Fiend at Court Unplugged
I recently sent a lengthy email with feedback to the USTA Adult Competition Committee. (ACC) A lot of women in the Senior Tennis Community did the same thing because there is concern within that community that recent innovations in USTA tournament formats is exacerbating the participation problem for national senior women’s tennis. Today I am covering the final point from my message. It is related to a preliminary round robin format that was used earlier this year at the Senior National Hard Court Championships at La Jolla.
Of all the points in my letter, the round robin preliminary format is the one that I suspect has the greatest divergence between the other senior women who also provided feedback. My thoughts are underpinned by the belief that three guaranteed matches at Nationals would increase participation. Some of the national top tier players are almost automatically guaranteed that number and have probably never thought about it in those terms. The key to having large draws is attracting players to the event that don’t have a realistic chance of winning it. Guaranteed matches are a great incentive to drive that behavior.
One way to increase the number of matches for the bottom half of the participants in the field is to conduct a preliminary round robin with the winners feeding into a draw that decides the championship. That idea was implemented at La Jolla and a lot of the players hated it. I think there were significant problems with the implementation rather than the idea. That was the final point in my letter to the ACC.
Point 7: Round Robin Doubles
Final point from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.
I personally like the idea of conducting National tournaments in two stages… A Round Robin followed by a tournament bracket. I am also aware that you are receiving negative feedback on that approach from La Jolla. I think the root issue was that the groupings at that event were inequitable based on how the event should have been seeded. Some of the round robin pools were very strong and others were weaker. That resulted in some of the top players being shut out of the rankings points.
Ways to address those concerns is to first (and foremost) fix the seeding issue which should go a long way to more equitable groupings. Another alternative is to advance the second and third place teams from each RR pool into a play-in match against the winner of each group. It doesn’t add that many more matches in the grand scheme of things.
An alternative would be to play doubles FICQ with a second chance draw for players that lost their first two matches. That way players get three matches if they want it, and a bad draw doesn’t stop the pursuit for points. I think that may actually be the best solution.
Since I submitted that letter, I have become even more convinced that FICQ with a second chance draw for players who are eliminated in two matches is the best way to guarantee three matches. There are too many challenges implementing the Round Robin Preliminary format. In addition to the grouping/seeding issue, the Round Robin format only guarantees 3 matches if the group has four teams.
Three guaranteed matches is the way to go to drive participation for National tournaments. FICQ plus a “Second Chance” draw is the easiest way to do it. I will most likely continue to beat that drum.
Hey Teresa…I just stumbled on your blog via NSWTA. Never knew you did this or followed these issues! I was on the unfortunate end of the La Jolla 50 hardcourts nationals new format and also have some thoughts as to how this could be improved. I understand the rationale in the round robins providing more guaranteed matches, and agree that seeding and match order within those pods has to be given more detailed consideration than it was. We were one of the #5 seeded teams that was matched in our first round against another duo who legitimately should have been a seed (both also 5.0s and former D1 players); we had a 2.5 hour battle and lost in 3rd set tiebreak. We both easily beat our other two opponents in the pod, one team respectable 4.5s and the other 4.0s playing down from the 60s. Our experience felt upside down, playing the toughest match first and then having to play 2 other easier ones knowing nothing really mattered because the team we lost to the first day was the only one to advance. I have no idea how points were scored in this format. I think that lower ranked and local/club players who enter should maybe have to play a qualifier round robin with the winner getting a wildcard spot in the draw (that format could be abbreviated). But it was a real travesty for the high quality matches in a National championship to be determined by a 3rd set TB. If anything, play the 3rd set TB in singles to reduce the physical demands of that game…but allow doubles to play out the 3rd set. I also have a couple other draw schemes I think might address some of the problems faced this year. Not that USTA is interested haha (I’ve offered as well).