The LTA

Elegant Point · Satellite level

The LTA

The Realist · Junior player

Yes, the problems started years ago when, I think the LTA were concerned that too many young players were dropping out of the game and they wanted to encourage them by making it easier to rise up the ratings; so they introduced six wins and a lot of people made a lot of money from matchplays every week. Many players increased their ratings simply by playing the same people over and over again, and although the LTA did introduce some restrictions it was too late

There are similar problems for the girls although not so many 1.1s yet! But it does make getting into British Tours very difficult for US College students. You can be seeded one year and the next, struggle to get into qualifying. It also has an impact on trying to get into ITFs as the national rankings are based on ratings.

The system definitely needs to change

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

The fatal flaw was the introduction of no penalty for loosing to someone with the same rating as yourself. So I as an 8.1 (if I could ever be bothered) could play 10 other 8.1s loose 7 (and they wouldnt count) but win 3 and I would move to a 7.2

But as an 8.1 I have taken a set off Liam Hignett (1.1) albeit at doubles, but does again highlight the ridiculous nature of the ratings. Especially for most players over 30 with ratings of 7.2-10.2 who are more like 4.1-6.1 but just dont play any qualifying singles competitions.

The Realist · Junior player

Totally agree. I recall years ago there was a player who played 33 matchplays against her own rating, lost 27 but won 6 and so went up. Total farce

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

That's interesting. However, I'm not sure I'd agree that that's the problem.

In France, about 15 years ago, they used to have a penalty for matches lost to worse opposition.

But it was decided to get rid of it because basically people were put off entering tournaments because they were scared of losing. i.e. if it was a week you might be a bit busy, or you had a slight niggle, you wouldn't enter because you didn't want to take the risk.

So they got rid of the penalty and only awarded positive points for wins and the entry rates went up again. Which is good.

As long as the calculation (points for wins at different rankings) is set properly, it shouldn't cause a problem. (You need to beat 6 players of the same level to go up in France if you are in the lower end, more if you're in the middle or above)

Moreover, there's no real problem in the scenario you mention above. If the player goes up to 7.2 based on only 3 wins at that level (and 7 losses that don't count) then - presumably - they are a really weak 7.2 and won't win anything the next season and will go straight back down again.

And I assume the calculation for the others is iterative so that it won't even give false points to the players who beat you : in France, in the original computer run, you'd get the points for beating a 7.2 (assuming you beat the 'false' 7.2) but then in the next iteration when he/she's gone back down to a 8.1, you'd only get the points for a win against an 8.1 (and the computer runs tons of iterations until it reaches a stable result).

wolf · Tennis legend

Not sure the assumptions you make are true, CD.

A junior players rating cannot decrease (unless a correction is necessary). An adult players rating can decrease but not to a level lower than 6.2. An adult player's rating will decrease if, in the previous two competition seasons, he/she has recorded no results or, in failing to meet the rating increase criteria, has recorded no qualifying wins and more than one qualifying loss within the previous two competition seasons.

An adult Player can apply prior to the end of summer season ratings run by emailing info@lta.org.uk to have his/her Rating frozen for a period of time where he/she is not competing (for example, due to long-term illness or injury) or where he/she is competing exclusively abroad. Supporting evidence may be required.

https://www.lta.org.uk/play-compete/competing/player-ratings-rankings/british-tennis-ratings/

The Realist · Junior player

The girl I mentioned was able to continue to increase her rating.

Until the LTA changed the rule so that only three out of the six junior wins needed could come from matchplays, players just kept on playing matchplays week in week out, knowing that their rating couldn't go down and that if they managed to get six wins against other weak players then their rating would increase ( again and again and again). The LTA rule change in that respect was too late - many juniors were already too highly rated. This also gave them better opportunities to gain entry to over subscribed tournaments

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

How is it possible that your rating can't go down?

The thought never occurred to me.

All ratings in France (junior and adult, there's no difference) are recalculated each year (well, now each trimester) based on your results, giving you a points total. For each rating, there is a maintenance total needed (to stay put). If you have under that amount, you go down. Easy. You have to 'be' that level to have that rating.

The Realist · Junior player

LTA regulations..your rating can't go down while you are a junior player

TennisMom · Social player

As a junior all 18u tournament acceptance is on ranking in tournaments grade 3 & above. The rating is totally unimportant to them until the junior starts to plays Open category.

Their rating can only go up whilst 18u. Soon Open tournaments too will be done on ranking as practically everyone will be 1.1

There are 4.2s (probably some even higher) in 12u!!

The LTA will have to introduce a new system, something along the lines of UTR, its in the pipeline, so Ive been told.

Strongbow · All-time great

Why have two competing systems within the same organization - mad - just go by ranking - It'll save a lot of hassle and paperwork - bet they don't sack anybody. wink

Michael D · All-time great

Strongbow wrote:
Why have two competing systems within the same organization - mad - just go by ranking - It'll save a lot of hassle and paperwork - bet they don't sack anybody.

Except that is not so easy. You have thousands of tennis players in the UK with a rating, and until they reach a certain level you can't give them all a national ranking. To begin with they have county rankings, but obviously those are not directly comparable. Thus the ratings do serve a role to get players onto the ladder, and provide an incentive for them to compete and improve. Just that the system as it currently operates is flawed and needs some changes...

Edit: Whoops, let me just row that back. Have just checked my son, who has a county, regional and national ranking, the latter indeed in the 2000s, derived from a points system based on results in individual competitions. Still, at his level, it is the rating that gives him a sense of comparability across players.

-- Edited by Michael D on Saturday 1st of September 2018 09:11:58 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

No other country I know has two systems.

Basically one rolls into the other. So, in the European countries I know, you start off with a broad rating, covering all the people of that level. It's a pyramid, as you'd expect, and as you get to the top 'rating level' the players then get separated into ranking, so the very top players are split down into their actual ranking, the rest have a rating, but it's all one system that flows one into the other.

And there's no need for a ranking at the lower levels because the rating is spot on, very reflective of your level - partly because you all can go down as well as up !

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

The LTA rankings/ratings systems are the result of well-meaning objectives - I just don't think they realised how people would game the system or the value people would put on the numbers associated with their name.

When it was just a rating system, updated twice per year, the Competitions Department at the LTA received a lot of feedback indicating that juniors found it very demotivating not seeming to progress for a year or more. This was particularly pertinent because tournaments were seeded by committee. Players were sorted by rating and each group of players with the same rating were judged by the tournament organisers as to any seeding order. The less well-known kids in any locality just felt they couldn't get off the starting blocks and that their improvement (which can be quite rapid in children if they decide to focus on the sport) just didn't get recognised. Thus the rankings were introduced, to be run fortnightly, to give kids in particular a sense that they were making progress throughout the year. Seedings at all LTA sanctioned events was to be done by rating sub-divided by ranking. Hence the two systems and it seemed to work better for the juniors (particularly the younger ones) than a simple rating had. And it made tournaments seem fairer too.

Then they got feedback that after the first 3 months of any ratings period, many juniors simply stopped competing and withdrawals during tournaments rose sharply - particularly between players of the same rating. Research showed that juniors did not want to risk losing a ratings rise that they already had in the bag and that they did not enjoy playing opponents at their own rating or just below in case it negatively impacted on their ability to move up a level. It also showed that for many juniors, tennis matches had become about not losing rather than enjoyment and development. So they decided that losses against an opponent of your own rating would no longer count as a negative in the ratings recalculations. They also introduced an interim ratings run in between the two twice-yearly ones. These enable those who have already got the right win-loss ratio to move up after 3 months with this new improved rating to be used as the base for the next 'main' ratings recalculation. The aim of all these changes was to get juniors to play consistently throughout the year and to encourage players to have a more positive attitude towards competing. All good intentions but it clearly has worked out in unexpected ways!

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Following on from the above, with the benefit of hindsight, the root of the problem was that the ratings bands (1.1 Kyle Edmunds/Jo Konta through 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 down to 10.2 starting rating) were just too broad. They would have been better adopting something along the lines of Universal Tennis Ratings with their system of 1 to 16 with 2 decimal places so their could be real differentiation between players. (Not suggesting the UTR way of calculating a rating just the vast number of ratings they have available).