The Death of 2.5 Tennis

[Cindysphinx]

I started playing league tennis in 2005 as a 2.5. After taking clinics for about 7 months, I recruited some other women from clinics, grabbed some strangers off of the list of available players, and we formed a team.

There were nine teams in our 2.5 flight. We played around twice, so that was 16 matches. There were 100 women in the flight. There were two men's 2.5 teams that year, with a total of 14 players (with one team going to nationals).

For some reason, 2.5 tennis has all but died off in our league. This year, there are two women's teams of 10 players each. There are no men playing 2.5. There was no women's 5.5 combo league in January because there were no 2.5 players. There was no 2.5 division in the day league in January either.

Yeah, it's easy for those of us at higher NTRP levels to say "Who cares?" But I think the failure to have a robust stream of beginners is a bad development. It's bad for the growth of the sport. It reduces options for players, as you can't have a 5.5 combo league without 2.5 players. It forces true 2.5s to either leave league play or get destroyed in every match. It bogs down play at 3.0 because there are so many players who really belong at 2.5 but don't have that option. I would imagine that a decline in beginners threatens the livelihood of teaching pros.

Is 2.5 dying off in other parts of the country also? What explains this? If 2.5 is in its death throes, would it be better to eliminate it entirely?

 

[AR15]

We don't have any 2.5 leagues here either due to not having enough players at that level to form enough teams. Consequently, as you said, they have to start off at 3.0.

I believe USTA automatically moves a 2.5 to a 3.0 rating after playing a season or two at 3.0. This further compounds the issue of not having enough players at this level to have a league.

This is part of the reason 3.0 tennis is such a difficult level for teams. You have beginners playing that can't keep a ball in play very long, and you have former (self rated players) who start at 3.0 and should be rated much higher. There is a wider range of skills at 3.0 than any other level.

 

[Nellie]

I think this is a good change, because I think that if you have played tennis for any time, you should be at 3.0 after a couple of months. The problem is that people stayed at 3.0 for years, despite improving. They did this because the 3.5 were too good, and 4.0 were too good, etc. when you read the rating criteria. People should not be staying at 3.0 for years and years. I think that USTA has recongnized this and is making an effort to push people to 3.5/4.0, which now forms the fat of the league numbers.

I think of it, kind of like clothing sizes - whether you call it 2.5 or 3.0, does it really matter except that it is the novice division?

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think people stay at 3.0 for many years, but that's OK. Those who are not especially athletic, overweight, or playing just for fun (as opposed to improvement) can and should stay at 3.0. I have women on my 6.5 combo team who I expect to stay at 3.0 for the forseeable future, mostly due to a lack of interest in moving up.

Around here, 3.0 is the biggest flight for women. For men, it's 3.5.

You know, another thought occurred to me.

I've never played 6.0 mixed, but those teams usually consist of 3.0 men and 3.0 women. There are some 2.5 women also.

But one captain in particular frequently pairs 3.5 men with 2.5 women (some self-rated, some not).

I wonder if there ought to be a rule that 3.5 players cannot play 6.0 mixed. The very idea of a 3.5 guy firing serves and groundstrokes at a 2.5 women is a total joke. I would think it might discourage 2.5 women (or low-end 3.0 women) from even playing mixed. Maybe players should leave the lowest levels to those who are really at that level . . .

 

[AR15]

I think this is a good change, because I think that if you have played tennis for any time, you should be at 3.0 after a couple of months. The problem is that people stayed at 3.0 for years, despite improving. They did this because the 3.5 were too good, and 4.0 were too good, etc. when you read the rating criteria. People should not be staying at 3.0 for years and years. I think that USTA has recongnized this and is making an effort to push people to 3.5/4.0, which now forms the fat of the league numbers.

I think of it, kind of like clothing sizes - whether you call it 2.5 or 3.0, does it really matter except that it is the novice division?

I disagree. I think the skill of the average 3.0 is good enough to be somewhat intimidating to a lot of 2.5 and lowers players. At my club, for example, we are always trying to get the swimmers to try tennis, but they feel they aren't good enough to play. I think to encourage the sport to grow, you want to make it as non-threatening as possible.

By your logic, why not combine 3.5 and 4.0 to one level?

 

[Tarboro]

I wonder if it might not have something to do with the relative willingness of 2.5 players to compete. Most 2.5 players I see around the courts here in FL are more interested in improving and taking clinics and lessons than in playing on a league team (though USTA leagues are not firmly entrenched at the places I play most often).

They really gain the opportunity to play competitively at 3.0 for both men and women.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I wonder if it might not have something to do with the relative willingness of 2.5 players to compete. Most 2.5 players I see around the courts here in FL are more interested in improving and taking clinics and lessons than in playing on a league team (though USTA leagues are not firmly entrenched at the places I play most often).

They really gain the opportunity to play competitively at 3.0 for both men and women.

Hmmm. Let's see. I remember that the reason I decided to play league was that my sister played 3.0 and seemed very passionate about it. So I had at least heard of USTA league. Plus, I figured I was the best player in my little clinic, so I should win all the time (but didn't!). I would imagine you are right that a lot of people who don't know anyone who plays league might be intimidated.

When I approached women to play on my 2.5 team, I did hear a lot of "Oh, I just play for fun!" I also heard a lot of "Heck no! I'm not driving halfway across town to play a match that starts at 9 pm. That's too late, and I have a family."

But I have to say, I think it would have been very intimidating had I skipped 2.5 and started right off at 3.0, even after another year of clinics. At 2.5, there aren't people who can mop the floor with you, even if they are somewhat better. And if someone is good enough to destroy others, they get DQ'd pretty quickly because most everyone at 2.5 is self-rated.

I would have wanted no part of a top-end 3.0 when I was just starting out. That might have put me off of league play completely.

 

[Nellie]

I disagree. I think the skill of the average 3.0 is good enough to be somewhat intimidating to a lot of 2.5 and lowers players. At my club, for example, we are always trying to get the swimmers to try tennis, but they feel they aren't good enough to play. I think to encourage the sport to grow, you want to make it as non-threatening as possible.

By your logic, why not combine 3.5 and 4.0 to one level?

Well - I do not think that people who have hardly played tennis tend to play league tennis. My issue is that many of the "average players" you see at 3.0 don't belong there, and I think that really discourages new people from joining and playing in leagues. So you get the same people playing for years. In my experiance, most of the 2.5 league players I have seen would have no problem playing in 3.0 leagues, except that the 3.0 players are more consistent.

And yes, I do think that the USTA is making a serious push to move people up in levels, 3.5 => 4.0, 4.0 => 4.5. I think that it is wrong to have high level tournement players at 4.5. For years, there's been a constant push to rate down due to this.

Also, you see the drastic differences between local leagues and USTA. In my local league, the 3.0 division is well below the level I have seen in 2.5 USTA league.

 

[Nellie]

But I have to say, I think it would have been very intimidating had I skipped 2.5 and started right off at 3.0, even after another year of clinics. At 2.5, there aren't people who can mop the floor with you, even if they are somewhat better. And if someone is good enough to destroy others, they get DQ'd pretty quickly because most everyone at 2.5 is self-rated.

I would have wanted no part of a top-end 3.0 when I was just starting out. That might have put me off of league play completely.

I really believe that the USTA is keeping 2.5. but just renaming it "3.0", and moving up most of the problem players, so that this problem can be minimized.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Nellie, what evidence do you have that USTA is pushing people upstream? I have heard people say it and have wondered about it myself, but it's all just speculation, no?

I think it is a big mistake to combine 3.0 and 2.5. There really is a difference. A 3.0 will clobber a 2.5, and the players least likely to take kindly to being clobbered are 2.5s.

 

[Nellie]

My evidence is merely anecdotal and from comments from our league coordinator to that effect.

I have also notice the numbers change significantly. For example, in my section, four years ago, there used to 15 3.0 mens teams. Now there are 4. At that time there were 10 3.5 teams, and now there are 2 leagues with 12 teams each.

I do appreciate that there likely should be a beginner level league to encourage people to start and feel success, but I think a lot of that occurs with friends/locally.

 

[Cindysphinx]

My evidence is merely anecdotal and from comments from our league coordinator to that effect.

I have also notice the numbers change significantly. For example, in my section, four years ago, there used to 15 3.0 mens teams. Now there are 4. At that time there were 10 3.5 teams, and now there are 2 leagues with 12 teams each.

I do appreciate that there likely should be a beginner level league to encourage people to start and feel success, but I think a lot of that occurs with friends/locally.

I would think the more likely explanation is that fewer newbies are joining USTA league tennis. People naturally move up as they get better, which explains the growth in 3.5. It sounds like there hasn't been an influx of 3.0s and 2.5s to replace them.

As I said, in our area we have gone from nine 2.5 ladies teams in 2005 to two in 2008. I don't think that is a result of people being moved up more easily or quickly.

 

[raiden031]

My evidence is merely anecdotal and from comments from our league coordinator to that effect.

I have also notice the numbers change significantly. For example, in my section, four years ago, there used to 15 3.0 mens teams. Now there are 4. At that time there were 10 3.5 teams, and now there are 2 leagues with 12 teams each.

I do appreciate that there likely should be a beginner level league to encourage people to start and feel success, but I think a lot of that occurs with friends/locally.

I noticed in my area there is a shortage of 3.0 players and that most league players are now at 3.5. I'm sure it has alot to do with what goes on at Nationals, such as people getting double bumped because they are so good. Plus I believe there is a new rule that forbids appealing your rating down if you advance into post-season play, but I don't know if it was in effect last year or not. But also I think that there really is a shortage of beginners to take their place.

 

[drakulie]

Just remember to breathe.

 

[skiracer55]

As noted...

...there appear to be a number of different things going on here, and it sure looks like the USTA is the agent behind a bunch of them:

- Is the USTA pushing to combine the 2.5 and 3.0 Leagues? Wouldn't surprise me at all. A few years back, there was a 5.5 league division, and I believe the USTA dumped that. So naturally all the 5.5s slid down to 5.0, and all the 5.0s slid down to 4.5. Why would the USTA do something like that? Why, to cut costs, of course. Your USTA membership is the same price, regardless of your NTRP rating. If I have one less level of league to administer, I cut my costs but keep the same income...maybe. So it wouldn't surprise me if the USTA is now pushing to combine 2.5 and 3.0 leagues.

- However, right now we still have a 2.5 level league, and there appear to be fewer players at that level. Why is that? Well, if you figure that 2.5 is the entry point into competitive tennis, then it means there are fewer people entering the sport, at least to play competitive matches. Why is that? Well, tennis has been kind of a boom and bust sport in terms of participation. There was a tennis boom in the 60s/70s followed by a bust, when a bunch of players decided tennis was too hard and took up racketball. NTRP was, in many ways, a USTA invention to increase participation...and oh, by the way, reinvigorate the USTA coffers, which had shrunken during the tennis bust.

I see players on court all the time...if you're playing on public courts, you have to be choosy about when you play or maybe wait for a court. And a lot of these players look like they first picked up a racket last week. So maybe new players are entering the sport, but they just aren't joining the USTA and entering the 2.5 leagues. And why is that? Well, for starters, the economy isn't doing great, the price of gas is going up, and a $40 for a USTA membership buys a lot of balls, or drinks after tennis. And maybe playing in a USTA league doesn't look like much fun compared to getting out and banging balls around and getting a good workout with my buddies.

- There is the plus side of "why fewer players, currently, in the 2.5 division", which is that they've all moved to up to 3.0 or beyond. Which, if your goal is to improve your NTRP rating, works out. If, on the other hand, I just want to find an NTRP level where I and my team can win all the time...well, I'm probably going to sandbag, right? Especially when the USTA's top league is now 5.0, meaning that's as high as I can ever aspire as an NTRPer. So might as well find a soft place where I can be the big dog on the porch, right?

Just some thoughts...I don't play NTRP, but I sure get to watch a lot of it...

 

[catfish]

I'm a local league coordinator, and here's my perspective.

First of all, skiracers comments about the USTA pushing to combine levels is hogwash. If the USTA wanted to do this, the first people they would have to inform would be local league coordinators and they certainly haven't done that. Also, there is a 5.5 level. Browse Tennislink and you will find them. There aren't many 5.5 or 5.0 leagues for a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason is that most 5.0 and 5.5 players are club pros. In my experience, most club pros don't enjoy league tennis since tennis is the way they make their living. So the 5.0 and 5.5 levels tend to be very small.

The 2.5 mens level has never existed in my area, and we have very large leagues. Most of the beginner men in my area prefer to start at the 3.0 level. I've never had a single team sign up at the mens 2.5 level. You only need 2 teams to form a league so it's obvious there is no interest in mens 2.5. The 2.5 women's level has shrunk in my area in the last 2 years. But that level seems to grow and shrink every few years due to a large turnover in captains and players. The 2.5 players who really get into league tennis and enjoy it always get bumped up very quickly to 3.0 (players like Cindysphinx). Some of the 2.5's drop in and try tennis for a year and then drop out because they simply find they don't like it that much. Some players drop out due to the "antics" of other players and captains. (As a league coordinator I could write a book on the ridiculous ways people sometimes behave over tennis.) From my observation, more 2.5's get bumped up than any other level. Other levels tend to have the same teams and captains year to year so there is continuity. It just doesn't happen that way in 2.5. If a captain gets bumped up along with half her team, it's never easy for a new captain to take over the remnants of the team and find more players. I don't know if there are lower tolerances in the computer rating system for 2.5's, but it seems to be the case.

If you look at the USTA leagues in most areas, you'll see the largest levels are always 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0. These are typical levels for people who picked up tennis late in life and they really enjoy league tennis (like me and many of you who post here). These types of players are always your hard core league players who sign up for multiple leagues in the area. The higher levels tend to have fewer teams and lower interest in league tennis in general. It's probably because many 4.5's and above played some type of junior or college tennis and they just aren't that interested anymore. Their attitude is "been there, done that".

 

[Sakkijarvi]

2.5 alive and well...and cheap

The only tennis you'll find in my town, run by the local park & rec, would probably fall under the 2.5ish category. There really is nothing for players of a higher caliber/experience, but the local rec group is pretty large, has male and female participants, and has been going strong to my knowledge for some years. They pay ninety bucks, play on the high school courts, and get a tee shirt. One of the local rec tennis teachers runs the thing and also plays with the students.

The teacher throws in pointers and works with the players that want instruction, in the context of 'competitive' play. Everyone seems to have a good time with the occasional 3.0+ hitter showing up for a few sessions, and they're lax about collecting money if you just come around a few times. They play mostly doubles with some singles tossed in for the willing, and they play a set, then re-mix the teams. No standings are kept. I've hit with them a couple of times at the invite of the teach, and they have a lot of fun. Not a place to be bringing the fire in your belly.

It seems to me that rec tennis is where 2.5/beginners can get into the sport and meet other people to play with. If they want to get more serious, have some talent, they can go from there.

Sakki

 

[zebano]

2.5?? I've never heard of such a beast in leagues and/or tournaments. No in Iowa anyway. We do have both a park league and a Rockwell Collins employee only league both of which probably fall under that rating.