College level players?

#3
I'm sure they can play Tennis on Campus. Maybe can play on a DIII team...… seems it’s kind of pot luck with these.
Just me, but I didn't see anything special...… looks like a run of the mill mid-4.0.

Curious… how is their game compared with college teams in THEIR COUNTRY?
 
#4
I'm sure they can play Tennis on Campus. Maybe can play on a DIII team...… seems it’s kind of pot luck with these.
Just me, but I didn't see anything special...… looks like a run of the mill mid-4.0.

Curious… how is their game compared with college teams in THEIR COUNTRY?
In their own country there are about 2 universities with tennis teams. Bath and Loughborough . That's why they go to America

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
 

jhick

Professional
#5
I'm sure they can play Tennis on Campus. Maybe can play on a DIII team...… seems it’s kind of pot luck with these.
Just me, but I didn't see anything special...… looks like a run of the mill mid-4.0.

Curious… how is their game compared with college teams in THEIR COUNTRY?
There is no way these guys are 4.0's. 4.5's at minimum but more likely 5.0's. Tall guy has a great net game and both players are consistent. To me they look like strong D2/D3 players, or lower to mid level D1 college players. It would be easier to assess their level if I knew what LTA Grade 3 is. Or what their junior ranking is within country.
 

jhick

Professional
#7
The level at grade 3 takes in anything up to UTR 12. The tall guy is UTR 11. By the way which one is the tall guy?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
The right handed guy serving at the beginning. I believe UTR 11 would be about what I was thinking, higher D2/D3 or lower D1 level.
 
#9
The right handed guy serving at the beginning. I believe UTR 11 would be about what I was thinking, higher D2/D3 or lower D1 level.
@dave e dave I looked up the guys' UTR-Taylor Papworth is a 10.77. Mark Miscevic is a 10.42. Both could probably play D3 outside the top 20 D3 teams; the UTRs of line 5 and 6 of team ranked around #20 D3 are 10.7+ UTR. Doubtful they could play D1 on a team that gave scholarships. There are a few bottom D1 teams with a line 6 below 11 UTR but those team probably have limited scholarship $, and on most D1 teams, 5 and 6 are getting limited athletic scholarships; know of some guys who play 5 or 6 who didnt get any. With those UTRs, you are talking about D2 line 5 or 6 for team right outside top 30-could play higher in lineup of lower D2 teams (200+ D@ teams). There are 300+ D3 teams but some are very low level tennis. There is also NAIA-dont know #s on those. Most guys at 10.5-11 level would probably get mostly merit(academic) aid (of course D3 only gives merit, no athletic), maybe some athletic and have to pay $10K+ out of pocket. If these guys are looking to start college in 9/20 vs 9/19, they obviously have time to improve their UTRs. If they are looking for fall 2019, most slots (or at least scholarship $) are already taken.

There is a free facebook recruiting group (has 3000+ members including players, recruiting agencies promoting their players, coaches, parents, etc) popular with NAIA, D2, D3 coaches where both domestic and international players can post a video, ACT/SAT scores, GPA, desired major, and budget available to pay out of pocket, and college coaches will contact players. You can pass this link onto the players:
College Tennis Recruitment Video Group Public Group | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/808424032556193/
College Tennis Recruitment Video Group has 3464 members. This group is here for students to postvideos for college coaches, recruiters, and academy...

There seems to be a lot of recruiting action on the site for NAIA, D2,D3-maybe D1 for the girls too. Just this week there were several college coaches responding to players in the 10.5-11 range. Great resource considering it is free, and the moderator is quick to respond to DMs, posts, etc. The moderator also posts red flags to avoid in recruiting-the top 6 things he has heard from college coaches that they dislike, etc.
 
Last edited:
#10
I'm just being honest...… which may people are not. Watching their match, I don't see anything special.... sorry.
If you've been this level before you can easily see it and understand it.
I've played many guy's that are at this level... tall, short, slow and fast.
Yes they are tall but that isn't skill or talent.
Skill/Talent is being able to use that advantage to your advantage..... and I just don't see it.
I just see them rallying around. Serve is average, FB and BH are average, net game is average and even the over head slam is average.
This is very common to people that play each other a lot........ which I suspect they do.
Maybe not a mid-4.0 but a strong 4.0......… no more.
I'm a strong 4.5 (USTA) and I can easily beat both (but not at the same time) and personally know many others at my level that would easily destroy them...… sorry.
I use USTA rating because its easier (even though I don't like it for ranking purposes).
If their UTR is 10+ (calculated) that would make them roughly a 5.5 ... sorry I just don't see on the court.

***EDIT***
After watching the second video.... I'm back to thinking mid-4.0.
 
Last edited:

jhick

Professional
#11
I'm just being honest...… which may people are not. Watching their match, I don't see anything special.... sorry.
If you've been this level before you can easily see it and understand it.
I've played many guy's that are at this level... tall, short, slow and fast.
Yes they are tall but that isn't skill or talent.
Skill/Talent is being able to use that advantage to your advantage..... and I just don't see it.
I just see them rallying around. Serve is average, FB and BH are average, net game is average and even the over head slam is average.
This is very common to people that play each other a lot........ which I suspect they do.
Maybe not a mid-4.0 but a strong 4.0......… no more.
I'm a strong 4.5 (USTA) and I can easily beat both (but not at the same time) and personally know many others at my level that would easily destroy them...… sorry.
I use USTA rating because its easier (even though I don't like it for ranking purposes).
If their UTR is 10+ (calculated) that would make them roughly a 5.5 ... sorry I just don't see on the court.

***EDIT***
After watching the second video.... I'm back to thinking mid-4.0.
You say your honest assessment is 4.0. I say that's slightly delusional. There was a poster on here that assessed Peter Polansky (ATP tour pro from Canada) as a USTA 4.5. Looks can be deceiving. There is a stark difference between the ball speed live versus on video. This is really evident if you've ever watched professional tennis live compared to on TV. I've also seen 4.0's recorded on video and they are no where near these guys in ability. I'm not saying they are 5.5's, but 5.0/strong 4.5's would be my guess. jcgatennismom's assessment seems more realistic. And I would agree with her, these guys are likely not strong enough to merit an athletic scholarship (unless they improve their UTR), but should be able to crack most D3 squad's lineups, unless they are a top D3 program.

Here is a clip of a 4.0 USTA nationals singles match. You'll notice that while these guys are fairly consistent, however, neither of them have weapons and you'll notice the difference in pace. It is also worth noting that in the comments someone states that both of these guys have since been bumped to 4.5.

 
#12
Ahhh ok………...:rolleyes:
I'll move back to a strong 4.0 for my assessment ...….., but no more; not going to get into a spitting match on why.
If you think they are stronger, I wish you the best.

I never said they couldn't get into college...… but then again he never asked what level of college.
No top school for sure.
I only wish these internationals would develop a college tennis program in their own country so they wouldn't come over here!!!
 
#13
Ahhh ok………...:rolleyes:
I'll move back to a strong 4.0 for my assessment ...….., but no more; not going to get into a spitting match on why.
If you think they are stronger, I wish you the best.

I never said they couldn't get into college...… but then again he never asked what level of college.
No top school for sure.
I only wish these internationals would develop a college tennis program in their own country so they wouldn't come over here!!!
Both players have LTA ratings of 2.2 which equates to ntrp 6.0

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
 
#14
WOW 6.0...… well if it say's so on paper... than it must be so. I'm still at a strong 4.0......Good luck.
Be sure to tell perspective college coaches that they DEMAND tax payer money in the form of a full ride scholarship..... its every non-US citizens right!!
 
#16
Both players have LTA ratings of 2.2 which equates to ntrp 6.0

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
Per this chart https://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/ExperiencedGuidelines_02142011_V2pdf.pdf, the highest an unranked D2 or D3 player can be is 5.0 (and these guys are not in college yet-just possible candidates for D2/D3). Now Charles Broom who play for Dartmouth and has UTR 13.67 would be a 6.0-6.5 (has Itf world points but not ATP) but his UtR is 3 points higher. Know a Brit who won a LTA 2 one summer and plays line 1 or 2 midmajor D1-his uTR is about 12.5, and he would be a 5.5-that's about 2 UTR higher. The lowest nationally ranked players for D2/D3 are probably around 11.5 tho most are probably 12+ so the floor for a 5.5 ranking would be around 11.5 but there are UTR 12.5s-13.5 that would be considered 5.5s (unranked D1s)-big range. College coaches arent interested in NTRP ranking-just uTR, jr itF, ITF world, ATP, and TRN (US only). Best guess is these guys are 4.5-5.0 based on UTR.
 
Last edited:

jhick

Professional
#17
If they are 6.0 they should be playing ITF futures and have a ranking.

On a side note, that Taylor guy has a decent serve but I think if he was able to correct some of his mechanics it could be improved.
 
#19
If they are 6.0 they should be playing ITF futures and have a ranking.

On a side note, that Taylor guy has a decent serve but I think if he was able to correct some of his mechanics it could be improved.
I doubt those guys would be very competitive at the futures level. Some of those futures used to have high level D1 college players (even ones ranked in the ITA 125) in the qualifying draws, let alone the main draws.
 

jhick

Professional
#20
I doubt those guys would be very competitive at the futures level. Some of those futures used to have high level D1 college players (even ones ranked in the ITA 125) in the qualifying draws, let alone the main draws.
That was my point. Looking at them, I think 6.0 seems too high. It is more likely they are closer to 5.0.
 
#23
I doubt those guys would be very competitive at the futures level. Some of those futures used to have high level D1 college players (even ones ranked in the ITA 125) in the qualifying draws, let alone the main draws.
Last summer, guys that are now in ATP 400 were playing the Qualis of Futures. Roy Smith, Houston Challenger finalist, lost to Jordi Arconada in the final round of Qualis in a $15K. Maxime Cressy of UCLA, Cleveland challenger winner, was playing $25K Qualis, winning, and then getting in summer MDs. Now with the transition tour, talented college guys wont have 6 months to go from Future Qualis to Challenger finals. If they dont already have a lot of ITF world points or an 2019 ATP point (meaning they were a $25K finalist) they will not even get in Future Qualis without a WC. Guys ranked 350-500 who have Challenger points from last year like Jared Hiltzik (Illinois) and Karue Sell (UCLA) cant even get into 2019 Challengers to defend their points. Challenger Qualis used to be 32 draw and now are draws of 4. Hiltzik reached the QFs of Drummondville last year as a lucky loser out of Qualis; this year he is 25th alternate. So sad to read the tweets of these talented guys who are wondering if they should drop down and play $25Ks just to have something to play. Of course if Challenger level players play Futures, there are even less spots for the top college players who dont already have points.
 
#25
I usually don't get involved in assessing players levels, but will make an exception here. Recently watched an ex DIII player who would be very competitive, maybe even beat these guys. He doesn't play frequently, so he was a bit inconsistent, but his strokes were stronger and his point construction was better. He does have the advantage of maturity and experience of his college career going for him.
 

Dags

Hall of Fame
#26
They are both 2.2 LTA. Which = 6.0 ntrp
Maybe the LTA ranking system is wrong.
The LTA rating system has been broken for a long time. 10-15 years ago, a 2.2 rating was extremely rare - it was national level, most likely with a junior world ranking, possibly even a senior world ranking. Your average club around the country wouldn't have anyone near that good playing there. Now they're frankly ten-a-penny, and the system is far too top heavy. You can't blame the kids for this, but the reality is that 2.1s and 2.2s often have a highly inflated rating.

Whilst not perfect, I think the most useful measure for comparing cross continent at anything below futures level currently is UTR. The ratings of 10 and 11 seem reasonable - these are good players, but a long way off the professional ranks. As you filmed Jack Draper recently, you've seen the gap first hand. He won three futures tournaments in 2018, so one of the better futures players, but it's night and day between him and these lads. His UTR of 14.31 is a fair reflection of that.

Regarding the potential of this pair, it's worth noting there's a reasonable age difference. According to the LTA website, Taylor is 18, whilst Mark (the winner of this match) is still 15.
 
#27
The LTA rating system has been broken for a long time. 10-15 years ago, a 2.2 rating was extremely rare - it was national level, most likely with a junior world ranking, possibly even a senior world ranking. Your average club around the country wouldn't have anyone near that good playing there. Now they're frankly ten-a-penny, and the system is far too top heavy. You can't blame the kids for this, but the reality is that 2.1s and 2.2s often have a highly inflated rating.

.
The highest you can go with an LTA rating is 1.1 yet as you know the gap between ability amongst them all is huge. when you know someone is a 1.1 really all you know is that they are a very good player. So why has the system broke?

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
 

Dags

Hall of Fame
#28
The highest you can go with an LTA rating is 1.1 yet as you know the gap between ability amongst them all is huge. when you know someone is a 1.1 really all you know is that they are a very good player. So why has the system broke?
Two major changes came into effect. The first was frequency of ratings runs. A ratings run is basically an eligible period of time - your results in that window determine whether your rating will change. There used to be two a year, there are now four. This means it's possible to climb the ladder twice as fast.

The other (and actually bigger) change was in how they count eligible matches. Once you're past 8.2, the rules for your rating to improve are as follows:

Juniors: 6 eligible wins, with at least a 60% win/loss ratio, within the ratings window
Adults: 3 eligible wins, with at least a 60% win/loss ratio, within the ratings window

An eligible win is against a player who is rated at the same level as you or higher. However, in the loss ratio, they only count losses to players who are rated lower than you. Losses to higher rated players aren't included (fair enough), but losses to players with the same rating as you also aren't included.

To highlight what this can mean, this is a real life scenario from someone I know. He was an adult rated 2.2, and played 13 matches against other 2.2 players. He won 3, losing 10. He would be the first to admit that this record showed that he was a below-average 2.2, and if anything should be lowered to a 3.1. The criteria outlined above meant he was moved up to a 2.1.

Now, as you can imagine, many of the 10 guys who beat him also gained enough wins to move up. Groups of players effectively move through the rankings in herds; having become 2.1s, they could just rinse and repeat, face the same opponents they had played in the previous ratings run, and all increase again.

Having so many players with inflated ratings causes problems with the tournaments. At Open level, entry is determined by LTA rating. In junior age groups, it's actually done on ranking. So if you're a good U16 player, to an extend you care more about ranking that rating. The LTA decided to weight ranking points so that older age groups are worth more. So winning an U16 tournament is gains you similar ranking points to making the quarters or semis of an U18 event, or just winning a round or two of an Open tournament. The biggest return is therefore at Open level... where entry is based on rating. The active kids will almost always have a better rating than adults with jobs and families, and so Open tournaments become flooded with juniors. Unless you play regularly, you simply can't gain entry any more.

It sorts itself out a little bit when you get up to the Grade 1 and 2 British Tour events simply because there are better players and those with an inflated rating will be found out, but Grade 3 and below are an utter mess.
 
#29
I can be convenced that they are around a 4.5.
But honestly...……. there is nothing special about their game.... everything is average at best.
They would be slowly picked apart by any experienced 4.5 and a 5.0 or greater would just toy with them.

Their best bet would be to stay in THIER country and promote the game at their local university.
 
#30
I can be convenced that they are around a 4.5.
But honestly...……. there is nothing special about their game.... everything is average at best.
They would be slowly picked apart by any experienced 4.5 and a 5.0 or greater would just toy with them.

Their best bet would be to stay in THIER country and promote the game at their local university.
So the 2 guys that played singles for my 4.5 team that won nationals this past year and were very successful for us are UTR 10's (or were at the time). I know that UTR has a tough time between adult leagues and juniors but I think these guys would be comparable to them. I would say they are low to mid 5.0's just like our players, and they both played at mid to high level division 3.
 
#31
I can be convenced that they are around a 4.5.
But honestly...……. there is nothing special about their game.... everything is average at best.
They would be slowly picked apart by any experienced 4.5 and a 5.0 or greater would just toy with them.

Their best bet would be to stay in THIER country and promote the game at their local university.
Ratings have nothing to do with "special", it's about winning. With UTR's of 10.77 and 10.42, they are above the men's league 4.0 and 4.5 crowd. I see it everyday with good juniors playing average adults - a 10 UTR wins almost always against NTRP 4.5. As far as good enough for college tennis, jcgatennismom is an experienced authority on junior/college tennis levels and her info is credible.
 
#32
Than we agree...…. they are good enough for college...… just not at a top level...…… they have DII/DIII maybe even a lower level DI, but no top talent.
Their strokes are AVERAGE...… nothing special........ just look at the points in the video.
An experience player will pick their game apart.

More the reason they should stay in their own country and lobby their country for more sports opportunities IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!
And they should buy so new balls for their next video.
 
#34
Just to give some perspective on the 10.77 ranking of the older Brit player, there are close to 2000 D1 male players with higher UTRs. Over 1100 d1 college males have UTRs over 12-close to 400 of those are US players (35%). 117 have UTRs over 13.5 (42% US). 27 players have UTRs over 14-most of those have ATP points (11 or 41% play for US in events). Players with UTRs over 13: 331, over 12.5 685 players. 1/3 of players 12.5-13.5 are US players. So those Brit guys probably will be playing D2, D3, or NAIA.
 
#35
Just to give some perspective on the 10.77 ranking of the older Brit player, there are close to 2000 D1 male players with higher UTRs. Over 1100 d1 college males have UTRs over 12-close to 400 of those are US players (35%). 117 have UTRs over 13.5 (42% US). 27 players have UTRs over 14-most of those have ATP points (11 or 41% play for US in events). Players with UTRs over 13: 331, over 12.5 685 players. 1/3 of players 12.5-13.5 are US players. So those Brit guys probably will be playing D2, D3, or NAIA.
I dont think people quite grasp that D1 tennis is almost across the board extremely high level tennis

Any split or full scholarship earning player is even higher level tennis

Any active D1 player should be at least 5.5 (which is the new NTRP cutoff since they made the 5.5+ distinction) and that is at like Toledo. At a power 5 conference they should really all be hypothetical 6.0 to open level.

I would put these players at around 4.5 with maybe an absolute peak of 5.0 on a good day we didnt see indoors. There are a ****ton of people that fall into their range that were never winning anything (or even getting the chance to) in D1 college tennis.

Since they are using some funky LTA rating system I dont understand thats the best I got
 
#36
I dont think people quite grasp that D1 tennis is almost across the board extremely high level tennis

Any split or full scholarship earning player is even higher level tennis

Any active D1 player should be at least 5.5 (which is the new NTRP cutoff since they made the 5.5+ distinction) and that is at like Toledo. At a power 5 conference they should really all be hypothetical 6.0 to open level.

I would put these players at around 4.5 with maybe an absolute peak of 5.0 on a good day we didnt see indoors. There are a ****ton of people that fall into their range that were never winning anything (or even getting the chance to) in D1 college tennis.

Since they are using some funky LTA rating system I dont understand thats the best I got
I can tell you there are plenty of D1 guys playing at MAC schools that are not 5.5’s. Some are barely 5.0’s.
 
#37
I can tell you there are plenty of D1 guys playing at MAC schools that are not 5.5’s. Some are barely 5.0’s.
I mean the USTA has set the guidelines for what a D1 college player is. Toledo or Ohio State.

They are 5.5+

The only point is that these players are not
 
#39
No. They are equivalent ntrp 6.0. LTA rating 2.2. Whether you like it or not it is official.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
The USTA does not have a 6.0 rating anymore on their official scale

The USTA only has a 5.0+ which is a 5.0 team that allows exceptional players at 5.5+ because its so hard to field a 5.0 team because that is a beyond serious level of play

I was on a team with a player that made the D1 NCAA Doubles Finals two years before being on the team

The USTA 6+ is essentially open level now. It was a top 125 D1 player level. You cant play USTA with a 6.0. They have also eliminated all the open level tournaments basically getting rid of this distinction.

LTA isnt even a thing. D1 tennis is pretty much only using UTR and ITF now

Neither of these players are even close to open level. Maybe DIII
 
Last edited:

Dags

Hall of Fame
#40
No. They are equivalent ntrp 6.0. LTA rating 2.2. Whether you like it or not it is official.
There is no 'official' conversion between the two systems. Any chart you may be looking at is likely outdated, with the LTA ratings at that level potentially being far weaker than they used to be for reasons I outlined above.

Unless a player has an ITF ranking, UTR is currently the best comparison tool we have.
 
#41
[QUOTE="Deon Sanders,

LTA isnt even a thing.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? The LTA is very much a thing.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

ClarkC

Hall of Fame
#43
However, in the loss ratio, they only count losses to players who are rated lower than you. Losses to higher rated players aren't included (fair enough), but losses to players with the same rating as you also aren't included.
So, just lose as often as you want to players with the same rating as long as you occasionally win. Sounds like a bad system.
 
#45
I'm just being honest...… which may people are not. Watching their match, I don't see anything special.... sorry.
If you've been this level before you can easily see it and understand it.
I've played many guy's that are at this level... tall, short, slow and fast.
Yes they are tall but that isn't skill or talent.
Skill/Talent is being able to use that advantage to your advantage..... and I just don't see it.
I just see them rallying around. Serve is average, FB and BH are average, net game is average and even the over head slam is average.
This is very common to people that play each other a lot........ which I suspect they do.
Maybe not a mid-4.0 but a strong 4.0......… no more.
I'm a strong 4.5 (USTA) and I can easily beat both (but not at the same time) and personally know many others at my level that would easily destroy them...… sorry.
I use USTA rating because its easier (even though I don't like it for ranking purposes).
If their UTR is 10+ (calculated) that would make them roughly a 5.5 ... sorry I just don't see on the court.

***EDIT***
After watching the second video.... I'm back to thinking mid-4.0.
 
#46
BLAH BLAH BLAH......
All the proof you need is clearly in the videos...... if you don't see it... than no one will convince you.
These guys are just banging the (flat) balls around. No variety to their strokes...... just nothing special.

Low 4.5 at best!!!
 
Top