Who's on the UTR train already????

[pabletion]

I find it fascinating, ESPECIALLY bc, living outside of the US, I'm really out of the famous (or infamous) NTRP, I could only "guesstimate" and we all know that is hardly objective (or even impossible!).

So, I'm really excited about the possibility to have a REAL tennis level rating, solely based on RESULTS, not speculations or self-rating, and of being able to play matches, whenever we can all finally travel, with other UTR rated players and upload results, and feed my rating.

I really hope it grows, and somehow it can be linked to ITF and make it more of a global issue,. I'm in a whatsapp group of about 50 tennis players and we used to try and make our own tournaments & rankings, and Im sure its gonna be awesome doing it all through the platform....

Is it catching on in the US??????

 

[Topspin Shot]

It's pretty big in the states, there are UTR tournaments and many colleges are all in on it.

 

[dkshifty]

This is the first i've heard of UTR. Although I just started playing about a year ago (no tournaments or leagues yet), USTA and NTRP is the rating system used around where i live.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

The NTRP system has flaws but works fine. It’s main drawback is granularity. It lumps almost all non-pro players into 5 skill groups. Obviously, there is going to be wide variation in the skill levels of each group in that scenario.

 

[J_R_B]

I find it fascinating, ESPECIALLY bc, living outside of the US, I'm really out of the famous (or infamous) NTRP, I could only "guesstimate" and we all know that is hardly objective (or even impossible!).

So, I'm really excited about the possibility to have a REAL tennis level rating, solely based on RESULTS, not speculations or self-rating, and of being able to play matches, whenever we can all finally travel, with other UTR rated players and upload results, and feed my rating.

I really hope it grows, and somehow it can be linked to ITF and make it more of a global issue,. I'm in a whatsapp group of about 50 tennis players and we used to try and make our own tournaments & rankings, and Im sure its gonna be awesome doing it all through the platform....

Is it catching on in the US??????

NTRP is based on results. The issue is when you have a new player with no results, they have to get a provisional rating to start playing somewhere. That's no different in UTR with new players. The other issue is NTRP can be manipulated by sandbagging results to keep a rating low, but that's no different than UTR either. If UTR created a team based league with a cap on the UTR for players on the team, then people would have the same incentive to tank matches to get their UTR under the threshold as well.

 

[hwtaft]

NTRP is based on results. The issue is when you have a new player with no results, they have to get a provisional rating to start playing somewhere. That's no different in UTR with new players. The other issue is NTRP can be manipulated by sandbagging results to keep a rating low, but that's no different than UTR either. If UTR created a team based league with a cap on the UTR for players on the team, then people would have the same incentive to tank matches to get their UTR under the threshold as well.

The problem with the NTRP is how rarely it updates. So you'll have someone playing November 2020 whose rating is based off matches prior to April of 2019. So that's a 18 month lag.

The UTR updates after every match so it's harder to sandbag in the long term. Yes you can sandbag in the short term, but you're never going to make it to nationals sandbagging because you'll have to play well in the matches that matter.

 

[OnTheLine]

The problem with UTR is how it deals with ADULTS. as in it has no idea.
Women NTRP 3.0 - 4.0 could all be an UTR of 3. Stop it just doesn't work that way.

It seems to work fine and favor juniors ... see some other threads here on adults vs juniors of same UTR and what happened.

I would totally play UTR events if there were any that were open to people over the age of 17 ... but in my area there are not.

 

[pabletion]

The problem with UTR is how it deals with ADULTS. as in it has no idea.
Women NTRP 3.0 - 4.0 could all be an UTR of 3. Stop it just doesn't work that way.

It seems to work fine and favor juniors ... see some other threads here on adults vs juniors of same UTR and what happened.

I would totally play UTR events if there were any that were open to people over the age of 17 ... but in my area there are not.

Interesting........ I'm actually kinda close with the club coach that runs UTR for my country, and he's gonna set up an 8 player tournament for me and my buds (all adults...) so we can get going. Tomorrow I've a match with an U-14 player, so I can get my UTR up on the server. As I understand it, when we play the mentioned tournament, everyone will be able to have their UTR generated from my own UTR, based on results.

We'll see! Im new to it, wanna explore it bc, like I mentioned, I like the idea of travelling to the US and having an official UTR, and being able to track other similar players and then upload results...

 

[Moveforwardalways]

In my experience with UTR, it vastly underrates adults and/or overrates juniors. I know of several juniors with UTR in the 8s that got crushed by adults with UTR in the 8s. Likewise, unremarkable male 4.0 players with UTR in the 5s and 6s who easily beat junior players with the same rating. If you give me an adult male 4.5 player vs a junior sectionals winner, I’ll take the adult male 4.5 every time.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

This is the first i've heard of UTR. Although I just started playing about a year ago (no tournaments or leagues yet), USTA and NTRP is the rating system used around where i live.

As you play USTA matches and build an NTRP, you will simultaneously be building a UTR; check out myutr.com.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

In my experience with UTR, it vastly underrates adults and/or overrates juniors. I know of several juniors with UTR in the 8s that got crushed by adults with UTR in the 8s. Likewise, unremarkable male 4.0 players with UTR in the 5s and 6s who easily beat junior players with the same rating. If you give me an adult male 4.5 player vs a junior sectionals winner, I’ll take the adult male 4.5 every time.

As a UTR 8, I played a tournament where all of my opponents were juniors: round 1 was a 7 [relatively easy win], round 2 was an 8 [nail-biter that could have gone either way but I won], and round 3 was a 9 that I lost in a close 2-setter.

I also hit with a junior who was about 50 points below me at the time and I was definitely stronger but I figured in a year's time he would pass me.

 

[StasTs]

I don't like idea that results score affect UTR as well as win/lose. Basically you can win, but still losing rating. Tennis is a sport where you have only 2 results: win or lose. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it's 6:0 6:0 or 7:6 6:7 7:6, because 1st player win in both cases and continue tournament, while 2nd is lost and has to go home. That's why ITN (or country specific ITN like in Austria) suites me much better.

 

[hwtaft]

The problem with UTR is how it deals with ADULTS. as in it has no idea.
Women NTRP 3.0 - 4.0 could all be an UTR of 3. Stop it just doesn't work that way.

It seems to work fine and favor juniors ... see some other threads here on adults vs juniors of same UTR and what happened.

I would totally play UTR events if there were any that were open to people over the age of 17 ... but in my area there are not.

This is just a limited data problem. If there wore more UTR matches this would correct itself.

 

[Doan]

This is just a limited data problem. If there wore more UTR matches this would correct itself.

All the USTA matches are pulled and used in calculating your UTR. So the fact that Adult UTR ratings are skewed down means there is a problem with their algorithm. Their client base is juniors so I'm not surprised that there is no interest in fixing it.

 

[hwtaft]

All the USTA matches are pulled and used in calculating your UTR. So the fact that Adult UTR ratings are skewed down means there is a problem with their algorithm. Their client base is juniors so I'm not surprised that there is no interest in fixing it.

You understand why people playing in largely gender, age and rating segregated matches would skew data, right?

 

[Doan]

You understand why people playing in largely gender, age and rating segregated matches would skew data, right?

Yes. USTA uses Nationals as a benchmark to try and normalize data across the country. There are some USTA adults who could be used as a benchmark. This would be more work for UTR. Work which they are not interested in doing. Which is understandable due to their client base.

 

[OnTheLine]

This is just a limited data problem. If there wore more UTR matches this would correct itself.

Okay .... in the past 18 months I have over 100 rated league matches. 40 of those are mixed ... therefore mixed gender .... there are 1000s of women just like me

This is not a limited data problem ... this is an algorithm problem that has some bias towards junior players.

Note: majority of juniors are playing gender and age segregated events ... you get that right?

 

[hwtaft]

Okay .... in the past 18 months I have over 100 rated league matches. 40 of those are mixed ... therefore mixed gender .... there are 1000s of women just like me

This is not a limited data problem ... this is an algorithm problem that has some bias towards junior players.

Note: majority of juniors are playing gender and age segregated events ... you get that right?

You're ignoring the fact the juniors aren't sandbagging in their tournaments. While their tournaments may be age and gender segregated there is enough variety in skill levels during the early rounds to accurately rate the juniors.

 

[sureshs]

The NTRP system has flaws but works fine. It’s main drawback is granularity. It lumps almost all non-pro players into 5 skill groups. Obviously, there is going to be wide variation in the skill levels of each group in that scenario.

What is the point in having finer granularity? Clubs have enough problems already just classifying people into 3.5/4.0/4.5 groups when organizing intra-club and social matches. Many resorts just ask if the guest is beginner, intermediate or advanced for vacation clinics. To me there seems to be no point of a finer scale other than for juniors.

 

[pabletion]

I don't like idea that results score affect UTR as well as win/lose. Basically you can win, but still losing rating. Tennis is a sport where you have only 2 results: win or lose. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it's 6:0 6:0 or 7:6 6:7 7:6, because 1st player win in both cases and continue tournament, while 2nd is lost and has to go home. That's why ITN (or country specific ITN like in Austria) suites me much better.

Actually, I really LIKE the idea that score comes into play, it evens out the field. If someone beats you ten times 6-0, 6-1, theres clearly a big difference in level between the two, if they beat you ten times 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, this is a very complete scenario, two more even players. Even though, it might be a statystical anomaly, given the CLOSE SCORES, it might happen.

 

[StasTs]

Actually, I really LIKE the idea that score comes into play, it evens out the field. If someone beats you ten times 6-0, 6-1, theres clearly a big difference in level between the two, if they beat you ten times 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, this is a very complete scenario, two more even players. Even though, it might be a statystical anomaly, given the CLOSE SCORES, it might happen.

You only consider extreme cases and still in tournament results there is no difference. On other hand it's pretty natural, when I'm playing versus weaker opponent in 1st round of knock-out tournament and I'm 95% sure that I'm going to win. I know that after this match tomorrow I have to play again. Do I need to put a lot of efforts to win with best possible score or just with enough efforts to win something like 6:3/6:4 instead of 6:1/6:0. Yes, it could backfire me and I can lose 1-2 more games because of not enough concentration and lack of efforts, but still I'm going to win.
Tennis has rules where you need to win 2 sets from 3. Each game started from 0:0. It's often more important to give up on set after bad start and trying to find your game for next set and not try to fight for every extra game in set you're going to lose anyway.

 

[pencilcheck]

Not NTRP nor UTR measure how good you are right now, because the score only updates to the last match you played and recorded. You might not record all matches, and you might be playing a lot but train a lot in between.

Either way, this is the same problem in any competitive sports, rating is just a guide and it shouldn't be seen as absolute measures.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I don't like idea that results score affect UTR as well as win/lose. Basically you can win, but still losing rating. Tennis is a sport where you have only 2 results: win or lose. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it's 6:0 6:0 or 7:6 6:7 7:6, because 1st player win in both cases and continue tournament, while 2nd is lost and has to go home. That's why ITN (or country specific ITN like in Austria) suites me much better.

It makes perfect sense: a rating matchup leads to a probabilistic outcome. If you underperform, your rating drops. If you overperform, your rating rises. This is supposed to eliminate/minimize incorrect ratings by making constant adjustments.

You are correct in your tournament example. It's just that the designers of UTR recognized that there are more things to consider than just that.

The goal is accurate rating: how can two players, one of whom beat X 0&0 and the other who struggled 7-6 6-7 7-6, be equal? The scoreline would suggest otherwise.

If you did an outstanding job for your company, wouldn't you expect a bonus? A promotion? A raise? Something that recognized your [out]performance? Wouldn't you expect the outcome [rating] to be influenced by your performance [the scoreline]?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You only consider extreme cases and still in tournament results there is no difference. On other hand it's pretty natural, when I'm playing versus weaker opponent in 1st round of knock-out tournament and I'm 95% sure that I'm going to win. I know that after this match tomorrow I have to play again. Do I need to put a lot of efforts to win with best possible score or just with enough efforts to win something like 6:3/6:4 instead of 6:1/6:0. Yes, it could backfire me and I can lose 1-2 more games because of not enough concentration and lack of efforts, but still I'm going to win.
Tennis has rules where you need to win 2 sets from 3. Each game started from 0:0. It's often more important to give up on set after bad start and trying to find your game for next set and not try to fight for every extra game in set you're going to lose anyway.

It was an extreme example but the point stands no matter what the margin: UTR attempts to use score differential in determining rating. Other systems do not.

As to your examples of managing the scoreline, sure they happen. But it would be a nightmare trying to take that into account. You could say that this argues in favor of ignoring the score.

Neither system is perfect and no system ever will be.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

The goal of tennis is not to increase your UTR. If you need to play a tournament by managing effort in order to conserve energy in order to win, then do so. The pay off is that you win the tournament. That is prize enough in itself. If you are winning tournaments left and right, no one will care about your UTR.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

I think UTR is great for tennis, really useful. Even if you don't play UTR any official USTA match is sucked into it and you have a UTR rating. So, if you want to scout opponents etc. it can be useful. It's sad that some of you don't live near UTR events that allow adults, they are great experiences and fun. Dallas area has them every month, almost every weekend and draw hundreds of youth and adult players. I've seen a few dedicated tournament players come from as far away as Kansas because they don't have another UTR option near them. It's also used heavily in college recruiting. It's got many benefits and is definitely is helping the game of tennis grow, I think.
I am now conscious of my scores, it can put a little pressure on you, but for me it helps me focus on putting an opponent away and it helps me fight back even if I am down 5-1. Yes, I know the argumentative people on the forum are tempted to write "well, you shouldn't need that for motivation", just relax, it's fun and I like it.
Also remember, UTR is a way for Oracle to showcase analytics and probably to refine their analytics templates for all their applications.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Not NTRP nor UTR measure how good you are right now, because the score only updates to the last match you played and recorded. You might not record all matches, and you might be playing a lot but train a lot in between.

Either way, this is the same problem in any competitive sports, rating is just a guide and it shouldn't be seen as absolute measures.

Someone will probably write an AI/ML [Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning] algorithm to produce predicted ratings. For all I know, some rating systems have already incorporated it.

 

[StasTs]

The goal is accurate rating: how can two players, one of whom beat X 0&0 and the other who struggled 7-6 6-7 7-6, be equal? The scoreline would suggest otherwise.

Let's take less extreme example again. Player A and Player B are playing several times with player C (let's say 5 times each over season). Player A results 6:2 6:1 (win), 3:6 4:6 (lose), 6:2 6:2 (win), 6:3 6:1(win), 6:3 6:4 (win). Player B results are: 6:4 6:3, 7:5 4:6 6:3, 7:6 6:2, 4:6 7:5 6:2, 6:4 6:3 (all wins). This is very common scenario, where both A and C aggressive players (player A a bit better) and match almost always decided who has better day and who win first games. Player B is counter-puncher/defensive mental strong player. He's winning almost always vs aggressive players of his level, because of less unforced errors in deciding moments. Clear he's winning in much closer matches. Who is better player: A or B?

If you did an outstanding job for your company, wouldn't you expect a bonus? A promotion? A raise? Something that recognized your [out]performance? Wouldn't you expect the outcome [rating] to be influenced by your performance [the scoreline]?

I do, but evaluation of the job for my company has to be done not on how long I'm sitting in office, but of how much completed work I've done. There is fast doers who make work fast, but often leave some parts of work not completed, being bored on repetitive tasks. And there are people who probably slow, but they're making sure that work is done to deadline even if it takes some additional time. Who is better worker? I don't know. I'm first type, but I understand that sometimes you have to sit and doing something over and over.

My message here is following. Tennis is a sport/game(!!!) where you don't care about score, it's only matter have you won or lost a match. There is nothing in between. Look at Grand Slams, how often champions struggles in first rounds and have to play 4-5 sets matches? Nadal is prime example. If RG and other slams would be played best of 3, he would be not that successful. You can beat Nadal in single set, in 2 sets when you're one of the best, but on clay court nobody could win 3 sets out of 5 from Nadal (but everything changes )

 

[socallefty]

Since USTA does not publish the dynamic rating of players, I have found UTR to be a good way to figure out the relative strengths of different USTA opponents ranked at one level (typically 4.0 or 4.5) as it correlates more with my ‘eye test’ after playing those opponents. It seems more accurate than looking at the calculated ratings on tennisrecord or TLS - I find tennis record to be egregiously wrong in many cases.

At least for men who play USTA leagues to get a UTR rating, I have not seen 3.5s ranked close to 4.0s or 4.0s to 4.5s in UTR and so, the problem that @OnTheLine mentions for women does not seem an issue for men in my experience.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Since USTA does not publish the dynamic rating of players, I have found UTR to be a good way to figure out the relative strengths of different USTA opponents ranked at one level (typically 4.0 or 4.5) as it correlates more with my ‘eye test’ after playing those opponents. It seems more accurate than looking at the calculated ratings on tennisrecord or TLS - I find tennis record to be egregiously wrong in many cases.

At least for men who play USTA leagues to get a UTR rating, I have not seen 3.5s ranked close to 4.0s or 4.0s to 4.5s in UTR and so, the problem that @OnTheLine mentions for women does not seem an issue for men in my experience.

For sure every captain in USTA men's that is hard core about winning looks at UTR to stack or not the lines.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Let's take less extreme example again. Player A and Player B are playing several times with player C (let's say 5 times each over season). Player A results 6:2 6:1 (win), 3:6 4:6 (lose), 6:2 6:2 (win), 6:3 6:1(win), 6:3 6:4 (win). Player B results are: 6:4 6:3, 7:5 4:6 6:3, 7:6 6:2, 4:6 7:5 6:2, 6:4 6:3 (all wins). This is very common scenario, where both A and C aggressive players (player A a bit better) and match almost always decided who has better day and who win first games. Player B is counter-puncher/defensive mental strong player. He's winning almost always vs aggressive players of his level, because of less unforced errors in deciding moments. Clear he's winning in much closer matches. Who is better player: A or B?

Since you're switching examples, do you admit that my example has merit [even if it is extreme]?

In your example, I assume your judgment of who the better player is boils down to who will win when A&B play.

By your logic, B will win because he has a 5-0 record vs C whereas A only has a 4-1 record.

By my logic, A might well win because his peak days result in better performance than B's peak days. It depends on which A shows up that day because we know B will be fairly solid.

My message here is following. Tennis is a sport/game(!!!) where you don't care about score, it's only matter have you won or lost a match. There is nothing in between.

If we were playing for $, it would have to be mostly about who won. But I feel a lot better losing 6-7 7-6 6-7 than 0&0: for one, I got to play more tennis, things were probably a lot closer, I got to use my skills a lot more, etc. A much more enjoyable outing. I play for the enjoyment, not the winning. Winning is a by-product of a lot of other things. it's not my #1 priority; it's not even in the top 5.

 

[Chalkdust]

I don't like idea that results score affect UTR as well as win/lose. Basically you can win, but still losing rating. Tennis is a sport where you have only 2 results: win or lose. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it's 6:0 6:0 or 7:6 6:7 7:6, because 1st player win in both cases and continue tournament, while 2nd is lost and has to go home. That's why ITN (or country specific ITN like in Austria) suites me much better.

Problem is that if you consider only win/loss, you need a much much bigger sample size in order to generate a meaningful rating. Using scores means more information can be considered per match leading to more accurate rating when the sample is not large.

Put it this way: if all you know is that player A is 5-0 vs five average club players, then A can be a pro, a college player, or an above average club player. If you also consider the scores, then you can make a better guess about A's level.

Now if A has played 100's of matches against varied competition then you could use just the win/loss.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Another angle: I prefer the 3rd set TB be reported with points [i 10-8] rather than just the boring 1-0. If you only care about won/loss, 1-0 is fine [assuming you won]. But I don't get any sense of the drama with 1-0.

In fact, if winning is the only thing that matters, why report the set score? Just report the winner.

 

[StasTs]

By your logic, B will win because he has a 5-0 record vs C whereas A only has a 4-1 record.
By my logic, A might well win because his peak days result in better performance than B's peak days. It depends on which A shows up that day because we know B will be fairly solid.

I don't know who will win. I would say both should have their chances, but if you consider rating of both of A and B, then most probably A have better UTR even with 4:1 result vs C. I'd say it's not fair, I'm advocating that player B should have better UTR results from this sample (only considering matches vs C).

If we were playing for $, it would have to be mostly about who won. But I feel a lot better losing 6-7 7-6 6-7 than 0&0: for one, I got to play more tennis, things were probably a lot closer, I got to use my skills a lot more, etc. A much more enjoyable outing. I play for the enjoyment, not the winning. Winning is a by-product of a lot of other things. it's not my #1 priority; it's not even in the top 5.

Saying honestly, I would prefer to lose 0&0 any time of the day comparing to 7:6 defeat in 3rd set I've got such lose this season (7:6 in 3rd set) and it still bite me badly

Problem is that if you consider only win/loss, you need a much much bigger sample size in order to generate a meaningful rating. Using scores means more information can be considered per match leading to more accurate rating when the sample is not large.
Now if A has played 100's of matches against varied competition then you could use just the win/loss.

If UTR consider scores only as first step while sample size and number of matches for average player is too small, then it's ok. But I don't see any reasons for it, when it's widely accepted. For example, in case of Austrian ITN every match in official tournaments in Austria is calculated toward ITN. Average Joe, getting around 15-20 matches pro year only playing for club in league and 1-2 smaller tournaments. People who playing on better level (4.0-4.5 level and up) usually getting 40+ matches in year. Kids/juniors could get 100+ matches easily. Last years for me it was 75-80 matches, this year because of covid only 44 so far.

 

[nyta2]

i was huge fan of utr when it thought i was ~11, but now that i'm correctly ~8, i only just like it.
better than ntrp separates singles and doubles rankings, covers a bigger range/bigger comparison (eg. juniors, pros, genders, etc...)..
it's very clear that a 4.5M is not equal to a 4.5W (similary #1WTA is probably ~#1600ATP... which makes mcenroe's suggestion way back when about serena being ~700ATP, a very generous guestimation)
i prefer the granularity that utr (and other systems) try to solve... at the end of the day we all want competitve matches. quality wins (or losses) are more important than the absolute record (who cares if i'm undefeated against a bunch of 5y olds).
i think when i was a beginner, i wouldn't want that distinction (because i thought i was better than i really was, and the system highlighted i wasn't). nowadays i like to know exactly where i stand...

 

[TennisDude47]

I don't like idea that results score affect UTR as well as win/lose. Basically you can win, but still losing rating. Tennis is a sport where you have only 2 results: win or lose. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it's 6:0 6:0 or 7:6 6:7 7:6, because 1st player win in both cases and continue tournament, while 2nd is lost and has to go home. That's why ITN (or country specific ITN like in Austria) suites me much better.

I have some experience with rating systems. If you want an accurate rating system, it's much better to take into account the score of the game. It may feel unfair to lose points when you win a match, but the rating system isn't meant to be a trophy, it's meant to be an accurate predictor of who will win a future match. Taking the score into account produces a more accurate rating.

 

[J_R_B]

I played an open tournament this weekend (fast 4 one day tournament). The first guy I played was a local junior. He said his UTR was 6.5, mine is 6.44. I won 4-3 4-3 (which is the fast 4 equivalent of 7-6 7-6 for the uninitiated), so that seemed to check out. The next guy I played was a kid who played in HS locally and was a freshman at a D2 college waiting for the chance to try out for the team (fall season cancelled). His UTR is listed as 5 rounded to the nearest whole number. I beat him 4-3 4-2. In the next match in the semis, I played a guy who played at a D2 college but has been out for 3 years and is NR in UTR because he hasn't been playing tournaments. He beat me 4-1 4-2, but being old, fat, and slow, my body was breaking down playing for the third time in a day. I'd guess his UTR probably should be in the 7-7.5 range. He said he's going to play 4.5 this spring if there's a league. All in all, it seemed to work out OK for the people with a rating.

 

[PURETENNISsense]

I'm a college tennis coach in the NAIA.

For me in regards to recruiting, its the best. Tennis Recruiting is great for domestic players. However on an overall scale, UTR can't be compared. Although I'll say this....

There will be pockets of countries or locations in which its slightly inflated until those players compete and have results (wins and losses) against other players from other regions or countries.

When I recruit from Europe, generally the players UTR drops between .5-1.0 points once they start competing here. It wasn't a one time anomaly, it became a reliable pattern. So now when recruiting I keep their current and future UTR in mind as I know it'll drop here in the US.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

When I recruit from Europe, generally the players UTR drops between .5-1.0 points once they start competing here. It wasn't a one time anomaly, it became a reliable pattern. So now when recruiting I keep their current and future UTR in mind as I know it'll drop here in the US.

That is surprising to hear. I would think that the competition in Europe would a higher level than here in the US. But maybe it’s a function of the ratings having more data here.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm a college tennis coach in the NAIA.

For me in regards to recruiting, its the best. Tennis Recruiting is great for domestic players. However on an overall scale, UTR can't be compared. Although I'll say this....

There will be pockets of countries or locations in which its slightly inflated until those players compete and have results (wins and losses) against other players from other regions or countries.

When I recruit from Europe, generally the players UTR drops between .5-1.0 points once they start competing here. It wasn't a one time anomaly, it became a reliable pattern. So now when recruiting I keep their current and future UTR in mind as I know it'll drop here in the US.

What are the most common countries from which your recruits come?

And do you see any patterns with their strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies?

 

[PURETENNISsense]

That is surprising to hear. I would think that the competition in Europe would a higher level than here in the US. But maybe it’s a function of the ratings having more data here.

I think you may be right about just having more data here.

I think even here in the states there are micro UTR bubbles within regions where many people don't compete against people outside their region so the UTR will seemed skewed from East to West Coast.

 

[PURETENNISsense]

What are the most common countries from which your recruits come?

And do you see any patterns with their strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies?

My recruits are from all over. I only a couple countries that have sent me more than one from that country.

I dont know if this is a pattern or tendency for other countries or something that their coaches simply didn't develop in them (which could be the case here in the states as well).

Repeat things to improve:
1) True continental grip for volleys
2) Technically sound serve motion

Repeat strengths:
1) Awareness on how to attack
2) Doubles experience (sometimes)

No way of knowing (home country doesn't matter):
1) Work Ethic
2) Desire to succeed



Spain and some South American countries have been the most common for recruiting to our institution in tennis. Every now and then we will get a player or two from Eastern European/Asian countries.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It is really interesting to see adults playing against juniors. Everyone assumes that adults would be at a disadvantage or just be lucky to get to hit with a player who is a “big hitter”. However, I have now seen so many big hitting juniors with high UTRs lose badly to routine 4.0 pushers. Just goes to show you, beating a pusher isn’t easy - and a quality pusher at the junior level could rack up some tournament wins.

 

[TennisDude47]

Beating young players in most sports is pretty easy if you play strategically. Young players aren't being taught to win rec-level tournaments. They are being taught fundamentals which might, with extreme luck and skill, help them advance to the highest levels of the game. Training a young player to be a pusher would be a cruel prank. They'd win a lot of juniors tournaments and then utterly fail as they get older.

That said, I think it would be awesome to see some washed up 65 year old former pro compete in an elite boys U-15 tournament just to see what would happen.

 

[nyta2]

It is really interesting to see adults playing against juniors. Everyone assumes that adults would be at a disadvantage or just be lucky to get to hit with a player who is a “big hitter”. However, I have now seen so many big hitting juniors with high UTRs lose badly to routine 4.0 pushers. Just goes to show you, beating a pusher isn’t easy - and a quality pusher at the junior level could rack up some tournament wins.

what do you consider "high utr"?
occasionally i get to play in clinics/matces with some of the utr ~10's boys (14 & 15y olds), and they are bashing the ball big, and they are fast, with excellent movement.
true, they are a bit less patient, and will "go for it" sooner, but generally i'm not good enough to beat them (i'm 4.5)... no way i can seee a 4.0 counter puncher ("pusher") beating them.

 

[Chalkdust]

what do you consider "high utr"?
occasionally i get to play in clinics/matces with some of the utr ~10's boys (14 & 15y olds), and they are bashing the ball big, and they are fast, with excellent movement.
true, they are a bit less patient, and will "go for it" sooner, but generally i'm not good enough to beat them (i'm 4.5)... no way i can seee a 4.0 counter puncher ("pusher") beating them.

There are a couple of 14yo boys at my club who I get to hit with from time to time. One is UTR 10 the other is 11. I can get maybe 2-3 games per set from the UTR 10 but even then I have to be really playing well and hope for a few errors from him. The UTR 11... I am lucky to get 1 or at most 2 games per set. I am a good 4.5 who beats lower 5.0s on a good day.

Which is a long winded way of saying I completely agree with you

No 4.0 pusher is getting games off of, let alone beating, a good junior.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

what do you consider "high utr"?
occasionally i get to play in clinics/matces with some of the utr ~10's boys (14 & 15y olds), and they are bashing the ball big, and they are fast, with excellent movement.
true, they are a bit less patient, and will "go for it" sooner, but generally i'm not good enough to beat them (i'm 4.5)... no way i can seee a 4.0 counter puncher ("pusher") beating them.

I suppose I should have said “higher” UTRs relative to adults. In my experience, for adults you should add 0.8 to 1.0 to your UTR to make it equivalent to juniors.

 

[nyta2]

I suppose I should have said “higher” UTRs relative to adults. In my experience, for adults you should add 0.8 to 1.0 to your UTR to make it equivalent to juniors.

that's fair.... there is some utr inflation going on between adults and juniors... and i can see an adult utr7 beating a junior utr8.... i think jolly mentioned that as well from his own experience

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Right now I know an adult 4.5 male who has a UTR of 6. According to this chart, he should barely be a 3.0. Lol.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Right now I know an adult 4.5 male who has a UTR of 6. According to this chart, he should barely be a 3.0. Lol.

How many matches has he played in the last 12 months? The fewer the matches, the wider the possible variance.