USTA Tournament Rankings

[CT-Topspin]

I'd like to get this forums thoughts on the USTA Ranking Lists, specifically as they apply to Adult NTRP divisions. I am currently playing in New England tournaments at the 3.5 level and have noticed that the top 3 guys for 3.5 are also at the top of the 4.0 lists. Is this by design or a flaw in the tournament points system? I'm figuring because they all play so many tournaments, as long as they make it into the semis of a 4.0 level 5 tourney (netting 500+ points), they can climb the ranks in that division as well. Because the draws have 8 guys on a good day, that means just winning your first match will put you in a good position to net a bunch of points. At that point, it seems that the tournament rankings reward volume over quality of play, as you could keep entering these tourneys until you get lucky enough to pass your first match (or even 2nd) and collect points.

I'm not complaining-- it's always a good experience to play these guys when I run into them, and have seen that the top two have bumped up to 4.0-- I was just wondering if the adult tournament system has been discussed. It seems like there are also too many sections that just remain empty (this could also be because New England isn't the most populated section for tournament tennis!)

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

This is a true observation. I have a good friend, nice guy, who made it his goal to be the #1 4.0 in Texas. He is a below average 4.0 but spent a year travelling all over the state, I mean all over, Corpus down south, El Paso out west, dallas, houston, austin, blah blah, just mass entering every damn tourney and he finished #1 at the end of the year. He didn't go and win every tournament, just entered every one and beat some people here and there. It's even easier in smaller states.

 

[CT-Topspin]

I'm wondering if greatly reducing the points for making it to quarters and semis would make sense, and instead instituting "bonus" points for matches won to account for the fact that there are bigger draws in some sections vs. others. This way people can't capitalize on big points for just winning a match and going straight to the semifinals. There would be an incentive to find tournaments with bigger draws and maybe perhaps for directors to build bigger draws.

 

[BallBag]

Mid Atlantic only counts your top 4 results so you can't buy rankings. I don't think we even had 4 tournaments last year so it doesn't really matter.

 

[CT-Topspin]

Mid Atlantic only counts your top 4 results so you can't buy rankings. I don't think we even had 4 tournaments last year so it doesn't really matter.

Does this mean that sections that count a higher number of top results have an advantage when it comes to national rankings? I believe New England does 6.

 

[BallBag]

It was 4 before the USTA restructured the tournament point system. I don't know what it is now so it might be 6 national wide. Otherwise some sections would gain an advantage like you said.

 

[Matthew ATX]

It was 5 here in Texas before the new system. Now it's 6.
So playing all the tournaments will only give you the advantage of having more shots at a couple favorable draws allowing you to make a couple deep runs.

 

[Matthew ATX]

As to the OP, sounds like you have some guys that are out of level. A 3.5 shouldn't be making it to the semis of a 4.0 tournament. That's not a flaw in the tournament system, it's a flaw in the rating system.

 

[CT-Topspin]

As to the OP, sounds like you have some guys that are out of level. A 3.5 shouldn't be making it to the semis of a 4.0 tournament. That's not a flaw in the tournament system, it's a flaw in the rating system.

I'd say a high 3.5 can beat a low 4.0 any given day. I've also run into guys that play up in those tourneys. If you catch one of them in a Level 5 it rockets you up towards the rankings just for making a semi (which here has been the norm lately)

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It was 5 here in Texas before the new system. Now it's 6.
So playing all the tournaments will only give you the advantage of having more shots at a couple favorable draws allowing you to make a couple deep runs.

I wonder how long it's been that way, my little anecdote was from the early 2000s

 

[DynastyFury]

As to the OP, sounds like you have some guys that are out of level. A 3.5 shouldn't be making it to the semis of a 4.0 tournament. That's not a flaw in the tournament system, it's a flaw in the rating system.

I disagree. It’s more of taking advantage of tournaments where the draws are small. There are some level 5 and level 4 tournaments where you even have only 4-6 people sign up. Also, a lot of good players at a rating simply don’t like traveling. Not USTA’s fault that people are not signing up for some of these high points tournaments.

 

[CT-Topspin]

I disagree. It’s more of taking advantage of tournaments where the draws are small. There are some level 5 and level 4 tournaments where you even have only 4-6 people sign up. Also, a lot of good players at a rating simply don’t like traveling. Not USTA’s fault that people are not signing up for some of these high points tournaments.

I think that last point is also a big part of it. You have your regulars that will accumulate their points and cluster at the top of the rankings and everyone else who plays a tournament on occasion (but won't hit their 6 tournament results cap). It would be cool to have bigger draws at these events, as I tend to enjoy them more than league play, but I can understand the criticisms (far travel, up to 3 matches a day, higher entry fees).

 

[Injured Again]

I think that last point is also a big part of it. You have your regulars that will accumulate their points and cluster at the top of the rankings and everyone else who plays a tournament on occasion (but won't hit their 6 tournament results cap). It would be cool to have bigger draws at these events, as I tend to enjoy them more than league play, but I can understand the criticisms (far travel, up to 3 matches a day, higher entry fees).

My tournament experience in 2021 has been pretty interesting. I became eligible to play the 60s so I tried to compete in every age group tournament near where I live in the Seattle area. There were a total of three tournaments in 2021.

In the first tournament, there were so few people that they had to combine the 50, 55, and 6th groups into one. I declined to play that one because it was over an hour drive from Seattle, which is by far the most populous region in the state.

In one tournament, there were only six people and I was lucky to need to only play one match to get into the finals. In the other, there were four players in the sixties, and we have to do a round robin. Three of us were 4.5 players and the third one was a 3.5. The organizers had two matches on the first day and one match on the second day. So one of the 4.5 players was going to get the play the other two in that one day, and that lucky person was me. One guy was a regular tournament competitor and was a match up nightmare for me, and I lost him in the long, physical, 90-minute match. 4 hours later, I have to play the other 4.5 and I was a matchup nightmare for him. I got up 6-0, 5-0 and totally ran out of gas. He broke my serve, held his serve, and if I didn't win my next game, I am sure I would have lost. Then, I had to drive an hour each way the next day to play a 40-minute match. I lost in the finals of both, the first two a teaching pro from Idaho, and the second to a regular tournament competitor from Oregon. I don't know why so many of the local players aren't competing, but are playing USTA. Whatever the reason, the lack of players makes it a lot less fun to play tournaments.

It is true that you can only play who shows up, but after these two tournaments, I am 90th in the nation, third in my section, and first in my district, though that is nowhere close to where I should be.

 

[Creighton]

It would be cool if they could make team tournaments. So like a mix of league and a tournament.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It would be cool if they could make team tournaments. So like a mix of league and a tournament.

UTR does that.

 

[5sets]

I'd like to get this forums thoughts on the USTA Ranking Lists, specifically as they apply to Adult NTRP divisions. I am currently playing in New England tournaments at the 3.5 level and have noticed that the top 3 guys for 3.5 are also at the top of the 4.0 lists. Is this by design or a flaw in the tournament points system? I'm figuring because they all play so many tournaments, as long as they make it into the semis of a 4.0 level 5 tourney (netting 500+ points), they can climb the ranks in that division as well. Because the draws have 8 guys on a good day, that means just winning your first match will put you in a good position to net a bunch of points. At that point, it seems that the tournament rankings reward volume over quality of play, as you could keep entering these tourneys until you get lucky enough to pass your first match (or even 2nd) and collect points.

I'm not complaining-- it's always a good experience to play these guys when I run into them, and have seen that the top two have bumped up to 4.0-- I was just wondering if the adult tournament system has been discussed. It seems like there are also too many sections that just remain empty (this could also be because New England isn't the most populated section for tournament tennis!)

I’m top 50 in National Womens 65s and I’m a 40 year old male. Sometimes weird glitches show up on there.