PDA

View Full Version : watched a 9.0 mixed match


raiden031
02-04-2007, 04:32 AM
I was watching a 9.0 mixed match from the observation deck just to see what its like at that level. I didn't know the level when I first got there, and based on what I saw, I guessed they were only 4.0 players. I was not impressed by the women players, most of their serves had a pushing motion which is pretty common at the 3.X level. Their groundstrokes were not well developed either. The men had pretty strong serves and polished strokes, but not an overwhelming amount of pace as people on this board would suggest. I feel like this level of play would be pretty attainable by simply working on my consistency. I guess if I watched men's singles or doubles the game would be faster. I had a hard time believing that those women could beat me in a match though, but obviously if they are 4.5 they should.

Cindysphinx
02-04-2007, 05:30 AM
Interesting. I watched an 8.0 mixed match once from court-side, and I thought all the players were wicked good.

I didn't see any Sharapova's out there, but the thing that would cause those players to destroy me was their consistency, their ability to transition seamlessly to net, and their fast hands and great volley technique.

Seriously, I doubt the women were pushing their serves. It is possible that what you saw was conservative serving in an attempt to achieve placement, but a push serve will get killed at that level. Even the 3.5 women I know don't push their serves.

As for whether this level of play would be attainable for someone like you, I'd say the answer is a definite yes, though.

rasajadad
02-04-2007, 09:49 AM
Last time I played in an 8.0 league, the women were stronger players than the men. They were more competitive, too. That being said, they were also the worst cheaters (line call wise) that I've encountered in a long time. The tennis was good, but the experience wasn't what I hoped for.

I almost participated in what would have been a 9.0. Top 10 over 50 (Male) players (New England Section) paired with over 40 women. I picked up a partner at the event, but she had to withdraw. I'd venture that the men were 4.5 - 5.0's and the women 4.0-4.5's. Excellent tennis.

Sagittar
02-04-2007, 09:59 AM
what's a 9.0 ?
is that meaning a double who are both a 4.5 ?

Cindysphinx
02-04-2007, 10:14 AM
Or a 5.0 with a 4.0.

raiden031
02-04-2007, 11:02 AM
Seriously, I doubt the women were pushing their serves. It is possible that what you saw was conservative serving in an attempt to achieve placement, but a push serve will get killed at that level. Even the 3.5 women I know don't push their serves.


I'm not sure if pushing their serve is the most appropriate way for me to have described it, but thats kinda what it looked like to me. It was the same technique I see in lower level players, however the pace was faster, but not fast enough to that it would give me problems. If their serve went untouched, the ball would hit the ground for the second time before hitting the wall, and my first serves rarely do that anymore.

raiden031
02-04-2007, 11:09 AM
Last time I played in an 8.0 league, the women were stronger players than the men. They were more competitive, too. That being said, they were also the worst cheaters (line call wise) that I've encountered in a long time. The tennis was good, but the experience wasn't what I hoped for.


Kinda strange. From my experience I thought the women were not nearly as good as the men. I feel like if I was playing one of these 4.5 women, I'd surely lose based on the fact that they are 4.5, but it would probably be completely due to my unforced errors. They didn't really have any offensive strategy from what I saw.

The men on the other hand would have me running all over the place, but I know I can handle their pace (other than their serves), just not their consistency and placement.

looseswing
02-04-2007, 11:14 AM
Well you can't really judge the level of the tennis just by the title is given. Sometimes an area just has no really good tennis players, so the 3.5s are given higher status than they really are.

raiden031
02-04-2007, 11:21 AM
Well you can't really judge the level of the tennis just by the title is given. Sometimes an area just has no really good tennis players, so the 3.5s are given higher status than they really are.

Well I thought the 4.5 men were strong compared to 3.5 players, but I just didn't think so of the women. I would bet though if I videotaped it, the people of this board would probably say everyone was 3.5. So I think the surprise was that people on this board act like 4.5 is so good, I just had higher expectations.

I know there are some really strong men in that league, one in particular was a 5.0 and won some national tournaments. Pretty extensive USTA record he has. He definitely stood out to me that day even before I knew who he was.

Cruzer
02-04-2007, 04:16 PM
In any mixed match unless you know what the players individual ratings are it is hard to make generalizations about the quality of play at a level like 9.0. Theoretically both players would be 4.5 but you could have a 5.0 and a 4.0 or even lower combinations. My wife and I, both 3.5 players played 8.0 mixed last year and were reasonably competitive in all our matches.

Cindysphinx
02-04-2007, 06:00 PM
The other thing you have to remember is that if the woman is 4.0 facing a 4.5 guy, she has her hands full. If her play is looking defensive, that's likely because the guy has her under pressure.

I also wouldn't say that whether a serve bounces twice before it hits the back fence is the best gauge of a good serve. I was told to serve at 75% speed in doubles to achieve consistency and placement, and to use greater spin when serving and volleying, which will also give a serve that looks different than a hard flat serve.

Then again, I saw a small tournament in Colorado with 4.0 women. I would have guessed they were 3.0. So who knows?

rasajadad
02-05-2007, 03:59 AM
Kinda strange. From my experience I thought the women were not nearly as good as the men. I feel like if I was playing one of these 4.5 women, I'd surely lose based on the fact that they are 4.5, but it would probably be completely due to my unforced errors. They didn't really have any offensive strategy from what I saw.

The men on the other hand would have me running all over the place, but I know I can handle their pace (other than their serves), just not their consistency and placement.

I'm sure it varies wildly by league. These women were fit, well practiced and coached by a teaching pro. The men on the other hand seemed like bangers with no purpose or strategy. (They were also employed to chase down every lob.)

raiden031
02-05-2007, 07:53 AM
The other thing you have to remember is that if the woman is 4.0 facing a 4.5 guy, she has her hands full. If her play is looking defensive, that's likely because the guy has her under pressure.

I also wouldn't say that whether a serve bounces twice before it hits the back fence is the best gauge of a good serve. I was told to serve at 75% speed in doubles to achieve consistency and placement, and to use greater spin when serving and volleying, which will also give a serve that looks different than a hard flat serve.

Then again, I saw a small tournament in Colorado with 4.0 women. I would have guessed they were 3.0. So who knows?

They were hitting flat, based on their swinging motion and the bounce. I would say they were serving just to get the ball in, thats about it.


In any mixed match unless you know what the players individual ratings are it is hard to make generalizations about the quality of play at a level like 9.0. Theoretically both players would be 4.5 but you could have a 5.0 and a 4.0 or even lower combinations. My wife and I, both 3.5 players played 8.0 mixed last year and were reasonably competitive in all our matches.


Actually I looked up the players afterwards, and the woman that appeared best to me was only rated at 4.0 and playing with a 5.0 man. I think the rest were 4.5s though.


I'm sure it varies wildly by league. These women were fit, well practiced and coached by a teaching pro. The men on the other hand seemed like bangers with no purpose or strategy. (They were also employed to chase down every lob.)


I won't comment on the fitness; they were all in decent shape, but their technique was not impressive. I guess it reinforces the idea that consistency is the most important thing in tennis.