Can a self rated 2.5 play against 3.0s?

[Issya]

I started playing tennis last spring and recently self rated myself a 2.5 in order to participate in a league. The league didn't count towards anything and was more for practice / fun. There are no male or mixed leagues in my area for 2.5 players. I am hoping to get to a 3.0 playing level in 2019 but was wondering how I get to play in a league with other 3.0s? Do I have to beat other 2.5s in order to make it to 3.0 before playing other 3.0s?

I am aware that there may be 6.0 combo but again, not sure if a 2.5 could play in that.

Unrelated but something I've observed in my recent league experience were people that seemed to be rated lower than their play suggested. I imagine this could be people that genuinely started at that level but got better throughout the year or people who should legitimately be at a higher level. I would like to get to a 3.0 but if for some reason I were to stay at 2.5, that could make me a strong 2.5. Again, there aren't any local leagues that offer male or mixed 2.5 levels but I believe they offer a mixed 2.5 on the state level. It could be fun seeking out a team that does offer mixed 2.5 a little further away just to see if that could be a possibility.

 

[gmatheis]

You can play up one level , or 0.5

So yes a 2.5 can play 3.0.

 

[Issya]

You can play up one level , or 0.5

So yes a 2.5 can play 3.0.

Great to know, thanks for the reply!

It appears there may be a 2019 male singles 2.5 league a little further away. I wonder if all areas would have the same thing? It's just that when I search for upcoming leagues or tournaments all male singles and mixed doubles are 3.0+.

Would I be sandbagging if I did play 2.5 at some point? I'm not saying my play is anything fabulous and 3.0s are definitely better than I am at this time. I have been practicing 10+ hours a week and see big improvements all the time.

 

[Matthew ATX]

Yea, you can play up. The only 2.5 I know plays 3.0 leagues because, as you said, there are no 2.5 leagues here either. Don't think I've seen any 2.5 draws in tournaments either.

 

[kevrol]

Skip the Male 2.5 league and go straight to 3.0. If you can hold a racquet and occassionally get a serve in you will be bumped to 3.0.

 

[Issya]

Skip the Male 2.5 league and go straight to 3.0. If you can hold a racquet and occassionally get a serve in you will be bumped to 3.0.

Interesting, I would already be a 3.0 if I compared myself to the USTA videos. All of the 3.0s I've seen are much better than those videos. I was even playing a 2.5 in doubles and the 3.0s had trouble returning his serves.

I found some info on a league a little further away although I'm not quite sure if one is male and the other female. Also, what are formats?

https://imgur.com/a/Jh3rEN3

Does the format mean there can be 1 singles team and 2 doubles teams with a max of 15 players on each team or 15 players all together?

 

[Matthew ATX]

Interesting, I would already be a 3.0 if I compared myself to the USTA videos. All of the 3.0s I've seen are much better than those videos. I was even playing a 2.5 in doubles and the 3.0s had trouble returning his serves.

I found some info on a league a little further away although I'm not quite sure if one is male and the other female. Also, what are formats?

https://imgur.com/a/Jh3rEN3

Does the format mean there can be 1 singles team and 2 doubles teams with a max of 15 players on each team or 15 players all together?

15 players on a team. 1 singles and 2 doubles refers to lines in a team match, not separate teams. So in a team match, you will have one player on your team play singles, then have four players play doubles.

 

[AlexSV]

I was in the same situation a couple of months ago. I landed in a league with a range of 2.0 to low 3.0 players. The matches against the 2.0 and 2.5 level players were kinda painful. I would recommend going into the 3.0 league.

There may be an exception if keeping score still gives you trouble or you're unsure about the rules, the 2.5 players will be more casual about it and give you a better atmosphere for learning.

 

[Issya]

I was in the same situation a couple of months ago. I landed in a league with a range of 2.0 to low 3.0 players. The matches against the 2.0 and 2.5 level players were kinda painful. I would recommend going into the 3.0 league.

There may be an exception if keeping score still gives you trouble or you're unsure about the rules, the 2.5 players will be more casual about it and give you a better atmosphere for learning.

That will most likely be the route I go if I can get good enough by then. The recent league I tried were nothing counted was with 3.0-3.5. I had a tough time hanging with them. But then again, there aren't really opportunities to play at lower levels unless it's just casual.

 

[Titochop77]

I am a 3.0 and play in a 3.5 flex league but everyone in my flex league is a 4.0.

 

[Issya]

I am a 3.0 and play in a 3.5 flex league but everyone in my flex league is a 4.0.

I was a able to play a couple of 3.5s in the practice league and that was a completely different experience. It's fun practicing with higher levels but I'm never really sure how much they are holding back.

 

[Titochop77]

I was a able to play a couple of 3.5s in the practice league and that was a completely different experience. It's fun practicing with higher levels but I'm never really sure how much they are holding back.

I knew the 4.0 were holding back because I felt it. It fun playing higher players.

 

[ShaunS]

Would I be sandbagging if I did play 2.5 at some point? I'm not saying my play is anything fabulous and 3.0s are definitely better than I am at this time. I have been practicing 10+ hours a week and see big improvements all the time.

Unfortunately, there aren't many male players rated 2.5, so you'll probably be forced to 3.0 play. Just about 1500 nationally compared to 15,000 at the 3.0 level.

I wouldn't worry about perception of your rating up/down. Focus on finding people who you enjoy hitting with and work on your consistency. Play in a 3.0 league to give you some experience with the matches, and before long you'll be able to compete.

 

[Issya]

Unfortunately, there aren't many male players rated 2.5, so you'll probably be forced to 3.0 play. Just about 1500 nationally compared to 15,000 at the 3.0 level.

I wouldn't worry about perception of your rating up/down. Focus on finding people who you enjoy hitting with and work on your consistency. Play in a 3.0 league to give you some experience with the matches, and before long you'll be able to compete.

I wonder why that is? There are quite a few female 2.5s at my local club but no males that play competitively. Is it just that more males played while younger and less beginners? Maybe more females take up the game later in life?

 

[TagUrIt]

I started playing tennis last spring and recently self rated myself a 2.5 in order to participate in a league. The league didn't count towards anything and was more for practice / fun. There are no male or mixed leagues in my area for 2.5 players. I am hoping to get to a 3.0 playing level in 2019 but was wondering how I get to play in a league with other 3.0s? Do I have to beat other 2.5s in order to make it to 3.0 before playing other 3.0s?

I am aware that there may be 6.0 combo but again, not sure if a 2.5 could play in that.

Unrelated but something I've observed in my recent league experience were people that seemed to be rated lower than their play suggested. I imagine this could be people that genuinely started at that level but got better throughout the year or people who should legitimately be at a higher level. I would like to get to a 3.0 but if for some reason I were to stay at 2.5, that could make me a strong 2.5. Again, there aren't any local leagues that offer male or mixed 2.5 levels but I believe they offer a mixed 2.5 on the state level. It could be fun seeking out a team that does offer mixed 2.5 a little further away just to see if that could be a possibility.

Yeah that’s called “sandbagging”. It happens in most sports when ratings are involved. Players would rather win and play one or two levels down, than compete at their actual level for fear of losing against actual competition.

 

[ShaunS]

I wonder why that is? There are quite a few female 2.5s at my local club but no males that play competitively.

It's an intriguing line of thinking when you get into it. I can make some wild guesses, and hopefully I won't offend anybody.

1. Historically most young males have been much more involved in athletics than females. This could lead to later in life the male players either already having a baseline of experience or simply more developed physical skills that would lend themselves to a game like tennis. That would allow them to more quickly progress up the rating scale.
2. Competitiveness. Before I get crucified, please understand that I'm not arguing these guesses are all good! My impression has been that society has "indicated" sports as a "proper" outlet for competitiveness in boys. Young girls were "directed" to other pursuits. This has changed substantially over the past few decades, but keep in mind how old the average USTA player is.
3. This isn't so much a point as an observation. From 2.5-5.0 the distribution of male players is almost a perfect bell curve. I expect this is intentional on the part of the USTA. Female players are not as well balanced across the spectrum. I've uploaded an image to illustrate. Since we're getting into comparing data points, it's worth noting that (I believe) the consensus is that male:female NTRP ratings aren't completely equal. My experience has been that a woman rated 0.5-1.0 higher will match up equally against a man. I'm less sure this is an intentional move by the USTA to try and normalize the grouping, or simply a byproduct of their artificial separation of the sexes.

 

[Issya]

It's an intriguing line of thinking when you get into it. I can make some wild guesses, and hopefully I won't offend anybody.

1. Historically most young males have been much more involved in athletics than females. This could lead to later in life the male players either already having a baseline of experience or simply more developed physical skills that would lend themselves to a game like tennis. That would allow them to more quickly progress up the rating scale.
2. Competitiveness. Before I get crucified, please understand that I'm not arguing these guesses are all good! My impression has been that society has "indicated" sports as a "proper" outlet for competitiveness in boys. Young girls were "directed" to other pursuits. This has changed substantially over the past few decades, but keep in mind how old the average USTA player is.
3. This isn't so much a point as an observation. From 2.5-5.0 the distribution of male players is almost a perfect bell curve. I expect this is intentional on the part of the USTA. Female players are not as well balanced across the spectrum. I've uploaded an image to illustrate. Since we're getting into comparing data points, it's worth noting that (I believe) the consensus is that male:female NTRP ratings aren't completely equal. My experience has been that a woman rated 0.5-1.0 higher will match up equally against a man. I'm less sure this is an intentional move by the USTA to try and normalize the grouping, or simply a byproduct of their artificial separation of the sexes.

That is a great analysis. I was thinking along similar lines but have no data points behind it and did not want to offend anyone.

I wonder if other reasons could be the following:

- As to your competitive point, maybe lower level females play casually or have less time to train or they could just be happy where they are?
- Maybe non-athletic or late beginner males don't stick with it because other males are higher than them?

This has probably been answered in other threads but what do you think about NTRP rating differences across the country? If I were to go by the USTA rating videos, I would already be a 3.0. The 3.0s in my area all seem at least half a level higher than the videos. Is it like this everywhere?

Unrelated but another observation related to @TagUrIt's comment, it seems that the players at the top of each level may be sandbagging albeit intentional or otherwise. Many people that went to states from my local club seem like they should all be half a level higher. I assume some probably plan it while others just haven't been bumped? As I've stated, I am currently a 2.5 and have no idea if I would be bumped within the year but may have a pretty good chance of winning against other 2.5s. Does that make me a sandbagger or am I legitimately playing in my rating level?

 

[kevrol]

- As to your competitive point, maybe lower level females play casually or have less time to train or they could just be happy where they are?

Spend some time listening to some ladies talk about USTA and you'll realize this isn't true in many/most instances.

 

[Issya]

Spend some time listening to some ladies talk about USTA and you'll realize this isn't true in many/most instances.

This was just a guess for a small group of people. I have not been in the sport long but have heard a few lower level females say they are happy where they are. A few meaning 3, so a very small group that may not be indicative of the other players.

 

[Matthew ATX]

That is a great analysis. I was thinking along similar lines but have no data points behind it and did not want to offend anyone.

I wonder if other reasons could be the following:

- As to your competitive point, maybe lower level females play casually or have less time to train or they could just be happy where they are?
- Maybe non-athletic or late beginner males don't stick with it because other males are higher than them?

This has probably been answered in other threads but what do you think about NTRP rating differences across the country? If I were to go by the USTA rating videos, I would already be a 3.0. The 3.0s in my area all seem at least half a level higher than the videos. Is it like this everywhere?

Unrelated but another observation related to @TagUrIt's comment, it seems that the players at the top of each level may be sandbagging albeit intentional or otherwise. Many people that went to states from my local club seem like they should all be half a level higher. I assume some probably plan it while others just haven't been bumped? As I've stated, I am currently a 2.5 and have no idea if I would be bumped within the year but may have a pretty good chance of winning against other 2.5s. Does that make me a sandbagger or am I legitimately playing in my rating level?

If you have a computer rating and you aren't tanking games/matches to keep it, you're not sandbagging.

 

[ShaunS]

As to your competitive point, maybe lower level females play casually or have less time to train or they could just be happy where they are?

Anecdotally, I would say that I have come across a fair number of women at the lower ratings who are satisfied with tennis as a fun, social outing, and for whom improvement simply isn't a priority. Now I won't make any attempt to empirically compare that to the men, but:

Maybe non-athletic or late beginner males don't stick with it because other males are higher than them?

I could absolutely see this being something that dampens participation. I can't speak for all men, but I find it unlikely that I would stick with tennis if I was starting out today lacking the fundamentals of the game. I no longer have the desire (although I blame it on time) to really work on honing my game in the ways that are effective for developing fundamentals (read: drills, practice). We could probably spin this off to yet another topic about whether more inexperienced male players would start/stick with the game if they had more people at their starting level. It would be logical to think so, but sometimes real life fails to follow my logic.

This has probably been answered in other threads but what do you think about NTRP rating differences across the country?

schmke would be more qualified to answer, but I would say the results imply that there shouldn't be significant differences in geographic areas. As someone from a less densely populated area I've heard the theory for years that we're over-rated compared to the larger metro areas. Certainly with less data in play it's possible for incorrect adjustments to be made, but I suspect mostly it comes down to sheer number of players. Smaller regions, again anecdotally, tend to display a larger variance between their top and worst players (who actually play competitive matches, not just are on the roster).

The 3.0s in my area all seem at least half a level higher than the videos.

There's been plenty of discussion about the videos and their usefulness. Don't take too much from them.

Unrelated but another observation related to @TagUrIt's comment, it seems that the players at the top of each level may be sandbagging albeit intentional or otherwise.

There are some bad actors who will attempt to game the system, sure. I believe the amount it goes on is somewhat overstated in the forums due to the audience. I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about it. I also believe most people who are fretting their bump up & scouring TR aren't looking to dodge it by sandbagging, but rather they're simply leery of how things will go for them against harder competition. And that's understandable, nobody likes losing all the time.