difference between a 3.0 and 3.5?

E

emac

New User
I've been playing tennis about a year now and after competing a few times in USTA this summer, I got bumped up to 3.0 (I'm seriously guessing I met the minimum mathematical requirement--I didn't compete that much, didn't win all my matches, but here I am at 3.0 :)). So now I have my sights set on 3.5. What is the difference, in very concrete terms, between a 3.0 and a 3.5? I know 3.5 players are better all around, but I like specific things to work on. I don't even know if moving up to a 3.5 this year is attainable, but it's something to strive for.

Happy New Year!
 
Well from my outsider perspective and videos I got to see, experience and mental I guess. You can find 3.0 and 3.5 with very similar strokes, but generally the 3.5 know their way around the court better. So more match play and more technique too if you believe you can improve on some points. If you have a phone, camera or anything else in the same fashion, review your matches, record and review your technique. Even if it's just for yourself. If you have a coach, might as well show him too.
 
Where I am in Australia, you're rating is pretty much purely determined objectively by match results. Every starts at the same ranking and away you go. Is that the go in the US?
 
Last edited:
OP talks about US numbers

Lukhas said:
Well from my outsider perspective and videos I got to see, experience and mental I guess. You can find 3.0 and 3.5 with very similar strokes, but generally the 3.5 know their way around the court better. So more match play and more technique too if you believe you can improve on some points. If you have a phone, camera or anything else in the same fashion, review your matches, record and review your technique. Even if it's just for yourself. If you have a coach, might as well show him too.
Click to expand...

BTW: OP talks about US numbers,not European/ITF numbers
I assume you know that
 
HughJars said:
Where I am in Australia, you're rating is pretty much purely determined objectively by match results. Every starts at the same ranking and away you go. Is that the go in the US?
Click to expand...

i'm new to this, but I think the USTA rankings are determined through an algorithm (I'm not a math person so I'm not even sure that is the right term) that takes into consideration match scores and level of the person you are playing against. Our team made it to districts and I played two matches (lost both), but we played some better teams, I'm guessing maybe that bumped me up.
 
emac said:
i'm new to this, but I think the USTA rankings are determined through an algorithm (I'm not a math person so I'm not even sure that is the right term) that takes into consideration match scores and level of the person you are playing against. Our team made it to districts and I played two matches (lost both), but we played some better teams, I'm guessing maybe that bumped me up.
Click to expand...

Down here you gain or lose points based on the probability on winning the match, which itself is dependent on your ranking and the ranking of your opponent. If you play a highly ranked opponent and lose, you won't lose many points, but win and you'll gain a heap.

Each grading corresponds too a certain amount of points. Eg: 5000 points = a CTR of 6.0
 
Last edited:
More consistency all the way around. Same goes from 3.5 to 4.0 except 4.0 is starting to develop somewhat of a weapon.
 
So you played as a 2.5 and got bumped up to 3.0? I am around that level, but only see 3.5 and up leagues around here.
 
It's hard to generalize - because various 3.5s can be different. But usually a 3.5 is starting to have a "good' shot - something that has some zip and they can keep in repeatedly. The form on this shot is approximating someone good.

It's usually a forehand - but sometimes it's a serve. Occasionally its a backhand. They are also less intimidated by power - and move better.

League rated 3.5s are pretty decent tennis players (despite what they look like on video and what this forum will say). The jump from 3.0 to 3.5 is pretty significant - and it could take a while.

3.5 - 4.0 is the biggest jump IMHO. 4.0s are basically guys that can really play tennis. They have all the shots and move decently.
 
Here is my thought.
3.0- if one can hit consistently 4-5 times, one can win a point. Pace is usually slow. If one can hit slice serve, opponent might struggle to return. Weak backhand. Double faults a lot.

3.5-more consistent than 3.0. Usually players can almost rally forever with slow pace. Mostly medium pace. Struggles to handle fast pace. Backhands are better. might see more slices from weak backhand players. Serves are better but second serves are usually weak. Forget about slow slice serves. 3.5 players reconignize slow slice serve well and return easily or even hit winners from slow slice serves. I think most of moon ballers are playing 3.5 level in my opinion.
Largest percentage of tennis players play at 3.5 level.

4.0- mostly medium pace rallies but players can handle fast pace rallies.
Movements are much better than 3.5. Backhands are consistent enough to neutralize rallies. No longer winning matches exclusively hitting backhands to your opponent. Serves are much stronger than 3.5 and one can't have winners all the time from second serves (slightly faster, deeper and see kick serves).
Net games are better. Start to develop winner shots.
Surprised to see some of moon ballers in 4.0 level but they played tennis long enough to play this kind of games better than anyone and still wins matches (much smarter than 3.5 moon ballers. They know when to move in and try to finish at the net).
Second largest percentage of tennis players play at 4.0 level

4.5- Probably not too much difference at 4.0-4.5 skill level but 4.5 players play smarter games. If 4.0 player play almost perfect match with some luck, 4.0 player can beat 4.5 in tight match (probably hard to repeat next time because 4.5 players know what to do next time rematch situation and play much different games than before)
I don't think moon ballers can win matches at 4.5 level.
If one is autheletic and dedicated to tennis. It can be achievable.

5.0+
You are special hahaha
This is High level tennis.
I think 4.5 to 5.0 is biggest jump. With authetic ability and dedication, upto 4.5 is achievable but breaking above 5.0 level is very tough especially late starters (if someone is tall with good serves, it might be better position even if one is late starter).

Back to 3.0 to 3.5 question.
Consistency is the key. Cut double faults. Handle better backhands. If you can develop good backhands, it can be biggest assets to your game. Should start to develop second serves if you dink second serves. 3.5 players might be aggressive on those very weak second serves. It does not have be fancy second serve but should have a little more than 3.0 level. You will notice that speed might be faster than 3.0.

You might not have good games at new level but you will understand what you need most then you will start to win games. Be patient and don't be afraid to loose. Always try to learn from those bad games. Most importantly enjoy the games ^_____^
 
It is sort of similar here in the states but the USTA algorithm is secret. They dramatically tweaked it a number of years ago because many players here try to play down a level to get to the playoffs. If you lose a very close match to a strong player you'll actually gain in numerical ranking.

One bad thing about our system now is you self-rate for your first season whereas back in the day a tennis pro would evaluate your game and give you a proper rating. So if a 3.0 self rates as a 4.0 he'll waste a season because no 4.0 team wants to play him.

HughJars said:
Down here you gain or lose points based on the probability on winning the match, which itself is dependent on your ranking and the ranking of your opponent. If you play a highly ranked opponent and lose, you won't lose many points, but win and you'll gain a heap.

Each grading corresponds too a certain amount of points. Eg: 5000 points = a CTR of 6.0
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HughJars said:
Where I am in Australia, you're rating is pretty much purely determined objectively by match results. Every starts at the same ranking and away you go. Is that the go in the US?
Click to expand...


When I played USTA league for the first time, I had to get a visual rating from a USTA official verifier. The official would watch your strokes for ~15 minutes and assign you a rating.

After that, your match results would determine your official rating. But you needed a visual rating at the outset.

New players now have the option of self-rating themselves before playing competitive matches. But it's best to get an official visual rating to reduce chances of starting off at the wrong level and possibly having opposing teams file grievances against you for playing below your level.
 
Thanks for all the insight. Looking at what people have said about a 3.5 seems attainable. When I play my best tennis, I wonder if I might actually be half way there.

I think I also have to conquer a psychological component. For whatever reason, I feel I am better than many of the people I play casually with. Yet I often lose in close matches, and usually give away the first set. I think this "entitled" feeling comes from having improved quickly when I first picked up a racket a year ago, being younger and more naturally athletic, and at least thinking I have better form than they do. So then I am frustrated--why didn't I win? I LOVE playing, win or lose, but it drives me crazy when I don't play as well as I know I can, which is more often than not. Part of me looks forward to a humbling experience of losing competitively at the 3.0 level to correct this attitude... Any tips to get over my mental cockiness? :)

Another issue I might have now at the 3.0 level is actually getting to compete enough. Being a new 3.0 I have far less experience than others on the team (I've played fewer than 10 matches), and I know my coach won't be playing me as much simply because I don't have as much experience.
 
Just play your same 3.0 game better than most 3.0, and you will be 3.5. That's the difference.

I play in a 4.0 league (and got decisively more wins than loses) and I CANNOT rate anyone's level by looking at particular strokes, ie the usta list. There are some that have weak, "3.5 looking" FH or are seemly bad with movements due to overweight that beat most 4.3 guys. They are really calculated 4.5 or above.
 
at that level the difference can be due to a lot of things.

at some point you are going to need technique to get better but at 3.5 you can win a lot of matches if you can bunt the ball more precisely and consistently:D.

I would not go that route though, learn to play fundamentally good tennis even if it means losing to some other 3.5s for some time. if you really get those strokes automatically and consistent you will beat the lesser players even if they have a little better touch for the ball and natural talent.
 
emac said:
I think I also have to conquer a psychological component. For whatever reason, I feel I am better than many of the people I play casually with. Yet I often lose in close matches, and usually give away the first set. I think this "entitled" feeling comes from having improved quickly when I first picked up a racket a year ago, being younger and more naturally athletic, and at least thinking I have better form than they do.
Click to expand...

You may want to consider a fantastic book that addresses much about the psychological dimensions of the game. Mental Tennis by Vic Braden. He was a long time tennis guru and also a licensed psychologist with a really fun style of story-telling. I can't think of any material that has helped me more both as a high school coach and as a player.

It's good that you want to scratch a "psychological itch". When you get used to using your head more often and playing each point with a simple plan, you'll be doing a lot more than merely scrambling around and reacting to the other guy's shots. Instead of being distracted by your opponent's lack of athleticism for example, you'll actually be able to put your own abilities to work with a sound plan. That might be nothing more than "eye on the ball and pick on his weaker backhand side".
 
emac said:
i'm new to this, but I think the USTA rankings are determined through an algorithm (I'm not a math person so I'm not even sure that is the right term) that takes into consideration match scores and level of the person you are playing against. Our team made it to districts and I played two matches (lost both), but we played some better teams, I'm guessing maybe that bumped me up.
Click to expand...

I believe the USTA algorithm takes into account games won and lost so that you could lose a match but win more games than your opponent. It also compares your dynamic rating to that of your opponent and comes up with an expected number of games won and lost differential. If you do better than the expected differential, meaning you won more net games than the computer expected you to against that particular opponent then your dynamic rating is going to go up after the match. The reverse is also true.

It is my understanding that playoff match results have more impact on your dynamic rating than regular league matches and there can also be a ratings adjustment later on if teams from your district/state/section do well.
 
To answer the OP's question, I think the biggest difference between 3.0s and 3.5s is consistency. By that I mean unforced errors play less of a role in deciding the outcome of matches as you move up. I've never been a 3.0 but I've played a number of them in social matches and I was a 3.5 for about 8 years before getting bumped in USTA to 4.0 this year.

You didn't ask but to me the same applies to the move between 3.5 and 4.0 with the additional factor of weapons playing a part. The good 4.0s I've played have all developed some consistent weapon or weapons they can rely on to finish points. They also make fewer mistakes in between calling on their weapon.
 
Last edited:
USTA finally put me at 3.5 after almost 2 years in 3.0.

From my experience in 3.0 if you can keep a rally going for more than 3-4 shots with at least medium pace you will more than likely win the point. Opponents at 3.0 don't seem to like high spin (either slice or top) and can't handle them well.

At 3.5 the people are more consistent and usually have a plan of attack in their mind. First serve percentage goes up as well as the pace. 2nd serves are still a crapshot IMO. I have seen puffball serves where I can stand 1/2 way in the court and still take the ball as it comes down from the bounce.

I have a few matches of 3.0 and 3.5 that I videoed in my Youtube channel if you want to watch them (look for my screen name in YT search).
 
3.0 vs 3.5? Triple bogey golf vs double bogey. 4.0 is bogey golf -- nowhere near good but resembles the actual game and good shots pop up more often.
 
Looking at these responses, I think I've figured out where I need to improve the most--in the planning/attack part of the game. I look at a lot of what 3.5's can do and I know I can play that way (or am approaching it quickly), but my game is basically a reactive game. I never know how to finish a point and usually wait (ugh, does that make me a pusher?), or pick the wrong moment. Is that something that just comes with experience? Anything I can do off court to improve on strategy?
 
emac said:
Looking at these responses, I think I've figured out where I need to improve the most--in the planning/attack part of the game. I look at a lot of what 3.5's can do and I know I can play that way (or am approaching it quickly), but my game is basically a reactive game. I never know how to finish a point and usually wait (ugh, does that make me a pusher?), or pick the wrong moment. Is that something that just comes with experience? Anything I can do off court to improve on strategy?
Click to expand...

Experience has a great deal to do with it, but having the skills to create the "moment" through your tactics and shots, then finish the point are also a big part of the equation. All of these factors evolve into being able to actually construct points.
 
HughJars said:
Down here you gain or lose points based on the probability on winning the match, which itself is dependent on your ranking and the ranking of your opponent. If you play a highly ranked opponent and lose, you won't lose many points, but win and you'll gain a heap.

Each grading corresponds too a certain amount of points. Eg: 5000 points = a CTR of 6.0
Click to expand...

Is our CTR the same as ITN? November 2014 was the first time I actually participated in some competitive tennis, and I think I was assigned 8.3 to start. If CTR and ITN are the same then according to ITN to USTA rating conversion, CTR/ITN 8 is about USTA 3.0, 7 = 3.5, and 6 = 4.0....

...which seems quite accurate when I compare my fellow club members' CTR's to the USTA rating descriptions that kimguroo posted above. 3.5 (CTR 7's) usually has better consistency in their groundstrokes, and usually have a decent weapon to rely on (strong first serve or big forehand).
 
oble said:
Is our CTR the same as ITN? November 2014 was the first time I actually participated in some competitive tennis, and I think I was assigned 8.3 to start. If CTR and ITN are the same then according to ITN to USTA rating conversion, CTR/ITN 8 is about USTA 3.0, 7 = 3.5, and 6 = 4.0....

...which seems quite accurate when I compare my fellow club members' CTR's to the USTA rating descriptions that kimguroo posted above. 3.5 (CTR 7's) usually has better consistency in their groundstrokes, and usually have a decent weapon to rely on (strong first serve or big forehand).
Click to expand...

This chart was created by the USTA to compare NTRP to ITN:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73338927/ITN-USTA-Rating-Chart-Comparison#scribd
 
Improving your consistency will be enough for you to move from 3.0 to 3.5. I just made the leap and that is the biggest difference I see.
 
From tw forum videos it is kinda like sureshs vs. Cheetah? Not sure what their real levels are though. I think I am about as good as sureshs. And I'm a rated 3.0 league player.
 
From tw forum videos it is kinda like sureshs vs. Cheetah? Not sure what their real levels are though. I think I am about as good as sureshs. And I'm a rated 3.0 league player.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right - Sureshs is at best a 3.0 I think.
 
When I started back at tennis after 20+ years away I hit at my local club for about a year before joining USTA. I self-rated myself (and was encouraged to do so by other team members) as a 3.0, and I think that was accurate.

What I worked on to get to 3.5:

1) Serve - better placement and consistency on first serve (not necessarily more speed). MUCH better consistency on 2nd serve - I vowed I would never settle for hitting softball serves just to get them in. The secret I found was to hit with as much power and intention as the first serve, but learn how to hit with spin so it stays in.
2) Backhand. I have a one-hander, and was pretty consistent slicing the ball - hitting flat sometimes but really didn't have topspin. I have worked on banishing the slice from my backhand unless really forced, or I choose to slice for a reason. This involved a long period of struggle and some discouragement at times but has been so worth it. Now I can rally effectively with a topspin backhand and even loop it or drive it with angle - and my slices are more effective since they are usually deliberate.
3) Movement - this is where working with a teacher really paid off. He got me to see how I was overcommitting after hitting a shot and not returning to the correct spot. Also how I wasn't ending my strokes in a way that lent itself to a good recovery. And lots of doubles court positioning stuff...all really important.

At this point I am hoping to move to 4.0 this season, as my 4.0 hitting partners are no longer beating me 6-0, 6-1 and occasionally 6-2. I can even take sets from them but mostly we play to tiebreaks or maybe 1 break.

What I am going to work on this year:

1) First serve placement
2) Return of serve consistency to go with my newfound power.
3) Volleys and intelligent net game
4) Get forehand to a real weapon, where I can use it to dictate points and finish rallies with a winner when given an opportunity (or I make the opportunity).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dlk
First Tennis Lessons
Replies
19
Views
3K
crystal_clear
C
FiguringItOut
Moving from 3.0 to 3.5 Men's Singles
Replies
45
Views
5K
optic yellow
O
eb_tennis_247
Help! Matchplay and ball striking "schizophrenia" between 3.0- and 4.0+
Replies
12
Views
554
Roforot
R
K
"Old" I-Formation & 3.5 Men
Replies
10
Views
1K
raiden031
R
TimeToPlaySets
How does return of serve evolve from 3.0 -> 3.5 -> 4.0 -> 4.5 ?
Replies
26
Views
2K
S&V-not_dead_yet
S&V-not_dead_yet
Back
Top