Monday, October 22, 2007

3.5 Week in Review

Flight A:
High Point continued to roll with a sweep of Chandler’s Landing and sit undefeated at the top. Gleneagles won a 4-1 decision over Eldorado although there was some close results in there. Oak Creek and Westlake also had convincing victories to stay in contention in this flight. High Pt all but clinched a playoff spot with that win and so it comes down to the other three teams. Westlake and GE have to play High Point over the next two weeks so that will be interesting to see how those matches play out.

Flight B:
Garland remains undefeated with Stonebridge hanging out right behind them as they had a 4-1 win this weekend. These two have a makeup match that should be very competitive and decide the 2nd spot. Stonebridge has a bye this week so maybe they are playing Garland this weekend. After that they have a final date with Brookhaven which should give BH one last chance to catch them. I think Stonebridge is balanced enough to hold onto 2nd but probably not strong enough to catch Garland.

**Ben Oberto** It is kind of strange that I called out this player’s name as a DQ watch and Sunday morning he showed up as my 4.0 opponent. Result 6-4, 6-1 win for Oberto. Hmm. You can thank me later, he also racked up another win at 4.0 on Saturday (6-3, 6-3). I have a feeling Garland knows he will be DQ’ed and will need him on their 4.0 playoff contending team anyway. To be honest after watching him play I don’t think he deserves to be bumped, he is a good player but not “out of category”. I should thank him as well with that loss and another one I should be a 3.5 in no time.

Flight C:
This flight will come down to the final point as three teams have one loss and Lifetime is right behind at 4-2. Oakridge knocked off previously unbeaten Greenhill/Kayser to takeover 1st place. Kayser’s team is in a virtual tiebreaker tie with Springpark for 2nd place and Lifetime also looks to have good tiebreakers. I don’t even know where to start with predicting the winners in this flight. I will put Oakridge in because even if they lose to Lifetime they still have a chance to get in. The other teams have two matches remaining and all have matches they could lose. My prediction is Oakridge and GH/Kayser. I just don’t think LF has enough depth to win a big match and I got to see Springpark play and we defaulted a match and almost beat them so I don’t see them getting far. They had a “ringer’ at line 1 singles but my best singles player took him out in 3 sets and their doubles teams are not quite up to playoff level quite yet.


  1. So looks like the Garland time bomb is still ticking. Still wondering how this USTA DQ thing works, doesn't seem like it is working in this case. It will probably happen during the playoffs when he plays better players.

  2. when do new ratings come out?

  3. ratings usually arrive around November 15th. I believe our final week of matches is 11/10 so that following week is usually when they come out. Should be interesting, I see some dominating players out this fall at 3.5 and 4.0 that will probably be moved up on that date.

  4. Cary,
    When I was talking to someone on the "official" side, she shared with me, alot of times it is the opposing team that complains and then the governing body looks into the person's records and makes a decision.

    Which I still think is bogus. Personally, speaking, I have played three 3.5 matches this season. First match, the other team felt he had only one player who could "play" against me, and since he wasn't available (John Carlisle), he defaulted the line as #2 Singles. While the other two teams threw a player against me in Line 1 Singles who had no chance of defeating me. Both players being an average 3.0 Player at best.

    Now, this Sunday, when our 3.5 team plays Springpark, it will be interesting to see who they put in their #1 Singles category, their best player or a "sacrificial lamb".

    By the way, I really enjoy reading these blogs and comments. When I have down time at work, they are very entertaining.

  5. I don't think Springpark will runaway from you. Jeromi is a good player, he has a huge forehand and good serve but tries to do too much sometimes. If you can use your big forehand to his backhand you should do well but he is about 20 years old and lean and ready run but I think that matches up well with your big banging game. I will be intrested to see how it goes.

  6. "complaints" that is interesting, I wonder if that is correct, if so maybe I need to send something along to the USTA. I actually attempted to do this once before and nothing came of it. The USTA told me unless I could produce info to show he had been state ranked or played college tennis then there was really nothing I could do about it.

  7. So can someone tell me how "clearly above level" can be determined before a person plays less that 50% of their matches. Since apparantly this can be determined, doesn't the rule need to be changed to "clearly above average" and when someone goes above average they get moved up.

    Another thought...shouldn't the USTA also dictate that certain players must play at or above a certain line for a given team once they have established they can win at a specific line. While this seems to be good strategy from a team's perspective, it may be causing a lot issues being discussed. For some team, this is a strategy they use on a weekly basis and it appears to be penalizing some players that it shouldn't.

    This brings me to a final thought about strategy...if what was said in an earlier post is true and the USTA only looks at players based on someone complaining is only when a player is looked at, then should we all start complaining when we lose a match. If someone wins 2 or 3 weeks in row and there is a complaint log, it would only be a matter of time before the winnng player is DQ'd and then the earlier lose will become a win.

    Guess I really didn't to ask the question of shouldn't have asked the question as I'm sure this will now happen on a weekly basis now that it has been made public that the USTA will look at players based on a logged complaint.

    OKm one final thought, as a league we should want our best teams representing us at the state and national levels and should take a lose to mean we might just not be as good as we think we are. Use it to motivate ourselves to get better...not complain, get someone DQ's and so forth.

    Good luck and play hard.

  8. sorry for the typos if previous post...accidently hit send while trying to proof read it...

  9. no problem, it is hard to type when you are talking about crazy tennis stuff. I think what makes me crazy about all the DQ stuff is it doesn't seem consistent. If there was a defined rule that seemed to be followed maybe it would be easier to stomach some of these rulings. It is hard for me to see DQ players move up and lose at the next level when other players somehow sneak by without a DQ and then move up one or two levels and have winning records. What this says to me is that the USTA wants players to join USTA leagues in the level where they will "lose" but by gosh it would be close. Any sport I have been involved in you join where you can do well and have fun and there is usually some sort of move up rule after your first season. (Examples: win kids soccer teams win they make them play up a level, you win at, you have to move up, you win beer league softball league at C level, you play in the B's next time.)

  10. I couldn't agree more with wanting the best players to represent TX and it seems like TX has more stringent rules. The talked about Oberto in this post is a player I think is a good sectional/nat level 3.5 but will lose at higher level 4.0 matches so I think he should be safe but I will be shocked if this current system doesn't DQ him..................BTW, the TX 4.0 rep from Houston just lost its opening round match at Nationals today. This is a team that dominated the TX sectional tourney so what does that say about the 4.0 level of TX?

  11. Cary,

    Would like to see your last post to this blog started as a new post. I think you are on to something and would like to see what others have to say.

    Below are my thoughts on your post, brazen said... "I couldn't agree more with wanting the best players to represent TX and it seems like TX has more stringent rules.......BTW, the TX 4.0 rep from Houston just lost its opening round match at Nationals today. This is a team that dominated the TX sectional tourney so what does that say about the 4.0 level of TX?"


    As it appears dominating teams from Texas are not competitive at the national levels then maybe this is a sign that we are prematurely moving too many player up.

    Maybe we should be moving players down that are losing 6-0, 6-1 or have shown they don't have the ability to win at a specific level as they may be "clearly below level".

    There are way to many players who have not won a single match in several years at a specific level but are still being allowed to play at that level. I feel these players are contributing as much of more to the problem that has been discussed over and over again.

    Also, once a player is moved down, then they would need to prove themselves before being allowed to move back up. I would think players that have less than a 50% win/lose record should be moved down. If this was done at all levels AT THE END of each season I sure we would see a whole new strategy.

    Many teams who play with their lineups to intentionally give up an individual match to try for a over all team win would need to rethink that strategy as the lose could potential result in a player being moved down. I say, play your best players against the other teams best players and may the "best" team win. To me, the game should be won/lost on the court, not by a coach's strategy. Sorry coach's...some of you are very good a playing with the line ups but this distracts from the true spirt of the game. Just my opinion.

    If players had to earn/prove their level, then I think there would be more incentive for players to strive to reach and stay at the higher levels verse players trying to sandbag to win at a lower level.

    Guess a good analogy would be that most NCAA basketball team would rather be invited to the NCAA tournament as a 16 seed verse playing/winning the NIT tournament. Isn’t the winner of the NIT considered to be the 65th best team???

    Another sport's analogy would be that in stock car racing the BUSCH (lower level) series allows the CUP (top level) drivers to race at their lower level. While this reduces the BUSCH series regulars the chance to win , it give them the opportunity to gain valuable experience racing against the best drivers in the world. Most, if not all BUSCH drivers welcome the CUP drivers in their series.

    In closing, I say, lets make individuals earn there ranking and continue to prove themselves year after year or be at risk of being forced to move down.

    Just my thoughts....

  12. Cary,
    If you do get bumped down, I'll take you in the spring. Our singles are stronger than you think. Practice more, play harder and we'll talk. Spring '07 TQ, Dennis, Bowman, and John all got bumped up and I read no blogs on their strength on your team. Why now?
    John Sisk