Only been playing for 2 years and I'm 3.5 to 4.5 player

[bullet1020]

Is it possible? I used to play extensively when I was 6 to 8 but I stopped .. I recently got back and my mom(who's a tennis champion) said I didn't lose the talent ..

is it possible to achieve that rating with that time?

The college coach rated me

 

[Jim Lefty]

Is it possible? I used to play extensively when I was 6 to 8 but I stopped .. I recently got back and my mom(who's a tennis champion) said I didn't lose the talent ..

is it possible to achieve that rating with that time?

The college coach rated me

There is quite a gap between a 3.5 and a 4.5 player. If you're truly in between, then you're a 4.0, and yes it's certainly possible.

Post a video of a practice set to get better feedback.

 

[Chas Tennis]

Is it possible? I used to play extensively when I was 6 to 8 but I stopped .. I recently got back and my mom(who's a tennis champion) said I didn't lose the talent ..

is it possible to achieve that rating with that time?

The college coach rated me

3.5 to 4.5 encompasses probably >95% of the serious tennis players in the USA. How did you come up with how you fit into the NTRP levels?

 

[NTRPolice]

I've improved faster than the NTRP can bump me.

It's quit possible with some natural talent and practice, but as others said, 4.5 is pretty high of a level. TBH, I only really have trouble playing against 3.5's after i've had 6+ beers. When I play with some of my old friends its quite obvious when im sober and when im not. The gap between average 3.5 and average 4.5 is very high.

You sound like you dont have a rating yet.

Self rate as a 3.5, then if you steam roll people you will be a 4.0 next year.

You dont wanna self rate a 4.5 then have to lose 5 years in a row to come down.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

You indicate that you played extensively when you were younger. Are you counting that as part of the 2 years that it has taken to move from a 3.5 level up to a 4.5 level? I suspect not. Have you been playing other sports in the interim?

If your total experience on the tennis court (as a youngster and more currently) is actually more than 2 years and you have been involved in other sports during the gap, it seems more plausible. For someone to improve as much as you claim after a TOTAL of only 2 years, you would probably need to have played some other sport(s) at a very high level.

 

[Chas Tennis]

..................
The college coach rated me

The college coach rated you as a '3.5 to 4.5'?

This does not make sense.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ I agree. That does not make sense. I had assumed that the OP was claiming an improvement from 3.5 up to 4.5 with 2 years of play and practice. However, if his coach rated him somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5, that huge range does not make any sense unless he has groundstrokes that are close to a 4.5 level whereas his serves and volleys are not much better than a 3.5 level.

If the coach had indicated 3.5-4.0, that would make a lot more sense. Or, if the OP has made exceptional progress in the past 2 years, then perhaps 4.0-4.5 might be conceivable. But a huge range like 3.5 to 4.5 does not compute.

 

[gmatheis]

Is it possible? I used to play extensively when I was 6 to 8 but I stopped .. I recently got back and my mom(who's a tennis champion) said I didn't lose the talent ..

is it possible to achieve that rating with that time?

The college coach rated me

It is possible because you learned the basics when you were young, so you don't just have 2 years of experience but more like 5 years.

Throw up a vid, or play a couple tournaments to get a better idea of where you really are.

 

[ProgressoR]

Who is your mum, what are her credentials?

 

[heninfan99]

Why would ask a board full of tennis hacks? If your Mom is a great champion then of course she knows more than all of us unless, of course, by champion you mean she won a 3.5 trophy in your town.

"new user" if you're a fishing troll then I must compliment you...pretty smooth.

 

[caugas]

The college coach rated you as a '3.5 to 4.5'?

This does not make sense.

There is a huge gap between 3.5 and 4.5. I would never say that someone's rating is between 3.5 and 4.5...

 

[bullet1020]

^ I agree. That does not make sense. I had assumed that the OP was claiming an improvement from 3.5 up to 4.5 with 2 years of play and practice. However, if his coach rated him somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5, that huge range does not make any sense unless he has groundstrokes that are close to a 4.5 level whereas his serves and volleys are not much better than a 3.5 level.

If the coach had indicated 3.5-4.0, that would make a lot more sense. Or, if the OP has made exceptional progress in the past 2 years, then perhaps 4.0-4.5 might be conceivable. But a huge range like 3.5 to 4.5 does not compute.

Exactly .. my volleys are not that stable yet there are days where my volleys are very impenetrable .. my serve is and ground strokes are my best assets.

I played high intensity badminton when I was in high school .. but I injured my knee.. I was actually a varsity but I have to stop

 

[psv255]

-----------------

 

[Dimcorner]

Exactly .. my volleys are not that stable yet there are days where my volleys are very impenetrable .. my serve is and ground strokes are my best assets.

I played high intensity badminton when I was in high school .. but I injured my knee.. I was actually a varsity but I have to stop

I played (and still play) state and regional level competitive badminton but I'm no where NEAR 4.5 (closer to a solid 3.5 after almost 2 years of playing). Lack of match play experience and consistency are my biggest hang ups I think right now. I look much better in practice than in actual matches. I played a recently bumped down to 4.5 (local clinic coach and played college tennis) and he effortlessly wiped me out 6-0. I got to deuce ONCE

 

[NTRPolice]

Exactly .. my volleys are not that stable yet there are days where my volleys are very impenetrable .. my serve is and ground strokes are my best assets.

I played high intensity badminton when I was in high school .. but I injured my knee.. I was actually a varsity but I have to stop

Tennis ability isnt determined by your strengths... they're determined by your weaknesses.

You can serve 200 mph. first serves, but if your second serve is a 50 mph roller, that doesnt mean you're between a 7.0 and 3.5. If you have no backhand, you are not a 4.5, period. 4.5's will have a decent all court game and no underdeveloped shots.

I'm just saying is that you dont have a "5.0 forehand" and a "2.5 backhand", so therefore NTRP = 4.0. It doesnt really work like that.

 

[TennisCJC]

Well, if you mum said you didn't lose the talent, you must be at least a 4.5. You should probably drop that girl friend who your mum says isn't good enough for you too.

It is reasonable that you can win in singles against 3.5 level players after a couple of years of playing.

It is possible but unlikely that you can win in singles against 4.0 level players.

It is highly improbable that you can win in singles against 4.5 level players.

Also, I have never seen a coach rate anyone 3.5 to 4.5. The gap between low 3.5 players and high 4.5 players is huge. I was rated 4.5 by a USPTA coach years ago. There was no self rating back then and coaches had to rate all new USTA players. Any good coach who hits with you for 20 minutes should be able to give you a distinct rating of 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 or whatever level is appropriate and not give you a huge range.

 

[Maximagq]

Well basically, anyone can rate another player as between 1.0 and 7.0 and have a 100% chance that the rating will land in that interval.

 

[asimple]

You can serve 200 mph. first serves, but if your second serve is a 50 mph roller, that doesnt mean you're between a 7.0 and 3.5. If you have no backhand, you are not a 4.5, period. 4.5's will have a decent all court game and no underdeveloped shots.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I am at or above this level and really only have a forehand and a serve (on certain days). My net game is weak and my backhand is a weak slice only shot meant to keep me in points until I can hit a forehand.

 

[caugas]

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I am at or above this level and really only have a forehand and a serve (on certain days). My net game is weak and my backhand is a weak slice only shot meant to keep me in points until I can hit a forehand.

Are you saying you are a 4.5 that only has a slice backhand? Am I reading this correct. All the 4.5s I know have mastered both BH slice and BH driving shots..

 

[LeeD]

All the YOUNG 4.5's have mastered both slice and driving backhands.
Lots of old 4.5's can hit both, but choose to exclusively slice their backhands.

 

[WildVolley]

Get a computer ranking and then you'll know your level.

I'd advise not starting out by ranking yourself 4.5.

 

[asimple]

Are you saying you are a 4.5 that only has a slice backhand? Am I reading this correct. All the 4.5s I know have mastered both BH slice and BH driving shots..

Actually, I am a 5.0 that only has a slice backhand. I can come over the shot but it is not consistent enough for match play.

 

[GuyClinch]

Coaches don't really know ratings - truth. Coaches generally rate on strokes - so if you have okay strokes they might rank you 3.5..

But some battle tested hack with ugly strokes (or worse NO strokes) can send you down in fits of rage in actual league play.

The only players who have ratings are league players and/or tournament players.

 

[Egoista]

lucky you..............

 

[Mongolmike]

Why would ask a board full of tennis hacks? If your Mom is a great champion then of course she knows more than all of us unless, of course, by champion you mean she won a 3.5 trophy in your town.

.

Lol.... ouch. Funny, but ouch.... lol.

Don't you know... EVERYBODY is a champion inside themselves.

(However, Uncle Jack took that very literally... and he used to show his "trophy" all the time to his nieces and nephews... so maybe it's not such a good saying after all.)

 

[anubis]

Is it possible? I used to play extensively when I was 6 to 8 but I stopped .. I recently got back and my mom(who's a tennis champion) said I didn't lose the talent ..

is it possible to achieve that rating with that time?

The college coach rated me

The only way to find out where you belong is to play computer rated 3.5s, 4.0s and 4.5s. It will become apparent to you where you belong depending on your results. If you lose 0-0 to 4.5s, 1-2 to 4.0s and beat 3.5s, then you're a 3.5.

Or, you can just "shoot and pray" by self rating at a 4.0 and see what happens.

 

[navigator]

Actually, I am a 5.0 that only has a slice backhand. I can come over the shot but it is not consistent enough for match play.

Just my view... it's difficult but possible to be a 5.0 with only a slice backhand but it's gotta be one helluva good slice backhand. Rosewall probably sliced 80% of his backhands and hit the other 20% flat. He probably never came over a backhand in his life and managed to do ok.

 

[caugas]

The only way to find out where you belong is to play computer rated 3.5s, 4.0s and 4.5s. It will become apparent to you where you belong depending on your results. If you lose 0-0 to 4.5s, 1-2 to 4.0s and beat 3.5s, then you're a 3.5.

Or, you can just "shoot and pray" by self rating at a 4.0 and see what happens.

I'm a self rated 4.0 and played 2 4.0 USTA tournaments last year in Boston last year.

Lost a 1st match against year long club player
7-6 (8-6) tie breaker to someone who was all around better than me

Lost a 2nd match against year long tournament traveler player (did a tourn almost every weekend
6-4 - I think I was better than this guy but was tight.... but he won, enough said.

Does my 4.0 self rating hold true?

 

[TennisCJC]

Are you saying you are a 4.5 that only has a slice backhand? Am I reading this correct. All the 4.5s I know have mastered both BH slice and BH driving shots..

A prime Ken Rosewall or Steffi Graff or Manual Orantes would crush all the 4.5 players you know using exclusively a slice backhand.

 

[TennisCJC]

Coaches don't really know ratings - truth. Coaches generally rate on strokes - so if you have okay strokes they might rank you 3.5..

But some battle tested hack with ugly strokes (or worse NO strokes) can send you down in fits of rage in actual league play.

The only players who have ratings are league players and/or tournament players.

Personally, I disagree with this. I think USTA was more normalized when you could not self-rate. Most coaches know the playing levels in their area and can put a new player into the appropriate level. Granted, you have a point in that some players just have butt ugly games but win at a level higher than you would think but in general for the vast majority, coach ratings are pretty good.

 

[caugas]

Just my view... it's difficult but possible to be a 5.0 with only a slice backhand but it's gotta be one helluva good slice backhand. Rosewall probably sliced 80% of his backhands and hit the other 20% flat. He probably never came over a backhand in his life and managed to do ok.

I'm not trying to keep this fire going... but I just find it hard to believe that a 5.0 relays on 2 shots with a slice BH that don't have bite.

Originally Posted by asimple: I don't think this is necessarily the case. I am at or above this level and really only have a forehand and a serve (on certain days). My net game is weak and my backhand is a weak slice only shot meant to keep me in points until I can hit a forehand.

I've seen some 5.0s hit and their shots had some serious bite! I would think a 5.0 would hit to the weak slice BH and come to the net or hit wicked high spin the the BH side.

But what do I know, asimply may have thunderous forehands and serves. I always thought that a 5.0 had not weakness for the most part...

I'll leave this along now.

 

[scotus]

Maybe the college coach hasn't seen a 3.5-4.5 player in ages.

Maybe the coach gets to cherry-pick players who are all 5.5 and above, so to him all those juniors and rec players between 3.5 and 4.5 look about the same.

 

[NTRPolice]

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I am at or above this level and really only have a forehand and a serve (on certain days). My net game is weak and my backhand is a weak slice only shot meant to keep me in points until I can hit a forehand.

You misunderstood.

When I say "no backhand" I mean they have trouble playing the ball. You are not going to see a 4.5 completely blow a backhand because they dont have the stroke.

A lot of the 4.0's here have strong slice backhands, and may or may not know how to hit topspin. The 4.5's that dont hit topspin backhands are usually the "proven" winners in 4.0, and usually older, more experienced players.

All the young 4.5's can hit topspin winners from the BH side... and they usually have bad slices... its like the opposite. haha

All the YOUNG 4.5's have mastered both slice and driving backhands.
Lots of old 4.5's can hit both, but choose to exclusively slice their backhands.

I agree with LeeD here. Interestingly enough...

Most of the young 4.5's I know mostly hit topspin backhands, but have a slice. Most of the older 4.5's I know mostly slice, but its deep, low, and very accurate.

 

[WinnersMentalityTennis]

My perspective:
3.5 -> 4.0: you need to develop a better game (good serves, good groundstrokes, good tactics)
4.0 -> 4.5: you need to develop consistency.

Some my argue with my perspective, but that is how I've observed the trend. There are a lot of 4.0 players with the talent to be 4.5's, but they simply lack the consistency necessary to survive tougher matches.

 

[LeeD]

Caugas, I'd say you are a top 4.0 nearing 4.5, just like BallinBob and TopspinShot. And the Brazillian with the loopy serve stroke.

 

[GuyClinch]

Personally, I disagree with this. I think USTA was more normalized when you could not self-rate. Most coaches know the playing levels in their area and can put a new player into the appropriate level. Granted, you have a point in that some players just have butt ugly games but win at a level higher than you would think but in general for the vast majority, coach ratings are pretty good.

So the guys coach rated him between 3.5 and 4.5 - and you think that rating is correct? That's a very broad rating. The coaches who work a lot with USTA players might have a better handle on this (obviously) but clearly this coach does not.

3.5 to 4.5 is a huge gulf in ability. I could guess that ANY player is between 3.0 to 4.0 and be correct a lot of the time. Players quickly get to 3.0 - then stagnate or slow move up the ranks to 4.5 or 5.0 provided they have a lot of time and some professional help, and are very healthy.

Saying someone is between 3.5 to 4.5 is basically saying you are not rating him..

 

[LeeD]

Winners Mentality Tennis has an excellent post, one we should all read and possibly heed.
It should be applicable to most of us.

 

[caugas]

Caugas, I'd say you are a top 4.0 nearing 4.5, just like BallinBob and TopspinShot. And the Brazillian with the loopy serve stroke.

LeeD thanks for the input - mucho appreciated.

 

[goran_ace]

OP, why are you asking? Are you thinking about joining a USTA league and want to know where to self-rate? If not, then don't worry about it. Call yourself a 2.0 or call yourself a 6.0 if it makes you feel better. Unless you are playing leagues or tournaments an NTRP rating (and in particular self-rated) is absolutely meaningless.

Also, come on. Did a college coach really rate you somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5? Where does he say he coaches - somewhere between New York and California?

 

[Chotobaka]

Maybe the college coach hasn't seen a 3.5-4.5 player in ages.

Maybe the coach gets to cherry-pick players who are all 5.5 and above, so to him all those juniors and rec players between 3.5 and 4.5 look about the same.

Special needs coach The rating is preposterous.

 

[LeeD]

Tennis at 6-8 means maybe one year of tennis.
Ratings my Mom and coach mean for you to keep playing tennis, please.

 

[anubis]

I'm a self rated 4.0 and played 2 4.0 USTA tournaments last year in Boston last year.

Lost a 1st match against year long club player
7-6 (8-6) tie breaker to someone who was all around better than me

Lost a 2nd match against year long tournament traveler player (did a tourn almost every weekend
6-4 - I think I was better than this guy but was tight.... but he won, enough said.

Does my 4.0 self rating hold true?

I would say yes, but your sample size is too small to make a determination.

E.g., I've played four USTA 3.5 singles matches in the past month and won every one of them, but they were all close competitive matches. Two were tournaments, two were league matches. That sample size is adequate enough to show that I truly belong as a 3.5. If I had won all four 1-1 or 2-2, then you could make an argument that I am actually a 4.0 (which I am not).

 

[NTRPolice]

I'm a self rated 4.0 and played 2 4.0 USTA tournaments last year in Boston last year.

Lost a 1st match against year long club player
7-6 (8-6) tie breaker to someone who was all around better than me

Lost a 2nd match against year long tournament traveler player (did a tourn almost every weekend
6-4 - I think I was better than this guy but was tight.... but he won, enough said.

Does my 4.0 self rating hold true?

Here, tournaments dont count towards NTRP, so you have a lot of people "testing" things out. People play up all the time, and because nothing really matters you have people just messing around.

NTRP and age based tournaments arnt a good proving ground IMO.

Here, the best players usually play WTT. Most WTT teams are made of national level USTA players, with a .5 above level player, playing singles. So, if you're in 4.0 WTT, you will likely have a 4.5 playing singles ect.

You have to find the strongest players for each field before you can say you've "tested" yourself. I can tell you 100% that regular league matches are not really a good indicator of skill. You have to look at play off performance, and leagues where NTRP doesnt matter so much. Right now, our mixed team is #2 in the flight and is going to the sectional playoffs this weekend.

Guess what...

We rolled every other team in the flight except the #1 team.

The #1 team beat us (1-1) (2-2) (4-6-1)

And we played our best lineup that week.

That's just the difference between the #1 and #2 teams in a FLIGHT in MIXED.