Just going through a list of tennis scores over the past month, I noticed a trend in teams winning by 9-0 margins, only losing a couple of games in a match (let alone a set) yet, there seems to be no pattern of teams subbing in bench players to give them experience when the outcome will clearly not be affected. The reason for this could be that a team only has the required 6 players to compete but more often than not this is not the case.
Teams who lose less than a handfull of games in the 3 doubles before going into singles or who lose less than two handfuls over 6 singles matches SHOULD sub in their bench players for the remaining matches (within reason of course) as a show of sportsmanship. You can run up the score in Tennis just as easily as you can in Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball, etc. and it's being done across the classifications. It benefits neither the winner or the loser when a team is clearly over-matched to continue playing the "starters." Colleges sub in all the time and it only benefits your team down the road for other players to get experience. Just had to put my two cents in on this.
Will Cobb
Teams who lose less than a handfull of games in the 3 doubles before going into singles or who lose less than two handfuls over 6 singles matches SHOULD sub in their bench players for the remaining matches (within reason of course) as a show of sportsmanship. You can run up the score in Tennis just as easily as you can in Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball, etc. and it's being done across the classifications. It benefits neither the winner or the loser when a team is clearly over-matched to continue playing the "starters." Colleges sub in all the time and it only benefits your team down the road for other players to get experience. Just had to put my two cents in on this.
Will Cobb
Last edited:
