The USTA uses the NTRP rating system to determine players levels for play in USTA League and NTRP tournaments. You can read all about the system and how it works on my
NTRP Rating FAQ.
A common discussion point about the system is how wide a band of players and abilities each level covers, and if the matches played between players of the same level are competitive. I discussed this a bit in my review of a recent USTA League / NTRP Webinar held by the USTA, but I wanted to take a deeper look at it.
There is a perception by a few that two players at the same level are "equal", but common sense tells you that can't be true as there are only 6 levels to slot recreational league players into and clearly more differentiated is needed than that. The more accurate characterization and expectation is that players of the same level are of "similar" ability.
The USTA actually uses two different terms, competitive and compatible, to describe players abilities, and states that players of the same level are expected to be "compatible". My understanding of these terms being the former indicates a close match potentially won by either player, while the latter expands things to allow for one player to win the majority or even all the time, but they are still able to play on the same court without one player being completely overwhelmed.
Many players believe same level players should always have a competitive match, but given the USTA's explanation, it would seem that isn't what you should always expect.
Given all this, a reasonable question is how often are matches "competitive" vs "compatible"? Or perhaps a better question is how often are matches between same level players a blow-out?
To look at this in detail, I looked at 2019, that being the last full year of USTA League play, and looked at the percentage of matches between same-level players that had a 6-0,6-0, 6-0,6-1, or 6-1,6-0 score. I did this for both 18 & Over and 40 & Over divisions for singles matches only, and looked at it by level as well.
For 18 & Over, just 7.6% of matches resulted in a lopsided score, and for 40 & Over it was just 6.3%. Neither number is very large and so isn't very surprising to me. It seems reasonable that in one in 15 or so matches, you get a lopsided score when a top of level player plays a bottom of level one, or someone has a good/bad day, or a style match-up accentuates the difference between to players.
What is interesting is breaking it out by level. First, 18 & Over:
- 2.5 - 15.8%
- 3.0 - 9.7%
- 3.5 - 6.6%
- 4.0 - 6.0%
- 4.5 - 6.6%
- 5.0 - 8.4%
And then for 40 & Over:
- 2.5 - 11.9%
- 3.0 - 8.2%
- 3.5 - 6.1%
- 4.0 - 5.1%
- 4.5 - 6.6%
- 5.0 - 5.9%
We see a clear trend of lopsided scores occurring more at lower levels, but interestingly the lowest being at 4.0 and a slight increase from that at 4.5 and 5.0. Why might this be?
I think the general decrease makes sense. Whether they are existing or new players, there is more likely to be significant improvement at these levels and when an improved player (that will be bumped up at year-end) plays a low to mid rated player, the lopsided score is expected. You also have new players that may be out of level but not (yet) DQ'd and the lower levels have a greater tolerance for this so you actually expect to see players on the same court with a broader range of ratings and abilities at these levels. Perhaps more simply put, there is more volatility at the lower levels.
Why might the trend tick up for 4.5 and 5.0 levels though? I think this is an indication that these levels likely have a slightly broader range of abilities than 3.5 and 4.0. At 5.0 that is because it is the catch-all for really good players that have avoided a bump up to 5.5 and this group is often former college players or top juniors that are still in their 20s or 30s, but 5.0 also has established (ok, older) players that just barely got the bump up to 5.0. And you see the jump up at 5.0 is greater in 18 & Over where these younger former collegians/juniors will be.
I think 4.5 has a similar effect, particularly in 40 & Over where being a 5.0 can really limit playing opportunities, so players will appeal down or (unfortunately) manage their rating a bit to stay a 4.5 when their real ability is low 5.0, and then couple that with strong 4.0s just getting bumped up playing against these strong 4.5s and you get lopsided scores.
I don't know that the USTA does this, but in order to have critical mass for teams at the 4.5 and 5.0 levels, they could also adjust things from time to time to keep enough players at these levels for areas to have flights and play.
All that said, the percentage at 4.5 and 5.0 is still well below the 2.5 and 3.0 levels, so those are certainly more volatile and any broader range of abilities at the higher levels is only marginally higher than 3.5 and 4.0.
What do you think? Are the ranges too broad? Should two players of the same level be able to always expect a competitive match? Or is it ok for players at opposite ends of a level to have lopsided scores at times?
