TRN posted the blue chips today for the Top Prospects of class of 2010. Rest of numbers will likely post tomorrow or this week.I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be
TRN posted the blue chips today for the Top Prospects of class of 2010. Rest of numbers will likely post tomorrow or this week.
So a 3 star today, may not be a 3 star Friday.
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be
3 stars basically suck.
I'm trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star. I don't play many tournaments and I want to know how solid a 3* would be
alright man solid. I feel like I'll have a solid chance, it's really just that i don't play any sectional tournaments, which is why I have no stars.....Try this:
Look up some some D2/D3 Colleges/Universities that have decent tennis programs, then look at their roster, google the names on the roster and find their TRN ratings/background. There, you'll likely find a few 3 star recruits to compare against.
For some reason MIT seems like a lot of work and no fun.My friend was a two star recruit and now plays for MIT...
S.S.
Solid man thanks. Like most people I see a ranking and I start to freeze up. I'll keep this in the back of my head thoughsome times those tennis recruiting star rating are so inaccurate.. a player I know beat a kid who is ranked above him 6-0,6-1.. sometimes when these players play less and win in a weak section,it elevates their rankings and stars or blue chip status .. looking at the win/lost ratios doesn't tell much either.. a guy in SoCal.. plays weak tournaments and wins them and when all the big boys comes out this same guy disappears,if he's gonna lose he'll retire and/or pull out of the tournament.. and he's a blue chip.. I give him credit for winning small tournaments ,but he's no 'blue chip' player .. especially when he retires so many matches..
some times those tennis recruiting star rating are so inaccurate.. a player I know beat a kid who is ranked above him 6-0,6-1.. sometimes when these players play less and win in a weak section,it elevates their rankings and stars or blue chip status .. looking at the win/lost ratios doesn't tell much either.. a guy in SoCal.. plays weak tournaments and wins them and when all the big boys comes out this same guy disappears,if he's gonna lose he'll retire and/or pull out of the tournament.. and he's a blue chip.. I give him credit for winning small tournaments ,but he's no 'blue chip' player .. especially when he retires so many matches..
alright man solid. I feel like I'll have a solid chance, it's really just that i don't play any sectional tournaments, which is why I have no stars.....
Stars mean nothing imo, look at match play. Look at who the player has beaten and look at the age of the players they beat. Iv seen guys play and beat kids 2-4 years younger then them (ranked high in their age group) in a small draw tourny which boosted their rank and rating. Iv played 2 2-stars, one had a very consistant and spinny ground game and the other had a huge serve (115mph+ ALWAYS on 1st) and he didnt miss it often. Both guys hit deep and heavy shots and the big server loved net where he showed great touch. Legit 3-stars I played hit deep and heavy as well, but they also had very good changeup shots. 4-stars all the way to the bluechips outside the top-10 are very smart and can pick on weaknesses at will. Iv only played one top-10 player and it wasnt a USTA match, he had every shot, could hit all day and not miss, was very smart, showed no emotion, and had 2 very big weapons that he built points around. Weapons were the serve (120+ easily) and the forehand (could hit any spot.) 1-stars are all over the place, Iv seen as low as 3.5 1-star players because they beat much younger players who were playing WAY up in age.
I'm not walking on bro. chill. I got a ranking, I just don't really get out to the events as much. I'll probably play practice squad but I really don't care.I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but if you are an unranked player, there is virtually no chance of you walking on to that team (if the lowest recruit is a 3 star). And chances are, if you don't know how solid a 3 star is, there is probably an even smaller chance that you would be able to beat one of those players.
m trying for a spot on a team where the lowest player seems to be a 3 star.
which is why I have no stars.....
I got a ranking, I just don't really get out to the events as much.
thanks brosefSounds like walking on to me, so you're only trying for a spot on the practice squad?
Ranked players on tennis recruiting always have a star. Otherwise they are unrated/unranked. I've never seen an unranked player beat a three star without later getting a much higher ranking (A foreign player that just moved to the U.S.) Just keep that in mind and don't set any high expectations for yourself.
I heavily agree with that statementup to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.
The star ratings are a head to head rating. Playing lots of tournaments does not help much if you are losing matches. The losses count against you. These are not like the USTA rankings, where your best 5 results count, so you can play 20 tournaments a year and count the best 5 and it does not matter if you lost in the first round of the other 15, or made the semifinals of all 15, because they don't count anyway.
Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.
well i didnt know how the star system works, ...
I agree with this part of your post.
you dont have to believe the rest, why would i make up the fact that 1-stars do beat 3-stars solidly sometimes?
i mean, it does happen
#50 in the world beating #15 is a lot closer in rankings than 1-star and 3-star... or 2 and 4 star
up to 3 stars all you can tell is how good someone might be but there are plenty of 3 stars who just played enough tournaments to get the ranking, and also plenty who dont play many tournaments but are solid players.
Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.
One thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at TRN, there's no indication of which victories are main draw vs. which are backdraw. I've seen plenty of players who just don't care about backdraw matches; they don't put in any effort, they may play a match completely differently like serve-volley on every point when they're normally grinders, etc. This scenario can sometimes lead to lower ranked players beating much higher ranked players.
Not sure if this qualifies and I'm not saying I agree with the "lots of tournaments" aspect, but check out the player currently #316 (no need to post names, etc.) Definitely not a stellar record, yet has a 3-star...or perhaps the current #363.
One thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at TRN, there's no indication of which victories are main draw vs. which are backdraw.
In the class of 2010 (current 12th graders), the player ranked #316 has a record of beating those ranked below 316 and losing to those ranked above 316, with a couple of exceptions in each direction (a couple of wins over higher players, but a coupl of losses to lower players). Thus, I would think that 316 is a fair ranking for him.
What is the point exactly? He's not beating top 100 guys so he is not that stellar? Obviously, he is only ranked 316. I don't get it.
In the class of 2010 (current 12th graders), the player ranked #316 has a record of beating those ranked below 316 and losing to those ranked above 316, with a couple of exceptions in each direction (a couple of wins over higher players, but a coupl of losses to lower players). Thus, I would think that 316 is a fair ranking for him.
What is the point exactly? He's not beating top 100 guys so he is not that stellar? Obviously, he is only ranked 316. I don't get it.
The point: Somebody brought up playing lots of tournaments to get a ranking. You disputed that and asked for examples of players. As I stated, I don't necessarily agree with the generalization that if a player plays lots of tournaments, their TRN ranking would be improved. But what you see, for instance, are two 3-star players that have significant losing records against other 3-star players. The majority of their wins are against 1 & 2 star players and both have played lots of tournaments, which might tend to support the notion of playing lots of events to earn a ranking.
You are the one who is looking at stars and not numerical rankings, which you complain later in your post others do!
The two 3-star players you cited have losing records against other 3-stars because they are in the bottom half of the 200-player 3-star group, and they have lost to players mostly in the top half of that group.
3-star goes from 201-400. A player ranked 363 should probably have a losing record against other 3 stars, because most of them will be above 363.
This has nothing to do with playing lots of tournaments and getting a ranking higher than you deserve. You failed to make the point because your focus on stars misses the point.
Please explain how someone can make a 3-star rating just by playing a lot of tournaments, or better yet, provide an example player we can all check out.
Remember this (emphasis is mine):
Re-read what you asked for. Re-read what I said more carefully. I mentioned how I do not necessarily agree with the concept of playing more events to get a high TRN ranking. I talked about the various factors that aren't addressed; I talked about perceptions. For somebody that doesn't look that closely, seeing a 3-star being 1-10 against other 3-stars yet having a significant winning record over 1-star and 2-star players, the perception could be that he simply played tons of tournaments to get that ranking.
My point about the stars being what's focused on is further "supported" in the way TRN presents match results. They break down performance by opponent star levels. And if you expand those levels, the TRN rankings are not listed. You have to click on each opponent to see their actual ranking.
The star levels also don't carry over. What I mean by that: my kid played and lost to some 5-star players in early and mid-2009. Now, those players are 4-star players. At the time they were 5-star, but that's no longer reflected.