US ratings system?

[stotty]

I gather the US has a system for rating players as we do in the UK. I wondered if anyone can send me a link that explains how the US ratings system works? I would like to compare it with ours.

By return, if anyone is interested, I have posted a link to the LTA "ratings guide" page so you can see how our players are rated and what they have to do to move up a rating.

http://www.lta.org.uk/players-parents/Competition/Aegon-British-Tennis-Ratings-Guide/

[klacr]

In the US, we use the NTRP scale.

Here is a link...

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA...laying_Levels/

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Love it!

I gather the US has a system for rating players as we do in the UK. I wondered if anyone can send me a link that explains how the US ratings system works? I would like to compare it with ours.

By return, if anyone is interested, I have posted a link to the LTA "ratings guide" page so you can see how our players are rated and what they have to do to move up a rating.

http://www.lta.org.uk/players-parent...Ratings-Guide/

I love the objectivity of the win/loss nature of the LTA rating system. It seems like it would encourage players to try to climb the ladder of ratings. I've always found the NTRP ratings way too subjective. There is an awful lot of "sandbagging" at the top and inflation at the bottom.

What are the problems you have with the system?

don

[stotty]

In the US, we use the NTRP scale.

Here is a link...

http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA...laying_Levels/

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks os much for the link, Kyle.

Tennis_Chiro, I prefer our system to yours. For a start we cannot rate ourselves. We must start at the bottom and work our way up...with rare exceptions. We only rate competitive players who play tournaments and don't bother with club players.

To increase their rating players have must win matches. Here, you must win six matches against players your own rating to move up. Players aren't penalised for losing to players of the same rating, only if they lose to players rated lower. For juniors this is good. You don't want a system that overly penalises children for losing. Better to have a system that encourages matchplay and focuses on rewards for competing and winning, rather than penalties

We have problems. Rankings are inconsequential to ratings. By this I mean players value having a high rating more than having a high ranking. Sounds crazy but it's true. Many players here also focus on one-day "ratings based" competitions and become locked into this type of event out of fear. They would rather stay within these one-day events than risk the possibilty of losing to a lower ranked player, and with it the loss of face.

In one-day ratings based competitions, players play two matches back-to-back against players their own rating, never anyone rated below...so no penalties whatsoever for losing. Eventually players will move up a rating by sheer volume of matches played. Players such as these can end up with inflated ratings because they rarely enter "open events" to play those in the lower ranks. As there is a swathe of kids that do this, ratings are sometimes unreflective of a player's true standard. They all play together, and lesser rated players cannot get at them. It's important to be tested and challenged by upcoming players...any kind of status-quo should be discouraged and made impossible.

Ranking points cannot be gained in the one-day ratings events. Points can only be gained in open events. Hence, this is how ratings have become more valuable to players than rankings. Match fixing is also possible between friends.

Despite these problems, the LTA are always tweaking the system all the time and, over time, things are likely to become more perfected. I am hopeful. We are very close to a good system. There are many good things about it which I haven't mentioned. It's really only the one-day events that are the fly in the ointment.

I will give the US system another read, but at first glance, I prefer ours to yours...and that's not me being patriotic by the way.

Can I have your views on your own ratings system over there, Kyle and Chiro?

[stotty]

UK system

Doug,

We have 20 rating bands, which is about right. A junior player cannot rate themselves and have to work their way up the bands...good idea. The method of moving up is dead simple...if you get six wins against players your own rating or above, you move up.

Each rated player has there own section in the LTA website. Here, every LTA sanctioned match they have ever played gets logged. Your entire playing history is always at hand. You can also see how many more wins you will need to move up and by what date by simply logging in....so very visible.

As a player moves up (considerably up) in standard, then ranking becomes more important than rating.

Ratings in relation to standard can vary throughout the country. A 6.1 from the county Essex will often be a better player than say a 6.1 from the county of Suffolk - so you get regional variations. More densely populated parts of the country have better standard players, and more of them.

I feel our system is far better than yours. Yours looks defunct...at least to the outsider.

We can tweak ours to be better still. We have one serious problem mentioned in my previous but one post, but it would easy to put right. Our ratings foundation is well thought out so tweaks only are needed to make it better. The foundation of the USTA ratings system is rotten from the start. Tweaks won't help. Better to scrap it and start again. Hope this doesn't come across rude. For nation that has produced so many wonderful players in the past, your ratings system doesn't seem to match up.

[DougEng]

Doug,

We have 20 rating bands, which is about right. A junior player cannot rate themselves and have to work their way up the bands...good idea. The method of moving up is dead simple...if you get six wins against players your own rating or above, you move up.

Each rated player has there own section in the LTA website. Here, every LTA sanctioned match they have ever played gets logged. Your entire playing history is always at hand. You can also see how many more wins you will need to move up and by what date by simply logging in....so very visible.

As a player moves up (considerably up) in standard, then ranking becomes more important than rating.

Ratings in relation to standard can vary throughout the country. A 6.1 from the county Essex will often be a better player than say a 6.1 from the county of Suffolk - so you get regional variations. More densely populated parts of the country have better standard players, and more of them.

I feel our system is far better than yours. Yours looks defunct...at least to the outsider.

We can tweak ours to be better still. We have one serious problem mentioned in my previous but one post, but it would easy to put right. Our ratings foundation is well thought out so tweaks only are needed to make it better. The foundation of the USTA ratings system is rotten from the start. Tweaks won't help. Better to scrap it and start again. Hope this doesn't come across rude. For nation that has produced so many wonderful players in the past, your ratings system doesn't seem to match up.

Hi Stotty,

LTA might be using the ITN? I'm not sure but the numbers sound like so.

Another flaw in NTRP. They don't use it for juniors. So it's harder to see how they are improving or set goals. The rankings are based on how much you play, so they are standings, not true rankings. Similar to ATP but no way as accurate since they are based on fewer results and draws are not necessarily well-matched to points awarded.

I deleted my post and will email you them.


Best,
Doug

[stotty]

Itn

Hi Stotty,

LTA might be using the ITN? I'm not sure but the numbers sound like so.

Another flaw in NTRP. They don't use it for juniors. So it's harder to see how they are improving or set goals. The rankings are based on how much you play, so they are standings, not true rankings. Similar to ATP but no way as accurate since they are based on fewer results and draws are not necessarily well-matched to points awarded.

I deleted my post and will email you them.


Best,
Doug

I did see your post prior to you deleting it, hence my response.

I thought the ITN were more about on court assessment of what a player can do skill-wise? The LTA ratings system is based purely on competition. You move up purely by competing and winning matches.

[DougEng]

I did see your post prior to you deleting it, hence my response.

I thought the ITN were more about on court assessment of what a player can do skill-wise? The LTA ratings system is based purely on competition. You move up purely by competing and winning matches.

Yes. I realized that after. Is LTA similar to French rating system?

[stotty]

Yes. I realized that after. Is LTA similar to French rating system?

The French have more bands (anything to outdo the Brits!) but I am not sure of their win/loss requirements for moving up the bands.

They used to have a handicap system at one time, in an attempt to enable players of lesser standard to play matches against stronger players (e.g.better players started 0-15 down every X number of games).

It seems all countries have their own way of doing it. I'd have a "universal" system for all countries...better...after all, it's a truly global game these days.

[DougEng]

The French have more bands (anything to outdo the Brits!) but I am not sure of their win/loss requirements for moving up the bands.

They used to have a handicap system at one time, in an attempt to enable players of lesser standard to play matches against stronger players (e.g.better players started 0-15 down every X number of games).

It seems all countries have their own way of doing it. I'd have a "universal" system for all countries...better...after all, it's a truly global game these days.

Yes, thanks! I am somewhat familiar with the French system.