Why are the number of USTA league players so low?

[socallefty]

USTA says on their website that about 300,000 players play USTA leagues and they have 680,000 members. Meanwhile the number of tennis players in the US is supposed to have increased to more than 20 million during the last couple of years. Isn’t it really bad that the number of league players is less than 2% of the total number of players and less than half of USTA members play leagues?

Shouldn’t the USTA do more grassroots efforts to promote league participation and get more tennis players exposed to structured competition and team play which can be a lot of fun? What are they doing wrong?

 

[Moon Shooter]

I know you are trolling me and that is fine.

 

[Chalkdust]

USTA says on their website that about 300,000 players play USTA leagues and they have 680,000 members. Meanwhile the number of tennis players in the US is supposed to have increased to more than 20 million during the last couple of years. Isn’t it really bad that the number of league players is less than 2% of the total number of players and less than half of USTA members play leagues?

Shouldn’t the USTA do more grassroots efforts to promote league participation and get more tennis players exposed to structured competition and team play which can be a lot of fun? What are they doing wrong?

Absolutely USTA could and should do better at promoting league. As it is, I think it's up to the coordinators in each local area to do as much or little as they see fit. I don't think there's much effort if any put into it by the national organization. So leagues thrive in some areas and are stagnant in others.

 

[socallefty]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

 

[Chalkdust]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

Agreed. Also, this is area dependent. Some areas, many teams play out of public or semi-public facilities. So, you really need a captain to take the initiative. Other areas, most teams are club based. In these areas USTA should also do more outreach to club directors and such.

 

[Creighton]

Agreed. Also, this is area dependent. Some areas, many teams play out of public or semi-public facilities. So, you really need a captain to take the initiative. Other areas, most teams are club based. In these areas USTA should also do more outreach to club directors and such.

I had the pleasure of playing in a local league once where 90% of the teams came from an affordable public facility. It's the best local league experience I've ever experienced.

Wish that was more common.

 

[Purestriker]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

Or don't fine them when they have to default if they cannot make a match work at the end of the season. The last two years have been absolutely brutal being a captain due to the pandemic with availablity, reschedules, etc. Nobody I know wants to do it and I can tell you that I don't enjoy being a captain as much as I used too.

 

[ChaelAZ]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

We found doing co-captains, or tri-captains for our teams works best. So you have one main captain, but then us co-captains or others can step in and manage weekly matches, some of the line-up and scoring details, reservations, etc.. Makes it more manageable for everyone and more buy-in from team members for us.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Agreed. Also, this is area dependent. Some areas, many teams play out of public or semi-public facilities. So, you really need a captain to take the initiative. Other areas, most teams are club based. In these areas USTA should also do more outreach to club directors and such.

No "surprise" since most know my home facility is Surprise AZ, and as a public rec facility it has made working with them for leagues unbarably bad, to the point not man teams are left there. All this while hosting EVERY dang USTA nationals and boatloads of events through the whole year so that locals can't play weekends and many evening for almost half the year. The private club guys never have to even deal with that kinds of BS. Other publick facility sub-lease the operations and that is where all the other teams have gone because they WANT that steady business and guaranteed fees.

/rant

 

[socallefty]

Or don't fine them when they have to default if they cannot make a match work at the end of the season. The last two years have been absolutely brutal being a captain due to the pandemic with availablity, reschedules, etc. Nobody I know wants to do it and I can tell you that I don't enjoy being a captain as much as I used too.

I stopped captaining during the pandemic and have not captained since as I could foresee many of these issues making it a mess still. Since no one else has stepped up, my club doesn’t have a team and I’m not even playing USTA matches anymore.

 

[socallefty]

We found doing co-captains, or tri-captains for our teams works best.

Agree that being a co-captain is a good apprentice program to learn how to be a captain of a USTA league team - that’s how I got started too. Are there ideas on how USTA can help players to learn how to be a captain - maybe training courses, incentives or require teams to have at least one co-captain?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Agree that being a co-captain is a good apprentice program to learn how to be a captain of a USTA league team - that’s how I got started too. Are there ideas on how USTA can help players to learn how to be a captain - maybe training courses, incentives or require teams to have at least one co-captain?

Not sure of any mandate for teams to have co-captains, and the first time you captain they send out of all the required information and contacts for it, or at least they used to. So that can usually covers training. I agree the co-captaining does help bring in new captains though and should be promoted by the USTA. We just find it easier and shares the weekly load among more folks on the team. Especially as we are all getting older and family and work tend to interfere often with being able to be there week in and week out.

 

[sureshs]

The 20 million includes many players who have never heard of the USTA or do not want to pay the dues.

 

[socallefty]

The 20 million includes many players who have never heard of the USTA or do not want to pay the dues.

That is where USTA need a better marketing and promotional singles program. Not good if most of your potential clients have never heard of you.

If they double or treble their membership, they can maybe reduce dues and then the membership rate might go up even further.

 

[sureshs]

That is where USTA need a better marketing and promotional singles program. Not good if most of your potential clients have never heard of you.

If they double or treble their membership, they can maybe reduce dues and then the membership rate might go up even further.

Most people who play Pickleball, badminton, table tennis, racketball etc also don't belong to any governing association because they don't play leagues or tournaments.

 

[jdawgg]

Definitely seems like there are more players than teams can handle, people should make more teams. Being a captain for the first time this year does make me appreciate how annoying it can be, it’s also a pretty simple job though

 

[am1899]

It’s an outrage I tell you!

Edit: obviously, it’s because USTA doesn’t publish detailed ratings or explain how their algorithm works. If they did those things, the stars would align - everyone would play and everything would be groovy.

 

[time_fly]

The private club guys never have to even deal with that kinds of BS.

Actually, our private club loves to host junior tournaments and high school practices and matches especially over the summer, taking up virtually all the courts in the afternoons and weekends when these events are happening. That way they can still charge access for the “free” courts that our monthly membership fee allows us to use during the summer months. Very annoying.

As for USTA, I wish they‘d stop sending me the periodic valueless “thank you” emails – that’s just rubbing salt in the wound. They don’t even waive the registration fee for joining a team as a captain. Also, we have a new policy in our area that if a league match cancels a court with less than 24 hours notice, the captain has to pay for it (and then, presumably, try to collect from whomever bailed at the last minute.). Who wouldn’t want to captain?

 

[am1899]

Who wouldn’t want to captain?

Very few people, unless they’ve captained themselves (and even then that is no guarantee) have any appreciation for what captains do and put up with. It is a miserable, thankless job. I wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemy.

 

[vex]

USTA makes it extremely hard and tedious to find a team if you aren’t spending big $$$ on a club already. Most people do not spend money to join a club so they never touch USTA

 

[Moon Shooter]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

This is only one very minor issue but it is recent and it shows how USTA constantly goes in the wrong direction.

USTA just published rules that it will accuse captains and players of misconduct and possible suspensions for those that fail to self rate at their "true" level whatever that means or use profane/obscene language. Maybe someone here can tell me if the word "shart" is profane/obscene. What rules apply on the court or at events is also unclear. USTA seems to be more interested trying to have other teams act like tattletales and build ill-will then developing teams.

Yes lots of complaints about bad words so this should help. I just wish USTA would admit they don't care about adult rec tennis and let some other company or group run it.

 

[Moon Shooter]

That is where USTA need a better marketing and promotional singles program. Not good if most of your potential clients have never heard of you.

If they double or treble their membership, they can maybe reduce dues and then the membership rate might go up even further.

It is far from clear what the actual $44.00 annual dues goes to anything having to do with adult rec tennis. In addition to that you have to pay $22 for every team you join on top of that and I would think that goes to pay for the local directors that do spend way more time than that trying to organize this. Maybe some of the $44.00 annual dues goes to the local organizers maybe not a cent goes to it and it all goes to their commercials that not so subtly promote their political agendas. The published USTA financials are so vague there is no way to tell.

 

[Moon Shooter]

One of the big problems in my area is lack of people who want to captain league teams. There are many who will play if someone else signed up to the responsibility of starting and running a team. USTA should give more incentives for players to captain teams and local coordinators should recruit captains actively.

One of the big problems in my area is people don't see the value. Why pay an extra $44 per year and $22 per team (usually get about 3-4 matches per team) just have to sign up for another obligation to travel? They can play matches here when they want where they want. They have ladders and groups etc.

I think USTA needs to think about what value their services offer because the small chance of "nationals" at a rating level is ok but not nearly cutting it. Most of the players around here that have been playing for more than ten years as an adult have tried USTA and they can take it or leave it.

Yes it is my opinion that the ratings are the main service that USTA offers but they explicitly said they deliberately gut the value of their ratings because they don't want people "obsessing about a number." Well the number is the most valuable service they offer to the vast majority of tennis players. As a new captain I can not honestly try to sell new players based on the USTA rating as it is, because as it is their rating system is worthless.

 

[Chalkdust]

One of the big problems in my area is people don't see the value. Why pay an extra $44 per year and $22 per team (usually get about 3-4 matches per team) just have to sign up for another obligation to travel? They can play matches here when they want where they want. They have ladders and groups etc.

I think USTA needs to think about what value their services offer because the small chance of "nationals" at a rating level is ok but not nearly cutting it. Most of the players around here that have been playing for more than ten years as an adult have tried USTA and they can take it or leave it.

Yes it is my opinion that the ratings are the main service that USTA offers but they explicitly said they deliberately gut the value of their ratings because they don't want people "obsessing about a number." Well the number is the most valuable service they offer to the vast majority of tennis players. As a new captain I can not honestly try to sell new players based on the USTA rating as it is, because as it is their rating system is worthless.

I've lived in several different areas and have met a *lot* of tennis players over the last two decades.

For the large majority, the most significant value of league tennis is in getting a bunch of regular season matches. This is a great way to get competitive tennis, meet new people, and have fun and camaraderie with teammates. The potential for postseason play is just cherry on the cake.
Maybe 80% of the players I've met fall into this category.
Unfortunately, not every area / level has a robust enough local league to provide a good regular season experience, in which case players in this category end up quitting USTA.

For some, postseason play is the main value proposition. These players don't really care as much for the regular season. This is a small minority in my experience.
Maybe 19% of players fall into this category.
Also, these are the players who you see playing in those local areas where there are only two teams that play each other 6-8 times. Often there is the 'playoff' team, and then a team formed for the sole purpose of giving the playoff team a local opponent.

And then there is the hypothetical value proposition of knowing your precise rating, but I've yet to meet any other player in real life who would see this as the real value.
So let's be generous and say this is the primary value driver for 1% of players.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I've lived in several different areas and have met a *lot* of tennis players over the last two decades.

For the large majority, the most significant value of league tennis is in getting a bunch of regular season matches. This is a great way to get competitive tennis, meet new people, and have fun and camaraderie with teammates. The potential for postseason play is just cherry on the cake.
Maybe 80% of the players I've met fall into this category.

That makes sense for the men in my area as well. I think that is why we typically only have a men's 3.5 league. At that level players may be looking for competitive matches but don't yet know enough people in the community to simply set them up in social networks. So they are willing to pay the extra costs. But then by the time people have done this for a year or two they no longer need USTA to get good matches at their level so they no longer see the value.

Unfortunately, not every area / level has a robust enough local league to provide a good regular season experience, in which case players in this category end up quitting USTA.

For some, postseason play is the main value proposition. These players don't really care as much for the regular season. This is a small minority in my experience.
Maybe 19% of players fall into this category.
Also, these are the players who you see playing in those local areas where there are only two teams that play each other 6-8 times. Often there is the 'playoff' team, and then a team formed for the sole purpose of giving the playoff team a local opponent.

And then there is the hypothetical value proposition of knowing your precise rating, but I've yet to meet any other player in real life who would see this as the real value.
So let's be generous and say this is the primary value driver for 1% of players.

I have yet to meet a tennis player that understands the value of a national or international rating system (unless they played chess) let alone wants one. UTR is at least trying to promote the value of an international rating but Covid hit them at a bad time and how they use their rating system is deeply flawed for adult rec players. I just don't think tennis players understand how powerful these rating systems can be because their exposure has only been to terrible ones like USTA and UTR.

I am not sure why competitive tennis players would be less interested (than competitive chess players) in a rating system that places you internationally with all other tennis players world wide. Every match you are not just comparing your strength against one opponent but as compared to the whole world of tennis players. It adds gravitas to every game of every match.

Chess players treat rated matches differently than non-rated matches for good reason. As a tennis player I treat rated matches differently than non rated matches.

 

[toby55555]

Agreed. Also, this is area dependent. Some areas, many teams play out of public or semi-public facilities. So, you really need a captain to take the initiative. Other areas, most teams are club based. In these areas USTA should also do more outreach to club directors and such.

Interesting that you have teams playing out of public facilities; here in the U.K. leagues are entirely club based as far as I know other than a few council owned centres but then they will be run by a coaching franchise.

 

[TennisOTM]

USTA makes it extremely hard and tedious to find a team if you aren’t spending big $$$ on a club already. Most people do not spend money to join a club so they never touch USTA

This seems more like a local-area problem, not a USTA-wide problem. In my area there are thousands of USTA league players and not a single one had to join a club to be on a team. There is only one big $$$ club that hosts teams, and even for that one only the captain has to be a member and the captains can and do invite non-members to play on the team.

 

[Chalkdust]

Interesting that you have teams playing out of public facilities; here in the U.K. leagues are entirely club based as far as I know other than a few council owned centres but then they will be run by a coaching franchise.

Yeah, it's a mix of different things here in the US.

First off, there are some areas (the minority, and typically where indoor play is the norm) where USTA actually does the court procurement and scheduling. Court costs are then part of the league fee.
So from my understanding there are no team to facility/club affiliations really, and each team is just a captain and group of players deciding to play together.

In most areas, scheduling is left up to the home team for each match. The home team needs to procure courts and cover any associated cost.
And this is where you have the mix of club teams vs teams being run out of public facilities, with the mix being different based on area and the prevalence of suitable public facilities.
Often the public facilities are school or college courts that allow use by the general public outside of school hours.

 

[Chalkdust]

I have yet to meet a tennis player that understands the value of a national or international rating system (unless they played chess) let alone wants one.

Yes I think you are pretty unique in this regard!

I am not sure why competitive tennis players would be less interested (than competitive chess players) in a rating system that places you internationally with all other tennis players world wide. Every match you are not just comparing your strength against one opponent but as compared to the whole world of tennis players. It adds gravitas to every game of every match.

Well I can speak only for myself.
In both tennis and chess my goals are more about self improvement and playing as well as I can, more so than about results. There are always going to be many people better than me, and I'm not making any money off either!
In tennis, I don't need a rating to tell me how well I'm playing - I just know.
In chess, it's much more difficult to judge how well you're playing, other than in obvious games where you blunder or something. You can analyze games after the fact with an engine, but that is time consuming and requires more dedication than most rec players have.
So for me, a chess rating is a necessary metric for tracking progress, whereas for tennis it is not.

 

[socallefty]

For the large majority, the most significant value of league tennis is in getting a bunch of regular season matches. This is a great way to get competitive tennis, meet new people, and have fun and camaraderie with teammates.

This resonates with me as most players I know including myself were interested in USTA leagues pre-pandemic mainly because of the team aspect and the social bonding/friendships that happens as a result. If you have played any team sports in your past, you miss that as an adult and USTA leagues is a good way to reconnect with that. I can easily get competitive matches in social tennis just playing guys at my club, but I do miss the team culture.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Yes I think you are pretty unique in this regard!


Well I can speak only for myself.
In both tennis and chess my goals are more about self improvement and playing as well as I can, more so than about results.

The primary way you know if you are improving in chess is by your rating. Once people understand how good rating systems can reflect skill they almost always find a rating system valuable. That is why there may be hundreds of websites that allow you to play chess online with others but they all (as far as I am aware) offer a rating. Since chess players tend to understand how powerful a rating system can be it is clearly a service people value. It is no surprise that tennis players don't value a rating system. You don't value what you don't understand. And indeed for whatever reason the tennis rating systems that do exist are deliberately bad. So it is no surprise that they are not valued in the tennis community.

There are always going to be many people better than me, and I'm not making any money off either!
In tennis, I don't need a rating to tell me how well I'm playing - I just know.

Well I guess that is great for you but does everyone around you "just know" as well? Because my own experience is people really do often think they are better than they are - myself included. They also have what I consider odd views of who is stronger whether we are talking about pros or amateurs. I try to counter that bias but if there were no rating systems at all, it would be very hard to know how good I am compared to the average rec tennis player.

If you watched MEP I guess you would just know he is a 4.5 (which puts him what in the top 15% of rec players) without the rating system. But for most of us we know MEP is a 4.5 player because of his rating. I have seen lots of other videos with different 4.0 players. I guess you think you would "just know" they are all 4.0 but I just tend to doubt it.

These .5 differences in tennis are so broad and imprecise it is hard to really care. But if they ever decide to get a rating system like chess has then I think interest would grow.

In chess, it's much more difficult to judge how well you're playing, other than in obvious games where you blunder or something. You can analyze games after the fact with an engine, but that is time consuming and requires more dedication than most rec players have.
So for me, a chess rating is a necessary metric for tracking progress, whereas for tennis it is not.

I disagree. I think how well I do at tennis has just as much to do with who I am playing against as it does with my own skills. I will play some weaker players and think I am great at tennis but then play someone stronger and suddenly I feel like I am not so good. (same with chess btw) When I have no idea if those other players are improving over time as well this makes gauging overall progress pretty much impossible.

 

[Moon Shooter]

USTA makes it extremely hard and tedious to find a team if you aren’t spending big $$$ on a club already. Most people do not spend money to join a club so they never touch USTA

Yes when I wanted to join a team the local director told me to contact the manager of a club I didn't belong to.

That said in northern climates it is understandable and appropriate that USTA work with private clubs and understand that if there are no indoor clubs there is no USTA tennis in that area for much of the year. So there is a bit of give and take. Clubs offer spots for non-members from other areas to use their courts USTA should be respectful of whatever business decisions club owners feel they need to make in exchange.

Maybe in southern states weather doesn't make indoor courts such a necessity so the teams don't have to be tied as closely with a club. But here we only have 2 weeks of nice weather. So we rarely play USTA tennis outside - even in the summer the humidity is unbearable.

 

[Moon Shooter]

USTA says on their website that about 300,000 players play USTA leagues and they have 680,000 members. Meanwhile the number of tennis players in the US is supposed to have increased to more than 20 million during the last couple of years. Isn’t it really bad that the number of league players is less than 2% of the total number of players and less than half of USTA members play leagues?

Shouldn’t the USTA do more grassroots efforts to promote league participation and get more tennis players exposed to structured competition and team play which can be a lot of fun? What are they doing wrong?

I don't know what constitutes a "tennis player" and thus I'm not sure of the exact numbers. But however you want to define it I think there should be some sort of metric USTA uses to determine if their services they offer are valued by US players.

Because of course the people currently paying for the service find it is of value, so you can't just ask the current members. If there were only 12 people that were members those members would say "yes USTA membership is worth it" or they wouldn't be members. USTA really should do something like what you are doing and say ok if we have this many players (however that is defined) and only X% are interested in the services we offer then maybe we could be doing something better.

But USTA has no one in charge of adult rec tennis to even think about how the services might be more valuable to players. Adult rec tennis is this sort of tag along PR side show USTA does. USTA is all about the big money they make in the pro game and real estate investing.

If you look at the website you will see :

"Recreational Competition

Senior Managing Director: Tracy Davies

Director, Recreational Competition: Matt Barnhart

Director, Junior Competition: TBD

Head, Collegiate Tennis: Tim Cass

Senior Director, Collegiate Tennis: Elissa Hill"

USTA Executive Staff

Learn more about the USTA staff management team.

www.usta.com

So maybe Tracy Davies is running this right? Well as it turns out not so much:

"Davies will oversee the numerous junior competitions that fall under the USTA’s care. Rose’s role shepherds the organization’s involvement in the U.S. Open Series, the Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup, and Olympic and Paralympic Games, among other pro and exhibition events. And Wallen has a far-reaching job overseeing teaching, playing and spectator experience at the vast Orlando campus. "

USTA promotes three women to new director roles - Green Sports Alliance

By Sports Business Journal The United States Tennis Association’s recent […]

greensportsalliance.org

So rec tennis is pretty much junior tennis.

Well maybe Matt Barnhart then right? Well again here is his linked in:

"I am the Director of Recreational Competition for the United States Tennis Association (National office). I am passionate about recruiting and engaging new coaches and players for growing the sport of tennis. Focusing on developing innovative products and making meaningful connections in the field allows me to simplify the onboarding process for coaches and attract new players to tennis."

https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-a-barnhart/

Is it relevant? Yeah Im gonna say no. If he said onboarding captains to lead teams then sure. But whatever he is talking about he is clearly not talking about the leagues I played on. The thing is USTA already has a dozen people under "Player & Coach development":


"Player & Coach Development

General Manager: Martin Blackman

Director of Coaching: Ola Malmqvist

Head of Men's Tennis: Kent Kinnear

Head of Women's Tennis: Kathy Rinaldi

Head Strength & Conditioning Coach: Satoshi Ochi

Director, Training Center Operations, Player & Coach Services: Casey Clagett

Managing Director, USTA-U: Paul Roetert

Senior Director, Education, Training & Resources: Craig Jones

Director, Experiential Learning: Chris Michalowski

Senior Director, Accreditation & Certification, USTA-U: Sarah McQuade

Director, Coach Development & Performance Analytics: Dave Ramos"

Why does the guy that is in charge of rec competition also have to be involved in player and coach development? I mean can't we even get a single person that is going to look at this and try to see if the services are valuable to the country as a whole outside of the tennis hotspots? I know adult rec tennis is a small percentage of the USTA budget but it is still dealing with tens of millions of dollars and I think it could easilly be tripled in about 7 years if they did some things better. I mean take that 2% to 6%.

One of the guys here already said basically the Nationals is run by a few interns that put it together. That seems to be about all the national organization does for adult rec tennis. Tennis link is a joke it shows I am in the ******* but keeps listing me as being in the northern section. I am not sure how I can easily see my results on tennis link other than running a search for my name - and even then it is convoluted only showing certain teams etc.

So I don't think there is anyone even considering what standards they would measure success or failure let alone thinking about what is failing or working. USTA doesn't hire someone that is even supposed to care about adult rec tennis.

 

[Chalkdust]

I disagree. I think how well I do at tennis has just as much to do with who I am playing against as it does with my own skills. I will play some weaker players and think I am great at tennis but then play someone stronger and suddenly I feel like I am not so good. (same with chess btw) When I have no idea if those other players are improving over time as well this makes gauging overall progress pretty much impossible.

Put it this way:

Watch a Fed vs Nadal match. What thoughts are going through your head? Probably, in general, wow, they hit so hard, so much spin, so accurate, so consistent, they move so well, such great footwork, etc. And on specific points, wow, what a great passing shot threading the needle, what a great touch volley, etc. And maybe on some other shots, you might think, oh-oh, he framed it, or oops he left it short and is gonna get punished, etc.

Now watch a Magnus vs Hikaru chess match - no commentary or analysis, just you following the moves. What's going through your head? Maybe in the opening you might thing, heh, they are playing a mainline semi-Slav, and then, heh, that's a new move... and then... unless you are an IM or better, you're not going to have any idea about how good any particular move is. And even as an IM or GM, you're going to need to analyze the game after the fact and work through all the variations to truly understand what happened.

Which is all to say, assuming you are somewhat decent at tennis, you have a pretty good idea of how you are playing, and how good your opponent is. Not nearly as much the case in chess.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Put it this way:

Watch a Fed vs Nadal match. What thoughts are going through your head? Probably, in general, wow, they hit so hard, so much spin, so accurate, so consistent, they move so well, such great footwork, etc. And on specific points, wow, what a great passing shot threading the needle, what a great touch volley, etc. And maybe on some other shots, you might think, oh-oh, he framed it, or oops he left it short and is gonna get punished, etc.

Now watch a Magnus vs Hikaru chess match - no commentary or analysis, just you following the moves. What's going through your head? Maybe in the opening you might thing, heh, they are playing a mainline semi-Slav, and then, heh, that's a new move... and then... unless you are an IM or better, you're not going to have any idea about how good any particular move is. And even as an IM or GM, you're going to need to analyze the game after the fact and work through all the variations to truly understand what happened.

Which is all to say, assuming you are somewhat decent at tennis, you have a pretty good idea of how you are playing, and how good your opponent is. Not nearly as much the case in chess.

Thats a fair point for the very top levels. But for understanding just how many levels separate the top chess players and tennis players from where I am the rating system is key.

But more relevant to this discussion, being able to tell how other rec players (tennis or chess) would compare with eachother is very hard without a proper rating system. I saw a video that had Hikaru (I think) trying to guess the ratings of players based on their moves. He had more than a few surprises and he understands chess very well. The same is true of tennis players. I think if you are very good at tennis you have a better shot at telling who is good and how good just by looking at their game. But amateur players? Not so much. And keep in mind when we are just guessing whether someone is a 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 we are just making very very rough estimates of skill dividing up about 75% of the adult rec players into 3 huge groupings. USTA says top player in these levels will have a typical result of 6-0 6-0 of someone at the bottom of the very same level. But people are constantly missing even those huge targets.

So I am going to say amateur tennis players are not much better than amateur chess players at being able to assess skill levels of amateur players.

 

[Chalkdust]

Thats a fair point for the very top levels. But for understanding just how many levels separate the top chess players and tennis players from where I am the rating system is key.

But more relevant to this discussion, being able to tell how other rec players (tennis or chess) would compare with eachother is very hard without a proper rating system. I saw a video that had Hikaru (I think) trying to guess the ratings of players based on their moves. He had more than a few surprises and he understands chess very well. The same is true of tennis players. I think if you are very good at tennis you have a better shot at telling who is good and how good just by looking at their game. But amateur players? Not so much. And keep in mind when we are just guessing whether someone is a 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 we are just making very very rough estimates of skill dividing up about 75% of the adult rec players into 3 huge groupings. USTA says top player in these levels will have a typical result of 6-0 6-0 of someone at the bottom of the very same level. But people are constantly missing even those huge targets.

So I am going to say amateur tennis players are not much better than amateur chess players at being able to assess skill levels of amateur players.

Na, I think you are wrong.
I can watch a rec match and get the level right (in terms of 3.0 / 3.5 / 4.0 / 4.5 / 5.0) maybe 75% of the time. Assuming C rated. And when I'm wrong, I'm never off my more than one level.
If I watch a chess game, I don't have anywhere near the same confidence in guessing rating let's say within several hundred points.
And for what it's worth I'm at about the same skill level at both tennis and chess.

But really my point was more about gauging your own play. Which of course, also depends on the level of your opponent. But in tennis you know whether you hit a good or bad shot, and you know the quality of the shot by your opponent that you were responding to. In chess, you generally don't know how good your move really is, or how good your opponent's previous move really was (unless completely obvious like a blunder), until well after the fact if and when you analyze. I mean it's not even close.

And you kinda made my point: Hikaru and other high level chess experts are still pretty bad at guessing chess level based on watching a rec game. Whereas pretty much any decent dime-a-dozen tennis pro will give you a pretty accurate evaluation and rating.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

That is why there may be hundreds of websites that allow you to play chess online with others

That could also contribute. Perhaps a truly universal rating in chess is helpful because you could play anybody online - even an amateur can, at the right time, play someone online who's on another continent entirely! So obviously you need a rating system that encompasses the whole world.

Tennis... not so much. Not at all. It is *completely* irrelevant to me to know how my level compares to somebody even a few hundred miles away (it's not like I'd ever play them), much less in a different country or continent. It's certainly a fun curiosity to rank yourself against the world, but it's not like I could use that somehow.

And to track improvement, you really don't need the rating system to be global. If you have a local ladder, that'll do. And those are a dime a dozen.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Na, I think you are wrong.
I can watch a rec match and get the level right (in terms of 3.0 / 3.5 / 4.0 / 4.5 / 5.0) maybe 75% of the time. Assuming C rated. And when I'm wrong, I'm never off my more than one level.
If I watch a chess game, I don't have anywhere near the same confidence in guessing rating let's say within several hundred points.
And for what it's worth I'm at about the same skill level at both tennis and chess.

Ok so a top 3.5 will typically beat a lower 3.5 6-0 6-0 and you will still miss these large targets about about 25% of the time? Ok maybe because someone that is a 3.49 could easily be a 3.5 or a 4.0. So how do you guage your ability? Do you look at someone play and then guess their TR rating and it is pretty close? So you think well this person is mid 3.5 and then yep TR shows they are a 3.22? Or do you guess their USTA rating as a 4.0 or a 4.5 and look on tennis link and see that is accurate? How often do you see someone play and think oh no they are not really a X?

Here is a thread on this so even if you are really good at guessing it seems most amateurs are not so good since just about every video we get answers covering 3 levels.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/lets-play-identify-the-level.603144/

The difference in chess rating to win 12-0 would in fact be several hundred points. I think I could also get within a couple hundred points up or down in chess for people rated below me at least 75% of the time. For higher levels than me I think that may be harder in chess than it is in tennis. But honestly I probably couldn't tell if two players were 9.0 UTR or 11.0 UTR either just by watching.

But really my point was more about gauging your own play. Which of course, also depends on the level of your opponent. But in tennis you know whether you hit a good or bad shot, and you know the quality of the shot by your opponent that you were responding to. In chess, you generally don't know how good your move really is, or how good your opponent's previous move really was (unless completely obvious like a blunder), until well after the fact if and when you analyze. I mean it's not even close.

Sure you can see if the ball went in or out in tennis but the overall feel of a match seems much harder to guage. Plus I was just wondering was I really a 3.0 in June of 2021 when I self rated? I think judging my own game is harder than looking at other peoples games and being able to tell their level. I really have very little idea if I improved much. I feel like my game was delayed due to a change in racquets and some of the people I play with seem to play against me better than before. But they are improving. I mean even now I am thinking I am a mid 3.5 now (due to UTR) but was I then? If there was no rating system at all I would have practically no clue at all how to quantify any improvement. I would have my own ideas but who knows how accurate they would be.

Think about your own game and if you went up in ratings then you know you improved in the year before you bumped. But if there was no rating system at all what sort of idea would you have?

And you kinda made my point: Hikaru and other high level chess experts are still pretty bad at guessing chess level based on watching a rec game.

I think both are hard to judge. And they would just look at one game. But yes we can get a sense of someones tennis from watching less. Or put another way watching them play more tennis will not necessarily give us a better idea like going over several chess games will.

Whereas pretty much any decent dime-a-dozen tennis pro will give you a pretty accurate evaluation and rating.

Says who? Without seeing it tested then I am not sure I believe it. Wasn't there a guy who's tennis pro was telling him he was a 4.0 based on his strokes that then lost to a 3.0? And when the rating system itself is so full of holes because it ignores so much data it is hard to even know what a "3.5" means.

And see the thread above where us amateurs are trying to guage. Everyone in that thread might think they can tell with 75% accuracy but how is this tested?

Do you think if I showed you video you would be able to tell some ones UTR give or take .3 (.6 total spread) 75% of the time?

 

[Moon Shooter]

And to track improvement, you really don't need the rating system to be global. If you have a local ladder, that'll do. And those are a dime a dozen.

Unless the people on the ladder are also improving. I see people get frustrated with tennis for this reason. I have been practicing and so and so still beats me!

 

[PK6]

That’s exactly one of the reasons I’ve quit playing! With all the $$$ spent on lessons/losing to players who I’ve never seen at all. It’s become to much a time commitment/cutting into my weight lifting/watching sports. I’m sooo glad I’ve quit so I can focus on that along with getting back into bodybuilding shape as tennis got me fat

 

[Chalkdust]

Think about your own game and if you went up in ratings then you know you improved in the year before you bumped. But if there was no rating system at all what sort of idea would you have?

Well, ironically I did get bumped up the last year I played USTA, and I don't think I improved at all that year vs the previous year. Getting bumped was just a result of the players I happened to beat, who were high rated mostly dubs players that I ended up playing singles against in 40&over 4.5+.
However there is no way I am actually a 5.0 despite what the computer says. I trust my own judgement on my level of play more so than the rating algorithms.

Do you think if I showed you video you would be able to tell some ones UTR give or take .3 (.6 total spread) 75% of the time?

I'm not all that familiar with UTR so I would say no.
But I would be able to tell you with a lot of confidence whether they are about average (for rec play), or one standard deviation above or below average, or two standard deviations above or below.
I know how this translates to NTRP but not to UTR. In NTRP, the mean is at the 3.5/4.0 border, and each level is about a standard deviation apart.

For comparison, for recreational chess ratings, and I'm using the lichess rapid ratings distribution for example, the mean is around 1500, and standard deviation around 350. And I would be far less confident that I could tell a 1375 from a 1725 just from watching them play a few games.

 

[sureshs]

Read an article about how tennis league play improves physical and mental health.

 

[Purestriker]

Read an article about how tennis league play improves physical and mental health.

Link to article?

 

[Chairman3]

1. No one wants to captain
2. Sandbagging drama
3. Local league drama
4. Team drama
5. Player drama
6. More rating/sandbagging drama
7. Other drama
8. Annual fee for USTA
9. General drama

Don't get me wrong, I play USTA for several teams, but lots of people get swept up in the nonsensical drama and/or create it. I think it's hilarious because it's amateur tennis, but at least where I'm at it's a real thing.

 

[PK6]

1. No one wants to captain
2. Sandbagging drama
3. Local league drama
4. Team drama
5. Player drama
6. More rating/sandbagging drama
7. Other drama
8. Annual fee for USTA
9. General drama

Don't get me wrong, I play USTA for several teams, but lots of people get swept up in the nonsensical drama and/or create it. I think it's hilarious because it's amateur tennis, but at least where I'm at it's a real thing.

Bingo!!!

 

[ThinkPad]

It is far from clear what the actual $44.00 annual dues goes to anything having to do with adult rec tennis. In addition to that you have to pay $22 for every team you join on top of that and I would think that goes to pay for the local directors that do spend way more time than that trying to organize this. Maybe some of the $44.00 annual dues goes to the local organizers maybe not a cent goes to it and it all goes to their commercials that not so subtly promote their political agendas. The published USTA financials are so vague there is no way to tell.

In my district, the league fee is $30 per team.

 

[Nostradamus]

USTA says on their website that about 300,000 players play USTA leagues and they have 680,000 members. Meanwhile the number of tennis players in the US is supposed to have increased to more than 20 million during the last couple of years. Isn’t it really bad that the number of league players is less than 2% of the total number of players and less than half of USTA members play leagues?

Shouldn’t the USTA do more grassroots efforts to promote league participation and get more tennis players exposed to structured competition and team play which can be a lot of fun? What are they doing wrong?

they all go covid and want to rest due to post covid syndrome

 

[socallefty]

1. No one wants to captain
2. Sandbagging drama
3. Local league drama
4. Team drama
5. Player drama
6. More rating/sandbagging drama
7. Other drama
8. Annual fee for USTA
9. General drama

Don't get me wrong, I play USTA for several teams, but lots of people get swept up in the nonsensical drama and/or create it. I think it's hilarious because it's amateur tennis, but at least where I'm at it's a real thing.

I played USTA men’s league tennis for almost a decade with very little drama including on teams I captained. From local players, I’ve heard that mixed doubles has more drama though. Of course, we are in laidback Southern California.

Are you somewhere in the South where teams and players seem to treat League tennis more seriously - like college football?

 

[onehandbh]

Now watch a Magnus vs Hikaru chess match - no commentary or analysis, just you following the moves. What's going through your head?

Who would win between the two of them in a tennis match?

 

[Chairman3]

I played USTA men’s league tennis for almost a decade with very little drama including on teams I captained. From local players, I’ve heard that mixed doubles has more drama though. Of course, we are in laidback Southern California.

Are you somewhere in the South where teams and players seem to treat League tennis more seriously - like college football?

Florida, and most people get stirred up because there are a couple counties that are notorious for sandbagging