Rocking Rackets Experimental (FAQ & Blitz Management)

[Brian Swartz]

This thread is meant to be a companion to the Legends in Sri Lanka one. Previously something that came up a lot in the various Rocking Rackets threads were a lot of repetitive questions because of how spread out all the information is. So the second post in this thread is reserved for a FAQ I'm going to put together that will hopefully have all the important questions answered in one place. Suggestions for what to put there are earnestly solicited; I'm going to start with the basics of ratings, tournament categories, etc. and then proceed to more refined info.

Also, some players don't like the slow pace of World 1 that the Sri Lanka tale takes place in. They've noted that for practical reasons there are marginal areas where the situation is different in faster worlds. To that end, I've joined World 2 as well, which operates at the fastest speed, Blitz (1 day = 40 minutes, six times faster than the 'normal' 4 hours of World 1) and is the most competitive with about 250 managers. This will also give me an opportunity to do some experimenting on a faster pace, and then implement the results of those experiments in the Sri Lanka world.

In this World 2 Blitz, I will not be reporting my actions in nearly as much detail, or going through the history (there is almost six centuries of it). Briefer, annual reports on the top player rankings are as much as I plan to do here, along with what I'm doing with my own 'stable'. I'm curious how high I can get going with a more 'standard' approach of competing for players instead of creating my own - at present only 3 of the Top 8 players in World 2 are created, but you have to be quick to get good ones. It will take some adjustment, and we'll see how I fare as it unfolds.

[Brian Swartz]

Unofficial Rocking Rackets FAQ
Work in Progress

Why shouldn't I just read the help on the Rocking Rackets website?

** There are some topics that aren't specifically covered there. Unfortunately there are some aspects that are just wrong (likely due to being outdated and never changed when the sim was tweaked), which means you can't rely on that as the only source of information - anything it says that you can't verify, take with a grain of salt. As a couple of examples that are readily falsifiable, the help gives a partly inaccurate description of Practice tournaments, and states that the winner of a match receives 65% of the losing player's experience gain.

What do the various player ratings mean?

** Skill, Serve, and Doubles are the trainable abilities. Skill is the most important and is your player's abilities in a rally situation. Serve is used only on your service games, so it applies for half the match. Doubles applies only in doubles matches, never in singles - 40% of this value is added to skill in doubles competition.

** Form decreases by 8% at the start of every week, and increases by 1 for every tournament match you play, excluding practice tournaments. If Form is below 15 or above 30, penalties to gained experience and skill & service are invoked. The farther above or below those levels you are, the larger the penalty. This is best avoided. From 20 to 25 is the 'sweet spot', at which you get a small 0.1 bonus to skill and serve each, representing your player being well-prepared and playing at the best of their ability.

** Preferred Surfaces always add up to 100% between the four categories - playing matches on one surface will increase it at the expense of the others. The maximum allowable is 60% on any individual surface. This bonus is added to skill for any match played on the surface type in question.

** The other ratings are innate attributes of a player and you cannot alter them.

** Strength and Speed are sometimes referred to as 'athleticism' but this is just a description and not an in-game term. 20% of strength is added to your skill rating on all points. Speed is a little less important and also not as well understood. It helps the returner combat their opponents serve, including reducing aces to a degree.

** Mentality is added at a 30% clip on critical points. It is not completely understood what all of those situations are, but at a minimum there is an observable impact on winning break points.

** Home Advantage is similarly applied when playing a tournament match in your home country. There is a small flat bonus everyone gets when playing at home, and 10% of the Home Adv rating is added to this.

** Endurance controls how tired your player gets by playing a match - fatigue/energy is applied based on the number of points in the match, and higher endurance results in lower fatigue. High endurance players can play/train more than low endurance ones. Endurance is multiplied *twice* by the current Aging %, so it is much more susceptible to the effects of time.

** Fatigue/Energy is a measure of how tired a player is. 50 fatigue is subtracted every game day. If you have more than 300 fatigue, you cannot train or play practise matches. If fatigue goes above 500, playing performance will be increasingly penalized the higher it gets.

** Talent is a measure of how easily a player naturally grasps the intricacies of modern tennis. The higher your talent, the more experience points you are awarded automatically on a daily basis in addition to experience earned from matches, training, etc.

** Aging Factor describes the aging curve of a player. Strength, Speed, Endurance, Skill, and Service are all affected by the natural development and decline of your player. The aging factor ranges from 95% to 105%. The higher the number is, the faster a player will improve earlier in the career, and the sooner they will decline.

** Aging % is the current state of a player on the aging curve. In other words, is it the number that all the ratings affected by aging are multiplied by. This typically begins at in 50s or 60s for a new player, reaches around 100% in their early 20s, and declines gradually after that. All applicable ratings are multiplied by the aging % once with the exception of endurance which is multiplied twice.

This can be confusing, so for example, let's say the current aging % of a player is 85%, and their ratings are shown as 3.0 strength, 2.5 speed, and 2.2 endurance. Their peak (i.e., at 100%) strength would be 3.0/.85, or 3.53; speed would be 2.5/.85 or 2.94; and endurance 2.2/.85/.85 - dividing twice for endurance - for a result of 3.04.

How do the various tournament types work?

** Practice tournaments do not increase your form and exist for earning experience for any week you are not playing the other types of tournaments. They are open to any age or ranking of player. Players are divided into sections of six players based on ranking, and if your fatigue is less than 300 Monday through Friday you have a chance of playing a match against somebody in your section. Lower fatigue increases your chance of a match. Higher-ranking sections earn more manager points for a win.

There are several practice events available every week, so they will always be a possibility to enter.

** Junior events are only for players who are under 18 or turned 18 in the current calendar year; junior players automatically turn pro the first week of the year after they turn 18. The JGS (Junior Grand Slam) is the highest tier, followed by JGA (Junior Grade A), and Grades 1-5 are also possible in descending order. The 'numbered' tournaments are more common with JG2-5 events available almost every week. JG4 & JG5 are especially numerous. As with other categories of tournaments, the higher-tier events will have higher-ranking players and be more difficult to succeed in, but the point and prize money rewards are also higher.

** Amateur tournaments can be entered by any player not ranked in the top 1000. Like practice tournaments, there are several available every week of the year. They are large events featuring a field of 64 in both singles and doubles.

** Futures is the next tier above Amateur, and can be entered by any player ranked below 200. There are three tiers; Futures 1, Futures 2, and Futures 3. The lower tiers are more common, with lower rewards and quality of competition.

** Challengers are open to any player not ranked 33rd or below, but if you try to enter here or at higher-level events when your ranking is too low, you may not be able to find an opening even in qualifying. There are four tiers, with CH+ being the most prestigous, descending through CH1, CH2, and CH3.

** Major tournaments have no ranking limitations. The most common are 250, so named because 250 ranking points are awarded to the winner. 500s are next, with twice the reward. Masters are worth 1000, and there are nine of them in a year. If you are ranked in the Top 30, you are required to participate in Masters tournaments or forfeit the points from your best tournament result for the next year if you don't. Grand Slam tournaments are the pinnacle of the sport, following the same 'Top 30' rule. They are worth 2000 points each and take place over two weeks (two of the Masters events take a couple of weeks to complete as well). Grand Slams have the largest draws of any tournament type, with 128 singles and 64 doubles entrants.

** There are a few special tournament types that deserve mention. In Olympic years, during the summer there is a special tournament which essentially rests between 500 and Masters level with 750 points going to the winner along with Olympic Gold - there is a third-place match between semifinal losers to determine bronze, and the losing finalist is awarded silver.

The World Tour Finals are a special tournament at the end of the year which selects the top 8 singles and doubles to play - the tournament selects the players, not the other way around.

The World Team Cup is a competition which is played in multiple rounds over the course of a year. There are four levels, simply named Level 1 through Level 4. Players from each country compete together for their nation. The top two singles and doubles players from a country that enter play against the representatives of another country. Each tournament week of the WTC consists of one doubles match and four singles matches - each singles player plays twice, once against each of the singles players for the opposing nation. At the end of the week, whichever country has won the majority of the matches for the week is the winner.

The larger structure of the WTC is that 16 countries compete at each level. At the start of the year they are randomly drawn into four Groups. A round-robin ensues in which each country in a group plays against the other three, with the top two finishers in each group advancing to the knockout rounds beginning with the quarterfinals.

The final stage of the WTC happens at the end of the year, with the promotion/relegation playoffs. To promote, a country must make the semifinals in their current level and not already be in Level 1. Finishing last in your group and not already playing on the bottom Level 4 tier results

There are some nations that don't even play in Level 4, due to a lack of quality players to participate. If their players achieve enough to merit an invitation they will play and other countries will drop off.

Q: I check for new players on Mondays, but often there aren't any. What gives?

New players become available to be hired every few Mondays, not every game week. Most typically it's every third week, but it varies.

[Brian Swartz]

First out of the gate is Chilean Guillermo Cason, 26 years old and possessing a singles ranking of 335th (career best 256th). He was the best journeyman the starting points allotment could buy - I had only 3 points left after the purchase. We'll see if we can move Cason from a high futures to a low Challenger player, while having him earn points in the direction of buying a suitable trainer candidate and/or a first youngster. Form started really high, in the upper 20s, so lots of practice first up to bring that down.

This story begins in the middle of year 589.

[Brian Swartz]

Cason is almost ready for his first futures tournament under my management, but we also got a new group of youth players generated. The ones I saw at least had a few 'not bad, but flawed' options available. Can't beat the price of free when the young players are created, however.

I settled on Yaroslav Abramov of Russia. A very early joiner to the tour at 14y 11w, he grades out as follows:

** 95% Aging Factor
** 4.6 Talent
** 2.6 Endurance*
** 3.6 Strength
** 3.3 Speed
** 2.6 Mentality

* Turns out that rounding had me a little on the pessimistic side here. Looks like Endurance will come out at 2.7 or 2.8

Naturally I'll be keeping my eyes open for someone better, but Abramov is 'Mr. Right Now' for the moment. Checks all the boxes for a world-class player except for the middling endurance. It could be fun to quantify a bit just exactly how much that will hold him back if I don't get a better option in the next game year or two to replace him.

[Brian Swartz]

Events move quick in World 2. Four weeks later, just as I had Abramov starting his first juniors tournament, the next group of youths became available. There was only one I saw worth considering, but all it takes is one.

- Name: Thomas Christensen (SWE)
- Aging Factor: 96%
- Age: 14y 12w
- Talent: 4.3
- Peak Endurance: 3.8
- Peak Strength: 4.1
- Peak Speed: 3.4
- Mentality: 2.6

Christensen even is on the high end in terms of initial training, starting out with 13 skill and 4 service - Abramov had 7 and 3 which is more typical. I cut the Russian loose and replaced him with the Swede, who should be a Top 5 player minimum, if handled by a manager worth their salt.

I think I've found, sooner than expected, my first star in the making.

[Brian Swartz]

Cason has served his purpose and I've released him. My first trainer candidate has been brought in, Czech Tomaz Hoza. He's about to turn 37 and has been in the wild for a few years. Unfortunately Hoza never had consistent human management, so he didn't achieve nearly what he could have, peaking in the low challenger ranks in singles and 33rd in doubles. He's developed enough to make for a 4.6 trainer right now though, and by the time I'm done with him we'll have boosted that higher.

I'm now slowly rolling down the runway, just looking to gradually add more talented younger players to the roster as I can, and grind Tomaz up to the point where he can eventually help them out.

[Brian Swartz]

I've been doing a little more in-depth number-crunching than I had in the past, and it's always good to have a fresh perspective after you've been away for a while. I've discovered something which enlightens the crucial endurance vs. talent discussion which rather surprised me, bordering on astonished. Consider this box score screenshot:



Note the Fatigue line. In a Masters final, one player had 20 fatigue and another 64. Cananis has a respectable 3.4 endurance at the time of this match. Faille? Well, he has the highest I've ever seen. Higher than Eric Gorritepe. Higher than the even more stupidly-dominant Chris Adams who flourished while I was away. It's 5.4. Do not adjust your sets.

Now the thing about this is, how does a 5.4 to 3.4 endurance comparison translate to having less than a third of the fatigue? Well it turns out that 5.4 is even more impressive than it looks on paper. The way endurance works is, fatigue from tournament matches if you have no endurance at all is about 1 point of fatigue for every point played. As you get more endurance, that amount reduces nearly linearly, but not quite. It reduces a little more slowly as you move up the scale.

So at 0.9 endurance it's at about 0.87 fatigue per point played. At 1.2, around 0.81-0.80, at 2.0 it's less than 0.7, by the mid-3s where Cananis is at it's closing in on 0.45, and so on. So even though the raw amount of reduction very slowly goes down as you increase endurance, the proportional improvement goes up. Taking a significant slice out of a smaller and smaller pie, as it were. You get to a player like Raille, and you can see from the score there that he's at less than 0.15. Extrapolate that out, and if it were possible to have a player around 6.5 endurance or so - well, they literally wouldn't be able to get tired from playing matches.

Of course that's not possible, but I find this to be a pretty curious decision by Delft to design the sim this way. What it means essentially is that each tick of endurance is more important than the one before. Meanwhile this is not true for Talent, which just adds that bit more experience per day. Each tick of that is proportionally less important. So at the high end of the scale, hard work trumps talent and it's not at all close. The lower down you go, the closer that comparison gets.

Practically speaking what this means is that if I find a player with high-end endurance, I'm going to go after them unless pretty much everything else sucks. At that point it's just so much of an advantadge that it overwhelms everything else. But in a situation where that's not the case, things get a lot more fuzzy. I'm less impressed with Christensen knowing this - having a 3.8 endurance instead of say in the low 4s like most top players will have is going to be more of an issue than I thought, as that's actually quite a large difference. From 3.8 to 4.2 say is a 15-20% difference in how much fatigue you're taking on from tournament matches during prime years, and over time that's going to really add up.

[Brian Swartz]

So a funny thing happened to Thomas Christensen. I'm not sure why, but every so often the match-making in practice tournaments glitches. A player with low fatigue won't get matches they should and/or one with high fatigue that is supposed to cause them to not play any will still get them. After losing immediately in his first couple of juniors events, par for the course naturally, Christensen went out and played every day in singles and doubles. This jacked his fatigue up to levels I've never seen, over a thousand.

More than 500 means you shouldn't play practice matches at all, and also incurs penalties to your ratings. He was still hundreds over that mark for his next juniors tournament, but this time won qualifying in singles and doubles anyway. All this led to him playing main draw matches at 964 fatigue, for a grand performance level of 44%. Yep. Suffice to say it'll take him almost three weeks of doing nothing but sitting on his arse to recover. Gotta wonder what the fans in Houston were thinking watching this kid who had to look like a zombie barely be able to move around the court. I can imagine social services got a few phone calls.

[Brian Swartz]

Added one more player from a recent batch of youngsters. I've seen a pretty good number of players in the range of being a rung or two below Christensen. One was basically a carbon-copy of him with somewhat worse athleticism. I snatched up, though he may not stick with me long, Bartolome Rico (COL)

- Aging Factor: 96%
- Talent: 3.7
- Mentality: 2.7
- Peak Endurance: 4.1ish
- Peak Strength: 2.8-2.9
- Peak Speed: 2.5-2.6

So many players, as you might expect, have a few good attributes but not great, and then those weaknesses make them not really worth it. I also can only help but wonder how many players are snatched up by others before I get to see them. I guess time will tell on that front.

As for Rico Suave here, he's got the grind going but everything else is pretty much just a cut below what a player needs to have a chance to contend. If for some reason he ends up sticking it out in my group, I could see him being Top 20 but that's probably about it. But if nothing else, I'm sure I'll end up dumping him eventually for someone younger down the line.

[Brian Swartz]

Why do people do these things, just why? Despite the VIP this isn't a high-powered manager. Looks like they might be fairly new, which is a mitigating circumstance. This is what Christensen's first-round opponent looks like in his latest tournament.

Read the form line people. Don't overplay. Stop shooting yourself in the foot. Kthxbye. On the other hand ofc, it's another VIP manager I can write off as not serious competition.

Christensen won the match. A full year younger, half the skill rating and a fraction of the serve, strength in my favor but nothing else other than McCann being overworked to the point of not caring what tennis is anymore.

[Chas in Cinti]

So glad this is back...

[Brian Swartz]

[Brian Swartz]

That Just Happened: 589 In Review

Year 590 has arrived; time to take a look at where things are after my first (partial) year in this world.

Top Players

1. Claus Wuestenhagen (29, AUT) - 11,820

Wuestenhagen had slipped to #2 when I joined, but that was quite temporary. He's at the top well beyond his time partly because he's really good, and also partly because the next generation is unimpressive (we'll get to that part). Claus is almost to five years spent at #1 in total, with 10 Slams, 20 Masters shields, and 3 Tour Finals in his trophy case. He's not the best there's ever been but he's also decidedly not just another run-of-the-mill #1. Recent titles at the USO and Canada, runner-up at the WTF, so despite being a few years past his prime he's not done winning yet.

2. Ernie Sheriff (28, USA) - 10,910

Sheriff was the #1 when I started in this world, but that lasted only three weeks during this past summer. A good-at-everything player, he's a grass-court specialist which is a bit strange, and definitely leverages his home nation well. A SF loss in the USO to (21) [b]Barend Mollendorff[b] - there's a mouthful - was quite a disappointment for him when he had a chance to retake the #1 if he'd won there. Also on the downslope of his career.

3. Cosmin Kramer (27, CHL) - 7,710

Kramer is a clay specialist, just past his prime as well, and not quite the athlete that the top two players are. All eight of his Masters titles are on the dirt including sweeping those events this year, and both of his Slams have come at Roland Garros; he's never made it past the 4th round at either hardcourt Slam due to completely ignoring that surface.

4. Luka Glebovich (29, UKR) - 6,010

You can see the trend here; the over-the-hill-gang reigns supreme. Glebovich is the WTF champion this year as well as in Paris, having focused on indoor for his secondary surface rather than the standard clay. He wasn't able to make serious inroads elsewhere for the most part, esp. after the early part of the year. Again probably three years past his prime, so it's remarkable he's done this well.

5. Sebastian Toma (24, URU) - 5,860

Toma is another clay specialist and our first player to not reach their prime yet. He's serviceable at best mentally but still underachieving some I'd say. Roland Garros champ this year, Toma skipped Monte Carlo. That's not what you do when that's your best surface, my friend. QFs at the other three Slams .... this just has the aroma of a player who could be somewhat higher if their management was tuned up a bit. Even so, time is definitely on Sebastian's side. He's getting better and the higher-ranked players are decidedly not.

6. Chris Shank (25, USA) - 4,820

Strong mentally and in terms of feeding off the crowd, always useful in a major nation, Shank has some doubles diversion in his past but has the goods otherwhise. Extreme hardcourt specialist who ignores clay, not the best selection there either. A couple Slam QFs this year, SFs at a few Masters and runner-up at Paris. I get the feeling maybe this is the year he brings a little more consistency and pushes upward.

7. Fred Roethlisberger (23, DEU) - 4,525

Roethlisberger is one to watch for sure. He's a mental fortress and make no mistake. Another player ignoring clay too much, and he doesn't have quite the work ethic of some but it's not terrible either. Still needs some work on his technical skills but they're getting close. Fred's about to turn 24, but he's got longevity in his corner and my money's on him to surpass Toma and Shank to become the next standard-bearer.

8. Juan Pablo Fuenmayor (24, ARG) - 4,130

Fuenmayor loves clay and indoor courts equally, and hasn't heard of hardcourts. Has he heard how many big tournaments are played on them, I wonder? Good but not superlative across the board otherwhise. Definitely see him pushing up to 4th or 5th at least, but beyond that ... I don't think he's good enough to be a huge challenge for the top spot esp. when he has to contend with Toma for honors on the dirt.

9. Ernesto Margas (27, ARG) - 3,580

Same manager as Fuenmayor, and I'm seeing small indications of minor mismanagement at least in these guys. Margas is a year or so past his peak, another clay/indoor player. His career-high was 6th, with a single Master in Monte Carlo '88.

10. Lars Ullman (28, DEU) - 3,480

Ullman is in the 'why hasn't anyone kicked me out of the party' category yet. A fast-ager, Ullman is well past his best tennis but still has a seat at the table.

11. Barend Moellendorff (24, DEU)

Worth mentioning this guy as we noted Moellendorf was 21-seeded at the USO. Not anymore, and clearly I'd expect to see him on the first page this coming year.

318. Tomas Hoza (37, CZE)

Hoza's last three futures 3 events have been finalist, finalist, semifinalist for his results. So I think he sticks with that level of play - training him will go better once a doubles final at the Nice 250 drops off in a couple of months and he can play in both competitions for his futures events.

What we care about here is his projected trainer rating though. Everything else is a means to that end. And on that front, he's at 4.60. I'm thinking 5.1 as a guesstimate for where he ends up.

851(J). Thomas Christensen (14, SWE)

So far his JG5 results are two quick loss events, then a couple where he made the QFs, and then last time out in Gomel, Belarus, finalist in singles and doubles champion. Fatigue is still an issue so I think I'd rather keep him in the shorter events than jump up to JG4 just yet. Probably two more at the bottom tier before he makes the jump.

1280(J). Bartolome Rico (14, COL)

Not as good here, Rico hasn't made it into the main draw for singles of any tournament yet. He's just here because I haven't found a better replacement yet.

[Brian Swartz]

Manager Rankings

In this world, this will be the main barometer of my success.

1. MarkBGregory90 - 35,980

#2 Ernie Sheriff, #4 Luka Glebovich, and two more on the way up; Matthias Hedner is 23 and just reached the Top 100, a 20-year-old after them. With that kind of spacing between players it'll be interesting to me to see when he goes for younger players for his next gen - there's clearly going to be a sizable time gap.

Four trainers, all aged 42-50. How many do you need? All are 5.0-5.1.

2. caleblane - 33,087

#1 Claus Wuestenhausen, #6 Chris Shank. Eman Radacuno (almost 21) and Travis Lightfoot (17) coming up, so it looks like caleblane will have an iron in the fire for the forseeable future. Two trainers spaced 12 years apart, 5.0 and 4.9.

3. Kewer - 31,616

#3 Cosmin Kramer is his only singles star, but he's also got the #7 and #8 doubles players. Felipe Avello (23) is a prototypical trainer candidate - ranked 46th, 95% aging and very strong endurance and talent. Athleticism and mentality aren't more than above-average, so Avello probably becomes Top 10 but not a dominant player.

Three trainers, a 5.0 who is 60 but two in the mid-40s at 5.1 so he'll be well-cared for there for the next 20 years.

193. Me - 270

203 managers currently with more points than the 150 you start with. That's as good a cutoff for 'active managers' as any. So that puts me at the 4th percentile among that group. Hey you gotta start somewhere, right?

The managers listed above are a clear Top 3, nobody else above 26k points. I may look at the top ones more closely when I get close enough for it to matter, say on the first page (Top 50). For now though, it'd change too much by the time I get there. A more reasonable medium-range goal I think is for me to get to the 'real stage'. 3000 points looks like a decent threshold there, currently there are 114 managers at that level, there's a lot more VIPs and general 'bunching up' of the field around there. So let's see how much of the gap between where I am and 3k I can knock out in the next couple of years.

[Brian Swartz]

590 Annual Pre-Year Goals

Now that we know what's what, what am I trying to do here? Aside from the obvious 'train up my players the best I can', I'll be look at:

** Increasing Tomas Hoza's trainer projection.

** Gradual development of Thomas Christensen

** Looking for more new/young talent, specifically with an eye towards a second trainer. Reason for this is the timeline. With the players I currently have, if I keep Christensen all the way to trainer he'd have to retire about three years early or there would be a gap between when Hoza can't train anymore at age 65, and when Christensen hits mandatory retirement at 45. Of course, at that point you're only going to increase the trainer ability marginally so it's not that big of a deal to retire early. Also, Christensen is a better player than he will be a trainer due to not having endurance on the stellar end.

For a trainer, endurance is my top aim, aging factor second, talent third, mentality/athleticism irrelevant. I checked into players I've missed, and there were a couple high-endurance players (4.3-4.4) shortly after I brought in Christensen. They were both fast-aging however, which would have been a drawback. In either case, there's definitely room for me to work on checking for new youths as consistently as possible. If I can find a suitable high-endurance youngster, even if the rest of their stats aren't great, I would like to do that to have a high-quality trainer that can at least get most of the way to their potential by the time I need them to replace Hoza.

[Brian Swartz]

It occurred to me that I was missing an important step in starting out. Going for a good trainer is critical but takes a while. I can get a lower-level one *much* faster.

For demonstration purposes, I did what you might do if you wanted to get them with one of your initial hires. I.e. limit the price to 90 or less (150 starting points minus 60 for a youngster). My aim was to get somebody I could quickly turn into a 4.0 trainer, although you can actually do better esp. if you're willing to pay a little more.

Brought in Swede Algot Adlercreutz, and dumped Rico to keep an open player spot and because he's temporary dead-weight anyhow. Looking for players in the mid-30s is best IMO. Adlercreutz is 33 although I'd generally go for a little older, but players in that range or older will have the best chance of being developed enough for training without being too expensive. Anyway, as they often do Adlercreutz had several thousand XP saved up. I trained doubles a handful and that was it, got him to the 4.0 trainer level (a small fraction below it actually). Choosing 4.0 because if you don't have a trainer at least that good, it's because you haven't tried since you can virtually pick them up off the street.

Need to get almost 3k experience which will take less than two months ingame most likely, and then he can get to work. I want to experiment some with how good a 4.0 trainer vs. a 5+ one vs. friendly matches are, I did some quick testing back in the day but not enough to quantify it. I do remember though that having a trainer of virtually any quality is better than not having one.

[Brian Swartz]

Did some buying of young players, then getting buyer's remorse, so I blew some points in the process. I ended up taking a player that I think will be good for experimental purposes: Viktors Aukstinaitis of Lithuania.

- Aging Factor: 103%
- Talent: 2.9
- Mentality: 2.9
- Peak Endurance: 4.4-4.5
- Peak Strength: 3.8-3.9
- Peak Speed: 2.9-3.0

Talent and then aging factor are obviously the weak points. Could be an interesting 'running mate' for Christensen in junior doubles, and of course I like the endurance and strength. But I'm curious how far he will peak with that level of talent. I find it quite interesting to observe what players get picked up and what ones don't - Aukstinaitis (too bad his last name doesn't start with a Y instead of an A, it's just asking for jokes to be made about it) - was sitting out there unclaimed for a couple of game-weeks. There's definitely worse players that have been snatched up.

Edit: Aukstainitis gets 19 experience a day for his talent. Compare that to the 30 you get at 4.5 to 4.6 for a roughly typical high-end player, and that's 11 experience a day he'll be short. Works out to right about exactly 4k a year, 60k over the course of a 15-year career taking him to upper 20s by which time anyone would be in decline. At that point it's handful of training sessions but not a lot as they are several thousand experience each. It's probably a difference of 0.2 each for skill and service for the peak years, perhaps a bit more but definitely not above 0.25. That's noticeable - but having an endurance of half a point higher as he does is definitely what I would take in the tradeoff. It'll be interesting to track how their skill/service compares over time.

[Brian Swartz]

How It Works: Matches, Experience, Fatigue, and Training

Time for an official EffortPost(tm).

Mechanics

- Fatigue for all matches is assessed based on points played and player endurance. Friendly matches incur half of the normal fatigue amount, but all tournament matches are treated the same.

- All tournament matches from Amateur up through 500 level work the same in terms of experience so we can start there and use it as a basis for comparison. Experience earned is based on points won by your opponent. The base amount is two experience for every three points. For the losing player, if you won at least 40% of the points you get the full amount; below that penalties are incurred rapidly. A bad loss can result in almost no gain for your effort. For the winning player, there is no discount for a lop-sided match, but you will have fewer points lost to gain experience from, and the winner in a tournament match - even if the loser scored more points, it's just the match winner that matters - always get a 15% penalty to their experience gain.

- In Practice tournaments and Friendly matches, the 15% penalty to the winner doesn't exist. Friendly matches also give only a third of the usual experience rate, 2 for every 9 points is the ratio instead of every 3. Combined with the halved fatigue, that means that Friendly matches are two-thirds (67%) as efficient for gaining experience as practice matches are.

- Masters events give 50% more experience than a standard event, a full 1:1 ratio of points lost to experience. Slams are double, at 4 experience to every 3 points. Qualifying at these events are treated the same as a standard tournament match however, and receive no bonus. World Team Cup matches give triple the standard amount, or 50% more even than a Slam event, regardless of level.

- Doubles matches appear to work exactly the same as singles, except that both fatigue and experience are applied at a 20% discount.

Applications

- The optimal training situation then would be to lose every practice match winning 40% of the points, and if you need to fill in with friendlies, you'd want to do the same thing there.

- Trainers give a fixed amount of experience per session, 16-20 I think is the range, with fatigue varying based on the player's endurance. Here's how my recently retired 4.0 trainer results compare to different scenarios:

- Perfect scenario for friendly match; player wins 40% of the points. Trainer is 18% worse.

- Friendly match with both players scoring equal number of points. Trainer and the friendly finish in a near dead-heat, the trainer is about 1% worse.

- Friendly match with the player winning 60% of the points, for equality and the opposite scenario to the perfect one. Trainer is about 19% better.

- Lopsided win but not a laugher, player wins 65% of the points. Trainer is about 41% better.

- Lopsided defeat, player loses 35% of the points. Just slightly better than the dead-even scenario, 1-2% edge for the trainer.

- Totally one-sided defeat, player loses 20% of the points. Trainer is almost 150% better.

- Looking at a 5.0 trainer from another player, they appear to be in the range of 13-14% improvement over what Adlercreutz gives me. A perfect-scenario friendly match is still better, but only 6-7% better. In theory, a 5.5 trainer then would roughly be required to completely eliminate that difference. The larger point though is you are rarely going to get that perfect scenario. You'll get a fair amount of close losses, but also a fair amount of close wins, and some outliers. This is particularly true for players who have reached elite status, because any friendly matches they get are almost always going to be against inferior players. But even for low-ranking players I'd take even the 4.0 trainer over a random friendly. It's quite close though, probably somewhere around a 3.8 trainer is the 'break-even' point assuming you have no lack of opponents for friendly matches around your ability. Once you get to the Top 100, if not before then, it tips *hard* in favor of using a trainer.

- Of course, remember that trainers are only a fill-in and the comparison there is with friendly matches. If you can be playing practice matches instead you will want to be doing that. The only situation I can think of where that might be the case is a very strong player who has an outstanding trainer and is going to get crap experience from practice matches with inferior players. It could be better just to train nonstop in that scenario, but of course it would depend on just how good the training is and just how bad the practice is - unique for each situation.

- If you have any way of getting into the WTC, do it. The situation regarding Slams is more complicated since you're not guaranteed matches there etc.

- Because of the random pairings, you're more likely to get productive practice in doubles than you are in singles. I'm going to be using this fact early on with players that don't have high enough endurance to do both, but it also applies for elite players, for players on the decline and working on becoming trainers, etc.

[Brian Swartz]

So a funny thing happened today. I noticed that former no. 1 manager, though it looks like they rest at some point, valentine had dumped the player that I think is the best NaturalGen I've seen since joining this world. And they were badly mismanaged, a bunch of stuff in doubles, overplaying etc.

Thing is, valentine has a 3-year history in this world. They reached 60k points. I don't remember what my peak was back in the day but I want to say it was in the rough vicinity of 35k-40k. You don't reach the heights valentine reached without knowing what you're doing. Did they just get awesome players? Were they trying to sabotage this player and just got sick of it?

I don't get it. Anyway, I'm sitting here with an empty roster spot since I recently retired Adlercreutz to the role of Bored Training Waiting For Work, and I'm filling it with a third youngster if I can. Of course it's entirely possible that dozens of other managers are eyeing him as well. I'm speaking of Prakash Prisha of India, who is about to turn 15 so the damage is limited.

- Aging Factor: 103%
- Talent: 4.6
- Mentality: 4.2
- Peak Endurance: 4.3ish
- Peak Strength: 2.8
- Peak Speed: 3.9

Strength is the only weak spot - and really that just means 'not very good spot' in this case. He's basically Aukstinaitis with much better talent and mentality, and the strength and speed reversed. Nobody else snatched him up, and I got my prospect. 70 points well spent. He's just turned 15, a few weeks ahead of Christensen.

The title of 'Most Expendable' now belongs to Aukstinaitis.

[Young Drachma]

Forgot about this game, following along now.

[Brian Swartz]

Serving and Double Faults

I've been looking at double faults some. They are always a significant issue for players starting out, but it's more dynamic situation than you might expect. Not just a dry case of 'more service rating, lower double faults' although that is true as far as it goes.

- How well a player is doing in their service games in a match matters. I.e. the more 'pressure' is on your serve, the more likely double faults are. The same player at 1.7 service, for example, can go through a whole match they are dominating with no double faults. They can also have matches where they are still playing well enough to win, but double fault on 15% of their serve points. This means that Skill is a big factor in actually helping reduce double faults, because the better you are doing overall, the fewer DFs you will have.

- Around 2.0 service is a really sharp decline in double faults even in competitive matches. Prior to that it varies a lot, but somewhere in the 15-25% range. Reach 2.0 and it's down to 5-10%. When a player is starting to approach 2.0 Service then, I think it's useful to focus on that and get them up to 2.0. I would say at least 1.5, maybe more like 1.7 to 1.8 before you do that, not a big rush on it.

- Mentality also clearly has a significant impact in reducing them. A player with 3.8 mentality compared to one with 2.4, both around 2.0 service, sees a much lower double fault rate (quarter or a third). This gap is not as large with higher-level Service of course, as players with an excellent serve will rarely double fault regardless.

A good example match of these realities I found was a recent semifinal in World 2 of a JG1 tournament. The competitors are Barrie Cross and Uldis Peters.

- Barrie Cross has 2.3 Service and 2.5 mentality
- Uldis Peters has 1.9 and 2.9.

It was a reasonably competitive match, with Cross taking 114 points to 91 for Peters. The difference in receiving points won was 45-39%, so both are playing well enough to threaten but not dominate the opposition's serve. Cross had 7 aces and a single double fault, Peters had no aces and 10 double faults. The 2.3 to 1.9 difference in service is significant, but it's far from massive. It appears though for whatever reason, getting to at least 2.0 is a real tipping point where you can handle the situation.

Conclusion

This is a late-juniors development idea. Depending on how quickly a player is improving and their aging factor, I would say it's something to consider perhaps when they are 16 and a half years old or a little later. Get them up to that 2.0 Service level if possible before their final junior year, and it should help them go out in style. Then catch up to the normal ratio with Skill training.

[Brian Swartz]

The plot stinkens. I was asked to join the Star Club, largest and second-ranked of the three largest clubs in World 2. Why not. They - we now - have three of the top 10 managers but none of the ones at the top, and are ranked second with 177k points with 53 total players. To put that in perspective, over in World 1 the Anilophiles are #1 with 13 players and 108k points, although part of that is people seem to be more into the clubs in faster worlds for whatever reason.

Also, the biggest longshot possibly that I've ever seen won Roland Garros. 22-seed Pierre Bernard (25, FRA). He'll not be 22-seed anywhere for a long time, as he's now up to #10 in the world. A clay specialist to be sure, but it was one of those 'flip a coin, cause someone has to win' tournaments. Took Bernard three five-setters to win it. There was some serious fatigue and XP handed out in France .... and of course the home crowd didn't hurt him any.

Prior to this, Bernard's best finish at any Slam was third round four different times. Just flat out came out of nowhere; I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Also, the biggest longshot possibly that I've ever seen won Roland Garros. 22-seed Pierre Bernard (25, FRA). He'll not be 22-seed anywhere for a long time, as he's now up to #10 in the world. A clay specialist to be sure, but it was one of those 'flip a coin, cause someone has to win' tournaments. Took Bernard three five-setters to win it. There was some serious fatigue and XP handed out in France .... and of course the home crowd didn't hurt him any.

Prior to this, Bernard's best finish at any Slam was third round four different times. Just flat out came out of nowhere; I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

Living through the Chris Adams era makes me wish for more results like this in World 1.

[Brian Swartz]

Hah, fair! It has continued, to a degree. USO was just finished. In the four Slams for the current year, they were all won by different players. Those players are presently ranked second, fourth, sixth, and 11th. Top of the top three players in the world didn't win a Slam. #1 and #7 are separated by 2,670 points.

Don't like the winner of the last big tournament? Wait five minutes.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll have more at the end of the game-year, which is to say 2-3 days from now at the pace this world goes, but this is taking more adjusting that I expected. It's just more competitive in general which throws off my usual benchmarks about what I should do and when.

[1738]

Thanks for the posts Brian, great stuff. All the active people, join us at the discord and let's get this community growing!


https://discord.gg/4jjbMgDP

[Brian Swartz]

That Just Happened: 590 In Review

1. Claus Wuestenhagen (30, AUT) - 9,150

It looked for all the world like Wuestenhagen would lose the top spot this year, and frankly he probably should have. Somehow Claus managed to summon the will to get to the USO final and then win the Shanghai and Paris Masters, although he won just one match at the Tour Finals.

That was enough to keep him on top, but given that Shank is nipping at his heels and Wuestenhagen has a thousand more points to defend at the Australian Open, it appears that this train is about to leave the station. Even so, he has 10 Slam titles (tied for 9th all-time), 23 Masters Shields (T-8th), and has 308 weeks at #1, where he will almost certainly end his career in 6th position. Almost six years at the top. That's getting it done, a round of applause is due for the Austrian.

2. Chris Shank (26, USA) - 8,980

The apparent next king of the hill, Shank is approaching his peak which he will likely reach sometime this year. He won the Tour Finals and Cincinatti Masters, reaching the final at Wimbledon as well, but 4th-round losses at RG and AO are areas for improvement. Assuming he does better than that down under this year, he will assume the #1 spot in a few weeks.

I don't expect a particularly long reign, but just getting there in this competitive environment is quite an achievement.

3. Ernie Sheriff (29, USA) - 7,470

6 Slams, 9 Masters, and a very short three weeks at #1 look like they will be all she wrote for Sheriff. His losses increased sharply last year to 17 from 10 and 11 the previous years, demonstrating that he is definitely on the downside. Nothing to be ashamed of here though, Ernie had quite a run.

4. Sebastian Toma (25, URU) - 7,185

Toma is an increasing force on clay, winning Madrid and Rome and coming in second on Monte Carlo and RG this year. The question remains whether he can become more of a force on other surfaces. Right now my guess is he peaks at #2 or 3 and could reach that level this year, but will have a hard time doing well enough on hardcourts to challenge for the top spot.

5. Fred Roethlisberger (24, DEU) - 7,160

Champion at the USO and in Miami, Roethlisberger has separated himself from the rest and should soon ascend into the Top 4. Still probably two years away from his best tennis, he still needs to improve a bit from the baseline and isn't much for playing on clay, but he's got a shot at eventually getting to #1.

6. Barend Moellendorf (25, DEU) - 5,980

Last year's champion at the Australian Open, Mollendorf reached the final in Canada and had a couple of other big semifinal appearances, but definitely wouldn't be the odds-on favorite to repeat his AO title. Without it, the gap between him and the first five players would only grow and Barend would slide a few positions most likely. It'll be interesting to see what he's able to do this year.

7. Luka Glebovich (30, UKR) - 5,790

Glebovich maintained his relevance by reaching the World Tour Finals this season, although he may well not even be able to make the field. The whole 'time is undefeated' line is relevant here.

8. Victor Jenson (25, DEN) - 5,780

Another player who has some strong results including semis at the Tour Finals and Wimbledon, winning a Masters Shield in Canada and reaching two other Masters Finals, but also some results he'd rather forget about. A year ago he was 19th, so Jensen is a comer for sure and better draws should help him consolidate this position at a minimum, and likely move up a couple spots at least.

9. Juan Pablo Fuenmayor (25, ARG) - 4,330

Paris finalist, semifinalist at Roland Garros, Fuenmayor had what has to be considered a disappointing year last season as he actually slipped a spot in the rankings. A complete disregard for hardcourts is really working against him and it doesn't look like he's good enough to overcome it - still should be getting better for about another year at most but he may not be able to translate that too much into more success unless he has a great clay season, and Toma is always there waiting for him.

10. Cosmin Kramer (28, CHI) - 3,950

Only a year removed from his career-best of #3, Kramer skipped all five hardcourt Masters this season. That's ... not how you get it done. Whether he can be relevant this year depends a lot of his schedule I'd suppose; won Monte Carlo and is still a threat on the dirt, but otherwise it looks like he belongs to the past.

11. Pierre Bernard (26, FRA) - 3,650

The French Open champion gets a mention here, but backing that result up with good results elsewhere proved too much of an ask. Unless he repeats this season, it would appear he'll be sliding back down.

366. Tomaz Hoza (38, CZE)

Hoza continues to steadily work towards his future as a trainer, grading out now at 4.76 (+0.16). He seems pretty solidly locked in as a futures player for the rest of his on-the-court career.

175(J). Thomas Christensen (15, SWE)

I got a good lesson in how competitive this world is with the younger players. Christensen spent this year having only intermittent success at the JG4 level. There's just a *lot* more quality 'traffic', if you will, to sort through with the higher number of active managers, created players, etc. I underestimated the effect that would have, so being patient esp. with a player starting young and peaking late like Christensen will be important.

He's still got three years in juniors though. He'll play JG4s for at least most of 591, it's always a big jump to JG3 and I'm in no hurry to rush that under the circumstances.

248(J). Prakash Prisha (15, IND)

With the graduation of a couple of 18-year-olds, Prisha becomes the highest-ranking junior from India and is representing them in the Junior WTC. He's also gradually closing the gap with Christensen in terms of skill & service training. Similarly to the Swede, he's seen some JG4 success but not consistently and is looking to consolidate at that tier now.

Sy-ying Ding (14, ITA)

I recently picked up this youngster in place of Aukstinaitis, although it was a mistake; he's not quite as good and starts older than I initially thought. Quick decisions are needed when a promising young player is spotted, or you'll lose them to someone else, and I made the wrong call here. I'll get Aukstinaitis (156th in juniors) back if I can, the hiring moratorium is still in place, but either way this is the 'expendable' slot. Optimally I would just have somebody to gain some points here and then toss them for a decent new young player in a few years to create some more spacing in the players I'm managing.

Algot Adlercreutz (34, SWE, 4.0) continues to be a mostly-bored trainer. But he's there when we need him.

Manager Ranking

534 points and 174th. I won't be spending as many points this year, only on things like trying to pick up Aukstinaitis when I make that kind of error. Gained 264 points overall and 19 spots in the rankings this year, and I expect the gradual forging upwards to continue.

591 Preview

I'm gradually getting a handle on the search for good young players, and a lot of that is just luck as I'm not going to be around for, on average, half of the Mondays anyway due to sleeping/work/etc. That's just how fast this world moves.

My biggest lesson learned is that I need to be more patient with the timetable than in World 1. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out as I push these youngsters through the higher tiers of play in the future.

[Brian Swartz]

So the Junior WTC is just plain weird. They only have the one level, which stands to reason as there are fewer players. That means most nations aren't involved. Then they have Top Level, Under 16, and Under 15. And they also have the playoffs at the start of the year, unlike the professional level WTC which does it at the end of the previous year. Probably so that players who are about to leave the juniors for the pros won't be participating in the playoffs.

Prakash Prisha won both his singles matches for India in the Under-16. And they lost anyway, 3-2 to Italy. Everyone else lost their matches. India also lost, by the same score, to Estonia in the U15, and they weren't even in the playoff for the Top Level.

Not in the main draw either. All of this means India's juniors are unceremoniously done for this year's WTC. It was fun while it lasted. We'll see if he does well enough to at least get them a spot in coming years in the Top Level. He might need some help.

[Brian Swartz]

Got Aukstinaitis back, and Thomas Christensen worked his way into Sweden's U16 junior squad over the course of the year. Two of the first three rounds he wasn't ranked high enough, so it was up and down for a while. They ended up losing to France 4-1 in the semis, a respectable result. In the country rankings, France is 4th and Sweden 13th, so making the last four is seen as a positive overall.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah this thread for sure is making me come back.

[Brian Swartz]

Jump back in and have fun then! Just try to keep your sanity

[Brian Swartz]

I've just made another player change. Viktors Aukstinaitis is gone again, and this time he's not coming back. He was 180th in the junior rankings, just recently turned 16, and approaching the end of his run in JG4s. All of those are details. Just the other day I saw a player who I thought was of similar ability - but why grab a new prodigy and replace one you've already invested in?

I was actually a bit late to the latest intake, and I only noticed one player hired and fired basically immediately. A young, slow-aging German, talented, tough-minded, but athleticism and stamina just not quite there. Close to great, but enough flaws that he wasn't worth picking up. But there was another in the pool that nobody had touched, strangely enough. An American. American players are kind of a meme in RR. If you do a VIPGen, they automatically have lower Home Adv for balance reasons - there's just lots of big tournaments in the US - 3 Masters and a Slam. More high-end events than any other country can claim by a good margin. But I've never had an American .... until now.

Name: Bart McVicker
Starting Training: 15 Skill, 1 Service, 1 Doubles
Age: 14y 15w
Aging Factor: 103%
Talent: 4.5
Mentality: 3.2
Home Adv*: 2.9
Peak Endurance: 3.8ish - looking more like 3.9 now.
Peak Strength: 3.3ish
Peak Speed: 5.2, maybe 5.3

* For most players this isn't particularly important, but this of course is an exception.

The endurance is barely enough, although a good point that's been mentioned to me on the discord is that talent is more important relatively speaking in a fast world like this, because you just don't have time to manage training sessions for an advanced player like you do in a slow world. Otherwhise strength is barely enough for a top player, the rest is solid but doesn't jump out at you .... except for the fact that he's an energizer bunny on way too many drugs with turbo turned up to the max. That's the highest score I've seen for speed or strength on a natural gen ever - granted I haven't looked *that* much, but still.

Court coverage is not a problem. That's the kind of natural ability that can blunt even the most powerful serves. It will take a truly generational talent to be break-immune against Bart here. I just couldn't say no, and I think this makes him a better choice than the recently departed Aukstinaitis. If anyone's looking for a young player, I do recommend the Lithuanian despite his pedestrian talent. He might hit 4.6 endurance, he has good power, and he's off to a solid start. But as the saying goes, when opportunity knocks, it's best to answer that door.

Now I have a problem to consider. I always want to be open to grabbing someone new. What if I find an even better player, a truly generational one? Who do I get rid of? My four are now Hoza (working on being a trainer), Christensen (only slow-ager, next-gen trainer), Prisha(like McVicker a fast-ager but someone who has the potential to be a Slam champion), and McVicker (same, really).

So it comes down to McVicker vs. Prisha. McVicker is the better athlete and right now, two years younger. Prisha has significantly higher mentality. I think it is very close to a photo finish, but I've got McVicker by a fraction of a nose. I may change my mind, but I just can't see throwing a guy with a physical attribute over 5 back out to whoever ... that just isn't something you see every day. He has 3.5 speed right now. The other two .... building trainers long-term is important and that means they are untouchable. Right now I'd say Prisha would have to go, but I'd have to think about it (quickly, as ever) twice and probably three times before I pulled the trigger.

[Brian Swartz]

Couldn't not post it after I saw it. Homer Simpson. And aside from crap endurance - peaking at about 2.1 or so - he's a beast. Fortunately the manager appears to be adequate at best, so unless that changes soon we can count on some of his potential going to waste.

I don't know if I could handle getting my arse kicked by a player named Homer Simpson. Who has 5.0 talent.

[Brian Swartz]

I've decided to do something I don't normally do: I'm going to make McVicker a clay-court specialist. The reason I normally don't is clay is the second most-important surface from an available points perspective; for Slams + Masters + Tour Finals the surface breakdown is as follows:

Hardcourt - 9000 (48.7%)
Clay - 5000 (27.0%)
Indoor - 2500 (13.5%)
Grass - 2000 (10.8%)

It should be a fun experiment, and with McVicker being from the United States, he'll have a bonus on a little over half of those hardcourt points. By focusing on clay, his speed should enable him to break serve a *lot* there and the goal is that he will completely own those events, be competitive with the other top players on the American hardcourts, and then pick up whatever he can get in the other ~ 50%.

[Brian Swartz]

A special player just entered the world, and that will complicate things. I wasn't fast enough to get him myself, although I tried. But it's worth a profile anyway. The manager who hired him thought enough of this prospect to judge it worth firing his top player, Felix Ameyugo of Spain, who is ranked 24th and just past his prime. Ameyugo had been with him for more than seven years.

Name: Patrick Biersteeker, NLD
Age: 14y 31w
Aging Factor: 95%
Talent: 4.2
Mentality: 3.1
Peak Endurance: 5.1-5.2
Peak Strength: 2.5
Peak Speed: 4.0-4.1

On a slow world, this would potentially be one of the best ever. Minimum aging factor and off-the-charts endurance will still make him a powerhouse here, and one that is relevant into his 30s I expect. Subpar power is the only weakness. The prospects of my players just got reduced, but we'll see how well I can compete with this fella.

[Brian Swartz]

I've got a potential flurry of player activity coming up, if I get the hires I'm looking at. This space could be busy in a day or two.

[Brian Swartz]

Barring anything coming up in the last week of the year, here's what I've done for player changes:

- Fired Aukstinaitis to bring in McVicker, as I posted above.
- Fired Prisha to try to get Biersteeker. Didn't succeed.
- The top-ranked manager in this world, MarkGregory, fired one of his players who was approaching his prime. Would have been a good pickup as a quality trainer candidate who would get there faster than Christensen. Someone else hired them while I was asleep. Them's the breaks.
- Rehired Prisha. Only slightly the worse for wear.
- Finally, just recently, fired Thomas Christensen after 2+ years of training him to bring in Belgian Timmy Tilleman. Out with Tom, in with Tim. Another manager had Tilleman for a handful of weeks, then fired him.

Age: 14y 27w
Aging Factor: 96%
Talent: 4.2
Mentality: 3.1
Peak Endurance: 4.3ish
Peak Strength: 3.0-3.1
Peak Speed: 3.7ish

This one was a judgement call; I decided Tilleman was good enough to make the switch, but it wasn't by that much. Significantly better endurance than Christensen makes me think he's a better trainer candidate in the long-term. Somewhat lower athleticism, and didn't get as good/early of a start. Identical aging factor, and mentality is better.

Overall I think he's a marginal improvement, but still definitely an improvement even if it means a couple of years effort in Christensen cast aside. It's becoming gradually less common overall, but I'm still looking for ways to upgrade the roster of players. Even I'm confused by this, but there'll be a rundown soon at the end of the year that will include my current roster as usual.

[Brian Swartz]

That Just Happened: 591 In Review

I've got a spreadsheet up and running with revised rating system; actually two of them. Based on my observations, I'm going back to the strict Skill twice as valuable as Service formula. For similar reasons, Speed half as valuable as Strength, and Mentality equal to speed. Then a small multiplier to make it a true 10-point scale instead of 9.5.

1. Fred Roethlisberger (9.02, 9.12, 25, DEU) - 9,330

Two ratings numbers instead of one. The first one is calculated as described above; the second one I call 'weighted'; it takes into account home-court advantadge for players of relevant countries, and also their preferred surfaces compared to what the Slams, Masters, and Tour Finals are played on.

Roethlisberger won the US Open to take the top spot, also getting Masters wins in Miami, Cincinatti, and Shanghai. Fred has become objectively the best hardcourt player in the world ... for now, and by a small margin. That's been enough to separate him from the pack.

2. Barend Moellendorff (8.87, 8.97, 26, DEU) - 7,720

Moellendorff definitely overachieved this year IMO; I currently rate him 5th. Won the Tour Finals and Canada Masters, runner-up at Wimbledon, and generally somewhat more consistent than the other top players. This will be the last year that can be considered his peak, and he looks to be primed to make the most of it.

3. Sebastian Toma (8.71, 8.73, 26, URU) - 6,905

Also at his apek is Toma, who is the classic example of a player taking advantadge of lots of competition to seize an opening. While others beat each other up on the hardcourts, he's focused on the clay and won Roland Garros and the Rome Masters this year. Next season I think Jensen will have surpassed him on the dirt, and Sebastian is only around 13th or so on hardcourts, but he made his play and made it successfully to reach a new career-high. In the last three years, he has two RG trophies and a runner-up sandwiched between.

Well done, Sebastian Toma.

4. Chris Shank (8.83, 9.09, 27, USA) - 6,720

Shank started the year off well, winning the Australian Open and claiming the #1 spot in the rankings. And then he just sort of appeared to get bored, or perhaps it was mismanagement? Anyway, I think he should have retained the top spot by all odds, but he only made it as far as the semifinal in one big event the rest of the way, at Cincinatti.

Objectively I still have him #2 behind Roethlisberger. But Chris is on the way down now, and unless he can manage to repeat at AO I think he's just not going to have enough left to reclaim that kind of position.

5. Ernie Sheriff (8.71, 8.89, 30, USA) - 6,380

The Sheriff of Wimbledon won his sixth straight there; he's focused on the grass and it's paid off in a big way. It's not out of the question he could win a 7th, but it appears that Roethlisberger has surpassed him at this point. big ask for a player who will be almost 31 by the time it's played. Another deep run there though is expected, and then he'll start fading away for good. Also took a surprise title at Indian Wells this season.

6. Victor Jensen (8.96, 9.06, 26, DNK) - 5,915

Jensen is a player who has been 'almost there' for a while. He still crawled his way up a couple spots from 8th last year, no major titles but he made the final at Roland Garros, Paris, and Indian Wells. Fairly consistent elsewhere also. This figures to be Victor's finest year. He should be competitive on other surfaces while taking the title of King of Clay away from Toma. If that pans out, he could reach as high #2 or #3.

7. Claus Wuestenhagen (8.66, 8.77, 31, AUT) - 5,750

Wuestenhagen has stopped trying to maintain his singles play and gone doubles. He's been at the show long enough, and could still hang around in the Top 10 for at least another year but isn't interested in keeping the corpse of the great champion alive. He'll soon make room for another young face to arise.

8. Ken Grimes (8.73, 8.90, 26, AUS) - 5,135

Grimes is another player who is either right at his peak or just barely coming down from it. Last year he came up just short at his home Slam; I think he should be a sizable favorite to win it this year, but this pretty much is his moment. He's a second-tier threat on Clay and Indoors, but it would take some surprises for him to sneak out a big title anywhere else.

This is the year. If it doesn't happen now, it's probably not going to.

9. Juan Pablo Fuenmayor (8.63, 8.58, 26, ARG) - 5,020

It's not often you see an indoor specialist. Fuenmayor played that card to gain his first Masters Shield recently at Paris. He's also skilled on clay, but only a second-tier player in that more crowded competition. Anywhere else, forget about it. He also helped Argentina to win the WTC last year. Fuenmayor may be able to pull off something in Paris one more time, but he's had his brief stay on page one and is already just on the downside.

10. Sam Marino (8.88, 9.01, 24, SMR) - 4,675

Don't laugh at his nation of origin; Sam is going to be here a while. I judge him 4th overall, and I think that will be 2nd a year from now. A number of good runs were led by finals in the Madrid and Canada Masters - it seems the first big trophy could come at any time, although there's nowhere he'd yet be the favorite. Marino's technical skills have become just good enough to support his powerful physique, and he's ready to join the contenders.

22. Helmut Nyqvist (8.83, 8.87, 22, SWE)

There's really no question about who the headliner for the next generation is. Nyqvist curiously has decided on a split focus between Indoor, Hardcourt, and Clay. He'll be a threat on all of them, with excellent power and mental toughness to go with good speed and stamina. It's not often you see a player who has every tool to this degree, even if he doesn't have one aspect that's truly generational in impact. A fast riser, Helmut might not be at the top long, but make no mistake about it he will be at the top.

I expect him to make the Tour Finals this season, a prelude to setting his sights higher. I've got him 8th at the moment, and with about another three years to improve.

[Brian Swartz]

545. Tomaz Hoza (6.56, 39, CZE)

Hoza seems to have settled into the middle of the Futures pack, both singles and doubles. Trainer value is now at 4.83, up 0.09 - progress is noticeably slowing now but still being made. I'm guessing 5.1 to 5.2 at the end. Almost six years left for him to work it out.

62 (J). Prakash Prisha (4.56, 16, IND)

Prisha needs rest as he was overplayed during the period where I was waiting to re-hire him. He under-achieved for much of the past year, but ended it well by winning the JG3 in Cairo. Tier 3 and Tier 2 are what he'll aim at this season, preparing for what should be a Top 10 juniors campaign a year from now. I hope. He is still the guy on the chopping block if someone great comes along, but I'd be quite satisfied with just keeping him.

964 (J). Bart McVicker (1.99, 14, USA)

You know how juniors just lose badly their first few events while getting some initial training going? McVicker just flat-out skipped that part, a tribute to his speed. It'll never be as much of an advantadge, relative to the competition, as it is now. Should be fun to watch as it could allow him to make the jump to each successive tier a little sooner than other players, esp. early on. Mostly semifinal losses in JG5, only two tournaments so far: he'll be at that level most of this year at a minimum.

1025 (J). Timmy Tilleman (1.43, 14, BEL)

Tilleman is three weeks older than McVicker and, assuming they both are still here by then, will be his 'running mate' for the final year in juniors before they go their separate ways. The inferior, slow-and-steady mate that is, as he's a much slower developer. The usual scattershot results have been seen so far, and Timmy will happily ensconce himself in the JG5 level for this season.

Manager Ranking

I've made it just up to the third page at 150th, almost doubling my points to 1,117 despite the player activity in and out. Right now only Prisha is gaining a significant amount of points, but gradually the turnstile will eventually stop spinning and I'll accelerate my rise further. I'm not sure yet how long from now that will be.

[Brian Swartz]

Most recent Fun Fact (tm) I learned; apparently for the country rankings, WTC points never completely drop off but just have diminishing returns. I base this on the fact that there's quite a bit of ranking points inflation over time. In this world, on year 592, there are 24 nations with 3k points or more. In world 1, on year 99, there are none above 2.5k and the leaders aren't nearly as bunched up. So apparently past results continue to have a small, but over time sizable aggregate impact.

[Brian Swartz]

Halfway through the year - really hasn't been any new players come in that have tempted me, so things may be stabilizing now; or it might just be a dry patch in terms of fresh talent. There was a site problem yesterday but everything appears to be in order again now.

[Brian Swartz]

That Just Happened: 592 In Review

1. Fred Roethlisberger (27, DEU, 9.00, 9.08, -0.02) - 9,265

Roethlisberger maintained his grip on the top spot almost the entire year, and has a nearly identical points total and overall playing level to where he was before. This despite not winning any Slams - he reached the AO final, won the Tour Finals, and added Masters in Shanghai, Cincinatti, and Canada. Leading Germany to the WTC crown is no small matter either. Fred appears to be right about at the peak of his abilities, and there continue to be no lack of quality challengers.

2. Chris Shank (28, USA, 8.82, 9.00, -0.01) - 7,530

Really impressive showing by Shank to maintain his abilities and actually rise a couple spots in the rankings over a year ago. It appears the prime of players is shifted somewhat later in this world due to how fast it is - the peak isn't quite as high, but longevity appears to benefit. In any case, Shank took the early US Masters in Indian Wells and Miami, making the final of the US Open and the Tour Finals. Yep, that's right, neither of the top two players in the world won a Slam. Strange year, to put it mildly.

3. Victor Jensen (27, DEN, 8.93, 9.02, -0.03) - 7,410

Jensen broke through this year with success on clay, winning the Rome and Madrid Masters. He wasn't fresh for Roland Garros as a result though, and suffered a surprising QF loss. Capturing the US Open title over Shank cemented him among the top players, and in fact earned Victor the #1 ranking for several weeks. He's in the same career phase as Shank now, doing everything he can to slow the decline.

4. Sebastian Toma (27, URU, 8.67, 8.70, -0.04) - 6,590

Toma didn't win any big events this year, but was the most consistent performer at the Slam events. Finalist at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, he was in the last eight at all four of them - stunning given his lack of hardcourt focus - and also made the Rome final. Definitely a surprising year for Sebastian, a specialist who bucked the odds and almost maintained last year's #3 finish. Wouldn't be on him pulling it off again though.

5. Sam Marino (25, SMR, 8.96, 9.08, +0.08) - 6,540

Marino ranged all over the Top 10 this year, making it as high as #2 after winning the Australian Open. He was inconsistent though, a finalist at Cincinatti but losing in the 4th round at the USO. Particularly if he can't repeat down under, Sam will need to be more steady this year. He's as good as any player in the world, but even the slightest faltering will cost you in this era. Time is still on his side as well; Marino's a year at least, possibly two away from his best tennis.

6. Barend Moellendorff (27, DEU, 8.84, 8.94, -0.03) - 5,350

Moellendorff was #2 a year ago, and held onto that spot for quite a while. He has definitely plummeted from those lofty heights however. He made the semifinals or better in seven big events including the USO and Tour Finals, but won none of them - consistently not quite good enough is where he's at right now. I expect he'll have enough left in the tank to at least stay in the Top 10 another year or two.

7. Ken Grimes (27, AUS, 8.78, 8.90, +0.05) - 5,260

Despite some impressive work on his serve this year, Grimes did not win his home Slam as I anticipated. An embarrassing 4th-round exit there notwithstanding, he made a couple of Masters finals, semis at the USO and Tour Finals, and actually managed to finish above his finish of 8th a year ago. If Ken can do better in Australia this year, he could be positioned for a strong season - but he still doesn't quite have the firepower to go toe-to-toe with the top players.

8. Ernie Sheriff (31, USA, 8.62, 8.71, -0.09) - 4,455

A simple story this year for Sheriff. Made a handful of QF appearances, but the main aspect is that he refuses to accept being too old to win Wimbledon. Seven in a row now for him, and almost half of his points for the year from that one fortnight. Ernie slid a few spots from 5th, but he'll last as long as he keeps owning the grass - and not a moment longer.

9. Juan Pablo Fuenmayor (27, ARG, 8.62, 8.57, -0.01) - 4,350

I expected Fuenmayor to depart the Top 10 this year. Then he went and shockingly won Roland Garros - while not making it to the quarterfinals of any other major event. Lightning could strike twice, but I think my expectation was still the correct one. Clay and indoor specialties give him a chance to have another breakthrough somewhere, but the odds are long.

10. Vito Loeffelmann (25, SMR, 8.67, 8.70) - 4,270

This is not the new face I expected in the Top 10, yet here Vito is. Another clay/indoor guy, Loeffelmann was a consistent force on the clay including the final in Madrid and Monte Carlo, semis in Rome and RG. That was enough of a resume to propel Loeffelmann, a very good player, past superior competition.

11. Felipe Avello (26, CHI, 8.83, 8.95)

Avello is worth noting as he spent some time in the Top 10 this year and is currently the sixth-best player in the world by my reckoning. While lacking in some other departments, he possesses one of the best serves in the world and has improved to the point of being a legitimate hardcourt threat.

15. Helmut Nykvist (23, SWE, 8.93, 8.97)

I thought we'd see more from the Swedish phenom Nykvist this year; mismanagement had a good deal to do with why we didn't, but he's still a threat and appears to be gradually making at least somewhat better decisions. I have him 5th, and within striking distance of the best in the world. But for that to matter, it's got to show up on the court at some point soon. In restrospect, my prediction last year for him to make the Tour Finals was laughable; Helmut did ascend some from 22nd, but didn't do nearly as much as I expected.

[Brian Swartz]

This was the first year that I didn't make any player changes. Stability appears to have at least mostly arrived. There were a couple of lateral moves, or perhaps very slight improvements I could have made, but I think standing pat was the right choice overall. Haven't seen any big stars come through that I missed either, not since Biersteeker.

520. Tomaz Hoza (40, CZE, 6.32, -0.24)

Hoza is actually ranked a bit higher than he was last year, but he's 40 years old. No surprise he's falling off a cliff. Trainer value is +0.07 to 4.90. It looks like 5.2 was too ambitious; realistically he'll end at 5.1. That's still quite good, just not great. I expect to max out service and doubles this year.

15(J). Prakash Prisha (17, IND, 5.80, +1.24)

Prisha is good enough to play amateurs right now, but he has a big year of juniors ahead of him. Actually played one amateur event late in the year because I couldn't find an appropriate junior tournament, so that's not just theoretical. He may actually skip amateurs and go straight to futures ... but that's a question for next year.

For this one, I think he's good enough to be a Top-5 junior, maybe top 2 or 3. Key is staying ranked high enough to be seeded in the big events. There are a couple-few players who are slightly better, but only just, and he's better than most of the players ranked above him. Recently picked up a decent doubles partner in Lucio Herena (ESP), and the pairing is seeded first at the junior AO. On the other hand, I thought I needed to play a warmup event to keep my ranking from slipping too much, so Prisha is overplayed coming in. If he does well in both draws he'll be in the form 30s by the end which is obviously bad. I'll track how he does in the tournaments through the year - this is my first go-round with a high-aging-factor junior who is developed enough to aim at challenging the best juniors. Prisha is 'past the break' on serving, about halfway through the year I put him up to the 2.0 level, so rampant double-faulting is a thing of the past for him. Hopefully that'll pay off.

149(J). Bart McVicker (15, USA, 3.68, +1.69)

282(J). Timmy Tilleman (15, BEL, 2.82, +1.43)

It's time to hit the JG4 events for both of these gentlemen. McVicker is the fast-riser, Tilleman the 'I'll get there eventually' guy and future trainer. McVicker will be in Prisha's shoes for a couple years, Tilleman taking the more familiar (to me, anyway) path of just doing what he can in juniors and observing the top players from afar while he prepares for better things down the line. For now, they are just getting that early development out of the way.

Edit: Manager Ranking

Forget to put this in. I was up to 127th, around 1900 points at the turn of the year. That's several hundred gained, which is made easier when you're not buying players. Right now Prisha is the only 'profitable' player I have. Hoza is just dead weight from a manager points perspective and the young juniors aren't a lot better. But it's still enough to push upwards at a respectable rate.

[Brian Swartz]

Lost to Frederick Anglert of Sweden in the AO 3rd round - it was pretty close, 6-3, 7-6(6), and I think it just came down to Anglert having more of a hardcourt preference than Prisha does. In doubles it was better, as Prisha/Herena cruised through the draw, crushing all comers with no set worse than 6-2 in our favor. That was enough to move Prisha up to 10th.

I'm sure he'll slip some from there, lots of training coming up. Junior Team Cup as well, which will be good on the improvement side if we can get any competitive matches - so far they've been all routs there as well. The next three big junior events are all on clay, starting with Copa Gerdau in less than two months. Prisha is more clay-focused than most of the others, and should be able to hang with anyone on that surface if well-prepared I think, So the goal's going to be as ready as possible to make a run there, and use the clay season to get the ranking as high as possible. If that goes well, Wimbledon and after we'll be in a good position to just battle it out and see what happens.

[Brian Swartz]

Copa Gerdau in Brazil is the first JGA event - these are basically analgous to Masters events, only you actually get the same ranking points as a Junior Slam tournament. The doubles were a little more competitive than in Australia, but once again Prisha/Herena cruised through the draw to victory. Prisha came in ranked 13th here, but was seeded 8th as a number of players declined to participate. He ran into Frederick Anglert once again; Anglert was the runner-up in Australia and seeded second, so this match happened in the quarterfinals. It was close, but this time Prisha had the advantadge of being more skilled on the clay, and pulled out a 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-4 success. In the semis, he faced off against probably the only juniors player who has an edge on clay; his doubles partner Lucio Herena. It was Herena's toughest match of the event as the Spaniard would go on to take the title, defeating our protagonist 7-5, 6-1.

Overall, Herena comes out looking best here of course with trophies in both disciplines, but Prisha did second-best overall and that's not bad. Moved up to 8th, and several more weeks of training will ensue before the Italian Open and junior RG take place in a three-week span; we'll only be able to play doubles at one of those at most.

[Brian Swartz]

The Italian Open showed that Prakash Prisha continues to be good ... but not quite good enough to beat down the best of the other juniors. Skipping double to allow enough form to participate in that at Roland Garros, he met his first big challenge in the form of hardcourt-focused junior no. 1 Bryan Andersen of Canada in the quarterfinals. Prisha won as expected, 6-4, 6-4. In the semis, Iran's Fehrang Forrughi, then ranked 3rd, was too much to overcome in a 7-5, 6-4 decision. Forrughi would go on to beat Herena in the final, moving up to #2. Three big tournaments, three different winners. Forrughi is quite similar to Prisha, just a little better right now. He's got a bit faster aging factor and didn't have the doubles waste at the start of his run. He's likely to be competition throughout Prisha's time in tennis. He does have footspeed and mental weaknesses, but has better power and enough technical skill to carry him through to victory here.

In any case, having slipped to 9th in the rankings coming in, Prakash moved back up to 8th but that's all. Last chance to make a big splash is coming soon at RG.

[Brian Swartz]

The juniors version of Roland Garros featured the biggest disappointment of the year for Prakash Prisha. The quarterfinals brought another matchup with Frederick Anglert, and Prisha inched past the Swede 7-5, 7-6(5). That meant another run-in with Forrughi, who was overplayed enough to have a -0.2 penalty to skill and serve. That should have given Prisha the edge, but instead he was rudely dismissed 6-3, 6-0. Definitely a poor performance, and a disappointing one as the Iranian went on to take the title narrowly over Andersen and with it the #1 junior ranking.

This was the best shot at a big junior title, but it doesn't appear that will be in Prisha's future. He'll still keep trying of course. Getting lots of matches in at these events is good for his development even if it doesn't turn out the way he might hope. Lucio Herena remains an excellent doubles partner and the pair combined for another trophy on that side of things. This moves Prisha up to #4, although it's a distant fourth. I think it's likely that's where he'll finish the year at.

Now there's a few weeks to rest up before Wimbledon.

[Brian Swartz]

Wimbledon juniors started the same way, but ended differently. Lucio Herena has been playing singles and doubles for all the big events, and that finally caught up to him. And us. 2-seeds Frera/Hishikawa beat us 6-4, 6-4 in the doubles final. I was hoping for a clean sweep of the year's junior Slams on that side, but it was not to be.

In singles, it was a reasonably favorable draw and no tough opposition until the semifinals. Bryan Andersen was fresher and figured to be a slight favorite because of it, but it appears that Prisha saved the fight he didn't use at RG for this match. A 7-5, 6-3 win got him to the final ... where Fehrang Forrughi beat him for the third straight time, 6-4, 6-3.

This leaves Forrughi as the clear #1 now, Andersen a distant second, Herena close behind, and Prakash Prisha in a comfortable fourth and within striking distance of those two players. No big deal if it doesn't happen, but finished second would be nice. For now, there's over two months off before the US Open and no major junior events for the interim. Form narrowly cracked the 30 ceiling here, so lots of training to come.

[Brian Swartz]

The US Open requires a bit of leadup. There was just enough time that I needed one tournament for Prakash Prisha ahead of time. I didn't want it to be a juniors tournament; I wanted to get some points in the main tour to facilitate better training at the start of next year during practice tournaments. I could have gone Amateur again, but I decided to send him out into a futures. I thought he was ready. In world 1, he would have been. This is not world 1, and once again I underestimated the competitiveness. Lost a close match in round 1 after getting through qualifying, and would have been blasted in the second round if he didn't. So that idea was a fail, one of a number of lessons I'm learning this year.

The final junior Slam itself went better than expected. Except for Prisha and his partner, the other top players were for whatever reason very poorly prepared. Most were overplayed badly. So Prisha/Herena blasted through to their third doubles Slam of the year with ease ... and they also met in the singles finals. It should have been a close match; Prisha was seeded 5th and Herena 3rd coming in. It was not a close match. Herena cruised 6-4, 6-2, leaving Prakash with a third round, a semifinal, and two finals in the singles Slams for his junior year - but no trophies to go with the doubles ones he's amassed. Ah well.

After two weeks off, the Osaka Mayors Cup (JGA) beckons, and there are two more at that tier right at the end of the year. Hopefully what I'm learning this year will help McVicker when he reaches this stage in a couple of years.

[Brian Swartz]

Osaka Mayors Cup had Prisha and Herena winning doubles yet again with ease, and meeting up again in singles, this time in the semifinal. This was the most tense, epic match he's yet had this year. After a couple of strange tiebreaks, Prisha prevailed 7-5, 6-7(1), 7-6(3). Another close one in the final against Bryan Andersen, although it was anticlimactic in comparison, and Prisha won his first big junior singles event, moving past Anderson to #3 overall.

Strangely, #1 Fehrang Forrughi didn't play at all. Even so, there's basically no chance of Prisha reaching higher than third, because of a weird rule I just discovered: 'bonus points'. And I don't completely understand how this works.

- Forrughi has 750 bonus points; he's won one Junior Grand Slam and two Junior Grade A.

- Herena has 250 bonus points: one JGS and one JGA.

- Prisha has none: one JGA

- Andersen has 250: one JGS.

You could say 250 bonus points for every JGS won, but that doesn't explain why Forrughi has that many. So I don't really understand how this is working. Perhaps you have to win a JGS, and then it's 250 per JGS/JGA if you've done that? Perhaps an operating theory. Also, on the ranking screen it shows a trophy for every 'Junior Grand Slam', but it's actually counting JGS and JGA.

Whatever. Being #3 overall isn't bad at all, and good training progress continues. Remaining are the Orange Bowl in a couple of months in the US, and the Casabalanca Cup shortly afterwards in Mexico. Both are on hardcourt. And then it's on to the pro ranks.