PDA

View Full Version : How good is a 3 star recruit


skyzoo
10-05-2009, 03:24 PM
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be

goran_ace
10-05-2009, 05:41 PM
A 3-star prospect on tennisrecruiting is probably going to be something along the lines of a top 50 sectional ranking in a good section or top 25 in a weaker section.

tennismom42
10-05-2009, 06:22 PM
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would beTRN posted the blue chips today for the Top Prospects of class of 2010. Rest of numbers will likely post tomorrow or this week.

So a 3 star today, may not be a 3 star Friday.

T10s747
10-05-2009, 08:16 PM
3 stars basically suck.

ClarkC
10-05-2009, 10:34 PM
TRN posted the blue chips today for the Top Prospects of class of 2010. Rest of numbers will likely post tomorrow or this week.

So a 3 star today, may not be a 3 star Friday.

Actually, they update all the star ratings at once, not just blue chips. They were all updated today.

ClarkC
10-05-2009, 10:36 PM
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be

3 stars basically suck.

3-stars will be quite a bit better than the typical player who says he does not play many tournaments and does not know how good a 3-star player will be.

To the original poster, if you have played any tournaments at all, you can find the 3-star players your age in your state and see if you recognize any names. That will give you an idea, if you remember them from any tournaments.

cmb
10-06-2009, 10:09 AM
not very strong. Keep some balls in, tell him hes lucky when he hits a good shot and act like you are the better player in general. It should be enough to win against these guys.

tacoben
10-06-2009, 11:41 AM
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be

Try this:

Look up some some D2/D3 Colleges/Universities that have decent tennis programs, then look at their roster, google the names on the roster and find their TRN ratings/background. There, you'll likely find a few 3 star recruits to compare against.

skyzoo
10-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Try this:

Look up some some D2/D3 Colleges/Universities that have decent tennis programs, then look at their roster, google the names on the roster and find their TRN ratings/background. There, you'll likely find a few 3 star recruits to compare against.
alright man solid. I feel like I'll have a solid chance, it's really just that i don't play any sectional tournaments, which is why I have no stars.....

SourStraws
10-06-2009, 08:44 PM
My friend was a two star recruit and now plays for MIT...

S.S.

skyzoo
10-07-2009, 03:26 AM
My friend was a two star recruit and now plays for MIT...

S.S.
For some reason MIT seems like a lot of work and no fun.

USERNAME
10-07-2009, 01:55 PM
Stars mean nothing imo, look at match play. Look at who the player has beaten and look at the age of the players they beat. Iv seen guys play and beat kids 2-4 years younger then them (ranked high in their age group) in a small draw tourny which boosted their rank and rating. Iv played 2 pretty good 2-stars, one had a very consistant and spinny ground game and the other had a huge serve (115mph+ ALWAYS on 1st) and he didnt miss it often. Both guys hit deep and heavy shots and the big server loved net where he showed great touch. Legit 3-stars I played hit deep and heavy as well, but they also had very good changeup shots. 4-stars all the way to the bluechips outside the top-10 are very smart and can pick on weaknesses at will. Iv only played one top-10 player and it wasnt a USTA match, he had every shot, could hit all day and not miss, was very smart, showed no emotion, and had 2 very big weapons that he built points around. Weapons were the serve (120+ easily) and the forehand (could hit any spot.) 1-stars are all over the place, Iv seen as low as 3.5 1-star players because they beat much younger players who were playing WAY up in age.

SoCal10s
10-07-2009, 02:07 PM
some times those tennis recruiting star rating are so inaccurate.. a player I know beat a kid who is ranked above him 6-0,6-1.. sometimes when these players play less and win in a weak section,it elevates their rankings and stars or blue chip status .. looking at the win/lost ratios doesn't tell much either.. a guy in SoCal.. plays weak tournaments and wins them and when all the big boys comes out this same guy disappears,if he's gonna lose he'll retire and/or pull out of the tournament.. and he's a blue chip.. I give him credit for winning small tournaments ,but he's no 'blue chip' player .. especially when he retires so many matches..

skyzoo
10-07-2009, 04:25 PM
some times those tennis recruiting star rating are so inaccurate.. a player I know beat a kid who is ranked above him 6-0,6-1.. sometimes when these players play less and win in a weak section,it elevates their rankings and stars or blue chip status .. looking at the win/lost ratios doesn't tell much either.. a guy in SoCal.. plays weak tournaments and wins them and when all the big boys comes out this same guy disappears,if he's gonna lose he'll retire and/or pull out of the tournament.. and he's a blue chip.. I give him credit for winning small tournaments ,but he's no 'blue chip' player .. especially when he retires so many matches..
Solid man thanks. Like most people I see a ranking and I start to freeze up. I'll keep this in the back of my head though

ClarkC
10-07-2009, 07:47 PM
some times those tennis recruiting star rating are so inaccurate.. a player I know beat a kid who is ranked above him 6-0,6-1.. sometimes when these players play less and win in a weak section,it elevates their rankings and stars or blue chip status .. looking at the win/lost ratios doesn't tell much either.. a guy in SoCal.. plays weak tournaments and wins them and when all the big boys comes out this same guy disappears,if he's gonna lose he'll retire and/or pull out of the tournament.. and he's a blue chip.. I give him credit for winning small tournaments ,but he's no 'blue chip' player .. especially when he retires so many matches..

You cannot become a blue chip rated player by playing only "small tournaments." Your post is a complete bunch of nonsense. Why don't you post the name of this player and we can all check out his record.

Yes, yes, I know you will have the usual nonsense excuses for not posting his name. You are just making garbage up and I am calling you on it. Put up or shut up.

OleNole
10-08-2009, 01:17 PM
Skyzoo, do/did you play high school tennis? If so, in which state? If not, what club do you play at and where is it? By answerig these questions, we can give you some idea of the ratings of players in your area that you would probably know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you are talking about trying to walk on to a team who's worst player was a 3 star recruit- that's likely a top 25 team in the country. Realistically, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that someone who doesn't play tournaments regularly would be able to compete at that level. Perhaps you could just tell us: What university is this?

Gmedlo
10-08-2009, 04:19 PM
alright man solid. I feel like I'll have a solid chance, it's really just that i don't play any sectional tournaments, which is why I have no stars.....

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but if you are an unranked player, there is virtually no chance of you walking on to that team (if the lowest recruit is a 3 star). And chances are, if you don't know how solid a 3 star is, there is probably an even smaller chance that you would be able to beat one of those players.

deddied
10-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Stars mean nothing imo, look at match play. Look at who the player has beaten and look at the age of the players they beat. Iv seen guys play and beat kids 2-4 years younger then them (ranked high in their age group) in a small draw tourny which boosted their rank and rating. Iv played 2 2-stars, one had a very consistant and spinny ground game and the other had a huge serve (115mph+ ALWAYS on 1st) and he didnt miss it often. Both guys hit deep and heavy shots and the big server loved net where he showed great touch. Legit 3-stars I played hit deep and heavy as well, but they also had very good changeup shots. 4-stars all the way to the bluechips outside the top-10 are very smart and can pick on weaknesses at will. Iv only played one top-10 player and it wasnt a USTA match, he had every shot, could hit all day and not miss, was very smart, showed no emotion, and had 2 very big weapons that he built points around. Weapons were the serve (120+ easily) and the forehand (could hit any spot.) 1-stars are all over the place, Iv seen as low as 3.5 1-star players because they beat much younger players who were playing WAY up in age.


yeah i was a 1 star for the longest, but i beat ppl like mathew saiontz and 1# guy from florida tech. And those arent my best wins lol

skyzoo
10-09-2009, 09:50 AM
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but if you are an unranked player, there is virtually no chance of you walking on to that team (if the lowest recruit is a 3 star). And chances are, if you don't know how solid a 3 star is, there is probably an even smaller chance that you would be able to beat one of those players.
I'm not walking on bro. chill. I got a ranking, I just don't really get out to the events as much. I'll probably play practice squad but I really don't care.

Gmedlo
10-10-2009, 06:31 PM
m trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star.

Sounds like walking on to me, so you're only trying for a spot on the practice squad?

which is why I have no stars.....
I got a ranking, I just don't really get out to the events as much.

Ranked players on tennis recruiting always have a star. Otherwise they are unrated/unranked. I've never seen an unranked player beat a three star without later getting a much higher ranking (A foreign player that just moved to the U.S.) Just keep that in mind and don't set any high expectations for yourself.

skyzoo
10-10-2009, 07:29 PM
Sounds like walking on to me, so you're only trying for a spot on the practice squad?




Ranked players on tennis recruiting always have a star. Otherwise they are unrated/unranked. I've never seen an unranked player beat a three star without later getting a much higher ranking (A foreign player that just moved to the U.S.) Just keep that in mind and don't set any high expectations for yourself.
thanks brosef

cncretecwbo
10-14-2009, 08:31 AM
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.

skyzoo
10-14-2009, 11:44 AM
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.
I heavily agree with that statement

ClarkC
10-14-2009, 11:56 AM
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.

The star ratings are a head to head rating. Playing lots of tournaments does not help much if you are losing matches. The losses count against you. These are not like the USTA rankings, where your best 5 results count, so you can play 20 tournaments a year and count the best 5 and it does not matter if you lost in the first round of the other 15, or made the semifinals of all 15, because they don't count anyway.

Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.

cncretecwbo
10-14-2009, 06:47 PM
The star ratings are a head to head rating. Playing lots of tournaments does not help much if you are losing matches. The losses count against you. These are not like the USTA rankings, where your best 5 results count, so you can play 20 tournaments a year and count the best 5 and it does not matter if you lost in the first round of the other 15, or made the semifinals of all 15, because they don't count anyway.

Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.

well i didnt know how the star system works, but i stand by my statement that 3star only means how good someone [I]might[I] be. Ive seen 1 star players beat 3 star players pretty solidly. There is a huge range in skill level among 1-3 star tennis players and the overrated players seem to be ones who have played more tournaments than the underrated players.

ClarkC
10-15-2009, 08:22 PM
well i didnt know how the star system works, ...

I agree with this part of your post.

cncretecwbo
10-16-2009, 09:57 AM
I agree with this part of your post.

you dont have to believe the rest, why would i make up the fact that 1-stars do beat 3-stars solidly sometimes?

i mean, it does happen

ClarkC
10-17-2009, 08:29 AM
you dont have to believe the rest, why would i make up the fact that 1-stars do beat 3-stars solidly sometimes?

i mean, it does happen

Yes, and many times the lower ranked player beats the higher ranked player in a ATP Tour event. The difference is that people don't come here and post that the upset somehow indicates there is something wrong with the ATP computer rankings, or that the ATP rankings are unreliable in some way.

You could say that if a player is ranked #15 in the world on the ATP Tour, that it only indicates how good he might be, but does not assure that he will play at that level in every match. Of course. Is that worth posting?

cncretecwbo
10-18-2009, 08:36 AM
#50 in the world beating #15 is a lot closer in rankings than 1-star and 3-star... or 2 and 4 star

ClarkC
10-18-2009, 06:48 PM
#50 in the world beating #15 is a lot closer in rankings than 1-star and 3-star... or 2 and 4 star

Yes, but you could easily have a much higher spread than 50 and 15 except that the #200 player cannot even enter the same tournament as the #15 player.

When an upset happens, it often means that the lower-ranked player is on his way up, improving rapidly, and it will take a while for his ranking to catch up. Rapid improvement is even more common in junior tennis than ATP tennis, although it also happens for relatively new arrivals on the ATP tour.

I have seen juniors take time off from tournaments, work on their game, and re-appear at tournaments to surprise everyone. In fact, I know a 3-star who was unranked 14 months ago, had not played tournaments in over a year, and was not remembered as being all that great, who showed up and swept everyone in straight sets in a high level tournament. He did not play the required 3 tournaments to make a TennisRecruiting.net ranking until another 9 months had passed, at which point he suddenly went from being unranked to being a 3 star player.

These things happen, but I am not sure they indicate any flaw in the ranking system. The system is head-to-head. If a 1-star tends to beat 3-stars frequently, he will not remain a 1-star for much longer, so it takes care of itself. So, what was your point, exactly? What's wrong with the rankings? What would be better than a head-to-head system like this?

advantagetennis1
10-20-2009, 01:11 PM
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.

I'm sry but man there is quite a big difference between 1stars and 3stars of the same age in fact huge and everyone in this thread needs to realise that.it's not about how good u can be, il tell ypou right now that if you watched the number 205 senior you would prob be amazed at how good he is. Now I will also tell you that a 605 senior almost never beats a 205 senior.

10isDad
10-20-2009, 08:49 PM
Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.

One thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at TRN, there's no indication of which victories are main draw vs. which are backdraw. I've seen plenty of players who just don't care about backdraw matches; they don't put in any effort, they may play a match completely differently like serve-volley on every point when they're normally grinders, etc. This scenario can sometimes lead to lower ranked players beating much higher ranked players.

Not sure if this qualifies and I'm not saying I agree with the "lots of tournaments" aspect, but check out the player currently #316 (no need to post names, etc.) Definitely not a stellar record, yet has a 3-star...or perhaps the current #363.

ClarkC
10-21-2009, 11:06 AM
One thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at TRN, there's no indication of which victories are main draw vs. which are backdraw. I've seen plenty of players who just don't care about backdraw matches; they don't put in any effort, they may play a match completely differently like serve-volley on every point when they're normally grinders, etc. This scenario can sometimes lead to lower ranked players beating much higher ranked players.

Not sure if this qualifies and I'm not saying I agree with the "lots of tournaments" aspect, but check out the player currently #316 (no need to post names, etc.) Definitely not a stellar record, yet has a 3-star...or perhaps the current #363.

In the class of 2010 (current 12th graders), the player ranked #316 has a record of beating those ranked below 316 and losing to those ranked above 316, with a couple of exceptions in each direction (a couple of wins over higher players, but a coupl of losses to lower players). Thus, I would think that 316 is a fair ranking for him.

What is the point exactly? He's not beating top 100 guys so he is not that stellar? Obviously, he is only ranked 316. I don't get it.

ClarkC
10-21-2009, 11:08 AM
One thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at TRN, there's no indication of which victories are main draw vs. which are backdraw.

I think you meant that there is no different weighting assigned to backdraw matches as compared to main draw matches. That is true. The "Player Activity" link (available in full only to subscribers) shows the tournaments round by round. College coaches can see what round the matches were played in, and whether they were main draw or backdraw.

advantagetennis1
10-21-2009, 11:19 AM
In the class of 2010 (current 12th graders), the player ranked #316 has a record of beating those ranked below 316 and losing to those ranked above 316, with a couple of exceptions in each direction (a couple of wins over higher players, but a coupl of losses to lower players). Thus, I would think that 316 is a fair ranking for him.

What is the point exactly? He's not beating top 100 guys so he is not that stellar? Obviously, he is only ranked 316. I don't get it.

thankyou. at least you understand how this works. the ranking is head to head its all fair. if someone is ranked lower there is a reason he either has bad losses or not many good wins. the amount of tournaments u have played is completely irrelevant unless your argument is that u have have played so little tournaments that you have not had the chance to face a high ranked opponent to beat. actually if you look at the head to head rankings the players who have played many tournaments usually are ranked slightly lower even when they are playing better because it is harder for there ranking to go up because of all the losses they have.

10isDad
10-21-2009, 01:56 PM
In the class of 2010 (current 12th graders), the player ranked #316 has a record of beating those ranked below 316 and losing to those ranked above 316, with a couple of exceptions in each direction (a couple of wins over higher players, but a coupl of losses to lower players). Thus, I would think that 316 is a fair ranking for him.

What is the point exactly? He's not beating top 100 guys so he is not that stellar? Obviously, he is only ranked 316. I don't get it.

The point: Somebody brought up playing lots of tournaments to get a ranking. You disputed that and asked for examples of players. As I stated, I don't necessarily agree with the generalization that if a player plays lots of tournaments, their TRN ranking would be improved. But what you see, for instance, are two 3-star players that have significant losing records against other 3-star players. The majority of their wins are against 1 & 2 star players and both have played lots of tournaments, which might tend to support the notion of playing lots of events to earn a ranking.

Unfortunately, there are lots of factors that people don't consider. Once a player gets to a certain level, they tend not to move down very rapidly. I think that was pointed out by DeCoster, who still maintains a very high TRN ranking even though his activity has been extremely minimal due to injuries. EDIT - Of course, having said that, I now see that he is "NA" after they recalculated the stars

These players could have been higher ranked players who just haven't fallen in the rankings as rapidly. But, on first glance, one might ask how a kid who's 1-10 against 3-star players can be a 3-star player himself. That's my only point - I'm not disputing the rankings but to somebody that's uninitiated in TRN, that could be a perception.

In fact, one of my few beefs against TRN is that their ranking/rating system is very proprietary and can't be evaluated by the public. Another beef is typical of any ranking system: they can't take all the various factors into consideration. Here's an example, there's a player we know that jumped over 200 spots just by winning 3 matches, moving from the low 800s to the mid 500's.

His first opponent is a pretty raw 1-star. His 2nd opponent was a 3-star that was having one of his first tournaments back after suffering a stress fracture in his wrist. The player was out of shape and extremely rusty. His 3rd opponent was a 3-star who had just dropped to a 1-star. This player was also just coming off an injury and suffered an ankle turn of the previously injured ankle early in the match. He didn't retire, but he certainly wasn't the opponent he should have been.

10isDad
10-21-2009, 02:15 PM
The other point about TRN is what's the first thing anybody asks with regard to TRN? It's always about the number of stars. The ranking portion is more an afterthought. Heck, just look at the title of the thread..

My son has been visiting some colleges and the coaches are using the same terminology: "I have a 4-star that just lost to a 2-star!" Dallas Oliver has explained many times about the difficulty and the time it takes their staff to calculate the stars, but by only updating them once per year and having that measurement be the most oft-sited thing people hear seems to beg more frequent updating or more stress on the ranking portion.

Even newspaper articles will focus on the stars, not the TRN ranking. I've seen plenty of articles like "a TennisRecruiting.com 5-star player ranked in the top 80 by the USTA".

andfor
10-22-2009, 10:10 PM
For the most part TRN is a good system using "head to head" and "weighting tournaments" as an alternative look verses the USTA's "point based system". Although the TRN may have some anomalies I contend players who travel to more and to larger USTA tournaments can more easily have over inflated rankings due to the large reward for many points those tournaments offer. In the USTA system many points can be gained for winning 1 or 2 matches in designated, sectional closed, opens and national tournaments. Also in the USTA system those wins count the same for amount of points even against weaker players. Of course the exception is bonus points (small amount) for wins against very high ranked players.

Neither system is perfect. From a perspective of evaluating a players college tennis playing potential, coaches who evaluate both ranking systems and understand who it is that a player wins and loses to will usually prove out. Sure exceptions happen were a player is over or under evaluated. The best way to limit that is to play as many tournaments/matches as possible. For players concerned about playing college tennis it would be good to keep track of wins and loses in H.S. as those results are not as widely published as TRN and the USTA rankings. There is some who would like H.S. tennis to play under the USTA for the purpose of ranking points and match tracking etc.

Rambling over..........out

Fedace
10-23-2009, 04:26 AM
Yea, i think those guys usually end up in division 2 college tennis or one of the lesser teams in division 1.

ClarkC
10-23-2009, 11:14 AM
The point: Somebody brought up playing lots of tournaments to get a ranking. You disputed that and asked for examples of players. As I stated, I don't necessarily agree with the generalization that if a player plays lots of tournaments, their TRN ranking would be improved. But what you see, for instance, are two 3-star players that have significant losing records against other 3-star players. The majority of their wins are against 1 & 2 star players and both have played lots of tournaments, which might tend to support the notion of playing lots of events to earn a ranking.


You are the one who is looking at stars and not numerical rankings, which you complain later in your post others do!

The two 3-star players you cited have losing records against other 3-stars because they are in the bottom half of the 200-player 3-star group, and they have lost to players mostly in the top half of that group.

3-star goes from 201-400. A player ranked 363 should probably have a losing record against other 3 stars, because most of them will be above 363.

This has nothing to do with playing lots of tournaments and getting a ranking higher than you deserve. You failed to make the point because your focus on stars misses the point.

10isDad
10-23-2009, 12:08 PM
You are the one who is looking at stars and not numerical rankings, which you complain later in your post others do!

The two 3-star players you cited have losing records against other 3-stars because they are in the bottom half of the 200-player 3-star group, and they have lost to players mostly in the top half of that group.

3-star goes from 201-400. A player ranked 363 should probably have a losing record against other 3 stars, because most of them will be above 363.

This has nothing to do with playing lots of tournaments and getting a ranking higher than you deserve. You failed to make the point because your focus on stars misses the point.

Remember this (emphasis is mine):

Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.

Re-read what you asked for. Re-read what I said more carefully. I mentioned how I do not necessarily agree with the concept of playing more events to get a high TRN ranking. I talked about the various factors that aren't addressed; I talked about perceptions. For somebody that doesn't look that closely, seeing a 3-star being 1-10 against other 3-stars yet having a significant winning record over 1-star and 2-star players, the perception could be that he simply played tons of tournaments to get that ranking.

As was pointed out by andfor so aptly was that both ranking systems have their flaws. We can go on and on about them.

The most often sited criticism of the USTA PPR system that people like to point out is a player can play lots of weak tournaments to get a falsely elevated ranking. That's true only to a point.

As an example, in the Southwest, there are 6 levels of tournaments. A player can play lots of level 6 events - even weak ones - and get their sectional ranking up around the mid- to high-20's fairly easily if they're somewhat decent players. However, those "weak events" (level 6 tournaments) aren't worth enough points for those players to increase their rankings much higher, even if they win the events. Most kids in the mid-20s and higher will not even play level 6 events unless there's some specific goal (like needing matchplay following an injury) because they will not receive any points for the event. Even the level 5 events often don't offer enough points to significantly affect their rankings unless they reach quarterfinals or higher. So the thought that players can simply play lots of tournaments to achieve a high ranking is a generalization that is not always true. It always interests me the PPR system is good enough for ITF, for WTA and for ATP but people think it's not good enough for junior USTA competition?

As for Tennis Recruiting, I value the site enormously. My only point was that people tend to focus on the stars first. The star is simply a snapshot of a player's performance from September through August of the previous year. The rankings are far more important and valuable but that's not necessarily what people focus on.

TRN definitely has some interesting issues. For example, a USTA non-sanctioned junior event may count for TRN rankings. Example: the southwest has an annual Grass/Clay tournament. That tournament is not sanctioned by the USTA, likely because of the different surfaces (match 1 might be on grass causing match 2 to be on clay, or vice versa). This tournament does count for TRN.

Another big difference is that TRN doesn't look at tournament performance. A player could lose first round, play a much higher ranked person who might be one of those players I mentioned that tend to tank backdraws because they don't care about them, then lose badly in the next round of the backdraw. Chances are slim this tournament would count for USTA rankings, but because of the head-to-head only aspect, such a suspect win might have a significant impact on the TRN ranking. Don't believe me? I know of a kid who was a fairly highly ranked 3-star player that lost early in a tournament. This player went out and lost 0 & 0 in the backdraw to (at that time) a one-star player. He didn't try at all. That tournament did not count for the 1-star player in the USTA rankings, but it darn sure did on TRN. I know other players like that. I'm not saying the tournament performance is better than the head-to-head, but there can definitely be some differences in the overall rankings because of what is or isn't counted in each system.

If a player plays lights out against a better player, it should count for more. The USTA tries to make up for this with significant win points. There are still times, however, when the player will not get enough points for that event to earn any points. For TRN, they will get points. In that case, it's a good thing. In the example I gave, where the more skilled player totally tanked the match, it's inaccurate.

10isDad
10-23-2009, 12:47 PM
My final words on this subject, because it's pretty silly to be arguing about it:

My point about the stars being what's focused on is further "supported" in the way TRN presents match results. They break down performance by opponent star levels. And if you expand those levels, the TRN rankings are not listed. You have to click on each opponent to see their actual ranking.

The star levels also don't carry over. What I mean by that: my kid played and lost to some 5-star players in early and mid-2009. Now, those players are 4-star players. At the time they were 5-star, but that's no longer reflected.

ClarkC
10-24-2009, 07:15 PM
Remember this (emphasis is mine):



Re-read what you asked for. Re-read what I said more carefully. I mentioned how I do not necessarily agree with the concept of playing more events to get a high TRN ranking. I talked about the various factors that aren't addressed; I talked about perceptions. For somebody that doesn't look that closely, seeing a 3-star being 1-10 against other 3-stars yet having a significant winning record over 1-star and 2-star players, the perception could be that he simply played tons of tournaments to get that ranking.



Right. People can have misunderstandings and misperceptions about the TRN system. I agree. But the same applies to any system, so it does not seem to be worth such a lengthy discussion if that was the main point.

ClarkC
10-24-2009, 07:40 PM
My point about the stars being what's focused on is further "supported" in the way TRN presents match results. They break down performance by opponent star levels. And if you expand those levels, the TRN rankings are not listed. You have to click on each opponent to see their actual ranking.

If you are a paying member, you click on "His activity" on the page of the player, rather than clicking on the record by opponents' stars. Then the numerical ranking of each opponent is shown.

The people who most need to understand the performance of players are college coaches. They are paying members, I would be willing to bet. They see all the important information at a glance.

The people who have misunderstandings are not only not paying members, they don't even bother to read the FAQs in most cases. They start discussions about how you can get a high ranking just by playing a lot of tournaments, which they would not believe if they read the FAQs, and then you and I and others end up wasting time on it.

Maybe you should become a paying member of TRN for a year and see all the info before concocting any more criticisms of their info.


The star levels also don't carry over. What I mean by that: my kid played and lost to some 5-star players in early and mid-2009. Now, those players are 4-star players. At the time they were 5-star, but that's no longer reflected.

It works both ways. If your kid lost to a 2-star in January and that 2-star was a great talent who was on his way up and is now a 4-star, your kid would now get credit for losing to a 4-star, not a 2-star, and I doubt that you would be complaining about it.

My son beat a player who has since declined a star, and I guess that takes a little bit of the shine off of his first ever victory over a player with that many stars. But, the truth is that that player was on his way down at the time, and his new rating is really more indicative of his strength. In fact, only 2-3 months after my son beat him, his ranking was below the cutoff to maintain his stars. If we "fix" the problem you describe, we create other problems in other cases. If we fix the "problem" that some wussies tank their backdraw matches, then what about the cases where the highly ranked player was trying as hard as he could and got beat? And so on for all your other examples.

My point here is that, if you are going to say that a certain point is a problem or deficiency, then there needs to be a better alternative. When we criticize the USTA points per round system, it is because there is a better alternative, not just an alternative. A lot of people have observed that the USTA ranking is less predictive of match outcomes than the TRN rankings.
Therefore, criticisms of the USTA rankings are not just utopian nitpickings; people are saying that USTA should actually modify their system. No one has proposed a modification of the TRN system that solves more problems than it causes, so what is the point of all the criticizing?