More ratings (video)

#1
Since they ask in the title, and they are thinking around 5.0 level play...give it a go. Wutchoo think?



Yes, we all realize that video is never the greatest indicator of level, and certainly one match doesn't demonstrate play level, and ultimately the win/loss record at level play is what it is and is a players level, but guestimates are fun for discussion. Have at it.


----

**UPDATE**

Our boys are back again with a new match. Any change in what you thought ratings might be? They are still asking if 5.0...

 
Last edited:

Dragy

Professional
#2
Since they ask in the title, and they are thinking around 5.0 level play...give it a go. Wutchoo think?



Yes, we all realize that video is never the greatest indicator of level, and certainly one match doesn't demonstrate play level, and ultimately the win/loss record at level play is what it is and is a players level, but guestimates are fun for discussion. Have at it.
They could be 5.0 with those strokes and ball speeds and serves is they were extremely consistent. But this video shows many points end with UEs from both sides. Then I basically have no idea how to judge 4.0-4.5 levels, so maybe low 4.5? But the test for any of them would be playing a consistent opponent rather than similar type of player. Not exactly pusher, but the one that would consistently execute some gameplan, like moving opponent around, or going after BH ball after ball, and then attacking a weaker ball without spoiling every 2nd attempt.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#3
Hard to judge on vid and off 1 match (how good did they play then relative to their level).

I say 4.5 for sure, so thats my guess.

Could be possibly 5.0 but I doubt it, give it 0.01% chance.

Orange Clay is not very prominent in the USA, but it slows the ball speed alot, those shots would look much faster on a hard court, so the shots are definetly fast and high quality.
 
#4
I give a high rating of 3.5, maybe a 4.0 at best. Serve, serve return, groundstrokes speed and footwork is poor caliber for anything above 4.0! I say a 3.5 only, however!
 
#5
These guys look like high level players & could possibly be 5.0 rated players - hard to say from the short clip plus they are playing on clay where it’s tougher to hit outright winners.
They are swinging pretty heavy & have great form.

I’ve watched quite a few collegiate matches on tv in which I saw a lot of errors & I unfairly thought to be a little boring to watch - but these guys were very high level players.

My point being that I think watching a lot of ATP tennis on tv may cloud our judgment of a player’s skill level because these pros are so amazingly good yet we expect all good players to look like them on video.
 
#8
Definitely way higher than 3.5. Probably floor is 4.5 and ceiling 5.0. Bit inconsistent in that video but strokes are strong from both wings. Serve/return game is pretty typical for clay. Hard Court players rarely understand how much pace clay takes off a serve. These boys are hitting hard. Most points on clay are going to end in UE's as its much harder to produce winners on that surface.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#9
Hard Court players rarely understand how much pace clay takes off a serve.
Very true, ive seen alot of people on this forum say some x players are not that good because serve or groundstrokes dont seem that fast, when playing on orange clay.

They have not played on it ever, nor watched videos of them playing in it.

Heck even atp pro players serve looks quite slow on clay, while on hard or grass it looks like a bullet.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#11
Guys you made me do some frame count 8-B
Green guy hits 90mph here and there, red guy hits slower serves. Neither huge kick. They are decent serves, but nothing special. Can be played at 5.0 I suppose, but not weapons.
But still, 90mph would look quite fast on hard while here it looks extremely slow.
 

Dragy

Professional
#13
But still, 90mph would look quite fast on hard while here it looks extremely slow.
Depends on how you look at it. Actually, serves may be percieved differently depending on how close the returner positions himself.
For example, in video by @stealthfighter69 he routinely serves in high 90s, and the red guy - over 100. The serves look faster and are faster. And the placement is there. Meanwhile number of people still claimed the guy isn't 5.0. In my opinion, difference with this video is obvious, and that's not because of hard court.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#14
Depends on how you look at it. Actually, serves may be percieved differently depending on how close the returner positions himself.
For example, in video by @stealthfighter69 he routinely serves in high 90s, and the red guy - over 100. The serves look faster and are faster. And the placement is there. Meanwhile number of people still claimed the guy isn't 5.0. In my opinion, difference with this video is obvious, and that's not because of hard court.
Check how the ball bounces.

On hard it skids fast, while on clay it gets absorbed and slowed down alot.
 
#15
The strokes of red guy are really good and easily 5.0 quality but his footwork is pretty mediocre. If the ball is hit at him he moves decently but if he has to go more than a couple feet he lunges at the ball.

Green has not so pretty strokes and also lunges going forward but moves better side to side.
 
Last edited:
#16
Also serve speed is way overrated at the rec level (Unless it is a total pancake 60 mph serve...). You don't benefit from a big serve until you practice it 4-5 times a week because serve percentage won't be high enough. There are plenty of 5.0 players especially on clay who win by just rolling in kick serves to start the point.
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Professional
#17
Check how the ball bounces.

On hard it skids fast, while on clay it gets absorbed and slowed down alot.
We discussed how hard guys serve, not how hard those serves are to handle. For me, guys in these thread looked serving weaker than those in @stealthfighter69 video. Framecount just confirmed. You can guess speed before bounce if you are experinced in judging and varifying your judgements. The fact that clay gives slower speeds after bounce is trivial.
 

Dragy

Professional
#18
Also serve speed is way overrated at the rec level (Unless it is a total pancake 60 mph serve...). You don't benefit from a big serve until you practice it 4-5 times a week because serve percentage won't be high enough. There are plenty of 5.0 players especially on clay who win by just rolling in kick serves to start the point.
I agree, but being such kind of server requires excelling in ground game to compete at 5.0 level: being a good mover and a consistent heavy hitter. Especially on clay. Making mistakes out of nothing or going on offence is not likely marking good player of this type.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#19
We discussed how hard guys serve, not how hard those serves are to handle. For me, guys in these thread looked serving weaker than those in @stealthfighter69 video. Framecount just confirmed. You can guess speed before bounce if you are experinced in judging and varifying your judgements. The fact that clay gives slower speeds after bounce is trivial.
I disagree because if the bounce is much slower it gives the appearance of a much slower serve.
Most people are not going to go count frames, i know for miself when i watch my own serve on video or other people it seems slower on clay substantialy, because as the ball bounces the brain usually percieves the speed, so a slower bouncing ball will appear slower overall.
 

Dragy

Professional
#20
I disagree because if the bounce is much slower it gives the appearance of a much slower serve.
Most people are not going to go count frames, i know for miself when i watch my own serve on video or other people it seems slower on clay substantialy, because as the ball bounces the brain usually percieves the speed, so a slower bouncing ball will appear slower overall.
Cmon man. I don't care actually what "most people" see in the video. They may see Mozart composing. I was the first here to post that those serves are not high-speed for 5.0 level. Some jumped in and claimed how judgements above were wrong because of clay slowing things down. I revised my judgement and it appeared to be correct. So I keep my opinion one can judge serve speeds on slower and faster surfaces if focusing on right things.
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#21
Cmon man. I don't care actually what "most people" see in the video. They may see Mozart composing. I was the first here to post that those serves are not high-speed for 5.0 level. Some jumped in and claimed how judgements above were wrong because of clay slowing things down. I revised my judgement and it appeared to be correct. So I keep my opinion one can judge serve speeds on slower and faster surfaces if focusing on right things.
The average poster or tennis player that watches videos won't go much into depth and detail, will not even take surface into consideration, they might watch the same speed serve on hard and clay, and just conclude that the hard one is much faster, since they can see how fast it bounces into the player, while the other one appears slow.

Im not saying you can't judge speed based on video and taking things into consideration, im just saying ur average tennis joe doesn't really consider much, they just judge based on how they see things, a ball that bounces slower is slower.
 
#22
When I saw the video, I thought their form on groundstrokes wasn't too great but the results were with the depth and speed. I thought definitely above 4.0 but I'm not too sure on the differences between 4.5 and 5.0. I think one is an obvious strength, whether it be a serve, forehand or backhand (mine) that that they could go to time and time again and I didn't really see that. Another thing I noticed was that short balls weren't really punished; even on har-tru, which I played on at least once a week in the summer, when I left balls short against guys of similar strength, they attacked it aggressively. So If I had to guess, 4.5.

When I made my videos, I focused on good points, whether I lost or won or if they ended with an error. In this video, there weren't too many high quality points so I wonder why they decided on these points.

One gauge of level, very subjective I acknowledge, but I think useful nonetheless, is the likelihood of capturing the attention of a crowd of players while waiting for their court. If the players could do that, it's 5.0, because of the form and the results (lengthy, well played points, good ratio of winners to errors). Thoughts?

I live in Toronto, Canada and there aren't any 4.5 tournaments, only 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 and Open, and even then, these ratings are relatively new (besides Open) and A, B and C were used to designate level for the longest time. They have posters in every club explaining what each level entails but I never found them to be that useful when it came to spelling out what the difference is between 4.5 and 5.0.
 
#34
As for the guys saying 4.0: you don't see that RHS and spin in 4.0. I agree the movement and consistency isn't quite 5.0 though. But red guy has really good RHS which is better than most 4.5s.
 
#35
As for the guys saying 4.0: you don't see that RHS and spin in 4.0. I agree the movement and consistency isn't quite 5.0 though. But red guy has really good RHS which is better than most 4.5s.
Agree with this.

Also, the guy in green has good form & easy power (doesn't need as fast RHS speed to generate pace with what looks like a heavier racket). His service motion & power looks better than most 4.0s I've ever seen or played against.
I think their movement looks decently good - especially for playing on what looks like European clay. I've hit around on American clay and your footwork needs to be better than when playing on a hardcourt - there's a skill to moving around well when you are sliding around on shots.
When I'm feeling sluggish on hardcourt & a half-step slow, the errors start to creep up so maybe that's why it there's more errors with these guys - they're getting caught out of position more often on clay.
I have a feeling we would probably see fewer errors if these guys were to play on a hardcourt.

And why would we expect anyone to have much net play on slow clay? Most matches that I've seen on clay are long baseline rallies with a few drop shots sprinkled in. Actually, a lot of hardcourt matches these days are baseline bashing and with ppl moving forward to hit sitting ducks.
The younger generation hardly comes to net these days when they can win so many points from the baseline.

I'm leaning towards these guys to be 4.5 players but would need to see more matchplay - preferably on a hardcourt to get a better idea. If they are hitting this many errors on a hardcourt, then maybe higher level 4.0.
 
#39
C’mon. 3.5s can rally against pace and spin all day long so these guys can’t even be 3.5s. ;)
Dude let it go unless you are a real d-bag. I remember seeing a video of yours and your playing is laughable.

As for the guys saying 4.0: you don't see that RHS and spin in 4.0. I agree the movement and consistency isn't quite 5.0 though. But red guy has really good RHS which is better than most 4.5s.
This is wrong thinking. You cannot judge a person's ranking by their RHS. This NTRP thing is confusing tons of people.
 
#41
Tough to tell from such a short video but probably around 4.5. Footwork and consistency don't seem to be 5.0 level but I might as well be wrong.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#45
5.0:

Frequently has an out- standing shot, consistency, or attribute around which game is built;”

These guys are reasonably consistent from the baseline hitting up the middle. They move pretty well. But where are the weapons? Where are the big punishing forehands, controlling from the center of the court? Where are the patterns of play? Regardless of surface, neither of them makes much of any effort to go to net.

Definitely not 5.0.
 
#49
I remember seeing a video of yours and your playing is laughable.
Yes, I never claimed to be any good and I’m clearly not as good as your 3.5s.

Since you’re so good, please post a video to demonstrate your ability to rally against pace and spin all day long so we can see how it’s done.
 
#50
Yes, I never claimed to be any good and I’m clearly not as good as your 3.5s.

Since you’re so good, please post a video to demonstrate your ability to rally against pace and spin all day long so we can see how it’s done.
I don't need to do that. I have nothing to prove. All this time I thought you were Matt Lin, some hack you are.
 
Top