USTA, should go back to old ranking system

[Tennishacker]

The USTA ranking points system does not work.
There many reasons why, but here a few.

1. more tournaments you play, more points.
2. same point given if you beat seeded player or not.
3. if your family has money, great advantage.
4. gives home schooled/academy kids more of an advantage.

Why is TRN so popular among players and especially college coaches, because they give accurate rankings.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

The USTA ranking points system does not work.
There many reasons why, but here a few.

1. more tournaments you play, more points.
2. same point given if you beat seeded player or not.
3. if your family has money, great advantage.
4. gives home schooled/academy kids more of an advantage.

Why is TRN so popular among players and especially college coaches, because they give accurate rankings.

1. In the *******, only your top 6 tournaments count, so its not really more you play, more points for us.

2. I agree with this.

3. I don't know about this one, it's about as costly and playing travel hockey.

4. I have no comment here.

What was the old ranking system?

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

1. In the *******, only your top 6 tournaments count, so its not really more you play, more points for us.

2. I agree with this.

3. I don't know about this one, it's about as costly and playing travel hockey.

4. I have no comment here.

What was the old ranking system?

******* is M I D W E S T division

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

1. In the *******, only your top 6 tournaments count, so its not really more you play, more points for us.

2. I agree with this.

3. I don't know about this one, it's about as costly and playing travel hockey.

4. I have no comment here.

What was the old ranking system?

I think your #3 makes his point for him....poorer kids don't play much tennis or travel hockey.

 

[Tennishacker]

What was the old ranking system?

Similar to TRN.

 

[Tennishacker]

What was the old ranking system?

Similar to TRN.

 

[Tennishacker]

1. In the *******, only your top 6 tournaments count, so its not really more you play, more points for us.
?

Point is, the best 6 could be from 6-20 tournaments. The more tournaments you play, the better chance you have of recording better results.

 

[seminoleG]

I don't know how the old system worked. I can say this.

We had 3 G12s, and 1 G14 not make the Draw for a designated. Now the parents have several kids in Tennis and the Cost to Chase Points for each kid are just too great. All of the Girls have and could beat several girls in the Draws, but since they play 1/4 the tournaments they have 1/4 the points.

So does the USTA want the best players? or Players with the Highest Points?
I guess the assumption is they are the same. I disagree.

A better system should:
-reward WHO you beat
-account for your Record
-apply Tournament points
-force Qualification round for any player selected in Main Draw who was beat by a player not accepted. Play for the spot!

If Girl A has a 20-38 record, no wins vs Top 50, lost head to head to Girl B but is Ranked 32 overall will make a Designated over Girl B 20-6 record, 3 wins vs Top 50, beat Girl A head to head. Maybe Girl A plays in a Tougher Section? As it stands Girl B will never make a designated unless she Plays $$$$ More $$$$ Tournaments $$$$$.

My answer reduce all the Draw sizes and have a Qualification round. I would never play SS or Locals and try the Q before every sectional/designated. Then for the few tournaments a year I get my points are the biggest. But that would mean less Tournament participation $$$$$$$.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

I don't know how the old system worked. I can say this.

We had 3 G12s, and 1 G14 not make the Draw for a designated. Now the parents have several kids in Tennis and the Cost to Chase Points for each kid are just too great. All of the Girls have and could beat several girls in the Draws, but since they play 1/4 the tournaments they have 1/4 the points.

So does the USTA want the best players? or Players with the Highest Points?
I guess the assumption is they are the same. I disagree.

A better system should:
-reward WHO you beat
-account for your Record
-apply Tournament points
-force Qualification round for any player selected in Main Draw who was beat by a player not accepted. Play for the spot!

If Girl A has a 20-38 record, no wins vs Top 50, lost head to head to Girl B but is Ranked 32 overall will make a Designated over Girl B 20-6 record, 3 wins vs Top 50, beat Girl A head to head. Maybe Girl A plays in a Tougher Section? As it stands Girl B will never make a designated unless she Plays $$$$ More $$$$ Tournaments $$$$$.

My answer reduce all the Draw sizes and have a Qualification round. I would never play SS or Locals and try the Q before every sectional/designated. Then for the few tournaments a year I get my points are the biggest. But that would mean less Tournament participation $$$$$$$.

In Canada it's very different. They have a H2H system, so the better player you beat, the more points you get. But, they give you an initial rating. Your first 2 losses (added, divided by 2) plus your 1st win added together gets an initial ranking. Then, you need to win to improve. They feel that if the initial ranking is off, then it will work itself out through tournament play. So, if you're screwed right away, then they expect you to play play play until you are where you should be. Would you rather this system?? I like the USTA one better.

 

[ninaz]

Both system have their drawbacks. USTA is business orinted. You have to keep play tournaments to keep your ranking, so usta and clubs will make more money.
Canadian one will show how you play against different level of player. But due to the risk of losing to lower ranking player, higher ranking players do not want to play local tournaments. they only want to take the chance when play provincial or national. This way, clubs and tennis canada does nt make money out of tournaments. overall tennis level will not grow because lower level player have fewer chance playing "good players".

 

[jkang909]

conform...

 

[chalkflewup]

Personally, I think rankings are way overrated.

 

[justinmadison]

Personally, I think rankings are way overrated.

They are almost completely meaningless. The exception to this is when you don’t get into the tournament. In that case they are crucial.

 

[seminoleG]

How did old system work?

 

[ClarkC]

I think it is great having two very different ranking systems (TRN and USTA), because then people can come here and whine about two different systems instead of just one.

 

[Tennishacker]

I think it is great having two very different ranking systems (TRN and USTA), because then people can come here and whine about two different systems instead of just one.

Please keep these "type" of comments to yourself.

 

[cmb]

I think it is great having two very different ranking systems (TRN and USTA), because then people can come here and whine about two different systems instead of just one.

I wish they had a "LIKE" button on these posts




"LIKE"