The USTA rating system and self-rated players

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by Ace

Look, for all you people complaining about playing matches that are too tough..... I have the exact opposite complaint.

Self rated people who rated too high, or people deciding they need to "play up" when they can barely win matches in their own rating!
I have had a ton of crappy boring matches this year, and its sucks having to pay for it!

Look, everyone.....If you are not DOMINATING your own level....PLEASE....Stop pulling down the level above....you don't belong!!!!

Its one thing if you are doing extremely well at your own level and need more competition, but really....to play "up" just for the sake of getting more matches in? Come ON!!!

I can't attribute this to the USTA rating system....but to people with no common sense. I WISH I played a few sandbaggers once in a while.....

By the way...I am playing up as well, because I am winning all the matches at my own level....and for the most part, have been winning easily there too, except for two "at level" rated players, one killed me, one was a close match. No, I am not playing below my level, these people are losing all their matches and still think they need to play up.

PLEASE send me a sandbagger!

(I would propose that the USTA give a + rating to someone who's rating is high enough that they should be allowed to play up, and not let anyone else play up)

Sorry but this doesnt make a whole lot of sense. Are you claiming that every player you played at your own level was rated too high since you won all of your matches?

[Ace]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

Sorry but this doesnt make a whole lot of sense. Are you claiming that every player you played at your own level was rated too high since you won all of your matches?

I am claiming that I am a 3.5 player.
I just got bumped up from 3.0 at the end of last year, so believe me, I am no sandbagger. I started from scratch, as a 2.5, and stayed there for a year because I sucked so bad.
Because I did well playing up at 3.5 last year, I am playing 3.5 and 4.0 this year.
When I play a "rated" 4.0, I lose.
I've only played two 4.0s. One killed me, one was at least competitive.
The 3.5's I have played in this 4.0 league are losing their 3.5 matches pretty badly. I don't think they should be playing up.
I feel, that since I am doing well at 3.5, it is ok for me to play up.
But the 3.5's that are getting killed by other 3.5's do not belong playing 4.0. I'm talking about people that lose most of their 3.5 matches 6-1, 6-2....WHY would they need to play 4.0?

I'm not complaining about people playing "at level", I am complaining about people playing "up" that aren't doing well against ANYBODY at their level (not just against me). Those people should not be playing up.
I actually have had a little more competition against the 3.5's playing 3.5 than against the 3.5's playing 4.0.

[ohplease]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

I dont agree with the part about ratings being like in other sports. They are "skill" ratings, not rankings. So you cant go by wins and loses.

But I do agree with you that the benchmark players should be at the Local Level. If you read the NTRP chart and the description of the various levels, the people that move on to the advanced levels are way off of that.

I agree that they're skill ratings. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure that, so all we're left with is wins and losses.

Which is, I think how it should be. We all WANT to play pretty, power tennis. But the fact of the matter is there's more than one way to win, and you need to learn how to adapt your preferred style to counter all of them.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by Ace

I am claiming that I am a 3.5 player.
I just got bumped up from 3.0 at the end of last year, so believe me, I am no sandbagger. I started from scratch, as a 2.5, and stayed there for a year because I sucked so bad.
Because I did well playing up at 3.5 last year, I am playing 3.5 and 4.0 this year.
When I play a "rated" 4.0, I lose.
I've only played two 4.0s. One killed me, one was at least competitive.
The 3.5's I have played in this 4.0 league are losing their 3.5 matches pretty badly. I don't think they should be playing up.
I feel, that since I am doing well at 3.5, it is ok for me to play up.
But the 3.5's that are getting killed by other 3.5's do not belong playing 4.0. I'm talking about people that lose most of their 3.5 matches 6-1, 6-2....WHY would they need to play 4.0?

I'm not complaining about people playing "at level", I am complaining about people playing "up" that aren't doing well against ANYBODY at their level (not just against me). Those people should not be playing up.
I actually have had a little more competition against the 3.5's playing 3.5 than against the 3.5's playing 4.0.

I see. I guess I'll believe that you are not one of the sandbaggers then. (you know the ones who are rated too low, clobber everyone and THEN complain that everyone else is rated too high)

When I first created my 3.5 team, we had 8 3.0 rated players (7 C's and 1 S), and only 4 3.5 players (2 C's and 2 S's), and we managed to take 3rd place in our division, and by the end of the year, the 3.5 / 3.0 ratio on our team basically flip flopped. So Im kind of defensive about silly rules that keep people from moving up.

But I agree with a lot of the 3.0 teams / players that move up to 3.5 dont have the same experience.

Although I dont mind yet since there are not a lot of them in our league yet. It is possible to have a 3.5 player skillwise who is losing matches in league play just because of lack of experience and these matches give them a good shot at getting that experience. (the sudden confidence boost)

What I hate about our league is that it seems that most of our teams are either of one type (the super sandbagger teams), or the other (super wimpy 3.0 teams) and there gets to be fewer and fewer average teams.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by ohplease

I agree that they're skill ratings. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure that, so all we're left with is wins and losses.

Which is, I think how it should be. We all WANT to play pretty, power tennis. But the fact of the matter is there's more than one way to win, and you need to learn how to adapt your preferred style to counter all of them.

Actually there is a more finite way of measuring skill then wins and loses. You go by games. And that's what they are doing....

You cant necessarily do that in other sports but it works in tennis because it takes something to win a game. It takes some thing more to win a match but just because you cant win a match doesnt mean that you are at a whole diffrent skill level.

[duffman]

Originally Posted by ohplease

There are plenty of problems with USTA play, but not the least of which is the fact that despite the number of levels (1.0-7.0 in 0.5 increments - about 14), only 5 are really used (2.5-4.5).

What that means is that you've got a huge disparity in playing level at each of those 5 levels. Even worse, there's a structural flaw in that only a few teams even have a chance of getting to districts, then secitional, regional, etc.

The end result being you often see hard fought, competitive matches in the first few rounds of local playoffs, between teams that are pretty much at the right level - where all they're really playing for is the right to get stomped by the one or two teams loading up for nonlocal competition in the local semis or finals.

In fact, this is what happened to my team, this year. I had the privilege of practicing with a different team not one, but TWO levels higher, and I'm not sure they could have beaten the team that killed us in the local playoffs. And I'm pretty sure the team going to districts at the level below us would have made the playoffs at our level, too.

I think the big issue here is the ratings aren't fluid enough. Have a bad season (below .300)? Either as a team or as a player? You get moved down. Have a good one (above .700)? You get bumped up. You see it in soccer and Davis Cup, why not amateur tennis, too?

As it is right now, you've got people managing scores and competing against some mystery number, instead of the guy across the net. That's just not right.

Also, benchmark players should be at the LOCAL level, not playoff. For any given level, the players that make it to regional competitions are by definition the cream of the crop. Skim them off.

Excellent post. In our local league there is 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, & 5.0. The majority of the players are in the 3.0-4.0 range and this is where the widest range of ability is as well. There were only three 4.5 teams and two 5.0 teams locally and these were very close in skill level. In fact, the top two singles players in the 5.0 both had 4.5 ratings. The USTA should look into getting rid of anything below 3.0 and making everything above 5.0 into "open" and then adding in .25 increments.

Its also funny that you mentioned that winning over 70% of your matches should get you bumped. Last year, as a computer rated 3.0 from my first season of tennis and USTA in 2005 I went 6-2 (75%) at 4.0 and 4-2 (67 %)at 4.5 and got moved to 4.0. This year I went 9-0 at 4.0 and won over 70% of my games at 4.0 and didn't get moved to 4.5 at the ESR.

You also mentioned competing against some mystery number instead of the guy across the net. I am in total agreement with this. Instead of just worrying about beating the other guy and competing the best I can, I have this number in the back of my head on what the score should be based on his record and his past performance if I want to become a 4.5. When something happens and this number is exceeded in the match its like the panic button is pressed and all of a sudden a 3 set win feels like a loss which is just wrong. I know your rating in the end is just a number and doesn't equate to your actual ability but it is still a measuring stick to base your improvement on and the way the system is now just doesn't make much sense.

[ohplease]

Originally Posted by duffman

Excellent post. In our local league there is 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, & 5.0. The majority of the players are in the 3.0-4.0 range and this is where the widest range of ability is as well. There were only three 4.5 teams and two 5.0 teams locally and these were very close in skill level. In fact, the top two singles players in the 5.0 both had 4.5 ratings. The USTA should look into getting rid of anything below 3.0 and making everything above 5.0 into "open" and then adding in .25 increments.

Its also funny that you mentioned that winning over 70% of your matches should get you bumped. Last year, as a computer rated 3.0 from my first season of tennis and USTA in 2005 I went 6-2 (75%) at 4.0 and 4-2 (67 %)at 4.5 and got moved to 4.0. This year I went 9-0 at 4.0 and won over 70% of my games at 4.0 and didn't get moved to 4.5 at the ESR.

You also mentioned competing against some mystery number instead of the guy across the net. I am in total agreement with this. Instead of just worrying about beating the other guy and competing the best I can, I have this number in the back of my head on what the score should be based on his record and his past performance if I want to become a 4.5. When something happens and this number is exceeded in the match its like the panic button is pressed and all of a sudden a 3 set win feels like a loss which is just wrong. I know your rating in the end is just a number and doesn't equate to your actual ability but it is still a measuring stick to base your improvement on and the way the system is now just doesn't make much sense.

Textbook example of why games aren't a good metric. There are LOTS of guys out there who've mastered tennis at their particular level, with no real interest in improving their games. And why should they? They get to pull a Shaquille O'neal and play possum during the regular season, taking a close loss here, scraping out a close win there, all in an effort to protect their *adj ratings.

Why *adj? Most likely because they won a lot at that same level last year, both locally and in the playoffs. Now they get to do it all over again this year. Same faces, over and over and over. Which is what you see in USTA play. You can practically see the thought bubbles over their heads: "please, please take this game. I'm trying to avoid strikes. Yeah, I know I hit a ridiculous diving backhand winner 10 minutes ago, but that frame shot into the next court? Nevermind that."

Now, by going to winning percentage, that all changes. Sure, people can manage percentages during the regular season, but if they want to make the playoffs, they need to bring it for real. And - if you make the playoffs - you're bumped.

This scenario would of course feature teams trying to out-tank each other to avoid the playoffs this year in the hopes of a favorable draw at their level next year, but there's only so much they can do, as there's going to be an influx of players from the next higher level being bumped down because they can't win there, but probably can here.

If you're a diehard 4.5 style player, but you can't win at 3.5, then you're demoted all the way down to 2.5 if need be, until you figure out how to win. If you're the unbeatable amateur grinder at 3.0/3.5, you get promoted to 4.0/4.5 and forced to learn some new tricks.

In my own experience, I'm seeing guys with winning percentages above 80%, on teams that finished in the top 4 of around 20, who aren't getting ESR bumps. Why? Probably because they get killed by teams built for sectional/districts/etc., who are beating guys otherwise dominating their level 6-1, 6-2.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by ohplease

Textbook example of why games aren't a good metric. There are LOTS of guys out there who've mastered tennis at their particular level, with no real interest in improving their games. And why should they? They get to pull a Shaquille O'neal and play possum during the regular season, taking a close loss here, scraping out a close win there, all in an effort to protect their *adj ratings.

Why *adj? Most likely because they won a lot at that same level last year, both locally and in the playoffs. Now they get to do it all over again this year. Same faces, over and over and over. Which is what you see in USTA play. You can practically see the thought bubbles over their heads: "please, please take this game. I'm trying to avoid strikes. Yeah, I know I hit a ridiculous diving backhand winner 10 minutes ago, but that frame shot into the next court? Nevermind that."

Now, by going to winning percentage, that all changes. Sure, people can manage percentages during the regular season, but if they want to make the playoffs, they need to bring it for real. And - if you make the playoffs - you're bumped.

This scenario would of course feature teams trying to out-tank each other to avoid the playoffs this year in the hopes of a favorable draw at their level next year, but there's only so much they can do, as there's going to be an influx of players from the next higher level being bumped down because they can't win there, but probably can here.

If you're a diehard 4.5 style player, but you can't win at 3.5, then you're demoted all the way down to 2.5 if need be, until you figure out how to win. If you're the unbeatable amateur grinder at 3.0/3.5, you get promoted to 4.0/4.5 and forced to learn some new tricks.

In my own experience, I'm seeing guys with winning percentages above 80%, on teams that finished in the top 4 of around 20, who aren't getting ESR bumps. Why? Probably because they get killed by teams built for sectional/districts/etc., who are beating guys otherwise dominating their level 6-1, 6-2.

This is all well and good if you believe that someone cant possibly win 80% or more of their matches and still be within the correct rating.

I think changing the system just because some people happen to be sandbaggers doesnt make a lot of sense. Sandbaggers aside the system works fine for most people in the league.

If the league wants to do something about these people who are only there to cheat the system, they should send some people to the matches or do something specifically to target them, rather than ruin it for everyone else in the league.

A good majority of players dont even play enough matches every year (here the average is like 5-6) to even be considered under any sort of 80% win rule, so you have to go by games to get more granular.

And besides the games factor your precious 80% rule doesnt factor in where people are within their own rating. If they just happen to play weaker 3.5's should they be punished for that? It doesnt make any sense to me.

I think this is just a simplistic approach that doesnt consider what the skill ratings really mean or what winning a tennis match is all about for that matter. (for most people, not counting the sandbaggers)

Im sure this isnt perfect either, but I think a better sceniro would be to "reward" the teams that move on to districts by using some form of the "move up / split up" rule on them like if you finish in the top four in nationals. Because think about it, why do players want to sandbag?

Some of them are sick and twisted and only want to win matches no matter who they play, but others simply want to win the league which is fair (it is a league after all and your goal is to win it.....). So maybe if your team moves on, more people should get rated up than if not (versus how it seems to work now where you are less likely to get rated up because you got spanked by the bigger sandbaggers from some other district/section).

Then maybe some win percentage rule is in order, or some variation of it. But to just institute a win percentage for everyone is not a good idea in my opinion.

If you think people should be zipping up and down from 4.5 to 2.5 from year to year, you really dont have a realistic idea of what skill ratings really mean.

[ohplease]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

This is all well and good if you believe that someone cant possibly win 80% or more of their matches and still be within the correct rating.

I think changing the system just because some people happen to be sandbaggers doesnt make a lot of sense. Sandbaggers aside the system works fine for most people in the league.

If the league wants to do something about these people who are only there to cheat the system, they should send some people to the matches or do something specifically to target them, rather than ruin it for everyone else in the league.

A good majority of players dont even play enough matches every year (here the average is like 5-6) to even be considered under any sort of 80% win rule, so you have to go by games to get more granular.

And besides the games factor your precious 80% rule doesnt factor in where people are within their own rating. If they just happen to play weaker 3.5's should they be punished for that? It doesnt make any sense to me.

I think this is just a simplistic approach that doesnt consider what the skill ratings really mean or what winning a tennis match is all about for that matter. (for most people, not counting the sandbaggers)

Im sure this isnt perfect either, but I think a better sceniro would be to "reward" the teams that move on to districts by using some form of the "move up / split up" rule on them like if you finish in the top four in nationals. Because think about it, why do players want to sandbag?

Some of them are sick and twisted and only want to win matches no matter who they play, but others simply want to win the league which is fair (it is a league after all and your goal is to win it.....). So maybe if your team moves on, more people should get rated up than if not (versus how it seems to work now where you are less likely to get rated up because you got spanked by the bigger sandbaggers from some other district/section).

Then maybe some win percentage rule is in order, or some variation of it. But to just institute a win percentage for everyone is not a good idea in my opinion.

If you think people should be zipping up and down from 4.5 to 2.5 from year to year, you really dont have a realistic idea of what skill ratings really mean.

Skill ratings mean just that - a complete separation from results, including games. Even allowing the input of games, score differentials, or my precious winning percentage - ALL are results based metrics.

Skill rating would be everybody against a ball machine, radar gun, and targets. Crunch some numbers - hey look - you're a 4.0. Now let's see how people with similar "skills" do against one another.

In fact, the USTA has already abandoned the traditional skills test (in the form of visual verification) for a results based metric - only the results based metric they chose are wrong. Roll the consequence into the incentive, and you'll force the people who want to win to take the part they don't want (being bumped up), too.

[kylebarendrick]

The problem with going strict win-loss is that not all opponents are equal. If I as a 3.5 player happen to play most of my matches against 3.0s playing up, then I would be expected to have a very good win-loss record. This wouldn't mean that I should be bumped to 4.0. Using both players' dynamic rating and the actual match scores creates some opportunity to differentiate a "strong" win from a "weak" win. I think that the concept is sound even if the actual application is imperfect.

Your point that people who win all the time should be moved up is valid as well. I think that the step to prohibit ratings appeals for people playing at championship (district and higher) levels is a good start. Assigning a higher "weight" to championship matches such that participants generate larger dynamics wouldn't bother me either.

No matter what you do, though, there will be people that game the system. I think Javier is right - most of the time things work pretty well. Sandbaggers eventually get moved up and life goes on.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by ohplease

Skill ratings mean just that - a complete separation from results, including games. Even allowing the input of games, score differentials, or my precious winning percentage - ALL are results based metrics.

Skill rating would be everybody against a ball machine, radar gun, and targets. Crunch some numbers - hey look - you're a 4.0. Now let's see how people with similar "skills" do against one another.

In fact, the USTA has already abandoned the traditional skills test (in the form of visual verification) for a results based metric - only the results based metric they chose are wrong. Roll the consequence into the incentive, and you'll force the people who want to win to take the part they don't want (being bumped up), too.

The visual verification was really only done for self rating and for play in the playoffs. Unless you are talking about how it may of been before the 90's (I didnt play back then).

Of course you cant go purely by skill ratings, that is impossible, but you would have to admit that games are better than whole matches, wouldnt you???

It's generally accepted that if you lose to someone 6-0, 6-0 that means you are a lot worse than if you are losing 7-6, 7-6 to them.

I have a friend that Ive probally lost 70 match to but the far majority of them are very very close, it certainly doesnt mean he's a whole diffrent level then I am. (we both do about the same in League play and I do better against certain types of opponents)

So it sounds like you agree with me. If you are going to claim that going by games (which is really how it was ALWAYS done in the core rating scheme anyway) is somehow wrong, then you cant somehow claim that whole matches is somehow better.

[Cindysphinx]

A few quick words in defense of those of us who play up . . .

I can't get behind the idea of restricting who can play up. There is already a natural barrier to having Truly Horrible Players playing up: captains. If you really stink, a captain won't take you or won't play you unless to avoid a default. (I am guessing, Ace, that you'd prefer to beat up on a weaker player than show up to find out the other team is defaulting your court).

And what would you do with players like me, who Stank The Place Up in 2006, got some lessons, and play much better in 2007? Should I be prevented from playing a level up (as I did) because I didn't earn a "+" based on my abysmal 2006 results?

Lastly, in our area a significant reason people play up is lack of matches at their rating level. For spring 2007 3.0 season, my team got 5 matches per player with 17 women on the team. That's not much. Since you aren't allowed to join a second team at the same level to get more matches, your only option is to play up. (Or join a team in a far-flung locale).

Maybe they should let players compete on more than one team at their level, with the stipulation that they cannot play for either team against the other?

Cindy -- who doesn't mind beating up on 2.5 players at all

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

A few quick words in defense of those of us who play up . . .

I can't get behind the idea of restricting who can play up. There is already a natural barrier to having Truly Horrible Players playing up: captains. If you really stink, a captain won't take you or won't play you unless to avoid a default. (I am guessing, Ace, that you'd prefer to beat up on a weaker player than show up to find out the other team is defaulting your court).

And what would you do with players like me, who Stank The Place Up in 2006, got some lessons, and play much better in 2007? Should I be prevented from playing a level up (as I did) because I didn't earn a "+" based on my abysmal 2006 results?

Lastly, in our area a significant reason people play up is lack of matches at their rating level. For spring 2007 3.0 season, my team got 5 matches per player with 17 women on the team. That's not much. Since you aren't allowed to join a second team at the same level to get more matches, your only option is to play up. (Or join a team in a far-flung locale).

Maybe they should let players compete on more than one team at their level, with the stipulation that they cannot play for either team against the other?

Cindy -- who doesn't mind beating up on 2.5 players at all

1. I might prefer getting a default rather than paying to play a crappy match, when I have friends I could be playing/practicing with for free.
2. Nobody should be defaulting at the last minute anyway.
3. Lack of matches isn't a good excuse. You can always find people to play with, it doesn't have to be "USTA".
4. Captains aren't keeping people from playing up. What we see is a crappy player decides to captain a team, because a good captain won't let them play, they create an entire team of crappy players. AND we see a lot of 3.0's that are too "proud" to play their own level, they would rather tell everyone they play "3.5", even if they are getting their butts kicked every match.
5. Thats ok, when I was a 2.5 and my first year of 3.0, I thought I should be playing up too....I shouldn't have, I sucked. I realize that now. If I got bumped up to 4.0 this year, I would definately NOT "play up" at 4.5. That would just be silly.

Also, I agree with Javier that some people SHOULD play up. But you should have some sort of idea if you are that person or not. I knew because I played a winter club league against some of our better 3.5's and started winning most of my matches. Eventually I will become a 4.0, and when I am doing very well at 4.0, then I will know it is time to play 4.5....but not "just because I can".

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by Ace

1. I might prefer getting a default rather than paying to play a crappy match, when I have friends I could be playing/practicing with for free.
2. Nobody should be defaulting at the last minute anyway.
3. Lack of matches isn't a good excuse. You can always find people to play with, it doesn't have to be "USTA".
4. Captains aren't keeping people from playing up. What we see is a crappy player decides to captain a team, because a good captain won't let them play, they create an entire team of crappy players. AND we see a lot of 3.0's that are too "proud" to play their own level, they would rather tell everyone they play "3.5", even if they are getting their butts kicked every match.
5. Thats ok, when I was a 2.5 and my first year of 3.0, I thought I should be playing up too....I shouldn't have, I sucked. I realize that now. If I got bumped up to 4.0 this year, I would definately NOT "play up" at 4.5. That would just be silly.

Also, I agree with Javier that some people SHOULD play up. But you should have some sort of idea if you are that person or not. I knew because I played a winter club league against some of our better 3.5's and started winning most of my matches. Eventually I will become a 4.0, and when I am doing very well at 4.0, then I will know it is time to play 4.5....but not "just because I can".

While I agree with some of your points, I would say that this is still far less of a problem then people playing below where they should be.

Reason being is people get better, and everyone gets better from playing better opponents eventually. Nobody gets worse from playing worse opponents (they just get bored except for the people who only play because they want the "thrill" of winning every single time).

You are right about whole teams usually moving up. I happen to be a 3.5 captain myself though and I dont mind playing these teams as long as there is only 1 or 2. In our league individual matches count so it's still a challenge as a team because you have to beat them 5-0 to keep up with the other teams.

It's also hard to complain about this at 3.5. At least not here, 3.0 is the lowest men's division there is, so 3.5 is the 2nd worst division. If you are compaining, just think about all those poor "real" 3.0 players who have to deal with the rest of the players who will never win a match ever.

[raiden031]

I don't mind a little sandbagging because I would rather play good players than bad players, even if it hurts my win-loss record. But I'm also all about an accurate rating system so that I can get a better measure of my own progress. What boggles my mind is the fact that a self-rated player can easily get disqualified but a computer-rated player is unlikely to get disqualified. If two people have the exact same results against a set of opponents (theoretically), why should one get disqualified but not the other? Both players regardless of being self or computer rated are both two strong to play at that level. Is the logic behind this that its impossible to go from say a computer-determined 3.0 to a solid 3.5 within less than a year? I would guess alot of lessons, drills, and determination could easily cause that much improvement.

[volleyman]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

This is all well and good if you believe that someone cant possibly win 80% or more of their matches and still be within the correct rating.

[.......]
If the league wants to do something about these people who are only there to cheat the system, they should send some people to the matches or do something specifically to target them, rather than ruin it for everyone else in the league.

If you are winning 80% or more of your matches, especially singles matches, against at level opponents (e.g., a 4.0 playing other 4.0 rated players) year after year, assuming you play a reasonable number of matches a year, then you should get bumped up. That will catch a good number of sandbaggers without adversely impacting the average player.

Yes, those are tough numbers to crunch.But all the data is already in the computer, so doing the calculations shouldn't be that difficult, right?

Actually, I'd be happy if they just added a human review to the computer-process. Have the computer identify people for review, based on winning percentages, for example, and then have a committee review the player's history. That would catch, for example, guys who manage to get bumped down on medical appeal, who then, after their injury heals, spend the next several years dominating at the lower level and managing their game scores to avoid being returned to where they belong.

There also seems to be an inclination in favor of keeping people at too high a level, instead of bumping them down to a level where they'd be competitive.

For example, there's a guy who plays in NC who has lost every contested match he's played, and he plays a lot, in the last 4 seasons, save for a lone 7.5 combo match back in 2004. He's taken some real beatings over the years. Yet, the computer still insists he's 4.0.

[JavierLW]

Originally Posted by volleyman

If you are winning 80% or more of your matches, especially singles matches, against at level opponents (e.g., a 4.0 playing other 4.0 rated players) year after year, assuming you play a reasonable number of matches a year, then you should get bumped up. That will catch a good number of sandbaggers with adversely impacting the average player.

Yes, those are tough numbers to crunch.But all the data is already in the computer, so doing the calculations shouldn't be that difficult, right?

Actually, I'd be happy if they just added a human review to the computer-process. Have the computer identify people for review, based on winning percentages, for example, and then have a committee review the player's history. That would catch, for example, guys who manage to get bumped down on medical appeal, who then, after their injury heals, spend the next several years dominating at the lower level and managing their game scores to avoid being returned to where they belong.

There also seems to be an inclination in favor of keeping people at too high a level, instead of bumping them down to a level where they'd be competitive.

For example, there's a guy who plays in NC who has lost every contested match he's played, and he plays a lot, in the last 4 seasons, save for a lone 7.5 combo match back in 2004. He's taken some real beatings over the years. Yet, the computer still insists he's 4.0.

He probally is a 4.0. Unless we could look the person up, Im going to have to assume that.

You can lose every match in a level and still belong to that level, it happens. Talk to any decent tennis teaching pro out there.

You could be playing a position that you dont belong in (like playing #1 singles, which means playing the best players on most of the teams).

Or even more likely is the doubles phenemenon. There are all sorts of factors that can go wrong in doubles which will cause you to lose matches in your own rating. (bad partner, getting stuck at #1 doubles against the sandbaggers on the other team, etc....)

I find it interesting that most of the people who hold this view only look at singles as if somehow League Tennis is just some sort of singles challenge latter or something. The majority of players end up playing doubles which is a whole other ballgame.

I proved it on my team, out of my 8 3.0 players, a few of them used to have 3.5 ratings, and just were not in the right situation on their current teams and had a few horrible seasons and were rated down to 3.0. With the right partner and put in the right position, they won most of their matches on my team and were rated back up to 3.5.

[jchamilt]

Does anyone know how the computer rating system works? Does it only go on wins and losses or does it look at the closeness of the score? People are gaming the system. If some could win 6-0,6-0 but wins 7-5,7-5 it may look a lot different to a computer that looks at closeness of the score. Also if a team is way ahead in points it can afford to have someone lose to keep them qualified. Another way to keep players qualified at a lower level is having them lose at doubles even though they are good at singles if they are much better at singles than doubles. Some one is correct that this computer rating system is not perfect, but it is easier for the USTA then having people rate players. I would like to know what the computer rating system looks at.

[Matt21]

The USTA should just scrap the numeric rating system and go with a more simple, 4-tiered system: Beginner, Novice, Intermediate, Advanced. The larger percentage of players would rest in the 2nd and 3rd tiers and you'd no longer (ever) be eligible for "beginner" after having played 2 years of league tennis. Novice level would be where your traditional 2.5/3.0 players would play; intermediate would be where your 3.5/4.0 players would play and advanced would be 4.5 and up.

I understand why the USTA adopted the NTRP program and I'm not saying scrap it; just condense it. As I understood it, the whole idea behind NTRP was to make tennis competitive and fun for more people. The problem is that a half-point graduated system that (competitively) begins @ 2.5 and ends @ 5.5 has far too many levels. IMO, condensing the ratings into 4 groups total this would better control the blatant sandbagging and self-ego stroking that occurs while at the same time, increasing the potential for creating better tennis players.

Let's face it, if you're a "traditional" 4.5 playing "advanced" under the new system, you're in there with 5.0 and 5.5 players in which case, if you want to be competitive, you'll have to practice and "bring it" each time you play a league or tourney match. If you're serious about your game, you'll take your beatings early on but you'll get better (just like guys playing ATP who start out ranked in the 500s after leaving juniors, but over the course of 4+ years, get good enough to crack the top 100, 50, 25 or even 10).

Final thought: Can you imagine how convoluted and confused the juniors program would be if they used this same NTRP rating system?

[volleyman]

Originally Posted by JavierLW

You can lose every match in a level and still belong to that level, it happens. Talk to any decent tennis teaching pro out there.

Over the course of a season, sure. Over two seasons? I can buy that. Across 4 seasons? That's pushing it, even with the doubles phenomenon.

I find it interesting that most of the people who hold this view only look at singles as if somehow League Tennis is just some sort of singles challenge latter or something. The majority of players end up playing doubles which is a whole other ballgame.

For the record, I didn't say this in my post, nor do I subscribe to that view.

I said "especially singles", because in singles there's no partner problem to deal with.