Options for 2010 Ladders

March 25, 2010 | By

tennis_thinkerFor the 2010 Ladder season, we are considering some options on how to structure the ladder.  Cast your vote and comment below and let us know what you think.

Should we retain rankings for 2010 or should we start everyone as equals?

If we retained rankings, it would work exactly like it did in 2009. Specifically, players registered prior to 1 April would start in the same relative order as at the end of the preceding season. Thereafter, returning players would be placed at the bottom of the ladder.

Should we retain rankings?

Yes
No

Should we enforce the rule to drop rankings if the participant hasn’t played in a month?

This is a rule we have used in the past that received both positive and negative feedback from players. The way it would work is that if you have not played a match in over a month (and are not in inactive status), your ranking would be automatically bumped down a certain number of slots on the ladder. The advantage is that it encourages more matches and ensures that the top of the ladder is populated by players who play at least occasionally. The disadvantage is that the rule may alienate players who play less frequently. If you support the automatic ranking drop, how many slots do you think one should drop — 5, 10, 20, ???

Should we enforce the drop rankings rule?

Yes
No

To encourage greater women’s and mixed doubles play, turn those ladders into “box leagues”.

In a box league, everyone plays everyone at least once. This eliminates the need to “cold call” someone for a challenge because you will be automatically assigned a match with someone else in your box (there would be multiple boxes for the women’s ladder). Potentially, it could work as follows: A box will consist of X players, playing each other once during a specified period. The winner of each box will move up one level, while the last place finisher will move down a level. The remaining middle players remain in the same box for next period’s play. Matches may be played at any time during the period.

For the women’s and mixed ladder, should we try a box league?

Yes
No

Also, feel free to leave us any general feedback you have about how the ladder is run and anything we could possibly change to make the season better.

Don’t be shy… let us know what you think!


Your email address will never be published.

  1. Tom on Apr 13, 9:30 pm

    How bout a team singles league? Would anyone be interested in something like this for the summer?

    • Pete Sampras on Oct 4, 8:43 pm

      bring it on

  2. Wes Thompson on Apr 4, 10:07 am

    Is it possible to offer more singles and/or doubles tournaments throughout the year. They do not have to be large productions and can even be 1 day tournaments?

    The 5 spot drop in rankings makes sense to me also. My assumption is if a player is not inactive and still doesn’t play more than once a month, then they probably do not care too much about their rankings.

  3. Wes Thompson on Apr 4, 10:03 am

    Great job updating the website. Is it possible to have an aggregrate ranking system? I am not sure how it works, but have weighted ranking. ie. A fluke win may not catapult a player as high. more a “body of work” type ranking system.

    • Pete Sampras on Oct 4, 8:45 pm

      play usta mid atlantic tournaments for your age group for that

  4. Kristen on Mar 31, 12:56 pm

    This is my first year in ACTA but a box league sounds much easier than cold calling.

  5. Ralph Yatsko on Mar 31, 10:50 am

    I think retaining rankings, and 5 place drop for inactivity is the way to go.

  6. Sandy Thurston on Mar 30, 1:15 pm

    I think dropping 5 slots is about right. The purpose of the ladder is to play, if someone gets dropped, it’s not the end of the world, just challenge up again and play. Brad’s point about abuse of the inactivty rule is good, you don’t want the injured people rising more than folks with legitimate conflicts/rain-outs who couldn’t schedule.

  7. moinak chatterjee on Mar 27, 2:01 pm

    retain is the best and fairest way to go.

  8. Michael J. Grace on Mar 26, 3:06 pm

    Definitely retain rankings from the prior year–encourages participants to register early. Do not penalize players for infrequently playing. It’s needlessly complicated and unfair to those of us who must reconcile playing tennis with traveling extensively (in my case almost entirely on business).

  9. Fred Thompaon on Mar 26, 1:52 pm

    5 placed drop would be good

  10. Tamara Durand on Mar 26, 7:23 am

    I support keeping previous rankings and a 5 place drop seems fair for being inactive.

  11. Jerry Price on Mar 26, 7:12 am

    Definitely should keep previous year’s ranking that many worked hard to attain. I would prefer a drop of 10 places for those who don’t play frequently but I would favor allowing limited inactive status to acc. injuries and vacations. Otherwise, I could live with a 5 place drop with no inactive status exemption as others have suggested.

  12. Joseph Kolowski on Mar 26, 6:10 am

    I agree with the drop of 5 slots, and also agree that the drop should occur regardless of active vs. inactive status

  13. Roger Dodson on Mar 26, 4:17 am

    Dropping five spots for inactivity would seem to be about right. Brad makes a good point about the abuse of the inactivity rule.

  14. Brad rogers on Mar 25, 10:18 pm

    The rule to drop drop a play should be extended even to those in “inactive status”. Many players abuse the inactivity rule — whether they go on vacation in Africa for a month or it takes them 6 weeks to get over a sprained ankle. There’s no way to police why someone is not playing. So, the rule should be: if you have not played for one month (whether you are injured, on vacation, or just not playing much), you should drop automatically.

  15. David Lansing on Mar 25, 9:46 pm

    I wouldn’t want to see a punishment of more than 5 slots. I can see missing a month, with summer vacations and conflicts with schedules.

  16. Jonathan Sleeper on Mar 25, 9:25 pm

    I agree with Reid – a drop of 5 is sufficient for inactive players, but should encourage participation.

  17. Gytis on Mar 25, 5:46 pm

    I am against box leagues as I don’t mind “cold calling”/e-mailing…for some reason this online question system automatically picked a “yes” answer for me…perhaps a bug?

    • Alex on Mar 26, 7:57 am

      Hi Gytis – the box leagues would only be for Women’s and Mixed where activity is low.

  18. Cathie Sullivan on Mar 25, 4:15 pm

    I was never able to play last year because I self-evaluated myself lower than others. Therefore, I won’t be joining again unless there is a way for less competitive players to participate.

    • Alex on Mar 26, 8:00 am

      Hi Cathie – We have options for everyone. It is only the A, B and C divisions that look at ratings. The women’s ladder and the doubles Round Robin are places where you could play all summer.
      Alex

  19. Richard on Mar 25, 3:48 pm

    These are great ideas. I also think that sometime during the Summer like July, we should do something to encourage those ladder registrants that have not played yet. There is always a list of those each year.

  20. Jenny Miller on Mar 25, 3:35 pm

    I just had a baby, so won’t be participating this season, but I did the women’s ladder last year and was pretty disappointed in 1. the small number of women who signed up, and 2. the even smaller number of women who actually played. Anything you can do to increase participation would be good. Looking forward to playing again next season!