Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?
No …The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will
be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a 3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range. 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.
This is a tricky question, because the differences within a rating can exceed the difference between ratings.
Just out of curiousity, would a 3.5 singles winner have a chance against the average 4.0 singles player?
IMHO, a 0.5 difference is worth at least 2+ breaks per set.
A 4.0 beats a 3.0. And a 5.0 beats a 4.0. But strangely enough, even though a 6.0 beats a 5.0, the 6.0 cannot beat a 3.0. It's circular, just like the rock, scissors, paper game. 6.0 players will tell you, that a 3.0 is so bad, that it throws them off, and they can't play against their junky game. They have to play someone better than that to win. A total beginner would win Wimbledon, because they're so bad that it would really mess up players of that level. But a beginner would never even be allowed into the draw of Wimbledon, so that will never happen.
Yeah, but when I started out in tennis, the guys teaching me said that I could win lots of points off of them 'cause I was so bad. They said that if I was a better player, I would not even get a single point. And that good players can't defeat bad ones. This confused me about tennis for a long time. I wondered, "Couldn't a hacker find his way into the U.S. Open draw, and destroy all the pros with his rotten game?"Wow, wow, wow....the excuse of not being able to effectively handle junk should only be used by a junior playing a crafty vet. If you are rated higher than someone, you should win. I am assuming your above post was a joke though...
Yeah, but when I started out in tennis, the guys teaching me said that I could win lots of points off of them 'cause I was so bad. They said that if I was a better player, I would not even get a single point. And that good players can't defeat bad ones. This confused me about tennis for a long time. I wondered, "Couldn't a hacker find his way into the U.S. Open draw, and destroy all the pros with his rotten game?"
I think it's true, though, that good players don't look very good when playing someone terrible. That's one reason they don't like to hit with crappy players. I don't think that the worse player wins, though. But brings up all sorts of conundrums.