Beginner 2.5 vs 3.0

[A.Chase]

i just started playing tennis last fall (only played recreationally about 20 yrs ago previously), and I signed up for a 3.0 women's league. I really just enjoy playing for fun, but most people in my area play on teams/leagues. So I figured a league would be a good way to meet some fellow players.

I lost every match pretty badly at the 3.0 level. I was definitely out of my element-- I didn't have a backhand slice, drop shot, 2nd serve/serve variety ( kick, slice). Also, didn't know much about clay vs hard court strategy. But I got some good experience and have been trying to learn.

So This season I decided to try the 2.5 league instead. Now I'm winning every match with little effort. My opponents typically have difficulty getting serves in, lots of double faults, hitting to their backhand is all that's needed to win a point. It's kind of boring for me, and I'm feeling bad for my opponents. Plus I don't want to get a reputation as a sandbagger!

My question is : how can there be such a huge difference in 2.5 vs 3.0 play? I've read the USTA descriptions, but really they don't help me translate what you're going to see in reality. I wish there were a "2.75" league. I'll try going back to 3.0 again next season I suppose, but I'm going to really need to learn a lot more to keep up. I've made some progress over the last few months in consistency and placement, but don't have the power and variety.

 

[breezybee]

Well, it sounds like last season you were a 2.5 playing against 3.0 players and this season you are a 3.0 playing against 2.5 players. You'll probably find you fit right in at 3.0 now and maybe be ready for 3.5 next year. I do find it strange though that at the 3.0 level you were seeing serve variety etc. because when I played 3.0 I only had one serve and that was "get it in the box". I think it would be unusual to see kick serves at 3.0.

 

[MathGeek]

There seems to be a lot of local variation. I think most of the 3.5s and 4.0s I play with (including me) might be closer to 3.0s if we went and played in the league of the nearest big city.

 

[Turbo-87]

I would agree with the above. I wouldn't read too much into what you are seeing and using that as a barometer for tennis overall. At this point, play where you are uncomfortable and just get better. I think you'd have more fun playing "up" because you can only get better from there even if you don't win right away. Don't worry about ratings. When I was a beginner I stayed hungry and always wanted to play better people. Losing didn't bother me as long as it was fun and I learned what I was lacking, like having an open alley and placing it squarely in the net ... execution.

In my own league, I was never comfortable playing with higher players and that translated to lot of personal success. I was ready to play and prove I belonged. I attribute that to never being complacent and taking challenges head on. I had my share of downslides where I thought I had forgotten how to play but fought through it.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So This season I decided to try the 2.5 league instead. Now I'm winning every match with little effort. My opponents typically have difficulty getting serves in, lots of double faults, hitting to their backhand is all that's needed to win a point. It's kind of boring for me, and I'm feeling bad for my opponents. Plus I don't want to get a reputation as a sandbagger!

Maybe the difference is partially you, not your opponents. All of the time you were losing at 3.0, you were gaining experience. If you had stuck with 3.0, you might have found your results improving. As it is, when you return to 3.0, hopefully you'll find that you're now more competitive.

I lost every match pretty badly at the 3.0 level. I was definitely out of my element-- I didn't have a backhand slice, drop shot, 2nd serve/serve variety ( kick, slice). Also, didn't know much about clay vs hard court strategy. But I got some good experience and have been trying to learn.

The shots you lack are also shots that many 3.0s lack [I don't see very many 3.0s hitting drop shots or kick serves]. Remember that most matches are lost with UEs rather than won with winners: if you can develop your consistency, you'll be able to hang at 3.0 and will be soon ready for 3.5!

I'm not saying you shouldn't develop the aforementioned shots, just that they wouldn't be the first place I'd concentrate on.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Yeah, I think plenty of 3.0s don't have backhand slices, drop shots, 2nd serve/serve variety, or noticeably different strategies for clay and hardcourts. If you haven't developed those things, that shouldn't hold you back at 3.0.

If I had to guess, I think you saw a lot more of those things BECAUSE you were losing, not that you were losing because of those things. When someone is up, say, 6-2 4-1 on you, or earlier whenever they feel 100% sure they can win if they want - that's a time they'll try to be clever and hit dropshots and slices and go for weird spins on their serve.

You said that you've worked on your consistency and placement - and those are, in my opinion, the MOST important things.

Placement means you can find the opponents weakness and make them hit that shot. If they hate backhands give them backhands, if they hate forehands give them forehands, if they're slow make them run side to side. Placement means you can vary your gameplan based on the situation in the point - when there isn't a reason to hit closer to the lines you can play safer, when you need to or see an opportunity you can aim closer to the lines.

Consistency is what wins matches. Lots more points are won off of unforced errors than off of winners.

If you're getting placement and consistency with good technique, you're on absolutely the right path to start winning 3.0 matches.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I started as a total beginner at 2.5. I was bumped to 3.0 after one year at 2.5.

The 2.5 level is for total beginners. You are not a total beginner, as you have over one year of competitive experience. Play 2.5 if you want to go to the playoffs or nationals or something -- if that is your computer rating then it is acceptable for you to play that level and enjoy destroying everyone you play. But if you have to choose between 2.5 and 3.0, then pick the latter. It will be more fun, which is kind of the point.

That said, if you are really a computer-rated 2.5, play a tournament and walk off with the bling. I have only won one tournament in my life: A 2.5 singles tournament. I display this trophy proudly because non-tennis people think "2005 Ladies 2.5 Singles Champion" is impressive.

 

[A.Chase]

Thanks for the good advice. I'm not really interested in winning tournaments or trophies, and my computer rating (currently 2.5) isn't a big deal to me either. Actually my main motivation is that I would like to play tennis one day with some of my good friends (who are all at the 3.5 to 4.0 level). Hopefully one day I'll get there!

If I had to guess, I think you saw a lot more of those things BECAUSE you were losing, not that you were losing because of those things. When someone is up, say, 6-2 4-1 on you, or earlier whenever they feel 100% sure they can win if they want - that's a time they'll try to be clever and hit dropshots and slices and go for weird spins on their serve.

That's a very good point. Many of my opponents executed these fancy shots well, but others not so well -- I get the feeling they just wanted to practice trying them out in a match situation.

Consistency is what wins matches. Lots more points are won off of unforced errors than off of winners.

This is the advice that my coach has given me. She has pointed out that I can sustain really long rallies, and I should use this as a strategy and just wait for my opponents to make mistakes. But I'm also often playing people who are about 10 to 15 years younger (plus, I'm not very athletic), and I don't know that I have the stamina to play long "slug out" matches.

 

[beltsman]

In my experience, most "3.0" players are actually 3.5. But downward pressure of sandbagging makes the jump from 2.5 to 3.0 a pretty big one.

 

[Dartagnan64]

In my experience, most "3.0" players are actually 3.5. But downward pressure of sandbagging makes the jump from 2.5 to 3.0 a pretty big one.

There's such a wide variablity because you have the 3.0 sandbaggers that are really 3.5's but manage their ranking to win playoffs and tourneys. Then you have the ego driven self-rated 3.0's that are really 2.5's but don't want to be thought of as beginner's. Put those two together and things get lopsided in a hurry.

Ego is the enemy of fairness and objectivity.

I know several golfers that have 2 handicaps: the one they use for tournaments and match play and the one they use on the 19th hole. The former is typically 5-10 points higher than the latter.

 

[eelhc]

Forget NTRP numbers, wins/losses at a level, advancing, etc, etc.... Worry about acquiring the skill and not a level. You'll be much happier.

 

[ZirkusAffe]

2.5 is truly starting, 3.0 is more rec and some people who played along time ago will start back at 3.0 with some 3.5 skills.. mix that in with people that are 3.0 developing over years and it can be a variety pack of skill sets out there.. UE's are the key (as mentioned above).. lower those and win more, also take care of your serve and your return. Sustaining rallies is one thing (good thing to have) but it's what you do with the ball and how you setup your points to either finish the point.. just hanging in will get you far but I do not like rallying from the baseline unless I know I can win the point from there (ie. dictate play). As you said it may not be sustainable in matches against people with more stamina (younger perhaps), so having a net game/approach and/or being able to mix in S&V could help.
Prioritize what needs the most work what will pay off and help you win matches.. Last year I lost a lot at singles I was still working on my serve and my return (my FH I left and it was pitiful, my bh was primarily only a slice at the time).. I worked mainly on my returns and my serves because without them I put more pressure on everything else (fh/bh etc.) just getting points started.. I need to hold serve #1, then I need to put pressure on the server or at least never give cheap points (ok a very good server I would have to at least weather the storm hopefully).. For me my singles got better but not remarkably better, my doubles game did get better because those are important aspects along with net play (which is the only other skill I had at the time really). You already have rally skill, how's your serving? How are your returns? keep track, better those percentages, UE's are key but so is serving/returning well is a must.. 3.0 level lacks a lot of consistency at serving if it's consistent its usually weak or a very weak second serve.. returns are block backs or predictable same spot depth returns.. I probably gave so many free points (UE's) people were probably begging to play me, hopefully not this year. Good luck.

 

[Ft.S]

Consistency is what wins matches. Lots more points are won off of unforced errors than off of winners.

If you're getting placement and consistency with good technique, you're on absolutely the right path to start winning 3.0 matches.

This is the advice that my coach has given me. She has pointed out that I can sustain really long rallies, and I should use this as a strategy and just wait for my opponents to make mistakes. But I'm also often playing people who are about 10 to 15 years younger (plus, I'm not very athletic), and I don't know that I have the stamina to play long "slug out" matches.

I have been told this many times as well, and I do think there is some truth in this for some people. Consistency has not worked for me. First, as you point out too, consistency requires physical endurance, particularly at the 2.5 and 3.0 levels as those players' shots are actually very inconsistently placed, hard to predict what the opponent will do, where the ball will land. Developing enough technique to be consistent takes long time, and without a doubt it needs to happen, but by the time technique is good enough to be 'consistent' years pass away.

IMHO, to play at a level that is actually fun for both sides and advance through those levels, player need to develop one or two strengths and keep adding to those strengths as you move up. For example, at 2.5 level I think all you need to have is a medium pace serve that you can execute with consistency and minimal double faults. If the rest of the game is good enough for 2.5 level, a serve that is at 3.0 level will take to next step. At the 3.0 level, provided the rest of the game is keep up on average with that level, a good first and second serves with pace and placement + strong return of serve will take you to 3.5. And you keep adding those types of weapons as you move.

In short, I don't think it is practical to build a consistent overall game for a 2.5 player and expect them to be at 3.0 level within, let's say, 6 months. I think the approach needs to be picking shots that will keep you on court having fun, and one by one becoming consistent with those shots, turning them into actual weapons, even if it means the rest of the game is still inconsistent.

The other aspect of the advice that bothers me is about getting the ball across and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. To me that's not fun tennis, you need to earn the points IMO, make the shots, take the risks and also learn to lose. That's just me though, most of my tennis friends do criticize me for my attitude of getting on court not to win, but to play

 

[Dartagnan64]

I'm Ft.S. Play to make your shots, not to let the other person screw up. Watching an opponent make an unforced error will never make you smile. Hitting that clean winner after moving your opponent around for two or three shots will make you smile. Hitting that serve down the T for an ace will make you smile.

My advice: when rallying with friends, never stand in the middle of the court. Rally cross court as much as possible. Both sides. Learning to hit corners is essential to developing weapons.
Also play tiebreaker points instead of rallying. That way you work on serve and ROS. The two most important shots in tennis.

 

[Cindysphinx]

My advice? Use the correct grip for every shot.

Wrong grips will really hold you back, especially on volleys.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm Ft.S. Play to make your shots, not to let the other person screw up. Watching an opponent make an unforced error will never make you smile. Hitting that clean winner after moving your opponent around for two or three shots will make you smile. Hitting that serve down the T for an ace will make you smile.

Hitting winners is an immediate gratification shot. Consistency is more like getting dividends over time. Great players can usually do both. It sounds like she already has the consistency part fairly well in-hand [and that, IMO, is usually the more difficult skill to develop].

Perhaps I value consistency more than you do, Dart. Vive la difference.

My advice: when rallying with friends, never stand in the middle of the court. Rally cross court as much as possible. Both sides. Learning to hit corners is essential to developing weapons.

One of the best BL drills is to have one person always hit DTL and the other to always hit CC. Then switch. Footwork, cardio, court geometry all come into play.

Just don't get carried away with trying to hit corners [or lines].

Advice I heard from an asst coach at a Div I school: "I never aim for closer than 3 feet from the line."

Also play tiebreaker points instead of rallying. That way you work on serve and ROS. The two most important shots in tennis.

Good advice.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Hitting winners is an immediate gratification shot. Consistency is more like getting dividends over time. Great players can usually do both. It sounds like she already has the consistency part fairly well in-hand [and that, IMO, is usually the more difficult skill to develop].

Perhaps I value consistency more than you do, Dart. Vive la difference.



One of the best BL drills is to have one person always hit DTL and the other to always hit CC. Then switch. Footwork, cardio, court geometry all come into play.

Just don't get carried away with trying to hit corners [or lines].

Advice I heard from an asst coach at a Div I school: "I never aim for closer than 3 feet from the line."



Good advice.

For a person that likes to dictate a point by serve and volleying, I'm surprised to see you value consistency so much. I think approaching the net carries far more risk/reward than aiming CC from the baseline.

I certainly don't advocate for aiming at lines during matches. But you've got to move people from the middle if you are going to win a baseline rally, unless you are so sure that they will lose a war of attrition in a neutral rally.

If you practice aiming at lines in warmup and when just hitting, making those shots in a match gets far easier.

I do like the CC to DTL drill but it's pretty tiring as a warmup exercise.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

For a person that likes to dictate a point by serve and volleying, I'm surprised to see you value consistency so much. I think approaching the net carries far more risk/reward than aiming CC from the baseline.

It's situational: if I'm on the BL and my opponent is attacking, more often than not I will try to hit a "setup" shot: one that's good but not a winner by any means but enough to possibly force an error or lead to a weak return that I can then rip. I don't go for extreme forcing shots [ie winners] that often.

However, when I'm at the net, which is often, I'm always looking for a chance to terminate. The difference is that when I'm at net, I don't have to hit anywhere near the line to hit a forcing shot or a winner.

I agree that the reward and the risk is higher at net. I guess I'm a contradiction in that sense. Maybe it's my roots as a BL counterpuncher. But which one is the "dark side"?

I certainly don't advocate for aiming at lines during matches. But you've got to move people from the middle if you are going to win a baseline rally, unless you are so sure that they will lose a war of attrition in a neutral rally.

Yeah, it's a fine line between patience and not being forceful enough. Maybe the difference is only known in hindsight [ie if you lost, you weren't forceful enough; if you won, you were patient].

If you practice aiming at lines in warmup and when just hitting, making those shots in a match gets far easier.

True but I don't think I have enough accuracy to hit lines. I prefer the "3 feet" guideline I referred to above.

 

[eelhc]

Hitting winners is an immediate gratification shot. Consistency is more like getting dividends over time. Great players can usually do both. It sounds like she already has the consistency part fairly well in-hand [and that, IMO, is usually the more difficult skill to develop].

Most of 2.5/3.0 ladies tennis is let's just hit the ball back/forth and see what develops... and if (by chance) there's an opening, attempt a winner. The ladies who develop consistent strokes, enough so they can start dictating points, move on to constructing points to set up the easy winner are the ones who move beyond 3.0 tennis.

 

[Dartagnan64]

True but I don't think I have enough accuracy to hit lines. I prefer the "3 feet" guideline I referred to above.

It really depends on the setup shot. If I get a medium pace short ball in my wheelhouse I absolutely can aim close to the lines. If I get a harder shot or I'm out of position, the three foot rule is usually the best I can do if I'm going DTL at all in that situation.

It also depends on who I'm playing. If I play a fast, fit pusher, aiming 3 feet inside the lines won't be good enough to force anything. Then I've got to work riskier angles and play some net to have a chance.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It really depends on the setup shot. If I get a medium pace short ball in my wheelhouse I absolutely can aim close to the lines. If I get a harder shot or I'm out of position, the three foot rule is usually the best I can do if I'm going DTL at all in that situation.

It also depends on who I'm playing. If I play a fast, fit pusher, aiming 3 feet inside the lines won't be good enough to force anything. Then I've got to work riskier angles and play some net to have a chance.

You changed your avatar: is that Nadal at Indian Wells?

Even if I'm playing a fast, fit pusher, I likely still won't aim closer than 3' from the line. But I'm also coming into the net so I don't need to hit a winner approach. I just want a setup shot that will make my volley easier.

If I'm playing doubles and I'm at net and I want to burn the net man down the alley, I, almost by definition, have to aim closer than 3'; sometimes I'm aiming 1' or less. In that scenario, I'm comfortable with the smaller margin of error because the ball doesn't have to travel 50+ feel like from the BL.

 

[Dartagnan64]

You changed your avatar: is that Nadal at Indian Wells?

Even if I'm playing a fast, fit pusher, I likely still won't aim closer than 3' from the line. But I'm also coming into the net so I don't need to hit a winner approach. I just want a setup shot that will make my volley easier.

If I'm playing doubles and I'm at net and I want to burn the net man down the alley, I, almost by definition, have to aim closer than 3'; sometimes I'm aiming 1' or less. In that scenario, I'm comfortable with the smaller margin of error because the ball doesn't have to travel 50+ feel like from the BL.

That's Nadal vs Djokovic at 2011 Indian Wells Final. Good call. Thought I'd change to a more tennis centric avatar. Amazing match.

I agree that if I'm way back at the baseline, I'll not usually go for a real tight angle or DTL shot. It's more for short shots that I try to increase the angles or hit more tight DTL's.

 

[Dakota C]

i just started playing tennis last fall (only played recreationally about 20 yrs ago previously), and I signed up for a 3.0 women's league. I really just enjoy playing for fun, but most people in my area play on teams/leagues. So I figured a league would be a good way to meet some fellow players.

I lost every match pretty badly at the 3.0 level. I was definitely out of my element-- I didn't have a backhand slice, drop shot, 2nd serve/serve variety ( kick, slice). Also, didn't know much about clay vs hard court strategy. But I got some good experience and have been trying to learn.

So This season I decided to try the 2.5 league instead. Now I'm winning every match with little effort. My opponents typically have difficulty getting serves in, lots of double faults, hitting to their backhand is all that's needed to win a point. It's kind of boring for me, and I'm feeling bad for my opponents. Plus I don't want to get a reputation as a sandbagger!

My question is : how can there be such a huge difference in 2.5 vs 3.0 play? I've read the USTA descriptions, but really they don't help me translate what you're going to see in reality. I wish there were a "2.75" league. I'll try going back to 3.0 again next season I suppose, but I'm going to really need to learn a lot more to keep up. I've made some progress over the last few months in consistency and placement, but don't have the power and variety.

From what can be gathered from resources, any level difference, whether from 2.5 to 3, or 4.0 to 4.5 - the level up should be able to beat the lower level with ease, essentially being able to win 6-0, with the opponent essentially never getting more then 3 games.