TLS Rating vs Tennisrecords

Thatshot

New User
There are 2 sites calculating NTRP ratings currently and I am seeing different rating results for the same player. Which site's numbers do you think is more accurate?
 

dblsplayer

Rookie
Actually they are both right because they are using their own formulas to create their own ratings. HOWEVER, neither is a USTA rating and neither ever will be because USTA ratings are well...USTA
 
Last edited:

brettatk

Semi-Pro
I guess once YE ratings are out and the sites have their expected YE ratings posted, we'll be able to see which one was more accurate. I find both sites useful but I don't expect either to have my rating or anyone else's match that of USTA.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
I could but. I'm just too lazy. Someone else will come along and explain it.
I will try. Have no proof at all but anecdotally I will tell you Tennisrecord.com seems to have far fewer ratings that make me scratch my head than TLS. If you want hard data schmke is probably the only one here that could give you that.
 

loosegroove

Hall of Fame
Well one thing is tennisrecord uses all of a player's matches in calculating a rating, while if a player participates in different leagues/districts, that player will have multiple tls ratings for each league.
 

Thatshot

New User
I use this individual for an example, this is his first time playing 4.0 so a self rated 4.0 and have a 6-1 record, all doubles. On TLS he is at 4.07, on Tennisrecord he is at 3.81, mix don't count, neither does combo. I am puzzled why there is such a big difference between the 2 sites. I'm looking to see if he has crossed the line into 4.5 territory, one site said yes, the other says no, I'm puzzled...
 
Last edited:

Tiafoe

Rookie
Just an observation that is probably known already, but Tennisrecord seems to have lower ratings in general.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
tennisrecord will use certain matches for it's formula that USTA doesn't actually use. I'm not sure if TLS knows the difference either though
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
I will try. Have no proof at all but anecdotally I will tell you Tennisrecord.com seems to have far fewer ratings that make me scratch my head than TLS. If you want hard data schmke is probably the only one here that could give you that.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with either site, I don't know anything about them beyond what anyone can see on their sites, and I do my own ratings so these sites are arguably my competition, so take this all for what it is worth. I share it because folks seem to be interested.

However, I have done some analysis and have made every effort to ensure it is objective and so I believe these are facts about those sites that anyone could verify if they were as tennis ratings crazy as I am and put the time in to do it.

First, one has to define "accurate". Accurate could be defined to be the most accurate representation of a player's ability, or it could be the most accurate accounting of a rating reflecting their accomplishments, or it could be the most accurate predictor of the USTA's dynamic rating and/or year-end levels. Think of college football, should the #1 team be the team most likely to win on a neutral field against other opponents? Or the one that has managed to compile the more impressive resume to date? Those are not necessarily the same team. Similarly, all tennis ratings are not created equal as they may have different goals.

However, for purposes of this discussion, I'll assume "accurate" to mean most closely matching the USTA's rating and level. Note that I do not know if either site's motivation or goal is to match this so keep that in mind.

The challenge is the USTA only discloses year-end levels so that is all we can really check. And it should be pretty easy to predict year-end levels as the the range for each level is a full 0.5. Throw in that about 80-85% of players stay the same level each year so one could simply predict that every player would stay the same level and they'd be at least 80% correct. So 80% is sort of the baseline.

Now, on to some numbers. And again, let me reiterate that with respect to these two sites, I'm just a guy looking at the numbers and doing my best to do objective analysis and calculations. I have also not done comprehensive checks, but just done spot checks or checked specific areas so these numbers may not represent their accuracy overall. And while I don't think there are errors in my analysis, I am human.

Using TLS's posted lists, I have done some analysis of accuracy and generally found them to be accurate in predicting the USTA year-end levels in the low-70's percent of the time. Specifically, for my area (Northwest Washington), in 2015 it was 72% and 2016 74%. Looking by level, this statistic is fairly consistent, in the same area in 2016 ranging from a low of 71% for 2.5s to 77% for 4.0s and 4.5s, and for the typically most common level of 3.5, they are 75%.

I have not done a similar check for my area for TennisRecord, but have done a bunch of spot checking, probably a couple hundred players in a variety of areas, and when I've done this have found them to be accurate in the 70's% of the time as well. I may check a player there and also check their partner and 6-8 opponents and they usually miss on 2-4 of the 10 or so I check. This is far less scientific so take it worth a grain of salt, but that has been my observation. I encourage others to do their own checks.

So none of this is conclusive or comprehensive, but it is what I've observed. Make whatever conclusions you wish.

The natural question may be what about my ratings? Overall in 2016 they were at 85% and for that most popular 3.5 level were at 89%. But I know my ratings aren't perfect and aren't going to be exactly right, I generally figure I'm within a few hundredths for the majority of players, so if one allows a few hundredth margin of error my accuracy goes up to 93% overall and 95% for the 3.5 level. 2016 was a pretty representative year but it has been higher in some years, but also lower in years where the USTA made big adjustments that I had no way of predicting.

There you have it, use and consider as you see fit.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
I'd be interested to know in your area what % of folks TLS And TR are within +/- .03 of your ratings.

Again anecdotally I think TR would be a higher %.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm all over the place on those sites.

TLS thinks I should be mopping the floor in the bathroom of a club on LI, should be qualifying for the US Open in Manhattan, and Tennis Record says I'm a nice boy who thinks too highly of himself.

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
If we are sharing personal stats, I was bumped up last year and Tennis Record missed low by at least 0.1 and TLS by at least 0.07. TLS was correct the prior year when I stayed a 4.0.
 

2nd Serve Ace

Hall of Fame
TLS can have big swings if you win or lose by wide margins whereas TR is much less of a change even with a 1-1 line.

Also, TLS hasn't updated my area in 6 weeks!

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk
 

ncgator

Rookie
TLS has historically been very inaccurate in predicting USTA year-end ratings. Not sure about TennisRecord, we'll see in early December. Hopefully TennisRecord is relatively accurate, but I think it generally rates players a little lower than USTA dynamic rating.
 
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with either site, I don't know anything about them beyond what anyone can see on their sites, and I do my own ratings so these sites are arguably my competition, so take this all for what it is worth. I share it because folks seem to be interested.

However, I have done some analysis and have made every effort to ensure it is objective and so I believe these are facts about those sites that anyone could verify if they were as tennis ratings crazy as I am and put the time in to do it.

First, one has to define "accurate". Accurate could be defined to be the most accurate representation of a player's ability, or it could be the most accurate accounting of a rating reflecting their accomplishments, or it could be the most accurate predictor of the USTA's dynamic rating and/or year-end levels. Think of college football, should the #1 team be the team most likely to win on a neutral field against other opponents? Or the one that has managed to compile the more impressive resume to date? Those are not necessarily the same team. Similarly, all tennis ratings are not created equal as they may have different goals.

However, for purposes of this discussion, I'll assume "accurate" to mean most closely matching the USTA's rating and level. Note that I do not know if either site's motivation or goal is to match this so keep that in mind.

The challenge is the USTA only discloses year-end levels so that is all we can really check. And it should be pretty easy to predict year-end levels as the the range for each level is a full 0.5. Throw in that about 80-85% of players stay the same level each year so one could simply predict that every player would stay the same level and they'd be at least 80% correct. So 80% is sort of the baseline.

Now, on to some numbers. And again, let me reiterate that with respect to these two sites, I'm just a guy looking at the numbers and doing my best to do objective analysis and calculations. I have also not done comprehensive checks, but just done spot checks or checked specific areas so these numbers may not represent their accuracy overall. And while I don't think there are errors in my analysis, I am human.

Using TLS's posted lists, I have done some analysis of accuracy and generally found them to be accurate in predicting the USTA year-end levels in the low-70's percent of the time. Specifically, for my area (Northwest Washington), in 2015 it was 72% and 2016 74%. Looking by level, this statistic is fairly consistent, in the same area in 2016 ranging from a low of 71% for 2.5s to 77% for 4.0s and 4.5s, and for the typically most common level of 3.5, they are 75%.

I have not done a similar check for my area for TennisRecord, but have done a bunch of spot checking, probably a couple hundred players in a variety of areas, and when I've done this have found them to be accurate in the 70's% of the time as well. I may check a player there and also check their partner and 6-8 opponents and they usually miss on 2-4 of the 10 or so I check. This is far less scientific so take it worth a grain of salt, but that has been my observation. I encourage others to do their own checks.

So none of this is conclusive or comprehensive, but it is what I've observed. Make whatever conclusions you wish.

The natural question may be what about my ratings? Overall in 2016 they were at 85% and for that most popular 3.5 level were at 89%. But I know my ratings aren't perfect and aren't going to be exactly right, I generally figure I'm within a few hundredths for the majority of players, so if one allows a few hundredth margin of error my accuracy goes up to 93% overall and 95% for the 3.5 level. 2016 was a pretty representative year but it has been higher in some years, but also lower in years where the USTA made big adjustments that I had no way of predicting.

There you have it, use and consider as you see fit.
Now those are the kind of statistics I'm looking for.

If, as you say, TLS is accurate less than 80% of the time, doesn't that imply that one is better off just always predicting that he won't be bumped, than to rely on TLS' prediction? Also that you, at 85%, are "only" 5 points better, which seems not an awful lot for the amount of work it takes (for which I can vouch!)? Seems counterintuitive, I suspect the forecasts are worth much more than that, so maybe there's a better way to look at "accuracy" (and I wouldn't add your margin of error to it, that would make a statistician cringe).

Maybe it's by looking at the steepness of the curve if one plotted "percent of players actually being bumped up" vs. "predicted delta from the bump-up point", which is what I'm doing to measure my model now. For example, take a current 4.0. If you forecast him at 3.70 at year-end, your track record probably suggests he has a 0% chance of being bumped up. If you predict him at 3.80, maybe a 10% chance of being bumped up. If you have him at 3.99, I'd expect it's a 50% chance if your forecasts are unbiased. 4.20 is probably 90% chance, etc. Comparing those curves may be a better way of comparing models. In a perfect model, a 3.99 and below would always remain a 4.0, and a 4.00 and above would always be bumped to 4.5, i.e. the curve would be a vertical line between two lines on the X-axis. At year-end, we can harvest Tennisrecord's and TLS's numbers just before new ratings are out, and do that plot for them, you could add yours, and may the steeper curve win!
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with either site, I don't know anything about them beyond what anyone can see on their sites, and I do my own ratings so these sites are arguably my competition, so take this all for what it is worth. I share it because folks seem to be interested.

However, I have done some analysis and have made every effort to ensure it is objective and so I believe these are facts about those sites that anyone could verify if they were as tennis ratings crazy as I am and put the time in to do it.

First, one has to define "accurate". Accurate could be defined to be the most accurate representation of a player's ability, or it could be the most accurate accounting of a rating reflecting their accomplishments, or it could be the most accurate predictor of the USTA's dynamic rating and/or year-end levels. Think of college football, should the #1 team be the team most likely to win on a neutral field against other opponents? Or the one that has managed to compile the more impressive resume to date? Those are not necessarily the same team. Similarly, all tennis ratings are not created equal as they may have different goals.

However, for purposes of this discussion, I'll assume "accurate" to mean most closely matching the USTA's rating and level. Note that I do not know if either site's motivation or goal is to match this so keep that in mind.

The challenge is the USTA only discloses year-end levels so that is all we can really check. And it should be pretty easy to predict year-end levels as the the range for each level is a full 0.5. Throw in that about 80-85% of players stay the same level each year so one could simply predict that every player would stay the same level and they'd be at least 80% correct. So 80% is sort of the baseline.

Now, on to some numbers. And again, let me reiterate that with respect to these two sites, I'm just a guy looking at the numbers and doing my best to do objective analysis and calculations. I have also not done comprehensive checks, but just done spot checks or checked specific areas so these numbers may not represent their accuracy overall. And while I don't think there are errors in my analysis, I am human.

Using TLS's posted lists, I have done some analysis of accuracy and generally found them to be accurate in predicting the USTA year-end levels in the low-70's percent of the time. Specifically, for my area (Northwest Washington), in 2015 it was 72% and 2016 74%. Looking by level, this statistic is fairly consistent, in the same area in 2016 ranging from a low of 71% for 2.5s to 77% for 4.0s and 4.5s, and for the typically most common level of 3.5, they are 75%.

I have not done a similar check for my area for TennisRecord, but have done a bunch of spot checking, probably a couple hundred players in a variety of areas, and when I've done this have found them to be accurate in the 70's% of the time as well. I may check a player there and also check their partner and 6-8 opponents and they usually miss on 2-4 of the 10 or so I check. This is far less scientific so take it worth a grain of salt, but that has been my observation. I encourage others to do their own checks.

So none of this is conclusive or comprehensive, but it is what I've observed. Make whatever conclusions you wish.

The natural question may be what about my ratings? Overall in 2016 they were at 85% and for that most popular 3.5 level were at 89%. But I know my ratings aren't perfect and aren't going to be exactly right, I generally figure I'm within a few hundredths for the majority of players, so if one allows a few hundredth margin of error my accuracy goes up to 93% overall and 95% for the 3.5 level. 2016 was a pretty representative year but it has been higher in some years, but also lower in years where the USTA made big adjustments that I had no way of predicting.

There you have it, use and consider as you see fit.
Another way to check accuracy and one that I do fairly regularly is see how well DQ's are predicted.

I was just going through some recent ones and here is how I fared compared to TR.

Female 4.0 in Southern DQ'd to 4.5: My ratings agreed with the DQ, actually having four strikes, but the last two were on consecutive days and I suspect the DQ check was not made until after the last match as the DQ date was three days later. TR never had the player rated over 4.0 let alone the strike threshold after any of the matches prior to the DQ, so they were way low.

Female 4.5 in Missouri Valley DQ'd to 5.0: My ratings had one clear strike and two other ratings 0.03 from being strikes, so didn't outright predict it but were very close. TR never had the player rated over 4.51 let alone the strike threshold, and at that mark only once, so they were way low.

Male 4.5 in Missouri Valley DQ'd to 5.0: My ratings had one clear strike and two other ratings 0.01 and 0.03 from being strikes, so very close again. TR actually was very similar with one strike and a few close, but is missing two matches that were played three weeks ago.

Male 3.0 in Eastern DQ'd to 3.5: My ratings agree with exactly three strikes, TR had them with four strikes. Given this was in a section that checks strikes during playoffs, TR was high as they predicted the DQ a match earlier.

Male 3.0 in Eastern DQ'd to 3.5: My ratings agreed with the DQ, but were a little high having an additional strike. TR never had the player closer than 0.09 to the strike threshold and at the time of the DQ had them 0.21 below the threshold, so very off.

I did not hand pick these five, these were the most recent DQ's I had and just went through them sequentially. My ratings mostly agreed with each DQ with the right number of strikes, just a few hundredths off on a few matches. TR only had two correct and was way off on the other three.

Just sharing for those interested in comparing accuracy, and writing here since I can't link to my blog from here.
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
I have found Tennis Record to be the least helpful of the rating services. I do not think they have the correct rating formula and they are slow to update the match data. I think that TLS is closer to the real thing, but still not 100% accurate either. @schmke has the ratings that are closest to the actual USTA computer, but he doesn't put them out en mass for free on a website.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
There are 2 sites calculating NTRP ratings currently and I am seeing different rating results for the same player. Which site's numbers do you think is more accurate?
They really are very close for my ratings, and both offer some different insights. Then again, I am not too worried about ratings anymore having been stuck for so long. I just play my game and let it all work itself out.
 

bobbything

Rookie
It's interesting to see the differences. TLS has me at a 4.43, but doesn't have my district or sectional results in there. Of which I went 5-0. So, I would assume it'll go up. TR has my rating at 4.427 (pretty close to TLS), but it does include my district/sectional matches.

I'm concerned that I'm on the cusp of getting bumped based on my record for 2017 (15-2). And the results from post-season play doesn't help. However, the 4.43(ish) prediction makes me think I'm okay. I don't have much interest in playing 5.0 as there are rarely more than two teams that play, I don't really know those guys that well, and I have zero interest in creating a team.

Maybe I'll create an "All Tanking Team" for those bumped up players who want to move back down where they belong.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
It's interesting to see the differences. TLS has me at a 4.43, but doesn't have my district or sectional results in there. Of which I went 5-0. So, I would assume it'll go up. TR has my rating at 4.427 (pretty close to TLS), but it does include my district/sectional matches.

I'm concerned that I'm on the cusp of getting bumped based on my record for 2017 (15-2). And the results from post-season play doesn't help. However, the 4.43(ish) prediction makes me think I'm okay.
Both are wrong :)eek:), you aren't ok. Well, to be fair, 4.43 is certainly low IMHO, but you aren't way over the threshold either. Which means year-end calculations could drop you below, but right now I'd lean towards you being bumped up.
 

bobbything

Rookie
Both are wrong :)eek:), you aren't ok. Well, to be fair, 4.43 is certainly low IMHO, but you aren't way over the threshold either. Which means year-end calculations could drop you below, but right now I'd lean towards you being bumped up.
Sucky. Thanks for the input though.
 

bobbything

Rookie
You went 5-0 at sectionals and want to stay at your current level???
3-0 with a three setter in there. (2-0 at the district playoff, two three setters). Other two matches I got lucky and got their weaker player/team. I know I'm on the verge, but I probably wouldn't win a match at 5.0 unless it's against another bumped-up guy.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
side note...
i'm considering doing more utr tourneys (if close by)... since that seems to be the pool of folks i really want to compare myself to (ie. the kids that are playing daily, weekly tourneys, college play, etc...)
utr-wise i'm a 7.36 (eg. NTRP 3.5), which actually might be accurate considering i can't go 3 sets in my current shape :p
I know folks are fond of calculating "4.5fh, 3.5bh, 3.5serve == 3.8333"
we should be considering "1.0 conditioning" of most folks :p
 

bobbything

Rookie
At every level, someone has to be the guy that won't win many matches.
And that guy almost always gets bumped back down. I play this game with the USTA each year. I get bumped every few years, appeal, get denied, go play a few 5.0 matches, lose, come back down.

If I do get bumped, I'll just sit out. As mentioned, the only reason play is for the competitive matches. While I'm a good 4.5, all my matches are competitive. I like all the guys I play. We almost always have close, well-played matches. That's what makes it fun. I have little interest in going out every week to play against guys I don't really know just to lose 1 and 2.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
And that guy almost always gets bumped back down. I play this game with the USTA each year. I get bumped every few years, appeal, get denied, go play a few 5.0 matches, lose, come back down.

If I do get bumped, I'll just sit out. As mentioned, the only reason play is for the competitive matches. While I'm a good 4.5, all my matches are competitive. I like all the guys I play. We almost always have close, well-played matches. That's what makes it fun. I have little interest in going out every week to play against guys I don't really know just to lose 1 and 2.
There are two kinds of 4.5/5.0 players imo.

The first kind is very solid and consistent and all but the other elite 4.5 players just can't do anything against them, but at 5.0 they simply don't have enough game.

The second kind has major weapons and blows all but the elite 4.5s off the court, but just can't quite hold it together well enough to be at the next level.

The second kind can have some success in 5.0 but a bump for the first kind is usually career ending.

J
 

bobbything

Rookie
There are two kinds of 4.5/5.0 players imo.

The first kind is very solid and consistent and all but the other elite 4.5 players just can't do anything against them, but at 5.0 they simply don't have enough game.
^^ This is me.

A lopsided win for me at 4.5 is probably 2 and 3. Most of my matches are more like 4 and 5, and looking this year, 30% of my matches went 3 sets. So, even though I win more often than not, almost all of them are competitive. Which is what the USTA should be striving for. As you mentioned, since I struggle to make matches better than 2 and 2 at the 5.0 level, what's the point of playing?

I have a number of friends that have fallen into this same category. They win 9/10 matches. All are competitive. They get bumped to 5.0. They never play USTA again.

If the USTA would allow for some overlap (which would require transparency in ratings), then you could have a guy who is a 4.592 playing at 4.5, but his court position would be dictated by his rating and/or doubles partner evening him out. This would, theoretically, ensure even more competitive matches. They sort of do it in 40+, where they allow two 5.0 players to play, but those players HAVE to play on court 1 (if they play together in dubs), or on 1 and 2 in singles. It's kind of a watered down version of what I would suggest. But, while I feel it's a good step in the right direction, it's only at 40+.

Anyway, I digress. Bottom line is I agree.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
^^ This is me.

A lopsided win for me at 4.5 is probably 2 and 3. Most of my matches are more like 4 and 5, and looking this year, 30% of my matches went 3 sets. So, even though I win more often than not, almost all of them are competitive. Which is what the USTA should be striving for. As you mentioned, since I struggle to make matches better than 2 and 2 at the 5.0 level, what's the point of playing?

I have a number of friends that have fallen into this same category. They win 9/10 matches. All are competitive. They get bumped to 5.0. They never play USTA again.

If the USTA would allow for some overlap (which would require transparency in ratings), then you could have a guy who is a 4.592 playing at 4.5, but his court position would be dictated by his rating and/or doubles partner evening him out. This would, theoretically, ensure even more competitive matches. They sort of do it in 40+, where they allow two 5.0 players to play, but those players HAVE to play on court 1 (if they play together in dubs), or on 1 and 2 in singles. It's kind of a watered down version of what I would suggest. But, while I feel it's a good step in the right direction, it's only at 40+.

Anyway, I digress. Bottom line is I agree.
Are you 100% sure two 5.0s can play 1&2 singles in 40+ 4.5+? Here they definitely can't. 5.0s have to be on ct. 1 so you could put both in 1 dubs or one in 1 singles and the other at 1 dubs but never can a 5.0 be on 2.

J
 

bobbything

Rookie
Are you 100% sure two 5.0s can play 1&2 singles in 40+ 4.5+? Here they definitely can't. 5.0s have to be on ct. 1 so you could put both in 1 dubs or one in 1 singles and the other at 1 dubs but never can a 5.0 be on 2.

J
Ahhh, yes. You're right. Only one 5.0 can play singles. My bad. I'm not 40 for another 6 months, so I'm not terribly well-versed in that league :)
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Ahhh, yes. You're right. Only one 5.0 can play singles. My bad. I'm not 40 for another 6 months, so I'm not terribly well-versed in that league :)
All my friends play so I'm familiar with the league even though I just drink beer and heckle from the sidelines.

J
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
Just an observation that is probably known already, but Tennisrecord seems to have lower ratings in general.
I was surprised to see that most of the teams we faced in 3.5 districts fielded entire lineups filled with guys in the 3.1-3.3 range according to that site. Many of them looked like strong 3.5s to me. It's hard to believe you could make districts let alone win with lineups made of below-average to average 3.5s.
 

Tiafoe

Rookie
I was surprised to see that most of the teams we faced in 3.5 districts fielded entire lineups filled with guys in the 3.1-3.3 range according to that site. Many of them looked like strong 3.5s to me. It's hard to believe you could make districts let alone win with lineups made of below-average to average 3.5s.
Yeah. Just for comparison, there's a team I know that went to a Sectional (and lost there). TennisRecord has 3 of their players getting bumped up a level. TLS has 5.
 
I know folks are fond of calculating "4.5fh, 3.5bh, 3.5serve == 3.8333"
we should be considering "1.0 conditioning" of most folks :p
+1

A simple clinic drill showed me that I'm not in as good a shape as I thought: instructor faces student while the student is on the BL. Instructor tosses ball out near the alley. Student hits a GS. Do 10 times. If I have to move to the alley [or beyond] every time, I get tired and my technique [as it were] starts to break down.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
TR.com has me at 3.31. TLS has me at 3.38. Interestingly enough when I got bumped to 3.5 TLS had me at 2.88. Would suck if history repeated itself.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
+1

A simple clinic drill showed me that I'm not in as good a shape as I thought: instructor faces student while the student is on the BL. Instructor tosses ball out near the alley. Student hits a GS. Do 10 times. If I have to move to the alley [or beyond] every time, I get tired and my technique [as it were] starts to break down.
lol, pet peeve of mine...
when doing clinic drills, we do king of the hill style drills, starting with a feed.
many times, the drill calls for you to start at or even in the alley (ie. one foot in)... (ie. and a ball is fed to the opposite corner)
really irritates when folks start getting tired, they start creaping toward the the center hash

ie. winning the drill, is more important then getting the full benefits of the drill (ie. running fh/bh wide)
 
lol, pet peeve of mine...
when doing clinic drills, we do king of the hill style drills, starting with a feed.
many times, the drill calls for you to start at or even in the alley (ie. one foot in)... (ie. and a ball is fed to the opposite corner)
really irritates when folks start getting tired, they start creaping toward the the center hash

ie. winning the drill, is more important then getting the full benefits of the drill (ie. running fh/bh wide)
A co-worker who played college football said his coach would say "You're only cheating yourself" when players would cheat on a drill.
 
Top