6-1 6-0 - he won his first service game after multiple deuces. I won the next 11 games.
Should There Be A Limit On Playing Up?
- Thread starter Cindysphinx
- Start date
6-1 6-0 - he won his first service game after multiple deuces. I won the next 11 games.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Ouch. OK. Point taken.
Hey, I got pounded with that exact same scoreline -- including the ability to hold only in my first service game -- when the computer moved me from 2.5 to 3.0.
My computer-rated 3.0 opponent probably wondered why I had wasted her time also.
I had another one last night, fortunately I didn't have to play him. This person refuses to play 3.5 despite being a 3.5. He will only play 4.0. His record below:
NTRP - 3.5
2004 - 3-3 @ 3.5
2005 - 0-6 @ 4.0
2006 - N/A
2007 - 0-6 @ 4.0
2008 - 0-5 @ 4.0
2009 - 0-10 @ 4.0
If you are that uncompetitive, I still think you shouldn't be allowed to play up. He had one 3 set match (he lost) against another 3.5 playing up. He's averaged winning 3 games/match.
NTRP - 3.5
2004 - 3-3 @ 3.5
2005 - 0-6 @ 4.0
2006 - N/A
2007 - 0-6 @ 4.0
2008 - 0-5 @ 4.0
2009 - 0-10 @ 4.0
If you are that uncompetitive, I still think you shouldn't be allowed to play up. He had one 3 set match (he lost) against another 3.5 playing up. He's averaged winning 3 games/match.
Wow this guy is really stubborn. This just shows that playing against better players doesn't automatically make you a better player.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Amen to that.
There is a player I know who is playing up. She played five singles matches. She won a total of six games in those five matches. Yes, you read that correctly. Six games. That leaves you with six bagels and three breadstick sets in five matches. And no, there was not an upward trend. Why anyone thinks it is helpful to spray the ball around and watch it fly by them is beyond me.
Last edited:
I know exactly who you are talking about...LOL. I've hit with this player before. Nice person, but not quite ready for the big leagues.
The USTA Northern has a 1-level rule. Essentially, you can play up 1 NTRP level, and risk a penalty (a temporary ban, IIRC) if you play up more than that knowing that the rule is in place.
I know that I'm the exception to the rule, but playing up made me a much better player all-around. My first season at 4.0 was last summer, and I was about .500 (playing #3 and #2 doubles). I diagnosed what needed to be fixed, and made the small changes, and the next season, I went 7-3 or something similar (playing #2 and #1 doubles). This summer is my third season, and so far, I'm 5-1 (playing #1 doubles and #2 singles).
I truly feel that without playing up, I would not have done the amount of work that I have in order to be ready to play at a higher level.
If I were to play 3.5 again, two things would happen:
1. I would be bored to tears
2. My opponent would feel cheated for playing a "ringer"
Neither of these sound particularly fun to me.
I know that I'm the exception to the rule, but playing up made me a much better player all-around. My first season at 4.0 was last summer, and I was about .500 (playing #3 and #2 doubles). I diagnosed what needed to be fixed, and made the small changes, and the next season, I went 7-3 or something similar (playing #2 and #1 doubles). This summer is my third season, and so far, I'm 5-1 (playing #1 doubles and #2 singles).
I truly feel that without playing up, I would not have done the amount of work that I have in order to be ready to play at a higher level.
If I were to play 3.5 again, two things would happen:
1. I would be bored to tears
2. My opponent would feel cheated for playing a "ringer"
Neither of these sound particularly fun to me.
If you were unable to win much at 3.5, do you still think playing at 4.0 would be the best thing for you?
I believe people should play at the level in which they are most competitive, and if they can hang at the next level, then do that too. But if they can't hang, then they are wasting others' time.
The funny thing is, when I played 3.5 doubles, I actually had a worse winning % due to being saddled with a partner that wasn't able to actually play doubles and as a result, had to do more than was necessary just to win matches. I joined this 3.5 team to play singles, and played one singles match in the midst of allergy season, and it was the one match that we played outdoors that season. Needless to say, that didn't go well.
So....my record at 4.0 is actually better than my record at 3.5, but I wonder how my 3.5 record would be now - it's been more than a year since I played any 3.5 league tennis. (well...actually, I played on a 3.5 tri-level team this spring, and actually lost a match to a self-rated 3.5 and a 3.5 who plays only 4.0...and wins ~60% of his matches there).
nousername
Rookie
what?? is that why you never took me up on the offer to play? i'd bore you?
... or were you talking specifically about doubles, since that is mostly what you play at 4.0?
on one hand i understand your comment and know where you are coming from, BUT ....
don't you think singles and doubles are wholly different ballgames?
like you said doubles is highly partner dependent ... although it goes both ways: you say at 3.5 you were stuck with a "bad" partner, but isn't that true at 4.0 too? perhaps you have really solid 4.0 partners???? also, i see two 4.0 singles wins on your record, and one looked close and the other was to a dude who has never won a 4.0 singles league match his whole USTA career (like 5 years or more, don't know how he's kept his 4.0 rating so long).
i'm NOT trying to deny your abilities, your 4.0 doubles record is impressive and speaks for itself. it's just that your comments about 3.5 seems a little "extreme" ... esp with respect to singles play and since you have only "pseudo"-graduated from the 3.5 level.
with that ...my offer still stands ... this week is good if you have time. after lunch today, i got half a day and then no work till next monday!
Our schedules never seemed to line up to play - I remember that you were an early morning person, and I usually have to be in the office somewhat early, precluding us heading out and hitting.
Singles and doubles are completely different games, and my doubles is definitely a step ahead of my singles at this point in time, but as people who have hit with me in the past 3-4 months will attest, my singles has improved leaps and bounds, and is well within the 4.0 realm as well. My usual partner and I also happen to play very well together, as we tend to cover the other person's weakness (he has amazing hands and covers the net tremendously well and I can move much more quickly than he can to cover more court).
I'll drop you an e-mail - I'm hoping to get some hitting in this week. I work through Wednesday, but am wide open Thursday.
I agree singles and doubles are a different story. I also play 4.0 doubles with various partners and generally do fine (5-2 for the season). I also play #1 singles at 3.5 and have had a number of tough matches this season, for a record of 3-1. Never once have I been bored! I bet the top 3.5 guys would be competitive with at least the lower 25% of 4.0 guys in singles.
This is one nice thing about playing 2 levels - I get to play up in doubles where but still play competitively in singles where I need more practice.
SuperJimmy
Rookie
I think playing up should be allowed. But I agree that playing up more than one level should be discouraged. In some cases it can be beneficial. Sometimes a tournament director will call someone up to see if they can play in the draw, even if it is way out of their league. They do this to make the draw "work". It isn't really the player's fault for accepting. It is pretty unfortunate sometimes when someone two or more levels down enters the same draw as you, and due to the size, causes you to have to play twice on Friday evening instead of once like most the rest of the draw.
Going by score I dont think is a good measure to decide if something was competitive. I've at 6-2, 6-2 matches last far longer and were much "harder" than 7-5, 4-6, 10-7 matches. On the extreme end, I've also had a match where I lost 6-0,6-1, but had many deuces and an extremely sore arm (due to being an idiot and letting the nurse draw several tubes of blood from the elbow of my dominant arm just hours earlier). On paper, I got killed...but based on the circumstances and how the points went in general, it easily would/could have looked far more competitive on paper.
Going by score I dont think is a good measure to decide if something was competitive. I've at 6-2, 6-2 matches last far longer and were much "harder" than 7-5, 4-6, 10-7 matches. On the extreme end, I've also had a match where I lost 6-0,6-1, but had many deuces and an extremely sore arm (due to being an idiot and letting the nurse draw several tubes of blood from the elbow of my dominant arm just hours earlier). On paper, I got killed...but based on the circumstances and how the points went in general, it easily would/could have looked far more competitive on paper.
Similar threads
