PDA

View Full Version : "I'm pretty much a (4.5) " vs Computer Rated...


GeoffB
02-15-2009, 09:31 PM
I've seen a bunch of posts where people describe themselves as "pretty much a 4.0", or "high 3.5/low 4.0". I'm wondering, how do you translate between an NTRP based on substantial league/tournament play vs NTRP as a way people describe their playing level?

OnyxZ28
02-15-2009, 09:38 PM
The former I would take seriously, the latter not so much.

raiden031
02-16-2009, 03:33 AM
Subtract 2 levels from the player using the descriptions. "I'm a 4.5 based on the guidelines" means "I'm a 3.5 if I entered a league".

But actually I think the algorithm is a little more complicated than that. Here is my translation:

Guideline - League
3.0 - 2.5-3.0
3.5 - 3.0-3.5
4.0 - 3.0-3.5
4.5 - 3.5
5.0 - 4.0
5.5 - 2.5

OvertheFence
02-16-2009, 10:50 AM
5.5 - 2.5

ROFL ^^ :)

LeeD
02-16-2009, 10:56 AM
Guidelines mean absolutely NOTHING!
You are rated by your match and tournament abililty, not by how pretty, smooth, or hard you hit the ball.
You can say you're 4.5 IF you play even with other 4.5's, beat ALL 4.0 and lower, and can give higher levels a run for their sets....in multiple matches.
But if you only play a rated player ONCE, it means nothing again.
They don't judge shooters by the shooter saying "I"m great, I never miss".
They don't judge football players only by watching them throw and catch.
They don't judge basketball players by their ability to freethrow and layup.
They all get judged IN COMPETITION.

Jim A
02-16-2009, 11:04 AM
Subtract 2 levels from the player using the descriptions. "I'm a 4.5 based on the guidelines" means "I'm a 3.5 if I entered a league".

But actually I think the algorithm is a little more complicated than that. Here is my translation:

Guideline - League
3.0 - 2.5-3.0
3.5 - 3.0-3.5
4.0 - 3.0-3.5
4.5 - 3.5
5.0 - 4.0
5.5 - 2.5


totally agree with Raiden on this, oftentimes @ drop-in I tell them strong 3.0 and get paired with a bunch of rookies, which can be nice at times but mostly I'm looking to work on stuff, whereas most of the supposed 3.5's are essentially 3.0's and the lower half of the 4.0's are low/mid 3.5's..

GeoffB
02-17-2009, 03:42 PM
Subtract 2 levels from the player using the descriptions. "I'm a 4.5 based on the guidelines" means "I'm a 3.5 if I entered a league".

But actually I think the algorithm is a little more complicated than that. Here is my translation:

Guideline - League
3.0 - 2.5-3.0
3.5 - 3.0-3.5
4.0 - 3.0-3.5
4.5 - 3.5
5.0 - 4.0
5.5 - 2.5

So far, I'd pretty much agree. Most self-rated players would most likely have trouble in that level of league play. I generally tell people to self-rate as low as the computer will allow them, and I think any voluntary self-rating at 4.5 and above is pretty much asking for a beatdown (not including former college players and/or juniors who are obligated to use this minimal rating). Even 4.0 is a risk for someone who hasn't played official league.

Here's another question: do you attribute this discrepancy to an inflated sense of skill among self-rated players, or to sandbagging tendencies among league players?

BullDogTennis
02-17-2009, 03:47 PM
Guidelines mean absolutely NOTHING!
You are rated by your match and tournament abililty, not by how pretty, smooth, or hard you hit the ball.
You can say you're 4.5 IF you play even with other 4.5's, beat ALL 4.0 and lower, and can give higher levels a run for their sets....in multiple matches.
But if you only play a rated player ONCE, it means nothing again.
They don't judge shooters by the shooter saying "I"m great, I never miss".
They don't judge football players only by watching them throw and catch.
They don't judge basketball players by their ability to freethrow and layup.
They all get judged IN COMPETITION.

actually free throw practice and game situation is the exact same...since no one is on you.

raiden031
02-17-2009, 03:49 PM
Here's another question: do you attribute this discrepancy to an inflated sense of skill among self-rated players, or to sandbagging tendencies among league players?

I actually think that sandbagging isn't all that bad among computer-rated players, just the occasional self-rated playerd. The majority of league players are going to have computer ratings which helps with accuracy. But there is obviously pressure to rate downward and it has more to do with being able to win matches and also contribute to your team. I think when it comes to players bordering two levels, they will almost always choose to be rated on the lower side by self-rating or appeals.

I think the reason for the discrepancy though is that it is very hard to gauge your skills based on the NTRP guidelines. You have to be an expert on the NTRP system to really know how to use it. Another issue is that players think your level is correlated to your style of game, not your results. So they think if they can serve hard or hit groundstrokes hard, they are automatically a higher rating than someone who is a pusher with a weak serve. And finally its about ego and bragging rights...people want the satisfaction of being a high level player even though they are dead wrong about their ability.

WildVolley
02-17-2009, 04:17 PM
I think that the descriptions of levels lead a lot of people astray. I consider myself a strong 4.0, and I occasionally bagel people who self-rate at 4.5.

Much in the way that inexperienced people on these boards rate videos of touring pros at 4.0 or 4.5, a lot of 3.5 players rate themselves at 4.5 based on the descriptions.

gocard02
02-17-2009, 05:25 PM
They don't judge football players only by watching them throw and catch.

Are you not familiar with the NFL draft? :p

NotAtTheNet
02-17-2009, 06:02 PM
Are you not familiar with the NFL draft? :p

Do the names Jamarcus Russell, Vernon Gholston, and Ted Ginn Jr. ring a bell?

Noveson
02-17-2009, 06:06 PM
Do the names Jamarcus Russell, Vernon Gholston, and Ted Ginn Jr. ring a bell?

Russel played for the Raiders=Black hole. He had no chance.

julian
02-17-2009, 06:29 PM
Subtract 2 levels from the player using the descriptions. "I'm a 4.5 based on the guidelines" means "I'm a 3.5 if I entered a league".

But actually I think the algorithm is a little more complicated than that. Here is my translation:

Guideline - League
3.0 - 2.5-3.0
3.5 - 3.0-3.5
4.0 - 3.0-3.5
4.5 - 3.5
5.0 - 4.0
5.5 - 2.5

Is "5.5 - 2.5" a typo?

10nistennis
02-17-2009, 06:34 PM
Russel played for the Raiders=Black hole. He had no chance.

He plays for an Al Davis team..what do you expect?



And free throw practice is not the same as a game situation free throw. There is added pressure, and all kinds of stuff like that.

Kevo
02-17-2009, 06:50 PM
I've seen a bunch of posts where people describe themselves as "pretty much a 4.0", or "high 3.5/low 4.0". I'm wondering, how do you translate between an NTRP based on substantial league/tournament play vs NTRP as a way people describe their playing level?

Well, one is real and the other is imagined. When I self rated about 6 or so years ago in order to join a team, I rated as a 4.0 because that's what the team was. I sort of matched the 4.0 - 4.5 description and I thought I would do pretty well at 4.0. The difference between practice and actual competition is pretty large though. When you have someone else trying to make you mess up, and the added pressure of every mistake counts, it's much more difficult to consistently hit the shot you can hit in practice. The NTRP guideline is meant to match your play in competition. Many people read it and don't think about competition at all. They think about what they can do sometimes in practice. It took me quite some time before I started winning consistently in 4.0 and I only got bumped to 4.5 recently.

raiden031
02-17-2009, 07:11 PM
Is "5.5 - 2.5" a typo?

No it was a joke. I don't think true 5.5s would usually even refer to themselves by NTRP (unless they spent too much time on this board), but would describe themselves in terms of ranking.

Moses Man
02-18-2009, 08:43 AM
Well, I used to self-rate at 4.0 and beat a guy 6-1 who was on a 3.5 league. This past fall I played on a 4.0 flex league for the first time and finished 3-2...

In general though, most people I meet do tend to over-rate themselves--I advertise as 4.0, but a lot of 3.0s end up contacting me...

JavierLW
02-18-2009, 09:15 AM
So far, I'd pretty much agree. Most self-rated players would most likely have trouble in that level of league play. I generally tell people to self-rate as low as the computer will allow them, and I think any voluntary self-rating at 4.5 and above is pretty much asking for a beatdown (not including former college players and/or juniors who are obligated to use this minimal rating). Even 4.0 is a risk for someone who hasn't played official league.

Here's another question: do you attribute this discrepancy to an inflated sense of skill among self-rated players, or to sandbagging tendencies among league players?

It's partially because players are self rating too low (not too high), so it creates the phenemonon that raiden describes. (where you can be at almost any level and find competitive matches as low as 3.0)

It's also because some people who drill well and are told by their teaching pros that they are rating "4.0" do not necessarily have the match experience to make it thru a real match at first, even sometimes in a 3.0 league.... (I find that a lot of that is mental more then anything)

Or sometimes they do play but it's at their local club with people that they know very well so they are not comfortable when they get in a league match or a tournament in a strange setting against someone they dont know.

Sublime
02-18-2009, 09:21 AM
Do the names Jamarcus Russell, Vernon Gholston, and Ted Ginn Jr. ring a bell?

That is a list of guys who received 7 (and in some cases 8 ) figure signing bonuses before they played an NFL snap... what was your point?

LeeD
02-18-2009, 09:34 AM
Bulldog...
I know a little about basketball. My ability to hit 95% in practice does NOT translate to even 80% in game situations, especially tight, competitive games. That is true about almost every basketball player, except maybe the top few in each LEAGUE.
And when the high school coaches scouted our junior high for football players, we needed more than catch and throw, run, jump, start and stop, they talked extensively with our coaches about our character, practice habits, ability to absorb information, and generalities like parental support, growth spurts, friends, and scholastic achievements. Everyone who was even slightly considered had played school sports at least 3 semesters if not more, and usually was the star player on the team.
That was in 1963.

raiden031
02-18-2009, 10:21 AM
Bulldog...
I know a little about basketball. My ability to hit 95% in practice does NOT translate to even 80% in game situations, especially tight, competitive games. That is true about almost every basketball player, except maybe the top few in each LEAGUE.
And when the high school coaches scouted our junior high for football players, we needed more than catch and throw, run, jump, start and stop, they talked extensively with our coaches about our character, practice habits, ability to absorb information, and generalities like parental support, growth spurts, friends, and scholastic achievements. Everyone who was even slightly considered had played school sports at least 3 semesters if not more, and usually was the star player on the team.
That was in 1963.

Selection of top-quality players for recognition/drafting/recruiting is very subjective in team sports. I played high school football and when they award all-state/all-area honors to players, it often has little to do with results, because obviously they are at the mercy of their teammates' performance, and some positions do not generate stats for more objective measurements. The leading rusher in an area might get first-team honors because of their stats, but how do you determine how good an O-line player is? They have to watch what they do out on the field and subjectively determine if the player is good or not. I remember a couple all-area players whose teams had losing records, but the players were still discovered and recognized somehow.

LeeD
02-18-2009, 10:27 AM
Cool !
Not sure how it relates to my post, however.
Most often, the "best" player on our teams was the one who stood out above the rest, had the teams full support, the coach's support, and the facultie's full support. Seemed fair enough to me.

OnyxZ28
02-18-2009, 10:40 AM
Blah blah blah, and then one time, at band camp ...

Verno Inferno
02-18-2009, 11:14 AM
I think the guidelines for self-rating are only a good starting point. I hadn't played for a number of years and read the guidelines for 4.0 and 3.5. I was all, "Hey. That 3.5 sounds a lot more like me than the 4.0." So I entered a 3.5 league and got absolutely smoked. Dropped to 3.0/3.25 and learned that's where I belong.

I learned that just because I CAN do the things in the 4.0/3.5 when I'm playing with my pals/family, doesn't mean I can execute them at all when I'm in real competition.

It was a good learning experience.

Anyway. 4.0 description: "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shots. You can use lobs, overheads, approach shots and volleys with some success and occasionally force errors when serving. Rallies may be lost due to impatience. Teamwork in doubles is evident."

Anybody who's played highschool level at all thinks they are this person. Personally... I underestimated what these terms from that description REALLY mean: dependable, directional control, moderate-paced shots, some success. To me, those described my game. But sheesh. I was wrong.

A lot of us who self-rate from scratch, have no idea what these terms really mean until we start competing.

Toxicmilk
02-18-2009, 11:22 AM
actually free throw practice and game situation is the exact same...since no one is on you.

.....you cannot be serious.

dman72
02-18-2009, 11:28 AM
I think the guidelines for self-rating are only a good starting point. I hadn't played for a number of years and read the guidelines for 4.0 and 3.5. I was all, "Hey. That 3.5 sounds a lot more like me than the 4.0." So I entered a 3.5 league and got absolutely smoked. Dropped to 3.0/3.25 and learned that's where I belong.

I learned that just because I CAN do the things in the 4.0/3.5 when I'm playing with my pals/family, doesn't mean I can execute them at all when I'm in real competition.

It was a good learning experience.

Anyway. 4.0 description: "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shots. You can use lobs, overheads, approach shots and volleys with some success and occasionally force errors when serving. Rallies may be lost due to impatience. Teamwork in doubles is evident."

Anybody who's played highschool level at all thinks they are this person. Personally... I underestimated what these terms from that description REALLY mean: dependable, directional control, moderate-paced shots, some success. To me, those described my game. But sheesh. I was wrong.

A lot of us who self-rate from scratch, have no idea what these terms really mean until we start competing.

Good points. I can force more than a few errors on serve, but the other descriptions of a 4.0, in terms of a match situation, are iffy, hence, I'm really a 3.5.

Sublime
02-18-2009, 11:29 AM
.....you cannot be serious.

It's exactly the same... just like hitting second serves in practice is just like hitting a second serve on breakpoint.

dman72
02-18-2009, 12:03 PM
It's exactly the same... just like hitting second serves in practice is just like hitting a second serve on breakpoint.


..at center court at Wimbledon. Same thing. :)

MegacedU
02-18-2009, 12:11 PM
In my mind, you graduate from Rating X when you beat a Rating Y.

Sublime
02-18-2009, 12:47 PM
In my mind, you graduate from Rating X when you beat a Rating Y.

But what if Rating Y player got his ranking from going on to the USTA website and said, "Ohh... I can hit a backhand and forehand cross court, that makes me a 3.5"

Verno Inferno
02-18-2009, 01:12 PM
But what if Rating Y player got his ranking from going on to the USTA website and said, "Ohh... I can hit a backhand and forehand cross court, that makes me a 3.5"

Exactly! I went 7 - 7 in the 3.0/3.25 league. Some of those guys beat me easily and I beat some of them easily. Ya need a good cross-section.

Also: if I beat a 3.5 or 4.0 player simply because he can't deal with my style of play or I'm "on" that day.... that doesn't make me a 3.5 or 4.0 player. Yet. :) It may mean I have 3.5 and 4.0 tendancies and when I execute well, I can compete with some people at that level. But i'm not gonna fool myself into thinking I'm better than I am until the league moves me up and I have a respectable record. Even if it's a losing record.

Also Also: now I'm fascinated by the free throw talk.

MegacedU
02-18-2009, 01:14 PM
But what if Rating Y player got his ranking from going on to the USTA website and said, "Ohh... I can hit a backhand and forehand cross court, that makes me a 3.5"

I was speaking in terms of league play.

Okazaki Fragment
02-18-2009, 01:39 PM
Exactly! I went 7 - 7 in the 3.0/3.25 league. Some of those guys beat me easily and I beat some of them easily. Ya need a good cross-section.

Also: if I beat a 3.5 or 4.0 player simply because he can't deal with my style of play or I'm "on" that day.... that doesn't make me a 3.5 or 4.0 player. Yet. :) It may mean I have 3.5 and 4.0 tendancies and when I execute well, I can compete with some people at that level. But i'm not gonna fool myself into thinking I'm better than I am until the league moves me up and I have a respectable record. Even if it's a losing record.



Have you ever beaten a 4.0? I can't imagine in any circumstances where a 4.0 would lose to a real 3.0.

GPB
02-18-2009, 02:05 PM
I think the guidelines for self-rating are only a good starting point. I hadn't played for a number of years and read the guidelines for 4.0 and 3.5. I was all, "Hey. That 3.5 sounds a lot more like me than the 4.0." So I entered a 3.5 league and got absolutely smoked. Dropped to 3.0/3.25 and learned that's where I belong.

I learned that just because I CAN do the things in the 4.0/3.5 when I'm playing with my pals/family, doesn't mean I can execute them at all when I'm in real competition.

It was a good learning experience.

Anyway. 4.0 description: "You have dependable strokes, including directional control and depth on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate-paced shots. You can use lobs, overheads, approach shots and volleys with some success and occasionally force errors when serving. Rallies may be lost due to impatience. Teamwork in doubles is evident."

Anybody who's played highschool level at all thinks they are this person. Personally... I underestimated what these terms from that description REALLY mean: dependable, directional control, moderate-paced shots, some success. To me, those described my game. But sheesh. I was wrong.

A lot of us who self-rate from scratch, have no idea what these terms really mean until we start competing.

Me too, almost exactly the same situation.

raiden031
02-18-2009, 02:53 PM
In my mind, you graduate from Rating X when you beat a Rating Y.

In USTA leagues the computer can move you to rating Y without ever playing against a rated Y player. Would you say the computer is inaccurate when it moves someone up like that?

raiden031
02-18-2009, 02:56 PM
Have you ever beaten a 4.0? I can't imagine in any circumstances where a 4.0 would lose to a real 3.0.

I think its possible if you take someone who at 3.0 has a very aggressive game (obviously inconsisent though hence the 3.0 rating) and they are having a great day, and they play against a 4.0 having a very bad day. Not a common scenario but wouldn't rule it out. I beat a 4.0 when I was a weaker 3.5 in 3 sets, and it was a bit of a fluke because he crushed me the second time we played.

Verno Inferno
02-18-2009, 03:23 PM
Have you ever beaten a 4.0? I can't imagine in any circumstances where a 4.0 would lose to a real 3.0.

Not in the last nine years. But 9 years ago when I was competing at 3.5/3.75, yes. Once. I believe he traveled cross-country the night before and got precisely zero hours of sleep and it was about 108 degrees. He looked like road-kill.

Also, Raiden makes a good point about inconsistent, winner-happy morons like myself can---on that magical day---accidently beat someone who self-rates a little higher than us.

Shoot. Oklahoma City Thunder have managed to win 13 games in the National Basketball Association. On those days, I bet Durant accidently shoots 65%.

:)

Okazaki Fragment
02-18-2009, 03:28 PM
I think its possible if you take someone who at 3.0 has a very aggressive game (obviously inconsisent though hence the 3.0 rating) and they are having a great day, and they play against a 4.0 having a very bad day. Not a common scenario but wouldn't rule it out. I beat a 4.0 when I was a weaker 3.5 in 3 sets, and it was a bit of a fluke because he crushed me the second time we played.

Well, that's the thing. No matter how aggressive the 3.0 is, there is no way he can be aggressive on deep moon balls. And any 4.0 can toss up those kind of shots no matter how bad of a day they are having. And no 3.0 will have a well developed enough net game to counter that kind of junk-balling.

I can see a 3.5 taking out a 4.0 but 3.0 is just too much. 3.0s are basically beginners.

Okazaki Fragment
02-18-2009, 03:31 PM
Not in the last nine years. But 9 years ago when I was competing at 3.5/3.75, yes. Once. I believe he traveled cross-country the night before and got precisely zero hours of sleep and it was about 108 degrees. He looked like road-kill.

Also, Raiden makes a good point about inconsistent, winner-happy morons like myself can---on that magical day---accidently beat someone who self-rates a little higher than us.

Shoot. Oklahoma City Thunder have managed to win 13 games in the National Basketball Association. On those days, I bet Durant accidently shoots 65%.

:)

Ha. But I bet if your skill set was regressed to a couple years earlier (at a 3.0 level), you couldn't have beaten that road-kill 4.0.

Verno Inferno
02-18-2009, 03:41 PM
Ha. But I bet if your skill set was regressed to a couple years earlier (at a 3.0 level), you couldn't have beaten that road-kill 4.0.

:) I totally agree with you. When I'm playing like I'm a 3.0, I couldn't beat a 4.0 even if his bachelor party was the night before and his boys dropped him off at the court in the same clothes he put on the night before and handed him a ping-pong paddle.

LeeD
02-18-2009, 05:49 PM
Ha ha..
My first serve was close to 3.0 today. 4 out of maybe 60 in two long sets....:evil::evil:
Lucky my second serve decided to ascend towards 5.5 levels, hitting side lines consistently out wide, bouncing well over a 5'10" players head, and actually hitting the lefty guy twice.
Oh, my dropshots were 3.0 also. That rabbit got to every one and hit good approach's every time..:confused:

MegacedU
02-18-2009, 06:26 PM
In USTA leagues the computer can move you to rating Y without ever playing against a rated Y player. Would you say the computer is inaccurate when it moves someone up like that?

I would absolutely say the computer is inaccurate in that case.

GeoffB
02-18-2009, 08:40 PM
I self rated too high at first as well. Thing is, I was really very systematic about it. I played some NTRP 4.0s in friendlies, then joined a USTA 4.0 flex league and went 6-3. At that point, I was invited to join a 4.0 team, so I foolishly self-rated 4.0.

Team league, as it turns out, is a lot more competitive than flex league, and I went 1-5 and got bumped down to 3.5. This is one reason I caution people a lot about self rating, especially if they plan to play league.

raiden031
02-19-2009, 03:43 AM
I would absolutely say the computer is inaccurate in that case.

I got moved to 4.0 after playing precisely 11 3.0 matches in a row. Most of those opponents got moved to 3.5 at year-end and I bageled a few of them, and won a few more easily (although I did lose one close singles match). So would you say based on the fact that I beat these type of players that the system made a mistake with my rating? I will say that I can beat most 3.5 players in singles in my sleep right now. But I have no clue how I would do against 4.0s, because I played a few in the summer and lost usually like 6-3 type sets, but not nearly enough matches to gauge where I fit in.

raiden031
02-19-2009, 03:57 AM
I self rated too high at first as well. Thing is, I was really very systematic about it. I played some NTRP 4.0s in friendlies, then joined a USTA 4.0 flex league and went 6-3. At that point, I was invited to join a 4.0 team, so I foolishly self-rated 4.0.

Team league, as it turns out, is a lot more competitive than flex league, and I went 1-5 and got bumped down to 3.5. This is one reason I caution people a lot about self rating, especially if they plan to play league.

I had been playing tennis off and on for like 5 years prior to joining USTA. Back in summer '06 I moved to my current area and discovered the USTA leagues. Although it was too late to join for that season, but I did meet a couple league players by finding some ladders and pickup games. I played against a 3.0 player and beat him easily. So I joined a 3.5 ladder assuming that I must be a 3.5. Hahahah I got crushed by every 3.5 I played. Then I joined another ladder and lost to every 3.5 and at least half the 3.0 players. I was a little shocked because I had better strokes than all of them, but could hardly win a match. Thats when I hit rock bottom and joined this board basically and learned alot about my own game and about tennis in general. That is what happens when you go from weekend warrior tennis to competitive tennis, it really humbles you at first.

VERRIC
02-19-2009, 05:51 AM
I self rated too high at first as well. Thing is, I was really very systematic about it. I played some NTRP 4.0s in friendlies, then joined a USTA 4.0 flex league and went 6-3. At that point, I was invited to join a 4.0 team, so I foolishly self-rated 4.0.

Team league, as it turns out, is a lot more competitive than flex league, and I went 1-5 and got bumped down to 3.5. This is one reason I caution people a lot about self rating, especially if they plan to play league.

That because some of the Flex league players do not have enough time to practice like a league player for a team.

GPB
02-19-2009, 07:11 AM
I was a little shocked because I had better strokes than all of them, but could hardly win a match. Thats when I hit rock bottom and joined this board basically and learned alot about my own game and about tennis in general. That is what happens when you go from weekend warrior tennis to competitive tennis, it really humbles you at first.

This!!!

My strokes are miles better than most of the guys I play, but I'm something like 1-6 in 2009. It sucks. I just started having my wife video me when I play, and I've seen a few things I can work on, but seriously... it's pretty frustrating!

LeeD
02-19-2009, 08:50 AM
Strokes are just strokes.
Matchplay determines how good you really are.
Around here, plenty of fluid, hard hitting, good form players. Most I can beat 2-3, with my akward forehand and sliced backhands. I'm 4.0. Lefty.
Movement, anticipation, patience, knowing WHEN to do WHAT determines winning or losing, at that comes with experience.

drakulie
02-19-2009, 09:20 AM
That is what happens when you go from weekend warrior tennis to competitive tennis, it really humbles you at first.

Well said, raiden.

the difference is night and day.

MegacedU
02-19-2009, 09:45 AM
I got moved to 4.0 after playing precisely 11 3.0 matches in a row. Most of those opponents got moved to 3.5 at year-end and I bageled a few of them, and won a few more easily (although I did lose one close singles match). So would you say based on the fact that I beat these type of players that the system made a mistake with my rating? I will say that I can beat most 3.5 players in singles in my sleep right now. But I have no clue how I would do against 4.0s, because I played a few in the summer and lost usually like 6-3 type sets, but not nearly enough matches to gauge where I fit in.

Like I said, someone isn't a 4.5 just because they can beat the 4.0s. In order to know if you're competitive with 4.5s you have to play with the 4.5s know what I mean?

GeoffB
02-19-2009, 11:08 AM
That because some of the Flex league players do not have enough time to practice like a league player for a team.

Interestingly, well over half of the flex league players were active team players - and probably 50% had genuine 4.0 computer ratings based on league play. However, while my overall record in the flex league was 6-3, I only went 2-2 against these players (the others either had no computer rating or were 3.5s or lower).

Still, you'd think a 50% winning record against computer rated 4.0s would mean I'd do fine in the league, right? Nope. At this level, you do have to differentiate between doubles and singles specialists. All of the 4.0s I played in Flex were doubles team players using the flex league to enjoy a bit of singles play. It's a very different experience to play singles specialists who get one of the two singles spots on a team each year. A lot of 3.5s who play singles would take out 4.0s who mainly play doubles (in a singles match, of course).

goober
02-19-2009, 12:33 PM
That because some of the Flex league players do not have enough time to practice like a league player for a team.

IMO it has very little to do with how much time you have to practice. Team tennis has very different set of incentives. If you are a very strong player at your level or even better- a sandbagger that is playing out of level you are a very valuable commodity in team tennis. Lots of teams will want you. So keep your ratings down is the key, especially among adults in the 40+ range in age who aren't really going to get that much better most likely if they are already at 4.0-4.5 level.

In flex league you are just playing for yourself so many people want to play up for better competition.

GeoffB
02-19-2009, 12:55 PM
.

In flex league you are just playing for yourself so many people want to play up for better competition.

Very true. Because Flex league doesn't count toward your formal computer rating, you can play up without being in danger of getting bumped up.

A few people abused this (some 3.0s played the 4.0 flex league and lost almost every match 6-1, 6-0), so there's a new "rule" saying you can't play up more than half a step.

It's a good idea, but frustrating for me. I went 7-1 in my last 4.0 flex league, but I'm technically not allowed to play 4.5 flex because I'm a 3.5 computer rated player. So it's hard to say what to do here...

goober
02-19-2009, 01:07 PM
Very true. Because Flex league doesn't count toward your formal computer rating, you can play up without being in danger of getting bumped up.

A few people abused this (some 3.0s played the 4.0 flex league and lost almost every match 6-1, 6-0), so there's a new "rule" saying you can't play up more than half a step.

It's a good idea, but frustrating for me. I went 7-1 in my last 4.0 flex league, but I'm technically not allowed to play 4.5 flex because I'm a 3.5 computer rated player. So it's hard to say what to do here...

If flex leagues counted it towards your rating, it would be a way too easy and convenient method to keep your rating down. You could tank a match and it wouldn't hurt your team and you could maintain your rating. How nice is that?:twisted: Heck you could make week to week adjustments depending on how you did on your last team match- lol.

Flex leagues are kind of a peripheral, fun thing IMO. The way they keep records is different from the leagues and tourneys which are public and they keep them for years (10 or so?). My 2 bits is that the USTA saw Peach and Ultimate leagues were popular and making money. USTA wanted in.

EikelBeiter
02-19-2009, 01:16 PM
I still think it's an odd system.

Around here we get a tennis card with your rating on it. Disadvantage is you can't have these nice debates about what rating you are :)