procedures.
| Team Name | Team Score | Indiv. Score | Sets | Games | * Games Won % | ||||
| Wins* | Losses | Wins | Losses | Won | Lost | Won | Lost | ||
| Houston | 3 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 22 | 8 | 154 | 110 | 56.35% |
| Wild Dallas | 2 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 16 | 18 | 131 | 148 | 46.95% |
| Fort Worth | 1 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 148 | 106 | 61.16% (?) |
| San Antonio | 0 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 8 | 26 | 98 | 167 | 36.98% |
My Fort Worth team lost to Houston 3-2 in the final match of the round-robin. Additionally, my doubles line was the last to complete, so it feels very much like it all came down to that match. My partner and I lost 7-6, 6-4. That match was played with no-ad scoring due to all the rain earlier in the weekend. To the best of my recollection, 11 of the 12 games in the first set were decided by deuce points. It was one of those matches where the score could have been easily reversed if just a few key points went in the opposite direction.
That made me wonder… what if it had? What if the score of that match had been exactly reversed?
I pasted the table of results above into a spreadsheet and tweaked the match, set, and game counts to that hypothetical reversal of that single match. It changes everything. The table below reflects the revised imaginary standings.
| Team Name | Team Score | Indiv. Score | Sets | Games | * Games Won % | ||||
| Wins* | Losses | Wins | Losses | Won | Lost | Won | Lost | ||
| Fort Worth | 2 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 20 | 10 | 151 | 103 | 59.45% |
| Houston | 2 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 20 | 10 | 151 | 107 | 58.53% |
| Wild Dallas | 2 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 16 | 18 | 131 | 148 | 46.95% |
| San Antonio | 0 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 8 | 26 | 98 | 167 | 36.98% |
The reordering of the teams reflects my understanding of how the USTA League tie-break procedures would be applied in this scenario. Working through the criteria revealed an ambiguity in the procedures that I think should be tidied up.
In USTA tournament regulations, the procedure for breaking a tie when three or more players/teams are deadlocked in a round-robin pool follows a list of criteria until someone is eliminated. Then, the process returns to the top of the criteria and is repeated until a clear winner emerges. The USTA League Regulations do not have a similar procedure defined. If this is intentional, then I think the USTA Regulations should explicitly state that.
Texas follows the USTA National Regulation 2.03H(2) when breaking ties at the Sectional Championships.
2.03H(2) For National Championships, in the event of a tie, the tie shall be broken by the first of the following procedures that does so:
USTA League Regulation 2.03H, Procedures in the Event of a Tie, USTA League Regulations and USTA Texas Operating Procedures 2024.
- 2.03H(2)a Individual Matches. Winner of the most individual matches in the entire competition.
- 2.03H(2)b Head-to-Head. Winner of head-to-head match only if all tied teams have played each other and one team defeated all the teams that are tied.
- 2.03H(2)c Sets. Loser of the fewest number of sets.
- 2.03H(2)d Games. Loser of the fewest number of games.
- 2.03H(2)e Game Winning Percentage: Total games won divided by total games played
- 2.03H(2)f A Method to be Determined by the Championships Committee. Procedure to be announced prior to commencement of championship competition.
There are three possible paths through the tie-break criterion.
- Each criterion in the list is applied to all teams together without eliminating anyone until there is one clear winner. This is how Regulation 2.03H is written, and it may be the intent.
- The criterion is applied to all teams until one is eliminated. The remaining teams then repeat the entire procedure together until there is one clear winner. This is how it is done for USTA tournaments.
- The criterion is applied to all teams until one is eliminated. The remaining teams continue through the list from that point until there is one clear winner.
In this imaginary scenario, Fort Worth would have eventually prevailed because that team lost the fewest games. However, it is possible to create a scenario where a different team wins each time based on whether the software takes paths 1, 2, or 3. This is why the distinction matters.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think path 1 is a very good option because it is mathematically possible for a team to be the lowest on earlier criteria but still win on later ones. It might be my tournament sensibility, but that doesn’t seem right. I am inclined to wonder if that is really the actual intent.
When I set out on this thought exercise, I didn’t intentionally cherry-pick the results to create a Fort Worth win. Rather, I wondered who would have prevailed in the tie-break procedures if I had won a handful more points in my match, creating the tie in the first place. I instinctively knew that we were in good shape because we had lost the fewest games even before the numbers were modified in our favor. That is how close it actually was.
As an interesting footnote to this story, after taking some photos and saying goodbye to my team, I stopped by the office for a social visit with the USTA staffer who was running our site. As I went through the door, I realized she thought I was there to report as the winner because the other team had not done that. In fact, they never did, and I eventually reported the score on their behalf after it was apparent they had already left the site.
Had I flipped the result of this match, the ensuing chaos would have been delicious… and also quickly sorted out. However, I could have also turned in any total game count I wanted, which most likely would have escaped notice. Neither captain bothered to check and sign the scorecard. This is something that could create a material difference in the tie-break outcomes in similar situations. In fact, a team that was totally out of contention could fudge scores to screw over another team who would have otherwise won.
The razor-thin margins in the standings underscore the immense importance of every single point and game during USTA League playoffs and championships. This fuels the emotions and fits of real or imagined unsportsmanlike conduct that frequently erupts in that setting. That strongly influences the overall USTA League culture. As the actual experience of this match that I described yesterday showed, it is possible for players to rise above it.
Unfortunately, this feels like the exception rather than the rule.
- 2024 USTA League National Regulations and Texas Operating Procedures, USTA Texas Resource, viewed June 15, 2024.
I guess I don’t quite understand your 3 paths discussion. The way they break ties if there’s teams that are tied for first, they look at individual matches won first. If there’s still a tie, then they move to H2H. If there’s still a tie after H2H, they move to sets lost, etc. What I think you’re saying for path 1 doesn’t happen. Only one criterion at a time is applied, not all of them. If a team is lowest on an earlier criterion(say the 1st criterion of individual matches), then that team is eliminated right away. I don’t see how Rule 2.03H is saying each criterion is applied at the same time. It says in the first sentence: ‘the first of the following procedures.’
That’s interesting multiple captains/players aren’t reporting scores/signing scorecards and the tournament desk doesn’t seem to be following up very well about it either. From my experience, players do seem to neglect doing this unfortunately. As a captain, I always like to check and double check all the scores. I’m sure if you turned in your court winning 7-6, 6-4 instead of losing 7-6, 6-4, there would’ve been some chaos and it would’ve gotten sorted out correctly eventually, and then you’d be suspended a year minimum from playing USTA tennis for falsifying scores unless it didn’t get sorted out correctly. So, probably not worth the risk.
What is unclear is when there are three teams. In my example, there are three teams tied. Two of the teams are tied on some of the earlier criteria, and it isn’t clear if the third team is eliminated or not as the rest of the criteria are applied.
Right, understood about having 3+ teams. I guess it’s pretty clear to me though. In your hypothetical of having 3 teams tied, the first tiebreak of individual matches is applied according to Rule 2.03H(2). That means Fort Worth/Houston remain tied, and Wild Dallas is eliminated. If Wild Dallas wins on a later criterion, it doesn’t matter as they’re eliminated. That can’t re-enter the fold once they’re eliminated. So, it’s between Fort Worth/Houston for the 2nd criterion of H2H, and Fort Worth wins that criterion so Fort Worth is the winner. At least this is what has been explained to me at playoff events, what I’ve seen happened, and how I interpret this rule.
Actually, I understand your thinking of Path 1 now. While the first criterion of individual matches separates Fort Worth/Houston from Wild Dallas, it doesn’t completely break the tie. The tie is still broken up or at least partially broken up, but not completely. What you’re saying for Path 1 is a one-tie all-tie scenario. And yes, if Path 1 is actually happening, then a team losing out in an earlier criterion could potentially win on a later criterion. The wording for this rule could be slightly confusing then, but I guess that’s not how I interpret the wording for this rule because the tie is still be broken up from 3 teams to 2 teams after the first criterion, even if there’s still a tie(a different tie though).
This also leads to something else. There’s so many ambiguous written rules I’ve come across over the years that could be interpreted multiple ways. The USTA needs to do a better job of writing rules and explaining what they actually mean sometimes or how they actually handle things.