How would a S. Errani vs a 5.0 Male from your League, play out????

Fuji

Legend
This is not true and even documented by the USTA. A man is about 1 point higher by a 5.0 level rather than 1/2 a point. I would actually personally guess that a top woman pro is somewhere comparable to between a 5.5 and 6.0 men's player. It's probably closer to the 6.0 but definitely not higher than that.

http://www.usta.com/Archive/Leagues/1238_Frequently_Asked_Questions_About_the_National_Tennis_Rating_Program/

I am actually a bit surprised there isn't more ego in this though. The likelihood of a 5.0 player beating Erranni is actually much higher than a 3.0 winning a round in an open tournament which I believe was a recent thread. I used to be one of the egotistical men who said a woman couldn't beat me at ..., but I was never quite stupid enough to think I could beat out a top pro.

I was actually a bit surprised by the 5.0 woman's results against 4.5s and 5.0s. The 4.5s I can see as there is a wide range, but am really surprised about playing a 5.0 man close. As a strong 4.0 player I will still egotistically say I will beat a 5.0 woman though and I think badly.
Not a chance. :razz:

It's definitely a half point difference. I'm a 4.5, and I lost back in January 7-5 to a 5.0 woman. We were definitely competitive, but if you think you will badly trounce a 5.0 woman you are out of it.

-Fuji
 
Didn't read this whole thread but I know that in 1998 a bottom half (4-6) player at a top DII program beat Chanda Rubin in a pro-set. I worked with him at a Nike Tennis Camp. He was damn good and a top junior in Canada.
 
I understand OP's frustration, Errani is a bit of a joke of a player. Another weak era girl with very minimal talent that just takes advantage of the lack of depth in todays women's game with her consistency and fitness. :neutral:

Regardless, even though she makes a mockery of what you'd want a good strong WTA #5 player to encompass, she is still obviously a top 100 level player at the very least so you have to give her the edge over any 5.0 Male. :D

So just get over your dislike of her and her powderpuff game and be reasonable. :p
 
Last edited:

70後

Hall of Fame
Never mind Errani, there are people on this board who can defeat Laver and Rosewall, if they were playing back then.

Amen to this. Players consistently say that their level does not decrease, opponents simply get better. Not to mention with equipment, dieting and money, the level has only risen. Looking back at some of Laver and Rosewall's matches, the level was honestly pitiful. I think I could probably beat them, they hit the ball so slowly.

The only way to measure 'greatness' is against their current field. And this is not a measure of skill or competency. 2013 Djokovic is the best player ever and would probably have beaten Federer of 2006. However, Federer is still the greatest player of all time, dominating his field and winning the most slams.
 

asimple

Semi-Pro
Not a chance. :razz:

It's definitely a half point difference. I'm a 4.5, and I lost back in January 7-5 to a 5.0 woman. We were definitely competitive, but if you think you will badly trounce a 5.0 woman you are out of it.

-Fuji
I guess your argument about the rating difference is with the USTA and not me as I didn't publish the FAQ. There are a wide range of 4.5s and an even wider range of 5.0s so your loss doesn't necessarily contradict what they said. I have no idea but it seems right from what I have seen.

As for me though, I will stand by my statement.
 

pinky42

Rookie
I guess your argument about the rating difference is with the USTA and not me as I didn't publish the FAQ.
But you claim to be 4.0 and Fuji claims to be 4.5. That would mean that the .5 difference applies, not the 1.0 difference.

There are a wide range of 4.5s and an even wider range of 5.0s so your loss doesn't necessarily contradict what they said. I have no idea but it seems right from what I have seen.

As for me though, I will stand by my statement.
I find that it's only useful to compare medians and not extremes. There are players newly bumped to 4.0 that will lose to 3.5 that are just on the cusp of being bumped, and a 4.0 knocking on 4.5 may beat a 4.5 on the decline. That doesn't mean that a 3.5 can beat a 4.5 though.

Are you a median 4.0? Is Fuji a median 4.5? Or are you guys at the extremes of your rating? Errani is not some newbie on the WTA. She's median or above. Even giving a male 5.0 the 1 point difference I don't see him winning.
 

chatt_town

Hall of Fame
That is saying a lot coming from a 5.0 male player. I guess we can close this conversation.lol


I'm a 41 year old 5.0 and have basically been a 5.0 since I was 18 ( except for the year I self rated at 4.5 and sandbagged), and I feel any female pro that has the skill to make the top 100 can beat any male 5.0. Now some 5.0's are actually 5.5 or 6.0 ballers that just happen to have a 5.0 at the moment

If the player is a legit 5.0 male Errani would win like 62 64

and that means Serena would utterly slaughter any male 5.0

I think Errani could play #5 singles for UVA and Serena could play 1-3 singles for UVA

Just my opinion
 

roman40

Rookie
...

I was actually a bit surprised by the 5.0 woman's results against 4.5s and 5.0s. The 4.5s I can see as there is a wide range, but am really surprised about playing a 5.0 man close. As a strong 4.0 player I will still egotistically say I will beat a 5.0 woman though and I think badly.
As a strong 4.0 who can probably beat you :twisted:, I can definitely say that I am unlikely to beat a 5.0W badly. I've played some strong 4.5 women, who'd lose handily to strong 5.0W, that were very competitive. I usually win, but it's not easy. A strong 5.0W singles player would likely beat me, or if I win, it will be an extremely tough match. Basically, you're full of it :)

I can believe that at above 5.0 the rating system breaks down somewhat, since it's not necessary based on direct competition, but rather ranking and other factors, so it's entirely possible that the difference there is greater than .5 between men and women.
 
Last edited:
I understand OP's frustration, Errani is a bit of a joke of a player. Another weak era girl with very minimal talent that just takes advantage of the lack of depth in todays women's game with her consistency and fitness. :neutral:

Regardless, even though she makes a mockery of what you'd want a good strong WTA #5 player to encompass, she is still obviously a top 100 level player at the very least so you have to give her the edge over any 5.0 Male. :D

So just get over your dislike of her and her powderpuff game and be reasonable. :p
:shock:


Interesting!
 

JoelDali

G.O.A.T.
Watched legendary Craigslist 4.5 guy get trounced by 3.5 USTA League GOAT in Manhattan Cheesey League match.

The Craigslist players have terrible footwork and overrate themselves far too high.
 

asimple

Semi-Pro
As a strong 4.0 who can probably beat you :twisted:, I can definitely say that I am unlikely to beat a 5.0W badly. I've played some strong 4.5 women, who'd lose handily to strong 5.0W, that were very competitive. I usually win, but it's not easy. A strong 5.0W singles player would likely beat me, or if I win, it will be an extremely tough match. Basically, you're full of it :)

I can believe that at above 5.0 the rating system breaks down somewhat, since it's not necessary based on direct competition, but rather ranking and other factors, so it's entirely possible that the difference there is greater than .5 between men and women.
This seems to be the normal response here. I am the god of 4.0 tennis and nobody who really is a 4.0 can beat me. All ratings should be based around this simple fact that I rule. It's funny how it is impossible for me to win against a 5.0W but you as the GOAT 4.0 tennis could be competitive.

Did you ever think there was the slightest possibility that you weren't the 4.0 GOAT?

I can state with almost near certainty that if you play in the Bay Area or even Norcal you are not, and actually if you are competitive with 4.5 women then you are certainly not.
 

Gut4Tennis

Hall of Fame
This seems to be the normal response here. I am the god of 4.0 tennis and nobody who really is a 4.0 can beat me. All ratings should be based around this simple fact that I rule. It's funny how it is impossible for me to win against a 5.0W but you as the GOAT 4.0 tennis could be competitive.

Did you ever think there was the slightest possibility that you weren't the 4.0 GOAT?

I can state with almost near certainty that if you play in the Bay Area or even Norcal you are not, and actually if you are competitive with 4.5 women then you are certainly not.
I like your style brother
 
This seems to be the normal response here. I am the god of 4.0 tennis and nobody who really is a 4.0 can beat me. All ratings should be based around this simple fact that I rule. It's funny how it is impossible for me to win against a 5.0W but you as the GOAT 4.0 tennis could be competitive.

Did you ever think there was the slightest possibility that you weren't the 4.0 GOAT?

I can state with almost near certainty that if you play in the Bay Area or even Norcal you are not, and actually if you are competitive with 4.5 women then you are certainly not.
:confused::confused:
 

roman40

Rookie
This seems to be the normal response here. I am the god of 4.0 tennis and nobody who really is a 4.0 can beat me. All ratings should be based around this simple fact that I rule. It's funny how it is impossible for me to win against a 5.0W but you as the GOAT 4.0 tennis could be competitive.

Did you ever think there was the slightest possibility that you weren't the 4.0 GOAT?

I can state with almost near certainty that if you play in the Bay Area or even Norcal you are not, and actually if you are competitive with 4.5 women then you are certainly not.
I didn't say you couldn't win, look back at your previous post, you said you could win easily against 5.0W, and I am disputing that.

Also, what's wrong with NorCal? Are you saying competition is weak in NorCal?
 

Fugazi

Professional
My assessment of this thread is......People are just rubbed the wrong way at the notion that a Solid rec Player....a MALE.....could lose to a small, soft hitting PRO WOMAN. Everyone is using different formulas.....well ~Bobbi Jane from FSU beat our Club Pro who is a 5'5 (perhaps 56 yrs old as well). Its funny to see so many people get bent out of shape and try to formulate all sorts of experiences/ opinions that would lead to errani 'Double bageling' or embarrassing the 5.0 as a lot as said......


To keep it simple.....what would S. ERRANI specifically do.....that would simply overwhelm a strong 5.0 Male? Not Serena....Not Maria....Not the 16 yr old Jr you saw at Bolleteri's......not what a #5 womans pro SHOULD encompass??? But soley on what Errani would bring to the table.

So I gather her 70 mph serves.....foot work and stamina....and baseline game would overwhelm said player?? What 5.0's are serving 70 mph serves? And don't have good footwork? Or don't have good ground strokes?

For the record, I have not made one prediction of what a score would look like, I just find it funny when folks assume that because she is a Pro.....albeit it a Woman.....the young fella is gonna fold, get tired, shank balls all over he court and get over whelmed by a soft hitting, erratic FEMALE.

Some guys just have I t in their mind that they will not allow a woman to beat them...at anything.....
Here's where you're wrong: she doesn't hit soft. You'd understand if you saw her live.
 
Here's where you're wrong: she doesn't hit soft. You'd understand if you saw her live.
I've seen her live. She is usually just "drinking balls back", but every few baseline groundies she actually hits through the ball and it is those shots alone that have any heft to them.
 

corbind

Professional
Could a legit 6.0 male take Serena and Venus at the same time?
Pickle, you certainly have a way with words.

I do not know Errani. I've heard the name but would not recognize her on tv. There is something extremely important here. If she is #5 in women's pro tennis -- she is number five IN THE WORLD!

Not the US, not Iceland, the planet. That means there are thousands of others who are good but not as talented at winning as Errani.

For some 5.0 man to beat her in 2 of three sets he would have to win on serving. If he is only a 5.0 (rather than 5.5 or 6.0+) he makes too many errors. Pros make less errors or more winners and usually both.
 
Last edited:

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
This thread should be renamed to "Case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action on online tennis forums".
lol. I'd never heard of this but a blurb from wiki:

"Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."


One wonders if they subscribe to ttw.

-------
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
 

sam_p

Professional
lol. I'd never heard of this but a blurb from wiki:

"Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."


One wonders if they subscribe to ttw.
Perfection
 

Fugazi

Professional
I've seen her live. She is usually just "drinking balls back", but every few baseline groundies she actually hits through the ball and it is those shots alone that have any heft to them.
You're being delusional again. And besides, being #5 on the WTA implies much better timing, consistency and overall skill than any legit 5.0 male.
 

Aurellian

Semi-Pro
My first wife was ranked as high as #273 in the world and she beat the men's club champion who played lower level D 1 tennis (Some Catholic school in Illinois) at her country club.

My guess is that any women ranked in the top 100 would demasculate any 5.0 man.
 

Aurellian

Semi-Pro
I used to tell my ex-husband that I am just good enough to know how bad I actually am...
Akin to a scene from one of my favorite films, Good Will Hunting. When the Professor tells Will only a handful of people know how much more talented he is than the Prof because it takes knowledge to know knowledge.
 

Fuji

Legend
Watched 3.5 Chinese GOAT getting coached in Brooklyn earlier. Dude was sliding on clay at the 3.5 level.
Since I've never played on clay, I must slide at a 1.0 level. I can only imagine how good that must be. I aspire to slide at a 3.5 GOAT level eventually.

-Fuji
 

corbind

Professional
I got around to watching highlights of three of her matches. Yeah, she's not flashy and seems to never die. Saw her playing on clay and wins by being consistent and the last one standing. Did much worse against S. Williams who hit a lot a power.
 
People get too hung up on styles....a player several levels higher is a player several levels higher, end of story.

People get these absurd ideas, such as a 5.0 would get killed by a hard-hitting woman's 6.0, but be competitive with a grinding 7.0. Level trumps style. It's only 'about match-ups' when players are on similar levels.
 

Turbo-87

Legend
I have a hard time believing she could even compete with a TT 3.5 player. Most TT 3.5 players serve 130mph and she'd have a tough time breaking that.
 

LuckyR

Legend
lol. I'd never heard of this but a blurb from wiki:

"Dunning and Kruger noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."


One wonders if they subscribe to ttw.

-------
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

I like to imagine that I post topical information that gets to the heart of issues brought up in this Forum, but this may be the best post I can think of... ever.
 

tennixpl

Rookie
lots of ego involved but some ask what Errani has tha will bug a a 5.0 man,.....well what does a 5.0 man have that will bug Errani point after point? sure she played like crap against Serena, it was a joke. but watch her doubles final match she can handle spin and power just fine. Its a shame she is as high in ranking as she is, its more sad that after a decade the WTA still can't answer with a challenge to Serena, but its even more of a joke to say a 5.0 man would beat her......i'll admit it is possible but not very likely at all.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
Since Errani is top 10 in WTA - which is a tour professional and a guy who is a 5.0 is just an amateur tennis player; it would be quite a shock to see a score that is like 1, 2 for the Errani. If on clay it could be goose eggs.
 

JoelDali

G.O.A.T.
I emailed and got a response the top tier Craigslist 5.0 in Eastern NYC metro and he said he could hang with her in practice rallies but not in playing sets.

Sounds about right if he's a legit CL 5.0
 
Top