Originally Posted by dannythomas
Just came across this thread and apologies for re-opening the debate. My opinion is that the TR rankings are in many ways more meaningful than the USTA ones. When you look at the reasons some players are ranked higher or lower on the TR system it is because it devalues the points earned by kids / parents who drive up and down their State or even the country looking for cheap points from tournaments with low level competition. TR recognizes that and it is good.
One point I would like to make is that there is no recognition of doubles results in the TR system. In this respect I think the USTA system is better where 15% of doubles points count. I wonder why TR cannot do this, i would have thought college coaches are interested in doubles performance too ?
Also why do star ratings start from 6th graders ? There are a lot of 4th and 5th graders playing competitive tennis. I cant imagine it is because college coaches start being interested in players at age 11 but not 9 and 10. Just seems a little arbitrary and it would be nice to extend it to younger kids.
I agree with you about the doubles. Doubles participation should be factored in somehow, especially when kids are play high quality L1-L3 level tennis. There has to be some algorithm to make this happen somehow....maybe some type of aggregate rating.
However, I don't agree with star rating for 4-6th graders. In fact, my feeling is that star rating shouldn't occur till freshmen year high school...when tournament results really count for kids planning on playing college tennis. Just like rankings in the 10s and 12s...they don't really mean anything. It just give kids and parents a false sense of security. Just my 2 cents.