USTA's Management of the 4.0 - 4.5 Gap. Ramifications of the "Big Bump?"

[spaceman_spiff]

Even pros don't think during the point, because there no time to think, and thinking will simply force mistakes. They think between points, and they execute pre-planned and practiced strategies and tactics during the point. If you don't know that, then you should stop giving advice. A specific condition/situation triggers a pre-planned response, it's very automatic. Also, when it comes to execution, including technique, footwork, anticipation, etc. there is no thinking involved.

I guarantee you that pros think during a point. For example, let's say a pro has planned before the point to go S&V. But after the volley, the opponent lobs, forces the server back to the baseline, and the two get in a rally. Now, the server has to decide what he's going to do in the rally, which requires thought. Does he try to get back to the net? Does he try a strategy that he used in a previous point? Does he wait for his opponent to make a decision and then just react?

It won't be a long, fully thought-out, concious decision, but there will be a decision. And decisions require thought.

Thank you coach, but none of the above applies to top 4.0 players that I know, and it doesn't apply to me either.

Think about the people you know with specific, persistent weaknesses. Ask yourself whether or not you've seen them correctly diagnose the problem and take noticeable action (long-term or short-term) to fix it. Also, ask yourself if you've ever heard them talk about the specific things they are trying in order to fix the problems.

Then, compare that to the number of times you've heard those same people talk about the score or specific points where a match was won and lost.

Conditioning isn't limited to endurance, it involves speed and coordination, and it includes mental conditioning. Conditioning will help no matter how long the match.

You said physical conditioning, not mental. Also, I didn't only mention endurance. I said, endurance, speed, and strength.

And like I said, if you're losing in 30 minutes, then you're not returning well enough (preparation) or serving smart enough (placement, variation, disguise). Most likely, you're not rallying smart enough either (shot selection), though it is possible that your opponent is just whacking easy winners off your poorly placed serves and weak returns.

If you're losing close matches that last over an hour, then yes improving your conditioning will help. But, you have to have the skills to make the match fairly close to begin with.

I know from experience because I won a lot of matches in highschool due to fitness (my soccer coaches loved making us run). But, I also lost a lot of matches when I didn't have the skills to keep it close and turn it into a physical battle.

It's a lot easier to maintain skills than to learn them, same goes for maintaining physical conditioning. Were you a 4.5 or better in 1995? Are you a 4.5 or better now? Are you a singles or doubles player?

I was probably a 4.0 in highschool. I only had cheap group lessons, mostly in the summer, because tennis was just something I did when I wasn't playing soccer.

When I got back into tennis eight years later, it didn't take me long to get back to the same level playing USTA leagues in DC, but I also started to plateau pretty quickly. Since moving here and facing opponents who were much, much better than me, I've made a number of improvements just from constantly analysing my game and my opponents (I learn a lot in terms of strategy and shot selection from watching others).

My most significant improvements started when I was 30 (I'm 35 now). All my league matches are doubles, where I've won more and more matches each seaon. But I do play singles sets whenever I hit with friends, and I now win a majority of sets against guys who used to beat me all the time.

And like I said, I haven't had any lessons or extra training.

Thank you for stating the obvious again. Sure, anything can be done, but the chances are slim to none for a adult 4.0 player, who's been at that level for several years, to be able to reach top 4.5 level. I haven't seen it yet, with exception of a few cases where people took lots of lessons and played 4+ times a week.

Well, you mocked me for making it sound like it was easy. Now you're mocking me for saying it's not easy.

So, I'll say that you are absolutely right. It's impossible for anyone to step back, forget about the score when they're playing, analyze what's going on in their game, and use trial and error to fix things. And, it's impossible for people to think more and learn to make better decisions. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can do after the age of 22 to improve their game without spending thousands of dollars and dozens of hours with a teaching pro and personal trainer.

I think I'm going to just tank all my remaining matches and ask the team captains to bump me back down to the B team so that I can play in a lower division against weaker opponents who won't push me to improve my game further.

 

[J_R_B]

I guarantee you that pros think during a point. For example, let's say a pro has planned before the point to go S&V. But after the volley, the opponent lobs, forces the server back to the baseline, and the two get in a rally. Now, the server has to decide what he's going to do in the rally, which requires thought. Does he try to get back to the net? Does he try a strategy that he used in a previous point? Does he wait for his opponent to make a decision and then just react?

It won't be a long, fully thought-out, concious decision, but there will be a decision. And decisions require thought.

The best athletes do not consciously think, they just react in ways they have spent hours training to do. This is true of all sports. Thinking takes too long. I wrestled in high school. The best wrestler on our team was a kid who won every dual match, most by pins, and eventually won districts and made the state tournament and won a couple matches there to get to the quarters before losing. If you asked him what moves he used in a match right after he walked off the mat, he couldn't tell you, he really had no idea what he just did. Why not? Because he never thought about a move ever. He just went out there and let his mind and body react to the situation and do what it was trained to do.

The same is true of tennis. If you're out there thinking "What shot should I use? Should I change direction and go down the line or just keep rallying cross-court?", you'll lose. You've trained for this situation, you just let your body react to the situation and find the ball to attack without thiking about it.

 

[roman40]

The best athletes do not consciously think, they just react in ways they have spent hours training to do. This is true of all sports. Thinking takes too long. I wrestled in high school. The best wrestler on our team was a kid who won every dual match, most by pins, and eventually won districts and made the state tournament and won a couple matches there to get to the quarters before losing. If you asked him what moves he used in a match right after he walked off the mat, he couldn't tell you, he really had no idea what he just did. Why not? Because he never thought about a move ever. He just went out there and let his mind and body react to the situation and do what it was trained to do.

The same is true of tennis. If you're out there thinking "What shot should I use? Should I change direction and go down the line or just keep rallying cross-court?", you'll lose. You've trained for this situation, you just let your body react to the situation and find the ball to attack without thiking about it.

Thank you. Spaceman obviously thinks he knows more than he does. He's a 4.0 and he's trying to convince himself he can become a top 4.5 if he thinks hard enough.

 

[roman40]

I guarantee you that pros think during a point...

You're just plain wrong, you should talk to a pro, because someone has been feeding you wrong information.

Think about the people you know with specific, persistent weaknesses...

Everyone has weakness, even at 4.5 level and above, it just takes more work to improve as you move to higher levels, and talent/conditioning/practice become more critical.

I was probably a 4.0 in highschool. I only had cheap group lessons, mostly in the summer, because tennis was just something I did when I wasn't playing soccer.

When I got back into tennis eight years later, it didn't take me long to get back to the same level playing USTA leagues in DC, but I also started to plateau pretty quickly. Since moving here and facing opponents who were much, much better than me, I've made a number of improvements just from constantly analysing my game and my opponents (I learn a lot in terms of strategy and shot selection from watching others).

\My most significant improvements started when I was 30 (I'm 35 now). All my league matches are doubles, where I've won more and more matches each seaon. But I do play singles sets whenever I hit with friends, and I now win a majority of sets against guys who used to beat me all the time. And like I said, I haven't had any lessons or extra training.

Pretty much what I expected. You're not even a top 4.0 player, not even in doubles, and you're trying to sound like you know how to get to top 4.5 level in singles. Have you even played a top 4.5 players in singles? You should do that, then come back and tell us what you learned.

I like your optimism, but your understanding is lacking. I recommend some lessons with a good coach.

 

[asimple]

The best athletes do not consciously think, they just react in ways they have spent hours training to do. This is true of all sports. Thinking takes too long. I wrestled in high school. The best wrestler on our team was a kid who won every dual match, most by pins, and eventually won districts and made the state tournament and won a couple matches there to get to the quarters before losing. If you asked him what moves he used in a match right after he walked off the mat, he couldn't tell you, he really had no idea what he just did. Why not? Because he never thought about a move ever. He just went out there and let his mind and body react to the situation and do what it was trained to do.

The same is true of tennis. If you're out there thinking "What shot should I use? Should I change direction and go down the line or just keep rallying cross-court?", you'll lose. You've trained for this situation, you just let your body react to the situation and find the ball to attack without thiking about it.

This is absolutely not true in tennis. You definitely should not be thinking about the mechanics of your strokes, your footwork or even your court placement. You should be analyzing your current situation on the court and making the appropriate shot selection though. There is plenty of time during the point to make the appropriate shot selection. There are a lot of variables involved in this and requires conscious thought.

Selecting the correct shot is almost always a function of your opponents court position. I don't intuitively hit a slice drop shot on my forehand, but if my opponent is 10 feet off the baseline this might be the appropriate shot and requires a conscious effort.

 

[asimple]

Thank you. Spaceman obviously thinks he knows more than he does. He's a 4.0 and he's trying to convince himself he can become a top 4.5 if he thinks hard enough.

To start out, I am a 4.0 who is playing singles on a couple of 4.5 teams and playing extremely competitive with the exception of a serious beating last night.

I do agree that almost none of the adult 4.0 players have the capability of being strong 4.5s though. That doesn't mean they should just give up and not make an effort at improving. The advice that Spaceman gave was actually pretty good. Many/Most 4.0s make incredibly stupid shot selection which gets worse under pressure and as the point progresses. With a few simple shot selection changes there can be great improvement.

My main practice partner got bumped up to 4.5 a couple of years ago and made enough improvement to get to being close to a strong 4.5. By default he is a pusher, but picked up a volley and is now more of an all court player. It is unlikely he will ever be at the top but he is competitive with most people.

 

[roman40]

Selecting the correct shot is almost always a function of your opponents court position. I don't intuitively hit a slice drop shot on my forehand, but if my opponent is 10 feet off the baseline this might be the appropriate shot and requires a conscious effort.

Not true, it's conscious, but it's not an effort, it's automatic. You have less than a second to make a decision, because you have to wait for the opponent to make contact and to determine where the opponent will be and where the ball will land on your side. Unless you have the right shot drilled into your brain, you likely won't make the right shot. You can make a guess beforehand, as to what's most likely to happen, but it will rarely be one guess, and rarely exactly right.

To start out, I am a 4.0 who is playing singles on a couple of 4.5 teams and playing extremely competitive with the exception of a serious beating last night.

I do agree that almost none of the adult 4.0 players have the capability of being strong 4.5s though. That doesn't mean they should just give up and not make an effort at improving. The advice that Spaceman gave was actually pretty good. Many/Most 4.0s make incredibly stupid shot selection which gets worse under pressure and as the point progresses. With a few simple shot selection changes there can be great improvement.

My main practice partner got bumped up to 4.5 a couple of years ago and made enough improvement to get to being close to a strong 4.5. By default he is a pusher, but picked up a volley and is now more of an all court player. It is unlikely he will ever be at the top but he is competitive with most people.

Unless level of tennis in your area is very low in general, if you're 4.0 who's playing singles on 4.5 team, than you aren't a 4.0, you either self-rated yourself or got lucky and weren't bumped on disqualified the previous season. If you are winning any matches at 4.5 singles, you'll be bumped this or next season.

As for your practice partner, as you said it took years, and even then, he's not at the top. So, how much time does he spend on tennis, does he have a family, a job and other similar commitments?

 

[asimple]

Not true, it's conscious, but it's not an effort, it's automatic. You have less than a second to make a decision, because you have to wait for the opponent to make contact and to determine where the opponent will be and where the ball will land on your side. Unless you have the right shot drilled into your brain, you likely won't make the right shot. You can make a guess beforehand, as to what's most likely to happen, but it will rarely be one guess, and rarely exactly right.

I really think your mixing up "turning your brain off" with "focus". You shouldn't be analyzing during your shots, but you should be assessing the situation and consciously be making a shot selection. It might not be an effort but it shouldn't be an automatic decision. In terms of guessing, you actually should have a good idea how your opponent is going to respond to your shot which is refined based on his footwork, setup, and stroke to the point where you know where/how the ball is going before he actually hits it.

As for your practice partner, as you said it took years, and even then, he's not at the top. So, how much time does he spend on tennis, does he have a family, a job and other similar commitments?

He is 40+ and has a family and a job but plays a couple times a week. It took him about a year to improve his volleys and become competitive as a mid level 4.5, but frankly it is unlikely he will ever be a top 4.5. This is how life goes though as not everyone can be the best. I think the solution is to form a "special 4.5 league" where everyone is a winner.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

Pretty much what I expected. You're not even a top 4.0 player, not even in doubles, and you're trying to sound like you know how to get to top 4.5 level in singles. Have you even played a top 4.5 players in singles? You should do that, then come back and tell us what you learned.

I like your optimism, but your understanding is lacking. I recommend some lessons with a good coach.

When I lived in DC, I was a 4.0. Whenever I go back to visit now, I beat my brother (computer-rated 4.0 in MD) and all his 4.0 buddies quite easily, especially in doubles.

When I moved to the UK, I played my way up from my club's C team to the A team, and now I play every match that I'm available for. In league matches, the top players I face are teaching pros and current/former top juniors.

My current doubles partner and most frequent hitting buddy is about 6'4" and can regularly serve 120+ mph. His fastest serve ever measured with a radar gun was 132 mph. I beat him every time we play singles (his serves rarely make me stretch and his backhand is erratic).

One of my other teammates and hitting partners is a part-time teaching pro who is a real baseline grinder. When I first started hitting with him about 3 years ago, he beat me every set. Now, I win a majority of the sets and I'm currently on a 3- or 4-set winning streak against him.

The last time I played against the head pro here in our club tournament, I lost 6-3, 6-3 (a dramatic improvement over the bagel and breadstick he dished out to me a few years ago). This guy is one of the top 10 over-35 players in the UK.

So yes, I have played 4.5+ players in singles and doubles.

 

[roman40]

When I lived in DC, I was a 4.0. Whenever I go back to visit now, I beat my brother (computer-rated 4.0 in MD) and all his 4.0 buddies quite easily, especially in doubles.

When I moved to the UK, I played my way up from my club's C team to the A team, and now I play every match that I'm available for. In league matches, the top players I face are teaching pros and current/former top juniors.

My current doubles partner and most frequent hitting buddy is about 6'4" and can regularly serve 120+ mph. His fastest serve ever measured with a radar gun was 132 mph. I beat him every time we play singles (his serves rarely make me stretch and his backhand is erratic).

One of my other teammates and hitting partners is a part-time teaching pro who is a real baseline grinder. When I first started hitting with him about 3 years ago, he beat me every set. Now, I win a majority of the sets and I'm currently on a 3- or 4-set winning streak against him.

The last time I played against the head pro here in our club tournament, I lost 6-3, 6-3 (a dramatic improvement over the bagel and breadstick he dished out to me a few years ago). This guy is one of the top 10 over-35 players in the UK.

So yes, I have played 4.5+ players in singles and doubles.

Top 10 over-35 player in UK, is in top 200 over-35 in the world, which means 5.0+ USTA ranking. If the score was 6-3, 6-3, he was either injured, not playing seriously, or something is missing from your story. From 4.0 to beating 5.0 players, sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[roman40]

I really think your mixing up "turning your brain off" with "focus". You shouldn't be analyzing during your shots, but you should be assessing the situation and consciously be making a shot selection. It might not be an effort but it shouldn't be an automatic decision. In terms of guessing, you actually should have a good idea how your opponent is going to respond to your shot which is refined based on his footwork, setup, and stroke to the point where you know where/how the ball is going before he actually hits it.

You can't "turn your brain off", so I don't know what you mean. You can't assess anything consciously in a fraction of a second, your response is based on experience and practice. Given a large variety of situations, practice (including matches) is what makes a difference. It's not rocket science, the more time you spend on tennis the better you'll get (within the limits of your talent and physical abilities). From what I've gathered from coaches and other players, getting to top 4.5 level and higher requires a lot of regular practice and conditioning. Some talented players can get by with maybe 2-3 match/practices per week, with a lesson or two, but for most it's 4+, aside from physical conditioning. Of course, you can probably maintain your level playing a couple times a week, sometimes less, assuming you stay in good physical shape. In general, not impossible, but it's a big commitment.

 

[storypeddler]

I guarantee you that it will. You just have to give it time and you have to use your brain.

When I lived in DC, I was a 4.0 starting to plateau because even the guys who were beating me weren't forcing me to think about the things in my game that really needed to change (serve strategy, point construction, and transition volleys). When I moved to the UK, all that changed.

The setup here is based on team results rather than individual players, so you can get a mix of players on the same team (even doubles pairs with dramatically different players). And, since my county doesn't have enough players to make a lot of divisions, the top division is a lot like the 4.5 leagues being described here (some 5.0+ type guys, some 4.5's, a few 4.0's, and maybe an occasional 3.5).

When my team got promoted, I started facing teaching pros, top juniors, and other solid players on a fairly regular basis. That's when my game really started to step up. Apart from the volleys, the change was mostly mental. I had to focus much more on what I was doing (shot selection/strategy) rather than how I was doing it (technique).

If you're losing 0 and 1 in those 4.5 leagues, then I guarantee you that there are mental changes that you need to make. First, you need to serve smarter, focusing more on placement, disguise, and variety. Once you learn to do that, then you'll hold serve better and those matches will start being 2 and 3. Second, you need to learn how to return better (mostly down to preparation), which might lead you to break serve once or maybe even twice (so now you're up to 3 and 3).

Next, you need to learn how to come in and hit mid-court volleys so you can punish those defensive shots that those guys who chase down everything hit when they're stretched, rather than letting them bounce and continuing the rally (this will be your main technique-related issue). This might help you finish off a game here or there, so you're up to 3 and 4 or maybe 4 and 4 if you're returning well. Finally, you'll need to work on your point construction so that you can learn when and how to make your opponent stretch and hit those defensive shots that you've learned to punish. That's when you'll start winning sets.

Almost all of that is mental. And once you can do all of that, then you won't remember why you used to complain about losing 0 and 1 to former DII players.

I know there will be a few who disagree with this statement, but I am absolutely convinced that there are a lot of USTA league players who will NEVER get much better than they already are, and it's not because they don't work at improving. People have limits on talent and just because someone works hard to improve his serve, that doesn't necessarily mean he will ever have a really good serve. There are natural athletes. There are natural non-athletes. And there are a whole lot of people in the middle between those two extremes. Think bell curve.

Thing is, you can get better and improve your game without ever seeing any dramatic change in your record. If you can live with slight incremental improvements, then I guess that's fine. But there are people who take piano lessons for years and practice all the time and never get any good at piano. I personally have no real artistic ability. Could I get better if I took lessons from a great artist? Maybe; maybe not. But even if I did improve, I can tell you that the improvement would be so subtle that it wouldn't make any real difference. I would still stink as an artist. In any endeavor where there is a minimum standard, moving from horrible to very bad is not an improvement that makes any real difference in the grand scheme of things.

Tennis players are limited by a lot of things that have little or nothing to do with pure stroke production. Yes, poor footwork and terrible conditioning and awful form will probably mean a pretty bad player. But age and height and weight and speed and quickness (or lack of them) and coordination and balance and eyesight and a host of other things also contribute to overall performance. I'm not saying people can't get better through hard work and discipline---but most players I have known (the vast majority of players I have known, in fact) would not be willing to do what it would take to actually make significant improvement in their game.

One simple example: I know several players who have good stroke production, a good tennis mind, a real feel for the details of the game, but they are seriously overweight, far too heavy to try to play at a higher, more competitive level. At age 50, do you really think any of them can or will drop 50-60 pounds to push themselves that far? And if they do, injuries will likely start to be a bigger issue than they are now because 50-year old bodies don't absorb relentless training the way 20 year old bodies do. They would need to completely change their diet, change their workout regimen (or, in most cases, begin one), get more sleep, hydrate better, stretch a lot more, get more flexible, increase stamina, get stronger, get leaner, go to the gym and mean it---and find time to do all these things when their schedule is already full. Do YOU think that is going to happen?

Yes, improving your footwork will improve your game. More consistent stroke production will improve your game. Better focus during points will improve your game. But how much? And at what cost? And the biggest question of all---are you willing to go to those lengths and through that much pain and sweat and tears to get that moderate degree of improvement? And ultimately, would it make a sufficient difference in your matches? If you think so and you have the heart of a lion, go for it. My experience tells me that unless you truly DO have the heart of a lion and want it very, very badly---even more than virtually everyone else who wants to improve, it won't happen. Don't mean to rain on anybody's parade---just relating what half a lifetime of sports participation and people study has taught me.

 

[asimple]

You can't "turn your brain off", so I don't know what you mean. You can't assess anything consciously in a fraction of a second, your response is based on experience and practice. Given a large variety of situations, practice (including matches) is what makes a difference. It's not rocket science, the more time you spend on tennis the better you'll get (within the limits of your talent and physical abilities). From what I've gathered from coaches and other players, getting to top 4.5 level and higher requires a lot of regular practice and conditioning. Some talented players can get by with maybe 2-3 match/practices per week, with a lesson or two, but for most it's 4+, aside from physical conditioning. Of course, you can probably maintain your level playing a couple times a week, sometimes less, assuming you stay in good physical shape. In general, not impossible, but it's a big commitment.

There are very few shots in which there is a fraction of a second to react and almost all of them are first serves. Even in this case I can normally consciously determine the placement. For most shots there is a lot of time to decide where you are going to put the ball and whether to come in or not. I played a match today where there were plenty of high topspin shots where I had seconds to set up my shots. This was an open tournament so it was relatively high level although sadly my play wasn't.

I actually more than agree with your point that there is almost no chance you will ever become a strong 4.5. I think the answer is pretty much that life isn't fair for low 4.5 singles only players in leagues. In my area it actually isn't fair for relatively strong ones either as there seem to be a few guys who dominate the playing time. On the other hand it is extremely easy to find matches at this level as well as tournaments so there are a lot of other options.

 

[roman40]

There are very few shots in which there is a fraction of a second to react and almost all of them are first serves. Even in this case I can normally consciously determine the placement. For most shots there is a lot of time to decide where you are going to put the ball and whether to come in or not. I played a match today where there were plenty of high topspin shots where I had seconds to set up my shots. This was an open tournament so it was relatively high level although sadly my play wasn't.

I actually more than agree with your point that there is almost no chance you will ever become a strong 4.5. I think the answer is pretty much that life isn't fair for low 4.5 singles only players in leagues. In my area it actually isn't fair for relatively strong ones either as there seem to be a few guys who dominate the playing time. On the other hand it is extremely easy to find matches at this level as well as tournaments so there are a lot of other options.

Again, even if you have a second or two, you aren't really making a "decision" in the way you describe it, and if you are, you are likely to make an error. It's more about recall, than thinking.

Here's a good article to read:
http://www.thesportinmind.com/weekly-articles/january/decision-making-in-sport/

An excerpt that summarizes my point:
"...improving an athlete’s decision making requires them to invest in the sport through specific training and competition"

Ability to make the right decision in a given situation, comes with experiencing that situation repeatedly, and making the right decision repeatedly. The point of practice is to internalize the theory, so it becomes second nature. This is why learning without practicing is practically useless, and why so much time is required to improve, especially when you've hit the limit of your natural abilities. It's also why having a coach is so critical, since often, we don't recognize our wrong decisions, and we need someone else to point them out and to force change.

 

[Z-Man]

I know there will be a few who disagree with this statement, but I am absolutely convinced that there are a lot of USTA league players who will NEVER get much better than they already are, and it's not because they don't work at improving. People have limits on talent and just because someone works hard to improve his serve, that doesn't necessarily mean he will ever have a really good serve. There are natural athletes. There are natural non-athletes. And there are a whole lot of people in the middle between those two extremes. Think bell curve.

Thing is, you can get better and improve your game without ever seeing any dramatic change in your record. If you can live with slight incremental improvements, then I guess that's fine. But there are people who take piano lessons for years and practice all the time and never get any good at piano. I personally have no real artistic ability. Could I get better if I took lessons from a great artist? Maybe; maybe not. But even if I did improve, I can tell you that the improvement would be so subtle that it wouldn't make any real difference. I would still stink as an artist. In any endeavor where there is a minimum standard, moving from horrible to very bad is not an improvement that makes any real difference in the grand scheme of things.

Tennis players are limited by a lot of things that have little or nothing to do with pure stroke production. Yes, poor footwork and terrible conditioning and awful form will probably mean a pretty bad player. But age and height and weight and speed and quickness (or lack of them) and coordination and balance and eyesight and a host of other things also contribute to overall performance. I'm not saying people can't get better through hard work and discipline---but most players I have known (the vast majority of players I have known, in fact) would not be willing to do what it would take to actually make significant improvement in their game.

One simple example: I know several players who have good stroke production, a good tennis mind, a real feel for the details of the game, but they are seriously overweight, far too heavy to try to play at a higher, more competitive level. At age 50, do you really think any of them can or will drop 50-60 pounds to push themselves that far? And if they do, injuries will likely start to be a bigger issue than they are now because 50-year old bodies don't absorb relentless training the way 20 year old bodies do. They would need to completely change their diet, change their workout regimen (or, in most cases, begin one), get more sleep, hydrate better, stretch a lot more, get more flexible, increase stamina, get stronger, get leaner, go to the gym and mean it---and find time to do all these things when their schedule is already full. Do YOU think that is going to happen?

Yes, improving your footwork will improve your game. More consistent stroke production will improve your game. Better focus during points will improve your game. But how much? And at what cost? And the biggest question of all---are you willing to go to those lengths and through that much pain and sweat and tears to get that moderate degree of improvement? And ultimately, would it make a sufficient difference in your matches? If you think so and you have the heart of a lion, go for it. My experience tells me that unless you truly DO have the heart of a lion and want it very, very badly---even more than virtually everyone else who wants to improve, it won't happen. Don't mean to rain on anybody's parade---just relating what half a lifetime of sports participation and people study has taught me.

These are great points. We've drifted off topic a bit, but I think the issue you're addressing is the crux of why the bump to 4.5 will be tough for a lot of people who 3 years ago considered themselves career 4.0s.

I've been through this all in my own tennis career. I started out as a 3.5 singles player. I was one of the best at the time and went undefeated at state. Then, when I was bumped to 4.0, I had to make adjustments. I had to start putting the ball away and hitting deep enough to keep my opponent from attacking. I was a 4.0 for several years and gradually improved all around--especially in my ability to attack weak shots. Eventually, I was bumped to 4.5 two different times. Finally, I had a really good year at state (and sectionals) and was bumped to 4.5 for good.

When I moved from 3.5 to 4.0 and from 4.0 to 4.5 the first time, I didn't have kids, so I played tennis at least twice a week. Now I'm almost 40, and I'm lucky if I can play once per week. I keep slowly improving in doubles, but I'm just treading water in singles. When I progressed through the 3.5 and 4.0 levels, it was clear I need to develop my strategy and shot-making. Now that I'm a 4.5, I'm more limited by natural ability. I will probably never have the quick hands of a top 4.5. I'm hitting a ceiling. I'm a mid-level 4.5 and would probably be a low-level 4.5 if the USTA hadn't bumped up so many weaker players. But even as a mid-level 4.5, I'm no match for the 5.0 players who play 4.5 because there's no where else to go. 4.5 low would be nice if there were enough players to have a league around here. I enjoy the competition at 4.5. It would just be a lot more fun if a true 4.5 team could compete at state. The way everyone loads up, you really need a bunch of 5.0 players and up. 4.5 has become the catch-all. It might as well be "open".

 

[OrangePower]

^^^^

See, here's the rub. You're saying that it's hard to be competitive at state vs teams that have the top 4.5s. Ok, fair enough. But if the system and levels were changed such that you and your team were now magically the top dogs, then there would be a new set of players at the bottom and middle with the exact same complaints about you that you now have against the stronger players.

It just comes down to the numbers. For example, there are 10 teams in my flight (local area). Only one will make it to districts (the NorCal equivalent of state). So only 10% of players will even make it that far, and then 1 in 4 of those teams will make it to sectionals.

The level boundaries are arbitrary. Wherever you draw them, there will be some at top of level, and some at bottom. And those at bottom will complain about how it's not fair that they can't get to state.

 

[schmke]

^^^^

See, here's the rub. You're saying that it's hard to be competitive at state vs teams that have the top 4.5s. Ok, fair enough. But if the system and levels were changed such that you and your team were now magically the top dogs, then there would be a new set of players at the bottom and middle with the exact same complaints about you that you now have against the stronger players.

It just comes down to the numbers. For example, there are 10 teams in my flight (local area). Only one will make it to districts (the NorCal equivalent of state). So only 10% of players will even make it that far, and then 1 in 4 of those teams will make it to sectionals.

The level boundaries are arbitrary. Wherever you draw them, there will be some at top of level, and some at bottom. And those at bottom will complain about how it's not fair that they can't get to state.

What he said. If someone is winning then someone is losing. And the way the system is set up, it is somewhat expected that those winning at level X that get bumped up to level Y are probably going to go from the winning camp to the losing camp unless they continue to improve.

 

[OrangePower]

One difference though as you get to the higher levels is that the ability gap between say the top 25% and the bottom 25% gets bigger. Again, a function of the bell curve and the minimum number of people that need to be grouped together to have a viable league.

So if you are for example a 3.5 in the bottom 25%, you will complain about how it's unfair you're not making it to state... but still you might have some hope of improving to the point where you can get yourself into the top 25%.

Whereas if you are a 4.5 in the bottom 25%, you will complain about how it's unfair you're not making it to state... and will have little hope of ever being able to improve into the top 25%.

 

[Z-Man]

^^^^

See, here's the rub. You're saying that it's hard to be competitive at state vs teams that have the top 4.5s. Ok, fair enough. But if the system and levels were changed such that you and your team were now magically the top dogs, then there would be a new set of players at the bottom and middle with the exact same complaints about you that you now have against the stronger players.

It just comes down to the numbers. For example, there are 10 teams in my flight (local area). Only one will make it to districts (the NorCal equivalent of state). So only 10% of players will even make it that far, and then 1 in 4 of those teams will make it to sectionals.

The level boundaries are arbitrary. Wherever you draw them, there will be some at top of level, and some at bottom. And those at bottom will complain about how it's not fair that they can't get to state.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I can compete with the top 4.5s just fine. It's the 5.0s I can't hang with. I played 4.0 for years, and the top and the bottom of 4.0 were much closer than the top and bottom of what 4.5 has become. Even when I was the top dog in 4.0, the matches were competitive with every team at state. There were no singles players at state that I could double bagel. Half the 4.5 singles players at state could beat me 0-0 with no hope of more than a game or two.

I saw a very good 4.5 team get completely destroyed. They lost their first two matches and finished 3rd in their group. I thought they were loaded and had a chance to win. Boy was I wrong. Those guys are what should be the top of 4.5. They beat my team easily, but at least the matches were competitive and therefore enjoyable. But those guys aren't the top of 4.5 at all. It's almost as if 4.5 now contains two full levels of ability. Neither 3.5 nor 4.0 are like that. A top 4.0 might beat a bottom 4.0 2-2. It's not like the winner of that match will get beate 2-2 by another, even better 4.0.

Prior to the big bump, the levels were more evenly spaced. Now 4.5 encompasses a broader range of ability than it did before. So the bottom 4.5s are looking up a much steeper mountain than the bottom 4.0s. And that's the point at which the limitations become more time, talent, and physically related.

Edit: just re-read your second post, and I think we see all of the same things going on here.

 

[storypeddler]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I can compete with the top 4.5s just fine. It's the 5.0s I can't hang with. I played 4.0 for years, and the top and the bottom of 4.0 were much closer than the top and bottom of what 4.5 has become. Even when I was the top dog in 4.0, the matches were competitive with every team at state. There were no singles players at state that I could double bagel. Half the 4.5 singles players at state could beat me 0-0 with no hope of more than a game or two.

I saw a very good 4.5 team get completely destroyed. They lost their first two matches and finished 3rd in their group. I thought they were loaded and had a chance to win. Boy was I wrong. Those guys are what should be the top of 4.5. They beat my team easily, but at least the matches were competitive and therefore enjoyable. But those guys aren't the top of 4.5 at all. It's almost as if 4.5 now contains two full levels of ability. Neither 3.5 nor 4.0 are like that. A top 4.0 might beat a bottom 4.0 2-2. It's not like the winner of that match will get beate 2-2 by another, even better 4.0.

Prior to the big bump, the levels were more evenly spaced. Now 4.5 encompasses a broader range of ability than it did before. So the bottom 4.5s are looking up a much steeper mountain than the bottom 4.0s. And that's the point at which the limitations become more time, talent, and physically related.

Edit: just re-read your second post, and I think we see all of the same things going on here.

As a player who has competed for years at both 4.0 and 4.5 levels, I agree with the idea you are putting out there, but I think you are wrong is assuming the problem is isolated to the 4.5 level. Maybe it is now, after the big bump-up, but it wasn't before. What you are describing now at the 4.5 level is exactly what it was like at the 4.0 level 3-4 years ago. The scene you describe at the district level was identical to what my teams saw at state at the 4.0 level then. For years, players who should have been playing 4.5 had been getting pushed down into the 4.0 range---some through appeals, some through sitting out and re-rating, some through pure sandbagging. Those 4.0 players in the lower third of the level were getting annihilated by those at the top of the range.

I mean, at district, where you have league champions against league champions, the teams from bigger metro areas where talent pools are deeper and coaches stack teams would play teams from smaller leagues (all of them rated 4.0, mind you), and blow through them like they were playing junior high kids. It was so bad that lots of teams from smaller leagues no longer went to the district tournament even if they won their league because they knew it would be one humiliation after another.

From what I know, the same thing was happening at the 3.5 level. Huge numbers of players had been compressed down into those divisions even when they should have been playing a level higher. It developed over time and went on for a lot of years. Then the big bump-up came and for two years there were lots of players near the tops of their respective levels who were moved up. Here in NC it was something like a 30% bump-up for two consecutive years. But starting the year after the bump-ups, at the district tournament, of 15 teams spread across three groups, 11 were in contention for the semi-finals on Sunday right up through the end of pool play. Eight teams who didn't win their respective pools had the same record and the wild-card semi-finalist was determined by tie-break format. The same thing happened last year and at the 3.5 level as well.

Two years ago, my team from a city of about 50,000 won three of four pool matches and beat teams from far bigger leagues including the Charlotte metro winner who came from a 27-team league. We had NEVER done that before. Last year, we won our pool for the first time ever and advanced to Sunday's semifinals. Along the way we beat teams from Greensboro (16 team league) and Raleigh (29 team league). Our league had 5 teams the last two years. In our pool, more than half of all the matches went to third-set tie-breaks. That was basically the way it went in all divisions at all levels. Average 4.0 teams lost to good 4.0 teams 6-3, 6-3, not 6-0, 6-0. And every team was competitive in their matches even if they lost them all. Parity within the level, as it always should have been.

Here's the thing...when the USTA fixed the problem at the 3.5 and 4.0 levels by bumping lots of players up and spreading the talent out like it should be, they created a similar problem for the 4.5 level by basically capping it there. There weren't enough 5.0 players to form many leagues, so they started letting them play in 4.5 leagues. The original plan to spread out the talent was the correct decision; they just stopped too soon. Had they continued and bumped serious numbers of top-level 4.5 players up as well, the 4.5 divisions would be much more competitive top to bottom now as well, and there WOULD be enough 5.0 players to create additional leagues.

I hope they see this at some point and tweak their original efforts to make this adjustment. If they do, the whole system will have been vastly improved.

 

[Z-Man]

^^^^
Very interesting, thanks for the info. Sounds like the big bump has made things more competitive at 3.5 and 4.0. Since those two levels include more than half of all players, maybe it was a good thing--or at least the most good for the most people. I agree they should have kept going, which might have made 5.0 viable.

I also think they should let 5.0 teams go to state without qualifying first in a local league. This year there were only 2 5.0 teams at the state tournament (and I live in a strong tennis state). How cool would it be to see a lot of 5.0 tennis at state? That also might get some of them out of 4.5. I feel for those guys. They've put so much into tennis, and it's only made it harder for them to enjoy. It's difficult enough to find good matches as a 4.5. I had to drive 40 miles to play home matches this year.

Thanks everyone for indulging my desire to discuss the minutae of USTA league tennis. I hope everyone has a great Memorial Day!

 

[storypeddler]

^^^^
Very interesting, thanks for the info. Sounds like the big bump has made things more competitive at 3.5 and 4.0. Since those two levels include more than half of all players, maybe it was a good thing--or at least the most good for the most people. I agree they should have kept going, which might have made 5.0 viable.

I also think they should let 5.0 teams go to state without qualifying first in a local league. This year there were only 2 5.0 teams at the state tournament (and I live in a strong tennis state). How cool would it be to see a lot of 5.0 tennis at state? That also might get some of them out of 4.5. I feel for those guys. They've put so much into tennis, and it's only made it harder for them to enjoy. It's difficult enough to find good matches as a 4.5. I had to drive 40 miles to play home matches this year.

Thanks everyone for indulging my desire to discuss the minutae of USTA league tennis. I hope everyone has a great Memorial Day!

Totally agree with you. As you get higher and higher, the fewer and fewer of that level of player you will find. Not all that many 5.0 players around comparatively speaking.

 

[spaceman_spiff]

Top 10 over-35 player in UK, is in top 200 over-35 in the world, which means 5.0+ USTA ranking. If the score was 6-3, 6-3, he was either injured, not playing seriously, or something is missing from your story. From 4.0 to beating 5.0 players, sorry, I don't buy it.

Sorry, I meant 3-6, 3-6. I lost, obviously, but I managed to hold serve a few times and break once.

 

[rainman007]

i've noticed a big gap at every level among players

 

[yemenmocha]

5.0 is too thin, too few tournaments, too few leagues. So there tends to be some crowding in the more active 4.5. I've noticed that many tournaments with NTRP don't even list a 5.0

 

[lobman]

I know there will be a few who disagree with this statement, but I am absolutely convinced that there are a lot of USTA league players who will NEVER get much better than they already are, and it's not because they don't work at improving. People have limits on talent and just because someone works hard to improve his serve, that doesn't necessarily mean he will ever have a really good serve. There are natural athletes. There are natural non-athletes. And there are a whole lot of people in the middle between those two extremes. Think bell curve.

Thing is, you can get better and improve your game without ever seeing any dramatic change in your record. If you can live with slight incremental improvements, then I guess that's fine. But there are people who take piano lessons for years and practice all the time and never get any good at piano. I personally have no real artistic ability. Could I get better if I took lessons from a great artist? Maybe; maybe not. But even if I did improve, I can tell you that the improvement would be so subtle that it wouldn't make any real difference. I would still stink as an artist. In any endeavor where there is a minimum standard, moving from horrible to very bad is not an improvement that makes any real difference in the grand scheme of things.

Tennis players are limited by a lot of things that have little or nothing to do with pure stroke production. Yes, poor footwork and terrible conditioning and awful form will probably mean a pretty bad player. But age and height and weight and speed and quickness (or lack of them) and coordination and balance and eyesight and a host of other things also contribute to overall performance. I'm not saying people can't get better through hard work and discipline---but most players I have known (the vast majority of players I have known, in fact) would not be willing to do what it would take to actually make significant improvement in their game.

One simple example: I know several players who have good stroke production, a good tennis mind, a real feel for the details of the game, but they are seriously overweight, far too heavy to try to play at a higher, more competitive level. At age 50, do you really think any of them can or will drop 50-60 pounds to push themselves that far? And if they do, injuries will likely start to be a bigger issue than they are now because 50-year old bodies don't absorb relentless training the way 20 year old bodies do. They would need to completely change their diet, change their workout regimen (or, in most cases, begin one), get more sleep, hydrate better, stretch a lot more, get more flexible, increase stamina, get stronger, get leaner, go to the gym and mean it---and find time to do all these things when their schedule is already full. Do YOU think that is going to happen?

Yes, improving your footwork will improve your game. More consistent stroke production will improve your game. Better focus during points will improve your game. But how much? And at what cost? And the biggest question of all---are you willing to go to those lengths and through that much pain and sweat and tears to get that moderate degree of improvement? And ultimately, would it make a sufficient difference in your matches? If you think so and you have the heart of a lion, go for it. My experience tells me that unless you truly DO have the heart of a lion and want it very, very badly---even more than virtually everyone else who wants to improve, it won't happen. Don't mean to rain on anybody's parade---just relating what half a lifetime of sports participation and people study has taught me.

Good points, Peddler, and for us former "senior " level players who are way beyond 50, the likelihood of improving significantly is even more minuscule. In fact, the USTA should consider some sort of "sliding" age variable to a greater degree in its ratings.

 

[AlpineCadet]

After all I had to say, not one person quoted my response. No reply.

 

[CHtennis]

After all I had to say, not one person quoted my response. No reply.

I dont know if you gave it enough time, I would wait another 6 years and see then.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Finally posting about my experiences in this section.

There are some former college players who have aged quite a bit, maybe even ex-coaches and whatnot--and they all fell into the 4.0-4.5 category during our USTA matches a few years ago. They knew how to play against us, so what, and our USTA 4.0/4.5 rating seemed legit at first after beating some weaker rated 4.0s and 4.5s, but after our warm up and match against some former college players, it was quite obvious to them we were easy prey. Their experience, ball contact, court coverage and serves spelled it out for us, and we were angry about it, mostly me I'm sure, but our captain didnt seem to put in any effort to expose them. We've seen 4.5 tennis and then some from random college players who come to play at our courts, but it was pretty easy to spot the distance in levels during our games.

IMO, playing the USTA 4.0/4.5 leagues and meeting some seriously good 4.5 players (some who admitted to) sandbagging our league just gave me a sense of how desperate these players were to continually pat themselves on the back cheating the system, winning yet staying at their comfort level/zone, while giving beatdowns to us players trying to challenge on an equal ground. In the end, things haven't changed it seems--after randomly meeting/chatting with some of the mentioned sandbaggers at a local tournament, they mentioned to us that they made it to sectionals but somehow lost and kept their 4.5 ratings. Tough matches, good plays, horrible line calls, etc. were the excuses for their loss which keeps them from advancing their NTRP rating above 4.5.

Good job, see you guys next season. Can't wait to lose to you guys again in the USTA league. :roll:

A reply

 

[CNButts]

One idea I have seen discussed and I think has some validity to it, would be to switch it up every 2-4 years from 3.5, 4.0, & 4.5 to 3.75, 4.25, & 4.75 just so you mixed up who you are playing and changing the top of the level some. I also think that changing it up is going to take some time for people to figure out how to game the system, which is always going to happen. I started as a 3.5 (3-4 years), 4.0 (5-6 years)am now a competitive 4.5(3-4 years), but it has taken me 3-4 years at 4.5 to make it competitive. It seems to me that it takes a couple of seasons of getting humbled before you figure out "how to win." I will say that different parts of the country seem to have different levels. The depth of the pool of players tends to make a huge difference.

 

[ChaelAZ]

The teams winning at 4.0, who will get bumped to 4.5 this year, have no business stepping on the court with the 4.5s I saw. In singles? Forget about it. A singles player who won all of his matches at 4.0 would not get more than a game or two off of the better 4.5s.

This kinda makes sense to me. A top 4.0 who is beating everyone at level *SHOULD* struggle moving to 4.5, but no less deserves to be there by the ratings points they earned. I don't recall the exact calculations, for it all but NTRP stated somwhere about each step rating should be beating the lower step pretty handily, something like a 4.5 would beat a 4.0 0/0 and a 4.0 would beat a 3.5 0/0. As a borderline 3.5/4.0 player I have had to deal with that "tweener" level for years. In good seasons I am bored beating 3.5's and feel great playing any average 4.0, but get blitz by the top 4.0 guys most the time. Sometimes it is just up to the player for what competition they want - a winning record in the lower level or a 50/50 and less record at the higher level.

Whole teams playing up? If there isn't a USTA rule, there should be one that keeps the number of players playing up to a minimum, but I think playing up should be allowed for those borderline players to also find their groove.

All of this is kinda moot if you are one of those Nationals centric areas where the goal is the play down as low as possible to be able to beat everyone with bagels and breadsticks.

I think any tweaking of the forulma to reduce movement in the level will only create larger gaps from top to bottom within each level, so not sure how any ratings scale shift would help, except for the fewer rec players at 4.5 and up.