I’ve played and watched many USTA league singles matches at the 4.0 and 4.5 level between computer-rated players. In general, players with more than a half-level (0.25 dynamic rating point difference on TennisRecord or TLS since the official USTA dynamic computer level is unknown) always seem to win or at least win >95% of the time if they play a lot of USTA singles for their league team - assuming there is no injury and no obvious tanking. So, a 4.35 singles specialist always seems to beat a 4.1 rated player and a 3.9 rated player always beats a 3.65 player and so on. In general, the ratings seem to be pretty accurate for those whose ratings are made up of mostly league singles matches.
My experience is only with hard courts and this may not be true on grass or clay. However on hard courts, when singles players are approximately at the same level (let’s say 0.25 computer rating variance in TLS/TR or 1 UTR level), it seems like certain playing styles have an advantage over other styles as follows:
- Aggressive Baseliner beats a Net Rusher
- Net Rusher beats a Consistent Baseliner
- Consistent Baseliner beats an Aggressive Baseliner
So, my impression is that it seems like a circle where one style has an advantage over another, but can be beaten by a 3rd style. Since we are comparing same levels, no one has overwhelming weapons to just out-power the other playing style without making more errors. If someone has more weapons and is more consistent, they would be at a higher computer rating that is more than 0.25 points higher.
I am an all-court player and if I play against a consistent baseliner (includes pushers, hackers, junk ballers and counterpunchers who wait for errors), I tend to try to approach the net as quickly as I can and finish many points at the net - I also try to bring them to the net away from their comfort zone on the baseline. If I play against a net-rusher (serve-and-volley, chip-and-charge), I tend to play closer to the baseline and ramp up the power of my shots (might make a few more errors than usual) to make them hit difficult volleys or pass them. If I play against an aggressive baseliner with harder shots than me, I stand further back from the baseline for serve returns and during rallies and try to out-last them in long rallies - the idea is that if they cannot hit enough winners to win many short points, I’ll make less unforced errors and force more errors playing conservative tennis including the dreaded moonballs, lobs etc if needed. At the 4.5 level, most aggressive baseliners can still finish well at the net as they generally have good technique and bringing them to the net with short slices or drops doesn’t always work unlike against junk ballers/pushers, but I will try that too.
So, are there stylistic advantages as described if the players are of similar levels? Do other players change their tactics and strategy in league and tournament singles in a similar fashion if you are an all-court player? This is in addition to figuring out the best location for serves, best way to return etc, based on the opponent‘s strengths and weaknesses and other preferred point patterns you might like to play. I would be interested in getting the opinions of computer-rated singles players who play USTA league or tournaments in particular. This is because self-ratings are highly inaccurate and the player who is better by half-NTRP level (high-4.0 against low-4.0, mid-4.5 vs high 4.0) is in general going to win irrespective of playing style and you can compare pros and cons of playing styles only of similar-level players with a computer rating. Maybe you can compare singles players with UTR ratings of +/- 1 level and their playing styles also.
