Predictions on Nationals

[lostinamerica]

I guess my problem with this is if you are going to have a "rating party" they should at least follow the rules. D2 college players that are 35 and under are supposed to rate no lower than 4.5. Ezra mentioned his experience to an official and they clearly ignored it. It seems that rating parties ought to start with the guidelines, not ignore them as an afterthought.

That is a guideline and not an edict. It is merely astarting point to gauge where the USTA thinks most with similar experiences fall. I played DII tennis and I can attest that does not mean you are a 4.5. I would say the average DII player is a 4.0. Some are as strong as 5.5 and some are as weak as 3.0. My observation is most USTA players are .5 out of level. The best are 1.0 out of level.

This guy does not deserve the inquisition he is receiving. For those who did not play college tennis... it is not that big of deal when you get below big D1 programs.

 

[JavierLW]

I guess my problem with this is if you are going to have a "rating party" they should at least follow the rules. D2 college players that are 35 and under are supposed to rate no lower than 4.5. Ezra mentioned his experience to an official and they clearly ignored it. It seems that rating parties ought to start with the guidelines, not ignore them as an afterthought.

whoops, I didnt catch that part. Yes it does sound like a case of encouraged sandbagging.

But not all local officials care about the rules, which is why it's good if people them out on that if this sort of thing is going on.

 

[kylebarendrick]

From the USTA Norcal website:

National USTA has published Elite Player Guidelines:
minimum rating levels based on a player's tennis history and his
current age. A player who has a particular tennis history cannot
self-rate below a certain level. (A player who feels that there are
extenuating circumstances that would affect these minimums is offered
the opportunity to appeal this minimum rating.)

I presume that this is the same nationwide. I recognize that ability levels vary for both high-school and college players. Every guideline I've seen, though, says "when in doubt choose the higher level". This of course is the opposite of the approach taken by most team captains. So we end up with a case like Ezra's (and I'm only using him as an example, this is not a witch hunt) where the guideline is ignored and someone plays at what clearly seems to be the wrong level (20-4 with 5 wins at sectionals and nationals).

With all the complaining about self-rating abuse, I would think we'd want to err on the side of over rating experienced players rather than under rating them.

 

[JavierLW]

That is a guideline and not an edict. It is merely astarting point to gauge where the USTA thinks most with similar experiences fall. I played DII tennis and I can attest that does not mean you are a 4.5. I would say the average DII player is a 4.0. Some are as strong as 5.5 and some are as weak as 3.0. My observation is most USTA players are .5 out of level. The best are 1.0 out of level.

This guy does not deserve the inquisition he is receiving. For those who did not play college tennis... it is not that big of deal when you get below big D1 programs.

I agree that it's not a good guideline for D2 tennis. (I know a few D2 players who are really just 3.5 / 4.0ish players, and I agree it doesnt mean that much)

However it is a guideline that they stuck in there. Perhaps they should take that particular one out since it's grossly inaccurate?

But otherwise those are not totally just guidelines that allow you to rate yourself wherever you want. In some cases that's all you have to go on. (otherwise you could be a D1 College player and rate yourself 3.0 and I know a few sick guys who would do that if they could)

On the very same page that those guidelines exist on, it suggest that mis-rating yourself is cheating, and encourging someone to mis-rate themselves is also cheating and subject to certain possible penaltys.

However I also think though that almost any local league coordinator would appeal you down at least one level anyway. (if the system only let you self rate at 4.5)

 

[EZRA]

Javier:

This is my first year with the USTA - I had no idea what goes on in the league.. the politics, the dirty works, etc... all I wanted was to play tennis, to lose weight for my wedding, and to have fun.

I got rated .. I rated myself and told them what I thought of how I should be rated, we had different ideas on what my rating should be. Was it my fault?

As far as rating myself according to the guidelines, I think I was pretty accurate when I said I was a 4.5. As far as experience goes, I'm experienced enough I guess. ... I've been playing since I was six years old. Played junior level tournaments when I was growing up .. played in highschool and college. I told them about playing for a D2 college team - I never did try to hide that fact.

As far as the strings I use - well, if you've used Aramid blends, you know what they're for.

--------
By the way - I remember playing against the ******* team, they mentioned that their number 1 singles player couldn't play because it was against their player's school policy to play for a league during the tennis season (apparently, their singles player plays for a D2 college team and was playing 4.0 men's league tennis).

Javier: out of curiousity - where are you located?

 

[JavierLW]

From the USTA Norcal website:

I presume that this is the same nationwide. I recognize that ability levels vary for both high-school and college players. Every guideline I've seen, though, says "when in doubt choose the higher level". This of course is the opposite of the approach taken by most team captains. So we end up with a case like Ezra's (and I'm only using him as an example, this is not a witch hunt) where the guideline is ignored and someone plays at what clearly seems to be the wrong level (20-4 with 5 wins at sectionals and nationals).

With all the complaining about self-rating abuse, I would think we'd want to err on the side of over rating experienced players rather than under rating them.

Exactly. And besides team captains, you have local league officials and club pros who under rate players as well.

(although in the case of the club pro Im not saying that over-rating is any better, but your better club pro is going to have more experience and people awareness skills to accurately place more players. With the motiviation of finding them the best level that will help them improve (or get whatever they want out of their game), versus just trying to find players for their club's USTA League team)

It's just easier and lazier to under-rate players. A good chunk of them are only happy when they are winning most of their matches, and as some of us know, it is possible to be at the right level and still lose a lot of matches. (because actually winning a match and being good enough to actually be in the match are two diffrent things sometimes although a lot of people cant grasp that concept)

 

[JavierLW]

Javier:

This is my first year with the USTA - I had no idea what goes on in the league.. the politics, the dirty works, etc... all I wanted was to play tennis, to lose weight for my wedding, and to have fun.

I got rated .. I rated myself and told them what I thought of how I should be rated, we had different ideas on what my rating should be. Was it my fault?

As far as rating myself according to the guidelines, I think I was pretty accurate when I said I was a 4.5. As far as experience goes, I'm experienced enough I guess. ... I've been playing since I was six years old. Played junior level tournaments when I was growing up .. played in highschool and college. I told them about playing for a D2 college team - I never did try to hide that fact.

As far as the strings I use - well, if you've used Aramid blends, you know what they're for.

--------
By the way - I remember playing against the ******* team, they mentioned that their number 1 singles player couldn't play because it was against their player's school policy to play for a league during the tennis season (apparently, their singles player plays for a D2 college team and was playing 4.0 men's league tennis).

Javier: out of curiousity - where are you located?

I am in the Mid_West. (I think that 4.0 team is not from my particular district, only our 3.5 "SuperTeam" made it to nationals)

Im not sure what Aramid blends are, I was just screwing with you. I was going to mix Forten Sweet though with my natural Gut mains, but I dont know much about Forten string otherwise.

It doesnt sound like you should be rated 4.0 at all. Those people should be ashamed of themselves for mis-rating you like that. Besides the encouraged sandbagging, you might of had more fun at 4.5 anyway. (during the whole year, not just in your finals)

That's the part that I feel they dont get. Most of us sign up for the whole season, not just for what happens over a few weekends at the end of it, so if we go thru the entire local league just clobbering everyone, whether people want to feel those are weak players or not, it's a waste of time. I dont spend the entire year working on my game, doing drill and lessons, just so I can clobber everyone who I know is lower than I am for 2-3 months out of the year.

And besides, that's totally against what USTA League Tennis was for. The championships are just kind of a nice novelity. If you happen to randomly be on the top of one level, guess what? There are tons of players better than you are in the next level that will never make it to their championships. But they still sign up year after year, because they are in it to play tennis, not to win some shiny new pen or a tshirt....

 

[EZRA]

That Mid_west team was from Michigan -

Aramid Blends are Kevlar based strings - mainly used for durability - great for chronic string breakers like me

I agree, I shouldn't have been rated at 4.0 - but I'm not gonna go there and argue and say "hey! I'm better than a 4.0"... and I agree, I'd have more fun playing at 4.5. BUT, I did see some good 4.0 players and had a number of great matches that could've gone either way.

 

[JavierLW]

That Mid_west team was from Michigan -

Aramid Blends are Kevlar based strings - mainly used for durability - great for chronic string breakers like me

I agree, I shouldn't have been rated at 4.0 - but I'm not gonna go there and argue and say "hey! I'm better than a 4.0"... and I agree, I'd have more fun playing at 4.5. BUT, I did see some good 4.0 players and had a number of great matches that could've gone either way.

Oh okay, as you might of figured out, I am on the opposite spectrum from using Kevlar. (I actually had to go from NG / SG back to NG / Multi because the NG / SG felt too stiff)

Unfortuanlly I cant knock the Kevlar though, Im just learning a lot about the diffrent strings mostly from this site. (I only used Wilson NXT for many years until trying NG this year, and now even if I use a multi, I'll probally never use Wilson NXT again)

I agree, there isnt much you can do personally about those people, but I still think they should be ashamed of themselves for whatever their motivations are. If they were pure, I cant imagine how bad it would of been to just let you play 4.5 considering your experience. Unless maybe your area didnt have a 4.5 league or they thought it would be harder to get in a league there or something, but since you are in NY I cant imagine that would of been the case.

 

[tennispdx]

PNW 4.5 Men has mastered ratings manipulation and half the team is 5.0 level. Any team beating them will be fielding all 5.0s as well.

 

[edathompson2]

Wow I honestly don't know any 2.5 rated players who can hit hard kick serves or even regular kick serves for that matter. Well I guess that is why you are in Nationals

I do. A local guy here in Gainesville does. He's on the early list to move up. He took lessons almost all year. Last year he was a true 2.5. This year he is a 3.5 only moving up to 3.0. We play 5.5 combo together and destroy people.

People do get better. Especially those that can pay pros to give them individual lessons year round.

 

[edathompson2]

What does everyone think the results of Nationals will be????????


Level Mens Womans
5.0 Texas Southern
4.5 No Cal Mid Atlantic
4.0 Mid Valley Eastern
3.5 Carribean Southern Cal
3.0 Florida Northern

My team beat the 3.0 team going to nationals and we were missing two of our best players.

We unfortunately lost to another team that they beat and they had more games than we did.

What could have been.

I'm pulling for them but if nationals is what everyone is saying, they just don't have the talent to pull it off.

 

[PHA]

My team beat the 3.0 team going to nationals and we were missing two of our best players.

We unfortunately lost to another team that they beat and they had more games than we did.

What could have been.

I'm pulling for them but if nationals is what everyone is saying, they just don't have the talent to pull it off.

Florida was in our pool last week, and we the only match we lost was the line with our subs on it. And we didn't win the pool, so clearly we aren't all that.

Maybe that Florida team had a really good time the night before, but they would have had a hard time winning their county league where we're from.

 

[PHA]

And nothing personal dude, but even if we had made it out of the pool, we likely would have been beaten easily by either the 3.5 team from PNW or the 4.5 team from Texas

 

[jservoss]

PNW 4.5 Men has mastered ratings manipulation and half the team is 5.0 level. Any team beating them will be fielding all 5.0s as well.

Hardly. While they have a lot of players who have been 5.0s in the past. Very few of them were competitive at that level.

I have played with those guys a lot. They are very strong 4.5s, but they are very weak 5.0s.