hi guys,
what do you think these two guys? are they 4.0 by NTRP ranking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trhfY3bAi6w
what do you think these two guys? are they 4.0 by NTRP ranking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trhfY3bAi6w
practice match vids--are they 4.0?
- Thread starter tonygao
- Start date
TomT
Hall of Fame
A competitive match. Thanks for the video. I have no idea if they're 4.0.
I play in the (non-USTA) Tennis League Network. Players start out with either a previous USTA rating or self rate based on the NTRP guidelines, and then their ratings get adjusted according to results.
The one 4.0 guy who I played would, I think, have had no trouble with either of these guys. One of my new hitting partners says he's a former 4.5 (USTA, I'm supposing), and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even let either one of these guys get into a point. He just has a much better serve than either, and much better stroke mechanics.
Based on my brief experience, but only in the TLN, I'd put the guys in the video at more or less 3.5, with at least a +- .3 margin of error.
As I said, that's just a guess from somebody (me) with very little recent experience, just getting back into tennis after not playing for about 40 years.
EDIT: Having watched the whole video now, I would say that if these guys were starting out in my local TLN, then they should probably rate themselves at, say, NTRP 3.25. Regarding USTA and how they do it, I have no idea.
They hit some nice shots, but also lots of really bad shots. No weapons, and even ~ 3.0 players (like me) would have no trouble with their serves.
Last edited:
while you are at it, below is my latest match play. I am the guy in black.
whatever level you rate the above two guys, I am 0.5 lower than them for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2NEVGX9orc
whatever level you rate the above two guys, I am 0.5 lower than them for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2NEVGX9orc
TomT
Hall of Fame
It doesn't look to me that you should be .5 lower than them. You hit some nice shots. I see a lot of potential.
Again, thanks for the videos.
EDIT: I should add that any of the players in the videos, including you, would, I think, beat me. But I also think it would be somewhat competitive. Only because my shots seem to me to have a bit more pace than what I'm seeing in your videos. But I miss a lot and don't move quite as well as I did 40 years ago.
Last edited:
Guys in first vid are 4.0. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. They both have pretty sound mechanics on their strokes and a definite feel for the game. May not seem like a lot of pace in the video, but a video always has that effect. No way is that 3.5.
tennisboi007
New User
Yes 4.0 seems about right to me.
There are some things you guys could do better but overall it's solid.
Finally someone who knows how to rate themselves lol.
There are some things you guys could do better but overall it's solid.
Finally someone who knows how to rate themselves lol.
TomT
Hall of Fame
We can be seeing the same thing and attributing ratings according to different standards. The guys in the first vid are playing at about a 3.5 level regarding my experience in my league. It's a relative thing. If you're USTA and you say that these guys are USTA 4.0, then I can't disagree ... having never played in a USTA league. But if you read my posts then you'll see that I specified that the league I'm in isn't USTA, though players start out with either previous USTA ratings or self rate according to NTRP guidelines and are then moved up or down according to their results.
So, apparently, starting with NTRP self rating guidelines, or a prior USTA rating, the ratings in TLN league play generally indicate a somewhat higher level of play than the corresponding ratings in USTA league play ... even though both are, presumably, initially based on NTRP guidelines.
But of course this doesn't take into account sandbaggers or late bumps, or ... whatever.
Last edited:
TomT
Hall of Fame
I respectfully disagree. I think that 4.0 is a bit high. But of course I could be wrong. For example, I thought I could beat the (NTRP-based) 4.0 guy in my local TLN league until I actually played him.
I think we need more videos from the same perspective. Good videos so far. More please.
Perhaps you will be assessed as legitimate 4.0ers by all.
Guy in black/blue is an EZ 4.0 singles player. Could sandbag at 3.5 dubs without too much issue during the regular season then play singles for playoffs/sectionals.
Reminds me of how I play (4.0C usta) , goes for lines/redirection, fearless approaches not so good net/overhead game. Lazy footwork -> lazy results.
Would like to see him in a vid against someone pushing him around.
Gotta go 3.5 for the guy in white.
Reminds me of how I play (4.0C usta) , goes for lines/redirection, fearless approaches not so good net/overhead game. Lazy footwork -> lazy results.
Would like to see him in a vid against someone pushing him around.
Gotta go 3.5 for the guy in white.
TomT
Hall of Fame
Ok, we partially agree. But doesn't lazy footwork --> lazy results = lower rating? I mean, I think that they (at least the black/blue guy) are potentially 4.0 players. But that isn't what I saw in the video. What I saw in the video was, according to my current understanding of NTRP ratings, and my current limited experience, basically a 3.5 (or lower) match.
SuperJimmy
Rookie
I would say 4.0 is a fair rating. They are capable of hitting shots that I think give a lot of 3.5s trouble. Their strokes might not look too pretty, but I think would get the job done.
People have to remember that at any given rating level there is a wide range of skills. Someone being a legit 4.0 doesn't mean they have to be better than the guy playing singles #2 on your USTA team. It also doesn't mean they have to be 'better' than the ultra strong 3.5 that somehow didn't get bumped up when they should have been.
Tony: I am curious as to why you think you are for sure 0.5 lower than them? I'm assuming you've played them and they beat you easily? What I noticed in your video, is that your opponent is giving you pace and almost ball-machine like balls where everything is predictable...and that makes your shots easier to hit. The guys in the first video have more angles and junk balls which probably gives you more trouble.
People have to remember that at any given rating level there is a wide range of skills. Someone being a legit 4.0 doesn't mean they have to be better than the guy playing singles #2 on your USTA team. It also doesn't mean they have to be 'better' than the ultra strong 3.5 that somehow didn't get bumped up when they should have been.
Tony: I am curious as to why you think you are for sure 0.5 lower than them? I'm assuming you've played them and they beat you easily? What I noticed in your video, is that your opponent is giving you pace and almost ball-machine like balls where everything is predictable...and that makes your shots easier to hit. The guys in the first video have more angles and junk balls which probably gives you more trouble.
B
bhallic24
Guest
ya the guy in black is a 4.0. But both those guys have ugly ugly strokes. The second video posted, that guy in black is like a 3.5-4.0. Great looking strokes but he'll be a 4.0 if he gets rid of his lollipop serve.
TomT
Hall of Fame
Good point. An honestly rated 4.0 player might play at a level somewhat below that or somewhat above that on any given day.
The guys in the vids have decent strokes. But, imo, they're only comparable to the strokes of the 3.5 (TLN not USTA, but still NTRP based) players that I've played, which I must say aren't even as good as my strokes. The difference there is primarily mobility. Now the 4.0 and 4.5 guys I've hit with ... well their strokes are noticably more solid and hit with more pace than what I saw in the videos. And I have to admit that the 4.5 guy's strokes are, in a certain sense, better than mine (though he has difficulty with certain of my shots). But I haven't played the 4.5 guy in league competition. The 4.0 guy , who I have played in league competition, just does what he has to do in order to win. He's just nice and steady ... more so than the guys in the videos ... and he wears me out.
I hit winners against him, but I also make lots of errors. This is not to say that the guys in the videos couldn't do the same thing, that is, beat me badly, just that from their videos they don't seem as good as the 4.0 guy I've played, and are more comparable to the 3.5 guys I've played.
Last edited:
goober
Legend
It doesn't look to me that you should be .5 lower than them. You hit some nice shots. I see a lot of potential.
Again, thanks for the videos.
EDIT: I should add that any of the players in the videos, including you, would, I think, beat me. But I also think it would be somewhat competitive. Only because my shots seem to me to have a bit more pace than what I'm seeing in your videos. But I miss a lot and don't move quite as well as I did 40 years ago.
He probably thinks he is .5 lower because he knows his actual results against them? BTW you should video yourself sometime in a competitive match. Your shots look a lot slower on video than you think they do in real life. I would bet that as a 60+ year old 3.0 player, the pace of your shots would be even slower than the guys in the video and your movement even slower.
Headshotterer
Professional
On my standards and interpretation, these people are not 4.0. 4.0 would be around a lower competition junior level.
There is a big difference between a low 4.0 and a high 4.0. I know I am a 4.0 as I've been computer-rated at that level for 3 years with a mediocre record. I have also seen myself on video (ack!!), and IMHO, I have no doubt whatsoever that everyone in those vids can play 4.0. They all show consistency, direction on their shots, and strategy. It's pretty evident if you watch where they are, where they hit the ball, and where they move to prior to their opponent's contact with the ball. Maybe at high 4.0 you need to crush the ball with exquisite technique, but that's certainly not the case at low 4.0.
That being said, I really have no idea where along the 4.0 scale all these players would be. If they make great in-match adjustments, find and target opponent's weaknesses, play great under pressure, etc., maybe they'd be high 4.0s. If none of that is true, maybe they play low 4.0s. Either way, I'd be really shocked if any of them lost to a "typical" 3.5, not a sandbagging 3.5 that is soon to be bumped.
That's just my opinion that I'm throwing out there as a "vote" based on what I've personally observed. I don't doubt at all that different geographies or different leagues might have different "standards" of NTRP.
That being said, I really have no idea where along the 4.0 scale all these players would be. If they make great in-match adjustments, find and target opponent's weaknesses, play great under pressure, etc., maybe they'd be high 4.0s. If none of that is true, maybe they play low 4.0s. Either way, I'd be really shocked if any of them lost to a "typical" 3.5, not a sandbagging 3.5 that is soon to be bumped.
That's just my opinion that I'm throwing out there as a "vote" based on what I've personally observed. I don't doubt at all that different geographies or different leagues might have different "standards" of NTRP.
TomT
Hall of Fame
Yes that makes sense. Maybe Tony will tell us. As I watch Tony's video again ... he does make some nice shots. After some more consideration, (and being now sober) I agree with the assessment that the other two guys are somewhere in the 4.0 range.
I did that a few months ago with a cheapo camera. It was very embarrassing. I was quite shocked at how bad I looked.
Just got a new Sony camera. Next time I hit I'll get some vids if I can find somebody to do the shoot.Yeah, it was really bad. I was playing a guy about 25 years younger who, in my view, looked even worse.
Yeah, I'm a full point (at least) below all the guys in the videos. If I could just figure out how to get people to hit the ball within, say, 5 ft of me on every shot, then (maybe) I'd have a chance.
Hi LeeD,
yes, I served like that intentionally. that vid was the 3rd set we played, so I was quite tired already. moreover, I noticed that my opponent couldn't really do much about my weak serve. but if I served very hard, he can always get the ball back decently. so why wasting the energy and risk lots of double fault? that's why I decided to serve softly.
about I am rating myself 0.5 lower than the guys in the first vids. actually I never played either one of them, but I kinda know the difference based on his record against other people. also we shared a lot of each other's match vids among a group of people and the consensus is he is 0.5 higher than me. maybe not completely shown in these two particular vids though.
Tony, you owe it to yourself and the other guy to serve as hard as you can for your second serves, and first serves.
First of all, you need the practice. Two sets cannot tire you out from serving. If it does, your motion is flawed.
You need to hit your best serves so you can improve. Hitting pattycake is not improving at all.
If your opponent is getting your hard serves back at your level, then your "hard": serve is a pattycake anyways, and you need to improve it.
You have a choice of flat serves to THREE spots, top/slice serves to THREE spots, kick serves to TWO spots, slice serves to TWO spots.
Can you hit them all? If you can, you can beat RogerFederer most times.
First of all, you need the practice. Two sets cannot tire you out from serving. If it does, your motion is flawed.
You need to hit your best serves so you can improve. Hitting pattycake is not improving at all.
If your opponent is getting your hard serves back at your level, then your "hard": serve is a pattycake anyways, and you need to improve it.
You have a choice of flat serves to THREE spots, top/slice serves to THREE spots, kick serves to TWO spots, slice serves to TWO spots.
Can you hit them all? If you can, you can beat RogerFederer most times.
martini1
Hall of Fame
IMHO they serves from the first few mintues I watched are 3.5ish. No pace and very little spin. Kind of like the 3.5 serves I see from people I play. They are all sub 4.0.
I'm only talking about the serves. Their ball control are pretty good. Seems like they could direct the ball and think 1 or 2 strokes ahead.
I'm only talking about the serves. Their ball control are pretty good. Seems like they could direct the ball and think 1 or 2 strokes ahead.
In Norcal - non-san francisco area, they can be a 4.0 on a weak team. San Francisco has a lot of players who don't have kids so they can play a lot of tennis and are very very good. So a 4.0 there can be pretty good.
you have good tennis skills. but you looked injured.
in my experience, 3.5 to 4.0 has a huge range of players. usta rating is not science. it's bad american maths.
ShoeShiner
Rookie
NTRP confusion, AGAIN!!
. . .
As I remembered, may be a couple years ago, there were some threads that faked the videos of ATP professional players, and brought to ask opinion from this webboard, most of people said they were 5.0 to 5.5. Some said 6.0. That means most of them were missed.(very few people knew they are ATP players)
... After that, I never trust any NTRP evaluation from here. ...
. . .
As I remembered, may be a couple years ago, there were some threads that faked the videos of ATP professional players, and brought to ask opinion from this webboard, most of people said they were 5.0 to 5.5. Some said 6.0. That means most of them were missed.(very few people knew they are ATP players)
... After that, I never trust any NTRP evaluation from here. ...
0d1n
Hall of Fame
The guy in black is most likely closer to 4.5 than 4.0. The guy in white would have a winning record at 4.0, simply due to his skill in match play and pretty good movement. Great choice of shots, plays percentages really well has good court positioning...etc. He doesn't look pretty but he sure is effective.
*****' lol at a 60+ years old 3.0 thinking he hits harder than the guys in the OP. Yeh...maybe on the one shot in ten that actually makes it into court. These guys have solid pace (especially the one in black). The other guy is the "crafty/redirect pace" type of guy but he hits a pretty solid ball anyway.
People thinking these guys are 3.5's are smoking crack or try to feel better about themselves on the internet.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
You are half a level below the guy in dark from your op. He has a better serve, a better forehand and maybe slightly more explosive movement.
The guy in white probably just has more match experience and better choice of shots/consistency.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that YOU are probably the 4.0, the guys in the OP are probably higher, with the guy in dark being clearly closer to 4.5 than 4.0.
I do agree ball control is pretty good HOWEVER u have to take into account the pace of ball that is coming to them.. as far as i can see, ball speed is slow-medium.. if pace of ball is fast it's going to be much more difficult to re-direct the ball..
1) Not enough explosive movement and hitting
2) Lack of Pace.. infact i m going to say lack of trying to hit balls with pace.. Obvious reason ,fear of hitting it out which to me means lack of confidence..
Guy in black run around 80% of his BH and doesn't hit a heavy forehand.. i do believe both has adopt such a play when playing matches instead of trying to hit it bigger with more pace.. if you dun try and practice to hit bigger shots in matches for fear of losing there's no way your going to improve.. if i have to put a number to them i would say black shirt low 4.0 and high 3.5 for the guy in white WITH NO-LITTLE chance to up their ratings based on the way they play
1) Not enough explosive movement and hitting
2) Lack of Pace.. infact i m going to say lack of trying to hit balls with pace.. Obvious reason ,fear of hitting it out which to me means lack of confidence..
Guy in black run around 80% of his BH and doesn't hit a heavy forehand.. i do believe both has adopt such a play when playing matches instead of trying to hit it bigger with more pace.. if you dun try and practice to hit bigger shots in matches for fear of losing there's no way your going to improve.. if i have to put a number to them i would say black shirt low 4.0 and high 3.5 for the guy in white WITH NO-LITTLE chance to up their ratings based on the way they play
0d1n
Hall of Fame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqi-4B7E6xc
Guy in white beats both these BENCHMARK 4.0 PLAYERS any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Guy in dark destroys them any day of the week with no more than 2-3 games lost per set ... when he's playing badly.
Now go learn something about how people look on video except from watching Djokovic vs Federer on HDTV.
goober
Legend
Not sure why you bolded and put in all caps "benchmark 4.0". All benchmark means is that he played in playoffs. You can have a losing record and be the weakest player on a 4.0 team that made playoffs and still be benchmark. It does not imply some kind of standard level of play. In fact the players in question played one match in playoffs and lost in straight sets. He mostly plays dubs with a .500 record.
More worringly why have they used the soundtrack from a 1970s porn movie in that video....
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Fine...
Let's see...these guys ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASRMiYWQ6Fk&feature=related ) are 4.5's in a so called "tennis hotbed" (at least I understand Texas is one of the better regions when it comes to tennis).
They are young, and athletic. Yes...they move well...and play pretty well.
Would you say they play better than the guy in dark blue/black we are all talking about from the OP??
They are both arming the ball, especially the right hander. The leftie is slightly cleaner, but our dark clothing guy in the op has clearly better, more repeatable technique on groundstrokes, especially the forehand side. He's using quick unit turns, racquet head up, hits the ball cleanly, has good margin over the net, is precise and close to the lines, and generally hits his forehand with more purpose than BOTH guys in the 4.5 video. Their serves are similar. They make a few winners, but also make more wild errors than the guy I'm talking about. Pace is similar, but consistency would go to the guy in the OP.
Let me just get this right...are you DEBATING the fact that the guy I'm talking about is clearly better than 4.0 ???
I've made clear where I stand...and given the choice to place a bet on who would win 3 out of 5 matches between the guy in the OP and any of the two 4.5's in the video I posted, I would put my money on the guy in the OP. He's just cleaner...and his technique is more correct and more repeatable.
In my view, there is no way in h3ll he is a 4.0, and the guys who are even stating 3.5 ratings are talking out of their arses.
I understand your problem with my "benchmark 4.0's", how do you comment my general opinion with regards to the ratings though ?? I'm pretty sure you have a better clue about these things than most of the people who were declaring their ratings loud and clear in this thread...so lets hear it.
P.S. I'm fairly sure that most of the guys commenting on the so called lack of pace are fooled by the lack of sound in the video. Yes...sound matters when it comes to perception of pace...
B
bhallic24
Guest
bEST post on this thread. Absolutely agree with every word. I mean, imho, OP, sorry but I do not think you guys are a 4.0. More like a strong 3.5 if not just a regular 3.5.
Unless theres an Asian NTRP, then I'd said Asian NTRP your a solid 4.0. Hey, what the heck right? they have asian rackets why not asian NTRP. Not trying to be racist here.
Anyway, the biggest problem you guys have is NO PACE! The serve (even the first serve) is a lollipop. A high end 4.0 player would smack that **** back right in yo face!
Sure your placing the ball well and running around and getting to this ball and that ball, but its not really hard to do when the ball is traveling 35 mph. I'd like to see what happens when you're forced to play someone that can just hit flat and hard. Trust me, you would be placing it anywhere near the lines.
And again, I see this alot amongst ASian players (again not trying to be racist) but they tend to jump before serving A LOT. I mean I don't know if that's how they teach tennis overseas but you gotta watch some PEte sampras or some Roger FEderer buddy. One suggestion I'd have is to work on the serve. Resist the urge to Jump.... and then just tap the ball.
Then work on placement, down the T, out wide. because you have the savvy and know how it seems to construct points. How much easier would it be if you could hit a hard serve and draw your opponent out wide? Then you'd have the whole court to hit your 35 mph winning forehand!
Last edited by a moderator:
goober
Legend
Having seen people play on video and then having played them IRL, my take is you can't be as certain as you seem to imply you can be with video especially at the 3.5-4.5 level. I would almost always take some one with a proven high winning percentage record over someone that doesn't play competitively regardless how they look on video ate the rec/club level. I have seen tons of people who look not that great on video, but are match tough, mentally strong and know how to win. I have also seen people who technically look good, but when it comes to a real match they lose to 3.5 players.
May be they are as you say and maybe they aren't. Too me the players in the OP are not obviously superior to 4.5 players. But I wouldn't bet on either one of them without seeing them play IRL and having match records of the players. If someone asked me to rate them on video alone. I would say their actual ratings could be anywhere from 3.5-4.5 but from what I am seeing the guy in black looks like a decent to strong 4.0 and the other guy looks like a 3.5.
Could you kindly post a video of any 4.0 player that smacks any serve return on a consistent basis? (while is playing for points).... I would prefer videos showing returns going back into the court if you don't mind...
Now - that is the video I really want to see.
And if you don't mind me asking - what other weapons beside those shown by player's in OP's video does one need to play at 4.0 level?
0d1n
Hall of Fame
I agree with most of your points. I've seen people who look bad to the untrained eye but know how to win as well. Those are also the kind of people who tend to get rated as 3.5 when they are capable of winning at 4.0 or sometimes 4.5. Those are the kind of people who look like the guy in white from the OP...who IMO is capable of winning at 4.0.
I never said the guys in the op are clearly superior to 4.5 players, but I am saying there is no way in hell they are 3.5, and I am saying that the guy in dark would be competitive at the 4.5 level.
Could you kindly post video of these 4.0's in your area ?? I have shown video of 4.0's AND 4.5's and none of them clearly show they would "eat alive" the guy in dark from the OP. Please feel free to come up with video of 4.0 players that you think are clearly superior to the ones in the OP. I won't hold my breath...
They do not have the weapons to play 4.0 tennis?? What weapons are they lacking if you don't mind me asking ?? They have the only 2 weapons they need to have winning percentages at 4.0...pretty good wheels and consistency. Also...the guy in dark has a forehand that is a weapon at any level except 5.0 +.
Again...please provide video of these 3.5's who play as well as the guys in the OP, or of the 4.0 "league tennis" that is clearly better than the level displayed in the OP.
Talk is cheap.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Now - that is the video I really want to see.
And if you don't mind me asking - what other weapons beside those shown by player's in OP's video does one need to play at 4.0 level?
Thank you for your sanity. I was beginning to "lose hope in the human race" :twisted:.
Seems like the rating i gave them
As i said leed.. control is good However pace of rallies was slow-medium.. not that difficult to hit placements shots with slow-medium pace back.. there is a big difference between this and re-directing a medium-fast pace rally.
odin.. r u trolling? r u even reading what i wrote.. does evryone have to agree with your opinions? and if we dun agree i guess we all have to watch djokovic vs federer , am i right..
i gave black guy a 4.0.. anyway that's not the issue i was bringing up with my post.. the issue was i know that he obviously can hit harder shots but refuse to do so.. playing like this is just going to limit his ability to play better.. if it's a tournament i can understand.. but i believe this is a friendly game.. BY NOT trying to hit harder serves ,BY NOT trying to hit harder groundstrokes when is he going to try?? when his 70? He may lose the match due to errors but hey at least he tried and by trying his also practising those shots..
And weapons means bigger shots.. if u dun even know the meaning of weapons it could only mean your knowledge is severly lacking..
0d1n
Hall of Fame
The guy's forehand is a weapon for the skill levels we are talking about.
If you don't believe that (you are entitled to think differently), you are welcome to provide video counterexamples. Somehow I doubt you will do it...instead you will keep blabbering and going on in circles with your twisted logic which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Am I debating with a 12 year old???!? That's my impression anyway...and my knowledge may be severEly lacking...but so is your writing ability, that's for sure.
I don't care about convincing you (or anybody else) that I am right...I don't even care about BEING right, I'd be OK with being proven wrong.
What I do care about is the following :
- people who contradict my arguments, need to bring some sort of "argument/proof" of their own to the table...other than empty words (something like video would do).
"I'm playing 3.5 and these guys are definitely not better than me, or hitting harder than me...or whatever", is not an argument, it is just an idiotic statement from delusional 3.0's (at best). "4.0's in my area would absolutely destroy this guy" is not proof either. Come up with something better, and I'd be happy to be proven "wrong".
Last edited:
I've never understood why these threads provoke so much argument.
Isn't the issue here simply that you have a mixed bag of people at 3.5/4.0 level who all look wildly different? Given that players at the 3.5/4.0 level aren't the most consistent, who knows whether you're catching them a good day, bad day or whatever?
The guy in the black shirt has a pretty good if somewhat inconsistent forehand. That's alone is going to take him some way at the 3.5/4.0 levels. His movement isn't that great but he has a good sense of the spots on the court that he wants to hit with his FH. He has a huge hole on his backhand side though which is going to stop him progressing until he shores that up because any savvy opponent is going to hammer that BH. A bird with a broken wing simply doesn't fly very far.
The problem with the video is that he's playing a guy (white shirt) who's half a level lower than him and who doesn't put any pressure on the ball at all. Black shirt *could* be competitive at 4.0 but you never really know until you put a load of these players into a 4.0 league and see what their win/loss ratios are like. What worries about him is the fact that he haemorrhages alot of points when he doesn't need to - he seems to be a real mixed bag of the good, the bad and ugly. But then again looking at similar videos that seems to be what its like at low to mid 4.0. That said, who knows if he's even playing seriously? There's a huge difference between 'park play' and a ratings match with points on the line, people watching, ratings at stake etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxLy0cDygc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTJB3VvD5is&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAndatafWCg&feature=related
Isn't the issue here simply that you have a mixed bag of people at 3.5/4.0 level who all look wildly different? Given that players at the 3.5/4.0 level aren't the most consistent, who knows whether you're catching them a good day, bad day or whatever?
The guy in the black shirt has a pretty good if somewhat inconsistent forehand. That's alone is going to take him some way at the 3.5/4.0 levels. His movement isn't that great but he has a good sense of the spots on the court that he wants to hit with his FH. He has a huge hole on his backhand side though which is going to stop him progressing until he shores that up because any savvy opponent is going to hammer that BH. A bird with a broken wing simply doesn't fly very far.
The problem with the video is that he's playing a guy (white shirt) who's half a level lower than him and who doesn't put any pressure on the ball at all. Black shirt *could* be competitive at 4.0 but you never really know until you put a load of these players into a 4.0 league and see what their win/loss ratios are like. What worries about him is the fact that he haemorrhages alot of points when he doesn't need to - he seems to be a real mixed bag of the good, the bad and ugly. But then again looking at similar videos that seems to be what its like at low to mid 4.0. That said, who knows if he's even playing seriously? There's a huge difference between 'park play' and a ratings match with points on the line, people watching, ratings at stake etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxLy0cDygc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTJB3VvD5is&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAndatafWCg&feature=related
Last edited:
Rozroz
G.O.A.T.
err..
so that's suppose to be a 5.0?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeAYvXXg28k&feature=relmfu
where are the differences?
so that's suppose to be a 5.0?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeAYvXXg28k&feature=relmfu
where are the differences?
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Don't worry...that guy's videos generated huge discussions as well (a couple of years ago) with him being rated anything from 3.5 to 4.0 before somebody found out his name and dug up his record.
Surprise surprise he was a computer rated 5.0 as far as I remember.
New heroes are now rating this other guy a 3.5, 4.0....luckily for them he's not in North America to have a real NTRP record proving them wrong. But that's OK...they are wrong anyway).
Surprise surprise he was a computer rated 5.0 as far as I remember.
New heroes are now rating this other guy a 3.5, 4.0....luckily for them he's not in North America to have a real NTRP record proving them wrong. But that's OK...they are wrong anyway
).
