3.5 singles

TennisDawg

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
J_R_B said:
I definitely radically adjusted my game. In the first set, I played like I would against a 4.0, which is that hitting a safe shot deep in the middle of the court is never a bad play. After watching 7 games of a parade of winners hit past me on those "safe" balls, I decided that I needed to just hit out and not worry about errors and see what happened. I ended up playing the set of my life. I made a lot of errors (as expected), but I was able to pressure him into errors as well. I was down a break early, but broke back at 4-3 and it was game on from there.

I'm sure he was playing "full out" at least in terms of effort. There's no reason in the semis of a tournament to let up and risk playing 2 1/2 hours in 90* heat while watching your opponent breeze through in 45 mins on the next court. Whether he was playing well or not, I don't know, but I'd suspect he'd probably tell you it wasn't his best day on the court. I don't know if his level "dropped off" in the second set. He definitely didn't hit as many winners and made more errors, but that was because of what I did (and I actually made more errors in the second as well). He played near flawlessly in the first, but I didn't make him work for it, either, so I don't know if he was playing well or just not challenged enough by my game in that set.
Click to expand...

Are you a pusher? Pushers give players all kinds of fits. All kidding aside sounds like you have a high Tennis IQ and your opponent didn't. It could be that he's accustom to playing oppoents with low Tennis IQs that complement his style.
 
N

NLBwell

Legend
JRB
1) Maybe, when you play full out, you are a better player. Try it against your regular opponents and see how it goes.
or
2) I, and many other players in all sports, tend to play down to the level of the opponent. I never beat anyone 6-0, no matter how bad they are. I'll become unfocused and start messing around. Most likely, this is what happened.
 
JRstriker12

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
TennisDawg said:
Okay, thanks. Now, someone just posted the letter B after a rating. Happen to know what a 3.5B means?
Click to expand...

B=Benchmark "a player whose rating has been determined by the computer using a combination of the dynamic rating for a player and their match results and to whose record other records are compared, directly or indirectly, to derive ratings for a large number of players."

http://assets.usta.com/assets/558/Microsites/dps/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_90_184.pdf
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Overdrive said:
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

You and a few others keep assuming that I'm a youngster, but I don't care.

You clearly can't read just like the older posters others on here. Wisdom does not come with age.
Click to expand...

Hey, whoa.

You started a thread to talk about playing on your high school team.

Either you're a youngster, or I'm calling the police.
 
J

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
mightyrick said:
I disagree. A 5.0 playing full effort will double-bagel a 4.0 at full effort.

That being said, if any player at any level is having some sort of external issues, causing them to be way off their game -- especially health issues or mental issues -- they can lose to anybody. But in this kind of a situation, it isn't "full effort".

Your 5.0 wasn't playing at anything near normal capacity. Otherwise, you would have gotten completely destroyed. A 5.0 that is on their game does not make errors like that. They don't double fault. They don't let 4.0 level forehands go by them.

Your experience is the extreme exception and not the rule. Don't make the mistake of making the exception the norm.

In the normal situation, a 5.0 will double-bagel a 4.0. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

An exception, but not an extreme exception. I've been double bageled by 5.0s in tournaments, too, so I certainly understand that is going to be a common outcome with that spread in ability (and frankly, if I played the same guy multiple times, I'm sure sometimes it would be love and love with him, too), but it's not a given that it's going to happen every time. That's my point. While it certainly happens (and with more and more regularity the larger the rating/ability discrepancy), the USTA blurb the way it is written makes it sound like a fait accompli every time you step on the court, and that is 100% wrong.
 
J

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
NLBwell said:
JRB
1) Maybe, when you play full out, you are a better player. Try it against your regular opponents and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

I wish this were the case, but I do clearly make more errors when I hit out like that. When I'm playing at 4.0, the errors pile up hitting out while keeping the ball deep and safe doesn't lead to losing points. At 5.0, for one, the "safe" balls were sitters to him and points were lost in bunches, just not on my errors, and for another thing, hitting out was much easier because the other guy was giving me more pace and a much cleaner ball to swing at. I know if I play up again like that, I will have to go for it, but at my level, it gets messy...
 
J

JoeR

New User
A

asimple

Semi-Pro
J_R_B said:
An exception, but not an extreme exception. I've been double bageled by 5.0s in tournaments, too, so I certainly understand that is going to be a common outcome with that spread in ability (and frankly, if I played the same guy multiple times, I'm sure sometimes it would be love and love with him, too), but it's not a given that it's going to happen every time. That's my point. While it certainly happens (and with more and more regularity the larger the rating/ability discrepancy), the USTA blurb the way it is written makes it sound like a fait accompli every time you step on the court, and that is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

I am a 4.0C player but have recently improved my game recently and am probably closer to a strong 4.5 so am playing at both levels. The main thing I have noticed in my 4.0 matches is either my opponent can't keep the ball in the court 3 balls in a row or they have nothing that can hurt me so I just wait to put away the safe ball that you mention.

I have had a huge number of bagels this year, but not many double bagels. It is extremely tough to keep your focus up for a whole match like this. One of my issues is that I have had a problem getting warmed up for some of these matches so played it safe rather than going for too much and becoming angry with myself. For this reason I have had solid victories (4 games max), but not completely dominant. The chance of me losing one of these matches is pretty close to zero though and I am not a 5.0 and definitely not a 5.5.
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
Cindysphinx said:
Hey, whoa.

You started a thread to talk about playing on your high school team.

Either you're a youngster, or I'm calling the police.
Click to expand...


There's no references about that.

You live in Florida am I correct? Or is it California?

It doesn't matter, their judicial system is broken.
 
beernutz

beernutz

Hall of Fame
Overdrive said:
There's no references about that.

You live in Florida am I correct? Or is it California?

It doesn't matter, their judicial system is broken.
Click to expand...

imageivg.jpg
 
Cindysphinx

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Overdrive said:
There's no references about that.

You live in Florida am I correct? Or is it California?

It doesn't matter, their judicial system is broken.
Click to expand...

Come on, Overdrive.

We have read your posts. We know you are in high school. Why are you working to hard to hide something you openly admitted?
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
Cindysphinx said:
Come on, Overdrive.

We have read your posts. We know you are in high school. Why are you working to hard to hide something you openly admitted?
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Some people on TT can't read. You & other people have made several errs* in the past.

What purpose would I gain from hiding my age? That's another point several people are making that makes no sense.

You're just going to add age insults in you're bag of meaningless & unfunny jokes.


*Err is a word
 
beernutz

beernutz

Hall of Fame
Overdrive said:
I beg to differ. Some people on TT can't read. You & other people have made several errs* in the past.

What purpose would I gain from hiding my age? That's another point several people are making that makes no sense.

You're just going to add age insults in you're bag of meaningless & unfunny jokes.

*
Err is a word
Click to expand...

Yes it is, but it is a verb, not a noun which is how you have used it.
 
OrangePower

OrangePower

Legend
Overdrive said:
I beg to differ. Some people on TT can't read. You & other people have made several errs* in the past.

What purpose would I gain from hiding my age? That's another point several people are making that makes no sense.

You're just going to add age insults in you're bag of meaningless & unfunny jokes.


*Err is a word
Click to expand...

Since as you said there is no purpose to hiding your age, why don't you just say what it is? We will take you at your word. It really doesn't make difference, but appearing to be deceptive does hurt your credibility.

By the way, "err" is a word, but it is a verb, not a noun. You can say "I often err", or "she often errs", but it is incorrect to say "you have made several errs."
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
OrangePower said:
Since as you said there is no purpose to hiding your age, why don't you just say what it is? We will take you at your word. It really doesn't make difference, but appearing to be deceptive does hurt your credibility.

By the way, "err" is a word, but it is a verb, not a noun. You can say "I often err", or "she often errs", but it is incorrect to say "you have made several errs."
Click to expand...

No deception was used, it appeared in perception.
It doesn't matter how old I am, these people will still flock to my posts and threads and derail them. For some reason, it has reached beyond that, and I don't know why.

I disagree. Several and often are nearly synonymous.

In actuality, I can say that someone lied several times and/or often. Meaning, their credibility is useless either way. Would you want to trust someone who has lied to you several times or often?

In this case, making several errors is just the same as often because it foretells the idea that the person(s) should not be given credit on their behalf.
 
mightyrick

mightyrick

Legend
Overdrive said:
No deception was used, it appeared in perception.
It doesn't matter how old I am, these people will still flock to my posts and threads and derail them. For some reason, it has reached beyond that, and I don't know why.
Click to expand...

I know why. It is because you are making outlandish claims about beating excellent players -- without yourself actually being that great. When people make outlandish claims, they are going to be put under the microscope. And you are very vague on the details, which makes it even more suspicious.

For those of us who play in a lot of sanctioned tennis tournaments and ladders, we know who can beat who. We have seen so many 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5s play.

We have bona-fide 5.0 and 5.5s on this message board. They have videos. They post names. They talk about their matches. They aren't vague. They aren't evasive. They don't shrug off questions. And you seem to do this.

Merely making a claim doesn't yield credibility. Demonstrating competence about the subject-matter within that claim yields credible. I think you've yet to do that.
 
OrangePower

OrangePower

Legend
Overdrive said:
No deception was used, it appeared in perception.
It doesn't matter how old I am, these people will still flock to my posts and threads and derail them. For some reason, it has reached beyond that, and I don't know why.

I disagree. Several and often are nearly synonymous.

In actuality, I can say that someone lied several times and/or often. Meaning, their credibility is useless either way. Would you want to trust someone who has lied to you several times or often?

In this case, making several errors is just the same as often because it foretells the idea that the person(s) should not be given credit on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or perhaps doing a most excellent job of trolling us?

Or have we already reached the grim future where the educational system has completely failed the younger generation?

The distinction is not between several and often, but between a noun and a verb.

Let me be more clear:
"You often err" - correct usage (verb)
"She often errs" - correct usage (verb)
"You have often made errs" - incorrect usage (no such noun)
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
OrangePower said:
Huh? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or perhaps doing a most excellent job of trolling us?

Or have we already reached the grim future where the educational system has completely failed the younger generation?

The distinction is not between several and often, but between a noun and a verb.

Let me be more clear:
"You often err" - correct usage (verb)
"She often errs" - correct usage (verb)
"You have often made errs" - incorrect usage (no such noun)
Click to expand...

What? Why does is a person always being considered a troll in a conversation if it doesn't make sense to them. ? The word is being thrown around with no purpose.

I still disagree.

The thread is derailed now. I'm stopping because this won't go anywhere.
 
G

gmatheis

Hall of Fame
Overdrive said:
What? Why does is a person always being considered a troll in a conversation if it doesn't make sense to them. ? The word is being thrown around with no purpose.

I still disagree.

The thread is derailed now. I'm stopping because this won't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing with his statement that "err" is a verb only and not a noun?

From dictionary.com

err intransitive verb \ˈer, ˈər\

Definition of ERR
1 archaic: stray

2 a: to make a mistake <erred in his calculations> <erred on the side of caution>
b: to violate an accepted standard of conduct

If you want a noun the word you use is "error"

Also "several" and "often" are not the same at all.
Several refers to an amount.
Often refers to a frequency of something.

To illustrate: if a politician makes 1000 votes on bills and voted against his party 3 times you could say he voted against his party several times. You could hardly say that he votes against his party often though as you would be hard pressed to define 3 out of 1000 as often.
 
JRstriker12

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
gmatheis said:
what high schools , or colleges for that matter, play mixed or guys against girls. Never heard of that.
Click to expand...

Actually, our tennis coach's daughter was on my high school team. There wasn't any girls tennis teams in our area so I think my coach worked something out with the other coaches. Our team was pretty bad, so I don't think any of the other teams were worried about it.
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
gmatheis said:
Are you disagreeing with his statement that "err" is a verb only and not a noun?

From dictionary.com

err intransitive verb \ˈer, ˈər\

Definition of ERR
1 archaic: stray

2 a: to make a mistake <erred in his calculations> <erred on the side of caution>
b: to violate an accepted standard of conduct

If you want a noun the word you use is "error"

Also "several" and "often" are not the same at all.
Several refers to an amount.
Often refers to a frequency of something.

To illustrate: if a politician makes 1000 votes on bills and voted against his party 3 times you could say he voted against his party several times. You could hardly say that he votes against his party often though as you would be hard pressed to define 3 out of 1000 as often.
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand.
Thanks for the grammar lesson.
 
T

TahoeTennis

Legend
31. Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?

"
No …The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will
be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a
3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many
people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that
range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range. A typical match
result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of
whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player."
 
g4driver

g4driver

Legend
J_R_B said:
I am a 4.0. I played a 5.0 B rated league player player in a tournament (a guy who played in 5.0 sectionals to get the B, not a recently bumped 4.5). We were playing in the semis of the county championiship tournament, and his top-seeded finals opponent was on the court next to us wiping out his semis opponent love and one. There is absolutely ZERO chance he was taking it easy or just fooling around with me. I lost 1 & 6. I even had a chance to take the set in the tb. He was serving at 5-all. I hit a shot deep into the backhand corner that he had to run to get and returned (somewhat short) to the middle of the court. I hit a forehand to his forehand corner and came in behind it ready to knock off a volley to set up a serve for the set. On a full sprint, the guy ripped a forehand from outside the alley that wasn't actually over the court until it landed 2 in inside each line. One of the greatest shots I've ever had played against me. I was dumbstruck at that point and lost the next point.

He was certainly the better player, and if that's what he can come up with at 5-all in a tiebreaker, I tip my hat, but saying that a 5.0 playing full effort against a 4.0 will dobule bagel him every time is just wrong. I know what the USTA says about rating differences and 0 & 0 scores, but it's poorly worded and has been almost universally misinterpreted.
Click to expand...

I am totally with J_R_B

I wasn't there, but I have seen guys shock higher rated players and give them a match they didn't expect.

It has happened to me on the reserve side of the coin also. I played a 3.0S guy who took me 3 sets. The 3.0S player and his teammate who play ladder matches against USTA 4.0C players and won several matches against 4.0 C players. At the end of the year, they were bumped to 3.5.

So now the 3.0S guys are 3,5C players and they are beating 3.5C and 4.0C players in USTA matches in their one ditch effort to advance in the playoffs.

Last year a friend of mine was a 3.0C bumped to 3.5C. This spring he played 4.0 and lost 4&4 to a 4.0B Captain who has been to 4.0 State three years in a row. Had this been in Nov 2012 instead of Feb 2013, the 6-4, 6-4 score would have been a 3.0 vs a 4.0B

Was the 4.0B tanking ? Probably.

The USTA algorithm didn't see that coming, even in Feb 2013. The system needs tweaking with a win-loss percentage factor to address tanking games.

Want to tank a set ? Fine. But a Win/Loss factor built in could overide a tanked set.

When you win 85+% of your matches at your current level, odds are you will be just fine at the next level.

Funny how most companies are always trying to make their products better, and stay ahead of the game. But the USTA doesn't strike me as an organization that gets it.

I've just accepted the USTA for what they are: an organization that gets priority courts in my area from 6-10 pm on Weeknights and 8-12 am on Saturdays. Want to play at these times, better play USTA due to limited courts..
 
A

alegare

New User
You'll see some ok groundstrokes, but not too much consistency. You'll also get second serves that are just tapped in.
 
W

Wilson6-1

Rookie
In my prior experience the 3.5 level seemed to provide the greatest variety of skill levels. I don't know if it is because it is a common self-rating level or because others like to stay (sandbag) at this level. But I recall playing 3.5 players that I could have sworn never played the game before and others that were so consistent, I couldn't believe they were playing at that level.

Whether at 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0, in general, the fewer the mistakes the better. Most of my problems come from trying to do too much.

Lastly, the one point I would disagree with is that a .5 difference in rating would double bagel the lower player. While I agree they would win, it does depend on the skill of the player. For example, even when I was a 3.0 player, I always had a big serve and could take games off of much better players. Today, as a 4.0, I can easily take games off of 4.5 players, and often do, winning on the other hand, is the tricky part.
 
TennisDawg

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
Wilson6-1 said:
In my prior experience the 3.5 level seemed to provide the greatest variety of skill levels. I don't know if it is because it is a common self-rating level or because others like to stay (sandbag) at this level. But I recall playing 3.5 players that I could have sworn never played the game before and others that were so consistent, I couldn't believe they were playing at that level.

.
Click to expand...

I've played 3.5s that are very consistent and have high tennis IQs, they don't beat themselves. They are not interested in moving up in level.

My theory is that the smart/consistent 3.5s are very settled into their games and stay within their game.
Whereas many 4.0s (1) are overrated and will usually beat themselves or (2) they are working on their games and trying new strokes to move up in level and losing points because of it and even matches.
 
The Isomotion31

The Isomotion31

Semi-Pro
Played my first singles 3.5 match against a great team this past weekend. I lost but it was a great experience. Couldn't ask for a better opponent.

He told me he could tell that had I been able to get more reps in and practice the outcome might of been different.

This guy was consistent and just knew when to take a chance and put away a ball.

Stamina wise I felt great. Could of played more. I was able to serve and volley here and there but the baseline ground stroke rallies were really fun.

He told me he is 3.5 computer rated(I am a 3.0 self rated) and will be making the move up to 4.0.

So much fun, can't wait for my next match!
 
S

Sakkijarvi

Semi-Pro
I know a guy that appealed down (at the advice of his USTA captain) to 3.5 from 4.0, but beats benchmarked 4.0 guys 6-0, 6-0 in club singles leagues. Truly, a 3.5 G.O.A.T. in the making.
 
JRstriker12

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
TennisDawg said:
I've played 3.5s that are very consistent and have high tennis IQs, they don't beat themselves. They are not interested in moving up in level.

My theory is that the smart/consistent 3.5s are very settled into their games and stay within their game.
Whereas many 4.0s (1) are overrated and will usually beat themselves or (2) they are working on their games and trying new strokes to move up in level and losing points because of it and even matches.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think your theory is wrong. The level of consistency is a big factor in going from 3.5 to 4.0.

But don't confuse a pusher (just get it back in play, wait for the other player to self destruct) with a counter-puncher (Very consistent and solid, smart, waits for an opening to attack)

Also, it's not a mystery that a lot of the better 3.5's and 4.0's tend to be very consistent players off of both sides. Consistency plus a high tennis IQ make a tough to beat opponent at any level.

It's the guys with the low tennis IQ's and inconsistent games (everything has to be a winner) that generally don't advance. The guys with high tennis IQ's are the guys working on their games and trying to get better.

As for your statement about 4.0's - Couldn't you say that about any NTRP group? There some players at the bottom - like a recent bump up from 4.0 to 4.5 who will struggle and could be considered "overrated" and guys trying to improve. But I wouldn't say trying to improve necessarily means losing points/matches.
 
TennisDawg

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
JRstriker12 said:
Honestly, I think your theory is wrong. The level of consistency is a big factor in going from 3.5 to 4.0.

But don't confuse a pusher (just get it back in play, wait for the other player to self destruct) with a counter-puncher (Very consistent and solid, smart, waits for an opening to attack)

Also, it's not a mystery that a lot of the better 3.5's and 4.0's tend to be very consistent players off of both sides. Consistency plus a high tennis IQ make a tough to beat opponent at any level.

It's the guys with the low tennis IQ's and inconsistent games (everything has to be a winner) that generally don't advance. The guys with high tennis IQ's are the guys working on their games and trying to get better.

As for your statement about 4.0's - Couldn't you say that about any NTRP group? There some players at the bottom - like a recent bump up from 4.0 to 4.5 who will struggle and could be considered "overrated" and guys trying to improve. But I wouldn't say trying to improve necessarily means losing points/matches.
Click to expand...

I base my theory on the fact that most recreational players are Intermediate players (3.5 to 4.0). It's also my perception that a large number of 3.5 players are not happy being just an average player and being inpatient leap frog (and they are overrrated) into the 4.0 level in hopes of someday being a 4.5. Many of these players are not ready or they may never be ready.

Now, I said many not all. Someone that has the talent and with some work will play at 4.0 and go thru a fairly short learning curve, but while they're learning they are beaten by players of way less ability. Eventually in a fairly short time they will beat all the 4.0s (pushers included) and transiton into 4.5 and with more play and practice end up at 5.0 or higher.


Many pushers are the perpetual 3.5 and they have a high tennis IQ and are content to remain a 3.5. A 3.5 pusher can win many matches and even tournaments at 3.5 because he's savvy and doesn't care that his style drives opponents crazy, a win is a win. In fact a 3.5 pusher can also beat many at the 4.0 for the reasons I stated above.
 
JRstriker12

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
TennisDawg said:
I base my theory on the fact that most recreational players are Intermediate players (3.5 to 4.0). It's also my perception that a large number of 3.5 players are not happy being just an average player and being inpatient leap frog (and they are overrrated) into the 4.0 level in hopes of someday being a 4.5. Many of these players are not ready or they may never be ready.

Now, I said many not all. Someone that has the talent and with some work will play at 4.0 and go thru a fairly short learning curve, but while they're learning they are beaten by players of way less ability. Eventually in a fairly short time they will beat all the 4.0s (pushers included) and transiton into 4.5 and with more play and practice end up at 5.0 or higher.


Many pushers are the perpetual 3.5 and they have a high tennis IQ and are content to remain a 3.5. A 3.5 pusher can win many matches and even tournaments at 3.5 because he's savvy and doesn't care that his style drives opponents crazy, a win is a win. In fact a 3.5 pusher can also beat many at the 4.0 for the reasons I stated above.
Click to expand...

Impatiently 3.5 leap frog to 4.0? You can play up, but your results will determine if you get rated 4.0, once you get that 4.0 bump, it's not like you can go back and play 3.5 and wait to improve - appeals down are pretty rare.

I don't see how a pusher has a high tennis IQ, it's just about being consistent and mentally tough. Players with a high tennis IQ understand things like net play, approach and transitioning, use of angles - etc. A pusher generally doesn't learn these things - thus why they depend on their opponent to self destruct.

A 3.5 pusher that can beat many 4.0 wouldn't be a 3.5 for long. You average computer rated 3.5 pusher is not beating your average computer rated 4.0 - fact. Being able to beat a 3.5 pusher is basically the low ceiling to getting to 4.0.
 
TennisDawg

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
JRstriker12 said:
Impatiently 3.5 leap frog to 4.0? You can play up, but your results will determine if you get rated 4.0, once you get that 4.0 bump, it's not like you can go back and play 3.5 and wait to improve - appeals down are pretty rare.

I don't see how a pusher has a high tennis IQ, it's just about being consistent and mentally tough. Players with a high tennis IQ understand things like net play, approach and transitioning, use of angles - etc. A pusher generally doesn't learn these things - thus why they depend on their opponent to self destruct.

A 3.5 pusher that can beat many 4.0 wouldn't be a 3.5 for long. You average computer rated 3.5 pusher is not beating your average computer rated 4.0 - fact. Being able to beat a 3.5 pusher is basically the low ceiling to getting to 4.0.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my point. Many 4.0s are playing at that level but have no business playing at that level. There's nothing in the USTA system that prevents him from playing up. His ego can't handle getting beat in straight sets at 3.5, especially if he's been striving to move up for years.

Based on my perception there are quite a few in that category and as I mentioned in the previous post the data supports that the largest NTRP level of all players is the 3.5 to 4.0.


A pusher has a high tennis IQ because he knows his own limitations, he is not under the illusion that he will someday break out that style of play. He knows "it's not in the cards" and is content to just stay right there and rack up wins at 3.5.

A 3.5 pusher may even do well at 4.0 because he may have a large field of low tennis IQ players that shoud still be playing 3.5, essentially they lower the bar.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of that style of play, but I give credit where it's due.
 
T

TahoeTennis

Legend
my 2 cents:


First off, there must be said that once we are talking about a 4.5+ level things get a lot more interesting.
For example, 2 years ago I was moved up to a 4.5 level. I've been playing tennis for over 20 years now, the last 10 being very serious about it. I've hit with 5.0's and 2 5.5's and have won a few games and hit a few winners against some of them, but have lost all of them, for now. The good news is you get better playing people better than you, so keep practicing and have fun! That's while we're all here, we love tennis.

Also for your consideration:

The local teaching pro here, Jani T, is a 5.5, has won 4 gold balls, and almost won the World Championships last year. (He won the California 30's division 3 or 4 times) In fact, his brother is Jersey J's coach! Anyway, he's a 5.5 and got to hit with Jarkko Nieminen recently.
Now what are pro's "rated", 7.0? I have no doubt in my mind that Jani could take many points, and yes even a game or 2 off some pros, which according to this thread is a 1.5 point difference.
 
beernutz

beernutz

Hall of Fame
TennisDawg said:
Yes, that's my point. Many 4.0s are playing at that level but have no business playing at that level. There's nothing in the USTA system that prevents him from playing up. His ego can't handle getting beat in straight sets at 3.5, especially if he's been striving to move up for years.

Based on my perception there are quite a few in that category and as I mentioned in the previous post the data supports that the largest NTRP level of all players is the 3.5 to 4.0.


A pusher has a high tennis IQ because he knows his own limitations, he is not under the illusion that he will someday break out that style of play. He knows "it's not in the cards" and is content to just stay right there and rack up wins at 3.5.

A 3.5 pusher may even do well at 4.0 because he may have a large field of low tennis IQ players that shoud still be playing 3.5, essentially they lower the bar.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of that style of play, but I give credit where it's due.
Click to expand...

Knowing your limitations is not the same thing at all as having a high tennis IQ.

"A 3.5 pusher may even do well at 4.0 because he may have a large field of low tennis IQ players that shoud still be playing 3.5, essentially they lower the bar."

Redonkulous.
 
G

gmatheis

Hall of Fame
TahoeTennis said:
my 2 cents:


First off, there must be said that once we are talking about a 4.5+ level things get a lot more interesting.
For example, 2 years ago I was moved up to a 4.5 level. I've been playing tennis for over 20 years now, the last 10 being very serious about it. I've hit with 5.0's and 2 5.5's and have won a few games and hit a few winners against some of them, but have lost all of them, for now. The good news is you get better playing people better than you, so keep practicing and have fun! That's while we're all here, we love tennis.

Also for your consideration:

The local teaching pro here, Jani T, is a 5.5, has won 4 gold balls, and almost won the World Championships last year. (He won the California 30's division 3 or 4 times) In fact, his brother is Jersey J's coach! Anyway, he's a 5.5 and got to hit with Jarkko Nieminen recently.
Now what are pro's "rated", 7.0? I have no doubt in my mind that Jani could take many points, and yes even a game or 2 off some pros, which according to this thread is a 1.5 point difference.
Click to expand...

you just don't understand how good pros are.

Could a 5.5 take some points? sure ... i mean even a pro double faults from time to time. Could this 5.5 take games ... not if the pro took the match seriously and didn't want them to. You just don't understand how good you have to be to be a successful touring pro.
 
anubis

anubis

Hall of Fame
gmatheis said:
you just don't understand how good pros are.

Could a 5.5 take some points? sure ... i mean even a pro double faults from time to time. Could this 5.5 take games ... not if the pro took the match seriously and didn't want them to. You just don't understand how good you have to be to be a successful touring pro.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've seen some spectacular 5.5 matches. These guys really wail at the ball. But at the end of the day, a 5.5 rating is an amateur rating. Pros don't use NTRP, it doesn't apply to them.

5.5's have the "strokes", sometimes, but there's so much more that goes into the game than simply having good strokes. There's point construction, reading your opponent, faking out your opponent, fitness, muscle memory, strength training... all as a full time job.

The best 5.5 strokes are still just a lazy warm up for a pro.
 
J

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
anubis said:
I agree. I've seen some spectacular 5.5 matches. These guys really wail at the ball. But at the end of the day, a 5.5 rating is an amateur rating. Pros don't use NTRP, it doesn't apply to them.
Click to expand...

All NTRP ratings over 5.0 get muddled very quickly. There's just not enough of a player pool to calculate an accurate rating like there is at the height of the bell curve around 3.0-4.0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Help! Player with two NTRP ratings (3.5 M and 4.0 S)??
Replies
6
Views
427
NumbersGuy
N
H
Play Style of USTA NTRP 3.5 Singles Tournaments?
Replies
8
Views
2K
amlemus
amlemus
T
On a 3.5 team. Playing in 4.0 tournament. Risking my team membership?
Replies
7
Views
939
bodieq
B
T
4.0 stuck on a team with mostly 3.5's
Replies
41
Views
4K
jc4.0
jc4.0
Traffic
What's the difference between 3.0 and 3.5?
Replies
49
Views
16K
Dartagnan64
Dartagnan64
Top