So the playoffs begin tonight with 4 matches.
6p (3.5)
Oakridge v. Oak Creek and Greenhill v. Stonebridge
7:30p (4.0)
Springpark v. BH/Bartlett and BH/Pearlman v. Stonebridge
I think all these matches will be close in fact I would be surprised to see any 5-0 sweeps and maybe not even any 4-1 decisions.
3.5
I have to go with the team that starts with "O" in the first match and if Jason Fraser plays I will take Greenhill if not I see Stonebridge squeaking it out.
4.0
Sorry OC BL I hate to go pro country club but I see a Brookhaven sweep tonight which would be two upsets but I just have a feeling.
Best of luck tonight.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Playoffs 2 DAYS Away
Thanks for your spirited conversations regarding ratings. I have always been perplexed by the rating system but I do think the longer your play the more accurate the ratings become. I am sure they are always attempting to tweak the system so they are as accurate as can be.
But the playoffs are two days away and there are some good teams at each level who I think can win. From the previous poll it seems everyone agrees High Point is a lock at 4.0. Why? Is there any 4.0 team out there who will come out and say they can take them down? The 3.5 poll showed Garland, Oak Creek and High Point as favs and I believe that but as much as I knock Oakridge (just for fun) I think they could score an upset. I do hope someone in the blue flight goes undefeated because I hate a flight being decided by differential instead of who beat who.
At 3.5 as much as some of you have thought I have been unfair in my thoughts I truly think there are 5 out of 6 teams that would win this tourney at 3.5. I do think the Blue Flight is stacked and all those matches will be tough. I would love to watch a Garland v. High Point final because they gave us one of our only losses last year and I would love some payback. I would also like to see Oak Creek v. High Point because these two had a great match on the opening weekend of the season and I think both teams have gotten better since then. And of course I would love to see our Oakridge Boys make it to Sunday and get a shot at High Point. All that assumes the darkhorse Greenhill or longshot Stonebridge don't mess up my Sunday afternoon plans.
4.5 should be fun too as there are three good teams the only bad part is it might be decided early as Fair Oaks plays Oak Creek in the 1st match. The loser of that match will have to hope for no undefeated teams in order to remain in contention.
But the playoffs are two days away and there are some good teams at each level who I think can win. From the previous poll it seems everyone agrees High Point is a lock at 4.0. Why? Is there any 4.0 team out there who will come out and say they can take them down? The 3.5 poll showed Garland, Oak Creek and High Point as favs and I believe that but as much as I knock Oakridge (just for fun) I think they could score an upset. I do hope someone in the blue flight goes undefeated because I hate a flight being decided by differential instead of who beat who.
At 3.5 as much as some of you have thought I have been unfair in my thoughts I truly think there are 5 out of 6 teams that would win this tourney at 3.5. I do think the Blue Flight is stacked and all those matches will be tough. I would love to watch a Garland v. High Point final because they gave us one of our only losses last year and I would love some payback. I would also like to see Oak Creek v. High Point because these two had a great match on the opening weekend of the season and I think both teams have gotten better since then. And of course I would love to see our Oakridge Boys make it to Sunday and get a shot at High Point. All that assumes the darkhorse Greenhill or longshot Stonebridge don't mess up my Sunday afternoon plans.
4.5 should be fun too as there are three good teams the only bad part is it might be decided early as Fair Oaks plays Oak Creek in the 1st match. The loser of that match will have to hope for no undefeated teams in order to remain in contention.
Monday, November 26, 2007
RATINGS ARE OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The new year end ratings are out. They have not posted it on the TX site yet but if you go to "Find a Rating" on the tennislink site you can view your new rating.
You can also appeal online immediately and the process is very easy. I earned a 4.0 rating and tried out the new online appeal option to see how it worked and I was "DENIED."
So I guess I better lose some weight and get in some drill classes. Let me know if you see any intesting names I have only checked my own so far.
You can also appeal online immediately and the process is very easy. I earned a 4.0 rating and tried out the new online appeal option to see how it worked and I was "DENIED."
So I guess I better lose some weight and get in some drill classes. Let me know if you see any intesting names I have only checked my own so far.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
New Topic (before that last one catches fire)
As much fun as Oakridge bashing is I will take Jonathan's advice and move on. Still a little while to go before ratings and the playoffs but if you have a chance check out this story from one of our links regarding the 3.5 that won nationals this year. For those of you have issues with the current rating system feel free to get on this site and there are two contacts at the National USTA office that will take comments and suggestions. Jason Freeman of the TX champ team noted this team was head and shoulders above the other teams at Nats. My old team in So Cal played them at Sectionals and had similar things to say.
Team of 3.5 Self-Raters Wins Nationals
Do you think the USTA Dynamic Computer Rating Program might need some parameter adjustment, when it Dynamically Disqualifies honest, enthusiastic Computer Rated Players who have played at the same level for years, and then allows a team of Self Raters to win Nationals?
A team consisting of 11 Self Rated players, out of the total 13 players, advanced to, and won the 2007 3.5 National Championship! Unbelievable! Eleven Self-Raters, one 3.5 Benchmark, and one player with a 3.5 Mixed Doubles only rating.
7 out of 8 players from this team in the National Final were Self Rated.
The 2 singles players who played at Nationals, Self Rated Vincem Munoz and Raffy Bautista, never lost a match - from the local season all the way to Nationals.
Self Rated Nelson Toledo won every match all the way to Nationals and won one and lost one at Nationals.
You can go to TennisLink, at national.usta.com and look up USTA Team Number 6518356658, and review all the 2007 season matches for this team.
Do you think maybe USTA is starting the Self Rated players with a rating number that is too low within their self rated level?
Should a Self Rated player even be ALLOWED to come in and win all their regular season matches against the thousands of players who have played for years at the same level and have never even been to post season play?
Contact USTA and let them know what you think!
Team of 3.5 Self-Raters Wins Nationals
Do you think the USTA Dynamic Computer Rating Program might need some parameter adjustment, when it Dynamically Disqualifies honest, enthusiastic Computer Rated Players who have played at the same level for years, and then allows a team of Self Raters to win Nationals?
A team consisting of 11 Self Rated players, out of the total 13 players, advanced to, and won the 2007 3.5 National Championship! Unbelievable! Eleven Self-Raters, one 3.5 Benchmark, and one player with a 3.5 Mixed Doubles only rating.
7 out of 8 players from this team in the National Final were Self Rated.
The 2 singles players who played at Nationals, Self Rated Vincem Munoz and Raffy Bautista, never lost a match - from the local season all the way to Nationals.
Self Rated Nelson Toledo won every match all the way to Nationals and won one and lost one at Nationals.
You can go to TennisLink, at national.usta.com and look up USTA Team Number 6518356658, and review all the 2007 season matches for this team.
Do you think maybe USTA is starting the Self Rated players with a rating number that is too low within their self rated level?
Should a Self Rated player even be ALLOWED to come in and win all their regular season matches against the thousands of players who have played for years at the same level and have never even been to post season play?
Contact USTA and let them know what you think!
Monday, November 19, 2007
News and Notes (Oak Ridge smack talk and ratings very soon)
Congrats to Bob Somabut’s High Point 7.0 Mixed Doubles team who was the runner up to Nor Cal this weekend in Las Vegas. I know first hand those Californians take mixed doubles seriously, we even had DQ’s in Mixed Doubles back in So Cal.
Keep an eye out this week as the year end ratings should arrive, I am hoping by tomorrow. For some interesting thoughts from USTA Texas check out the Houston Tennis Blog in which the blogger has asked the USTA to look into blatant sandbagging. There is a 5.0 team there so blatant about getting back to 4.5 they named their team "Danny Four Five." Some people have no shame.
Also this weekend the Ladies Fall Championships took place and the winners were:
3.0 Royal Oaks
3.5 Stonebriar
4.0 T Bar M
And I would be remiss if I didn’t repost some comments from the Oak Ridge team on a older post in which I referred to them as good tourney players but not quite good enough to hang with league playoff teams. Meowww!!!
Anonymous said...
What a bunch of pussies. If you've ever had to play 8 to 10 matches on a Friday through Sunday before, you wouldn't even mention that those tournament guys don't have what it takes. Also that team doesn't have any ringer type people, like jeromi or eddie hill, as they have proven records from the last year in the tourneys. Most every other team that is in this league has at least one or more sandbaggers on their team, so instead of trying to smear the only legit team, why don't you clean up yours.
November 18, 2007 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Nice language. Didn't really help you make your point.I agree with your comment that tournament play is difficult especially if you play singles and doubles.But don't fool yourself that any playoff team has no players that could be questioned as playing below level.I assume you are referring to Oak Ridge 3.5, but am unsure because Eddie Hill didn't play 3.5 this USTA season.
November 18, 2007 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...
What players do people think are ringers or sandbaggers at 3.5?
Keep an eye out this week as the year end ratings should arrive, I am hoping by tomorrow. For some interesting thoughts from USTA Texas check out the Houston Tennis Blog in which the blogger has asked the USTA to look into blatant sandbagging. There is a 5.0 team there so blatant about getting back to 4.5 they named their team "Danny Four Five." Some people have no shame.
Also this weekend the Ladies Fall Championships took place and the winners were:
3.0 Royal Oaks
3.5 Stonebriar
4.0 T Bar M
And I would be remiss if I didn’t repost some comments from the Oak Ridge team on a older post in which I referred to them as good tourney players but not quite good enough to hang with league playoff teams. Meowww!!!
Anonymous said...
What a bunch of pussies. If you've ever had to play 8 to 10 matches on a Friday through Sunday before, you wouldn't even mention that those tournament guys don't have what it takes. Also that team doesn't have any ringer type people, like jeromi or eddie hill, as they have proven records from the last year in the tourneys. Most every other team that is in this league has at least one or more sandbaggers on their team, so instead of trying to smear the only legit team, why don't you clean up yours.
November 18, 2007 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Nice language. Didn't really help you make your point.I agree with your comment that tournament play is difficult especially if you play singles and doubles.But don't fool yourself that any playoff team has no players that could be questioned as playing below level.I assume you are referring to Oak Ridge 3.5, but am unsure because Eddie Hill didn't play 3.5 this USTA season.
November 18, 2007 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...
What players do people think are ringers or sandbaggers at 3.5?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)