Universal Tennis Rating: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:39, 7 January 2018

Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) is a global rating system that aims to generate an objective, consistent, and accurate index of skill in the game of tennis. UTR rates all players on a single 16-point scale, without regard to age, gender, nationality, or locale of a given match. All professional players in the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) have UTRs, as do all college players in the United States and many junior tournament players worldwide, as well as many adult league and tournament players. The UTR database, which has been compiled since 2004, includes results from more than 6 million matches and 202 countries. More than 600,000 players have UTRs.

Players, coaches, tournament directors, tennis clubs, tennis leagues, and national federations employ UTR in varied ways. These include selecting entrants for, and seeding, tournaments; recruiting players for college teams, scheduling competitive matches with other teams or individuals; finding appropriate playing or training partners in one’s vicinity; choosing which tournaments to enter, and others. UTR is the official rating system of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA). In January 2018, The Tennis Channel announced its partnership with UTR, making the rating system part of the Tennis Channel's coverage of events.

Definition of Universal Tennis Rating

Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) is a worldwide system that produces reliable and accurate ratings of skill in tennis. UTR rates all players —men, women, and children—on a single 16-point scale (with two decimal places) that functions somewhat like a "metric system" for tennis.

UTR's algorithm computes ratings from two data points: the strength of the opponent (whose UTR is known) and the final score of the match in sets and games (not simply the won/lost result). The opponent’s UTR objectively pegs his or her competitive strength, so winning games and sets against higher-rated adversaries raises one’s UTR. Winning more games (e.g., losing a set by a smaller margin, or winning by a larger one) also augments one’s UTR. The number of recent matches played is an additional factor that establishes the reliability of a player's rating.

The Need for Ratings in addition to Rankings

Although tennis is a global sport, it has not embraced a common international rating system. There is nothing in tennis comparable to the handicap system in golf, for example, which enables all golfers to record their scores on specific courses each time they play, generating a handicap that is valid on any golf course in the world.

In tennis, the vast majority of competitive players enter events only in their own geographical locale. Typically, whatever ranking they earn is meaningful only within that region or country. Worldwide, hundreds of national federations govern tennis. Frequently, multiple ranking systems exist within a single nation. It is estimated that as many as 2,700 different tennis ranking and rating systems may be in use around the world.

Furthermore, nearly all of these are ranking systems, not rating systems. Rankings sort players into a “pecking order,” assigning each one a spot in a hierarchy relative to all others ranked in that system. Rankings are ordinal numbers that reflect only the players’ positions relative to each other, not their level of skill as measured by a more objective yardstick.

Universal Tennis Ratings, in contrast, evaluate each athlete with reference to a single metric. UTR thus rates skill in a way that is largely independent of how other players are rated, aside from the strength of opponents in direct competition with the rated player.

Nearly all tennis ranking systems use a "points per round" (PPR) method that assigns points depending on what round a player reached (e.g., quarterfinals), and the perceived "strength" of the tournament. This is administratively easy, but does not take into account the strength of the individual opponents the player faced in the draw. Paradoxically, the PPR method can actually create an incentive to seek out weaker tournaments where it will be easier to survive into later rounds.

The plethora of ranking systems and the lack of a shared metric has created the equivalent of a “Tower of Babel” in international tennis. National federations, tournaments, coaches, teams, colleges, and individual players all speak different languages that do not readily translate into one another. Consequently, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and many of tennis's national governing bodies, including the United States Tennis Association (USTA), have become interested in developing a standard rating method, a kind of "metric system" for tennis that, like a golf handicap, could function globally.

History of Universal Tennis

Universal Tennis Rating is a private company launched in 2006 by Virginia tennis professional Dave Howell to promote the use of a rating system he developed and successfully tested in southeastern Virginia, beginning in 2004. Alex Cancado, a tennis player and web designer in the area, developed an algorithm to facilitate wider use of Howell’s rating system. Howell attracted some early followers as partners and began to concentrate full-time on developing the Universal Tennis Rating.

In his coaching career, Howell mentored junior players from the United States who entered French tournaments. Juniors in the United States compete under various ranking systems, including a widely used PPR system administered by the USTA. France, in contrast, employs a national rating system based on head-to-head won/lost results. This enables French tournament directors to organize "level-based play"—orchestrating matches between players of comparable skill, often without regard to age or even gender. Their “tableaux” draws allow stronger players to enter a tournament at later rounds. This staggered-entry method enables an event to include a range of skill levels, from club players up to even touring professionals in a single tourney.

Howell found that due to the French national rating system, events there were overall far more competitive than junior events in the United States. The French system produced many more close matches. Later, Howell had an epiphany while reading a list of Virginia high schools in his local newspaper. He recognized that a reliable rating system could group players into levels based on their histories of games won and lost—not solely on match wins and losses. It could also take into account the opponents' strength.

The Concept of Universal Tennis Ratings

Recreational tennis—friends pairing off and hitting with each other or playing games—accounts for the majority of tennis. But at the competitive level, junior play in the United States and elsewhere takes place among players broken down into age groups. In the United States, this generally means separate tournaments for players aged 12-and-under, 14-and-under, 16-and-under, and 18-and-under. Tournaments also typically separate the genders into a boys’ and a girls’ draw. Adult events generally sort entrants by half-decades (35-and-over, 40-and-over, etc.).

Entry to, and seedings in, tournaments typically derive from players’ rankings. These in turn are built on points calculated from rounds reached in previous events, regardless of how close the match score or the strength of the opponent. The resulting draws often pit top players against much lower-ranked players in the early rounds, resulting in one-sided matches.

Research conducted by Universal Tennis on thousands of USTA boys' and girls' junior tournament matches at all levels showed that only about one match in four (27%) on average is competitive; national junior events reach the 40 percent level. UTR defines a "competitive" match as one in which the losing player wins more than half the minimum number of games needed to win the match. In the common best 2-of-3 set format, that would be seven games, as the winner must take at least 12 games to win the match. A player who wins at least seven games in such a match has reached the "competitive threshold," as defined by UTR. The use of Howell’s rating system produced junior tournaments in Virginia with substantially more competitive matches—a rate that equalled the 50-60 percent level typically seen at the top tiers of college and professional tennis.

Since 2011, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, the governing body for college tennis in the U.S., has worked closely with Universal Tennis and now relies on UTR data to determine event seeding at U.S college invitationals, seeding and selection for its 51 ITA/Oracle Summer Circuit tournaments, and seeding and selection in the Oracle ITA Junior Masters events. In addition, college coaches find UTR valuable for recruiting players, both internationally and domestically. It also helps recruits identify appropriate college programs.

Adoption and usage of UTR

"The seeding committees for the New York State Tournaments have had massive success using UTR to seed their events. In the Spring, all 8 boys seeds made it into the quarters. The top 4 rated players were in the semis. The top 2 met in the finals. Every match in the tournament was predicted by the ratings except one tough 3-setter which the ratings suggested would be close. Then, in the Fall, all 8 girls seeds were in the quarters. There were many close battles in both of these tournaments, but, the seeds (and ratings) held up. Universal Tennis Ratings saved scholastic tennis in New York. The state tournaments are now seeded largely by rating. Where players and parents once looked skeptically on school tennis, many now come away from their elite scholastic experience with a sense of equity – from a fair draw – that is often missing from the rest of their junior tennis." Jeff Menaker, Director of Tennis, Head Men's & Women's Tennis Coach, Hofstra University

Universal Tennis Ratings (UTR ): Measuring Competitiveness

The Competitive Threshold (CT)

UTR measures a player’s competitiveness by player’s performance (games won/lost) against others near his or her level. A match in which the loser wins more than half the games necessary to have won the match is deemed to have reached the Competitive Threshold (7 games total for a best two-of-three set match).

Two players who are rated within 1.0 of each other on the UTR scale will generally have matches against each other that reach this competitive threshold. Even if one player wins most of their matches, both athletes gain from close matches. In contrast, one-sided matches typically discourage the loser and fail to challenge the winner, offering both players but little opportunity to improve their skills.

Dave Fish, head men’s tennis coach at Harvard University, states that “The Universal Tennis Rating System is now being recognized by many college coaches as the best metric available for judging junior talent. While the recruiting benefits of UTR are evident for both coaches and recruits, the widespread use of the Universal Tennis approach to tournament play promises to transform the entire player development system of tennis in America.”

Player Competitiveness Percentage

A player’s profile on the Universal Tennis website includes a “Competitiveness” measure, which is the percentage of his/ her last 30 matches which have reached the Competitive Threshold. Data on thousands of matches demonstrates that matches played within a 1.0 range are much more likely to produce matches that reach the “Competitive Threshold.” A “Competitiveness” percentage less than 30 percent is not unusual for juniors who play only regional events.

The Universal Rating Scale

16 Levels

Universal Ratings are expressed as a number with up to 2 decimal points between 0 and 16.49:

Djokovic is rated 16.29 as of July 2016; Federer 16.06
Serena Williams is rated 13.26; Sharapova 13.13
Division 1 College men are generally between 12 - 15
Division 1 college women are between 9 - 12

Sources of Results Entered into Universal Tennis

Universal Tennis regularly enters all results from all ATP, WTA, and ITF Juniors and Futures; all sanctioned USTA junior events, all ITA (Intercollegiate Tennis Association) / NCAA dual matches and tournaments results are entered as well as results from a growing number of ITF national federations. UT now updates and maintains ratings for over 250,000 current competitors and reports millions of match results.

Player profiles

Each player has a profile on the website, with a singles rating (doubles rating expected soon) based on up to 30 of their most recent match results in a 12-month period. These profiles include scores and competitors’ names and ratings. The profile also includes the player’s hometown and any college team they currently play for (the player and his rating can also be viewed on the college’s profile page in UT).

Rating reliability percentage

In addition to including the percentage of matches that reached the Competitive Threshold, a player’s profile also indicates the Reliability of that rating.

When a new player first appears in published and/or sanctioned tournament results, that player’s rating will have a low % reliability. Once the player has played 8 or more matches against players with ratings that are 100% reliable, his/her own rating will be considered as 100% reliable. Match results are only accepted by UTR when published on the internet (to insure verification).

References

External links

The Official Universal Tennis Facebook page

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Nearly all tennis ranking systems use a "points per round" (PPR) method that assigns points depending on what round a player reached (e.g., quarterfinals), and the perceived "strength" of the tournament. This is administratively easy, but does not take into account the strength of the individual opponents the player faced in the draw. Paradoxically, the PPR method can actually create an incentive to seek out weaker tournaments where it will be easier to survive into later rounds.
-The plethora of ranking systems and the lack of a shared metric has created the equivalent of a “Tower of Babel” in international tennis. National federations, tournaments, coaches, teams, colleges, and individual players all speak different languages that do not readily translate into one another. Consequently, the [[International Tennis Federation]] (ITF) and many of tennis's national governing bodies, including the [[United States Tennis Association]] (USTA), have become interested in developing a standard rating metric that, like a golf handicap, could function globally.
+The plethora of ranking systems and the lack of a shared metric has created the equivalent of a “Tower of Babel” in international tennis. National federations, tournaments, coaches, teams, colleges, and individual players all speak different languages that do not readily translate into one another. Consequently, the [[International Tennis Federation]] (ITF) and many of tennis's national governing bodies, including the [[United States Tennis Association]] (USTA), have become interested in developing a standard rating method, a kind of [https://blog.universaltennis.com/2016/02/15/tennis-metric-system/ "metric system" for tennis] that, like a golf handicap, could function globally.
 == History of Universal Tennis==
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 Universal Tennis Rating is a private company launched in 2006 by Virginia tennis professional Dave Howell to promote the use of a rating system he developed and successfully tested in southeastern Virginia, beginning in 2004.  Alex Cancado, a tennis player and web designer in the area, developed an algorithm to facilitate wider use of Howell’s rating system. Howell attracted some early followers as partners and began to concentrate full-time on developing the Universal Tennis Rating.
-In his coaching career, Howell mentored junior players from the United States who entered  French tournaments. Juniors in the United States compete under various ranking systems, including a widely used PPR system administered by the USTA. France, in contrast, employs a national rating system based on head-to-head won/lost results. This enables French tournament directors  to organize "level-based play"—orchestrating matches between players of comparable skill, often without regard to age or even gender. Their “tableaux” draws allow stronger players to enter a tournament at later rounds. This staggered-entry system enables an event to include a range of skill levels, from club players up even to touring professionals in a single tourney.
+In his coaching career, Howell mentored junior players from the United States who entered  [https://blog.universaltennis.com/2016/09/13/tournaments-french-style/ French tournaments]. Juniors in the United States compete under various ranking systems, including a widely used PPR system administered by the USTA. France, in contrast, employs a national rating system based on head-to-head won/lost results. This enables French tournament directors  to organize "[https://blog.universaltennis.com/2016/04/28/level-based-play-the-key-to-exciting-tennis/ level-based play]"—orchestrating matches between players of comparable skill, often without regard to age or even gender. Their “tableaux” draws allow stronger players to enter a tournament at later rounds. This staggered-entry method enables an event to include a range of skill levels, from club players up to even touring professionals in a single tourney.
 Howell found that due to the French national rating system, events there were overall far more competitive than junior events in the United States. The French system produced many more close matches. Later, Howell had an epiphany while reading a list of Virginia high schools in his local newspaper. He recognized that a reliable rating system could group players into levels based on their histories of games won and lost—not solely on match wins and losses. It could also take into account the opponents' strength.
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Recreational tennis—friends pairing off and hitting with each other or playing games—accounts for the majority of tennis. But at the competitive level, junior play in the United States and elsewhere takes place among players broken down into age groups. In the United States, this generally means separate tournaments for players aged 12-and-under, 14-and-under, 16-and-under, and 18-and-under. Tournaments also typically separate the genders into a boys’ and a girls’ draw.  Adult events generally sort entrants by half-decades (35-and-over, 40-and-over, etc.).
-Entry to, and seedings in, tournaments typically derive from players’ rankings. These in turn are built on  points calculated from rounds reached in previous events, regardless of how close the match score, or the strength of the opponent. The resulting draws often pit top-seeded players against much lower-ranked players in the early rounds, resulting in one-sided matches.
+Entry to, and seedings in, tournaments typically derive from players’ rankings. These in turn are built on  points calculated from rounds reached in previous events, regardless of how close the match score or the strength of the opponent. The resulting draws often pit top players against much lower-ranked players in the early rounds, resulting in one-sided matches.
-Research conducted by Universal Tennis on thousands of USTA junior tournament matches at all levels for boys and girls revealed that only about one match in four (27%) on average is competitive; national junior events reach the 40 percent level. UTR defines a "competitive" match as one in which the losing player wins at least one game more than half the minimum number of games needed to win the match. In a common best 2-of-3 set format, that would be seven games. A player who wins at least seven games in such a match is said to have reached the "competitive threshold," as defined by UTR. The use of Howell’s rating system produced junior tournaments in Virginia with substantially more competitive matches—equal to the 50-60 percent level typically seen at the top tiers of college and professional tennis.
+Research conducted by Universal Tennis on thousands of USTA boys' and girls' junior tournament matches at all levels showed that only about one match in four (27%) on average is competitive; national junior events reach the 40 percent level. UTR defines a "competitive" match as one in which the losing player wins more than half the minimum number of games needed to win the match. In the common best 2-of-3 set format, that would be seven games, as the winner must take at least 12 games to win the match. A player who wins at least seven games in such a match has reached the "competitive threshold," as defined by UTR. The use of Howell’s rating system produced junior tournaments in Virginia with substantially more competitive matches—a rate that equalled the 50-60 percent level typically seen at the top tiers of college and professional tennis.
-Since 2011, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, the governing body for college tennis in the U.S., has worked closely with Universal Tennis and now relies on UTR data to determine event seeding at U.S college invitationals, seeding and selection for 51 ITA/Oracle Summer Circuit tournaments, and seeding and selection in the Oracle ITA Junior Masters events.  In addition, college coaches find UTR valuable for recruiting players, both internationally and domestically.  It also helps recruits to identify appropriate college programs.  UTR is also used to select and seed the USTA/New Balance National High School Championship in Boston.
+Since 2011, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, the governing body for college tennis in the U.S., has worked closely with Universal Tennis and now relies on UTR data to determine event seeding at U.S college invitationals, seeding and selection for its 51 ITA/Oracle Summer Circuit tournaments, and seeding and selection in the Oracle ITA Junior Masters events.  In addition, college coaches find UTR valuable for recruiting players, both internationally and domestically. It also helps recruits identify appropriate college programs.
 === Adoption and usage of UTR ===