Mixed Doubles

[ptrbwmf2026]

I’ve heard @schmke say that the unbalanced pairs where the man is a point higher than the woman have an advantage in mixed doubles.

I personally think it’s more nuanced than that. I think the woman has to be at the upper end of her rating level. I played 6.0 with a lower end 2.5 woman and felt like we were at a disadvantage playing an upper end 3.0 male and above average 3.0 woman. I played 7.0 with a 3.5 female as my partner. We played a mid level 4.0 man and upper end 3.0 woman. They won in three sets. I don’t think they would’ve won if the woman was a lower end 3.0.

What does the data say?

 

[travlerajm]

I’ve heard @schmke say that the unbalanced pairs where the man is a point higher than the woman have an advantage in mixed doubles.

I personally think it’s more nuanced than that. I think the woman has to be at the upper end of her rating level. I played 6.0 with a lower end 2.5 woman and felt like we were at a disadvantage playing an upper end 3.0 male and above average 3.0 woman. I played 7.0 with a 3.5 female as my partner. We played a mid level 4.0 man and upper end 3.0 woman. They won in three sets. I don’t think they would’ve won if the woman was a lower end 3.0.

What does the data say?

Data says team with the strongest player on the court usually wins.

Of course, part of being a stronger player is knowing how to cover well for a weaker partner.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

Data says team with the strongest player on the court usually wins.

Of course, part of being a stronger player is knowing how to cover well for a weaker partner.

I guess I was the exception then. In my defense, I could only do so much.

In the 6.0 league, the only instances I’ve seen where a 3.5-2.5 pair beat a 3.0-3.0 pair are when the woman was borderline 3.0.

 

[travlerajm]

I guess I was the exception then. In my defense, I could only do so much.

In the 6.0 league, the only instances I’ve seen where a 3.5-2.5 pair beat a 3.0-3.0 pair are when the woman was borderline 3.0.

The data shows that the advantage of unbalanced pair peaks at the 8.0 level, because most 4.5 guys are good enough to take over the match and cover for a 3.5F against a 4.0/4.0 team.

The advantage of an unbalanced team comes mainly from the use of unbalanced and staggered formations, which enable the stronger player to play the majority of balls and the weaker player to be hidden. In 8.0, the 3.5F often stands 2 feet from the net, forcing the opponents to hit everything at the 4.5M.

 

[TennisOTM]

When the best player is paired with the worst player among the four players on the court, that best/worst team does seem to overperform compared to what you would expect from the sum of their ratings. The worst player is not completely irrelevant though - the better they are, the better chances the team has to win.

I believe there is an optimal prediction formula out there for these kind of matches, that probably uses a weighted sum of the partnerships' ratings, where the higher-rated partner gets weighted more heavily, but the lower-rated partner still figures in.

 

[Lord Of The Strings]

the unbalanced pairings work better at higher levels because the play quality (don't want to say "talent" b/c there's more that goes into it than that) gaps between ratings are wider the higher you go.

The gap between a 3.0 and 3.5 is not a super wide gap, 3.5 to 4.0 is a bit wider, and so on...the 4.5 to 5.0 gap is pretty wide and 5.0 to 5.5 is stark. so it stands to reason that a solid 4.5 should be able to dominate a court against two 4.0s, even compensating for a 3.5 partner. But a 3.5 against two 3.0s will be closer.

 

[time_fly]

It‘s a different dynamic at different levels for sure. As a 3.5 I play 8.0, 7.0, and 6.0. At age 18+ 8.0 I’ve seen ringer 4.5s that could win playing with a proverbial ham sandwich because they can cover the whole court and hit offensively from anywhere. His partner would literally have to miss almost every ball to make the match close. At 7.0 I think the quality of the woman is important. The 4.0 guys usually can’t take over the whole court. I’ve beaten 4.0-rated club pros playing with weak women, and those guys were actually much more successful at 8.0.

Finally, 6.0 is its own weird thing. The 2.5 and 3.0 ratings are more defined by how much tennis experience you have than how good you are, so the levels are really broad down there as well. I’ve played some 6.0 matches this year for the first time and won some and lost some. The losses involved opponents that had wins at 3.0 nationals and were really more like 3.5, and having a 2.5 partner that simply was not capable of putting a ball into the court more than 1 in 3 times. You never know what you will get at that level.

 

[Chairman3]

The opposing male player will [nearly] always hit the ball as much and as hard at your female partner. If the opposing female is good/decent, she will do the same if your female partner is weaker than you.

That is competitive mixed doubles in a nutshell.

Being the sanctimonious person I am, I just play the match as I would any other match. I take my shots and play my game.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

The opposing male player will [nearly] always hit the ball as much and as hard at your female partner. If the opposing female is good/decent, she will do the same if your female partner is weaker than you.

That is competitive mixed doubles in a nutshell.

Being the sanctimonious person I am, I just play the match as I would any other match. I take my shots and play my game.

The first pair that I played in 6.0 did a great job of playing keep away from me. But when I could get my racquet on it, they paid.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Data says team with the strongest player on the court usually wins.

Of course, part of being a stronger player is knowing how to cover well for a weaker partner.

I would say the data is in line with utr’s conversion chart and utr generally.

http://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

A 5.0 male is better then a 5.0, female but in mixed 9.0 the 5.0 and 4.0 teams do about equally well even if the 5.0 I is a female.

For lower rated teams you will generally get more overall skill on the court by putting your points on the male player.

 

[stapletonj]

Perhaps at higher levels, but at lower levels, the stronger player cannot cover enough court and the other team can play keep away from the stronger player.
And, if the weaker player has a powderpuff serve, that's every other game is a great break opportunity

 

[travlerajm]

I would say the data is in line with utr’s conversion chart and utr generally.

http://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

A 5.0 male is better then a 5.0, female but in mixed 9.0 the 5.0 and 4.0 teams do about equally well even if the 5.0 I is a female.

For lower rated teams you will generally get more overall skill on the court by putting your points on the male player.

But the trend of unbalanced pairs being better than balanced pairs holds at all levels across the board even for same gender combo doubles in 55s (7.0m, 8.0m, 9.0m, 7.0f, 8.0f, and 9.0f).

Add those 6 combos to the 3x combos x 3 levels analyzed for mixed, and the unbalanced pairings are a staggering undefeated 15-0 with the combo with the strongest player on the court (and also the weakest player on the court) having a statistical advantage.

That can’t be explained away by your combined UTR power theory. But the strongest player rule still holds.

 

[Chairman3]

Played USTA mixed today and guess what....

The guy tried to hit as many balls as possible to my female partner, typically as hard as he thought he could.

We ended up winning regardless, but thought it was topical.
Disclosure: This was 7.0, I'm 4.0/3.0 partner and our opponents were 3.5/3.5

 

[am1899]

Yeah as I recall @schmke dug into the stats and the numbers bear out that unbalanced pairs do have a statistical advantage.

 

[travlerajm]

I’ve posted on this before, but the main reason that unbalanced pairs have the advantage is that doubles is a strongest-link-wins sport, as opposed to a weakest-link-loses sport.

The reason becomes more obvious the more experience you have as a doubles player.

For relative newbies, the hit-to-the-girl strategy seems like the best way to play, and the logic from that follows that having the weakest female on the court would be a big disadvantage.

But that’s not what happens in doubles when experienced teams face off against each other.

Experienced teams understand how to better optimize a staggered formation — with the weaker player essentially hugging the net on the majority of points.

This channels more balls to the stronger player, because the net hugger can effectively play ‘above her level’ from that offensive position. If she has halfway respectable volley skills, any ball hit toward her can be angled off for a winner most of the time.

This forces opposing team to either hit to the stronger player or lob over the weak net hugger, in which case the stronger player can roll across and play an offensive swinging volley or overhead.

The exact nature of the type of shots and the type of formation stagger needed to optimize strategy varies by level, but the principle of using an unbalanced formation to take advantage of having the strongest player on the court remains constant.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

I’ve posted on this before, but the main reason that unbalanced pairs have the advantage is that doubles is a strongest-link-wins sport, as opposed to a weakest-link-loses sport.

The reason becomes more obvious the more experience you have as a doubles player.

For relative newbies, the hit-to-the-girl strategy seems like the best way to play, and the logic from that follows that having the weakest female on the court would be a big disadvantage.

But that’s not what happens in doubles when experienced teams face off against each other.

Experienced teams understand how to better optimize a staggered formation — with the weaker player essentially hugging the net on the majority of points.

This channels more balls to the stronger player, because the net hugger can effectively play ‘above her level’ from that offensive position. If she has halfway respectable volley skills, any ball hit toward her can be angled off for a winner most of the time.

This forces opposing team to either hit to the stronger player or lob over the weak net hugger, in which case the stronger player can roll across and play an offensive swinging volley or overhead.

The exact nature of the type of shots and the type of formation stagger needed to optimize strategy varies by level, but the principle of using an unbalanced formation to take advantage of having the strongest player on the court remains constant.

I personally think it’s a disadvantage at 6.0 to have an unbalanced pair, but it isn’t at 7.0. I think I’m a pretty good 3.5, and I lost 6-4, 7-5 playing with a 2.5 female. In my defense, she was barely in the 2.5 range.

 

[Moon Shooter]

But the trend of unbalanced pairs being better than balanced pairs holds at all levels across the board even for same gender combo doubles in 55s (7.0m, 8.0m, 9.0m, 7.0f, 8.0f, and 9.0f).

Add those 6 combos to the 3x combos x 3 levels analyzed for mixed, and the unbalanced pairings are a staggering undefeated 15-0 with the combo with the strongest player on the court (and also the weakest player on the court) having a statistical advantage.

That can’t be explained away by your combined UTR power theory. But the strongest player rule still holds.

What data do you have on this? My theory is to simply look at how teams get the strongest players on the courts. UTR is the only decent system that even tries to include one rating for both men and women. Also consider that due to the huge flexibility (both genders and a variety of levels can play) and only having to fill 3 doubles courts competitive mixed teams will only have players at the top of their NTRP level. So you want to look at the upper end of each level.


Take a USTA 7.0 match.

https://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

You can have a 4.0 male that will be about 6.5 UTR (I'm taking the second to highest level of each level) and a 3.0 female that will be about a 3.0 UTR for total skill So you have 9.5 total skill on the court.

If you took a 4.0 female and a 3.0 male you would have total 8.5 UTR on the court.
If you take a 3.5 and a 3.5 you will have total 8.5 on the court.

Having an extra UTR point on your court is going to be a big advantage. So because the USTA levels between men and women make it so that you simply have more total skill on the court by "spending" your USTA points on the male player.

Now lets look at 8.5 combo just men. An upper 5.0 male will have a UTR of about 10 UTR (again the rating next to the very top) and an upper 3.5 male will have 5.0 for combined of 15.
A 4.0M and a 4.5M will have a combined UTR of 6.5 and 8.0 so total 14.5. So yes the 5.0 and 3.5 should win because they simply have more skill on the court. It is not a mystery it is just how the USTA levels actually break down. UTR pretty much reveals what is happening in USTA matches.

The UTR analysis may not be as pronounced for same gender combo leagues because they only work with half the players so the teams may not all have the upper end players.

I don't think UTR is perfect on this because many areas do not have many truly coed matches. I think the female players in my area actually have a slightly higher UTR for a male player of the same skill level. But I would bet UTR is better then TR at predicting outcomes then TR or USTA ratings.

 

[travlerajm]

I personally think it’s a disadvantage at 6.0 to have an unbalanced pair, but it isn’t at 7.0. I think I’m a pretty good 3.5, and I lost 6-4, 7-5 playing with a 2.5 female. In my defense, she was barely in the 2.5 range.

But maybe as a pretty good 3.5, you are more skilled at playing your half of the court than you are at knowing how to play 3/4 of the court to cover for having a weak partner?

These are 2 very different skillsets.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

But maybe as a pretty good 3.5, you are more skilled at playing your half of the court than you are at knowing how to play 3/4 of the court to cover for having a weak partner?

These are 2 very different skillsets.

I **** the bed in my 6.0 match. I’m pretty sure my 2.5 partner held serve more than me.

My serve was trash.

In spite of that, we were up 10-9 after being down 6-9 in the 3rd set tie break.

I poached on the woman’s backhand because it was her outside groundstroke. She hit a hard enough return to where I couldn’t handle it and made an error.

If I even had an average serve that match, we win in straight sets.

I played about as poorly as I could, and we still had a chance to win.

I guess that’s why I’m rated 3.5, but it’s a tough pill to swallow.

My partner played very well. She will not be a 2.5 very long.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

I’m beginning to think that it would be better for mixed doubles to be straight level nationally.

Even at 6.0, playing with a good 2.5 woman, I felt like we had the advantage, despite losing. I played as poorly as I possibly could, and we still had a match point in the 3rd set super tiebreaker.

At 7.0, it is basically impossible to win if you’re two 3.5s against a 4.0 man and 3.0 woman. I would imagine even more so at 8.0 with a 4.5 man and 3.5 woman.

 

[travlerajm]

I’m beginning to think that it would be better for mixed doubles to be straight level nationally.

Even at 6.0, playing with a good 2.5 woman, I felt like we had the advantage, despite losing. I played as poorly as I possibly could, and we still had a match point in the 3rd set super tiebreaker.

At 7.0, it is basically impossible to win if you’re two 3.5s against a 4.0 man and 3.0 woman. I would imagine even more so at 8.0 with a 4.5 man and 3.5 woman.

The unbalancedness is what makes it more fun and strategically interesting than regular doubles.

 

[ratherlosethanpush]

I’m beginning to think that it would be better for mixed doubles to be straight level nationally.

Even at 6.0, playing with a good 2.5 woman, I felt like we had the advantage, despite losing. I played as poorly as I possibly could, and we still had a match point in the 3rd set super tiebreaker.

At 7.0, it is basically impossible to win if you’re two 3.5s against a 4.0 man and 3.0 woman. I would imagine even more so at 8.0 with a 4.5 man and 3.5 woman.

Remember lower pool of 5.0 4.5 4.0 females would hurt participation particularly as u can currently go same level or difference.
In certain areas lack of certain level numbers would almost certainly make it unworkable

 

[TennisOTM]

I’m beginning to think that it would be better for mixed doubles to be straight level nationally.

Even at 6.0, playing with a good 2.5 woman, I felt like we had the advantage, despite losing. I played as poorly as I possibly could, and we still had a match point in the 3rd set super tiebreaker.

At 7.0, it is basically impossible to win if you’re two 3.5s against a 4.0 man and 3.0 woman. I would imagine even more so at 8.0 with a 4.5 man and 3.5 woman.

It's far from impossible, in fact the 4.0 man / 3.0 woman combos win only slightly more than expected against 3.5/3.5 teams. @schmke analyzed this here: https://computerratings.blogspot.com/2023/07/another-look-at-what-ntrp-rating_6.html

4.0m/3.0w teams had a 58.7% win rate against 3.5/3.5, but they were *expected* to win (by the straight sum of their @schmke ratings) 56.4% of those matches. The latter stat is explained by the 4.0 men and 3.0 woman who get recruited to 7.0 teams tending to be stronger than average within their levels.

So 58.7% vs. 56.4% is a boost due to the unbalanced advantage, but it's not large - it would take at least dozens of matches to notice the advantage in W/L record.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Another look at what NTRP rating combinations works best in Mixed 18 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

I've been looking at how different combinations of levels do in the 55 & Over Adult and 18 & Over Mixed , and just took a deeper dive on 55...

computerratings.blogspot.com

This is a great blog post. I wonder if this would be different if he used actual dynamic ratings (when available) as opposed to mixed dynamic ratings only when that is all you have.

In any case it shows how the USTA ratings ranges a each level are not uniform for women and men.

I don't think this necessarily proves the best player on the court wins theory. If that were the case I would think we would expect a bigger over achievement in 4.0 and 3.0 versus 3.5 and 3.5. Plus you would expect the 3.0 4.0 versus 3.5 3.5 to do about as well as the 4.0 5.0 versus 4.5 4.5. But in fact the former underachieves by about 3.5% and the latter overachieves by 2%. Not to mention the 3.5 2.5 actually underperformed against 3.0 3.0.

The 6.0 is not surprising to me, since the men's 3.0 level is very wide.

The data is pretty unsurprising when you look at UTR ratings and how they relate to NTRP.

https://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

I would bet if you looked at UTR expected versus actual for these players you would see the best player on the court theory doesn't hold up. The mixed doubles team with the most total skill on the court wins. Add the UTRs of both teams and the team with the larger sum will win most often. I do not think there will be any edge for the team with the player with the highest UTR.

Indeed having the player with the lowest UTR may be more of a problem. Because when you have someone that is clearly worse you have an obvious strategy - hit the ball to them whenever it is feasible.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

Another look at what NTRP rating combinations works best in Mixed 18 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

I've been looking at how different combinations of levels do in the 55 & Over Adult and 18 & Over Mixed , and just took a deeper dive on 55...

computerratings.blogspot.com

This is a great blog post. I wonder if this would be different if he used actual dynamic ratings (when available) as opposed to mixed dynamic ratings only when that is all you have.

In any case it shows how the USTA ratings ranges a each level are not uniform for women and men.

I don't think this necessarily proves the best player on the court wins theory. If that were the case I would think we would expect a bigger over achievement in 4.0 and 3.0 versus 3.5 and 3.5. Plus you would expect the 3.0 4.0 versus 3.5 3.5 to do about as well as the 4.0 5.0 versus 4.5 4.5. But in fact the former underachieves by about 3.5% and the latter overachieves by 2%. Not to mention the 3.5 2.5 actually underperformed against 3.0 3.0.

The 6.0 is not surprising to me, since the men's 3.0 level is very wide.

The data is pretty unsurprising when you look at UTR ratings and how they relate to NTRP.

https://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg

I would bet if you looked at UTR expected versus actual for these players you would see the best player on the court theory doesn't hold up. The mixed doubles team with the most total skill on the court wins. Add the UTRs of both teams and the team with the larger sum will win most often. I do not think there will be any edge for the team with the player with the highest UTR.

Indeed having the player with the lowest UTR may be more of a problem. Because when you have someone that is clearly worse you have an obvious strategy - hit the ball to them whenever it is feasible.

Best player usually does win. I played about as poorly as I could in 6.0 and still had a match point.

In 7.0, the guy did basically all of the work, and the woman just got the ball in play.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Best player usually does win. I played about as poorly as I could in 6.0 and still had a match point.

In 7.0, the guy did basically all of the work, and the woman just got the ball in play.

I'm not sure looking at one match is the way to think about this.

If the team with the top UTR player over performed then I would tend to agree.

But when you are comparing NTRP with different skill ranges for men's and women's levels you can't reach those conclusions. Yes the team with the best player is more likely to win when the best player is much better then the best player on the other team and his partner is not much worse then the worst player on the other team. That is what happens in USTA the difference between the upper end 4.5 male player and the average 2.5 male player is greater then the difference between the upper end 4.5 female player and the average 2.5 female. Teams can just get more skill per USTA point by spending them on the male player. I think it is likely the same for UTR but not nearly as bad.

 

[TennisOTM]

Add the UTRs of both teams and the team with the larger sum will win most often. I do not think there will be any edge for the team with the player with the highest UTR.

I did an anlysis like this last year using UTR, although it was for men's doubles (4.0 leagues and tournaments) and not mixed. The "best player" method actually did do a bit better than the "larger sum" method for matches where they disagreed.

One take-home message was that the two methods agreed with each other in the vast majority of matches. There were only 31 out of 220 doubles matches (14%) where the team without the best player had the higher sum.

In those 31 matches, the team with the best player went 18-13 (58%) despite being the underdog team by total rating.

Here's the full thread from last year:

The four types of doubles matchups

In another thread, I've been analyzing the ability of publicly available ratings like UTR to predict the outcome of adult 4.0 men's matches. In doing so, I've built a decent-size data set of rated doubles results to study further. For example, I have 200+ match results where all four players had...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[Roforot]

Best player usually does win. I played about as poorly as I could in 6.0 and still had a match point.

In 7.0, the guy did basically all of the work, and the woman just got the ball in play.

It sounds like you undervalue getting the ball in play. A lot of women and guys have an ego where theyll try to blast shots or serves mindlessly. like volleyball theres a role for a setter and a finisher.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

It sounds like you undervalue getting the ball in play. A lot of women and guys have an ego where theyll try to blast shots or serves mindlessly. like volleyball theres a role for a setter and a finisher.

I made at least 85% of the returns. My problem was that my serve was not there. I didn’t have a legitimate first serve. And the directional intent was off. I had to kick the ball in on the 1st. And I couldn’t slice kick to the guy’s backhand. The match would’ve been a blowout win for me and my partner if I was able to hit a 1st.

 

[ratherlosethanpush]

I made at least 85% of the returns. My problem was that my serve was not there. I didn’t have a legitimate first serve. And the directional intent was off. I had to kick the ball in on the 1st. And I couldn’t slice kick to the guy’s backhand. The match would’ve been a blowout win for me and my partner if I was able to hit a 1st.

Kick serves r usually effective to ladies, they tend not to see them much so arent used to the spin and it get its up out of there strike zone.

Bonuses are you make a lot of 1st serves and even though the kick gives you the advantage it doesn't like you are being mean even though you are.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I did an anlysis like this last year using UTR, although it was for men's doubles (4.0 leagues and tournaments) and not mixed. The "best player" method actually did do a bit better than the "larger sum" method for matches where they disagreed.

One take-home message was that the two methods agreed with each other in the vast majority of matches. There were only 31 out of 220 doubles matches (14%) where the team without the best player had the higher sum.

In those 31 matches, the team with the best player went 18-13 (58%) despite being the underdog team by total rating.

Here's the full thread from last year:

The four types of doubles matchups

In another thread, I've been analyzing the ability of publicly available ratings like UTR to predict the outcome of adult 4.0 men's matches. In doing so, I've built a decent-size data set of rated doubles results to study further. For example, I have 200+ match results where all four players had...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

That was some interesting analysis. I would love to see that analysis for mixed doubles at nationals or regionals. The reason I say at those levels is because I think since mixed is not rated some people just play it socially and so it is not clear they would be that concerned or aware of the best tactical play. That said I think what you would find is that the unbalanced teams with the higher rated male are usually very often the team with the higher UTR total on the court.

If it is so much the best player on the court then you would think schmke's data would show that better.

Another look at what NTRP rating combinations works best in Mixed 18 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

I've been looking at how different combinations of levels do in the 55 & Over Adult and 18 & Over Mixed , and just took a deeper dive on 55...

computerratings.blogspot.com

I mean take a male 4.0 and female 3.0 versus two 3.5 players. They are only overperforming their rating (that is schmke's estimate of their NTRP dynamic mixed rating) by like 2% but the 4.0 Male is likely *much* better then the second player (likely the 3.5 male). The slight 2% over-achieve is way below what I would expect considering an upper a USTA 4.0M would be about UTR 6.5 whereas an upper USTA 3.5M would be about UTR 5.0. An upper Female USTA 3.0 would be about UTR 3.0 and and upper female USTA 3.5 would be UTR 3.5. So the unbalanced team is gaining about 1.5 UTR points on the men's side and only sacrificing about .5 UTR points on the female side. You are likely looking at a difference of an entire UTR rating point and they are only winning 58.7 percent of the games! According to your estimate a .6-.9 UTR difference should be about 77% wins.

" 0.3 - 63-40 (61%)
0.3-0.6 - 64-22 (74%)
0.6-0.9 - 41-12 (77%)
0.9-1.2 - 27-7 (79%)
1.2-1.5 - 11-1 (92%)
1.5+ - 7-0 (100%)"

It was interesting that in your data going from .6-.9 advantage yielded a 77% winning shot and going from .9-1.2 only increased it to 79%. That seemed out of step with the rest of the percentages. So I do think there were some odd things happening in your data set that would be smoothed out in a larger pool. But that is not to say it wasn't informative.

So I find your data interesting but I think Schmke's data combined with the rating ranges UTR put out:
https://www.kimgranttennis.com/uploads/3/1/3/5/31353957/utr-player-range-page-001_3.jpg
Pretty conclusively shows that in mixed you just get more total skill on the court when you spend your NTRP rating points on the male. That difference more then makes up for the slight increase in performance Schmke noted. Even if UTR is a bit off with their conversion chart (which actually seems pretty accurate to my own experience) they would have to be way off to go from 77% to 58%.

I think the "strongest player on the court" theory may not be holding up so well in mixed because the players fully know going in that one player is likely to be much weaker then the other and the basic strategy is to exploit that like crazy. On the other hand because mixed is not rated and often viewed as a more social game perhaps that weakness is not exploited as ruthlessly as you would expect in adult league matches - until you get to playoffs.

 

[J_R_B]

I’ve heard @schmke say that the unbalanced pairs where the man is a point higher than the woman have an advantage in mixed doubles.

I personally think it’s more nuanced than that. I think the woman has to be at the upper end of her rating level. I played 6.0 with a lower end 2.5 woman and felt like we were at a disadvantage playing an upper end 3.0 male and above average 3.0 woman. I played 7.0 with a 3.5 female as my partner. We played a mid level 4.0 man and upper end 3.0 woman. They won in three sets. I don’t think they would’ve won if the woman was a lower end 3.0.

What does the data say?

It's definitely more nuanced. First, it depends on where in the ratings the players are. If you have two top-of-level 3.5 ringers, they should beat a low-mid 4.0/3.0 combo. Second, there is a stylistic nuance. Everyone has relative strengths and weaknesses to their game. In an unbalanced pair with the higher level man, the most important trait to be strong in is speed and court coverage because the most imperative thing for the man to do in those pairs is take as many balls as possible (when the other team will clearly be hitting to the woman as much as possible). I'm a relatively high rated 4.0 guy (not a ringer, but probably 70-75th percentile or something), but I'm not a particularly good 7.0 mixed player because speed and court coverage definitely are NOT my relative strengths as a 4.0, so I end up leaving too many shots for my 3.0 woman partner.

 

[TennisOTM]

I'm also a 4.0 who plays 7.0 mixed, and my skills in that scenario are so-so. I'm pretty good at covering a big portion of the backcourt, but I'm not great at being successfully active at the net. Also my serve is probably the weakest part of my game so I get broken more than most 4.0's would.

Overall, I perform about as well as expected according to TR: my average match rating over 10 rated 7.0 mixed matches is 3.53, which is almost exactly where I'm rated based on men's matches (the dreaded VERY LOW section on the rating meter, oof).

 

[travlerajm]

I'm also a 4.0 who plays 7.0 mixed, and my skills in that scenario are so-so. I'm pretty good at covering a big portion of the backcourt, but I'm not great at being successfully active at the net. Also my serve is probably the weakest part of my game so I get broken more than most 4.0's would.

Overall, I perform about as well as expected according to TR: my average match rating over 10 rated 7.0 mixed matches is 3.53, which is almost exactly where I'm rated based on men's matches (the dreaded VERY LOW section on the rating meter, oof).

If you just lose a few more, you can get out off the ugly red section of the TR 4.0 suck-o-meter scale and get onto the cool neon green part of the next level down.

 

[TennisOTM]

If you just lose a few more, you can get out off the ugly red section of the TR 4.0 suck-o-meter scale and get onto the cool neon green part of the next level down.

Haha yeah, I would never do that on purpose, but my body may take me there. I need to play and practice more often to become a non-sucky 4.0, but every time I step up my playing frequency I get injured.

Funny how getting a bit worse would make me a more valuable league player. I would certainly do much better in 7.0 mixed as a strong 3.5 vs. a weak 4.0.

 

[socallefty]

The data shows that the advantage of unbalanced pair peaks at the 8.0 level, because most 4.5 guys are good enough to take over the match and cover for a 3.5F against a 4.0/4.0 team.

The advantage of an unbalanced team comes mainly from the use of unbalanced and staggered formations, which enable the stronger player to play the majority of balls and the weaker player to be hidden. In 8.0, the 3.5F often stands 2 feet from the net, forcing the opponents to hit everything at the 4.5M.

When I am with a weaker partner who will follow my directions (stand close to the net near the alley, shoot for a high first serve %, let me play I/Oz formations and signal intentional poaches, let me serve first in every set), I win a lot more than when I play with a weaker partner who wants to play like they always play. So if you play unbalanced doubles, that chemistry of the weaker player accepting their role and letting the stronger player take the lead in terms of what is best for the team is important.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I'm also a 4.0 who plays 7.0 mixed, and my skills in that scenario are so-so. I'm pretty good at covering a big portion of the backcourt, but I'm not great at being successfully active at the net. Also my serve is probably the weakest part of my game so I get broken more than most 4.0's would.

Overall, I perform about as well as expected according to TR: my average match rating over 10 rated 7.0 mixed matches is 3.53, which is almost exactly where I'm rated based on men's matches (the dreaded VERY LOW section on the rating meter, oof).

Because you only need 3 courts and you have quite a bit of flexibility in players by having women and men to fill spots (as well as having different level combinations) it is usually only the top players at each level that will be playing on competitive teams. According to UTR they say a USTA 4.0 can be anywhere from a 4.5 to a 7.0 UTR and even if we tighten that up to 5.0 to 6.5 that is a decent size range. That said do you overperform for your UTR rating in mixed? I played some 7.0 matches with a 4.0 female and we had a few 4.0M + 3.0 F and I think we lost the matches. However we were predicted to lose the matches and I think they were likely closer then the UTR ratings would suggest. I also had some 6.5 matches where I played with a 3.5 female against a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I will have to take a look at them. Since my area is not that large and we don't even have a stable 4.0 men's league we will not always have top 4.0 men on our teams.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

Because you only need 3 courts and you have quite a bit of flexibility in players by having women and men to fill spots (as well as having different level combinations) it is usually only the top players at each level that will be playing on competitive teams. According to UTR they say a USTA 4.0 can be anywhere from a 4.5 to a 7.0 UTR and even if we tighten that up to 5.0 to 6.5 that is a decent size range. That said do you overperform for your UTR rating in mixed? I played some 7.0 matches with a 4.0 female and we had a few 4.0M + 3.0 F and I think we lost the matches. However we were predicted to lose the matches and I think they were likely closer then the UTR ratings would suggest. I also had some 6.5 matches where I played with a 3.5 female against a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I will have to take a look at them. Since my area is not that large and we don't even have a stable 4.0 men's league we will not always have top 4.0 men on our teams.

Are you in Intermountain?

 

[Moon Shooter]

Are you in Intermountain?

No

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

In the time honored Twforum tradition of my experience is the norm, I'll join in! Won a member guest mixed tournament this weekend with a broken pinky toe, probably 8.0-8.5 mixed depending on opponent. If any partner is missing shots it just destroys the chances of winning. We faced teams who had low rated unforced error men, overhitting younger 4.5 men, one unsteady woman, and one team had a better woman than man.

But yes, a lower level player or a player rated high that happens to overhit everything can torpedo any team. The base or floor of the team needs to be solid. My partner was solid. That's my limited research.

 

[Moon Shooter]

In the time honored Twforum tradition of my experience is the norm, I'll join in! Won a member guest mixed tournament this weekend with a broken pinky toe, probably 8.0-8.5 mixed depending on opponent. If any partner is missing shots it just destroys the chances of winning. We faced teams who had low rated unforced error men, overhitting younger 4.5 men, one unsteady woman, and one team had a better woman than man.

But yes, a lower level player or a player rated high that happens to overhit everything can torpedo any team. The base or floor of the team needs to be solid. My partner was solid. That's my limited research.

I just played in a 6.5 mixed match. I was watching the next team since it was a 3.0 male and 3.5 female versus a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I had just played against the 3.5 female and I was told it was her first mixed doubles match. I wanted to see how she would do against a 4.0 player. the 3.5F/3.0M would often hit the ball the to 4.0M for no apparent reason. An easy shot which could be hit to either opponent. I think they were just inexperienced in mixed doubles but I am sure that happens often enough. People just play their game and don't zero in and immediately exploit the weaknesses. They still went to a tiebreaker but lost it. The 4.0M and 2.5F were over 2 UTR points higher then the 3.5/3.0 team so I guess it won't count for UTR at all.

Which makes me wonder if they had won more games but lost the match would UTR still not count it? Like if they lost 4-6, 6-1, 0-1. Still UTR would not rate the match?

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I just played in a 6.5 mixed match. I was watching the next team since it was a 3.0 male and 3.5 female versus a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I had just played against the 3.5 female and I was told it was her first mixed doubles match. I wanted to see how she would do against a 4.0 player. the 3.5F/3.0M would often hit the ball the to 4.0M for no apparent reason. An easy shot which could be hit to either opponent. I think they were just inexperienced in mixed doubles but I am sure that happens often enough. People just play their game and don't zero in and immediately exploit the weaknesses. They still went to a tiebreaker but lost it. The 4.0M and 2.5F were over 2 UTR points higher then the 3.5/3.0 team so I guess it won't count for UTR at all.

Which makes me wonder if they had won more games but lost the match would UTR still not count it? Like if they lost 4-6, 6-1, 0-1. Still UTR would not rate the match?

I have no idea. Someone might though.

 

[TennisOTM]

The 4.0M and 2.5F were over 2 UTR points higher then the 3.5/3.0 team so I guess it won't count for UTR at all.

Which makes me wonder if they had won more games but lost the match would UTR still not count it? Like if they lost 4-6, 6-1, 0-1. Still UTR would not rate the match?

From their FAQ it does sound like you have to *win* the upset match for UTR to count it, not just take more games. If someone could find an example they could prove or disprove it - the website tells you which matches are counted.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

I just played in a 6.5 mixed match. I was watching the next team since it was a 3.0 male and 3.5 female versus a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I had just played against the 3.5 female and I was told it was her first mixed doubles match. I wanted to see how she would do against a 4.0 player. the 3.5F/3.0M would often hit the ball the to 4.0M for no apparent reason. An easy shot which could be hit to either opponent. I think they were just inexperienced in mixed doubles but I am sure that happens often enough. People just play their game and don't zero in and immediately exploit the weaknesses. They still went to a tiebreaker but lost it. The 4.0M and 2.5F were over 2 UTR points higher then the 3.5/3.0 team so I guess it won't count for UTR at all.

Which makes me wonder if they had won more games but lost the match would UTR still not count it? Like if they lost 4-6, 6-1, 0-1. Still UTR would not rate the match?

I played a 7.0 mixed doubles match that wasn’t counted in UTR because the guy had a UTR more than two points higher than mine.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I played a 7.0 mixed doubles match that wasn’t counted in UTR because the guy had a UTR more than two points higher than mine.

I think it may be the average ratings of both teams have to be over 2 points different.

"How does the 2.00 UTR difference cutoff work for doubles?

Doubles matches are counted by the algorithm if 1) the average rating of Team A and the average rating of Team B are within 2.00 and 2) the ratings of teammates are within 4.00 of each other. Similar to how it works for singles, matches outside the 2.00 team average cutoff are only counted by the algorithm if the lower-rated team wins the match. "

UTR Doubles Algorithm FAQs

How does the doubles algorithm work? The singles and doubles algorithms are very similar. For doubles, the algorithm compares the average Universal Tennis Rating (UTR Rating) of Team A to the average UTR Rating of Team B. Given the UTR Rating d...

support.universaltennis.com

So it seems you have to win the match for it to count for the lower rated team. Even if they win more games it still won't count.

All of these tennis rating systems just almost do it right, but then they choose to do some really dumb things.

 

[travlerajm]

I just played in a 6.5 mixed match. I was watching the next team since it was a 3.0 male and 3.5 female versus a 4.0M and 2.5 female. I had just played against the 3.5 female and I was told it was her first mixed doubles match. I wanted to see how she would do against a 4.0 player. the 3.5F/3.0M would often hit the ball the to 4.0M for no apparent reason. An easy shot which could be hit to either opponent. I think they were just inexperienced in mixed doubles but I am sure that happens often enough. People just play their game and don't zero in and immediately exploit the weaknesses. They still went to a tiebreaker but lost it. The 4.0M and 2.5F were over 2 UTR points higher then the 3.5/3.0 team so I guess it won't count for UTR at all.

Which makes me wonder if they had won more games but lost the match would UTR still not count it? Like if they lost 4-6, 6-1, 0-1. Still UTR would not rate the match?

in my case, my mixed doubles is currently alternating daily between counting my last match (which I won over a 3.5M/4.5f team both 5.x UTR) and not counting it.

The days that it’s not counted, my UTR drops to 7.x (10% reliability). That puts my UTR low enough to count it for the next day’s cycle, and so my UTR goes up to 8.x (20% reliability), which causes my last match not to count again for the day after.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

I think it may be the average ratings of both teams have to be over 2 points different.

"How does the 2.00 UTR difference cutoff work for doubles?

Doubles matches are counted by the algorithm if 1) the average rating of Team A and the average rating of Team B are within 2.00 and 2) the ratings of teammates are within 4.00 of each other. Similar to how it works for singles, matches outside the 2.00 team average cutoff are only counted by the algorithm if the lower-rated team wins the match. "

UTR Doubles Algorithm FAQs

How does the doubles algorithm work? The singles and doubles algorithms are very similar. For doubles, the algorithm compares the average Universal Tennis Rating (UTR Rating) of Team A to the average UTR Rating of Team B. Given the UTR Rating d...

support.universaltennis.com

So it seems you have to win the match for it to count for the lower rated team. Even if they win more games it still won't count.

All of these tennis rating systems just almost do it right, but then they choose to do some really dumb things.

The guy’s UTR is 6.70, and the woman’s UTR is 2.31. That’s probably why it’s not being counted then.

 

[travlerajm]

The guy’s UTR is 6.70, and the woman’s UTR is 2.31. That’s probably why it’s not being counted then.

with the dumb 4.00 rule, it’s no wonder UTR is useless for mixed.

 

[Moon Shooter]

with the dumb 4.00 rule, it’s no wonder UTR is useless for mixed.

USTA rarely counts any mixed results at all. UTR made many inexplicably bad decisions, but it is still the best the public has for predicting results in tennis - including mixed.

 

[ptrbwmf2026]

USTA rarely counts any mixed results at all. UTR made many inexplicably bad decisions, but it is still the best the public has for predicting results in tennis - including mixed.

I’ve won twice as many games as UTR predicted in 2/3 of my matches, so my doubles rating is still too low. It’s 4.53 but should probably be around 4.80.