Okay, so I was trying to figure out this whole “division for a tennis match” thing, just like that New York Times article talked about. I’m no pro, but I wanted to see if I could apply this to our weekend tennis games.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49f75/49f75994789d821b8da21a852407e4efa564284d" alt="NYT Explains: Division for a Tennis Match (Simple Breakdown)"
First, I gathered all my tennis buddies’ names. There were eight of us in total, which I thought was a perfect number.
Then I jotted down some skill levels. You know, just kinda eyeballing it. Who’s got the killer serve? Who’s a whiz at the net? Who’s, uh, still learning? (That’s me, mostly.) I kept it super simple: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced. No complicated rankings or anything.
Creating the Teams
Next, I started playing around with different team combinations. My first attempt was a total mess. It was like all the powerhouses were on one team, and the other team… well, let’s just say it would have been a massacre.
So, I scrapped that and started again. This time, I tried to balance things out. I put one “Advanced” player with a “Beginner,” and then paired up the “Intermediates.”
It should be like this:
- Advanced + Beginner
- Intermediate + Intermediate
- Advanced + Beginner
- Intermediate + Intermediate
It took a few tries, and I kept shuffling the names around until it felt kinda fair. I wasn’t aiming for perfect, just something that wouldn’t lead to any total blowouts (or tears).
Finally, I had what looked like two decent teams. It wasn’t rocket science, but it felt a lot more organized than just randomly picking names out of a hat.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7821/b7821c8c58931170e0c2218961eadaeea6deb7cb" alt="NYT Explains: Division for a Tennis Match (Simple Breakdown)"
We use the new method to decide how to team up. To our surprise, it is really work!
In the end, the game is more exciting and interesting. We all love this method.