Harold Graham has asked that I post this on the blog. It would be nice if we got a lot of league representation on the board, I think.
Call for Nominations for the HTA Board of Directors - The HTA Board and its officers are asking for the submission of names of candidates for nomination to the HTA Board of Directors for the coming year, 2011. We are looking for those that are energetic and enthusiastic, bringing varied skills to the Association with a willingness to work to improve who we are and what we do as a community based, volunteer driven organization, reflecting our community as a whole. If you or someone you know would like to be considered for serving on the board, please email that person's name and contact information to htanominations@houstontennis.org by November 1, 2010. Should you have any questions, please direct them to htanominations@houstontennis.org. Thank you.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
YE09 Bump-Ups: How Did They Do?
At year-end 2009, there was lots of controversy as the USTA decided to bump some 30% of 3.5 players up to 4.0 (19% in Houston), and a 17% of 4.0s up to 4.5 (11% in Houston). The 4.5 ranks were relatively untouched (7% nationwide, 3% in Houston). People screamed about how they wouldn’t be “competitive” at their new level. I thought I’d look at the data to see how they actually fared, focusing on the USTA summer league as I believe it’s a more reliable dataset in terms of players playing to their capabilities.
First let’s look at the 4.5 level. There were 66 matches in the Summer USTA league where a YE09-bump-up-from-4.0 competed against a player who was already a 4.5 last year (or a doubles pair of bump-ups competed against a doubles pair of legacy 4.5s). The bump-ups won only 17% of those matches. There were also 30 matches in which current 4.0s chose to compete against current 4.5s, and the 4.0s’ winning percentage is very similar at 20%. The three-percentage-point difference I consider to be within the noise of the data.
What those figures suggest to me is that in the 4.5 division, neither an existing 4.0 nor a YE09-bump-up-from-4.0 is particularly competitive with a legacy 4.5. Everyone has his own definition of “competitive”, and I’m not sure I can even give you a number for mine, but I think it’s greater than 17-20%. I also find it interesting that the 4.0s who choose to compete against 4.5s are in general every bit as good as those poor souls who were bumped up.
Why did the 4.0-to-4.5 bump-ups fare so poorly against legacy 4.5s? One contributor has to be the fact that so few 4.5s were bumped up to 5.0 at YE09. This theory can be partially tested by looking at statistics from the 4.0 division (see below), where many of the best 4.0s did get moved up and out. I’d be interested to hear other theories.
Now let’s look at the 4.0 level. In the Summer USTA league there were 72 matches where a YE09-bump-up-from-3.5 competed against a legacy 4.0 (or a doubles pair of bump-ups competed against a doubles pair of legacy 4.0s). The bump-ups won a surprising (to me) 40% of those matches. There were 109 matches where current 3.5s chose to compete against current 4.0s, with the current 3.5 winning 22% of the time.
What these figures suggest to me is that, for YE09 promotions from 3.5 to 4.0, the USTA pretty much bumped up the right guys. A 40% winning percentage sure feels competitive to me. A 22% winning percentage does not, so I’d conclude that on average those 3.5s who didn’t get bumped up, shouldn’t have been bumped up. Of course there are individual exceptions in both directions.
So what does this all mean? Not a lot, really. The YE09 bump-up episode is all water under the bridge now, as evidenced by the fact that I no longer hear people talking (or moaning) about it much. But I found the numbers interesting nonetheless. We’ll see what kind of “corrections” occur when YE10 ratings are out.
First let’s look at the 4.5 level. There were 66 matches in the Summer USTA league where a YE09-bump-up-from-4.0 competed against a player who was already a 4.5 last year (or a doubles pair of bump-ups competed against a doubles pair of legacy 4.5s). The bump-ups won only 17% of those matches. There were also 30 matches in which current 4.0s chose to compete against current 4.5s, and the 4.0s’ winning percentage is very similar at 20%. The three-percentage-point difference I consider to be within the noise of the data.
What those figures suggest to me is that in the 4.5 division, neither an existing 4.0 nor a YE09-bump-up-from-4.0 is particularly competitive with a legacy 4.5. Everyone has his own definition of “competitive”, and I’m not sure I can even give you a number for mine, but I think it’s greater than 17-20%. I also find it interesting that the 4.0s who choose to compete against 4.5s are in general every bit as good as those poor souls who were bumped up.
Why did the 4.0-to-4.5 bump-ups fare so poorly against legacy 4.5s? One contributor has to be the fact that so few 4.5s were bumped up to 5.0 at YE09. This theory can be partially tested by looking at statistics from the 4.0 division (see below), where many of the best 4.0s did get moved up and out. I’d be interested to hear other theories.
Now let’s look at the 4.0 level. In the Summer USTA league there were 72 matches where a YE09-bump-up-from-3.5 competed against a legacy 4.0 (or a doubles pair of bump-ups competed against a doubles pair of legacy 4.0s). The bump-ups won a surprising (to me) 40% of those matches. There were 109 matches where current 3.5s chose to compete against current 4.0s, with the current 3.5 winning 22% of the time.
What these figures suggest to me is that, for YE09 promotions from 3.5 to 4.0, the USTA pretty much bumped up the right guys. A 40% winning percentage sure feels competitive to me. A 22% winning percentage does not, so I’d conclude that on average those 3.5s who didn’t get bumped up, shouldn’t have been bumped up. Of course there are individual exceptions in both directions.
So what does this all mean? Not a lot, really. The YE09 bump-up episode is all water under the bridge now, as evidenced by the fact that I no longer hear people talking (or moaning) about it much. But I found the numbers interesting nonetheless. We’ll see what kind of “corrections” occur when YE10 ratings are out.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Grunting Analysis
Interesting read on the effects of grunting and how it impacts tennis.
I think the cutting edge teams will start employing "effective grunt training sessions" for their players for next season to have that edge.
Here is an teaser from the article:
There is a growing chorus of critics who complain that many of the top-ranked professional tennis players who grunt when they hit the ball gain an unfair advantage because the sound of the grunt interferes with their opponent's game. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
We explored this potential detrimental effect of grunting by presenting videos of a tennis player hitting a ball to either side of a tennis court; the shot either did, or did not, contain a brief sound that occurred at the same time as contact. The participants' task was to respond as quickly as possible, indicating whether the ball was being hit to the left- or right-side of the court. The results were unequivocal: The presence of an extraneous sound interfered with a participants' performance, making their responses both slower and less accurate.
I think the cutting edge teams will start employing "effective grunt training sessions" for their players for next season to have that edge.
Here is an teaser from the article:
There is a growing chorus of critics who complain that many of the top-ranked professional tennis players who grunt when they hit the ball gain an unfair advantage because the sound of the grunt interferes with their opponent's game. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim.
We explored this potential detrimental effect of grunting by presenting videos of a tennis player hitting a ball to either side of a tennis court; the shot either did, or did not, contain a brief sound that occurred at the same time as contact. The participants' task was to respond as quickly as possible, indicating whether the ball was being hit to the left- or right-side of the court. The results were unequivocal: The presence of an extraneous sound interfered with a participants' performance, making their responses both slower and less accurate.
Nationals
The Men's 5.0 team from Fort Worth went 2-1 at Nationals last weekend, but didn't win enough lines to get out of pool play.
Men's 4.5 Nationals will start Friday. Rusty Branch's Dallas team is in a Flight with Norcal, Southwest and Pacific Northwest. They start out with Norcal, which is usually the strongest of those three sections.
The 4.0 team from Lubbock is in a tough pool with Middle States, Mid-Atlantic, Norcal and Midwest. Play in the 4.0 division begins on 10/22.
Ratings of local players are dependent on how well or poorly Texas players fare at Nationals. A rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak.
Men's 4.5 Nationals will start Friday. Rusty Branch's Dallas team is in a Flight with Norcal, Southwest and Pacific Northwest. They start out with Norcal, which is usually the strongest of those three sections.
The 4.0 team from Lubbock is in a tough pool with Middle States, Mid-Atlantic, Norcal and Midwest. Play in the 4.0 division begins on 10/22.
Ratings of local players are dependent on how well or poorly Texas players fare at Nationals. A rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Senior Sectionals - Nationals, Finally
Sectionals had not been kind to the Houston teams this year. It had been a rare shutout (sue me, but I don’t count Combo or Tri-Level), even for Freeman, Benzon, and Hollis (taking her customary year off). Until this past weekend that is, at Senior Sectionals in Tyler. Both 4.5 teams and the men’s 4.0 team took the titles and are headed to Nationals in Palm Springs (Rancho Mirage) in October. Congratulations to all, and thanks for salvaging a bit of Houston pride!
The men’s 4.5 team, captained by Jimmy Kilshaw, won the title on lines, after finishing with an identical 3-1 record to NETX, to whom they lost 2-1 in the head-to-head match. Say what you like about the old geezers, but it was high-quality tennis. Maybe not quite up there with Adult Sectionals, but every bit as good as city playoffs. There’s something gratifying about seeing a 50-something guy who can still bounce backhand overheads over the fence. Tom Courson, Mark Willingham, and Louie Aro all went 3-0. Juan Lopez was a remarkable 4-0.
The 4.5 women, captained by Rox Ann Schanzenbach, didn’t drop a match in pool play, nor did they drop a set in defeating Dallas in the final. Carol St. Clair was the big gun, playing all five matches and going 4-0 (not counting a retired match) without losing so much as a set. Sue Bramlette and Mary Morgan were close behind at 4-1.
The 4.0 men, captained by Ron Fisher and Mike Spoor and featuring two members of the Texas Tennis Hall of Fame (Fisher and Paul Christian), beat an extremely tough and balanced Austin team 3-0 in the final, winning all three lines in third-set tiebreakers. In pool play they beat defending national champion Fort Worth 2-1, with the lone loss a retired match once the victory was clinched. Nick Stephens and Tim Purcell went 4-0, and might have been joined in that record by Jim Wooten and Steve Smith had it not been for retired matches.
Which brings us to the subject of third-set tiebreakers – as always, it comes down to these. The 4.5 men were 6-1. The 4.5 women were 2-1. The 4.0 men were 6-0. This is what wins matches at this level. Hating them is self-defeating. Practice them – these teams do.
The men’s 4.5 team, captained by Jimmy Kilshaw, won the title on lines, after finishing with an identical 3-1 record to NETX, to whom they lost 2-1 in the head-to-head match. Say what you like about the old geezers, but it was high-quality tennis. Maybe not quite up there with Adult Sectionals, but every bit as good as city playoffs. There’s something gratifying about seeing a 50-something guy who can still bounce backhand overheads over the fence. Tom Courson, Mark Willingham, and Louie Aro all went 3-0. Juan Lopez was a remarkable 4-0.
The 4.5 women, captained by Rox Ann Schanzenbach, didn’t drop a match in pool play, nor did they drop a set in defeating Dallas in the final. Carol St. Clair was the big gun, playing all five matches and going 4-0 (not counting a retired match) without losing so much as a set. Sue Bramlette and Mary Morgan were close behind at 4-1.
The 4.0 men, captained by Ron Fisher and Mike Spoor and featuring two members of the Texas Tennis Hall of Fame (Fisher and Paul Christian), beat an extremely tough and balanced Austin team 3-0 in the final, winning all three lines in third-set tiebreakers. In pool play they beat defending national champion Fort Worth 2-1, with the lone loss a retired match once the victory was clinched. Nick Stephens and Tim Purcell went 4-0, and might have been joined in that record by Jim Wooten and Steve Smith had it not been for retired matches.
Which brings us to the subject of third-set tiebreakers – as always, it comes down to these. The 4.5 men were 6-1. The 4.5 women were 2-1. The 4.0 men were 6-0. This is what wins matches at this level. Hating them is self-defeating. Practice them – these teams do.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sectionals this week
The year's most important tournament is being held this weekend in San Antonio as players vie for the top eight and inclusion in the Masters Championship.
Numerous Houstonians are seeded, including the top two seeds in the 5.0 division: Tim Green and Omon Dibua. Jason Gound and Greg Medford are two intriguing floaters in the draw.
In 4.5, Ed McCool is the top seed, with David Guy #4, Herb Morton at #6, Brian Goldberg #11 and Greg Schmucker coming in as the twelfth seed. Mario Gloria and Daniel Cambon are two of the more dangerous floaters in the draw.
Matt Drake heads the list of Houston area players seeded in the 4.0 draw, coming in at #4. Kris Knutson, fresh off another tournament victory in Beaumont this past weekend, is #5 and considered the favorite by many. Israel Bacon got the ninth seed, Carlos Quijano is tenth and Gregory Brown is number 13. Former Cy-Ridge Ram standout Tommy Do makes his 4.0 debut as well.
Numerous Houstonians are seeded, including the top two seeds in the 5.0 division: Tim Green and Omon Dibua. Jason Gound and Greg Medford are two intriguing floaters in the draw.
In 4.5, Ed McCool is the top seed, with David Guy #4, Herb Morton at #6, Brian Goldberg #11 and Greg Schmucker coming in as the twelfth seed. Mario Gloria and Daniel Cambon are two of the more dangerous floaters in the draw.
Matt Drake heads the list of Houston area players seeded in the 4.0 draw, coming in at #4. Kris Knutson, fresh off another tournament victory in Beaumont this past weekend, is #5 and considered the favorite by many. Israel Bacon got the ninth seed, Carlos Quijano is tenth and Gregory Brown is number 13. Former Cy-Ridge Ram standout Tommy Do makes his 4.0 debut as well.
Friday, September 3, 2010
In Case you Missed the fight.....
In case you missed the fight in the match last night, here you go.
Fast forward to about 1 minute for the money shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
