As my daughter has just verbal'd & is on her way out of this bizarre junior tennis world soon, I was just browsing through the girls' ratings on tennisrecruiting.net to see how her contemporaries & the girls behind her are doing ... I was quite shocked to see how inaccurate they are once you look below the top 100. The movement up & down is wild and irrational. Are coaches really following this site? They're fools if they are counting on this to give them any kind of indication of ability & potential. One friend of my daughter whom i've watched play for years -- who is no doubt a D1 player and a former Blue Chip before a growth injury derailed her for a bit -- dropped 20 places in one week due to one injury-default loss. That is criminal. And she did not move up 20 places after beating a college-committed player similarly rated ... she didn't even move up one place. Another girl whose mother is a tennis teaching pro, who is a technically beautiful player and is another D1 level player, suffered a back injury and has dropped from the 100s down into the 400s, to a 2-star. A 2-star! I guess if college coaches are smart, they might surf around to look for these golden gems who suddenly find themselves on that slippery-slope down to the bottom (most likely due to injuries & time out of competition), but from what I've heard, some coaches actually rely FULLY on these ratings & recruit within a certain range only! I find that to be absurd, and obviously career-killing for these poor players. It's one thing to offer a forum where coaches can see the players' activity, perhaps a few photos, and read some info about them, but it's another thing to offer a product with such highly irregular & inaccurate "judgments" of players, sentencing them to potentially miss out on being recruited if they suffer injuries, can't afford to travel to compete as much, etc. I'm not saying devising a system to track & rate accurately is easy, by any means, but the fact remains that TRN as it is now is highly inaccurate once you get past the top 100. Good thing there is Universal Tennis now as well, which I'm hoping is more accurate (but who knows?) and good thing kids seem to be understanding more & more that they need to reach out to coaches/schools proactively themselves --- and shame on those coaches who are ignoring these players. I get that college coaches are working on a very limited budget & it's hard to get the chance to SEE all of these players actually play, but I would hope they would start to get a bit more creative and if they are going to use TRN, keep it in perspective and understand just how inaccurate the ratings actually are. One coach my daughter was in touch with literally emailed her that they "typically recruit only players in the top 100" ... and I noticed that that same coach has ended up recruiting international players with very little recorded experience, no TRN rating, and much LOWER UTR ratings than US girls below the TRN 100 mark. Thoughts?
Tennisrecruiting.net a crippled bird?
- Thread starter lieselh
- Start date
floridatennisdude
Hall of Fame
It's near impossible to gauge talent in US juniors outside the top 50-75. More than likely, they won't become elite. Exceptions, but not the norm.
100+? Forget it. Some players have hundred-plus matches w/ low win %. Others can have only a couple dozen or so with a high win %. Impossible to judge them on paper and expect consistent results.
Coaches need to see players that are not slam dunk elite talent. If their schools don't have the budget, they go international where ITF results can be a better predictor. Still not perfect, but better.
100+? Forget it. Some players have hundred-plus matches w/ low win %. Others can have only a couple dozen or so with a high win %. Impossible to judge them on paper and expect consistent results.
Coaches need to see players that are not slam dunk elite talent. If their schools don't have the budget, they go international where ITF results can be a better predictor. Still not perfect, but better.
Bitter Betty? Sorry, but n/a. Not bitter at all -- this household got through it intact and are happy to be leaving this phase behind. I'm just sad for some very talented girls I know, and disappointed in the system. But i'm sure there are many great coaches out there who are wise and keep their eyes open beyond TRN. at least one hopes so.
re: ITF rankings: the word is out in the junior (girl) tennis world that if you want your ratings to go up quickly, homeschool & go travel & play ITFs ... weaker competition, and TRN seems to bow down to ITF wins, regardless of the validity. i've noticed college coaches recruiting international players with lower UTR's than US players in the lower 100s. There is just no way to tell -- which pretty much proves my point that basing everything on these ratings along is simply foolish.
re: ITF rankings: the word is out in the junior (girl) tennis world that if you want your ratings to go up quickly, homeschool & go travel & play ITFs ... weaker competition, and TRN seems to bow down to ITF wins, regardless of the validity. i've noticed college coaches recruiting international players with lower UTR's than US players in the lower 100s. There is just no way to tell -- which pretty much proves my point that basing everything on these ratings along is simply foolish.
coaches uses TR to protect their behinds ... if the team doesn't produce and the AD jumps on them ,they could always say 'hey he/she was highly ranked,I did my best' .. now they took chances and gambled on a low ranked player and the team didn't produce ,the coach's job is on the line,he has no arguments to back up his claim... if anyone was in the coach's position,they'd do the same thing .. you're not going to risk your job and reputation on a no name ..
Sounds like pure speculation on your part. I doubt that you have sat in on discussions of this sort between an athletic director and a head coach.
Overdrive
Legend
OP, have you looked for other ways to get the attention from coaches?
You could take the Youtube route.. but there's tens of thousands of videos there...
Could your daughter get more attention if she played in prize tournaments? I'm not an experrt of this sort, but a lot of the participants are committed players, college players, ex-pros, and Futures players,.
Is she planning on joining the pro circuit or going to college to major? I see a lot of 'studentathletes' dropping the ball and become more focused on athletics than school. In short, there's a warm bodies- students who contribute nothing but ther athletic abilities and nothing academic.
Anyways, good luck.
You could take the Youtube route.. but there's tens of thousands of videos there...
Could your daughter get more attention if she played in prize tournaments? I'm not an experrt of this sort, but a lot of the participants are committed players, college players, ex-pros, and Futures players,.
Is she planning on joining the pro circuit or going to college to major? I see a lot of 'studentathletes' dropping the ball and become more focused on athletics than school. In short, there's a warm bodies- students who contribute nothing but ther athletic abilities and nothing academic.
Anyways, good luck.
Congrats on having your daughter play college tennis.
I know you posted this as a heads up to other juniors and parents, and it was definitely worth reading.
Sorry to be posting on the college site, but the junior site is gone.
[/QUOTE]
, I was just browsing through the girls' ratings on tennisrecruiting.net to see how her contemporaries & the girls behind her are doing ... I was quite shocked to see how inaccurate they are once you look below the top 100. The movement up & down is wild and irrational. Are coaches really following this site? They're fools if they are counting on this to give them any kind of indication of ability & potential. One friend of my daughter whom i've watched play for years -- who is no doubt a D1 player and a former Blue Chip before a growth injury derailed her for a bit -- dropped 20 places in one week due to one injury-default loss. That is criminal. And she did not move up 20 places after beating a college-committed player similarly rated ... she didn't even move up one place. Another girl whose mother is a tennis teaching pro, who is a technically beautiful player and is another D1 level player, suffered a back injury and has dropped from the 100s down into the 400s, to a 2-star. A 2-star! I guess if college coaches are smart, they might surf around to look for these golden gems who suddenly find themselves on that slippery-slope down to the bottom (most likely due to injuries & time out of competition), but from what I've heard, some coaches actually rely FULLY on these ratings & recruit within a certain range only! I find that to be absurd, and obviously career-killing for these poor players.
[/QUOTE]
From the boy's side, I find that coaches are fully aware of who has had an injury that has sidelined them for months, and that these boys are still recruited.
[/QUOTE]
I get that college coaches are working on a very limited budget & it's hard to get the chance to SEE all of these players actually play, but I would hope they would start to get a bit more creative and if they are going to use TRN, keep it in perspective and understand just how inaccurate the ratings actually are. One coach my daughter was in touch with literally emailed her that they "typically recruit only players in the top 100" ... and I noticed that that same coach has ended up recruiting international players with very little recorded experience, no TRN rating, and much LOWER UTR ratings than US girls below the TRN 100 mark. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
The cuts for 2014 in the Nationals hurt TRN, and they are fully aware that it makes their data less accurate as there is less cross play across the country.
For example, the National Tournament in March for the Boys 18's Gold ball is gone and has been replaced with a 32 Gold ball team event. 40% of those kids will be wild card in per the USTA documents
( first printed here with actual wild card numbers on the junior site, now also gone.)
But, 100 or so kids won't be playing in the March tournament.
Easter Bowl for the 12's -16's has been reduced to a 64 draw....
Again, less kids playing each other from across the country.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
TRN has responded with National showcases.
Will it work for accurate data, no one really knows yet.
Can't comment on the ITF ratings for girls, but the boys is ok.
If a player is winning ITF's, they are pretty good.
Yes, the more you travel, the more points you can acquire ( 6 tournaments).
But, the way to judge it is to look at the junior's actual playing record.
Does the kid play a bunch of ITFs and get a win here or there.
Or did the kid play just a tournament and win the whole thing.
You can't just look at the number, you have to look at their record.....
Agree about the ITF foreign kids who don't pan out as amazing tennis players,
but you also have kids who were super stars in juniors here who don't pan out either
due to demanding academics, social life, girls, etc...
The foreign conversation has been discussed here ... a lot.
Last thread was 52 pages before the moderators took it off.
I like having some diversity on a team, but fail to see the point of teams that are all foreign.
Not sure how that helps American tennis.
For juniors reading this, if you want to play college tennis,
there is a spot for you, if you don't get caught up on going to one of the brand names.
And for exposure, coaches will come to state championships or big high school tournaments if you contact them,
and it is not too far away from their school.
Video is also very helpful.
And most importantly, grades are a huge factor here.
More than I even realized as I see some 5 star seniors who are still struggling for a spot on the team as they have a C....
Or the dreaded D.
Or their course selection was so weak....
For those that care ONLY about the brand name, but are not the best tennis players..
EXCELLENT GRADES can get you on the team.
It will be to balance out a bad academic recruit, and most likely you will not play
Last edited:
dallasoliver
Rookie
My name is Dallas Oliver, and I am in charge of the overall content and direction of Tennis Recruiting. Since this thread seems to be aimed at my company, I figured I would chime in. I'll comment on the original comments in this thread.
(I apologize if I am being pedantic here - but I feel the need to make comments on how things work at Tennis Recruiting to explain our position.)
As you might imagine, we have had many, many people over the years sending us emails stating, "Your rankings are inaccurate - my son/daughter should be ranked way higher than he/she is." When we get such an email, we usually ask the author to pick a player or two that should clearly be ranked lower than his child based on results.
Despite getting literally hundreds of requests to compare players, we have yet to see an instance where there was a clear-cut mistake in our rankings based on the results we use in our rankings. I would be curious to see examples of the inaccuracies you see.
Our rankings use a head-to-head system that uses match results from the past year. Head-to-head systems are always more complex than the points-based ranking systems used by the USTA, ITF, and others, but these systems can have very nice properties that make them more predictive.
The complexities are always interesting. Every week, a player has new results that impact his/her ranking - and that is what people usually focus on. But there is so much more than that... Every week, results fall off of a player's record as well, and losing big wins from a year ago can often offset the benefits of earning a big win this week. And this week's results from all past opponents can impact your ranking as well.
We also have a "best 8 wins" component in our rankings. Players with short records - that don't have 8 good wins - will have their final rankings adjusted negatively.
I always tell people not to look at ranking changes week to week. As I mentioned above, a big win this week can be offset by other factors. If you have a problem with our rankings, pick out a kid who is ranked, say 5-10% higher in the rankings and see if the results clearly show that our ordering is wrong.
Injuries are always unfortunate - and it is especially sad when we are talking about junior players.
Today, our rankings are based on results from the past year. Period. If your child has an injury/illness that prevents him/her from competing for a year, then your child will have no ranking on Tennis Recruiting. But that child will also fall off the map in every other ranking system (USTA, ITF, etc.).
I agree that this is unfortunate, and we may make adjustments to our rankings some time in the future. But the way our rankings work today is certainly in accordance with all other ranking systems out there.
The Tennis Recruiting website is a tool. We do think that our rankings are the most accurate ones available today, and we think that our rankings provide a solid starting point for coaches when they are making their recruiting plans. But we do not think that our lists are the end-all, be-all, and I don't know of any coaches anywhere who recruit solely off of our lists - that would indeed be absurd.
Our lists do not show potential or mechanics... they do not capture any effects due to injury... they do not take doubles into account... etc., etc., etc.
But do they provide a good starting point? We think so. Do you really think a coach will recruit someone who is No. 100 but not someone who is No. 150?
And coaches can see the highest rankings for players whose ranking has dropped due to injury.
I think I've already addressed this point above.
Agree 100% with both points here: (1) UTR and (2) reaching out.
With respect to UTR, as I said above, Tennis Recruiting is just one tool. The folks at Universal Tennis have presented themselves with a huge challenge with respect to data entry and data integrity, but their ratings are a great tool for coaches (and everyone) to use.
The most important point you make in your argument - and a point that we make to players and parents every chance we get - is that kids need to proactively reach out to college coaches. Unless you are among the top 20 or 30 players, you should not expect coaches from schools you are interested in to reach out to you. You have to call them... write to them... and make your case as a prospective student-athlete for their schools.
One last point. You seem to use "rankings" and "ratings" interchangeably in your post. At Tennis Recruiting, we provide weekly rankings that are fine-grained, while we provide ratings (i.e., Blue Chip, 5-Star, 4-Star, etc.) twice a year with only six different gradations.
The ratings are more for fun and for the media - they provide very coarse rankings that stay the same for long periods of time. Our rankings are more up-to-date and provide much more information.
I hope my comments make sense and give you a better understanding of what we do. We are a small outfit who has been in the tennis business since the 1980s with a lot of expertise and history in tennis rankings. (We actually implemented and ran the rankings for USTA National and all the USTA sections until the early 2000s.)
We only claim to provide a tool for coaches to use when they plan their rankings. If there are coaches out there who try to use that tool for other purposes, then that's a shame.
Best regards,
Dallas
(I apologize if I am being pedantic here - but I feel the need to make comments on how things work at Tennis Recruiting to explain our position.)
As you might imagine, we have had many, many people over the years sending us emails stating, "Your rankings are inaccurate - my son/daughter should be ranked way higher than he/she is." When we get such an email, we usually ask the author to pick a player or two that should clearly be ranked lower than his child based on results.
Despite getting literally hundreds of requests to compare players, we have yet to see an instance where there was a clear-cut mistake in our rankings based on the results we use in our rankings. I would be curious to see examples of the inaccuracies you see.
Our rankings use a head-to-head system that uses match results from the past year. Head-to-head systems are always more complex than the points-based ranking systems used by the USTA, ITF, and others, but these systems can have very nice properties that make them more predictive.
The complexities are always interesting. Every week, a player has new results that impact his/her ranking - and that is what people usually focus on. But there is so much more than that... Every week, results fall off of a player's record as well, and losing big wins from a year ago can often offset the benefits of earning a big win this week. And this week's results from all past opponents can impact your ranking as well.
We also have a "best 8 wins" component in our rankings. Players with short records - that don't have 8 good wins - will have their final rankings adjusted negatively.
I always tell people not to look at ranking changes week to week. As I mentioned above, a big win this week can be offset by other factors. If you have a problem with our rankings, pick out a kid who is ranked, say 5-10% higher in the rankings and see if the results clearly show that our ordering is wrong.
Injuries are always unfortunate - and it is especially sad when we are talking about junior players.
Today, our rankings are based on results from the past year. Period. If your child has an injury/illness that prevents him/her from competing for a year, then your child will have no ranking on Tennis Recruiting. But that child will also fall off the map in every other ranking system (USTA, ITF, etc.).
I agree that this is unfortunate, and we may make adjustments to our rankings some time in the future. But the way our rankings work today is certainly in accordance with all other ranking systems out there.
The Tennis Recruiting website is a tool. We do think that our rankings are the most accurate ones available today, and we think that our rankings provide a solid starting point for coaches when they are making their recruiting plans. But we do not think that our lists are the end-all, be-all, and I don't know of any coaches anywhere who recruit solely off of our lists - that would indeed be absurd.
Our lists do not show potential or mechanics... they do not capture any effects due to injury... they do not take doubles into account... etc., etc., etc.
But do they provide a good starting point? We think so. Do you really think a coach will recruit someone who is No. 100 but not someone who is No. 150?
And coaches can see the highest rankings for players whose ranking has dropped due to injury.
I think I've already addressed this point above.
Agree 100% with both points here: (1) UTR and (2) reaching out.
With respect to UTR, as I said above, Tennis Recruiting is just one tool. The folks at Universal Tennis have presented themselves with a huge challenge with respect to data entry and data integrity, but their ratings are a great tool for coaches (and everyone) to use.
The most important point you make in your argument - and a point that we make to players and parents every chance we get - is that kids need to proactively reach out to college coaches. Unless you are among the top 20 or 30 players, you should not expect coaches from schools you are interested in to reach out to you. You have to call them... write to them... and make your case as a prospective student-athlete for their schools.
One last point. You seem to use "rankings" and "ratings" interchangeably in your post. At Tennis Recruiting, we provide weekly rankings that are fine-grained, while we provide ratings (i.e., Blue Chip, 5-Star, 4-Star, etc.) twice a year with only six different gradations.
The ratings are more for fun and for the media - they provide very coarse rankings that stay the same for long periods of time. Our rankings are more up-to-date and provide much more information.
I hope my comments make sense and give you a better understanding of what we do. We are a small outfit who has been in the tennis business since the 1980s with a lot of expertise and history in tennis rankings. (We actually implemented and ran the rankings for USTA National and all the USTA sections until the early 2000s.)
We only claim to provide a tool for coaches to use when they plan their rankings. If there are coaches out there who try to use that tool for other purposes, then that's a shame.
Best regards,
Dallas
dallasoliver
Rookie
tennis5 - great thoughts. I was composing my response when you posted yours.
dallasoliver
Rookie
I think people care WAY too much about those over 100 ratings.
So one week your daughter is 156 and the next week she is 234? OK, so what?
It is not Wimbledon you know, please get perspective. You kids like tennis, great, but that's all it is a nice sport.
Well, if you are thinking about college tennis, then you might care about rankings outside the Top 100. After all, there are more than 300 tennis programs just at the NCAA Division I level - plus lots more in D-II, D-III, NAIA, NJCAA, etc. With scholarship money, preferred admissions, etc., on the line - as well as the chance to continue playing at the college level - people do care a great deal.
- Dallas
I think people care WAY too much about those over 100 ratings.
So one week your daughter is 156 and the next week she is 234? OK, so what?
It is not Wimbledon you know, please get perspective. You kids like tennis, great, but that's all it is a nice sport.
What do you mean "so what"? I am paying $1000/week for my daughter's training and she is entitled to great ranking, not just good ranking. And I want to keep Dallas responsible when my daughter has her period or boyfriend issues or when she is tanking in front of college coaches. All this should not count!!!!
Many Senior girls stop playing junior tournaments after September 1st so their TR ranking drops. Those who continue playing junior tournaments may see their ranking in the Senior class improves drastically. By the Summer you have a number of Seniors with inflated ranking (in their class). Basically you have a situation where a Junior girl ranked 100 is much stronger than Senior girl ranked 100 etc.. When Junior beats a Senior with inflated ranking Junior may not get much benefit - this may not be a good win.
Overdrive
Legend
newpball
Legend
Exactly what I said, so what? What difference does it make if she is ranked 146 or 254?
What do you expect your daughter to do professionally when she is an adult?
Last edited:
sundaypunch
Hall of Fame
Hey Yogi, it was sarcasm.
newpball
Legend
Oops.
BirdieLane
New User
Looking at TRN vs USTA vs ITF, TRN rankings are far better. ITF is the worst and most easily bought, especially if you are willing to go mop up in remote foriegn tournaments.
All rankings once you get down into the 100s are going to fluctuate wildly and from the TRN stars, you see they get this. I.e. 25 blues; next 50 are five *, next 125 are 4*s, etc. Meaning players ranked 76-200 could be roughly grouped. 3*s are players ranked 201-400 I think.
So to contradict Dallas' point (that ratings are just for fun...), the ratings reflect the reality that there may not be a lot separating the 210 ranked player from the 399 player.
Further, the ratings and rankings combine to show a coach significant movement. if you are looking at players ranked 200ish and you see a 5*, you might want to looking into whats going on and keep an eye on that player.
As has been said, it's a tool. And like all tools, some will be better at understanding best ways to use it, including it's limitations.
Best advice above that I will echo is that you need to reach out to programs you think you will fit into and let them know you are interested and give them a schedule of events you are playing so they can either see you, or follow your results.
Also...for a chuckle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0G7siaCm8
All rankings once you get down into the 100s are going to fluctuate wildly and from the TRN stars, you see they get this. I.e. 25 blues; next 50 are five *, next 125 are 4*s, etc. Meaning players ranked 76-200 could be roughly grouped. 3*s are players ranked 201-400 I think.
So to contradict Dallas' point (that ratings are just for fun...), the ratings reflect the reality that there may not be a lot separating the 210 ranked player from the 399 player.
Further, the ratings and rankings combine to show a coach significant movement. if you are looking at players ranked 200ish and you see a 5*, you might want to looking into whats going on and keep an eye on that player.
As has been said, it's a tool. And like all tools, some will be better at understanding best ways to use it, including it's limitations.
Best advice above that I will echo is that you need to reach out to programs you think you will fit into and let them know you are interested and give them a schedule of events you are playing so they can either see you, or follow your results.
Also...for a chuckle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0G7siaCm8
tennisballer
Rookie
College coach here. I know myself, as well as many of my colleagues are very grateful for all of the info and data that tennis recruiting provides. But any competent coach knows that you cannot recruit solely off of "stars" or a student-athlete's ranking on trn. I would compare it to a player's tennis video. It gives you a good idea of a player's level but does not paint the whole picture. There are many different things and layers that you have to research and consider.
Alohajrtennis
Semi-Pro
Exactly. It would be sad if college coaches used TRN as the sole input into their decision making process, it's just one data point, but an important one. Yes, the top 100-200 players play regional and national tournaments more frequently, so there are more points of cross sectional interaction. Outside the top 200, the frequency of inter sectional play drops off dramatically, so yes, the rankings become less accurate, but still more accurate then USTA rankings.
It will be interesting to see how the USTA changes affect this, with less inter sectional play. USTA members are so inwardly focused on their own ranking system, they didn't realize that it is for the most part irrelevant for college coaches. The value of the USTA PPR ranking system is that it forces kids to play. They have to get points required to play at higher level events and play the players they need t beat to increase their TNR ranking.
The TNR and USTA ranking systems are independent but interdependent as well. Pure head to head systems have the major fatal fault of allowing top players to duck. PPR system have there own flaws in that they encourage point chasing etc, but together the systems are actually synergistic.
MarTennis
Semi-Pro
mikejsb876
Rookie
I agree with OP... tennisrecruiting.net has really gone downhill. Whats more important than all of these stars and rankings is how they perform once they get to their college/uni. I played D2 ball and all the awesome players we recruited in that were very strong decided to transfer to play Division 1 after two seasons. Ive had several friends play junior college tennis and after two years go D1. It really doesnt matter where you start (in terms of Division or JuCo) what does matter is results once there.
Just because you go D1 straight out of HS doesnt mean you'll stick around. Poor on court performance will get you cut faster than anything. If you are a bubble player fighting for a spot you better have good grades bc players on the outside looking in are easily dispensable!
Just because you go D1 straight out of HS doesnt mean you'll stick around. Poor on court performance will get you cut faster than anything. If you are a bubble player fighting for a spot you better have good grades bc players on the outside looking in are easily dispensable!
This statement makes no sense. The thread is discussing how players are recruited and tennisrecruiting’s role in the process. By definition “these stars and rankings” are more important because you have no possibility of performing in college unless you make a team.
Dallas might just as soon this thread die like the other occasional rants against TRN, but having watched my kid play through six years of junior ball, here are my conclusions:
1. TRN is a valuable and sophisticated service for parents and coaches both, aggregating and archiving all kinds of data. For parents of players, the service is inexpensive and nearly indispensable.
2. The rankings are much more accurate than USTA's PPR system, and they serve a different purpose from them. There are of course outliers, and in some cases a couple of matches can skew results, but these anomalies are temporary and usually work themselves out after time (return from injury, etc.). No database will account for all the variables the OP mentioned, nor should it attempt to do so. For the most part, players who win multiple matches against highly-ranked players will find themselves highly-ranked, just as they should. A player who beats every other player ranked in the 200s will be ranked better than them; if he beats players ranked 100, the same, or 50, or 25. "Gaming" this system is rare, and risky, and TRN's rankings for American players who play domestically is in my experience quite reliable.
3. In my experience, every college coach we talked to used TRN and was well aware of where their prospects stood. Some coaches had "cutoffs" (like they wanted players ranked 85 and above), but most said they began by looking at players in a given range and then looked at other factors, including health, attitude, potential, grades, etc.
So: any parent or player might be dissatisfied with a kid's ranking, but that's a consequence of on-court performance (or lack thereof). Most coaches I met used TRN as an important, but not the sole, indicator of accomplishment. There are always a lot of things to complain about in junior tennis, but in my experience, TRN isn't one of them.
1. TRN is a valuable and sophisticated service for parents and coaches both, aggregating and archiving all kinds of data. For parents of players, the service is inexpensive and nearly indispensable.
2. The rankings are much more accurate than USTA's PPR system, and they serve a different purpose from them. There are of course outliers, and in some cases a couple of matches can skew results, but these anomalies are temporary and usually work themselves out after time (return from injury, etc.). No database will account for all the variables the OP mentioned, nor should it attempt to do so. For the most part, players who win multiple matches against highly-ranked players will find themselves highly-ranked, just as they should. A player who beats every other player ranked in the 200s will be ranked better than them; if he beats players ranked 100, the same, or 50, or 25. "Gaming" this system is rare, and risky, and TRN's rankings for American players who play domestically is in my experience quite reliable.
3. In my experience, every college coach we talked to used TRN and was well aware of where their prospects stood. Some coaches had "cutoffs" (like they wanted players ranked 85 and above), but most said they began by looking at players in a given range and then looked at other factors, including health, attitude, potential, grades, etc.
So: any parent or player might be dissatisfied with a kid's ranking, but that's a consequence of on-court performance (or lack thereof). Most coaches I met used TRN as an important, but not the sole, indicator of accomplishment. There are always a lot of things to complain about in junior tennis, but in my experience, TRN isn't one of them.
Yes, I think that if any player develops really well after getting to college and is a classic late bloomer, then tennisrecruiting.net should definitely have rated them higher back before they became good. TRN should have a crystal ball and rank players not based on recent results, but based on what the players will do in the future. Is this your reasoning?
scoutling10s
New User
I think what is happening here is that OP is talking about individual players (living breathing people she cares about) whose background & level she is very familiar with whom she feels certain are highly underrated at this point in time, and Dallas is speaking for TRN as an objective tool that does not intend to put a "value" on a player's ability, but instead provides an objective "activity tracker" on the players -- the "value" placed on the players is up to the observer (ie the college coach) and should be strongly balanced with other factors, as even Dallas suggests. It would be impossible for TRN (or for the TRN administrators) to know every single player well enough to REALLY know where they belong, how good they actually are, if they are capable of playing college tennis & if so at what level, etc. -- the only thing this service can do is simply track activity on a weekly basis. Both parties here are absolutely correct as to what they're saying about the outliers -- and herein lies OP's point: the college coaches need to pay attention and not limit their opinions on players just because of the TRN number & star(s) attached to them -- particularly if that player reaches out to express interest in their school. And, if a coach overlooks the diamond in the rough or fails to notice a player must have clearly been out with injuries (if they drop from BC to 3-star or lower, that's 99% of the time why -- a player doesn't lose that kind of skill level as if they never had it), it's that coach's loss and another savvier coach will benefit. If TRN does drop a player 20 pts for an injury withdrawal, they'll certainly know to look for a redeeming win (even if it's to a lower rated player) and reverse that damage -- it might take some time, but I think the system is (hopefully) sensitive enough to do that. TRN provides a great forum for coaches to see photos, see which tourneys the player has played, read their player bio, etc, and a fun forum for players to see where players are committing, learn a bit about the schools/conferences, etc --- beyond that, I think most coaches in the top 20 schools are fully aware (from their presence at the national L1s) of who the big fish are, and the rest of the schools ought to be opening their eyes & casting their nets much wider than they might be doing. In this, I think both OP and Dallas are in full agreement.
As someone who just finished playing in college 2 years ago let me say this.
1) The fact is like in pro sports you are seen as an investment if you are recruited to play at a school. They look at several aspects of your tennis career before they reach out. Part of this is looking at injuries. Injury prone players are the last thing you would want in an investment so it is not only because of TRN that injured players are overlooked even if they get a few wins after.
2) Fact is your daughter is ranked out of the top 100 spots, be it injury or level of play, that is the fact. The best thing you can do is focus on rehabing properly and put your best effort forward in future tournaments to build your ranking back up. Nobody like injuries, I had friends who were better than I, playing at schools below their level because of injuries. Some transfered, others stayed put. Fact is staying healthy is also a part of being good tennis player. Fair or not
1) The fact is like in pro sports you are seen as an investment if you are recruited to play at a school. They look at several aspects of your tennis career before they reach out. Part of this is looking at injuries. Injury prone players are the last thing you would want in an investment so it is not only because of TRN that injured players are overlooked even if they get a few wins after.
2) Fact is your daughter is ranked out of the top 100 spots, be it injury or level of play, that is the fact. The best thing you can do is focus on rehabing properly and put your best effort forward in future tournaments to build your ranking back up. Nobody like injuries, I had friends who were better than I, playing at schools below their level because of injuries. Some transfered, others stayed put. Fact is staying healthy is also a part of being good tennis player. Fair or not
scoutling10s
New User
Every tennis player -- every athlete -- faces injuries -- that's just a fact of sports, and anyone who says they were "never injured" is simply lying. No coach can predict who might get injured after they've been recruited, just as they can't predict future injuries based on past injuries. Of course injuries are undesirable, but they're part of junior tennis & part of college athletics. Players who have to regain traction in rankings after injuries or time away for other reasons shouldn't be penalized & forever condemned and treated like Sisyphus -- I think that is the main point being put forth by OP. True that athletes are investments for the school --- but coaches & ranking systems shouldn't unjustly judge players for having injuries or being out of play for a period of time. Athletes are not like cars, some "lemons" and others not. Every athlete suffers injuries at some point or another and often it's simply luck and/or lack of proper medical guidance that resolves the issues either quickly or not so quickly. Agreed about the importance of rehab'ing properly --- sadly, many athletes force themselves to play when injured BECAUSE of the pressure of the ratings & rankings. My own daughter attempted to play through injuries simply because she didn't want coaches to think she was weak, and because she is (as most tennis players are) insanely competitive. I'm sure many parents can attest to that experience.
Tar Heel Tennis
Professional
ATTN Scoutling10s
please learn to break up your thoughts. Readers are more likely to read your posts if they aren't one big block of words.
Thanks - from EVERYONE!
please learn to break up your thoughts. Readers are more likely to read your posts if they aren't one big block of words.
Thanks - from EVERYONE!
scoutling10s
New User
good advice!
thank you, TarHeel Tennis ---
great advice & apologies!
:shock:
thank you, TarHeel Tennis ---
great advice & apologies!
:shock:
But that is where you are wrong, student athletes are like cars. They are something you put on display to make yourself look better, when there is a problem with one of the cars you scrap it and get yourself a new shiny toy and hope that does the job. I had 2 friends lose scholarships for tennis at D1 schools. 1 lost it because of injuries and could not get back to where he was, the 2nd lost it because he was not winning enough. It simply comes down to results.
And of course anyone at a high level is going to be competitive, but you have to be smart. I withdrew from tournaments and even stopped playing matches at college when I was injured. Was I happy? Not at all, but my body comes first. With the exception of the select few no college tennis player is going to be a successful pro. So why destroy your body in college? Sure the praise and accolades are awesome and carry a lot of meaning to a player. But when that is done and your body feels absolutely shot, then what?
Last edited:
Tennisstringz
New User
There's definitely a difference in TRN accuracy ever since the Regional step was put in, and the Nationals shrunken down. Also, cold weather indoor players are disadvantaged by national events only being outdoors in the winter and early spring. Still, some players from weaker sections sit on five star rankings by never playing against players from stronger sections. They get eight "good wins", five of which are against the same overrated player.
You're right, senior year TRN rankings are pretty much worthless because the better players are in international or pro tourneys, or doing ITA. The time when TRN seems to be most meaningful is from late sophomore year to mid summer after junior year. Once players verbally commit, they kind of slack.
What is really annoying is how players drop out "injured" after getting bumped from the front draws, so they don't risk their rankings against underrated players in backdraws. Decent players who haven't done the tourney travel grind and played up in age groups for years tend to be unseeded, and play highly ranked elite players very early, Like first round. This player then battles from day one in the backdraw against other underranked players, usually playing an extra match in a day before a rested player feeds in from the front draw. If that higher ranked player sees the consolation opponent has upset potential, they will probably withdraw. You should factor in a withdrawing penalty in ranking. Make it a one- fourth win or loss. Only allow one wd in a twelve month period. After that, there should be a penalty.
In my mind, junior tennis is marred by poor line-calling anyway. Twenty spots in the trn rankings may have been gained or lost by line calls. Its bs. That's why I personally find the universal tennis ranking system much more useful.
You're right, senior year TRN rankings are pretty much worthless because the better players are in international or pro tourneys, or doing ITA. The time when TRN seems to be most meaningful is from late sophomore year to mid summer after junior year. Once players verbally commit, they kind of slack.
What is really annoying is how players drop out "injured" after getting bumped from the front draws, so they don't risk their rankings against underrated players in backdraws. Decent players who haven't done the tourney travel grind and played up in age groups for years tend to be unseeded, and play highly ranked elite players very early, Like first round. This player then battles from day one in the backdraw against other underranked players, usually playing an extra match in a day before a rested player feeds in from the front draw. If that higher ranked player sees the consolation opponent has upset potential, they will probably withdraw. You should factor in a withdrawing penalty in ranking. Make it a one- fourth win or loss. Only allow one wd in a twelve month period. After that, there should be a penalty.
In my mind, junior tennis is marred by poor line-calling anyway. Twenty spots in the trn rankings may have been gained or lost by line calls. Its bs. That's why I personally find the universal tennis ranking system much more useful.
Tennisstringz
New User
There's definitely a difference in TRN accuracy ever since the Regional step was put in, and the Nationals shrunken down, reducing crossplay. Also, cold weather indoor players are disadvantaged by national events only being outdoors in the winter and early spring. Now, some players from weaker sections sit on five star rankings by never playing against players from stronger sections. They get eight "good wins", five of which are against the same overrated player.
You're right, senior year TRN rankings are pretty much worthless because the better players are in international or pro tourneys, or doing ITA. The time when TRN seems to be most meaningful is from late sophomore year to mid summer after junior year. Once players verbally commit, they kind of slack.
What is really annoying is how players drop out "injured" after getting bumped from the front draws, so they don't risk their rankings against underrated players in backdraws. Decent players who haven't done the tourney travel grind and played up in age groups for years tend to be unseeded, and play highly ranked elite players very early, like first round. This player then battles from day one in the backdraw against other underranked players, usually playing an extra match in a day before a rested player feeds in from the front draw. If that higher ranked player sees the consolation opponent has upset potential, they will probably withdraw. You should factor in a withdrawing penalty in ranking. Make it a one- fourth loss if you drop out before playing a lower ranked player. Only allow one wd in a twelve month period. After that, there should be a penalty.
In my mind, junior tennis is marred by poor line-calling anyway. Twenty spots in the trn rankings may have been gained or lost by line calls. Its bs. That's why I personally find the universal tennis ranking system much more useful.
You're right, senior year TRN rankings are pretty much worthless because the better players are in international or pro tourneys, or doing ITA. The time when TRN seems to be most meaningful is from late sophomore year to mid summer after junior year. Once players verbally commit, they kind of slack.
What is really annoying is how players drop out "injured" after getting bumped from the front draws, so they don't risk their rankings against underrated players in backdraws. Decent players who haven't done the tourney travel grind and played up in age groups for years tend to be unseeded, and play highly ranked elite players very early, like first round. This player then battles from day one in the backdraw against other underranked players, usually playing an extra match in a day before a rested player feeds in from the front draw. If that higher ranked player sees the consolation opponent has upset potential, they will probably withdraw. You should factor in a withdrawing penalty in ranking. Make it a one- fourth loss if you drop out before playing a lower ranked player. Only allow one wd in a twelve month period. After that, there should be a penalty.
In my mind, junior tennis is marred by poor line-calling anyway. Twenty spots in the trn rankings may have been gained or lost by line calls. Its bs. That's why I personally find the universal tennis ranking system much more useful.
I tend to disagree with the fact that senior year rankings are pretty much worthless. I feel the cream rises to the top on TRN. If you look at the top 20 year after year, you see the best players in the country all included. Some years it even contains 5 star and even 4 star players that have really come on during the last part of their junior careers. And if you really follow universal rankings, you will find that they have become totally inflated over the last year. I don't know how it is for boys but I have compared matches from the early fall season, between the freshman and current collegiate players and the universals of the freshman, many of which are higher than the top collegiate players, are not holding up.
Both of these systems are great in regard to identifying the top players. From that point the coaches have to take over to find the players that fit there needs.
Tennisstringz
New User
TRN ranking is a good starting point for coaches. If the kid got a four or five star or blue chip rating soph through senior year, it shows that they went through the rigors of the system, put themselves on the line, played through the stress, and won enough to get that ranking. But once a coach has identified a player as a prospect, it would be stupid for them to take one over another based only on TRN rank.
So there isn't much difference skillwise between 100-400, but if a100 plays a 400 enough times, not just once, I'd bet on the 100, because in the long run that higher ranked kid would win more, handle stress better, and work harder. If by chance, your kid should be a top 100, but us mired in the 200s, play more tournaments. Statistically, you need about 20 matches vs top 100 kids to see if you really belong there.
Tennisstringz
New User
Dallas, why don't you change the format for the showcases. Have a five star blue chip showcase. Then also have a four star showcase where the top 10 finishers get access to the blue chip- five star. Also have many three star showcases. Which give access to four star.
Start with current star rankings. In order to keep your star ranking, you need three tourneys in the showcases in a year.
Start with current star rankings. In order to keep your star ranking, you need three tourneys in the showcases in a year.
marco forehand
Semi-Pro
I am jumping into this late even though I started reading this thread from it's original posting date.
Here's what my experience over the past 8 years has been.
I've had two kids play D 1 tennis (men's and women's).
I found the ranking system to be a reasonable predictor of results in collegiate tennis. Take the senior year finale rankings of the two players, if there is more then 20 position differential, the player with the higher ranking generally wins, although, if it's was an important match (league championships or NCAA's ) my daughter was able to upend that predictor.
That tells me tennisrecruiting.net is getting something right.
Here's what my experience over the past 8 years has been.
I've had two kids play D 1 tennis (men's and women's).
I found the ranking system to be a reasonable predictor of results in collegiate tennis. Take the senior year finale rankings of the two players, if there is more then 20 position differential, the player with the higher ranking generally wins, although, if it's was an important match (league championships or NCAA's ) my daughter was able to upend that predictor.
That tells me tennisrecruiting.net is getting something right.
Tennisstringz
New User
Maybe in the past, it was very good. I think it worked great up to the addition of regional segments. After that, kids not fortunate to have played many nationals previously got stuck playing the same players over and over.
No doubt it works for the top 50. From 50 - 75 kind of. 75- 200, sketchy. It basically works great at the blue chip, high five star level. It works for finding top players for the major college conferences. Four star rankings seem pretty random comparing players from different sections, but at least it shows who has D1 potential.
dallasoliver
Rookie
OK... I'll bite.
If our rankings are as "sketchy" as you say they are, it should be easy for you to provide examples of players where our rankings are wrong.
I don't want to encourage talking about specific kids in a public forum, so email me two players with reasonable-length records (10+ wins) where (1) the ranking difference between the players is, say, 30 spots and (2) the results indicate that the lower-ranked players is clearly better than the higher-ranked player.
All ranking systems have flaws, but noone has ever pointed out a single case to me where our rankings got it wrong - despite me asking for examples multiple times over the years.
Best,
Dallas
dallas@tennisrecruiting.net
maggmaster
Hall of Fame
I actually think the algorithm you guys use looks pretty good, based on what I can extrapolate from player movement. I have a computer science background and the complexity of a system like yours has to be difficult to map out.
marco forehand
Semi-Pro
this reply is to dallasoliver:
1st, thank you for the work you do. My experience tells me all ranking systems have some flaws but, as I pointed out earlier, yours seemed reasonably accurate.
2nd, lets acknowledge that it may be impossible to please 100% of your potential customer base, particularly when that customer base is made up of tennis parents ! To be fair, the vast majority of tennis parents are semi reasonable people but the few that go overboard can make a real impression.
This is not to suggest the op is unreasonable or anything like that.I don't know them personally and haven't taken the time to look at their other post.
The original post (including the title) does question the viability of tennisrecruitingdot com, My experiences with the site were positive I felt motivated to share that.
1st, thank you for the work you do. My experience tells me all ranking systems have some flaws but, as I pointed out earlier, yours seemed reasonably accurate.
2nd, lets acknowledge that it may be impossible to please 100% of your potential customer base, particularly when that customer base is made up of tennis parents ! To be fair, the vast majority of tennis parents are semi reasonable people but the few that go overboard can make a real impression.
This is not to suggest the op is unreasonable or anything like that.I don't know them personally and haven't taken the time to look at their other post.
The original post (including the title) does question the viability of tennisrecruitingdot com, My experiences with the site were positive I felt motivated to share that.
I tend agree with the OP and tennisstringz about TRN's margin of error outside the top 100. I posted about this a while back in the now defunct Jr. Tennis board with several specific examples from a regional national in Arizona. At that time, guys ranked in the high 200s and low 300s took out players in the mid-100s. These were all 4-star and 3-star players which led to my questioning of the error margin outside the top 100.
Of course, as with anything that updates every week based on new data, if you look up those players now, the winners and losers have those tournament results factored into their current ranking so the spread isn't nearly what it used to be. Over time, a ranking will, by virtue of the fact they are based on results, reflect those results.
Which leads me to a more recent example I am curious about. Prior to KZoo this year, you would not have picked the B18s winner based on his TRN ranking or rating at the time. Going into the tournament, he did not even have a star rating, though he must have had enough results to get him qualified.
What was curious was what happened to his rating the week of and the week following KZoo. Arguably he deserved the blue-chip rating that appeared. But TRN, can you give some insight on how he flew under the radar prior to that? (and, no, I'm not related to the player, I just found it curious...)
Is the distinction you make about who is the better player only relevant to the rankings and not the ratings? It has always seemed to me that star-ratings do not "age" that well and are updated on way too infrequent an interval. This is especially true since players and coaches refer to them way more frequently than the actual ranking. What is the purpose of the star-rating?
Of course, as with anything that updates every week based on new data, if you look up those players now, the winners and losers have those tournament results factored into their current ranking so the spread isn't nearly what it used to be. Over time, a ranking will, by virtue of the fact they are based on results, reflect those results.
Which leads me to a more recent example I am curious about. Prior to KZoo this year, you would not have picked the B18s winner based on his TRN ranking or rating at the time. Going into the tournament, he did not even have a star rating, though he must have had enough results to get him qualified.
What was curious was what happened to his rating the week of and the week following KZoo. Arguably he deserved the blue-chip rating that appeared. But TRN, can you give some insight on how he flew under the radar prior to that? (and, no, I'm not related to the player, I just found it curious...)
Is the distinction you make about who is the better player only relevant to the rankings and not the ratings? It has always seemed to me that star-ratings do not "age" that well and are updated on way too infrequent an interval. This is especially true since players and coaches refer to them way more frequently than the actual ranking. What is the purpose of the star-rating?
dallasoliver
Rookie
Your other question (about Altamirano) was answered by mrmo1115.
I will comment on the ratings (i.e., the "stars")...
Ratings like ours are very coarse rankings in terms of how they differentiate players (only 7 categories - Blue Chip, 5-, 4-, 3-, 2-, 1-Star, Unrated) and their frequency of calculation (only twice per year). We certainly believe our rankings are much more informative since they differentiate more finely and more often.
So, why do we do ratings? Because they are popular, easy to grasp, and dovetail with the well-established language of recruiting. We based many of the features at Tennis Recruiting on football and basketball websites, and those sites have always rated players using something like stars. Note that most athletic press releases also refer to recruits by their ratings.
So... we tried to fit into the existing lexicon, and I believe it has worked as desired... I encounter references to "stars" for tennis players everywhere I go on the Internet. It is clearly not the end-all, be-all... but it is easy to understand, and I think most people have made the language work for them.
Best,
Dallas
Is this your post and the case sample? http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7180337&postcount=27
Is this your post and the case sample?
It is... and you are much more facile than I in finding it. I assumed it had gone the way of the junior message board.
At least I can refer back to the numbers, and if I can find the time, I may actually see how much of the gap these players closed since the time that tournament was run.
Thanks!
It is... and you are much more facile than I in finding it. I assumed it had gone the way of the junior message board.
At least I can refer back to the numbers, and if I can find the time, I may actually see how much of the gap these players closed since the time that tournament was run.
Thanks!
It was easy, you only have 7 posts and the board is still there, just no one can post on it. Maybe if you provide enough data Dallas can post a response to the accuracy of those involved and their ratings.
TRN is still the best jr tennis rating tool out there. It's not perfect, but it's very good. I know many, many college coaches that use it as one part of their recruiting process. Only heard them say good things about it as well in conversation.
DannyOpris
New User
New to this forum and ran into this old conversation. Learned a lot reading it and appreciate the hard work folks at TRN do. I ve been looking at the ratings of top 100 for a while and come from a pure number perspective with a question to folks or TRN.
Does anybody care about reclassing to “improve” your star rating at the end of 8th grade? Have there been any observations / studies on how that projects into the future?
Does anybody care about reclassing to “improve” your star rating at the end of 8th grade? Have there been any observations / studies on how that projects into the future?
