LTA self-rating descriptions

Dags

Hall of Fame
At the moment, the LTA will allow you to self-assess up to a maximum of 7.2. That's self-assess up to a point; there's a clause that states:

"Requested ratings will not automatically be assigned; each submission will be reviewed and checked against that player's results record"

On the form, there are descriptions of the levels. It's the first time I've seen such a thing, so thought I'd share them.

Beginner: 10.2...

You've either never played, just started playing or haven't picked up a racket for years. You aren't ready to enter competitions yet but may be thinking of having lessons or joining a group session. Tou cannot sustain a rally yet and you are working primarily on getting the ball into play. You are learning to judge where the ball is going although court coverage is weak. You are also getting to grips with basic positions for singles and doubles play.

Improver: 9.2...

You know the basic techniques and are able to keep a rally going with someone who hits the ball back to you. However, you still make quite a few mistakes and my find serving difficult. You are becoming more consistent when hitting medium pace shots but you are not comfortable with all strokes and lack control when trying to hit with accuracy, depth or power. Your game probably lacks variety but you are developing a tactical approach and awareness of teamwork in doubles. You may have played some matches.

Intermediate: 8.2...

You are a decent player. You play regularly and your technique is solid. You try and copy the technique and tactics of the top players but struggle when putting together points against stronger players. You have dependable strokes, including accuracy on both forehand and backhand sides on moderate shots, plus the ability to use lobs, overheads, approach shots and volleys with some success. You are able to occasionally force errors when serving. You have begun to master the use of power and spins and are beginning to handle pace, have sound footwork and can control depth of shots. You can hit first serves with power and accuracy and place the second serve and are able to work effectively with a partner in doubles.

Experienced: 7.2...

You're good. You have played a lot of tennis and can serve with spin, placement and power. You can rally consistently and create opportunities to win points off both your forehand and backhand. You probably compete on a regular basis. You have excellent shot anticipation and court coverage. You can regularly hit winners or force errors off of short balls, can out away volleys, can successfully execute lobs, drop shots, half volleys and smashes, and have good depth and spin on most second serves. You have power and consistency and can vary strategy according to your opponent's strengths and weaknesses.


It's a shame there aren't any descriptions for the higher levels. They make a 7.2 sound like a pro.
 
I'm probably between an 8.2 going by this. I started playing four years ago and have just been hitting with family and friends.
 
Last edited:
OK I'm not familiar with this system. Assume its European. But what's the point of the .2? Why can't folks be 10, 9, 8, 7?
 
The LTA is the Lawn Tennis Association, who are the governing body in the UK. Ratings go from 10.2 (the lowest) to 1.1. There are two 'point' levels, so it goes:

10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
etc

So in total there are twenty ratings. You're right, I'm not sure the reason why they're not just 1 to 20. But likewise, I don't know why the US system doesn't use integers... or why it seems the lowest rating is 2.5 over there.

I'd never seen any official descriptions of the levels before, until I stumbled across them on the self-rating page. Read the description for a 7.2, and then consider that there are 13 levels higher than that. Either the description is inflated, or it's not designed to be a very linear system.
 
Last edited:
Yea the system doesn't seem to make much sense.

I'm a self rated 7.2 but play at around a 6.1, maybe even a 5.2. I just don't play enough tournaments to get my rating bumped up. I believe as an adult you need to beat 3 people with a higher rating than you to go up 1 level. So for me to go from 7.2 to a 5.2 I would need to beat 12 people in tournaments ranked higher than me. I play loads of social tennis but only the odd tournament so it could take me years to get to the rating I already play at!

Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
 
You could say the same thing about the USTA and the "0.5", no?

Well admittedly the OP didn't include descritions for the .1 players so I though the system only had .2's which seemed extraneous. At least with the NTRP they have .0 and .5 designations. Admittedly both systems could just use single integers until 15. And admittedly there probably isn't any need for 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 levels or 6.0, 6.5, 7.0 levels.

You could just start with 1 (2.0 and below), 2 (2.5's) 3 (3.0's) 4 (3.5's) 5 (4.0's), 6 (4.5's), 7 (5.0's), 8 (5.5's), 9 (6.0's and above). I think everyone would get that 1-3 are your beginnerish players, 4-6 are your intermediates and 7-9 are your advanced group.
But no one asked me.
 
You could say the same thing about the USTA and the "0.5", no?
How about a ratings system where your rating is just your percentile? So if your rating is x, then it means you are better than x% of the playing population. And since a 2.5 is already better than some casual players who don't play any organized tennis at all, we'll start at 10. So then it would go something like this, based on my estimates of how many people are in each level more or less today:
10 would be equivalent to about NTRP 2.5
15 = low 3.0
25 = high 3.0
35 = low 3.5
50 = high 3.5
65 = low 4.0
80 = high 4.0
90 = 4.5
97 = 5.0
99 = 5.5
Of course it could be continuous, and use decimals (especially for 5.0 and above).
BTW some years ago I had the actual numbers of how many players in each level: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4161919#post4161919
Probably the distribution has changed a bit since then.
 
Well admittedly the OP didn't include descritions for the .1 players
That's because there aren't any. I've only seen written descriptions on the self-assessment page, and you can only self-assess at one of the ratings listed above.

Hey, I don't make the rules. :)
 
From personal experience the rating system is very flawed , and also very dependant which area you play in.

I'm a 5.2 , but regularly see younger players rated better than me , who have made substantial progress through playing ratings events rather than tournaments , and can beat pretty comfortably.
Its also harder to move through the ratings as an adult due to the volume of competitions available to enter.

Theres also a lot of players around with false ratings who cant dedicate the time to play as many tournaments as needed to lower their rating, but are very talented.

I think they should offer self rating to a certain level , and then maybe a play test or assessment for any higher standard.

For coaching purposes the LTA offer play tests in order to get onto coaching courses etc, i dont see a reason why these cant be implemented across to playing competitively.
 
From personal experience the rating system is very flawed , and also very dependant which area you play in.

I'm a 5.2 , but regularly see younger players rated better than me , who have made substantial progress through playing ratings events rather than tournaments , and can beat pretty comfortably.
Its also harder to move through the ratings as an adult due to the volume of competitions available to enter.

Theres also a lot of players around with false ratings who cant dedicate the time to play as many tournaments as needed to lower their rating, but are very talented.

I think they should offer self rating to a certain level , and then maybe a play test or assessment for any higher standard.

For coaching purposes the LTA offer play tests in order to get onto coaching courses etc, i dont see a reason why these cant be implemented across to playing competitively.
Yea exactly, the ratings seem very off especially at junior level. I play a chap who's a 4.2 and built that rating when he was a junior, but I can beat him and I'm a 7.2. In reality I should be a 5.2 or 6.1 but I don't play enough tournaments.

I'm actually doing a ratings match play thing this weekend so fingers crossed I'll get bumped up a level. I have three 7.2's to play and if I beat them all I should get bumped to 7.1. In theory I should beat them all, but they could also be just like me and play at a much higher level than 7.2.

Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
 
@richardc- do you also know the ratings runs are split into two sections , not just a summer and winter season? so hypothetically with enough wins you could double jump in any given run?

I've also been told from a pretty reliable source that some of the ratings events are fixed in the juniors and run by coaches, each kid gets enough wins to ensure they all go up together. I recently played a 4.1 in a full tournament ,short sets, and beat him 4-1 , 4-0 and didnt play all that well. Dont get me wrong, i play team tennis also and came up against a guy rated 7.1 who used to play top 10 county level as a junior and was awesome. Lost that 7-6 7-6 . It really does seem to be luck of the draw a lot of the time , and relying on people being true to their rating.

I would also argue with the standard i have seen across the board that the description for a 7.1 is way off base.
 
I have always said you should be able to self rate down to either 4.1 or 5.2 at worse or have a LTA approved coach rank you.. The fact you can only self rate to 7.2 is ridiculous. I play in the top doubles competition in London and have played one tournament and quite frankly wont play another one. I had to play 5 qualifying rounds starting 7.2-10.2 C qualifying, 6.2 - 7.1 B Qualifying and finally 5.1 to 6.2 A Qualifying to get into the main draw. I then lost second round to a 3.2 rated player in a third set super tiebreak and I put this down to be in my late thirties and quite frankly not fit enough to play this many games. What then surprised me is my ranking did not change at all so I am not going to waste my time on it and play guys I know from my club or around London.

We also have a guy in our club who cleans me up - used to play on satellite tournament and to be frank is awesome - his LTA ranking is the same as me - he won our club tournament against a 3.2 easily but this was not a recognised tournament so he would have to go through qualifying - in my view just the thought of having to play through qualifying tunrs guys off. Why cant a local approved LTA coach rank you I ask.
 
@Bones it used to be the case when i was growing up as a junior that they could. I coach myself now and as i had no rating since my junior days i had to complete a play test.

I passed that with an estimated rating of 4.1 minimum , but the lta would only let me start as a 6.2. Things seem to be getting harder for adults too, as now you can drop ratings when you are above a 6.2 , either through inactivity or if you have no qualifying wins. This might fix the issue of having lots of people smash their rating down as a junior, and then just rock up to big tournaments and be seeded, but is harder for the general adult looking to compete.

I've also noticed my county is especially strong and has a large depth of players with poor ratings who are good, and also a very competitive number in my bracket. If i travel slightly more i've noticed a significant drop in other nearby counties.
 
The rating system is completely flawed now for the reasons method tennis mentions.

Having said that the rest of the crap posted is typical. People complaining they're underrated yet not entering the small number of tournaments required to get bumped up. Or more likely entering two a year and then complaining the guy they lost to is also underrated.
 
It shouldn't need explaining why rating by LTA coach is even more flawed than the current system.
 
How about a ratings system where your rating is just your percentile? So if your rating is x, then it means you are better than x% of the playing population. And since a 2.5 is already better than some casual players who don't play any organized tennis at all, we'll start at 10. So then it would go something like this, based on my estimates of how many people are in each level more or less today:
10 would be equivalent to about NTRP 2.5
15 = low 3.0
25 = high 3.0
35 = low 3.5
50 = high 3.5
65 = low 4.0
80 = high 4.0
90 = 4.5
97 = 5.0
99 = 5.5
Of course it could be continuous, and use decimals (especially for 5.0 and above).
BTW some years ago I had the actual numbers of how many players in each level: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4161919#post4161919
Probably the distribution has changed a bit since then.

Hey I like this system. Two thumbs up.
 
Moz

It's not complaining about being underrated it's about having an accurate rating. In my case I just don't have the time with twins and a third on the way to put the time in playing qualifying. I have made the main draw twice and lost to a 3.2 on both occasions in a super tiebreak.

I would self rate at a 4.1 or 5.2 and accept it but 7.2 is too low.

Matt
 
Nor have i complained that i am rated incorrectly.

I can see that a coach being able to rate a player is flawed , but not a play test run independantly.
 
@Bones it used to be the case when i was growing up as a junior that they could. I coach myself now and as i had no rating since my junior days i had to complete a play test.

I passed that with an estimated rating of 4.1 minimum , but the lta would only let me start as a 6.2. Things seem to be getting harder for adults too, as now you can drop ratings when you are above a 6.2 , either through inactivity or if you have no qualifying wins. This might fix the issue of having lots of people smash their rating down as a junior, and then just rock up to big tournaments and be seeded, but is harder for the general adult looking to compete.

I've also noticed my county is especially strong and has a large depth of players with poor ratings who are good, and also a very competitive number in my bracket. If i travel slightly more i've noticed a significant drop in other nearby counties.

What county are you in?
 
The people whos rating isnt remotely reflective just dont play enough and therefor we dont need to rate them
It makes a mess in NCL. I guess the idea of making you play in ratings order is to stop teams shuffling the lineup and putting ringers lower down. Certainly at my club, it's had the opposite effect; we've got two teams, and I don't remember any matches where they've played in order of strength.

I'm sure it works better at the regional and national levels, but in the county groups it's mostly guys who aren't interested in tournaments and so the ratings are all over the place.
 
@MethodTennis , also when you come across there people in a tournmament or ncl and they are much better than their rating, it can affect your ability to then go up a ratinmg as it counts on your record as a qualifying loss?
 
Terrible system, having beaten 2.1s and lost to 10.2s it just doesnt work. It used to work better before when you could get ratings loses against people of the same rating. Since they made a ratings loses a match lost vs only people with worse ratings everyone has quickly trended up.
I don't think losing vs someone of the same rating not counting against you as a QL is the reason why a good player can lose to a random 10.2 who has just signed up for a rating and is actually a great player. Nothing can really account for that. I don't think we can have people self assessing themselves as 3's or 4's as an alternative becuase then everyone would do it and it would even less value than it does now.
 
Moz

It's not complaining about being underrated it's about having an accurate rating. In my case I just don't have the time with twins and a third on the way to put the time in playing qualifying. I have made the main draw twice and lost to a 3.2 on both occasions in a super tiebreak.

I would self rate at a 4.1 or 5.2 and accept it but 7.2 is too low.

Matt
I think 7.2 is about right as I said in my comment above if people could self rate themselves as a 3 or 4 then loads of people would do it. Everyone already complains its too easy to improve your rating since the change of the rules in 2011. You should not be able to self rate yourself high enough to get straight into a grade 2 or even grade 1 Q's. You need to protect the standard of those events.
 
Yea the system doesn't seem to make much sense.

I'm a self rated 7.2 but play at around a 6.1, maybe even a 5.2. I just don't play enough tournaments to get my rating bumped up. I believe as an adult you need to beat 3 people with a higher rating than you to go up 1 level. So for me to go from 7.2 to a 5.2 I would need to beat 12 people in tournaments ranked higher than me. I play loads of social tennis but only the odd tournament so it could take me years to get to the rating I already play at!

Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk
if I had a £ for every time someone said they were better than their rating....hahaha

btw I am sure in your case it's true I am just commenting on how often I hear that.
 
How about a ratings system where your rating is just your percentile? So if your rating is x, then it means you are better than x% of the playing population. And since a 2.5 is already better than some casual players who don't play any organized tennis at all, we'll start at 10. So then it would go something like this, based on my estimates of how many people are in each level more or less today:
10 would be equivalent to about NTRP 2.5
15 = low 3.0
25 = high 3.0
35 = low 3.5
50 = high 3.5
65 = low 4.0
80 = high 4.0
90 = 4.5
97 = 5.0
99 = 5.5
Of course it could be continuous, and use decimals (especially for 5.0 and above).
BTW some years ago I had the actual numbers of how many players in each level: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4161919#post4161919
Probably the distribution has changed a bit since then.
i was meaning to start a thread about NTRP and how i think USTA just uses it as an arbitrary curve geared toward boosting participation (ie. not enough 5.5's to play an actual 5.5 league... bump up some 4.5's, bumpd down some 5.5's and 6.0's - and voila, 5.0 now has enough players)... but your thread (from 2009!!) says it better :)
 
Back
Top