An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
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
Racquet Sports Industry (RSi) magazine is one of my favorite tennis news sources. It was previously published as Tennis Industry Magazine and the URL still bears that name. As a sign of the times, the most recent issue of RSi is dominated by news about pickleball, the emergent racquet sport that likely prompted the new moniker. One of the articles this month features tennis great GiGi Fernandez… and her testimony about how much she loves pickleball.
1 response
Using data to drive decision making is a well established organizational best practice. Over the past couple of years the rationale for decisions that the USTA has made to increase adult tournament participation has centered around the mantra that we must follow the data. As an engineer, I naturally gravitate to data-based decision making. However, I am not convinced that we are effectively doing that in tennis at the moment.
1 response
Yesterday I described an ambiguity in the USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking & Sanctioning Regulations document that impacts how ranking points are awarded at tournaments. This has prompted me to explore the process for proposing updates to that document. The specific change will be a clarification of how rankings points are assigned for players/teams that do not win a match in Round Robin pool play. Like any good bureaucracy, the USTA has a process for updating their regulations.
2 responses
There is an error in how the new USTA Digital Platform calculates order of finish in Round Robin pools. I stumbled across it when building the comparison data set used in yesterday’s post. I deferred talking about it until today because it is an issue that merits dedicated attention.
1 response
In “When a USTA Level 4 Tournament… Isn’t” three weeks ago, I repeatedly emphasized the phrase: “The draw format of a tournament should not materially alter the rankings point allocation for the players.” The reason for belaboring that foundational truth is that it is key to understanding the ongoing player frustration over the USTA tournament rankings points allocations. In the intervening time, I continue to wonder if the policy makers have fully accepted or internalized that feedback. Perhaps an example will help.
If the request to the impacted tournament community is to continue to be patient, then open and honest information on the actual status and decisions that are being made should be extended to those people.
When the NTRP National Championships were unveiled, players in the Texas Section were already well versed and primed for the rankings chase. For players competing for the 8 spots in each division at the Texas Masters, the fact that 3 spots were open for NTRP Nationals simply created a new tier of achievement.
6 responses
Whatever you call it, there is a foundational philosophy that encapsulates the criteria used to separate right from wrong. There is a currently a raging debate within the USTA Texas Section over points allocated and awarded at a recent closed Level 4 tournament. Understanding the player frustration requires a conceptual understanding of a fundamental truth that most experienced tournament players hold to be self-evident: The draw format of a tournament should not materially alter the rankings point allocation for the players.
3 responses
One of the most worrisome part of the ongoing USTA Tournament restructuring has been the repeated theme that tournaments have to adapt to “consumer preferences.” On the surface, that isn’t a bad thing if that decision is backed up with valid data that accurately captures consumer preferences specific to tennis tournaments. It is apparent that the USTA has decided that shortening the length of matches in general will lead to increased participation. I have yet to see tennis specific research that backs up that assertion. Additionally, while shorter formats may be better for local level tournaments, that same sentiment doesn’t translate to the National Levels of Competition.