PDA

View Full Version : NTRP should be separate for doubles?


raiden031
02-20-2007, 04:34 AM
I think that NTRP should be separate for singles and doubles. I am probably a half level (.25) better at singles than I am at doubles. Most of the players I know are middle-aged to elderly, and play mainly doubles since they aren't as fit anymore or never developed solid groundstrokes. I think there are people who have beaten me in doubles that I would probably bagel in singles. And I've seen people that have huge deficiencies in their game that don't get exploited because the doubles game does not allow as many opportunities for an opponent to do so.

As long as singles players keep playing singles and doubles players keep playing doubles, the NTRP doesn't really matter. But if they switch back and forth, I would think their ratings (and those of people playing against them) can get all out of whack, and therefore they should be measured separately between singles and doubles.

What are your takes?

cak
02-20-2007, 05:12 AM
I know several aging singles players that are approaching senior eligibility, and worried they won't be able to find a team at their level because they are so much better at singles, but pretty clueless in doubles. Especially at the senior level doubles strategy becomes important.

Certainly I'm one of the doubles players that would be at least .25 less in singles. However, I think USTA doesn't want to deal with players with two ratings. It adds too much complexity.

oldguysrule
02-20-2007, 06:27 AM
Why further complicate an already complicated system. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. I don't think we need to micro-manage it further in order to give a few a people a chance to win at a lower level. Just play and have fun.

andfor
02-20-2007, 06:42 AM
Why further complicate an already complicated system. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. I don't think we need to micro-manage it further in order to give a few a people a chance to win at a lower level. Just play and have fun.

True^^^^^^^^. The idea of a different level for doubles verses singles is a idea I had a number of years ago. But as OldGuys suggests trying to implement it would only a further already complicated matters with the system. My suggestion, get better at what ever your not good at and go play.

KFwinds
02-20-2007, 07:27 AM
I kind of like the idea. I'm the opposite of the original poster though - I can compete very well with people rated a full level above me in doubles. I'm a decent singles player, but I understand doubles strategy better.

oldguysrule
02-20-2007, 07:58 AM
I kind of like the idea. I'm the opposite of the original poster though - I can compete very well with people rated a full level above me in doubles. I'm a decent singles player, but I understand doubles strategy better.

The system doesn't need to be changed. Just play up when you play doubles.

STRman
02-20-2007, 08:09 AM
I believe that at the recreational level, doubles actually requires better shot making skills and variety. Singles players can get by as pushers and just be able to run all day without retiring. That stategy gets exposed very quickly in doubles.

PBODY99
02-20-2007, 08:56 AM
The USTA had seperate ratings for singles & doubles a few years back. It hasn't made that much difference in the leagues that I play in & I'm a senior player.

Cindysphinx
02-20-2007, 10:01 AM
I think it might be tough to get a decent sample size, though. In our league, a player playing her fair share of matches might get 5 matches. If three were doubles and two were singles, that singles rating might be a little suspect.

And can you imagine the *howling* when people were given hugely different ratings, like 3.5 for singles and 2.5 for doubles? :)

Me, I'd still like to see three ratings categories:

M for mixed exclusive (which we have now)
T for tournaments
L for league.

That way no one could tank matches at tournaments to get a lower rating for league and vice versa. And if someone was a 3.5 for league and a 3.0 for tournaments -- well that might make perfect sense given the higher level of play in tournaments (in our area, anyway).

raiden031
02-20-2007, 10:09 AM
Why further complicate an already complicated system. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. I don't think we need to micro-manage it further in order to give a few a people a chance to win at a lower level. Just play and have fun.

I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone is better at one or the other, enough to cause problems with the rating system.

Example, lets say you have a strong doubles player who goes undefeated in doubles for the season, and puts himself at the top of his level, on the verge of being bumped up. Then his team needs a last minute singles player so he plays and gets his butt whipped. Well the guy who just beat him in singles is probably going to get bumped up, even though he may not be anywhere near the top of his level in either game.

Its not that complicated. So it would be possible that you may be eligible only for singles or only doubles at a particular NTRP level. Big deal.

JRstriker12
02-20-2007, 12:06 PM
I don't think you really need to have a seperate NTRP for doubles. All things being equal, your NTPR is just a representation of your relative skill level. A person who rates a 3.5 should have a relatively equal level of skill. That still allows for some variations, your knowledge and level of comfort of playing doubles is just one of them, just as your advantage in speed in singles is just another variable.

Raiden, sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me:

"Most of the players I know are middle-aged to elderly, and play mainly doubles since they aren't as fit anymore or never developed solid groundstrokes. I think there are people who have beaten me in doubles that I would probably bagel in singles. And I've seen people that have huge deficiencies in their game that don't get exploited because the doubles game does not allow as many opportunities for an opponent to do so."

In my exeprience, it's ususally the slow, middle-aged guys that have good strokes to make up for thier lack of footwork. A well placed ball goes a long way in doubles.

Also, anyone with serious holes in thier games will get seriously expolited in doubles, just hit to the weaker player all the time and watch their team crumble - They can't move, drop shot and lob - no backhand? Serve to the weaker side and position the man at the net for the easy pickoff. There are just as many ways to expolit these weaknesses in doubles as there are in singles. Simply out-running them may not be the first option, but a strong game translates to doubles.

A also remeber, team is only as good as thier weakest link. Which brings me to my next point. Doubles is a team game. So they didn't just beat you, they beat you and your teammate, so you and your partner need to figure out how to take advantage of these guys who are so weak, that you could bagel them. Maybe it's in the element of teamwork, where you are lacking here. Your game may be strong, but it really comes down to working with your partner to take advantage of your edge in skill.

So maybe that guy across the court coudln't beat you in singles, but that's not the point. On that day, that team was better than your team. Someone wins, someone loses, no need for a seperate NTRP.

raiden031
02-20-2007, 12:20 PM
I don't think you really need to have a seperate NTRP for doubles. All things being equal, your NTPR is just a representation of your relative skill level. A person who rates a 3.5 should have a relatively equal level of skill. That still allows for some variations, your knowledge and level of comfort of playing doubles is just one of them, just as your advantage in speed in singles is just another variable.

Raiden, sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me:

"Most of the players I know are middle-aged to elderly, and play mainly doubles since they aren't as fit anymore or never developed solid groundstrokes. I think there are people who have beaten me in doubles that I would probably bagel in singles. And I've seen people that have huge deficiencies in their game that don't get exploited because the doubles game does not allow as many opportunities for an opponent to do so."

In my exeprience, it's ususally the slow, middle-aged guys that have good strokes to make up for thier lack of footwork. A well placed ball goes a long way in doubles.

Also, anyone with serious holes in thier games will get seriously expolited in doubles, just hit to the weaker player all the time and watch their team crumble - They can't move, drop shot and lob - no backhand? Serve to the weaker side and position the man at the net for the easy pickoff. There are just as many ways to expolit these weaknesses in doubles as there are in singles. Simply out-running them may not be the first option, but a strong game translates to doubles.

A also remeber, team is only as good as thier weakest link. Which brings me to my next point. Doubles is a team game. So they didn't just beat you, they beat you and your teammate, so you and your partner need to figure out how to take advantage of these guys who are so weak, that you could bagel them. Maybe it's in the element of teamwork, where you are lacking here. Your game may be strong, but it really comes down to working with your partner to take advantage of your edge in skill.

So maybe that guy across the court coudln't beat you in singles, but that's not the point. On that day, that team was better than your team. Someone wins, someone loses, no need for a seperate NTRP.

You missed my point. This thread isn't about my game, its about the possibility that switching between playing the different flavors of tennis can mess your ratings up or the people around you. See my hypothetical example of a strong doubles player getting his butt whipped in singles, and his opponent getting bumped to the next level as a result of it.

Nick Irons
02-20-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't think you really need to have a seperate NTRP for doubles. All things being equal, your NTPR is just a representation of your relative skill level. A person who rates a 3.5 should have a relatively equal level of skill. That still allows for some variations, your knowledge and level of comfort of playing doubles is just one of them, just as your advantage in speed in singles is just another variable.

Raiden, sounds like a bit of sour grapes to me:

"Most of the players I know are middle-aged to elderly, and play mainly doubles since they aren't as fit anymore or never developed solid groundstrokes. I think there are people who have beaten me in doubles that I would probably bagel in singles. And I've seen people that have huge deficiencies in their game that don't get exploited because the doubles game does not allow as many opportunities for an opponent to do so."

In my exeprience, it's ususally the slow, middle-aged guys that have good strokes to make up for thier lack of footwork. A well placed ball goes a long way in doubles.

Also, anyone with serious holes in thier games will get seriously expolited in doubles, just hit to the weaker player all the time and watch their team crumble - They can't move, drop shot and lob - no backhand? Serve to the weaker side and position the man at the net for the easy pickoff. There are just as many ways to expolit these weaknesses in doubles as there are in singles. Simply out-running them may not be the first option, but a strong game translates to doubles.

A also remeber, team is only as good as thier weakest link. Which brings me to my next point. Doubles is a team game. So they didn't just beat you, they beat you and your teammate, so you and your partner need to figure out how to take advantage of these guys who are so weak, that you could bagel them. Maybe it's in the element of teamwork, where you are lacking here. Your game may be strong, but it really comes down to working with your partner to take advantage of your edge in skill.

So maybe that guy across the court coudln't beat you in singles, but that's not the point. On that day, that team was better than your team. Someone wins, someone loses, no need for a seperate NTRP.

He doesn't have sour grapes; he's asking a legit question!

And I agree with him !

Doubles is a nuetralizer in tennis; you don't have to cover the court, you don't have to have good speed, you don't have to have much variety sans a pusher's stroke and a mastery of the lob. Hell, you don't even have to paint the lines as you're given extra alleys to play with. My experience is exactly that of the orginal posters; take these guys over to Court 2 for some Singles and it's not even a competetion (Younger and older).

I do agree, there is an art and skillset to Dubs (the new lingo I recently learned) but I find that weaker players that are good as a team play stronger in doubles.

Take a 3.5 Player and he'll last much longer playing doubles than isolated in a single match.

I agree; the better TEAM wins in doubles and not always the better player(s)

EDIT

I want to emphasize, this is my experience at the 3.5 to 4.5 Club Level. (I'm a 4.0). When I play a 3.5 Player in doubles, they can frustrate me while in Singles, it isn't even close.

oldguysrule
02-20-2007, 01:12 PM
You missed my point. This thread isn't about my game, its about the possibility that switching between playing the different flavors of tennis can mess your ratings up or the people around you. See my hypothetical example of a strong doubles player getting his butt whipped in singles, and his opponent getting bumped to the next level as a result of it.

You are missing the point. You are obsessed with "messing your ratings up" when in reality the ratings are supposed to be a small part of the game. Or really no part of the game. You need to remember that tennis is a game. It's about having fun. It's about competition and testing yourself. The ratings are a general guide to your skill level so that players have a way of matching up with other players of a similar skill level. No more, no less. The idea that you can mess up your rating is not a productive frame of mind to be in. Just get out and play and have fun.

JRstriker12
02-20-2007, 01:43 PM
You missed my point. This thread isn't about my game, its about the possibility that switching between playing the different flavors of tennis can mess your ratings up or the people around you. See my hypothetical example of a strong doubles player getting his butt whipped in singles, and his opponent getting bumped to the next level as a result of it.


So what's wrong with a strong doubles player losing in singles and having his opponent get bumped up? Some one has to win and someone has to lose - right? That's pretty equivalent to a strong 3.5 getting beat by a weaker 3.5.

If you are so concerned about your ratings, stick to singles, or maybe learn to become a better doubles player.

In your first post, you basically say that the guys you play in doubles don't have game - (Can't move, no techniques on ground strokes, you'd bagel them). I am just pointing out that maybe these guys aren't as bad as you think skill-wise. Sure they can't move as well as you, but maybe your skill levels are closer than you think. If your skill levels are close, you won't need a seperate rating for doubles, since your NTRP is more a measure of your overall skill level.

JRstriker12
02-20-2007, 02:02 PM
He doesn't have sour grapes; he's asking a legit question!

And I agree with him !

Doubles is a nuetralizer in tennis; you don't have to cover the court, you don't have to have good speed, you don't have to have much variety sans a pusher's stroke and a mastery of the lob. Hell, you don't even have to paint the lines as you're given extra alleys to play with. My experience is exactly that of the orginal posters; take these guys over to Court 2 for some Singles and it's not even a competetion (Younger and older).

I do agree, there is an art and skillset to Dubs (the new lingo I recently learned) but I find that weaker players that are good as a team play stronger in doubles.

Take a 3.5 Player and he'll last much longer playing doubles than isolated in a single match.

I agree; the better TEAM wins in doubles and not always the better player(s)

EDIT

I want to emphasize, this is my experience at the 3.5 to 4.5 Club Level. (I'm a 4.0). When I play a 3.5 Player in doubles, they can frustrate me while in Singles, it isn't even close.

The way he states it does sound like sour grapes - "I am probably a half level (.25) better at singles than I am at doubles. Most of the players I know are middle-aged to elderly, and play mainly doubles since they aren't as fit anymore or never developed solid groundstrokes. I think there are people who have beaten me in doubles that I would probably bagel in singles. And I've seen people that have huge deficiencies in their game that don't get exploited because the doubles game does not allow as many opportunities for an opponent to do so."

Sure, you don't have to move as much in doubles, but I would argue that doubles requires a bit more skill. Being able to place a shot, being able to place your serve, planning, strategy, coordination with your partner, volleying well, lobing acurately, etc.

That's plenty of variety. I haven't seen to many pushers do to well in doubles. You keep pushing the ball back and the guy at the net will crush your next shot. You need variety to keep the other team guessing.

Seen a lot more pushers in the singles game. All running and legs, but not much of a shot.

True, with the older guys, the legs may not be there as singles is more athletic, but skill wise, I'd say some of these guys are closer in skill than you think. That's basically my point. Skill wise, you and they old guy may be close. You my be a stong 4.0 and skill wise the older guy may be a realy strong 3.5 play with no wheels, but good strokes and strategy. I still think you have to respect that person's skill inspite whether you can out run them.

If you really are a 1/2 level better on the court, it will show in doubles, just as it does in singles. I haven't seen to many teams composed of better players lose to a lower rated team. Sure it takes longer to get them off the court, with having 4 people on the court at the same time.

But as you pointed out, and I agree, it is a team game, so it comes down to your and your partner as a team. If you and your partner are really faster, more ahtletic and 1/2 level above the guys you play, you really should crush the other team.

Solat
02-20-2007, 02:34 PM
we have singles and doubles ratings with the ITN system here in Australia

ratings are comined and then divided by two and taken down to the lowest rating (if not a rounded number) based on the fact that its more likely the weaker player will be exploited

it works fine

OrangeOne
02-20-2007, 02:44 PM
The system doesn't need to be changed. Just play up when you play doubles.

You make a good point.

I'm in Aus, and we have a different system - we're usually graded by our local club based on either observation initially, and then on comp & tournament results.

Now there's one singles comp at my club, 5 years ago there were none, all comps were doubles. I was given my grading based on my doubles play, and so I logically entered the club championships based on that grade, and I won it the division, reasonably comfortably. I think the guy I played in the final may even have thought I was sand-bagging based on my serve, which was of blunted effectiveness in doubles - most of the older, playing-forever types could get back a serve of any pace, they've spent years learning how!

Looking at it now, I now know I'm at least .5 higher in singles than doubles, possibly a whole 1.0 up against a player that doesn't cope with power. I now know I probably should play up when I'm playing singles.....

OrangeOne
02-20-2007, 02:47 PM
we have singles and doubles ratings with the ITN system here in Australia

ratings are comined and then divided by two and taken down to the lowest rating (if not a rounded number) based on the fact that its more likely the weaker player will be exploited

it works fine

Do we have all of that? Maybe for very-regular tournament players? Yeah, that probably makes sense....

I know that for our club, gradings are just assigned based as I said above - based on results at the club, and I'd be exceptionally surprised if anything that complex happens! ;)

J011yroger
02-20-2007, 03:26 PM
Hey, why don't we add in surface NTRPs as well as dubs ratings? It would be cool if I could be a 5.5 on a gritty hard court with the following modifiers. Slick fast hard court -.25, Red Clay -.25, Har-Tru -.5, Poor Artificial Lighting -.25, Dubs -.75.

Maybe even add in opponent modifiers, you know...This is my NTRP against S&V players, against baseliners, etc.

J

OrangeOne
02-20-2007, 03:34 PM
Hey, why don't we add in surface NTRPs as well as dubs ratings? It would be cool if I could be a 5.5 on a gritty hard court with the following modifiers. Slick fast hard court -.25, Red Clay -.25, Har-Tru -.5, Poor Artificial Lighting -.25, Dubs -.75.

Maybe even add in opponent modifiers, you know...This is my NTRP against S&V players, against baseliners, etc.

J

I like it! Other potential modifiers for me:


Mood (+.25 if I'm a little angry or happy, -.5 if I'm a lot angry or happy - too angry and it all turns to poo, too happy and I don't care and just play for fun)
Day-of-the-week? +.25 on sats - I'm a better Saturday player
Show-court - Definitely +.25 if there's a crowd, -.25 if the shop-lady shafts me and I get a terrible court with locked back gates and slopy-corners into drains
Clothing - If I forget the right socks or a good hat, down it goes
Grip - Forgetting to change the grip and not having a spareis -.5! (Half due to play, half due to me mentally kicking myself), a new clean white tacky grip is +.25
Strings - -.25 to +.25 to -.25 through the life of a string-job ....I'm sure there's more :-D

Cindysphinx
02-20-2007, 04:01 PM
What is up with all the dissing of doubles and doubles players?

Hey, all you young pups. I used to be a young pup. If you get to your 40s or 50s and find you have the time and physical ability to compete in doubles, you should thank your flippin' lucky stars.

Singles and doubles require different skills and tactics, definitely. That doesn't make singles any better than doubles, IMHO.

J011yroger
02-20-2007, 04:44 PM
Orange, lets add in sun/wind aswell. Also proximity of cute girls to the tennis courts.

Cindy, I don't look down on people who play dubs, I just personally stink at it, and can laugh about it.

J

Solat
02-20-2007, 04:58 PM
Do we have all of that? Maybe for very-regular tournament players? Yeah, that probably makes sense....

I know that for our club, gradings are just assigned based as I said above - based on results at the club, and I'd be exceptionally surprised if anything that complex happens! ;)

im ta;lking pennant comp here, scores are inputted into computer that does all the calculating

Nick Irons
02-20-2007, 05:16 PM
Sure, you don't have to move as much in doubles, but I would argue that doubles requires a bit more skill. Being able to place a shot, being able to place your serve, planning, strategy, coordination with your partner, volleying well, lobing acurately, etc.

I disagree that Dubs would require more skill; maybe a different skill is a better choice of words? It seems a Dubs players volleys are better at times. However, all of those skills listed I tend to excel at in Singles.

That's plenty of variety. I haven't seen to many pushers do to well in doubles. You keep pushing the ball back and the guy at the net will crush your next shot. You need variety to keep the other team guessing.

At my club level 3.5 - 4.5 I see a ton of pushers; why ? The amin reason is the 1 Up / 1 Back approach. But I agree; getting 2 guys up at the Net neutralizes the pusher.

Seen a lot more pushers in the singles game. All running and legs, but not much of a shot.

I confess; I have seen my share of the pusher; mainly at the 3.0 - 3.5 level. I hate them. HIT A WINNER ALREADY

True, with the older guys, the legs may not be there as singles is more athletic, but skill wise, I'd say some of these guys are closer in skill than you think. That's basically my point. Skill wise, you and they old guy may be close. You my be a stong 4.0 and skill wise the older guy may be a realy strong 3.5 play with no wheels, but good strokes and strategy. I still think you have to respect that person's skill inspite whether you can out run them.

I see your point and do not mean to make light of the older dogs and father time. I do have a couple guys I see weekly; older, 65 -70 and they can just play all night like a backboard. You gotta really focus on these points. I also concur; wheels does not make one better than the other guy per se; but I still subscribe to Dubs being a different game; a friendlier game.

If you really are a 1/2 level better on the court, it will show in doubles, just as it does in singles. I haven't seen to many teams composed of better players lose to a lower rated team. Sure it takes longer to get them off the court, with having 4 people on the court at the same time.

I agree !

But as you pointed out, and I agree, it is a team game, so it comes down to your and your partner as a team. If you and your partner are really faster, more ahtletic and 1/2 level above the guys you play, you really should crush the other team.

Again; I concur !

Roforot
02-21-2007, 12:42 AM
I like it! Other potential modifiers for me:


Mood (+.25 if I'm a little angry or happy, -.5 if I'm a lot angry or happy - too angry and it all turns to poo, too happy and I don't care and just play for fun)
Day-of-the-week? +.25 on sats - I'm a better Saturday player
Show-court - Definitely +.25 if there's a crowd, -.25 if the shop-lady shafts me and I get a terrible court with locked back gates and slopy-corners into drains
Clothing - If I forget the right socks or a good hat, down it goes
Grip - Forgetting to change the grip and not having a spareis -.5! (Half due to play, half due to me mentally kicking myself), a new clean white tacky grip is +.25
Strings - -.25 to +.25 to -.25 through the life of a string-job ....I'm sure there's more :-D

Matching Outfit: Shirt + Shorts + Headgear: +.25
(+.5 if the Racket and bag also matches)
(+1 if the shoes also match!)

Spectators Present: None: +1.5 (I'm always hit my best serves when no one is watching!)
1-9 : No effect
10+ : -.25
Hot women: -.25 (Hit the ballharder but not into the court necessarily)

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 05:55 AM
What is up with all the dissing of doubles and doubles players?

Hey, all you young pups. I used to be a young pup. If you get to your 40s or 50s and find you have the time and physical ability to compete in doubles, you should thank your flippin' lucky stars.

Singles and doubles require different skills and tactics, definitely. That doesn't make singles any better than doubles, IMHO.

Singles and Doubles in tennis are like two separate sports. I enjoy them both for different reasons. I won't get into all of the different characteristics, but I generrally prefer singles because you get to hit the ball 4-5 times as much as in doubles...2x as many serves and serve returns and longer points. Plus, it's a better (arguably) workout.

edit: Please don't use this as a reason for separate NTRP ratings. I still believe your rating is your rating. Becoming better in doubles can make you a better singles player and vice-versa.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 06:22 AM
So what's wrong with a strong doubles player losing in singles and having his opponent get bumped up? Some one has to win and someone has to lose - right? That's pretty equivalent to a strong 3.5 getting beat by a weaker 3.5.

If you are so concerned about your ratings, stick to singles, or maybe learn to become a better doubles player.

In your first post, you basically say that the guys you play in doubles don't have game - (Can't move, no techniques on ground strokes, you'd bagel them). I am just pointing out that maybe these guys aren't as bad as you think skill-wise. Sure they can't move as well as you, but maybe your skill levels are closer than you think. If your skill levels are close, you won't need a seperate rating for doubles, since your NTRP is more a measure of your overall skill level.

I can see you are deeply offended by this thread. I don't know why you are focusing so much on the fact that I pointed out an example of people who are good at doubles but not so good at singles. It goes both ways, because I am good at singles and not so good at doubles. I was laying it out from my point of view of being the better singles player. Doubles and singles require a completely different strategy, and completely different strengths, and thats why I think its possible to be an entire NTRP level between one and the other.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 06:24 AM
You are missing the point. You are obsessed with "messing your ratings up" when in reality the ratings are supposed to be a small part of the game. Or really no part of the game. You need to remember that tennis is a game. It's about having fun. It's about competition and testing yourself. The ratings are a general guide to your skill level so that players have a way of matching up with other players of a similar skill level. No more, no less. The idea that you can mess up your rating is not a productive frame of mind to be in. Just get out and play and have fun.

Put yourself in the situation of the guy beating my hypothetical player in singles and getting bumped up to 3.5. Now you are stuck at 3.5 getting your butt whipped because you are not truly a 3.5 player. Its not fun for that guy. Maybe you can appeal, but there's no guarantee it goes through.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 06:39 AM
But as you pointed out, and I agree, it is a team game, so it comes down to your and your partner as a team. If you and your partner are really faster, more ahtletic and 1/2 level above the guys you play, you really should crush the other team.

1/2 level better at SINGLES. It doesn't do you much good if your strength is your groundies and weakness is your volleys and you spend most of a doubles match at the net. Even a decent serve is neutralized in doubles because you are serving half the amount of time, plus your second serve is more likely to get attacked. If you can run that doesn't matter either because you cover less of the court in doubles.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 06:57 AM
Put yourself in the situation of the guy beating my hypothetical player in singles and getting bumped up to 3.5. Now you are stuck at 3.5 getting your butt whipped because you are not truly a 3.5 player. Its not fun for that guy. Maybe you can appeal, but there's no guarantee it goes through.

If you get bumped up to 3.5, then you are a 3.5 and should be playing at that level. Somebody on the verge of getting bumped up probably should be playing up a level anyway.

Assuming you agree that experience is a valuable teacher, please listen to those who have more experience in tennis than you do. The examples you give reflect your inexperience as does your level of play. There's nothing wrong with that if you are trying to learn from it. What I see though, is someone complaining about the system when you don't truly understand it and arguing about strategy and ratings with people that have been blessed with an opportunity to acquire the experience that you currently lack.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 07:02 AM
If you get bumped up to 3.5, then you are a 3.5 and should be playing at that level. Somebody on the verge of getting bumped up probably should be playing up a level anyway.

Assuming you agree that experience is a valuable teacher, please listen to those who have more experience in tennis than you do. The examples you give reflect your inexperience as does your level of play. There's nothing wrong with that if you are trying to learn from it. What I see though, is someone complaining about the system when you don't truly understand it and arguing about strategy and ratings with people that have been blessed with an opportunity to acquire the experience that you currently lack.

Why do you and JRstriker have to turn everything I say into a personal attack. This is not about me, this is an idea for the good of everyone. I have not even played enough league for this to matter in my case. But I think matches would be more competitive if you separate them. You can't guarantee that everyone has the time, money, contacts, or resources to equally improve both their singles and doubles game, yet they may have to play both at times in USTA competition.

I'm not complaining, I'm coming up with an idea. You think you are high and mighty and need to get over yourself. Stop being a pessimist and crapping all over anyone that has ideas to better USTA tennis.

If you have nothing to contribute but personal attacks, mind your own F-ing business.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 08:13 AM
Why do you and JRstriker have to turn everything I say into a personal attack. This is not about me, this is an idea for the good of everyone. I have not even played enough league for this to matter in my case. But I think matches would be more competitive if you separate them. You can't guarantee that everyone has the time, money, contacts, or resources to equally improve both their singles and doubles game, yet they may have to play both at times in USTA competition.

I'm not complaining, I'm coming up with an idea. You think you are high and mighty and need to get over yourself. Stop being a pessimist and crapping all over anyone that has ideas to better USTA tennis.

If you have nothing to contribute but personal attacks, mind your own F-ing business.

I did not attack you. I pointed out points that are obvious and factual from your own statements.
1. You are new to tennis
2. You are playing at a 3.0 level looking to improve and move up
3. You have a lack of experience in tennis that I made a point of saying is a current situation...implying that you will gain experience the more you play and learn from those who have more experience.
4. You statements regarding NTRP reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose for ratings and the way the dynamic rating system works.

Several posters have pointed out to you, in a respectful way, the reasons why your "ideas to better USTA Tennis" are not productive.

The only personal attack in our conversation was your "high and mighty" comment.

I apologize if I offended you. I assumed you were open to a discussion of your ideas. I didn't realize you would take it personnally if someone disagreed with you.

Edit: After re-reading my earlier post that offended you, I can see that I may have not been as respectful as I intended. I stand by what I said, but it could have been said in a less inflammatory way.

Nick Irons
02-21-2007, 08:22 AM
It was not a personal attack but it did come across as somewhat condescending, And singles is most definately a better work out !

I find doubles to be more recreatonal in the sport or for people who can longer play singles. Nothign wrong with that of course.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 08:33 AM
I did not attack you. I pointed out points that are obvious and factual from your own statements.
1. You are new to tennis
2. You are playing at a 3.0 level looking to improve and move up
3. You have a lack of experience in tennis that I made a point of saying is a current situation...implying that you will gain experience the more you play and learn from those who have more experience.
4. You statements regarding NTRP reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose for ratings and the way the dynamic rating system works.

Several posters have pointed out to you, in a respectful way, the reasons why your "ideas to better USTA Tennis" are not productive.

The only personal attack in our conversation was your "high and mighty" comment.

I apologize if I offended you. I assumed you were open to a discussion of your ideas. I didn't realize you would take it personnally if someone disagreed with you.

I have been playing tennis for 7 years. Incorrectly for about 6, but I'm certainly not new to tennis. I have read about the mathematical algorithm for determining dynamic NTRP ratings, read the NTRP FAQ, and have learned alot from this board enough to know how it works.

What angered me is your and the other guy's use of ad hominem attacks against me to discredit my idea. Instead of pointing out the flaw in my hypothetical example, you attempt to show my motive for this thread is that I'm bitter, complaining, or maybe insecure about my own playing and lack the experience to have any useful ideas. You may have attempted this in a respectful way, but I believe you were patronizing me.

I would like for everyone to have a competitive tennis experience, and if the system in place was perfect, then you wouldn't see so many complaints here on the board.

If you insist that you were not attacking me with an ad hominem attack, then logically explain the flaw in my example.

And if you want to know about my own level, I am capable of playing 3.5 level singles, but I'm playing 3.0 mixed right now because I couldn't find a 3.5 mixed team. Even though I'm not as good at doubles, I'm still a strong 3.0 even at doubles. The losses were close matches, and the wins were pretty decisive.

For prove of my singles ability, I regularly play against two guys in the upper end of 3.5 and usually the matches go around 6-3, 6-4, with me losing. I play against an upper 3.5 woman regularly in singles who went undefeated (8-0) in singles in USTA 2006 ladies 3.5, and I beat her usually 6-1, 6-2.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 11:35 AM
What angered me is your and the other guy's use of ad hominem attacks against me to discredit my idea. Instead of pointing out the flaw in my hypothetical example, you attempt to show my motive for this thread is that I'm bitter, complaining, or maybe insecure about my own playing and lack the experience to have any useful ideas. You may have attempted this in a respectful way, but I believe you were patronizing me.

From Cak:
It adds too much complexity.

From me:
Why further complicate an already complicated system. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. I don't think we need to micro-manage it further in order to give a few a people a chance to win at a lower level. Just play and have fun.

From AndFor:
True^^^^^^^^. The idea of a different level for doubles verses singles is a idea I had a number of years ago. But as OldGuys suggests trying to implement it would only a further already complicated matters with the system. My suggestion, get better at what ever your not good at and go play.

From me:
The system doesn't need to be changed. Just play up when you play doubles

From Cak:
I think it might be tough to get a decent sample size, though. In our league, a player playing her fair share of matches might get 5 matches. If three were doubles and two were singles, that singles rating might be a little suspect.

And can you imagine the *howling* when people were given hugely different ratings, like 3.5 for singles and 2.5 for doubles?

JRstriker12:
I don't think you really need to have a seperate NTRP for doubles. All things being equal, your NTPR is just a representation of your relative skill level. A person who rates a 3.5 should have a relatively equal level of skill. That still allows for some variations, your knowledge and level of comfort of playing doubles is just one of them, just as your advantage in speed in singles is just another variable.

From me:
You are missing the point. You are obsessed with "messing your ratings up" when in reality the ratings are supposed to be a small part of the game. Or really no part of the game. You need to remember that tennis is a game. It's about having fun. It's about competition and testing yourself. The ratings are a general guide to your skill level so that players have a way of matching up with other players of a similar skill level. No more, no less. The idea that you can mess up your rating is not a productive frame of mind to be in. Just get out and play and have fun.

From JRstriker12:
So what's wrong with a strong doubles player losing in singles and having his opponent get bumped up? Some one has to win and someone has to lose - right? That's pretty equivalent to a strong 3.5 getting beat by a weaker 3.5.

From me:
If you get bumped up to 3.5, then you are a 3.5 and should be playing at that level. Somebody on the verge of getting bumped up probably should be playing up a level anyway

I don't know what an ad hominem attack is, but it seems as if these responses address your intitial post.

As I understand it, you think we should have a rating for singles and a rating for doubles.

To summarize the objections to that idea:
1. Your NTRP is a general guide to your basic tennis skills combined with your ability to win matches. It is not meant to be an exact predictor of who will win a match on a given day. Nor is it designed to differentiate between the subtleties of abilities in singles vs. doubles. It is (or should be) understood that playing singles can enhance your abilities in doubles and playing doubles can make you a better singles player. (topic for another thread)

2. It is a fact that the NTRP system is complicated. What you are proposing would double (pardon the pun) the complexity with the impact being relatively small.

3. The dynamic ratings move very slowly. One match (your example) is not going to be the sole reason that someone is bumped up. If you get bumped up it is because you have exhibited a level of play in competitive matches that is higher than the one you have been playing on.

4. A 4.0 singles player can quickly learn to play doubles on a 4.0 level. A 4.0 doubles player may be relatively weaker in singles but he would still dominate the competition at 3.5 singles.

While the system is not perfect, it works in the way it was intended to work the vast majority of the time.

csb
02-21-2007, 11:37 AM
I have not taken the time to read all the replies on this thread but in my experience with usta leagues it seems to me that there are some players(mostly older guys) who can solidly compete at 3.5 doubles but wouldn't stand a chance in singles.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 11:46 AM
And if you want to know about my own level, I am capable of playing 3.5 level singles, but I'm playing 3.0 mixed right now because I couldn't find a 3.5 mixed team. Even though I'm not as good at doubles, I'm still a strong 3.0 even at doubles. The losses were close matches, and the wins were pretty decisive.

For prove of my singles ability, I regularly play against two guys in the upper end of 3.5 and usually the matches go around 6-3, 6-4, with me losing. I play against an upper 3.5 woman regularly in singles who went undefeated (8-0) in singles in USTA 2006 ladies 3.5, and I beat her usually 6-1, 6-2.

I never questioned your abilities. I re-stated what you have said in the past.

From me:
2. You are playing at a 3.0 level looking to improve and move up.

I would say someone who is rated a 3.0 but is playing with 3.5's and 3.0's falls within the only statement I made regarding your abilities.

Actually, you are a perfect example of why dual ratings are not needed.
a. You are a 3.0 doubles player rated a 3.0
b. In a relatively short period of time you are competing with 3.5 rated players in singles.
c. You are allowed to enter a tournament in 3.5 singles and 3.0 doubles.
d. If you continue to play doubles, you will soon be competing with the 3.5's in doubles.
e. If you continue to dominate in 3.0 as you are now, at the end of the year you will (probably) get bumped to 3.5. Your singles is already there and in a few months your doubles will be there as well. Life is good.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 11:51 AM
I have not taken the time to read all the replies on this thread but in my experience with usta leagues it seems to me that there are some players(mostly older guys) who can solidly compete at 3.5 doubles but wouldn't stand a chance in singles.

Are you just making a statement or is this a case for dual ratings.

Would you want to play an older guy that can solidly compete at 3.5 doubles in a 3.0 tournament. The older guy would dominate the 3.0's to the point of howls of sand-bagging.

csb
02-21-2007, 11:59 AM
I was really just giving an observation but since you asked i don't believe there should be seperate ratings. If you're good enough to play 3.5 doubles then you should play 3.5.- I guess thats why a team fields 6 doubles player and two singles players for each match.

raiden031
02-21-2007, 11:59 AM
From Cak:
It adds too much complexity.

From me:
Why further complicate an already complicated system. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. I don't think we need to micro-manage it further in order to give a few a people a chance to win at a lower level. Just play and have fun.

From AndFor:
True^^^^^^^^. The idea of a different level for doubles verses singles is a idea I had a number of years ago. But as OldGuys suggests trying to implement it would only a further already complicated matters with the system. My suggestion, get better at what ever your not good at and go play.

From me:
The system doesn't need to be changed. Just play up when you play doubles

From Cak:
I think it might be tough to get a decent sample size, though. In our league, a player playing her fair share of matches might get 5 matches. If three were doubles and two were singles, that singles rating might be a little suspect.

And can you imagine the *howling* when people were given hugely different ratings, like 3.5 for singles and 2.5 for doubles?

JRstriker12:
I don't think you really need to have a seperate NTRP for doubles. All things being equal, your NTPR is just a representation of your relative skill level. A person who rates a 3.5 should have a relatively equal level of skill. That still allows for some variations, your knowledge and level of comfort of playing doubles is just one of them, just as your advantage in speed in singles is just another variable.

From me:
You are missing the point. You are obsessed with "messing your ratings up" when in reality the ratings are supposed to be a small part of the game. Or really no part of the game. You need to remember that tennis is a game. It's about having fun. It's about competition and testing yourself. The ratings are a general guide to your skill level so that players have a way of matching up with other players of a similar skill level. No more, no less. The idea that you can mess up your rating is not a productive frame of mind to be in. Just get out and play and have fun.

From JRstriker12:
So what's wrong with a strong doubles player losing in singles and having his opponent get bumped up? Some one has to win and someone has to lose - right? That's pretty equivalent to a strong 3.5 getting beat by a weaker 3.5.

From me:
If you get bumped up to 3.5, then you are a 3.5 and should be playing at that level. Somebody on the verge of getting bumped up probably should be playing up a level anyway

I don't know what an ad hominem attack is, but it seems as if these responses address your intitial post.

As I understand it, you think we should have a rating for singles and a rating for doubles.

To summarize the objections to that idea:
1. Your NTRP is a general guide to your basic tennis skills combined with your ability to win matches. It is not meant to be an exact predictor of who will win a match on a given day. Nor is it designed to differentiate between the subtleties of abilities in singles vs. doubles. It is (or should be) understood that playing singles can enhance your abilities in doubles and playing doubles can make you a better singles player. (topic for another thread)

2. It is a fact that the NTRP system is complicated. What you are proposing would double (pardon the pun) the complexity with the impact being relatively small.

3. The dynamic ratings move very slowly. One match (your example) is not going to be the sole reason that someone is bumped up. If you get bumped up it is because you have exhibited a level of play in competitive matches that is higher than the one you have been playing on.

4. A 4.0 singles player can quickly learn to play doubles on a 4.0 level. A 4.0 doubles player may be relatively weaker in singles but he would still dominate the competition at 3.5 singles.

While the system is not perfect, it works in the way it was intended to work the vast majority of the time.

An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person in order to discredit their argument, and not an attack on the argument itself. Instead of attacking my argument, you attacked my tennis game to discredit me. JRStriker was doing the same and made it clear by calling me sour grapes, in response to my original post.

I have seen people get moved up after as little as 2 matches in a season. I will agree that the higher your level, the more adaptive you are to going from singles to doubles and vice versa. But at the lower levels, you are more likely to have a defficiency that might destroy your game at one flavor of tennis, but not be an issue in the other.

Back to the argument at hand, the computer does all the work so the only complication is in joining teams where you might be eligible for singles or doubles but not both due to your ratings.

I have seen people that had strong doubles records but had no strengths, other than a strong partner to carry them along. I guarantee if they play singles they will not play nearly as well, and anyone that beats them will have a large increase in their rating. The problem really occurs when people get bumped up because of this scenario.

If you don't believe someone's skill level can be that much different between their singles and doubles play, then my arguments mean nothing. I just know from my own anecdotal evidence that this is true at the 3.X levels.

oldguysrule
02-21-2007, 01:07 PM
...I just know from my own anecdotal evidence that this is true at the 3.X levels.

You will probably interpret this as patronizing but I would submit that your acecdotal evidence does not scratch the surface of the issue.

I did not attack your tennis game. You have described your abilities and I simply re-stated them. I did question your lack of experience which in hindsight was accurate since you are relying on anecdotal evidence. You are looking at the experience you have had and proposing changes that would impact that experience. I am looking at the system in it's entiriety and how it impacts the vast majority of players and saying that it is working fine. There will always be exceptions that can be highlighted but you can not make policy decisions based on the exceptions.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but do not falsely accuse me of ad hominem attacks when every single one of my points spoke to the issue at hand. That seems like an ad hominem attack on your part.

Raiden.Kaminari
02-22-2007, 03:47 PM
You are missing the point. You are obsessed with "messing your ratings up" when in reality the ratings are supposed to be a small part of the game. Or really no part of the game. You need to remember that tennis is a game. It's about having fun. It's about competition and testing yourself. The ratings are a general guide to your skill level so that players have a way of matching up with other players of a similar skill level. No more, no less. The idea that you can mess up your rating is not a productive frame of mind to be in. Just get out and play and have fun.

Good post!