Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Operation: Dallas Super Team

Target: The Nationals

I though this would be a good time to approach this subject since there is nothing to talk about right now and nobody has signed up for any teams yet.

Is this Possible?
Is it Prudent?

What computer Rated players should be on the 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5 teams?
I would assume anyone who has successfully appealed down should be at the top of the list.

Who should the Captains be?
3.5 - Dirty John Sisk or Father Bob Bender? (Both have national Experience)

4.0 - Bob SomeButt or maybe Lucky Thunder Himself?

4.5 - Has anyone had more success than Rusty Branch?

Do you support this idea or does it defeat the purpose of USTA League Tennis.
Discuss...


Corey and Cary will have to fight it out over who gets to be Wonder Woman and Hawk-Girl.

100 comments:

  1. I predict the Dallas representatives at Sectionals will be:

    3.0 Bender
    3.5 Sisk/Jameson
    4.0 Somabut/Bazan
    4.5 Branch

    Nationals participants
    Bender/Jameson

    ReplyDelete
  2. Super teams may be good for a few, but are in general bad for local tennis.

    The vast majority would love to make sectionals and as it is now, quite a few have a shot. You build stacked/"unbeatable" teams and you will find the # of people playing USTA tennis will probably drop as the competitive nature is eliminated and the though of sectionals becomes moot. Most players would move to playing tournaments or some of the flex leagues such as Ultimatetennis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think on the 3.5 level Enrique Molina seems to be the biggest free agent right now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I remember a few seasons ago Kreamer Played on a Supposed "All-Star" team out of Houston that came up short,

    Has this ever been done and worked?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sisk and Jameson should get together and field ONE 3.5 team. Both are very good captains and both recruit very well. Everyone plays during the local league but only the top players play in the post-season. Use competitive challenge matches to determine the best players.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sisk and Jameson _ both good guys, both very competitive, both strong captains. Sounds like a potential "go to Nationals" team.

    BTW I heard that Jameson has a couple 20 year old singles ringers lined up for 2009 that are far better than Glenn Flora.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Somabut already has the Super team lined up at 4.0. If you are not on it then you are not one of the ringers.

    It's like the old expression in poker. If you sit at the table and can't spot the patsy...then you're the patsy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that putting together a super team sounds good. It would be nice to have a Dallas team win a national championship. When do the team rosters open for the spring league?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jeromiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii's Back,

    To bad you can't get appealed back to 3.5!
    You could be on the Super team

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've been back for a while, just didn't really have anything to post. I'm glad you guys are keeping up with the trash talking. I'm not planning on trying to appeal down and I don't think I could compete on the 'super team' at 4.0. I'm thinking about playing on a spring team if I have time to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why are you guys worried about super teams? None of you would be on one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's fine. You probably can't either... so don't worry about it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For the 3.5 Team lets through some names out there:

    Enrique Molina
    Sam Bert
    Marc Klamecki
    David Depew
    Pete Chan
    Goheen/Ereckson - team
    Carl Milke
    Sutherland, Andrew
    Trey Swain

    Does this team do anything for anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob would probably let Cary get water for his super team. I'm pretty sure he doesn't need any of Cary's players though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The problem with a super team is this. Theoretically, you would want to have the best 1 or 2 players from the top 8 or 10 teams. Obviously some teams would have more representatives. All of those players are used to being the best player on a team and playing every match. I would say it would be like trying to have a team of 20 TOs. There are egos at every level of tennis and most players would not accept going from #1 to #9 or worse.

    For example, I joined Somabut's team when I was a 4.0 and went from playing every week to playing three matches all season. This was not fun for me so I left. It would take tremendous individual sacrifice from several players and I really don't think it would be that fun to win with a team of guys you don't know.

    I would much rather captain a team to Sectionals with guys I've played with for a long time then join a team composed of strangers and go win Nationals.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, that 3.5 team does nothing for me.

    Klamecki is the only on that group one I would take. You listed a group of good legitmate 3.5s but they are nowhere near the top. Look at the Tri-Level players if you really want to see the best players. Those guys were picked for a reason and not because they like twinkies.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I cannot believe no one has Kaiser on the 3.5 National team!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The first group of 3.5s listed are the ones that are spares. That second group is better.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Exactly, the 2nd list looks better than the 1st.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would have

    Stein
    Klamecki
    Molina
    Bert

    for my singles players at 3.5

    That being said if any of them play a self-rated player they will lose,

    Klamecki, Stein, and Bert all lost badly to Mudsham in the play-offs last year.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The self rated players can bite me!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Self Rated = Championships

    For better or for worse

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like a previous poster's idea that a self-rate should be allowed to play the season to establsih a rating, but not be allowed to play post-season. Kind of like no self-rates at the tri-level.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Not to beat a dead horse,

    But it is shitty that a Self rated player like Mudsham plays the last two matches of the season,
    then rips 3 of the best computer rate 3.5 players in the play-offs to qualify for sectionals.

    Got his just desserts when they missed the nationals because he loved his family more than sandbagging.

    Flora got his by being disqualified,

    Moral of the story do be a self-rating cheat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As someone who has been on what many called a "super team" (who still didn't make it out of pool at Nationals), here's my useless opinion.
    If you want to have a legitimate shot at making Nationals you have to form as close to an 8 to 10 man super team as possible. This needs to include 4 guys who can play singles and at least always get a split. You then need at least 4 solid doubles teams. It's awfully hard to ride 3 lines to win every match at Sectionals and you never know how you are going to match up with the other teams so depth becomes a big deal. That being said if you don't have at least a couple studs you are in big trouble. Thus the super team concept.
    As far as whether it is better to make Sectionals with your friends or win Nationals with people who begin as strangers, it's no contest for me. While, it would be no fun to win with a bunch of people you don't like, more than likely you are going to have some stuff in common with a super team if you are looking to play on one. I talk to a couple of the guys on my Houston 4.0 team more than I do with people I play with weekly because during the journey to Nationals you get to know each other pretty well.
    CoreDawg, I have a feeling that if you could get some guys that would get you out of city playoffs that you didn't know, you would go for it even though some of your friends wouldn't get to play as much. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been trying to recruit Vik. While going to Sectionals is great, after you do it a couple of times it becomes pointless if you're not trying as hard as you can to get to the next level.
    With all that being said it almost impossible to get enough people to submit to the common goal of going to Nationals and therefore be willing not to play if they think they are good enough. I know in a perfect world I would be number 8 on a team but would have a hard time being number 9.
    There is nothing wrong with playing USTA for fun by the way. It's just if you have any interest in making noise at Sectionals, you have to approach it a different way. Just a useless opinion from a 4.0 has been.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You would be #1 on my 3.5 super team Jason.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ha I meant 4.5. You would need to play with Ed so he can hold you up though.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kern,
    Well said!! I try to have 4 solid singles players that can play both ways and can intermingle. Big serve and returners, A MUST! Two solid doubles lines(or3)with strong net game,speed, and groundstrokes. I would attempt to establish some chemistry with "super team" all season! Give me the studs!!!Make friends along the way!!
    Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  29. agree _ much better to make nationals with a bunch of new guys than to lose in the cities with friends. the new guys become new friends as the season goes on. you want to do something with your friends -> go drinking or whoring

    ReplyDelete
  30. You are right Jason. But I'm saying I wouldn't want a whole team of strangers. I'm always looking to add new players but I would still like to keep the nucleus of the team together. Every season it seems like I am looking for that one (or two) players to put my team over the top. If I had Vik, I'm confident our team would be city champs right now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Where can I sign up for this whoring friends group?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I know really. I have the wrong kind of friends.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Count me and my father in for this out all nite drinking and chasing whores thing.

    Signed,

    Private Mayo

    ReplyDelete
  34. btw, thanks for picking our team to advance to sectionals but I am not putting a team together this Spring. We are sitting out for a few years and all self rating at 3.5. Coming for you Sisk in 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  35. the last Super Team in Texas is what brought about the 50 mile rule in Texas. You can thank that sleaze down in SA for the rule as he brought in Austin, Houston, Midland players onto the SA Team, which won Nationals.
    Same Captain now has another very strong team lined-up this year with some tanking by a few D1 players.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yup San Antonio Torres has assembled another young D-1 Team from San Antonio to beat out all the competition including Team Branch!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Texas mens team rarely win Nationals. We are the 2nd or 3rd largest Section and you would expect Texas to win more titles at Nationals. Other Sectionals just seem to have more superstars.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I would say the reason we are one of the biggest sections makes it harder for us to win Nationals. The talent is much more spread out with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc. In small states, they may only have one local league so all the top players are together. I also believe the restrictions may be more strict in Texas because all players have so many more results to be judged by.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think the fact is that a middle of the pack 4.5 player can dominate at 4.0,
    a average 4.0 will dominate 3.5, ect, ect..

    This is not even worth discussion unless you somehow do away with self-rated players.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I completely agree that self rated players should not be allowed to participate in any sort of playoffs. You should have a computer ranking and may have to sacrifice a season to get there. The problem is that you will always have cheaters out there that know how to manipulate scores and tank matches to get the player to a certain level. There's no way to get around that. These ego captains are thinking a year ahead in order to get the right team together to make a run. Is it fair, probably not. But most of the ultra competitive players can't typically handle losing and would rather hang around at lower levels and kill people, than play at their actual level until they get better and start winning consistantly. But it sounds like that is almost the way it needs to go if you want to be half way competitive at nationals.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's nice to see your city do well at nationals, but if not, who cares. Is it for bragging rights, and if so, who exactly will you be bragging to? We are talking 3.5s, 4.0s, 4.5s, and that's likely the extent of it. Just go out there and have fun and keep trying to get better, screw a Dallas Super Team. The let down will be much greater than the chance of doing any damage, and friendships will no doubt be lost over it. Just ask your buddy Sisk and how many from his nationals team don't even talk to him any more.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It is not about bragging. There is a lot of unjustified criticism in Dallas of successful captains. The whining about ringers and sandbaggers is usually way out of line. Self-rated players that are too good get DQed. Those that are not too good _ according to the USTA computer are legal to play. The point is-> there are a lot of losers in Dallas that need to quit whinning and shutup.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I do not care what team I play on as long as my friends are on the team it would be nice to go to nationals but that is not why I play.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There are two from Sisk's nationals team that don't speak to him and that is their fault. I would think a super team would be completely boring and pointless if they didn't make it to nationals. The regular season and city playoffs would be so non-competitive that I don't see who would get enjoyment out of that. It's not fun for me to win every match 1 and 1 or 2 and 2.
    Also, what's the achievement for a bunch of 4.5-5.0 guys to make it to 4.0 Nationals?
    Big deal.

    80 percent of John's team was playing the appropriate level, and they should be proud of making it to Nationals. With a super team, this would not be the case.

    Based on what I saw at 3.5 nationals I have zero chance of ever building a team to win 4.5 Nationals, and I wouldn't want a team. That Caribbean team would have beaten every local 3.5 team 5-0 and they barely won nationals. For me to build a team to win every local match 5-0, I would have to change 80% of my roster, myself included. Not worth it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I sent two emails explaining you may not play,play once, or play all three, travel at you own risk, it was CLEAR! The two thought since we weren't in it, let's all have equal playing time. It is not fair for the undefeated to have the same court time as the defeated! Jacques/Jerry, Glen, Don all were undefeated, unless I pulled them after we had the match won! I have fond feelings/memories for them,but it is what it is! We've all moved on!!!! PLAY ON!!
    Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  46. BTW-If Klemecki and Molina are looking for a team look no more!
    If already committed, see you on the courts, wish you well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ed Ratcliff's Oak Ridge Team Looking for Super Players. Please contact Ed

    ReplyDelete
  48. I think a super team would be interesting. I would hate to throw away a few friendships.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I just care about winning sectionals. I could give a flying flip about nationals. nationals seems pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I thought OC BL was only going to play 4.0. But - played tri-level match at 3.5 and entered Brookhaven at 3.5. Maybe he is a 3.5 free agent. Good option for 3.5 singles.

    ReplyDelete
  51. He just knows he can't compete at 4.0.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dear Anon. Please dont post anything on this blog using my name if I post it will be with my name and spelled correctly. For your information I will have Enrique Molina on my Spring team again since he is an Oak Ridge Boy.I will recruit my own players when the time comes.I will leave the Super Players for Sisk to have. Also how about some Senior League B.S. from Lucky Thunder. Glad you are back. Grandpa Ed

    ReplyDelete
  53. How bad does women's doubles suck. Just watched as much as I could stand at the Australian. I used to think it was bad to watch the woman server serve and not follow it in to the net. Today I just watched a team play the Williams sisters and not only did the server stay back, her partner was not at the net either. She started the point standing on the baseline right next to her serving partner. Grow a pair and get to the net. You want equal prize money for that crap. Women's professional doubles is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  54. That is an anamoly for the women, and only cause they are playing the sisters.

    Most of the time they play pretty well, and HONESTLY, I watch it more than the men's doubles cause:

    1. They are more fun to look at.
    2. They more resemble 3.5/4.0 play

    Men's doubles is 2 shots and done usually. points are way to short.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I agree with that last post. It's hard to relate to a match where a team hits 130 mph serves and never gets broken. I watched Fish/Isner vs. Bryan Brothers and I think there were maybe 3 breaks in the whole match, possibly even two. Women's doubles is much more strategy and placement and positioning.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The Bryan/Bryan match against fish was the most boring I have seen. Neither team could even return a serve and if they did the next shot was a smash volley. There were only 2 breaks and only 2 break chances. The games were either 40-0 or 40-15. It was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  57. the people that say they do not care about winning sectionals or give a flying flip about nationals _ are just looooosers!

    ReplyDelete
  58. I must agree with previous posters, if you don't have self rated players it isn't a super team, at least under current USTA rules. Last year, we put together what we thought was a pretty good 3.5 team in Fort Worth. We had no self rated players, but had 11 of 17 players bumped to 4.0 mid-season. We thought we would challenge well for the Sectionals title. We didn't get out of our Sectionals flight.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It seems like everyone has a team favorably tilted that makes it to sectionals. So, every match is good and competitive - AND if you win SECTIONALS, that is quite an accomplishment.

    To be competitive at Nationals, u have to be just be plain cheating and have people wayyy, wayyy out of level. so, what's the point?

    Take the trophy at sectionals, and boycott nationals.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Super Teams are great but lots of sacrifice. I have been to nationals at 2 different levels and to be blunt it is pretty serious and not as much fun as you think. Competition is incredible. Having been there in two different Texas cities I would say with out a doubt DALLAS would win nationals at WHATEVER level it wanted if it put together a super team like the other cities do (do not kid yourselves the other cities/areas of Texas put them together every year)

    Go for it and good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Trying to figure out who the top 3.5 free agents are is like trying to figure out who the top WNBA players are--no one cares.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Actually, I think top 3.5s are more interesting than the WNBA... but only marginally. 3.5s probably have a larger following.

    ReplyDelete
  63. to those of you that openly admit that you actually like watching women's doubles you should be punished by watching an endless loop of TCD matches.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And 4.0 mens tennis is like the Arena League Football. A bunch of wanna bees that think they are all that and are are afraid to play solid 3.5s as a loss would seriously put a dent in their fat egos. And the percentage that will get bumped to 4.5 is minimal.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "solid" 3.5s

    Now that's funny I don't care who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  66. which wins this battle. a "substantial" 3.0 v. a "solid" 3.5

    ReplyDelete
  67. A Bender 3.0 beats a solid 3.5

    ReplyDelete
  68. 1/2 of Benders 3.0s would be DQed, so the point is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  69. A Sisk 3.5 beats a solid 4.0

    ReplyDelete
  70. There is substantial overlap between NTRP levels and that's true across the country. It's not unusual for a high level 3.5 to beat a lower ranked 4.0. Nothing wrong with that.

    Plenty og guys playing 4.0 should really be playing 3.5. A few 3.5 players should be competing at 4.0.

    ReplyDelete
  71. someone whining about bender and the season has not yet begun.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Most of Sisk's guys are legitimate. HP and Lifetime had more out of level guys but Sisk was able to slide by on about 4 guys. LT and HP just need to get guys farther out of level. Sisk had 4 really good players while the other had 8 good good players.

    ReplyDelete
  73. hey I heard there was talk about Bender. My master plan has been set in motion. Anon, please get a "name" so we can bash on Bender some more.

    ReplyDelete
  74. With all the teams and all the players we had in 3.5 last year _ only one player (Glenn Flora) was clearly out of level. And he was DQed.

    Yet we had tons of guys constantly complaining and crying about out of level players.

    We have a lot more crybabies than out of level players.

    ReplyDelete
  75. bender observer: sicko with penis envy

    ReplyDelete
  76. All the focus on Zack 4.5+ superstar how did that workout? If Glen weren't dqed and won vs. Puerto Rico they still win 4-1! The guy who beat defeo, his win's were more gaudy than Glen's look him up! Zack was injured all season hopefully he'll be back!
    Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yes, after old two face (Klemecki) appealed his rating from 4.0 to 3.5, he said that he was only going to play 4.0 league tennis and tournaments. What a Bull Shitter.

    Oak Creek really produces a lot of Bull Shitters.

    Twofer - work on your game and have some balls to play at the 4.0 level.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I would go back to 4.0 if I could!! Who wouldn't? It's more fun to play down than to play up!! Stop ragging on Klemecki!!!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Seeding info is out for Abilene.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Actually, Johan Mudsam was clearly out of level too. He did not get DQ'd and he lost to Flora but he was clearly out of level.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Now that I am actually training, I am clearly out of level in 4.5 again, lets see if anyone notices and or complains this season or at city playoffs/sectionals. Should be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The issue with Klamecki is not playing 3.5. He gave grief to people that appeal (when he was 4.0), then he appealed and said he was just tempted by the button but would only play 4.0 leagues and tourneys - then he plays 3.5.

    ReplyDelete
  83. It's fine for Klamecki to appeal down to 3.5. But he should not have shot off his big mouth. Now he just looks like an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  84. So who are the picks for the Abilene Major Zone?

    ReplyDelete
  85. So who are the picks for the Abilene Major Zone?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Once the draws come out I will post the breakdown. A lot of small draws which is expected in Abilene but 4.5 draws are tiny.

    ReplyDelete
  87. As far as lists go, how about this one?

    Smartest Player:
    Funniest Player:
    Craziest Player:
    Most versatile player:
    Most Questionable Linecaller:
    Most Generous Linecaller:
    Most Enjoyable to play:
    Least Enjoyable to play:
    If I could have any doubles partner, it would be:

    I only know 4.5, so of course that is the level I have in mind but feel free to answer however you see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  88. It good that some of folks on the blog remember Twofer’s rational for appealing and his comments that he’ll only play 4.0 league and tournaments.

    If you’re a 3.5 player and your opponent is Twofer, please make the comment to him – I thought you were only going to play 4.0 league and tournaments.

    ReplyDelete
  89. dreskin is the worst line caller aka hooker

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anon,
    Bring the twinkies and We'll bring your beating!!!!!!! post up or shut up!!!!!!!
    Sisk

    ReplyDelete
  91. getz is worse than deskin on making bad line calls

    ReplyDelete
  92. Good luck to everyone playing in the Brookhaven indoors next week.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I doubt too many people have played bith Getz and Dreskin. So I am not sure how anyone would know.

    ReplyDelete
  94. All I know is that no 4.0 player gives a shit about klemecki,

    So these must be whinny pussy 3.5's crying again.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Who do you 4.0's think you are? 90% of you suck and would be beat by the better 3.5's. Obviously the top 4.0's are solid, but you are still just a 4.0!!! Just shut up already!!

    ReplyDelete
  96. To 7:13 p.m.
    You must have lost to Getz. How embarassing for you. But you can't blame it on his line calls - he calls them fairly and I felt like he was overly generous on a couple of calls when I played him. You must really suck to lose to that oldtimer.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Brookhaven Draws are out. Still waiting on Abilene.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Brookhaven Draws are out."

    We need a thread for this please.

    ReplyDelete
  99. its well known that getz calls bad lines. wake up and smell the coffee

    ReplyDelete
  100. Let's not get started pleaze

    ReplyDelete