Rankings, Seedings, & Tournament Ratings
Posted 02 March 2005 - 09:17 PM
I have been in the platform tennis arena for over a decade. Jay Graham and I were ranked 10 in the country and often wondered why our ranking was often discounted and because of this never seemed to have the luck of the draw especially by the round of sixteen or quarterfinals.
I recently saw this unfortunate system we have hurt GUYAUX-McMASTER and BROWNE-CROSTA at Lehigh and I must say I have had it with the words subjectivity and considerations.
Why do we have rankings if we don't respect all the ranked players when seeding a tournament?
Many players have spoken with me recently about this unfortunate rating system we have for tournaments valuations, seedings and rankings. Personally it would not take much effort to validate platform tennis and eliminate subjectivity and the pressure that goes with having to make these awkward descisions.
It would not be difficult to change the current system and have one that mirrors the professional tennis tour (ATP). I was a player representative when draws and seedings were being done on the satellite tour many years ago. We could easily make a system similar so nobody has to feel the disturbing pressure of slighting a ranked team and giving considerations to a player deemed (so good how can we not seed this player!!!)
Below are just a few simple criteria that I think must be used in the future to garner respect for our sport and to take pressure off any committee from making poor judgments.
1) The value of a tournament should be based on current total points of players.
2) Seedings should be done on current points of each individual player with their partner so anyone with the current rankings data should be able to make seeds without outside help
4) Our APTA website should have the rankings updated daily.
5)Obviously there is more but these are some basics to get us sarted.
Please reply if you are ranked.
Posted 02 March 2005 - 09:47 PM
1. Hypothetically speaking, who would get a higher seed, Hallet/Katz (currently 108 points) or Chris Gambino and Johnny Fan? (Chris currently shares 226 points with David O; Johnny Fan is the #1 paddle fan, but he does not have any computer points.)
2. Does Gambino, on his own, represent 113 points as half of the Gambino/Olmuller duo?
3. Do Johnny Fan and Gambino get rated as a team at 113 points and therefore seeded ahead of Hallet/Katz at 108 points?
Posted 02 March 2005 - 09:59 PM
Please, someone respond. Is there anybody out there? I'm perplexed.....
Posted 02 March 2005 - 10:00 PM
Posted 02 March 2005 - 11:26 PM
Posted 03 March 2005 - 03:27 PM
Gambino would be seeded ahead of Hallet/Katz and deservedly so. If a player by himself has more points with his best 3 average than a whole team that individual deserves to be seeded ahead of them.
Points for mixed tournaments should also be used.
Ohlmuller/Keane would now be seeded where everyone knows they should be for the Mixed Nationals. I hope to get achance to play them.
Also we wouldn't now see on the mixed draw that Rothschild/Marina Ohlmuller have now been moved to make up for a lopsided draw originally made.
The ATP and its players would have lawsuits they way draws get made for paddle.
When will draws be made so that they follow a specific standard, increase the integrity of the sport and actually represent luck of the draw?
Players respond with your names if you want the system to change. This is the only time I will be on this website hoping to validate the draws for our sport.
I would still like to see Guyaux/McMaster and Crosta/Browne post their about the Lehigh seeding.
This draw most likely forced them out of the top 16 seeds for the Nationals.
Berka/Granger and Hough/Rahaley also benefitted without even playing. Maybe they will post a thankyou to the current system.
Players what are your thoughts?
Posted 03 March 2005 - 04:36 PM
I like the feed in consolation but points should also be based on when the loss occurred in the main draw. Also bonus points for beating a current ranked team in the main draw can be considered as the ATP does.
One issue with a points system and luck of the draw is that occasionally a top team may have a tough match early in a draw. I have heard that Baird & I were moved in the Nationals years back so that a certain team was safer. I hope this is not true!
Did Federer complain about having to play Agassi in the quarters of the U.S. Open this year. No he is a true competitor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 03 March 2005 - 06:05 PM
I would like to respond to your recent posts.
The three criteria you listed do occur. Tournament value is based upon point totals of players entered, seeding is done based upon point values of teams and individual points and the rankings are updated after every tournament.
The Lehigh tournament seems to be a point of contention. I was not directly involved with the seeds but I do have the spread sheet with point totals for all the tournaments.
Freund/Todd were seeded three. Their total points for their three best tournaments with other partners was 109.
Stulac/Ucko were seeded four. Their total points for their three best tournaments with other partners was 103.
Guyaux/McMaster and Browne/Crosta had 97 and 96.5 points respectively.
The point totals are close and the seeds were given as shown even though the 3 and 4 seeds playing together for the first time.
As for Berka/Granger and Hough/Rahaley, they chose to play the Indianapolis tournament scheduled the same weekend.
If you see Fritz Odenbach this weekend during the Mixed Nationals, he has said he would discuss this topic with you or anyone.
Certainly during the Nationals in Pittsburgh any discussions will be welcomed.
Posted 03 March 2005 - 07:39 PM
Thanks for responding.
Are tournament seedings based specifically on the # of points for each player from their best 3 tournaments or is the average of their best 3 the criteria.
I agree that player who has a great deal of points or high individual average can play with someone who has no points and be seeded ahead of an established team.
The issue I'm most concerned with for the players is that a tournament director should be able to make the seeds and know the value of the tournament without any help.
We need to have a system for those tournament directors so that we don't go from tournament to tournament unsure of the exact details.
The APTA website is virtually useless. I have removed from my favorites from the internet because I don't even bother to visit it anymore.
The website could be used to show specific information for daily ranking updates and how to seed a tournament and also what the tournament point value is so we as a membership are not constantly up in the air about the validity of our system.
I am only concerned with the system itself not those helping to make descisions for the seeding and values of tournaments. The committee I trust as I know all of them. I just want want any kind of subjectivity out of the process. Look what just happened for the Mixed Nationals. The draw was just changed.
Posted 03 March 2005 - 07:42 PM
Posted 03 March 2005 - 08:06 PM
Semi Goodspeed/Mansager def Leytze/Mott
Semi Fiedler/Gambino def Hallett/Katz
Fifth place Berka/Granger def McFaden/Stulac
I believe this is accurate.
Posted 03 March 2005 - 09:28 PM
Posted 03 March 2005 - 09:58 PM
I hope you don't mind me putting in my two cents, but, although I will never be ranked, I do run a tournament occasionally.
As a tournament director, I love the fact that the APTA gives me the seeds. There is no better way to get people mad at you than to be responsible for the seeds. I think the seeding committee tries hard to get it right in a sport where there are not enough players or tournaments to get clear-cut rankings. (That said, it certainly looked suspicious 4 years ago when Steve Baird and you were put in a spot that obviously helped some people)
Which leads me to the thing I don't like about the seeding committee. After giving the seeds, they then say "in the quarters 1 or 2 should play 7 or 8 and 3 or 4 should play 5 or 6." Then "in the 16's 1-4 play 13-16 while 5-8 play 9-12." Well not quite, because they often (but not always) mandate that 8 play 9. I say either seed it top to bottom like the NCAA basketball tourney or seed, place and draw like a tennis tourney.
Oh yeah, one more thing. The above criticism concerns the Men's seeding committee. The women do things differently. Could we please at least decide one way to do it?
Posted 04 March 2005 - 02:11 AM
Secondly, there should be a set system as to how to do the draw. Weather it is right or wrong, it needs to be done the same way all the time. When the seeds are sent to you, there should not be a footnote that says for this tournament, not all tournaments, the 8th seed should play the 9th seed in the round of 16. This is not luck of the draw, the draw is being manipulated.
The only other issue that I think needs to be looked at is that in a 32 draw, 16 teams should not be seeded and placed. I know that the USTA has a number of seeds and placements based on the number of entries. I am not saying we should run it like tennis, because it is not, but they have a system that doesnt change and it seems to work.
As a Tournament Committee member, I would be willing to assist in trying to improve these areas, so that there is a system in place that every tournament can use to run thir event!