DoctorBackhand
Rookie
Then again, i self rated using the chart at TW so I might be wrong. Either way I'm still no better that 3.0. (Can someone help me find my NTRP? I'm not really sure what I am).
NTRP difference at your best/worst?
- Thread starter tennismonkey
- Start date
[/B]
I'm a 2.5 and I take sets off of 4.5 players. Its the person, not the rating.
The difference between 2.5 and 4.5 is even greater than 3.5 and 5.0. 2.5 is virtually a beginner, whereas 4.5 is a very high level, probably the top 15-20% of all tennis players. There is absolutely no chance that a 2.5 out there tapping the ball around would even take a game much less a set from a 4.5 playing seriously. A 3.5 is at least a competent tennis player with the ability to hit fundamental strokes. It's very, very unlikely that a 3.5 player will beat a 5.0, but given a "perfect storn" of circumstances, it can happen (I know of one official tournament match where a 3.5C beat a 5.0C in the last 10 years around here, and it was two guys whose ratings were going in opposite directions and who are both 4.5C now).
achokshi99
Rookie
I am having a hard time fathoming a 3.5 taking a set off a 5.0, even if the 5.0 was drunk, I'm serious. I am a 4.0 match level and can hit with 4.5-open level players. I played DII college (i'm 33 now), took a 10 year layoff, I have good strokes for hitting/practice/rallying but in a match, I can't sustain the deep consistency and can't make as many "kill shots" against 4.5-open level players.
I have a buddy that played DIII tennis at Bates, played USTA open level tournies in CT/NY and has gotten to finals of these. We can have great practice rallies where we both get something out of it. But if we play a legit set, he wins anything from 6-3 to 6-0 and in many cases I play well for what I'm expecting. I met a 4.5 USTA rated player off TT that was en route to being bumped to 5.0 earlier this summer that was in my town for a few days. We had great rallies, we played a match and I lost 6-2, 6-3 and I played well...seriously. At 4.5 these guys have great anticipation and consistency, no major weaknesses, and you have to earn a lot of those points. I call these heavy duty points/games in some cases "boxing points" where I would win the point/game but be so dead tired from that shot that I knew I'd be shot for the next 2-3 points or the next 1-2 games.
So to me the idea that legit 3.5 players are sniffing anything close to 5.0 USTA legit players is just not grounded in reality.
What I will say is that your match level USTA can vary relative to your rally level when you are relaxed and have no pressure. I can hit with good players no problem in terms of rallies and have good strokes but in a match, all of a sudden I have some of the same problems I have always had creep in. I tend to pull up on my 2HBH at times in a match so they go long and sail, in rallies I don't care so I have a smooth 2HBH stroke which works. I play a 4.5+ guy, he'll exploit the hell out of my 2HBH in a match and even though my FH is my main weapon it puts a lot of pressure on me to pull my best 4.0 Fernando Gonzalez impersonation...But overall, even that variance is probably going to be like 0.5 NTRP at most. A weakness for a 5.0 is still likely going to be more than a 4.0 can handle in a match. Meaning a 5.0 that has a shaky FH in a match can prob still handle as much pressure that a 4.0 or even 4.5 can exert on that FH...
I have a buddy that played DIII tennis at Bates, played USTA open level tournies in CT/NY and has gotten to finals of these. We can have great practice rallies where we both get something out of it. But if we play a legit set, he wins anything from 6-3 to 6-0 and in many cases I play well for what I'm expecting. I met a 4.5 USTA rated player off TT that was en route to being bumped to 5.0 earlier this summer that was in my town for a few days. We had great rallies, we played a match and I lost 6-2, 6-3 and I played well...seriously. At 4.5 these guys have great anticipation and consistency, no major weaknesses, and you have to earn a lot of those points. I call these heavy duty points/games in some cases "boxing points" where I would win the point/game but be so dead tired from that shot that I knew I'd be shot for the next 2-3 points or the next 1-2 games.
So to me the idea that legit 3.5 players are sniffing anything close to 5.0 USTA legit players is just not grounded in reality.
What I will say is that your match level USTA can vary relative to your rally level when you are relaxed and have no pressure. I can hit with good players no problem in terms of rallies and have good strokes but in a match, all of a sudden I have some of the same problems I have always had creep in. I tend to pull up on my 2HBH at times in a match so they go long and sail, in rallies I don't care so I have a smooth 2HBH stroke which works. I play a 4.5+ guy, he'll exploit the hell out of my 2HBH in a match and even though my FH is my main weapon it puts a lot of pressure on me to pull my best 4.0 Fernando Gonzalez impersonation...But overall, even that variance is probably going to be like 0.5 NTRP at most. A weakness for a 5.0 is still likely going to be more than a 4.0 can handle in a match. Meaning a 5.0 that has a shaky FH in a match can prob still handle as much pressure that a 4.0 or even 4.5 can exert on that FH...
Playing like a 3.5 in sets doesn't mean you LOSE to a 3.5.
Don't cite my case, I'm a 4.0 who can lose SETS to strong 3.5's, but usually wins by TWOS. If we played 50 sets, I'd win 47 of them (we have played that many sets). I'm just citing the two I couldn't hit a forehand into the court.
Besides, you all gave examples of how you COULD drop a whole level, but said it can't happen!
Don't cite my case, I'm a 4.0 who can lose SETS to strong 3.5's, but usually wins by TWOS. If we played 50 sets, I'd win 47 of them (we have played that many sets). I'm just citing the two I couldn't hit a forehand into the court.
Besides, you all gave examples of how you COULD drop a whole level, but said it can't happen!
Posture Guy
Professional
just because a 5.0 is off his game doesn't mean he's "playing like a 3.5". this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the NRTP system is designed to convey. You didn't suddenly lose the ability to hit a backhand, or have a quality second serve. You still have those strokes, just might be a day you're off your game.
a 3.5 simply doesn't have all the strokes. I've never met a 3.5 who has fundamentally sound strokes in every position. The typical 3.5 has a reasonably good forehand, a very weak backhand if not being reduced to a pusher on the backhand side, a very weak second serve and weak to poor volleying skills. They're just a different animal than the 5.0.
a 3.5 simply doesn't have all the strokes. I've never met a 3.5 who has fundamentally sound strokes in every position. The typical 3.5 has a reasonably good forehand, a very weak backhand if not being reduced to a pusher on the backhand side, a very weak second serve and weak to poor volleying skills. They're just a different animal than the 5.0.
I don't like this "typical" 3.5 thing. They are cross samples of the average 3.5, but that doesn't mean he's the guy you're playing.
Case in point. My "3.5-4.0" bud has a 4.5 forehand and a low 3.5 backhand. I CHOOSE to play his forehand because it's better practice for me. His forehand is superior to mine, and up to the task of staying in the point against almost any 5.0 or Open level guy, for a few shots.
His serve is weak but well placed, I choose to try to blast a clean winner off it every time. Well, I can't. I miss by a few feet, even a couple of yards at times, but I try EVERY time.
And that's when I can miss 90 % of my forehands.
Case in point. My "3.5-4.0" bud has a 4.5 forehand and a low 3.5 backhand. I CHOOSE to play his forehand because it's better practice for me. His forehand is superior to mine, and up to the task of staying in the point against almost any 5.0 or Open level guy, for a few shots.
His serve is weak but well placed, I choose to try to blast a clean winner off it every time. Well, I can't. I miss by a few feet, even a couple of yards at times, but I try EVERY time.
And that's when I can miss 90 % of my forehands.
HunterST
Hall of Fame
You know, I think I actually heard only 20% of tennis players are above 3.5. I'd suspect the percentage at 4.5 would be even lower, maybe close to 5 or 10%.
At any rate, the idea of a 2.5 beating a 4.5 is so ridiculous it's not worth discussing in my opinion.
HunterST
Hall of Fame
No, according to the USTA, a high 3.5 should defeat a low 3.5 6-0, 6-0.
FedExpress 333
Professional
In my experience, if matchups/bad days make a difference, 5.0s can play like 4.5s. That is the most variance I have ever seen.
mightyrick
Legend
I'm not trying to sing the praises of NTRP and the USTA, but I would agree with this. A high 3.5 (wins maybe 55% or more of his games) should crush a new 3.0 who just got bumped up to 3.5. It may not be 0 and 0... but I can't see it being more than 1-1.
That being said (and I'm a high 3.5), I have beat low 4.0s. I've never beat a mid-level 4.0, but I've been able to take a set off of them. I've never beat a high 4.0+ -- I get breadsticked or skunked.
mikeler
Moderator
HunterST
Hall of Fame
" A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player. "
FAQ 31
http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/UST.../Leagues_and_Tournaments/Leagues/NTRP_FAQ.pdf
I don't have the exact link, but I have also seen this document. It's one of the ones explaining how and why people get dynamic DQs. They are wrong, though. There is less than that difference between levels. A high 3.5 CAN beat a low 3.5 6-0 6-0 sometimes and not have it register as an out of level match, but I don't think that is the normal expectation. I think you are closer with about 4 games per match.
I don't get this consistency stuff you guys are talking about, unless you are all right handers.
My main tennis partner and I have played at least 200 sets against each other in the last 10 years. Usually, we're close, both being 4.0's.
I've been beaten easily 30 times breadsticks and so has he.
2's, I'd say easy 100 times.
But most of the time, when one loses one set, he comes back to win the next big time. Usually, not always.
We're both lefties....:shock:
My main tennis partner and I have played at least 200 sets against each other in the last 10 years. Usually, we're close, both being 4.0's.
I've been beaten easily 30 times breadsticks and so has he.
2's, I'd say easy 100 times.
But most of the time, when one loses one set, he comes back to win the next big time. Usually, not always.
We're both lefties....:shock:
HunterST
Hall of Fame
Just realized you guys were saying 4 games per match. I was thinking per set. I could see a strong 3.5 pulling out a 6-2 6-2 loss to a lower 4.0. I think a true .5 diference, though, is going to be double bagels.
I don't know what the exact percentages are, but whatever, 4.5 is getting towards the top levels of tennis players. It is inconceivable that a true beginner could even win games if the 4.5 were taking it seriously. I am 4.0, so a full level below 4.5, and I once played a college kid in a tournament who was fairly athletic but said he had never played a competitive match before (just hit with his friends on the team occasionally). He would be 2.5 level (maybe higher just based on athletic ability). I beat him 6-0 6-0 in about 15 minutes and only lost 5 or 6 points (this was a tournament and I had to play the #1 seed next, so no mercy games...). He even had pretty good fundamentals since he was learning and playing with kids on a college varsity team, but if you haven't played for years and hit many thousands of shots, you just can't compete at a high level. And, again, I am a full level below 4.5.
A strong 3.5 is actually going to beat low 4.0s most of the time because of the imperfection of the rating system and computer algorithm. There are guys that got rated up to 4.5 in the last two years that I have beaten in local leagues and ladders at least 4 or 5 times in a row.
tennismonkey
Semi-Pro
THIS. there is already a HUGE variance within one NTRP level. so to have a differential of say more than .5 seems really ludicrous to me.
you can look at it this way: a middle of the pack 5.0 rated player should beat a middle of the pack 3.5 rated player 18-0, 18-0 or SIX bagel sets in a row.
mightyrick
Legend
My serve is the strongest part of my game. If I am hitting my spots on the serve, I will win at least a couple of games off of a low 4.0. I can even take a game usually off of a 4.5. When you think about it, a low 4.0 usually either just got bumped up and/or has a low winrate. The difference between a high-3.5 and a low-4.0 isn't that much.
However, the difference between a high and low ranking in the same NTRP level is quite large. The difference between someone who just got bumped up and someone who is about to be bumped up.
Only if he takes it seriously as a COMPETITIVE match!
When I play against 3.5's, I'm trying new things, hitting to their strengths only, and avoiding their weaknesses, unless I want to be cruel or show him a lesson, which is almost never.
When I lose to better players, they often hit shots right to my strengths, take it easy on their serves, or volley within my reach. Same thing, you can't take a lower level player seriously unless you're IN a tournament that counts for something.
Heck, in most tourneys, if I win the first set easily, I usually give away the second, only to give a breadstick out the third. No killer instinct? Maybe.
When I play against 3.5's, I'm trying new things, hitting to their strengths only, and avoiding their weaknesses, unless I want to be cruel or show him a lesson, which is almost never.
When I lose to better players, they often hit shots right to my strengths, take it easy on their serves, or volley within my reach. Same thing, you can't take a lower level player seriously unless you're IN a tournament that counts for something.
Heck, in most tourneys, if I win the first set easily, I usually give away the second, only to give a breadstick out the third. No killer instinct? Maybe.
mikeler
Moderator
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yeah, I was thinking 6-2, 6-2 would be a typical score with a 0.5 NTRP difference. Not that it means much, but I sort of got that idea from the sequence of events below.
I played an Open level tournament and only won 1 game against the #8 seed. I'm a strong 4.5 player, so I think this guy was probably around a 5.5. I think he won around 4 games against the guy who won the tournament who was #1 at FSU, so probably a 6.0 player. That FSU guy lost 2 and 2 to some guy in the Tallahassee Challenger a month later, so now we are looking at a 6.5. That 6.5 guy lost 2 and 2 to Mardy Fish in his next match. So now we have Mardy Fish at 7.0, seems accurate right?
This is correct. There is a far bigger difference between low 3.5 and high 3.5 than high 3.5 and low 4.0.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yeah, I was thinking 6-2, 6-2 would be a typical score with a 0.5 NTRP difference. Not that it means much, but I sort of got that idea from the sequence of events below.
I played an Open level tournament and only won 1 game against the #8 seed. I'm a strong 4.5 player, so I think this guy was probably around a 5.5. I think he won around 4 games against the guy who won the tournament who was #1 at FSU, so probably a 6.0 player. That FSU guy lost 2 and 2 to some guy in the Tallahassee Challenger a month later, so now we are looking at a 6.5. That 6.5 guy lost 2 and 2 to Mardy Fish in his next match. So now we have Mardy Fish at 7.0, seems accurate right?
Why was Mardy Fish playing a challenger?
mikeler
Moderator
This was probably 5 or 6 years ago. I believe he was injured and his ranking fell so he was trying to build up points.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yeah, I was thinking 6-2, 6-2 would be a typical score with a 0.5 NTRP difference. Not that it means much, but I sort of got that idea from the sequence of events below.
I played an Open level tournament and only won 1 game against the #8 seed. I'm a strong 4.5 player, so I think this guy was probably around a 5.5. I think he won around 4 games against the guy who won the tournament who was #1 at FSU, so probably a 6.0 player. That FSU guy lost 2 and 2 to some guy in the Tallahassee Challenger a month later, so now we are looking at a 6.5. That 6.5 guy lost 2 and 2 to Mardy Fish in his next match. So now we have Mardy Fish at 7.0, seems accurate right?
I think I know the guy you played. He is a very good player and he continues to play tournaments which helps.
roman40
Rookie
Some arguments in this thread are irrational. People are attributing too much significance to statistical outliers. Injured, out-of-practice, sick, etc. player should not be used as an example to show that a player of certain USTA rating can play much worse than their rating.
That's like arguing that Federer's performance can vary to a point of losing to a 3.5 player... if he breaks his leg.
Now, the rating is not exact. So, 3.5 may be 3.75 and 4.0 may be 3.9 (not sure when USTA decides to round up/down). Anyway, the point is that the bigger the actual difference, the less chance you have for an upset. You have to remember that a rating system is a statistical system, and all it does is indicate probabilities. Obviously, USTA doesn't provide details, but clearly, the probability of an upset is very small when you have 0.5+ difference in the rating.
I am a good 4.0 player, and unless I am handicapped in some way (sick/injured/etc.), I will not lose to a 3.5, it just won't happen. Most of the games will be fairly easy, at least in my experience.
It's not very useful to discuss rare exceptions and extreme situations, because all they do is highlight human frailty and an imperfect rating system.
That's like arguing that Federer's performance can vary to a point of losing to a 3.5 player... if he breaks his leg.
Now, the rating is not exact. So, 3.5 may be 3.75 and 4.0 may be 3.9 (not sure when USTA decides to round up/down). Anyway, the point is that the bigger the actual difference, the less chance you have for an upset. You have to remember that a rating system is a statistical system, and all it does is indicate probabilities. Obviously, USTA doesn't provide details, but clearly, the probability of an upset is very small when you have 0.5+ difference in the rating.
I am a good 4.0 player, and unless I am handicapped in some way (sick/injured/etc.), I will not lose to a 3.5, it just won't happen. Most of the games will be fairly easy, at least in my experience.
It's not very useful to discuss rare exceptions and extreme situations, because all they do is highlight human frailty and an imperfect rating system.
Dude, wake up.
The real world is full of human frailty and imperfections.
YOU might live in a lab enviorment, but I live in the real world.
Who are you to decide what is irrational or what should be used in the examples? The examples are valid, they exist in the real world.
Ever hear of DNF's? Or DNS's? That because something HAPPENNED!
The real world is full of human frailty and imperfections.
YOU might live in a lab enviorment, but I live in the real world.
Who are you to decide what is irrational or what should be used in the examples? The examples are valid, they exist in the real world.
Ever hear of DNF's? Or DNS's? That because something HAPPENNED!
D
Deleted member 120290
Guest
I think some of you are giving way too much credit and validity to USTA ratings. There are some 5.0 guys in HI, AK, Antarctica who would be no more than 4.0 in CA, TX, FL. I know, I know. You are going to say the NTRP system is consistent nationwide but that is a joke. There are so many sandbaggers who play in a lower level league and delusional players (like me 
) who play in leagues way above their level.
In any case in my 4.5 singles league, I've seen several instances where the winner beats down his opponent 6-1, 6-0 and then loses to the same person 1-6, 4-6 in the same season. You can't really take 1 or 2 matches and say that is indicative of their level. NTRP is just a guide, not science esp. at 5.0 or below.
) who play in leagues way above their level.In any case in my 4.5 singles league, I've seen several instances where the winner beats down his opponent 6-1, 6-0 and then loses to the same person 1-6, 4-6 in the same season. You can't really take 1 or 2 matches and say that is indicative of their level. NTRP is just a guide, not science esp. at 5.0 or below.
HunterST
Hall of Fame
LeeD, I was starting to think people were out of line for dogging you, but when you post with this kind of attitude it's tough to be on your side. Fact of the matter is, the idea of a 5.0 player dropping to a 3.5 level is utterly and completely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no experience with NTRP levels. Period.
mightyrick
Legend
For all of us who participate heavily in internet message boards... we all have good and bad posting days. Looking back in hindsight, I think all of us know (individually) when we've put out some fairly stinky posts.
An enlightened poster will actually come forth after the fact and admit it. Something like... "Yeah, I was a doosh yesterday. Ignore that post, please. I went overboard." Sometimes an enlightened poster will just let it go -- go quiet -- and not say anything anymore. Kind of a silent admittance of momentary idiocy. Enlightened respondents will also forgive these posts when people "man-up" and admit it.
A non-enlightened poster will continue to defend their own moronic posts with inflammatory pride -- even though they know that they are wrong.
On this message board, I've observed probably a 50/50 split of posting maturity.
people always confuse NTRP with winning/losing record. NTRP rating other than the Level 6 and 7 are measured using skills. if you have a dependable second serve that can not be attacked easily and has a dependable game style you are a 5 and if you have a weak second serve and has noe dependable game style then you are a 3. there is no way a 5 will be a 3 just because of a 6 months hiatus maybe 4 the most but 3. that's impossible. if a player is injured but still possess the same skill set then the NTRP doesn't change. only NTRP 6 and 7 are measured with rankings because 6 is national and 7 is ATp level
Posture Guy
Professional
here's an example.
I was last playing regularly 8 years ago, at the age of 42. At that time I was a solid 4.5. Life happened and I didn't play for 8 years until about 3 weeks ago when I started hitting again. I came back and hit with a pro at a resort for an hour, then the next day he paired me up with a guy who was a strong 3.5 or a weak 4.0, and I beat him easily 6-2, and it shouldn't have been that close.
I'm still looking for folks to play with, but if you put me up against a weak 4.0 or a strong 3.5 right now (which includes a couple of guys I'm hitting with now while I look for some 4.5s to play), they have no chance to beat me. I'm hitting with one guy who is a solid 4.0 and the first time we played he beat me 7-6, and since then he hasn't won a set.
I understand Lee's point but he's confusing "stuff happens" and match results with NRTP ratings. A 5.0 doesn't play like a 3.5. Ever. He doesn't forget how to hit a topspin backhand or a kick second serve. He may be playing like a 5.0 with the flu, or his court mobility may be limited because of a sprained ankle, but he's NOT playing like a 3.5.
I was last playing regularly 8 years ago, at the age of 42. At that time I was a solid 4.5. Life happened and I didn't play for 8 years until about 3 weeks ago when I started hitting again. I came back and hit with a pro at a resort for an hour, then the next day he paired me up with a guy who was a strong 3.5 or a weak 4.0, and I beat him easily 6-2, and it shouldn't have been that close.
I'm still looking for folks to play with, but if you put me up against a weak 4.0 or a strong 3.5 right now (which includes a couple of guys I'm hitting with now while I look for some 4.5s to play), they have no chance to beat me. I'm hitting with one guy who is a solid 4.0 and the first time we played he beat me 7-6, and since then he hasn't won a set.
I understand Lee's point but he's confusing "stuff happens" and match results with NRTP ratings. A 5.0 doesn't play like a 3.5. Ever. He doesn't forget how to hit a topspin backhand or a kick second serve. He may be playing like a 5.0 with the flu, or his court mobility may be limited because of a sprained ankle, but he's NOT playing like a 3.5.
mikeler
Moderator
I agree with this general point for the following reason. Have you ever see the "percentage of point won" statistic for a pro match on TV? Usually it's like 55% to 45% or something like that, even for a pretty easy one sided match. This reflects the fact that pros are at a pretty similar skill level, even when it's Federer against the #100 guy in the world. This is also why even that #100 will occasionally take a set off of Federer.
The prior logic is also why LeeD can have such wildly different results against a fellow 4.0 player. But if a 4.0 plays a 5.0, he has much smaller chance of winning any given point. Just the serve and return (which are the most important shots, by far) of a 5.0 are that much better. Even a 5.0 that can hardly move will win plently of "free" points against a 4.0. Over the course of a match that results in a really small chance of an upset. Higher levels of tennis are essentially defined by the level of consistency, and that consistency compounds over the course of a match.
I think the confusion results from the fact that you can't tell the difference between a hard-fought 6-1 set and a blow-out 6-1 where the winner got a little lazy. Percentage of points won would tell you this much more clearly.
Last edited:
Good points above.
And I NEVER said a 5.0 will lose to a 3.5. I said a 4.0 can lose points, games, and once every 20 sets, a set to the 3.5.
And I DID say a 4.0, who has big shots and not afraid to hit out, can win points, games, but not sets against a 5.
A 5.0 certainly can FEEL like one stroke fell apart, becoming HIS 3.5 level stroke....when he was a 3.5. Not becoming YOUR 3.5 shot.
I'm a bad 4.0, but have heard many times from really good players, including some 5.5's, that their ONE stroke totally fell apart and THAT STROKE played like a 3.5.
And I NEVER said a 5.0 will lose to a 3.5. I said a 4.0 can lose points, games, and once every 20 sets, a set to the 3.5.
And I DID say a 4.0, who has big shots and not afraid to hit out, can win points, games, but not sets against a 5.
A 5.0 certainly can FEEL like one stroke fell apart, becoming HIS 3.5 level stroke....when he was a 3.5. Not becoming YOUR 3.5 shot.
I'm a bad 4.0, but have heard many times from really good players, including some 5.5's, that their ONE stroke totally fell apart and THAT STROKE played like a 3.5.
UWBTennis
Rookie
I haven't seen a 4.5 drop to the level of 4.0 before but I have never seen anybody drop more than .5 levels unless they were playing with nerves. Me, on a average to good day I play at a low to medium 4.0 level but on a bad day I'll drop to a 3.5 player and maybe even a bad 3.5 player.
Back in Houston, when I was still a very good player, I used to play tennis with my then-wife. Since my wife (who was probably a high 3.0 then) usually took several games from me in a set when we played, I don't think she really realized how much difference there was between an open-level man and a 3.0 woman.
I broke my foot and had it in a large cast.
We played tennis.
I still beat her - though she got several games, as always.
She was very mad at me.
Moral of the story is:
Even if Federer had a broken leg he still wouldn't lose to a 3.5 guy.
Similar threads
