What should I expect playing 3.0s?

[Sintherius]

Back after quite a long hiatus of playing, and hit with a local pro who said my NTRP rating was a 3.0, whereas USTA self rate put me at a 3.5.
I’m not one to get caught up in ratings, as USTA Jrs didn’t even have any (except under sectional/national ranking of course) when I played in tournaments before I turned 19, so what kind of players should I expect in a 3.0 league?

 

[Cindysphinx]

If you played as a youth, you are probably too strong for 3.0.

 

[gmatheis]

Back after quite a long hiatus of playing, and hit with a local pro who said my NTRP rating was a 3.0, whereas USTA self rate put me at a 3.5.
I’m not one to get caught up in ratings, as USTA Jrs didn’t even have any (except under sectional/national ranking of course) when I played in tournaments before I turned 19, so what kind of players should I expect in a 3.0 league?

If you answered the self rate questions honestly and it said you are 3.5 I would start there … even if you are rusty you will probably progress quickly as you get back into tennis. Also if someone can prove you lied on the self rate questionnaire you can get DQ'd … why risk it.

 

[Sintherius]

If you played as a youth, you are probably too strong for 3.0.

I didn’t start playing until I was 15/16 years old (right before my freshman year of high school) and I’ve not played in over 5 years. Man I wish I played as a youth haha I’d be so much better than I am

If you answered the self rate questions honestly and it said you are 3.5 I would start there … even if you are rusty you will probably progress quickly as you get back into tennis. Also if someone can prove you lied on the self rate questionnaire you can get DQ'd … why risk it.

I didn’t lie on it though, so I’m not risking anything.

 

[OnTheLine]

I agree with other posters, start at 3.5, especially if that is where the questionnaire put you ... given your age (or lack thereof) your likelihood of very rapid improvement is very high and you would likely be happier starting at 3.5

 

[tennis tom]

Unless the pro who rated you is incompetent, he probably is more accurate then a computer and knows where you would rate for your area. At 3.0 you can always play up, but if you rate as a 3.5 and are REALLY a 3.0 you may get in over your head. At 3.0, you may play with some old dinosaurs and make them happy to have a young'in with wheels for a partner. These coots have been playing everyday for a hundred years and will return everything within their little circle. They will call you everyday to play until you decide to move on. Some of the 3/3.5 gals who've run out of partners to call on because of their bad calls will also snap you up.

 

[BulldogLouisiana]

I wouldn’t second guess a local pro that I’m guessing gives lessons to other rated players in your area. Unless you felt that you were really hitting poorly.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Wait. A player who played USTA juniors and is still in his 20s is a 3.0? Lol. Now I’ve heard it all.

 

[Sintherius]

Wait. A player who played USTA juniors and is still in his 20s is a 3.0? Lol. Now I’ve heard it all.

I played in 3 USTA Jr. tournaments - all at the same place in Wheeling, WV called Oglebay Park, has 12ish Har-Tru green clay courts. It isn’t like I played in tournaments year round, I did that for soccer lol.
But I also think 3.0 is probably too low.. although I do have pretty bad anxiety and haven’t done cardio since the last time I played tennis I.e. approximately 5 years ago.
I actually almost passed out while hitting with him because I’m so out of shape and exerted myself far too much in the 25 minutes it took for that to happen.

 

[leech]

At 3.0 league play, you'll see players with a wide range of abilities. There will be some players who are either athletic and young enough to rapidly improve, and there are others who have the skills/strokes/mental game of 3.5/4.0 players but have succumbed to injury or age and have limited movement. But virtually all (there may be a couple of self-rated 3.0 players that are the rare exception) will have glaring weaknesses. Be it consistency, lack of a backhand, limited mobility, inability to volley, difficulty handling spin...just figure out which deficiency to attack, and try to mask yours.

Also, I think you should rate where your pro suggests. I recently picked up a 4.0 guy sight unseen for one of my teams. Apparently someone told him he had 4.0 level strokes...but he is severely overrated. He would not even be an average 3.5, and I have 3.0 players that are stronger than him. This guy is now 0-10 in league play across various leagues, and abruptly quit my team. He said it was too depressing to be losing so badly. The pro who suggested he rate at 4.0 did him a disservice. It's doubtful anyone will pick this guy up, and because none of the 10 matches count for ratings, he will likely stay 4.0 for next year.

 

[Sintherius]

At 3.0 league play, you'll see players with a wide range of abilities. There will be some players who are either athletic and young enough to rapidly improve, and there are others who have the skills/strokes/mental game of 3.5/4.0 players but have succumbed to injury or age and have limited movement. But virtually all (there may be a couple of self-rated 3.0 players that are the rare exception) will have glaring weaknesses. Be it consistency, lack of a backhand, limited mobility, inability to volley, difficulty handling spin...just figure out which deficiency to attack, and try to mask yours.

Also, I think you should rate where your pro suggests. I recently picked up a 4.0 guy sight unseen for one of my teams. Apparently someone told him he had 4.0 level strokes...but he is severely overrated. He would not even be an average 3.5, and I have 3.0 players that are stronger than him. This guy is now 0-10 in league play across various leagues, and abruptly quit my team. He said it was too depressing to be losing so badly. The pro who suggested he rate at 4.0 did him a disservice. It's doubtful anyone will pick this guy up, and because none of the 10 matches count for ratings, he will likely stay 4.0 for next year.

Yeah he did compliment my groundstrokes and said they looked very technically sound, but my inconsistency and being out of shape would put me around 3.0.

 

[OnTheLine]

Yeah he did compliment my groundstrokes and said they looked very technically sound, but my inconsistency and being out of shape would put me around 3.0.

The question to ask yourself is this:
What will my inconsistency and fitness be in 2 months after playing regularly?

Will you be playing 2-3 times a week?

If so, both your fitness and your steadiness will not be the same as it is today ... and any rating you give yourself will likely stick through the end of 2019 as you may or may not get enough rated matches between now and early November to give you a computer rating.

But, you can always play up at 3.5 if you rate yourself at 3.0

 

[Traffic]

I watch my son's HS tennis team and also watch them work out in group classes at private clubs. I would say I can beat most of the JV players. They are fast, but inconsistent. They can hit hard and hit the curtain hard too. They can have great 1st serves when they get them in. All this sound familiar? Don't get me started on playing doubles. My 3.5 sister and I would bagel these boys.

Go ahead and start at 3.0. You will probably lose a bunch of matches. Some old dude that can barely move and has ugly form will return the ball somehow 1 more time than you. His slow serve will have you winding up and dumping your ball into the net or hitting the back curtain. You will lose your cool and wonder how the heck you are losing.

Then you will practice and maybe even take some lessons. Then you will progress quickly and get kicked out of 3.0 before you know it. But if all you do is just go out and play every once in a while, you will stay where you are/were for a very long time.

But to answer your title, there is a wide range of 3.0s. They range from pancake serves to very good topspin serves. They can hit topspin forehands and then can barely hit a BH. You just don't know what you'll get.

 

[MathGeek]

I've seen plenty of junior play over the past few years, and lots of juniors would (and do) get creamed by adult 3.5s. I disagree that any adult who played as a junior is probably at least a 3.5. I can't see the junior NTRPs for the juniors who I have seen play in person, but I have reviewed most of their UTRs, and there are a lot of juniors with UTRs in the 3-5 range - definitely not competitive with adult NTRP 3.5s.

Rather than living for a complete season (or risking DQ with a self-rate), one could play two or three UTR events to get a better feel for whether 3.0 or 3.5 would be a better NTRP rating to start with. No plan is foolproof, but my view is that more recent playing data is better than less recent playing data. A few UTR events might make the NTRP rating question very clear, or it may remain borderline.

One thing playing UTR events (and playing informally with those who have UTR ratings) has made clear to me is how much my game has declined with age. My game does not have many glaring weaknesses, I'm just old and slow and I have not made up for mobility declines with improved racquet skills as many players over 50 have managed to do. I may not even be competitive with most NTRP 3.0 men any more, but from what I can tell NTRP 3.0 in urban areas is much stronger than NTRP 3.0 in rural areas. Sandbagging in the urban areas may be one factor, but I also suspect that in the rural areas, the leagues are beating the bushes pretty hard to fill out teams and men with a 98.6 are put on the books as NTRP 3.0s to complete teams.

 

[CosmosMpower]

Play 3.0, win a lot get bumped up to 3.5.

 

[struggle]

You can always "play up", but you can't go in reverse unless the computer says such.

 

[dsp9753]

I learned to play/took drills from middle school to high school and also played on the HS tennis team. (I was the worst player on the team and rarely if ever played. Lost all my matches too if I remember correctly.)

I also stopped played after high school and started playing almost 7-8 years later? I mostly played meetups for about 1 year. I wanted more challenge and joined USTA confident I was a 3.5 since I was better then most at these meetups and everyone told me I was a 3.5. I got destroyed in actual USTA match play my first year. Something like 1-10 for adult 3.5 rated matches (my one win was my last match and my partner pretty much told me to do nothing). I did however start to play a lot more and did improve but it was not until my 2nd year of USTA that any results started to show. In hindsight I was a 3.0 and wish I self rated as a 3.0.

Long story short, don't be like me and rate yourself too high. People are much better then they look especially in USTA. I would self rate 3.0. You can always play up if you don't find yourself challenged.

 

[Traffic]

I think one area that many that are new to competition aren't aware of is judging players by how good their strokes look. They practice on the court or take videos and yes, their strokes look really nice.

Then put them into a formal match with something on the line. They tighten up, they get anxious, they can't hit a thing; they can't hit serves. Then they realize that their opponent isn't playing real tennis. The balls are coming at crazy angles, depth, pace and spin. This isn't real tennis unless we stand at the baseline and pound on the ball until one of us flinches.

I may not even be competitive with most NTRP 3.0 men any more, but from what I can tell NTRP 3.0 in urban areas is much stronger than NTRP 3.0 in rural areas. Sandbagging in the urban areas may be one factor, but I also suspect that in the rural areas, the leagues are beating the bushes pretty hard to fill out teams and men with a 98.6 are put on the books as NTRP 3.0s to complete teams.

I live in an area that has unusually strong 3.0 players. I think a lot has to do with they are always playing other strong 3.0s in the same league. They beat each other back and forth and neither move up unless they are good enough to beat solid 3.5s and start playing in 3.5 league. They get bumped up to 3.5 and then get their butt kicked from strong 3.5s that should be 4.0

So some of this is definitely relative.

 

[Traffic]

I played in 3 USTA Jr. tournaments - all at the same place in Wheeling, WV called Oglebay Park, has 12ish Har-Tru green clay courts. It isn’t like I played in tournaments year round, I did that for soccer lol.
But I also think 3.0 is probably too low.. although I do have pretty bad anxiety and haven’t done cardio since the last time I played tennis I.e. approximately 5 years ago.
I actually almost passed out while hitting with him because I’m so out of shape and exerted myself far too much in the 25 minutes it took for that to happen.

Congratulations on your desire to pick up tennis again. I think it is a great life sport and one you can play for a very long time. I think when we pick up tennis as an adult, it takes on a different life. Before it was something cool to do. Or I did it because my friends played or my parents made me. But now you are playing because you want to. That is a huge fundamental difference.

I would find venues that you can practice and programs that offer regular schedule for skills drills and practice matches. That's really going to provide a core schedule for commitment to the sport. Then you can add more activity as you see fit to obtain the play level you desire.

But with your limited match experience and stroke development, 3.0 is probably a good place to start. Once you take it seriously and practice, you will improve quickly.

 

[Dartagnan64]

If you watch USTA matches on the internet you can see a wide variation in abilities at the same NTRP. Some NTRP 3.0 matches look like decent 3.5's and some look like raw beginners. Some 4.0 matches look like bad 3.5's and some look like strong 4.5's. So clearly there must be regional variations in how strong the 3.0-4.0 ranges are.

I'd advise the OP to work the system like everyone else. Your tournament NTRP should always be 0.5 lower than your clubhouse NTRP.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think the real question isn't at what level to self-rate (OP could self-rate as a 2.5 and play up if he wanted). The question is what level to play at.

Now, I don't want to gore anyone's ox here. I started as a 2.5, and I think there is no shame in being a beginner.

But dang. Around here, 3.0 mens league is populated by guys with, you know, hip replacements. The ones who are just older and crafty are at 3.5. I think OP would be pretty bored playing 3.0. If he is looking for excitement, the play at 3.5 will be more comfortable.

So maybe rate as 3.0 but sign up for 3.5? If you get destroyed, you can always play down. More likely is that you will get destroyed at 3.5 at first, but you will improve quickly.

 

[J_R_B]

I learned to play/took drills from middle school to high school and also played on the HS tennis team. (I was the worst player on the team and rarely if ever played. Lost all my matches too if I remember correctly.)

I also stopped played after high school and started playing almost 7-8 years later? I mostly played meetups for about 1 year. I wanted more challenge and joined USTA confident I was a 3.5 since I was better then most at these meetups and everyone told me I was a 3.5. I got destroyed in actual USTA match play my first year. Something like 1-10 for adult 3.5 rated matches (my one win was my last match and my partner pretty much told me to do nothing). I did however start to play a lot more and did improve but it was not until my 2nd year of USTA that any results started to show. In hindsight I was a 3.0 and wish I self rated as a 3.0.

Long story short, don't be like me and rate yourself too high. People are much better then they look especially in USTA. I would self rate 3.0. You can always play up if you don't find yourself challenged.

There is usually a culture shock in starting to play in USTA leagues because no matter what level you play and no matter how good your game is/was, people in USTA leagues are playing competitive, meaningful matches and have a mental match readiness that a lot of people in their first year don't have. The exception, of course, are people who come from some other type of organized team like a high school or college. But for others who play casually or who are just getting back into the sport, I often see bad results the first year as they develop or re-develop match toughness. For those who stick with it, year 2 and beyond in the league is typically where their results start to match their level.

 

[OnTheLine]

There is usually a culture shock in starting to play in USTA leagues because no matter what level you play and no matter how good your game is/was, people in USTA leagues are playing competitive, meaningful matches and have a mental match readiness that a lot of people in their first year don't have. The exception, of course, are people who come from some other type of organized team like a high school or college. But for others who play casually or who are just getting back into the sport, I often see bad results the first year as they develop or re-develop match toughness. For those who stick with it, year 2 and beyond in the league is typically where their results start to match their level.

Couldn't have said it better. I remember all too well (painful!) what those first 3 months were like in my first league. And it wasn't about skill or fitness, it was lack of match toughness.

 

[J D]

I have a friend who is mid-sixties. He moves like he's 50, has decent flat and kick serves he can locate anywhere in the box, hits with good topspin and depth off of both sides, plays aggressive at net and seldom misses a volley. His son is a teaching pro.

He played USTA for the first time this spring. IMO he should be a solid 3.5. I was very surprised when he told me he had self-rated 3.0. I thought he would clean up, but he only ended up around .500. He even had one young guy beat him 0 and 1 in singles (I won't use the S word).

Evidently there is quite a mix of levels at 3.0! You should get some decent matches there. And, has been said, you can always play up if you're bored.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

There's an easy-ish way to find a good answer - can you find one computer-rated player, preferably a low 3.5 or high 3.0, and play a match against them? That'll tell you where you stand. Play an actual, scored, best-of-three-set match, not a "practice" where you just rally for a bit and admire each others strokes.

 

[tennis tom]

I have a friend who is mid-sixties. He moves like he's 50, has decent flat and kick serves he can locate anywhere in the box, hits with good topspin and depth off of both sides, plays aggressive at net and seldom misses a volley. His son is a teaching pro.

He played USTA for the first time this spring. IMO he should be a solid 3.5. I was very surprised when he told me he had self-rated 3.0. I thought he would clean up, but he only ended up around .500. He even had one young guy beat him 0 and 1 in singles (I won't use the S word).

Evidently there is quite a mix of levels at 3.0! You should get some decent matches there. And, has been said, you can always play up if you're bored.

That's just nutz! It shows why the whole NTRPA rating system is a farce and gets worse all the time, especially the "all-star" teams that are congregated for playoffs, sectionals, nationals.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Well I do agree with one thing in this thread. USTA matches are a whole different world than just hitting around. There are leagues of adults who have been playing high peer pressure tennis matches for years and years, and they get good at what they do. It may not be high level tennis, but they are good at doing what they do. This often surprises people when they initially start playing USTA. They are “better tennis players” than their opponents, but got ran 6-2 6-2.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Well I do agree with one thing in this thread. USTA matches are a whole different world than just hitting around. There are leagues of adults who have been playing high peer pressure tennis matches for years and years, and they get good at what they do. It may not be high level tennis, but they are good at doing what they do. This often surprises people when they initially start playing USTA. They are “better tennis players” than their opponents, but got ran 6-2 6-2.

Wish I could get my wife to understand this. She just generally looks at strokes and how hard you can hit it and hates when she loses to the "weaker" player that can't hit it harder. I try to tell her that tournament tennis is a mental game and you have to be in it mentally from the get go. Players with tournament experience realize it isn't your strokes that win you matches, it's your brains. They put balls in the right places, they take you out of your comfort zone, they execute at crucial moments. It's a different ball game than social matches.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Wish I could get my wife to understand this. She just generally looks at strokes and how hard you can hit it and hates when she loses to the "weaker" player that can't hit it harder. I try to tell her that tournament tennis is a mental game and you have to be in it mentally from the get go. Players with tournament experience realize it isn't your strokes that win you matches, it's your brains. They put balls in the right places, they take you out of your comfort zone, they execute at crucial moments. It's a different ball game than social matches.

hehe, i've done that to some 3.5's that were wining about losing to "weaker" players, and hitting with me (4.5 basher) was "real tennis". so i proceeded to moonball the next set. and dink/lob the set after.
i get really annoyed when people look down their nose on folks with ugly strokes, but with alot of hustle (i used to do that, but i finally learned)... now it's my mission to pass on the lesson

 

[Dartagnan64]

hehe, i've done that to some 3.5's that were wining about losing to "weaker" players, and hitting with me (4.5 basher) was "real tennis". so i proceeded to moonball the next set. and dink/lob the set after.
i get really annoyed when people look down their nose on folks with ugly strokes, but with alot of hustle (i used to do that, but i finally learned)... now it's my mission to pass on the lesson

I've been beat by too many experienced guys with no speed and short non-beautiful strokes to ever get annoyed by it. I view as my lesson in humility and that I have a long way to go to figure this sport out. You can pretty up your game all you want but if you can't think your way around an opponent, they will make you look pretty foolish at times.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I've been beat by too many experienced guys with no speed and short non-beautiful strokes

You have such a way with words!

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It’s mainly a matter of mental focus than strategy really. All you have to do is “hit the ball to that side, now this side” a few times and you will dominate at 3.0 and 3.5. But people lose focus under pressure, and they can’t focus that consistently for an entire match (or even a few points). I believe another word for this, or at least a similar concept, is “shot tolerance”.

 

[Dartagnan64]

It’s mainly a matter of mental focus than strategy really. All you have to do is “hit the ball to that side, now this side” a few times and you will dominate at 3.0 and 3.5. But people lose focus under pressure, and they can’t focus that consistently for an entire match (or even a few points). I believe another word for this, or at least a similar concept, is “shot tolerance”.

Shot tolerance does play into it. Especially in singles. In doubles strategy starts to play a bit more into things.

 

[TenS_Ace]

What should I expect playing 3.0s?
Not much