Tuesday, October 2, 2007

DQ at 3.5

We have our first DQ of the season: DeWayne T. Ahner of the formerly 1st place Oak Creek team has been disqualified and moved to 4.0 after four out of category results. This shakes up the Flight A big time as Trae's High Point team has moved to 4-0 and Oak Creek falls to 2-2 and almost out of contention altogether. In order to even remain in the mix they must come up with a win at Gleneagles without Dewayne.

I can't say I am surprised after Trae gave me the scouting report on Dewayne, I have been watching. I know how frustrating this can be as I lost a player to DQ last year but Oak Creek was due after getting away with Antonio DelRincon last fall who now is winning at 4.5.

Anyone else know of any players who might be in jeopardy so far this season.

I think DQ's are a tough thing to debate because so often it is matchups that determine lopsided scores. I was beaten by a DQ player two years ago 6-1, 6-0(Chan Park) and then took him onto my 4.0 team. After playing him over the last two years my results are very close although I still haven't beaten him. Many of you know TQ who was part of my 3.5 team last year, he is not overpowering at all but would often beat players convincingly by merely frustrating them to the point they wanted to retire.

I do like self rating more than the rating clinics which used to judge people in "practice" play which isn't always indicative of competitive match play.

Oh and by the way I lied I guess this wasn't my last post but this was big league news especially since it effected one of my teams.


  1. I had noticed Trae seems to be winning pretty consistently at 1 singles on your 4.0 team,
    Better watch your back

  2. I think you might be speaking of the other Bowman (Kyle) who has been winning at 4.0 but he is now rated 4.0 so not a problem. Trust me I wish I had some borderline players at 4.0 but I don't, if I did I wouldn't be 2-2.

  3. Your right the last name confused me,
    Carry on.

  4. I know me and you are the only ones that post here,
    But keep up the Good work,

    You can't see any scenario where we can qualify for the play-offs?

    If HIGhPoint wins out,
    and we win out that will leave Gleneagles or Canyon Creek and us with 2 losses each and it would come down to match count, too bad no head 2 head tie breaker

  5. Another issue seems to be self rated players that are added to strong teams.

    When self rated players are winning convincingly at 3.5 and also winning all of their 4.0 matches the radar should be going off...

    Seems like it is less likely to get DQ'd if the player plays some doubles...

  6. thanks for the encourgement. We actually have more posts than Austin but that Houston site is crazy with the people. People have told me they read it but don't post but it passes the time for me.

    Playoffs for OC 3.5: You are right you all have the same chance as my 4.0 team at 2-2 we have to win out and have maybe one result go a certain way and we are in. It is possible for sure but not that easy. I know your team is not only hurt by the loss of Dewayne but just in shear depth of players it hurts. I think I counted 11 and it is not nearly the skill depth you all have had the last two seasons. Can you get some of those other guys back on th team. I played Jim Henderson once I thought he was a great player.

  7. "self rated players added to strong teams" not sure what you meant by that maybe you mean those players might be "hidden" which is an issue for sure. When I was looking at rosters before sectionals the players that would scare me the most are the ones that played line 3 doubles and won easily and then had a default. This can be done when roster are really big and deep as well because teams know they can win enough lines even w/o their "ringer".

  8. Doubles is definitely the place to put a questionable player because it is harder for them to dominate than in singles although my DQ from last year got one of his 3 strikes v. Chandler's Landing playing doubles. It seems the big change the USTA has made with DQ's is that is doesn't matter who you beat as long as you beat them bad enough and they are rated 3.5 then you get a strike. It used to be you had to beat a certain level of opponent.

    I like your note on winning at 4.0 and 3.5, my next DQ watch would be on this player (Ben Oberto) Garland 3.5 and 4.0. He hasn't dropped at set at either level. Hmmmm. I would be careful guys because this is interesting to me and I am not sure how wins at a higher level count against you, I would think a 6-4, 6-4 win against a 4.0 player would be equal to a 6-1, 6-1 score against a 3.5 player and would constitute a strike.

  9. Ok one last thought and then I have to start working today for real. I know some get upset when a self rated player is added and is borderline but if we were not allowed to bring in players at the top of the level we are playing then it would be rather boring. I remember I had a team a few years ago I was all excited about because I had a few downrated 4.0 players and some 3.5 that had gone undefeated the previous season and me playing #3 doubles. I had no self rated players and it was a year after the self rating system started and I figured well if anyone beat us bad they would get DQ'ed. The first match of the season we lost 5-0 to a team that was 90% self rated. It kind of woke me up to how this would change league play. And I thought how fun would it be if you could just collect the top 12 computer rated players and feel invincible. So I guess I have to say I like the new system overall it makes the league more interesting with new faces arriving all the time.

  10. "Clearly above level" - this is bogus measure...how can anyone measure the level of someone's play by merely looking at the scores of a match against another player?

    Would you consider 6-0, 6-0 win with all games going to 40-40 and all points being won after 10 rallys different from a 6-0, 6-0 match with all games being won at love?

    If you answered "No", then you must agree with my first statement, if you answered "Yes" then how is your golf game because you don't understand the game of tennis.

    By DQing players (after only 4 matches) who have shown success as a line 1 singles specialist playing against players who have show limited success at playing multiple different lines at both doubles and singles is not a real thermometer of a player skill.

    The moral of this story is "Success leads to Failure". What a concept for this organization to support!!!

  11. So how many teams out there are hiding questionable players on their doubles lines? It is amazing to me how many team play a #1 singles player on a #3 doubles line? Isn't this something that need to have "subjective policing"?

  12. Just for the record, the "you" in the post on Oct 3rd 1:13PM starting with "Clearly above level"... was not directed to any specific person. It was directed to the person reading the post...not bazan as he obviously knows the game of tennis. Just wanted to clarify.

  13. Agreed, anyone who has played tennis has been beaten bad 6-1,6-1 and been in a tight match that has the same score. I think their should somehow be seprate ratings for doubles and singles because any of you who have played for a while know that those are two very different games especially in league tennis. I can't get singles playing time on my own team but I am sure I could play line 1 doubles on just about any 3.5 out there so obviously it doesn't make sense to DQ someone who is a singles specialist against a player is does not have great singles skills. One of the strikes my DQ'ed player from last season received was from beating a 70+ year old player at singles. Are you serious? I was pissed when I realized that, the opponent admitted he hadn't played singles in over 10 years.