What Should a 3.5 Player Actually Look Like???

[canuckfan72]

The best part of my game is by far baseline. I have consistent groundstrokes with losts of spin, depth and pace. I have developed a weapon consisting of a flat forehand winner. I also have some variety in my reservoir of awesomeness such as slices, approaches, lobs and "ok" dropshots.

My volleying kinda sucks. i can volley with control but little depth or power. i can hit a volley but i dont go looking for volley points.

I think my serving is what is holding me back. my first serve is pretty decent. I can place it with power and unlike a year ago i am starting to count on winning my service games. my second serve is what kills me. imagine a serve arcing over with spin coming down then kicking up right into a good player's strike zone.

[jasoncho92]

Originally Posted by J011yroger

WTF?

No backhands?

J

Dont ask me

The guy i played with made a point of only hitting me forehands until the camera battery literally died out. My backhand was hot that day too

[JoshDragon]

Video of a 3.5 level player: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ntYZ6mCrpI

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by Ucantplay2much

Okay, here's my NTRP guidelines. I think I've done a pretty good job of coming up with practices that are more specific than "Being able to hit with spin." Let me know what you think

****************

You get one point for each of the following that describes you or your capabilities:

Your first serve is a weapon that can often force errors, even against better opponents.

Your first serve has enough variety that you can keep your opponent guessing about placement and/or spin.

Your second serve is a "real" second serve, with either a lot of pace or so much junk on it, you can force a good number of errors.

You can often (but not always) take advantage of opponent's mistakes, such as standing in no-man's land, weak approach shots, balls bouncing into your strike zone and overly easy second serves.

You have good, solid passing shot and lob capabilities and can hit these even when pressed by a good approach shot.

You miss less than 10% of your overheads.

You're as good at knowing what shots NOT to hit as you are at what to hit. (For example, you don't try to launch forehand winners from a shot that's just above your shoe laces. Bonus points if you CAN consistently do that)

You can often turn a body shot at the net into a volley winner.

You're good from BOTH sides of your body and your opponent can't exploit a weak side.

You can quickly read your opponent's weaknesses and exploit them consistently.

You hit hard enough that you have to replace your strings often and/or use heavy duties.

You relish your opponent's drop shots because you're getting to 95% of them. Your opponents are often demoralized when back-to-back "winners" are returned. Hard.

Your (reputable) coach says you're a blank point blank . (This can bump you to the next grade if you need just ONE point.)

Scores:
1-2: You're a 2.5
3-6: 3.0
7-9: 3.5
9-11: 4.0
12-13: 4.5+

Of course, many of these are RELATIVE. Which makes it even harder to figure out what you are until you play a half-dozen or so ranked opponents.

I disagree with the body shot volley winner, string breakings, and the overhead. I think you should make at least more than 95% (probably 99%) of overheads and they should all or almost all be winners. Otherwise, it's practically a free point for those 0.0-3.0s that dink all their overheads.

And body shot volley winners are tough to pull off - that would be really lucky if you could. I doubt the top 10 pros could "often" pull off a body shot volley winner- maybe sometimes, but not often. So might as well remove this from the list.

And finally, string breaking or lack of it does not give any indication at all of how good you are as a player.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by goober

3.5s have a wide range of tennis styles from unorthodox to traditional or modern

Here's a clip from a 3.5 club tournament in Oahu. It looks like a 3.5 against against a weaker 3.5

Men's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwZN...eature=related

Here are some women that are 3.5s in Las Vegas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0CmKO8ZFzE

I self-rate boy 3.0 but the first video... well one guy - Jamie/Jeffrey- is a pusher but an EXTREMELY inconsistent, slow, and poor one, I would think he's a low 2.0. He has no strokes, just dinks the ball and misses most of the time, can't run fast at all, doesn't cover the court, and the points he got were lucky because of Marr's inconsistency. The other - Marr- is also quite inconsistent and double faulted a few times, but probably is a 3.0 because he has pretty good movement, nice strokes and knows how to exploit Jeffrey/Jamie's weaknesses. I think I would beat either of them and no I am not bragging, but I honestly doubt even Marr would come close to beating me...

[ksixone95]

I'm a 4.0-4.5... I'm pretty consistent and I hit it HARD but I play much better in practices than matches...

My coach "ranked" me... so it isn't me judging myself.

[GuyClinch]

If you watch your own video you will likely change your mind about beating this and that 3.5. Or better yet you post your video in comparsion and ask us who would win.. <g>

As for the OP - a 3.5 can look like at least a dozen different things. Because in truth a 3.5 is a player who can beat most people who don't play tennis much.

A 3.5 is like your average player who plays a few times a week.. the vast majority of players are 3.5. And I agree almost NO ONE will rate themselves below 3.5 if they play more then a dozen times a year..

But 3.5's - they can have a dozen different styles or more. You have moonballers, slice and dicers, people with big forehands and no backhands. There are people who have good looking groundstrokes as long they don't have to move forward or backward. You have net rushers with poor groundstrokes but a good volley and overhead.. There are dink groundstrokers with big serves. You have crafty players that rely on angles but have little power in any aspect of the game.

Its only at the higher levels that people start to play more and more alike. The various 'flaws" start to disappear as people have improved and fixed those flaws.

[goober]

Originally Posted by ubermeyer

I self-rate boy 3.0 but the first video... well one guy - Jeffrey- is a pusher but an EXTREMELY inconsistent, slow, and poor one, I would think he's a low 2.0. He has no strokes, just dinks the ball and misses most of the time, can't run fast at all, and the points he got were lucky because Marr missed an easy ball. The other - Marr- is also quite inconsistent and double faulted a few times, but probably is a 3.0 because he has nice strokes and knows how to exploit Jeffrey's weaknesses. I think I would beat either of them and no I am not bragging, but I honestly doubt even Jeffrey would beat me...

Well I guess you should rate yourself 4.5 since you can easily beat him

Here is Autsin Marr's USTA record. He has a 4.0 rating as is currently 10-1 this year in his matches.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/r...r&First=Austin

Let me know how your first season at 4.5 goes.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by GuyClinch

If you watch your own video you will likely change your mind about beating this and that 3.5. Or better yet you post your video in comparsion and ask us who would win.. <g>

As for the OP - a 3.5 can look like at least a dozen different things. Because in truth a 3.5 is a player who can beat most people who don't play tennis much.

A 3.5 is like your average player who plays a few times a week.. the vast majority of players are 3.5. And I agree almost NO ONE will rate themselves below 3.5 if they play more then a dozen times a year..

But 3.5's - they can have a dozen different styles or more. You have moonballers, slice and dicers, people with big forehands and no backhands. There are people who have good looking groundstrokes as long they don't have to move forward or backward. You have net rushers with poor groundstrokes but a good volley and overhead.. There are dink groundstrokers with big serves. You have crafty players that rely on angles but have little power in any aspect of the game.

Its only at the higher levels that people start to play more and more alike. The various 'flaws" start to disappear as people have improved and fixed those flaws.

I play 5x a week, have done so for 2.5 years. I have a good forehand and great backhand except for my slice, okay serve, okay volleys, good overhead, and am very fast. I am a grinder now, I used to be a inconsistent blaster, then a pusher, and have now decided to be a grinder.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by goober

Well I guess you should rate yourself 4.5 since you can easily beat him

Here is Autsin Marr's USTA record. He has a 4.0 rating as is currently 10-1 this year in his matches.

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/r...r&First=Austin

Let me know how your first season at 4.5 goes.

I am a child. so I can't actually play 4.5, but If I was an adult and played like myself, I would guess I was a 3.0. Perhaps Marr improved since this video, because I doubt I would get a single game as a 4.5 in most matches. As for Jamie/Jeffrey, you watch the video and you tell me if that is a 3.5+

[GuyClinch]

I am a child. so I can't actually play 4.5, but If I was an adult and played like myself, I would guess I was a 3.0. Perhaps Marr improved since this video, because I doubt I would get a single game as a 4.5 in most matches. As for Jamie/Jeffrey, you watch the video and you tell me if that is a 3.5+

Perhaps you don't know what you look like on video. <g>

[Mick]

at my level (3.5 - 4.0), these are my observations:

3.5, this player will give a number of opportunities to hit a winner
4.0, this player will give you 1 chance to hit a winner. if you don't take it, he will end the point for you.
4.5 and above, this player will hit a winner before you know it

[slice bh compliment]

A 3.5 player plays an average 3.5 tournament. He wins some, he loses some.
He plays a 3.0 tournament and wins handily.
He gets routined in the first round of a 4.0 tournament.

Of course, levels/ratings vary from region to region/ section to section. And which of the descriptions fit? Well, it depends upon your opponent that day, right? That's what so weak about the whole ratings thing.

But, from what I remember about club/recreational tennis back in the 70s and 80s, this NTRP system is a notch better than the old a, b, c, beginner system.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by GuyClinch

Perhaps you don't know what you look like on video. <g>

Whether I was on video or not, I sure wouldn't miss 99% of easy balls

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by Ucantplay2much

Okay, here's my NTRP guidelines. I think I've done a pretty good job of coming up with practices that are more specific than "Being able to hit with spin." Let me know what you think

****************

You get one point for each of the following that describes you or your capabilities:

Your first serve is a weapon that can often force errors, even against better opponents.

Your first serve has enough variety that you can keep your opponent guessing about placement and/or spin.

Your second serve is a "real" second serve, with either a lot of pace or so much junk on it, you can force a good number of errors.

You can often (but not always) take advantage of opponent's mistakes, such as standing in no-man's land, weak approach shots, balls bouncing into your strike zone and overly easy second serves.

You have good, solid passing shot and lob capabilities and can hit these even when pressed by a good approach shot.

You miss less than 10% of your overheads.

You're as good at knowing what shots NOT to hit as you are at what to hit. (For example, you don't try to launch forehand winners from a shot that's just above your shoe laces. Bonus points if you CAN consistently do that)

You can often turn a body shot at the net into a volley winner.

You're good from BOTH sides of your body and your opponent can't exploit a weak side.

You can quickly read your opponent's weaknesses and exploit them consistently.

You hit hard enough that you have to replace your strings often and/or use heavy duties.

You relish your opponent's drop shots because you're getting to 95% of them. Your opponents are often demoralized when back-to-back "winners" are returned. Hard.

Your (reputable) coach says you're a blank point blank . (This can bump you to the next grade if you need just ONE point.)

Scores:
1-2: You're a 2.5
3-6: 3.0
7-9: 3.5
9-11: 4.0
12-13: 4.5+

Of course, many of these are RELATIVE. Which makes it even harder to figure out what you are until you play a half-dozen or so ranked opponents.

Nice effort, but it was a waste of time to post all that. When I am playing a weaker opponent, I can do pretty much anything I want against them. When I play against someone stronger, I can't seem to do anything because they hit better shots that make it more difficult for me to control the point.

[Ucantplay2much]

Originally Posted by ubermeyer

I think you should make at least more than 95% (probably 99%) of overheads and they should all or almost all be winners. Otherwise, it's practically a free point for those 0.0-3.0s that dink all their overheads.

99%? Did you catch Del Potro's framed miss against Roddick the other day? You're right for the upper levels, but I haven't played a 3.5 that can make overheads 19 out of 20 times, which is 95%.

Originally Posted by ubermeyer

And body shot volley winners are tough to pull off - that would be really lucky if you could. I doubt the top 10 pros could "often" pull off a body shot volley winner- maybe sometimes, but not often. So might as well remove this from the list.

Good point

Originally Posted by ubermeyer

And finally, string breaking or lack of it does not give any indication at all of how good you are as a player.

I admit, this is a pretty weak selection, but I was trying to come up with something regarding power that wouldn't be affected by how well your opponents play. If they meet 'x' number of other criteria, then power doesn't matter in the formula.

Originally Posted by raiden031

Nice effort, but it was a waste of time to post all that. When I am playing a weaker opponent, I can do pretty much anything I want against them. When I play against someone stronger, I can't seem to do anything because they hit better shots that make it more difficult for me to control the point.

That's why I tried to come up with as many things as I could that would apply across a wide range of skill levels. For instance, anybody can hit a moonball or lob to your side, so an ability to hit an overhead important skill that can be applied against any competition.

And, while a number of points I came up with are certainly arguable, I think it's a hell of a lot better than the lame-@$$ USTA NTRP guidelines that give 2.5s the impression that they are 5.5s.

[damazing]

My team played at sectionals this weekend and I had a chance to watch some of the different levels play.

A caveat I would offer is that since these teams all made it to sectionals they likely have the best players at their respective levels.

Each lower level looked like they would win 1/2 the time at the league next higher level but would have lost to any of the next higher levels that were there. I.e. 3.0s would win 50% of their matches at 3.5 league but any of the 3.5 teams there (all district winners) would have beaten them easily.

At the higher levels 4.5, 5.0 they looked all the same with complete games and very few if any weaknesses.

[blakesq]

Sounds like you are a 4.0 player based on your "playing records and personal experience". Have you played other 4.0's? Have you beat some of them and lost to others? Then you are probably a 4.0. If you have a hard time beating 3.5 players, then you probably arent a 4.0 player, but rater a 3.5 or lower.

Originally Posted by canuckfan72

In detail, can someone please describe what a legit mid-range 3.5-4.0 player should look like and be able to do. I am having a very hard time deciding what my rating actually is. please dont post a link to a ntrp rating chart because off that i could say im a 5.0 player. my high school tennis coach said i could be a 4.0 player. a club pro said that im a 3.0-3.5 player but from playing records and personal experience im a 4.0 player.

[user92626]

Originally Posted by JoshDragon

Video of a 3.5 level player: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ntYZ6mCrpI

Wow, that's a beat down for the girl in blue. She should stop crying and try harder

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by damazing

My team played at sectionals this weekend and I had a chance to watch some of the different levels play.

A caveat I would offer is that since these teams all made it to sectionals they likely have the best players at their respective levels.

Each lower level looked like they would win 1/2 the time at the league next higher level but would have lost to any of the next higher levels that were there. I.e. 3.0s would win 50% of their matches at 3.5 league but any of the 3.5 teams there (all district winners) would have beaten them easily.

At the higher levels 4.5, 5.0 they looked all the same with complete games and very few if any weaknesses.

As a winner at 3.0 Nationals, I would say that if you want to have a team that has a shot at winning, you need at least 3 players who can compete at the top of the next level and a little bit of luck as well in your matches. I would say most of the players at Nationals that I saw were low 3.5s, but the best players were low 4.0s. A couple teams had like 1 all-star but the rest of their players were mediocre. We were the only team that had enough depth in that we had 3 all-star players so we could really secure the 3 wins each match when we needed to.

I had a friend who competed at 3.5 sectionals this weekend. They didn't advance to Nationals, but still did pretty well, and he went undefeated in doubles. He got bumped to 4.0 last year and appealed back down. I am about low 4.0 right now and the last two times I played him in singles I defeated him, although it was competitive. So this shows that the playoff teams are definitely good players who belong at least in the lower range of the next level. At least the contributing players that is.