But Get It Right

Keep It Simple Stupid - continued

So, use straight scoring and rank all players 1st through last for every session.  Depending on the players, ranking teams may work better.

Then start the session by putting the #1 ranked team VS the #2 on court A, 3 VS 4 on court B, etc.  This way comparable teams play each other from the start.

Winner moves up, from court B to court A for example, and loser moves down.

That’s it!

No wait, there’s more.  The secret ingredient…

Depending on the disparity between players, team 4 on court B, if they’re beginners for example, may propose to split their higher ranked opponent - forfeiting their ability to advance to court A.  The motivation for the split is a more competitive match and the opportunity for newer or lower level players to gain experience with relatively advanced players.  The winner’s will not advance because the team on court A is expecting, and rightfully so, to play the best team from the court below – the most comparable team to them.  That team is the higher ranked team that just split up on court B in the interest of training new players and promoting a more competitive match.  Also, if the winner of court B were to advance in this situation then we’re simply trading a mismatch on court B for a mismatch on court A.

Of course, the lower level team still has the opportunity to advance.  This system implies that they must earn it, not by inheriting an advanced partner and riding the tide, but by working with a comparable partner.

I argue that the winner on court A has the *right* to face the best team from court B.  Yes, I don’t think it’s as much their privilege as it is, in fact, their right.  By this I mean that because we come to a kick seeking an opportunity to push our game and improve, when left to chance it is more likely that lower level players will still gain valuable experience while higher level players will not.  This is because as players improve, relatively, their options for a comparable opponent are naturally reduced.

Accounting for that with this scheme takes nothing away from the lesser players’ opportunity of getting quality games.  This scheme maximizes the probability that both higher and lower level teams will get comparable and challenging opponents.

Regarding straight scoring - in practice we play to 21- win by 2 – 23 max.  This means matches take about the same time to complete since every rally is worth a point.  The benefit here is that no one is left waiting around for their next match because court A is deadlocked in a battle of side outs nor is court Z deadlocked in a battle of serve outs.

Nowadays we often start our sessions using this format and then abandon it, not the straight scoring part, in favor of a more ‘family friendly’ format later in the session, but only if a consistent imbalance in match quality is realized somewhere.

So, now everyone is happy!  It’s perfect!

Yeah, right