Doubles NTRP 3.5 & 6.0 vs 4.5 & 4.5. Who wins? Strategy?

[TropicalFruit]

You say the pro will lose fewer than 8 points?

Yes. Let's say a UTR 14 to be specific, because that's what Govind was in the video. If they play to 6, I think the over-under for the 4.5s points should be more like 5.5.

That's a 14, though. Put Novak in there and it's like 2.5. Maybe 1.5. I don't even know.

 

[tennis3]

Yes. Let's say a UTR 14 to be specific, because that's what Govind was in the video. If they play to 6, I think the over-under for the 4.5s points should be more like 5.5.

That's a 14, though. Put Novak in there and it's like 2.5. Maybe 1.5. I don't even know.

I think you're right. In the 8 game format in the video, I was just saying 8 points over / under before the pro wins 8 games. Even there, I'd probably take the under. But keep in mind, the 4.5 player is simply trying to win as many points as he can. So he's going to be going for winners on everything, not worrying about the game score. So the incentives are a bit different than a normal match.

I also think in this handicap format (starting 0-30), there's no way he loses a game if he's REALLY trying not to. They may even touch on this in the video (I don't know, I only watched a few minutes. I only realized this was a handicap 0-30 challenge after you responded).

 

[TropicalFruit]

I think you're right. In the 8 game format in the video, I was just saying 8 points over / under before the pro wins 8 games. Even there, I'd probably take the under. But keep in mind, the 4.5 player is simply trying to win as many points as he can. So he's going to be going for winners on everything, not worrying about the game score. So the incentives are a bit different than a normal match.

I also think in this handicap format (starting 0-30), there's no way he loses a game if he's REALLY trying not to. They may even touch on this in the video (I don't know, I only watched a few minutes. I only realized this was a handicap 0-30 challenge after you responded).

Ah, so we basically agree with respect to level.

Mathematically, the most likely way to win points is also the most likely way to win points. If going for stupid winners gives you a 10% chance to win the point, and grinding a 1% chance, then going for stupid winners ALSO gives you the best chance to win games, even though your chance is still close to 0 either way.

 

[tennis3]

Ah, so we basically agree with respect to level.

Mathematically, the most likely way to win points is also the most likely way to win points. If going for stupid winners gives you a 10% chance to win the point, and grinding a 1% chance, then going for stupid winners ALSO gives you the best chance to win games, even though your chance is still close to 0 either way.

But the Pro will play differently if his goal is to win all of the points (never lose a point) as opposed to just winning every game. He has to keep his UE's to zero. It's a lot different knowing you'll make a "risky" shot 8 times out of 10. Obviously that's good enough to win every game. But you can't take that shot too often / all the time if your goal is to win every point. You can't just give away points on UE's when your opponent poses no threat to you. You have to play more tactical and "grind out" more points.

 

[LOBALOT]

Guys there is no way in heck a 5.0 is taking games and barely and potentially zero points off a pro. That slope is like looking straight up the highest cliff imaginable as far as the difference in tennis ability.

The difference in UTR is like 6+ UTR or something. No way.

 

[onehandbh]

I partipated in a 4.5/4.5 vs 3.5/6.0 match.

The 6.0 was a 7-time doubles slam champ, just 3 years after reaching peak ranking of #6 in the world.

My 4.5 partner and I won in 3 tightly contested sets.

Was your 4.5 partner a female?

 

[travlerajm]

Was your 4.5 partner a female?

No.

 

[jmnk]

I am a 3.5 and my son is a 5.0+ and we played in a dubs benefit event this summer and took out 2 4.5s players in the semis.

The 4.5s did their best to hit to me and in fact drilled me 3 times when I was at the net. However, my son told me "We aren't losing this match" and he just took over and completely dominated those guys the rest of the match.

We knew two of his college teammates had already made it into in the finals in the other half and he really wanted to play them.

Now in the finals I was completely useless with 3 other 5.0+s on the court. It was completely different tennis than I have ever played and I did not deserve to be on the court with them. The points were faster, the movement was faster, the shorts were harder/faster.

We lost and took second.

ok someone is lying here. So you are saying that your pair 5.0+ playing with 3.5 'completely dominated' a 4.5 with 4.5 pair. But this

I partipated in a 4.5/4.5 vs 3.5/6.0 match.

The 6.0 was a 7-time doubles slam champ, just 3 years after reaching peak ranking of #6 in the world.

My 4.5 partner and I won in 3 tightly contested sets.

claims that 4.5 with 4.5 beat 6.0 and 3.5 pair. Where 6.0 was a 7-time doubles slam champ.
What am I missing here??

 

[Topspin Shot]

If the guy's really a 6.0 and they're playing to win, they'll win easily. When the 6.0 is serving or returning, the 3.5 won't even stand on the court. And when the 3.5 has to serve or return, the 6.0 will start in the singles ready position center baseline, and the 3.5 will hit his serve or return and then get off the court. If the guy's not really a 6.0 (6.0 20 years ago doesn't count), or they decide to play with the usual tactics to be sporting, then the 4.5s can win.