I feel another adjustment coming.

[J011yroger]

Like the great bump of 2010.

I don't really know what they should or can do.

1. The women's and men's ratings are so disparate. Men always used to be better by .5-1.0 but it's now I feel more than a full +1.0 unless the woman is a top 5.0 then she could beat a bottom 4.5/top 4.0.

1a. The women are much closer in ability from 3.5 to the bottom half of 5.0 than the men are. You could probably take that group of women and divide them into three groups and have competitive matches, whereas the men you would need 4-5 groups.

2. The separation between the top and bottom of men's levels is getting absurd. I understand that in theory a top player should beat a bottom player 0&0 at a given level, but now it's like they are playing a different sport.

2a. The overlap between levels is getting too big. I understand there will be overlap and there will be outliers where people get the wrong rating but I feel like it's getting close to the top 30% of a level is better than the bottom 30% of the next level. I think 10% is ok.

3. Men's 5.0 is becoming legitimate futures level tennis towards the top. Guys who can afford to travel and play ITF have current ATP points and a 5.0 rating and some of the other guys who don't have points are just as good. The + is a nice idea but it seems nobody sticks at 5.5 they self rate there and can't beat the 5.0 guys badly enough so they come down. When we had 5.5/open leagues 10+ years ago you would have rostered players with 6.0/6.5/7.0 ratings and the level wasn't this high.

J

 

[Deleted member 23235]

My 0.02:
* I'm a big fan of UTR (or something like it)... just like the juniors and colleges use. now you can find your own level regardless of age and gender.
* separate singles/doubles rankings (like TenCap system)
* let teams form with anyone they want... and just have divisions by team... everyone starts at the bottom, and based on your team performance, move up/down/stay - like they do in platform tennis leagues. side rules... must play people in order of the singles/doubles utr, playoffs established by bottom team(s) of upper deivision and top team(s) of lower division

 

[OnTheLine]

So what do you see as happening in an adjustment?
More levels?
Fewer levels?
A re-balancing up / down in existing levels ?.... where the "bump" up/down rate is much higher than its current rate? (which is about 10% ish ?)

 

[J011yroger]

So what do you see as happening in an adjustment?
More levels?
Fewer levels?
A re-balancing up / down in existing levels ?.... where the "bump" up/down rate is much higher than its current rate? (which is about 10% ish ?)

I don't know.

J

 

[J011yroger]

My 0.02:
* I'm a big fan of UTR (or something like it)... just like the juniors and colleges use. now you can find your own level regardless of age and gender.
* separate singles/doubles rankings (like TenCap system)
* let teams form with anyone they want... and just have divisions by team... everyone starts at the bottom, and based on your team performance, move up/down/stay - like they do in platform tennis leagues. side rules... must play people in order of the singles/doubles utr, playoffs established by bottom team(s) of upper deivision and top team(s) of lower division

UTR would be awesome.

You could still have men's and women's, and mixed doubles could be replaced with mixed teams where you have 2 singles and 3 doubles and can have anyone of the rating play on the teams in any spot or combination.

Won't ever happen, but hey.

J

 

[time_fly]

What happened in 2010? I agree with a lot of what you say but I don't know how they can fix it by automatically shuffling players around. The system needs to be rethought.

 

[time_fly]

By the way I disgaree with the theory that a player at the top of a level SHOULD beat a player at the bottom 0 and 0. "Can beat" or "sometimes beats" maybe, but "should beat" is pretty much how I would define the players being at two different levels. In fact I would recommend fixing the level spread partially by eliminating that theory.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

What happened in 2010? I agree with a lot of what you say but I don't know how they can fix it by automatically shuffling players around. The system needs to be rethought.

every so often i think they rebalance the (bell) curve to fit a normal distribution

 

[NLBwell]

The problem is with fewer new players and older players getting well, older, there are not enough players at a 5.5 level or, in many areas a 5.0 level, to have a decent league. It's moving toward the highest level being 4.5, where the (now few) people who would have been 5.5's playing as low as 4.5. That means almost 3 full levels between the top and bottom guys playing 4.5.
In the areas where there would be enough to have real 5.0 and 5.5 leagues, causing the levels to be the same nationally drives even those areas' players to be rated lower.

 

[Universal Tennis]

UTR would be awesome.

Thanks! We're listening.

 

[bobbything]

My 0.02:
* I'm a big fan of UTR (or something like it)... just like the juniors and colleges use. now you can find your own level regardless of age and gender.
* separate singles/doubles rankings (like TenCap system)
* let teams form with anyone they want... and just have divisions by team... everyone starts at the bottom, and based on your team performance, move up/down/stay - like they do in platform tennis leagues. side rules... must play people in order of the singles/doubles utr, playoffs established by bottom team(s) of upper deivision and top team(s) of lower division

TenCap is about as accurate a system as I've seen. It's dynamic and transparent. Plus, the way the league is structured prevents stacking. I like it far, far more than the USTA's flawed system.

 

[loosegroove]

When I read your thread title, I thought the topic was regarding Nadal's inner dialogue before every serve.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

When I read your thread title, I thought the topic was regarding Nadal's inner dialogue before every serve.

The GOAT of our sport pulls a wedgie on world wide TV before every serve. This should tell us a lot about our sport.

 

[newpball]

Hold on, aren't levels determined by relative strength?

What would be the point of making adjustments? All you do is change the label.

 

[Startzel]

Hold on, aren't levels determined by relative strength?

What would be the point of making adjustments? All you do is change the label.

The lower half guys would stay in their level and now have a chance to compete.

 

[Jim A]

Hold on, aren't levels determined by relative strength?

What would be the point of making adjustments? All you do is change the label.

Agreed. When I look at my hockey team. We are all at the same general level. However if we had to play 1st line vs 1st line like a kids house league that would be awful. Most teams play straight up anyway in league (my experience at least). Some of the ones who stack don't have a big difference between 1-3 anyway when it comes to doubles


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk