Hmmmm....soyizgood made a comment in his "doomed" thread that made me wonder...

[mtommer]

What NTRP level do you personally consider to be an average tennis player? Me, my level is at least a 6.0. The reason for this is that there are thousands of 6.0 players in this world. Given that the ITF circuit constantly sees players coming and going it's probably more like tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. To me, this tells me that there are too many people who have played at the 6.0 level for it not to be achievable by most people. The limiting factors would be time, money, other obligations, etc. that keep "avg. Joe" from reaching their potential in tennis, not physical and mental ability.

Of course, this isn't an argument that 6,0 is what the avg should be. Frankly, the avg. is merely a numbers game and not really arguable. It's just my own feelings on the subject. Not that I'm even close to being a 6.0, heck, I'd be lucky to win against a 3.0 not to mention just winning a game. Of course this makes me really bad compared to my own personal standards and of course I agree. It's all the more reason to get even better if you ask me!!! :D

[LeeD]

Ratings are like a triangle, heavy at the bottom, much lighter at the top. So the average.... do you mean average as in graph? Or average as in level of skill per all the players?
Then, what is a tennis player? Once a year, once a century? Or more often.
I'd think 3.0 is a pretty good bet for once a month players.
Hundreds of thousands players, 50% right there, or a little below.
A 4.5 would maybe consitute 15% of the total players.

[GuyClinch]

I dont know what your talking about. There are not ten's of thousands of 6.0 players in the world. Even a 5.5 is AMAZINGLY good.

[mtommer]

How many Div I schools are there in the US? How many have 6.0 level players? How many for Div II and Div III? And last year? The year before that? Five years ago? I'm sure all those players aren't dead. How about international schools? What about tennis academies? People who have never played tournament tennis but are still good enough? What about all the players on the ITF circuit? What about all the players who played on the circuit last year but aren't playing this year? How many newcomers? I'm guessing the number of 6.0 players in the world right now are more than ten thousand. I'm talking about people than can keep up and hit toe to toe with any given 6.0 (by match win results) player.

[mtommer]

Ratings are like a triangle, heavy at the bottom, much lighter at the top. So the average.... do you mean average as in graph? Or average as in level of skill per all the players?
Then, what is a tennis player? Once a year, once a century? Or more often.
I'd think 3.0 is a pretty good bet for once a month players.
Hundreds of thousands players, 50% right there, or a little below.
A 4.5 would maybe consitute 15% of the total players.

I mean average to YOU. I mean the level that you consider for yourself to be passable as good tennis but not yet especially good.

And yes everyone, this is entirely subjective. This thread isn't about debating the level but rather sharing. I'm just curious what people think, that's all.

[raiden031]

How many Div I schools are there in the US? How many have 6.0 level players? How many for Div II and Div III? And last year? The year before that? Five years ago? I'm sure all those players aren't dead. How about international schools? What about tennis academies? People who have never played tournament tennis but are still good enough? What about all the players on the ITF circuit? What about all the players who played on the circuit last year but aren't playing this year? How many newcomers? I'm guessing the number of 6.0 players in the world right now are more than ten thousand. I'm talking about people than can keep up and hit toe to toe with any given 6.0 (by match win results) player.

Lets say there are ten thousand 6.0 players in the world. If they constitute the top 1% of all players, that would mean there are only 1 million tennis players in the world. That is obviously not true. There are probably tens of millions of players in the world, which means that like 99.9% of all players are BELOW 6.0. So it is ludicrous to say the average player is a 6.0.

I think that most people could reach 4.5 if they put in the effort, but only those with talent will go higher to 5.0+. Most league players who play the sport regularly (several times a week) during adulthood will only reach 3.5, maybe 4.0 at best. Usually its those who got training as kids that end up at 4.5 or higher.

So statistically the average regular player is a 3.5, and is playing below their true potential.

[CoachingMastery]

While this might not address the op's question exactly, here is my take on this concept:

85% of all tennis players are 3.0 to 3.5.

Of these, 80% are playing well below their potential.

Like someone who learns to type or play the piano only using their index fingers, (where such people will never type or play the piano within their potential), tennis players who learn rudementary methods/techniques seldom-if ever-will play tennis within their potential.

Likewise, the vast majority of recreational and club tennis players learned to play tennis using rudementary or mediocre strokes and techniques. Because competitive play nearly always makes player revert back to the player's most familiar stroke patterns, (because the will to win supercedes the will to employ more unfamiliar methods that "feel" like they will fail), it is very difficult for these players to make significant changes in their game once they realize they are playing within patterns that will generally prevent them from reaching higher levels of play...even if such methods are within reach athletically within most of these players.

The problem is the way most players pick up tennis: they go out with their friends, wife, husband, boyfriend, etc., and use methods that they PERCEIVE as ways to get the ball over the net to their hitting partner. These methods are almost never, (and I do mean almost never!), even close to being skilled methods. Nor, do such methods contribute to a player moving to advanced levels of play as they continue to play.

The general pattern is that such players, at some point, decide, "hey, I think I'd like to play better...it looks like a lot more fun when I see those good players rally, play and hit more effective shots on command. I want to do that too." Then, these players head over to the teaching pro or club for some lessons or clinics. They discover that the techniques being taught feel very uncomfortable and unfamiliar, especially since they know they can "get the ball over the net" using what ever method they started playing and figured out a way to get the ball over the net initially.

Thus, the player continues to use those inferior methods for life, basically. The minute they try to hit harder, or with more spin, or with more angles, or with more control, or with more finesse, etc., they find they can't (with any sense of consistency or command), and resort to reverting back to those methods that simply got the ball over the net with some level of consistency. (Albeit very 'simpleton' methods for the most part.)

Unfortunately, those methods fail not only when the player wants to hit more effective shots...but they fail even more when they try to DEFEND more effect shots by those who indeed achieved more skilled shot making methods. Thus, even if they do start "Hitting somewhat better shots," they seldom, if ever, can beat...let alone rally with someone who can hit more effective shots.

Something to consider by everyone who wants to play tennis.

[Topaz]

^^^Wow, *great* post!

[NLBwell]

Mtommer's thoughts about then number of 6.0 players is really the number of people who were at one time 6.0 players. Once these D-I college players graduate and aren't giving their lives over to playing tennis it probably only takes a couple months of little activity to start dropping to 5.5 and then much more time to drop to 5.0. At one time, there are probably only a couple thousand in the world. (Maybe less than a thousand U.S. college player-types and maybe two or three times that in the rest of the world - European club players, etc.).

[Steady Eddy]

Why did you chop off 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 on the low end, but allowed the upper end to go all the way to 7.0? Sure, it's extreme to think that the average player is a 1.0, but does it make any more sense to believe that the average player is a 7.0?

[mtommer]

Why did you chop off 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 on the low end, but allowed the upper end to go all the way to 7.0? Sure, it's extreme to think that the average player is a 1.0, but does it make any more sense to believe that the average player is a 7.0?

There's only ten options available and I worked from 7.0 down. <shrugs> I had to start at one end of the spectrum. "Whacha want from me eh?" :D

[Steady Eddy]

There's only ten options available and I worked from 7.0 down. <shrugs> I had to start at one end of the spectrum. "Whacha want from me eh?" :DI didn't know that. (I hope I'm not talking to a Joe Pesci clone). But there're prolly alot more 1.5s than there are 7.0s. Still, still...there's plenty of choices and it's a good poll. Good Poll!

[CoachingMastery]

I didn't know that. (I hope I'm not talking to a Joe Pesci clone). But there're prolly alot more 1.5s than there are 7.0s. Still, still...there's plenty of choices and it's a good poll. Good Poll!

The only problem with this is that 99% of those at the 1.5 level will move out of those levels within a fairly short period of time (if they are playing with any regularity). Those who are at the 7.0 will be there (or around that ntrp) for a long time. So, it is hard to really quantify the numbers since the number of 1.5's are changing daily.

[soyizgood]

Hard to say because most tennis players don't even know what NTRP is.

Among players that know what NTRP is and have an NTRP rating, I'd say 3.5 is average.

Factoring newbies and weekend warriors, it's probably 2.5-3.0 in my opinion.

[autumn_leaf]

deleted because of my stupidity

edit: i voted 3.0 because of many players that start out playing that just do it for fun and not for any improvement...hmm maybe i should've put 2.5....

[halalula1234]

for me i dont really pay much attention to ratings im only like 4 and bee playin for a long time cus i dnt play much anymore. so as long as i can beat some player of a rating higher than me i think im the better one i guess

[Steady Eddy]

The only problem with this is that 99% of those at the 1.5 level will move out of those levels within a fairly short period of time (if they are playing with any regularity). Those who are at the 7.0 will be there (or around that ntrp) for a long time. So, it is hard to really quantify the numbers since the number of 1.5's are changing daily.The 1.5s will move out of that category soon...if they stay with it. I think many don't. Many don't play again, only to be replaced by new beginners, of whom, only a small fraction will stay with it. So if you drive around some weekend looking at the players on the public courts, you'll see almost nothing but beginners. It's not that they can't or don't improve. It's just that most don't return to the courts, or if they do, only sporadically.

[mawashi]

The 1.5s will move out of that category soon...if they stay with it. I think many don't. Many don't play again, only to be replaced by new beginners, of whom, only a small fraction will stay with it. So if you drive around some weekend looking at the players on the public courts, you'll see almost nothing but beginners. It's not that they can't or don't improve. It's just that most don't return to the courts, or if they do, only sporadically.

If 1.5 or thereabouts are the least populated rankings due to improvements or drop outs then what is the most common ranking... 3, 3.5?

mawashi

[Cindysphinx]

Here are some fun numbers for our league. For spring 2009, here are the numbers of registered female players at each level:

2.5 -- 27
3.0 -- 317
3.5 -- 325
4.0 -- 197
4.5 -- 51

TOTAL: 917

These numbers don't sift out anyone who is playing up.

So your average player is, um . . . can someone do the math? I'd guess the average player is about 3.589963. Or so.

Actually, this is kind of interesting to see. The previous year, there were far more 3.0s than 3.5s (398 v. 354). I wonder what that trend means . . .

Cindy -- who has to admire the pluck of the 2.5 men, because there are two teams (one with six players, one with four)

[raiden031]

Here are some fun numbers for our league. For spring 2009, here are the numbers of registered female players at each level:

2.5 -- 27
3.0 -- 317
3.5 -- 325
4.0 -- 197
4.5 -- 51

TOTAL: 917

These numbers don't sift out anyone who is playing up.

So your average player is, um . . . can someone do the math? I'd guess the average player is about 3.589963. Or so.

Actually, this is kind of interesting to see. The previous year, there were far more 3.0s than 3.5s (398 v. 354). I wonder what that trend means . . .

Cindy -- who has to admire the pluck of the 2.5 men, because there are two teams (one with six players, one with four)

Actually the average is below 3.5, not above it because there are many more players below 3.5 than above it.

In my league, the 3.5 division has gotten huge in both men's and women's while the 3.0 divisions are shrinking. I think what is going on is that there is a lack of new players joining the leagues. So most of the league players are veterans and approaching their peak (3.5), and not too many people replacing them at 3.0. I'm not sure what that means, except maybe there are less and less people taking up the sport for whatever reason.

[Sublime]

Here are some fun numbers for our league. For spring 2009, here are the numbers of registered female players at each level:

2.5 -- 27
3.0 -- 317
3.5 -- 325
4.0 -- 197
4.5 -- 51

TOTAL: 917

These numbers don't sift out anyone who is playing up.

So your average player is, um . . . can someone do the math?

The mean (average) rating is a 3.461... let's just say 3.5. The mode (the most frequent level) and the median (the rating of the person that would be considered 50th percentile) are both also 3.5.

So pretty much by every statistical evaluation, the answer is 3.5 according to that data.

[Steady Eddy]

The mean (average) rating is a 3.461... let's just say 3.5. The mode (the most frequent level) and the median (the rating of the person that would be considered 50th percentile) are both also 3.5.

So pretty much by every statistical evaluation, the answer is 3.5 according to that data.Hey! Your forgot to give us the median. Also, while we're at it, what's the standard deviation?

[Mr. Blond]

CoachingMastery summed it all up the best.

Most people learn to play first with poor techniques that later become crutches that inhibit progress.

As a coach I see that all the time with a chopping slice backhand. At the lower levels it wins points because lower players can't read the bounce well. At the upper levels it becomes a liability and not remotely close to a weapon. The player that has used it though never transitions to a topspin backhand because it is so much easier to hit. Instead of putting in the work to overcome this....they just say they have a weak backhand. The truth is they never really learned how to hit a topspin backhand and never will.


learn sh#t, Practice Sh#t, under pressure Play Sh#t.....it is just that simple.

[LeeD]

Those #'s almost constitute exactly my thoughts on post #2.

[Sublime]

Hey! Your forgot to give us the median. Also, while we're at it, what's the standard deviation?

I did put the median in there... who looks stupid now?!? Ohh wait... still me, I see what you did there :)

PS. The standard deviation is 0.43... I need help

[EtePras]

If the way people here rate videos is right, then 99.9% of players are 3.0 or lower.

[SystemicAnomaly]

There's only ten options available and I worked from 7.0 down. <shrugs> I had to start at one end of the spectrum. "Whacha want from me eh?" :D

I would have started at the other end, with 1.0 and work upward. For your 10th option, you could've had 5.5 and higher.


The only problem with this is that 99% of those at the 1.5 level will move out of those levels within a fairly short period of time (if they are playing with any regularity). Those who are at the 7.0 will be there (or around that ntrp) for a long time. So, it is hard to really quantify the numbers since the number of 1.5's are changing daily.

I would think that a huge % of those in the 1.0 to 1.5 range actually give up tennis after a very short time (after a few attempts, a few weeks, or a few months).

[CoachingMastery]

I would think that a huge % of those in the 1.0 to 1.5 range actually give up tennis after a very short time (after a few attempts, a few weeks, or a few months).

I would agree...except that most don't totally "give up" ...they just don't play it much. Sort of like people who go bowling only once every five years or play darts once every ten years. (Like me!)

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Yes, this is true but I also think that there also many (millions?) who find that tennis is much harder than it looks and give it up completely after only a few attempts.

[Tennis Dunce]

Tennis is a tremendously difficult sport, and in an era of instant gratification and satisfaction, especially here in America, most people move on (hopefully after they've already purchased their $200 sticks and then donated them,...which I subsequently pick up for 3 bucks...thanks mates:)).

Here in America we have way too many other sports which take away from the talent pool...err see Ryan Harrison and Donald Young...they are the future.:oops: Roddick and Blake are the worst American 1 and 2 ever. It's kinda hard to believe we've had the best doubles team in the world for quite some time now.

This doesn't help the cause in getting tennis more popular in a country where more people would rather watch cars turn left for 3 hours.

Our pipeline is nonexistent because baseball, football, soccer, (many more good, young soccer players here in the states than tennis players...interesting because internationally we suck at that too), and many other sports siphon away any raw athletic ability that could be molded into a tennis specific superstar.

Also quite simply, soccer is far easier than tennis...hence more players.

I believe a 6.0 in America is different than a 6.0 in Europe, Australia, or South America (I know they don't have NTRP's there). I believe a 6.0 here would be like a 5.0 there more than likely.

We simply got lucky with Sampras...because he worshipped tennis as a young kid. Unfortunately, we'll probably never have such a dynamic player again.

[SystemicAnomaly]

... Roddick and Blake are the worst American 1 and 2 ever...

While Andy may not be as dominant Pete or Jimmy (Conners), he is certainly a force to be reckoned with. Don't forget that he has remained in the top 10 since 2002. Only one other current player can make that claim -- Roger Federer.

Other than that, you've made some excellent points.

[Tennis Dunce]

^^ I did not mean to imply that Roddick doesn't deserve any respect for what he has accomplished (other than stealing Nalbandian's U.S. Open).

I should have used other words perhaps.

[CoachingMastery]

I've written a series of articles on the state of American Tennis (for tennisone.com). As a former physical education teacher and high school biology teacher, I can attest to the demise of tennis in the U.S. high schools; and as a teaching pro for over 30 years, we see the same things in clubs and tennis facilities all across the country:

My experience is that tennis is projected to be a 'simple sport'...look at the usta's "Learn tennis FAST"...for their 'welcome centers.'

The gist is that tennis can be learned fast and that anyone can do it. While I believe ALMOST anyone can indeed become a very skilled player, this 'marketing' slogan is not going to interest any really good athlete who is looking for sports that are challenging or demanding. It is almost like tennis is being marketed to be on par with horseshoes, backgammon or shuffleboard.

99% of the best athletes go out for baseball, football, basketball, etc. Softball, swimming, cheerleading for girls. (Look at the level of difficulty for cheerleaders now on television!)

As a former hs coach of 28 seasons, it was always interesting to get a top-level athlete. They can do so much more so much faster. However, that said, I've had some of my best tennis players start off as mediocre athletes. But, desire and being taught an "advanced foundation" (for those who have read my books!), usually can achieve skilled play.

But, consider that in the U.S. only 1% of the best athletes in junior high or high school even think of playing tennis. (Amazing how many former football stars come to me years later and regret never learning tennis as a kid!)

Now, consider tennis in other, smaller countries where some of the tennis players are considered "national heros"...

If the U.S. could attract even 10 to 20% of the top athletes we have, I believe we would dominate, (or, at least, have many more players in the top 100.) It is really sad that a country with as many opportunities can't produce more than a handful of top ranked men and women.

But, it doesn't surprise me why.

[Steady Eddy]

If the U.S. could attract even 10 to 20% of the top athletes we have, I believe we would dominate, (or, at least, have many more players in the top 100.) It is really sad that a country with as many opportunities can't produce more than a handful of top ranked men and women.

But, it doesn't surprise me why.
How do you explain the 80s, when the U.S. had: McEnroe, Connors, Chang, and Courrier? We probably didn't very often have the best athletes take up tennis back then either.

[mtommer]

I would have started at the other end, with 1.0 and work upward. For your 10th option, you could've had 5.5 and higher.


Well sure I coouuullldddd have done that but then I wouldn't have gotten to pick 6.0 for myself silly! http://www.mummybrain.com/images/smilies/guiltsmileyf.gif

[CoachingMastery]

How do you explain the 80s, when the U.S. had: McEnroe, Connors, Chang, and Courrier? We probably didn't very often have the best athletes take up tennis back then either.

Two things: In the mid 70's, tennis was in huge boom, we had the "battle of the sexes" between Riggs and Billie Jean King. Tennis clubs were being built in record numbers and numbers of courts. I was part of this era and we played every chance we got. Lighted courts at night in southern California were in high demand, you couldn't find an open court most of the time.

Back then, tennis wasn't being "dumbed down" in most mediums: most books at that time were stressing hard work, using good form (for that time), and tournaments too were all over. I remember playing the Arcadia and in what was then the "C" division, (equivilant now to 3.5), there were 8 pages of 64 players. I played 9 rounds before losing in the semis (when I was 15 years old). There wasn't a concept of "instant gratification" then, it seemed too.

Yet, I certainly would not classify Connors, McEnroe, or even Chang superior athletes. Jimmy and John were far from large, strong or even all that quick. Although, they had great hands, developed great stroke patterns, and faught for every point. There are some incredible athletes today on tour; but most of them are from other countries. Think Nadal, Safin, Haas, the William sisters, Mauresmo, et al...many of these players and many like them were rare back in the 70's and 80's.

The average tennis player of that era was probably around 5'11" or so. I remember Stan Smith was told he was too tall to be a good tennis player when he was young...and he was only 6'4" or so. Now you have guys like Isner, Karlovic, and others who are well above 6'6". Yet, even as great a player as Fed is, he is far from the norm today as far as strength and physique.

But that is the great thing about tennis; size is not the critical feature.

[sureshs]

Here are some fun numbers for our league. For spring 2009, here are the numbers of registered female players at each level:

2.5 -- 27
3.0 -- 317
3.5 -- 325
4.0 -- 197
4.5 -- 51

TOTAL: 917

These numbers don't sift out anyone who is playing up.

So your average player is, um . . . can someone do the math? I'd guess the average player is about 3.589963. Or so.

Actually, this is kind of interesting to see. The previous year, there were far more 3.0s than 3.5s (398 v. 354). I wonder what that trend means . . .

Cindy -- who has to admire the pluck of the 2.5 men, because there are two teams (one with six players, one with four)

Average is 3.46, less than 3.5 as was pointed out

[M J]

The question depends on the definition of "tennis player." If you define it as any person who has ever hit a tennis ball with a racquet, the average would probably be 2.0 or so.

I don't see what the distrubution of ratings in a league have to do with the question. There is no way that players in a league are representative of the population of "tennis players." People ranked below 3.5 or above 4.5 usually aren't interested in leagues, but they still think of themselves as tennis players.