Comparing TRN to UTR for Class of 2015 Boys

With Spring Signing Week almost upon us, I thought I would do a little report on where the Top 200 players according to TennisRecruiting.net are headed (a blank next to the player’s name means he hasn’t announced a commitment yet) and compare their TRN ranking to their UTR rating. We’ll take a peek at the Class of 2015 Boys first.

The first chart you see below is ordered by TRN Ranking. The second chart is ordered by UTR Rating. It is interesting to compare the two.

At the top of the rankings, the two charts are pretty similar. There are a few things that stand out, though. For example, TRN’s #31 ranked player comes in at #7 in terms of UTR rating, and #34 on TRN comes in at #9. Also interesting to note is that TRN’s #70 player, Tyler Schick, is at 16 on the UTR list.

We have to be careful to avoid drawing too many conclusions from one chart over the other, but the more information coaches can get on these young players, the better in terms of their recruiting efforts. What do you see here and what do you make of it?

My report on the Girls of 2015 is here.

Class of 2015 Boys Ordered by TRN
TRN Ranking UTR Name State College
1 14.27 Reilly Opelka FL
2 14.56 Tommy Paul NJ
3 13.95 Alfredo Perez FL Florida
4 14.19 Alex Rybakov FL
5 13.56 Walker Duncan GA Georgia
6 13.41 Kalman Boyd CA USC
7 13.37 Sameer Kumar IN Stanford
8 13.49 Michael Genender CA Stanford
9 12.84 McClain Kessler GA Florida
10 13.41 Vincent Lin IL Duke
11 13.07 Emil Reinberg GA Georgia
12 13.66 Victor Pham CA Columbia
13 13.64 Liam Caruana TX Texas
14 12.89 Yancy Dennis MD South Carolina
15 13.29 Catalin Mateas MA Duke
16 12.92 Adrian Chamdani CA Duke
17 13.38 Cameron Klinger CA Vanderbilt
18 13.42 Eric Rutledge TX Wake Forest
19 12.94 Kyle Seelig PA Ohio State
20 12.46 Ezequiel Cerrini FL
21 12.69 Myles Schalet NJ Michigan
22 12.81 Jacob Hansen TX Rice
23 13.04 Andy Zhou CA Harvard
24 12.94 Dennis Wang MD Yale
25 13.3 Dan Stefan FL Vanderbilt
26 12.96 Jordan Benjamin NY Dayton
27 12.44 Mark Epshteyn-Losev FL
28 13.32 Anudeep Kodali NC North Carolina
29 12.94 Robert Seby AZ Santa Clara
30 12.74 Asher Hirsch OH Illinois
31 13.57 Kyle Mautner CT Penn
32 12.7 James Wasserman NY Princeton
33 13 Reese Stalder CA TCU
34 13.51 Martin Joyce IL Ohio State
35 12.9 Blaine Boyden NC North Carolina
36 12.81 Henry Gordon TX Texas A&M
37 12.87 Max Cressy CA UCLA
38 12.61 Christian Haushammer FL Louisville
39 12.8 Eddie Grabill IL Dartmouth
40 12.64 Ryan Shen CA Cal Berkeley
41 12.72 Jimmy Bendeck FL
42 13.01 Andrew Gu CA Santa Clara
43 12.57 Daniel Gealer CA UCLA
44 12.61 Hunter Tubert WV Ohio State
45 12.68 Spencer Richey TN Alabama
46 12.32 Rafael Lenhard CA Cal Poly
47 12.47 Grey Hamilton NC Ole Miss
48 12.79 Nicholas Borchenko CA LMU
49 12.3 Afonso Salgado FL
50 12.87 Oliver Sec NY UC Santa Barbara
51 12.51 Timothy Wang MI Columbia
52 12.77 Joshua Sheehy TX Abilene Christian
53 12.51 Aron Pierce TX
54 12.82 Joshua Ortlip CA Cal Poly
55 12.76 Maverick Lin NJ Cornell
56 12.29 Zachary Lieb PA Penn State
57 12.75 Alex Ross IL Vanderbilt
58 12.91 Toby Boyer MN Nebraska
59 12.71 Connor Garnett WA Santa Clara
60 12.32 Daniel Rayl IN Notre Dame
61 12.76 Gabe Tishman NY Michigan
62 12.77 Lubomir Cuba NY Michigan
63 12.47 John Karlawish NC Penn
64 12.51 Chad Kissell PA Valparaiso
65 12.15 Sean Ko CA
66 12.65 Grayson Broadus TX Notre Dame
67 12.17 Jonathan Deautriell FL North Florida
68 13 Brandon Lancaster KY Louisville
69 12.78 Benjamin Lieb PA Penn State
70 13.33 Tyler Schick NJ Tulane
71 12.42 William Shisler FL Michigan State
72 12.55 Trevor Foshey FL Mississippi State
73 12.25 Jake Gabay FL Cornell
74 12.36 Charles Tan TX Brown
75 12.4 Alexander Lebedev NY Notre Dame
76 12.42 Michael Chen NJ Georgetown
77 12.01 Emanuel Llamas TX Rice
78 12.42 Ethan Young-Smith CA Oregon
79 12.48 David Mitchell CO Army
80 12.61 Matthew Galush NC Penn State
81 11.85 Charles Pei CA Chicago
82 12.76 Ryan Dickerson NJ Duke
83 12.44 Ben Vandixhorn IL Northwestern
84 12.38 Michael Lorenzini IL Northwestern
85 12.09 Kenneth Boykin OK
86 12.38 Cameron Andry LA LSU
87 12 Nathan Griffin OH Notre Dame
88 12.47 Jack Turchetta NY Columbia
89 12.35 Oliver Otero FL Penn State
90 11.81 Tillman Haynes TX Boise State
91 12.22 Sreyas Kolachalam CA Cal Poly
92 11.99 Colin Markes TX
93 12.65 Christian Garay GA
94 12.13 Max Liu CA Chicago
95 12.21 Gregory Anderson AZ TCU
96 12.23 Ryan Marker CA San Francisco
97 12.4 Jason Seidman CT Northwestern
98 12.1 Jason Kros VA Virginia Tech
99 12.23 Nathan Brown TX Yale
100 12.25 Jayanth Chintham GA
101 12.44 Austin Hussey KY Kentucky
102 12.17 Michael Quang MD Louisville
103 12.06 Kevin Lam CA Washington
104 12.6 Fredrick Zaretsky NJ Quinnipac
105 12.31 Jonathan Jemison GA Emory
106 11.85 Joseph Haig MA Dartmouth
107 11.91 Eric Wagner NY Tulane
108 11.66 Felipe Osses-Konig NY Elon
109 11.76 Charlie Adams MN Yale
110 12.61 Arash Hafezi CA
111 11.91 Jesse Levitin NY Amherst
112 11 John Goodwin KS Texas
113 11.63 Deepak Indrakanti OH Williams
114 12.03 Alex Cauneac MD
115 11.82 Konrad Kozlowski CA
116 10.99 Roberto Busato FL
117 11.55 Artur Jakubowski TX Bryant
118 11.45 Ninan Kumar FL Army
119 12.7 Razvan Grigorescu FL
120 11.19 Cole Lawson TX Abilene Christian
121 11.79 Brian Tsao MD Louisville
122 12.21 Riley Scott CA UC Santa Barbara
123 11.7 Kamran Khan TX Santa Clara
124 12.16 Daniel Belsito NC Presbyterian
125 11.97 Raul DeLaTorre CA
126 11.91 Spencer Lang CO Butler
127 11.77 Bryant Born NY Lehigh
128 11.45 Gianni Mancini TX TCU
129 12.03 Lorenzo Rollhauser TN Dayton
130 12.09 Samuel Giammalva TX
131 11.55 Tony Leto IL Iowa
132 11.31 Joseph Gray TX
133 12.24 Jonathan Heidenberg FL
134 11.75 Nicholas Werner IN Xavier
135 11.7 Ethan Nittolo NY Buffalo
136 12.47 Morgan Stone GA Santa Clara
137 11.72 Andrew Sinai PA Drexel
138 11.77 Daniel Levine IL Carnegie-Mellon
139 11.75 Radhakrishna Vishnubhotla IN Wash U – St. Louis
140 11.59 Drew (Andrew) Akins GA Duquesne
141 11.51 Michael Peters MO Harvard
142 11.42 Brice Polender IL Richmond
143 11.88 Julian Gordy CA CMS
144 11.19 Alan Sweet FL Wisconsin
145 12.05 Adam Rudowski TN
146 11.58 Kyle Barr SC Wofford
147 11.57 Andre Johnson FL Georgia Southern
148 11.85 Christopher Auteri NY Lehigh
149 11.86 Zachary Bessette FL Amherst
150 11.46 Tadhg Collins TX Air Force
151 11.86 Humberto Lopez CA
152 11.88 Jonathan Li CA Chicago
153 12.02 Emilio Moreno CA Gonzaga
154 11.46 Aiku Shintani CA Cal Poly
155 11.51 Michael Plutt FL Bryant
156 11.42 Eshan Dave TX Johns Hopkins
157 11.58 Kawika Lam HI Texas A&M
158 11.49 Sebastian Langdon TX Abilene Christian
159 11.74 Marcus Smith NY Hofstra
160 11.76 William Sharton MA Georgetown
161 11.22 Jacob Tullis UT BYU
162 11.79 Yangeng Jiang NJ Bowdoin
163 11.52 Micah Klousia MO Nebraska
164 11.31 Jerod Mah CA San Francisco
165 11.91 Gunther Matta CA Cal Berkeley
166 11.16 Mason Dragos OH Butler
167 12.21 Taylor Duffy FL
168 11.78 Neel Bedekar CA
169 11.14 Ivan Rakic MI Michigan State
170 11.72 Marshall Sullivan TN Tennessee
171 11.35 Justin Hall FL
172 10.9 Edward Ayers TX
173 11 George Cooper CA Lehigh
174 11.33 Scott Plutt FL Bryant
175 11.57 Michael Ogden NC
176 11.07 Kyle McCann CA UC Riverside
177 11.01 Clayton Alenik NV
178 11.51 Vincent Anzalone OH Toledo
179 11.57 Eddie Gutierrez CA Liberty
180 11.59 Vayum Arora CA Carnegie-Mellon
181 11.07 Carlos Moreno FL Marist
182 11.59 Kevin Wan VA
183 11.6 Felix Hollaway TX St. Mary’s (TX)
184 11.59 Jack La Plante CA Pacific
185 11.33 Adrien Bouchet VA Emory
186 11.16 Josiah Collins GA
187 11.4 James Spaulding IL Emory
188 11.52 Patrick Wyeth MA
189 10.99 Conor O’Meara TX
190 11.23 Colin Harvey IL
191 11.23 Isaac Perez TX Air Force
192 11.35 Sam Brazil NC Charlotte
193 11.93 Vince Tabotabo CA
194 10.51 Rajul Chikkalingaiah OR
195 10.99 William Szokol IL Chicago
196 11.26 Christopher Anders LA
197 11.88 Sayer Paige CT Boston College
198 11.08 John Milstead TX Oklahoma
199 11.43 Matthew Brumbaugh OH
200 11.72 Alexander Poynter TX
Class of 2015 Boys Ordered by UTR
UTR TRN Ranking Name State College
1 14.56 2 Tommy Paul NJ
2 14.27 1 Reilly Opelka FL
3 14.19 4 Alex Rybakov FL
4 13.95 3 Alfredo Perez FL Florida
5 13.66 12 Victor Pham CA Columbia
6 13.64 13 Liam Caruana TX Texas
7 13.57 31 Kyle Mautner CT Penn
8 13.56 5 Walker Duncan GA Georgia
9 13.51 34 Martin Joyce IL Ohio State
10 13.49 8 Michael Genender CA Stanford
11 13.42 18 Eric Rutledge TX Wake Forest
12 13.41 6 Kalman Boyd CA USC
13 13.41 10 Vincent Lin IL Duke
14 13.38 17 Cameron Klinger CA Vanderbilt
15 13.37 7 Sameer Kumar IN Stanford
16 13.33 70 Tyler Schick NJ Tulane
17 13.32 28 Anudeep Kodali NC North Carolina
18 13.3 25 Dan Stefan FL Vanderbilt
19 13.29 15 Catalin Mateas MA Duke
20 13.07 11 Emil Reinberg GA Georgia
21 13.04 23 Andy Zhou CA Harvard
22 13.01 42 Andrew Gu CA Santa Clara
23 13 33 Reese Stalder CA TCU
24 13 68 Brandon Lancaster KY Louisville
25 12.96 26 Jordan Benjamin NY Dayton
26 12.94 19 Kyle Seelig PA Ohio State
27 12.94 24 Dennis Wang MD Yale
28 12.94 29 Robert Seby AZ Santa Clara
29 12.92 16 Adrian Chamdani CA Duke
30 12.91 58 Toby Boyer MN Nebraska
31 12.9 35 Blaine Boyden NC North Carolina
32 12.89 14 Yancy Dennis MD South Carolina
33 12.87 37 Max Cressy CA UCLA
34 12.87 50 Oliver Sec NY UC Santa Barbara
35 12.84 9 McClain Kessler GA Florida
36 12.82 54 Joshua Ortlip CA Cal Poly
37 12.81 22 Jacob Hansen TX Rice
38 12.81 36 Henry Gordon TX Texas A&M
39 12.8 39 Eddie Grabill IL Dartmouth
40 12.79 48 Nicholas Borchenko CA LMU
41 12.78 69 Benjamin Lieb PA Penn State
42 12.77 52 Joshua Sheehy TX Abilene Christian
43 12.77 62 Lubomir Cuba NY Michigan
44 12.76 55 Maverick Lin NJ Cornell
45 12.76 61 Gabe Tishman NY Michigan
46 12.76 82 Ryan Dickerson NJ Duke
47 12.75 57 Alex Ross IL Vanderbilt
48 12.74 30 Asher Hirsch OH Illinois
49 12.72 41 Jimmy Bendeck FL
50 12.71 59 Connor Garnett WA Santa Clara
51 12.7 32 James Wasserman NY Princeton
52 12.7 119 Razvan Grigorescu FL
53 12.69 21 Myles Schalet NJ Michigan
54 12.68 45 Spencer Richey TN Alabama
55 12.65 66 Grayson Broadus TX Notre Dame
56 12.65 93 Christian Garay GA
57 12.64 40 Ryan Shen CA Cal Berkeley
58 12.61 38 Christian Haushammer FL Louisville
59 12.61 44 Hunter Tubert WV Ohio State
60 12.61 80 Matthew Galush NC Penn State
61 12.61 110 Arash Hafezi CA
62 12.6 104 Fredrick Zaretsky NJ Quinnipac
63 12.57 43 Daniel Gealer CA UCLA
64 12.55 72 Trevor Foshey FL Mississippi State
65 12.51 51 Timothy Wang MI Columbia
66 12.51 53 Aron Pierce TX
67 12.51 64 Chad Kissell PA Valparaiso
68 12.48 79 David Mitchell CO Army
69 12.47 47 Grey Hamilton NC Ole Miss
70 12.47 63 John Karlawish NC Penn
71 12.47 88 Jack Turchetta NY Columbia
72 12.47 136 Morgan Stone GA Santa Clara
73 12.46 20 Ezequiel Cerrini FL
74 12.44 27 Mark Epshteyn-Losev FL
75 12.44 83 Ben Vandixhorn IL Northwestern
76 12.44 101 Austin Hussey KY Kentucky
77 12.42 71 William Shisler FL Michigan State
78 12.42 76 Michael Chen NJ Georgetown
79 12.42 78 Ethan Young-Smith CA Oregon
80 12.4 75 Alexander Lebedev NY Notre Dame
81 12.4 97 Jason Seidman CT Northwestern
82 12.38 84 Michael Lorenzini IL Northwestern
83 12.38 86 Cameron Andry LA LSU
84 12.36 74 Charles Tan TX Brown
85 12.35 89 Oliver Otero FL Penn State
86 12.32 46 Rafael Lenhard CA Cal Poly
87 12.32 60 Daniel Rayl IN Notre Dame
88 12.31 105 Jonathan Jemison GA Emory
89 12.3 49 Afonso Salgado FL
90 12.29 56 Zachary Lieb PA Penn State
91 12.25 73 Jake Gabay FL Cornell
92 12.25 100 Jayanth Chintham GA
93 12.24 133 Jonathan Heidenberg FL
94 12.23 96 Ryan Marker CA San Francisco
95 12.23 99 Nathan Brown TX Yale
96 12.22 91 Sreyas Kolachalam CA Cal Poly
97 12.21 95 Gregory Anderson AZ TCU
98 12.21 122 Riley Scott CA UC Santa Barbara
99 12.21 167 Taylor Duffy FL
100 12.17 67 Jonathan Deautriell FL North Florida
101 12.17 102 Michael Quang MD Louisville
102 12.16 124 Daniel Belsito NC Presbyterian
103 12.15 65 Sean Ko CA
104 12.13 94 Max Liu CA Chicago
105 12.1 98 Jason Kros VA Virginia Tech
106 12.09 85 Kenneth Boykin OK
107 12.09 130 Samuel Giammalva TX
108 12.06 103 Kevin Lam CA Washington
109 12.05 145 Adam Rudowski TN
110 12.03 114 Alex Cauneac MD
111 12.03 129 Lorenzo Rollhauser TN Dayton
112 12.02 153 Emilio Moreno CA Gonzaga
113 12.01 77 Emanuel Llamas TX Rice
114 12 87 Nathan Griffin OH Notre Dame
115 11.99 92 Colin Markes TX
116 11.97 125 Raul DeLaTorre CA
117 11.93 193 Vince Tabotabo CA
118 11.91 107 Eric Wagner NY Tulane
119 11.91 111 Jesse Levitin NY Amherst
120 11.91 126 Spencer Lang CO Butler
121 11.91 165 Gunther Matta CA Cal Berkeley
122 11.88 143 Julian Gordy CA CMS
123 11.88 152 Jonathan Li CA Chicago
124 11.88 197 Sayer Paige CT Boston College
125 11.86 149 Zachary Bessette FL Amherst
126 11.86 151 Humberto Lopez CA
127 11.85 81 Charles Pei CA Chicago
128 11.85 106 Joseph Haig MA Dartmouth
129 11.85 148 Christopher Auteri NY Lehigh
130 11.82 115 Konrad Kozlowski CA
131 11.81 90 Tillman Haynes TX Boise State
132 11.79 121 Brian Tsao MD Louisville
133 11.79 162 Yangeng Jiang NJ Bowdoin
134 11.78 168 Neel Bedekar CA
135 11.77 127 Bryant Born NY Lehigh
136 11.77 138 Daniel Levine IL Carnegie-Mellon
137 11.76 109 Charlie Adams MN Yale
138 11.76 160 William Sharton MA Georgetown
139 11.75 134 Nicholas Werner IN Xavier
140 11.75 139 Radhakrishna Vishnubhotla IN Wash U – St. Louis
141 11.74 159 Marcus Smith NY Hofstra
142 11.72 137 Andrew Sinai PA Drexel
143 11.72 170 Marshall Sullivan TN Tennessee
144 11.72 200 Alexander Poynter TX
145 11.7 123 Kamran Khan TX Santa Clara
146 11.7 135 Ethan Nittolo NY Buffalo
147 11.66 108 Felipe Osses-Konig NY Elon
148 11.63 113 Deepak Indrakanti OH Williams
149 11.6 183 Felix Hollaway TX St. Mary’s (TX)
150 11.59 140 Drew (Andrew) Akins GA Duquesne
151 11.59 180 Vayum Arora CA Carnegie-Mellon
152 11.59 182 Kevin Wan VA
153 11.59 184 Jack La Plante CA Pacific
154 11.58 146 Kyle Barr SC Wofford
155 11.58 157 Kawika Lam HI Texas A&M
156 11.57 147 Andre Johnson FL Georgia Southern
157 11.57 175 Michael Ogden NC
158 11.57 179 Eddie Gutierrez CA Liberty
159 11.55 117 Artur Jakubowski TX Bryant
160 11.55 131 Tony Leto IL Iowa
161 11.52 163 Micah Klousia MO Nebraska
162 11.52 188 Patrick Wyeth MA
163 11.51 141 Michael Peters MO Harvard
164 11.51 155 Michael Plutt FL Bryant
165 11.51 178 Vincent Anzalone OH Toledo
166 11.49 158 Sebastian Langdon TX Abilene Christian
167 11.46 150 Tadhg Collins TX Air Force
168 11.46 154 Aiku Shintani CA Cal Poly
169 11.45 118 Ninan Kumar FL Army
170 11.45 128 Gianni Mancini TX TCU
171 11.43 199 Matthew Brumbaugh OH
172 11.42 142 Brice Polender IL Richmond
173 11.42 156 Eshan Dave TX Johns Hopkins
174 11.4 187 James Spaulding IL Emory
175 11.35 171 Justin Hall FL
176 11.35 192 Sam Brazil NC Charlotte
177 11.33 174 Scott Plutt FL Bryant
178 11.33 185 Adrien Bouchet VA Emory
179 11.31 132 Joseph Gray TX
180 11.31 164 Jerod Mah CA San Francisco
181 11.26 196 Christopher Anders LA
182 11.23 190 Colin Harvey IL
183 11.23 191 Isaac Perez TX Air Force
184 11.22 161 Jacob Tullis UT BYU
185 11.19 120 Cole Lawson TX Abilene Christian
186 11.19 144 Alan Sweet FL Wisconsin
187 11.16 166 Mason Dragos OH Butler
188 11.16 186 Josiah Collins GA
189 11.14 169 Ivan Rakic MI Michigan State
190 11.08 198 John Milstead TX Oklahoma
191 11.07 176 Kyle McCann CA UC Riverside
192 11.07 181 Carlos Moreno FL Marist
193 11.01 177 Clayton Alenik NV
194 11 112 John Goodwin KS Texas
195 11 173 George Cooper CA Lehigh
196 10.99 116 Roberto Busato FL
197 10.99 189 Conor O’Meara TX
198 10.99 195 William Szokol IL Chicago
199 10.9 172 Edward Ayers TX
200 10.51 194 Rajul Chikkalingaiah OR

31 Comments on “Comparing TRN to UTR for Class of 2015 Boys”

  1. I’m glad you’ve brought this up.

    TRN has become increasingly frustrating to my son this past 6 months. By no means is he a top player, though he’s working his butt off to be. However, the second “rating period” of 2014 he moved up to a 2 star sophomore. Excited by that he continued to work hard. He’s had the best 12 months of his tennis career, and continues to get better every week.

    But what has that got him on TRN? He’s dropped 250 spots and back to a 1 star. So I’ve been studying those ahead of him. I won’t call out names of kids, but there is one ranked 80 spots ahead of my son. He has a 12 month rolling record of 5-10, no signature wins, and a habit of pulling out of tournaments ill or injured or PC. This kid is 30 spots behind my son in the USTA Midwest, my son has a 32-27 record, and my son’s UTR is 7.55 compared to this kids 6.8. How can he POSSIBLY be ranked that high. AND my son’s IMG TennisRPI is 400 spots better than this kid.

    I asked TRN how to improve rankings. She told me this:
    1. Don’t lose to someone ranked lower than you
    2. Play in fewer tournaments

    Are you freaking kidding me? Play in fewer tournaments? My God. Yes, lets create a rating system that kids and colleges use that REWARDS you for not playing. Seriously.

    What I like about the UTR system is if you play someone competitively and lose, it still benefits you. That’s important.

    This next year and a half is huge for my son if he wants to play D1, he needs to get that UTR way up, and the TRN way up or coaches won’t even give him the time of day. But if you ask TRN, they’ll tell you not to play. It’s mind numbing.

    1. The only way for our juniors to improve is to play matches. Period. Their rating/ranking doesn’t make them better players, so to choose tournaments solely based on which one will improve your USTA, TRN, or UTR does a big disservice to the player. Every match is an opportunity to learn and get better, even the ones that end up 0 & 0. Just my opinion.

  2. Lisa, Lisa, Lisa….. I’ve given up on TRN. My daughter has Main Draw wins in Eddie Herr and Orange Bowl that don’t show up. She hadn’t lost to ANYONE in her year group and has a resume that includes beating the last National Selection winner, and the #2 seed @ EasterBowl. She’s a 12 and plays exclusively 14s, and 16s. Has lost 2 only 2 girls in the Top 10 and beat 5 in the Top 20 for her year group. Only plays National Level events and has a .500 record against 5 stars and Bluechips. There is a BLUECHIP that has a losing record against 5 stars and Bluechips. I think she’s 0-15! a BLUECHIP!!!!!!!!

    So I’d love to say TRN is fair but it seems they have a nice distribution thru the regions. Good business model, BUT when I was @ Spring national (My daughter one of two girls that went 5-0) I was approached by several parents that are very smart engineers and say TRN’s process is flawed…….

    So add no variable to include DBLS and as I was told by a college coach they know its limitations.

    TRN with the new National Schedule is just not representative….Hell Several BLUECHIPS @ EASTERBOWL didn’t win a ROUND! That is all you need to say!

  3. Lisa, it is interesting, but inaccurate so far with the UTR rating and comparing to TRN ranking.
    Senior year is inaccurate as a lot of the kids have aged out ( they turned 19) or they stopped playing. Plus, UTR doesn’t have a lot of their data inputted too is what I am hearing from parents
    If I had to pick one that is more accurate, it is TRN right now.

    This would be more interesting in two years when UTR is completely up and running,
    and I would do juniors, not seniors, as they would not have aged out or stopped playing.
    Also, colleges give out the majority of their spots in junior years ( unofficial) and that is when the rankings matter. Senior year is just a mess.

    To Macneileric, put the focus more on development and fun. TRN was just trying to say that it doesn’t help your son’s ranking to play lower ranked kids, but that doesn’t help your kid for when they move up then they will start to duck opponents. Play for the love of the game. Seriously.
    There is no scholarship money on the boys side and this sport ultimately has to be enjoyable
    ( fun) more than the rankings. Best of luck.

    1. Tennis5, the reason I’m using the Class of 2015 is so I can also show where these kids are going to college – I think it’s good for parents to see the doors that tennis can open for their kids, especially since scholarship money is so limited on the boys side. I hope that helps clarify. 🙂

  4. SeminoleG , I hear you. My son played OB and his wins didn’t get recorded as the TD didn’t have all the info on the player to be inputted. Frustrating.

    TRN is not some machine that gives out a perfect answer because it leaves out doubles.
    If I had to say one thing I don’t like about TRN, it would be this…

    A lot of juniors stopped playing doubles at the National Opens because it was a lot of tennis and affected their singles. ( they were tired).

    But, in college you are going to be expected to play doubles and it is an important point.

    So, you now have on TRN a lot of highly ranked players who can’t play a lick of doubles…

    And they don’t care as a lot of them just want to go pro, and face it, doubles $ is not good in the pros.

  5. Lisa, I enjoyed the article on your son btw in TRN.
    Really enjoyed how he spelled out his journey for the readers, good read.

  6. Tennis5 – I know you see my point.
    QF for Supernational, SF Eddie Herr, State DBLS Champs, and Easter Bowl Champ! All with different partners…… Her Doubles play is rare and honestly the coaches say it will translate but that is a maturity issue.

    TRN and my emails with them on why they don’t include players that cannot “Validate” is BS! If the girl that my daughter beat went on to win Eddie Herr or Orange Bowl, would they not have considered them a Provisional Bluechip! IF not then this further exposes the flawed algorithm….

    Consider the acceptance for EH and OB, id argue no lower than a 4 Star….. SO a system that cannot find a way to include theses wins and publishes a RPI that inherently relies on wins losses and you don’t include some victories is FLAWED! We have several victories in Level 1a events not included……. SO how accurate is this?

    That said means little as a Coach showed me they have more Ad-Hoc method to determine a kids real ability. TRN is one of many variables…..

  7. The standard for NCAA coaches is UTR..it is the only ranking system in the United States that accounts for international play. UTR will only improve as more data is presented.

  8. I would like to reiterate that these rating/ranking tools are much more effective when used together. No one system is perfect. When you add in USTA’s Points Per Round ranking – which, I think we all agree, is the least accurate of the 3 – you get a more well-rounded picture of the player. Not a PERFECT picture but better than relying on one rating/ranking by itself.

  9. Eric, I’m very surprised that TRN’s stance is to “play fewer tournaments.” In the past I’ve seen message board posts and blog comments from Dallas Oliver, and I’ve never seen him say anything like that. Nothing in their FAQ recommends playing less either. If they do recommend that, I agree with Lisa that that is BAD advice. Does anyone at TRN monitor this blog and care to comment?

    Seminole, as far as I can tell both sites seem to be missing data from the younger age divisions of the Eddie Herr and the Junior Orange Bowl. I’m not really sure why. What results appear on Universal Tennis’ site that do not appear on TRN? And as for your daughter’s recent win in the Easter Bowl, that criticism seems a little unfair. The tournament is still finishing up. Has this data been included in the rankings at any site yet? When it does, won’t her ranking and rating improve?

    Also since you put it out there, can you provide a little more insight as to how the TRN process is flawed? From what I understand, neither Universal Tennis not TRN publish their ranking formula. Both seem to consider this information proprietary, and both sites make general statements about how their rankings work. But without knowing the ranking formula how can anyone (even an engineer) support the claim that it is flawed? That’s why I’d love to see a little more transparency here from all parties. Whatever issues people have with the USTA point system, the one thing you can say about it is that it is easy to understand how to calculate your points after you play a match. The same thing is true about the RPI. Although I think that algorithm is pretty silly, it’s easy to understand how it works.

    Lisa, I’m sure this is not your intent, but often these posts seem to become a sounding board for people to bash one system or another. Personally I like looking at the information from all the different sites, and I like reading all the different articles and blogs posts about junior tennis. It seems to me the level of attention paid to junior tennis is WAY better than it was a few years ago, and I’m hopeful that it continues to get even better moving forward.

    1. Sam, it is certainly NOT my intent to open the door to bashing of any type. In fact, as I’ve said many times, I think it’s important that we parents understand ALL the rating and ranking systems out there, especially if our kids are planning to play college tennis.

  10. I agree Lisa, you should try to understand them all. In my example of the one kid ahead of my son, the only reason he was 30 spots behind my son in the USTA Midwest is because he got 72 points for a first round walkover in a Level 2, otherwise he’s 90 spots behind him.

    As an accountant, I like to understand numbers. I can’t make sense of TRN, and UTR is so new, I have no clue how it’s calculated. However, interestingly enough in 2014, my son beat 3 with UTRs higher than him, lost to 3 with UTRs lower than him, and the rest were all on par with the rating, losing to those he should and beating those he should.

    TRN did explain to me that the reason they only require 3 tournaments within the year is they were asked to include as many kids in the rankings as possible. To me though, that skews the rankings. The more tournaments you play in the more chances you have at a “bad” loss. But kids learn from bad losses.

  11. I looked back at my email exchange with TRN. I guess I probably took their suggestions to mean play fewer tournaments. The exact wording was “be more selective in the tournaments he plays.” So to set the record straight, it was my interpretation of what they told me, not necessarily exactly what they told me.

    If you aren’t a traveling tennis family, your selections of tournaments is limited. Although Cincinnati is a strong junior tennis area and has good competition in most tournaments, so most of the tournaments around here qualify for their standards of inclusion.

  12. Hi all –

    I wanted to clarify a few of our positions at Tennis Recruiting based on some of the points in this comment stream…

    1) “Tennis Recruiting told me to play in fewer tournaments”

    I am going to categorically deny that this was ever said by someone from Tennis Recruiting. Our standard answer is to encourage kids to play competitive matches in the highest-quality tournaments available where they will not be overmatched. We think this is a good idea for development – and it is also a great way to improve your ranking with a head-to-head system like Tennis Recruiting or UTR.

    2) “My child is better than other kids ranked ahead of him/her”

    There have been many times when people have contacted us about their child being ranked too low at Tennis Recruiting, but when we get down to the business of directly comparing two kids who have reasonable ranking differences, our rankings always hold up. We have a standard invitation for people to email us two players where we clearly ‘got it wrong’, but we have never had a convincing example of a ranking failure.

    We continue to believe that our system provides the best available ranking of American juniors for college tennis coaches, and we have more than 1,000 college tennis programs across all organizations and divisions that pay to access our premium services.

    3) “Results from many junior tournaments are missing”

    I’m not sure what this means. We have complete data for all USTA and ITF tournaments that we use in our rankings. I would note that sometimes complete results for a tournament show up a week after the tournament because our cutoff for data entry is Sunday early evening. We compute our rankings for the week on Monday morning, and we use whatever partial data we have available at that time – we pick up the remainder of the results in the following week’s rankings.

    The only events where we have some missing matches are in the Eddie Herr 12s/14s and Jr. Orange Bowl 12/14s – matches that involve unknown international players. Those tournaments only publish first and last names with no other identifying information – if we do not already such a player in our system, it is difficult for our data entry staff to create new player profiles. After all, there are a lot of kids named “Ricardo Fernandez” – and it would be easy to dirty up our database.

    I hope this helps explain our positions.

    Kind regards,
    Dallas

  13. I think both UT and TRN have their negatives and positives.For example, a kid who beats three 13s and loses in three sets to a 14, is ranked 12 even after these wins, but is a blue chip on TRN. A player ranked 11 loses to a 10 winning only two games, and has only one win this year over an 11. Doesn’t make sense right? But, how many wins do you need to move up? The dynamic algorithm might not be so clear for all to understand. TRN, on the other hand, doesn’t take into account real age of kids, and many kids year older are claiming to be a grade younger but as they are providing info for college coaches, coaches might not care about that at all, as they recruit many foreign kids who are older anyway. Also, ITF players from foreign countries.are not rated on TRN bringing kids down in rankings. So, all in all, both are trying to do their best, meaning provide a service, but nothing is perfect. I certainly couldn’t do better than either of these ranking sites, so many thanks to folks who put time and effort into it.

  14. I think UTR and TRN would probably match up close if you compare UTR results from 2-3 months ago with TRN results of today. Players that lose close matches vs higher ranked opponents move up on UTR. If players are losing to higher ranked players in tiebreak or 3rd set, there is a good chance they will start winning some matches vs higher ranked players in the next months and move up on TRN too. .

    However, I think TRN is more exact than UTR for now. I think UTR is saying a match will probably be competitive between players who are within 1.0 levels apart. If a match was played by any of the seniors between 11.50 and 12.49 vs another player in that group, you could probably flip a coin on who would win. Now if you took a player on TRN that was 20 ranking spots ahead of his opponent, you might be 75% confident the higher ranked player would win.
    The first time I tried to use UTR out of curiosity to predict whether my son would win matches, he beat 2,3 a player ranked .7 ahead and then lost in 3 sets to a player .3 behind. Now I look at UTR more with the mindset that my son will have competitive matches with a good chance of winning vs players at his UTR level, could lose at the level below if he is tired, and may win 25-33% matches 1.0 levels above. He has never beaten a player 2 levels above and has not lost to a player more than 1 level below in the last 6 months. I think tournaments with 2 levels of UTR would be competitive tournaments, e.g. tournaments open to 10-12 UTR players. My son played a fairly high level sectional tournament over spring break, but because the draws did not fill up there were players in the 18s from UTR 5 to UTR 12 and the rankings were not based on age-one of the 12s was an 8th grader. It would have been a much better tournament if it had been seeded based on UTR. I felt sorry for players who were rounded because their first two matches were vs players ranked 11 or 12 while other players made it to the round of 16 beating UTR 5s and 8s.

    Tennis5, what level of schools are unofficially giving out their spots as juniors? When I look at two of the top college freshmen in my state, they were only 4 stars 150-200 in fall of their junior year. One of them was top 25 by late fall of his senior year and the other was top 100. One of the boys made a tremendous jump in the rankings between late spring and summer before his senior year. Both boys are playing singles as freshmen on Div 1 teams for one of the major conferences; they are UTR 14 and 13 now. I hope college are leaving spots for players who put in their best performances in the summer before and the fall of their senior year. Since UTR gives players credit for close losses against higher ranked players, maybe coaches who look at UTR keep a watch on players who look like they are about to break through to a higher level and will take a chance on those 4 stars who are losing close matches to blue chips and 5 stars, However, I do see some UTR rankings that seem unbelievable to me where I would imagine the lower ranked UTR player who is better on TRN would make short work of the higher ranked UTR player if they played head to head. My son has seen 0,0 matches between two players ranked 11. TRN is a better predictor of wins and if a 5 star TRN player loses to a 4 star in the same class, it is usually in tiebreak or 3 sets unless the player is ill or injured.

    I agree with the posters that taking all the ranking systems together gives a fairly accurate picture. If I had to choose one, it would be TRN. I have recently watched DI college players who are ranked on UTR the same as some 4 and 5 star 9th and 10th graders I know, and the college players are definitely playing at a higher level and probably would wipe the court with most of those similarly ranked freshmen and sophs if they were to play head to head.

  15. I think it’s important to clarify the difference between “ranking” and “rating”. As you can see in the charts above, the TRN RANKING list orders the players from 1 to 200 based on their place in the pecking order. The UTR RATING list, though, has multiple players with the same exact rating – for example, #12 and #13 above – making them level in terms of ability according to UTR’s criteria. TRN’s stars are also a RATING system with multiple players holding each designation (1 Star through Blue Chip). Maybe I should do a table showing Star Ratings beside UTR to see the comparison? I did look at TRN’s Blue Chips, and they range from a high UTR of 14.56 to a low of 12.44. While this may all seem obvious to some of you, for others I felt the need to explain a bit. 🙂

  16. Question I ask is this —– TRN is a Rating system that list Rankings in each class?

    If this is the case than one could argue that Rating system should include an overall class rating. Consider a class that would have 35 Bluechip level kids, but only gives out 25, what about the other 10 that get 5 Stars? Take this class vs a Class that had only 20 Bluechip kids but gives 25 Bluechip status?

    As an engineer we apply various variables to normalize these differences, I don’t see that in TRN. Say a class has 20 different kids that make QF/SF of Big events, and that next year the class has only 5. Few at the top dominate how can this have comparable Bluechip kids?

    Say one class has 20% more playing up 2 age groups and doing well, winning 50%? Where as a majority of one class 90% play their age group and the Top kids win only 60%?

    Botom line when I see a kid with less than 20% wins against 4-5 stars, and Bluechips listed as a Bluechip makes me wonder.

    So from what I see line your kid up and play L7 events and win and you’ll move up. Play National level events, or high level sectional events and lose before the QF and you may hold where you are.

    I think the most telling point is RIGHT after a National level event, you have kids that either didn’t play, played a local event, or outright lost and their ranking barley moves. A kid that wins 2 rounds doesn’t move or slides. Easterbowl just finished look at the folks that moved up or down and you’ll see.

    As for not validating Foreign Players, I’d say ! A win in a Level 1a event is big, and these same kids play Tennis Europe events a Google of the name gets results so I think its a bit of cop out, considering RPI and other data relies on wins losses. Yes its the Orange Bowl and Eddie Herr 2 of the Biggest events played. I’d consider any kid accepted in these events minimum a 5 star, if you look at the Qualies and all the 4-5 Stars that LOST!

  17. Interesting note: Taylor Fritz, 2015 Asics Easter Bowl ITF Champion, has a UTR of 14.86, is ranked #3 in the ITF Juniors (world ranking), and is #2 (Blue Chip) on TRN for the Class of 2016.

  18. Tennis5, what level of schools are unofficially giving out their spots as juniors?

    The better schools, D1, are giving out the spots early unofficially.
    They are not reported on TRN, but it is heard around the grapevine and FB.
    It is unofficial, but so far I have not seen one coach back away from their offer.

    My only suggestion is to focus less on the rankings.
    TRN, UTR ( too new and missing information ), and USTA all have flaws.
    You will only end up frustrated especially with all the jumping around between grades onTRN that was ridiculous and deliberate.

    TRN, unfortunately, has created a whole new era of players ducking each other that never happened with the USTA point system ( but now the USTA point system is laughable ).

    I strongly agree with the poster above that these articles are not helpful about the rankings and ratings.

    For college, make sure the SAT’s are taken early junior year, coaches want that ASAP to know if you are a fit academically.

    The REAL QUESTION to ask yourself as the grownup and parent of your junior –
    is your kid going to be a professional tennis player ( top 200 and make a living),
    or will his college degree be used to make a living and support a family?

    If it is the latter, attention has to be paid to school work during high school ( a strong foundation)
    as college is a very fast paced, higher level of education, and you don’t want your kid floundering there. This is especially important for the homeschool kids as colleges don’t let you take your exams in your bedroom where your textbook might be lying around.

    1. TRN is actually announcing TODAY the commitments of 2 juniors per its newsletter: “Today, Signing Day, we have three “live” commitment announcements from top recruits. Earlier this morning, Blue Chip senior Joanna Zalewski announced her decision, and this afternoon we hear from Blue Chip juniors Alexander Keyser and Alexis Nelson. The Nelson commitment will be available at 6pm Eastern / 3pm Pacific.”

      And, I’m sorry you don’t find these articles helpful. As a parent, I have found it very useful to understand the various rating and ranking systems that determine which tournaments my son gets into and which colleges might be the right fit for him. I agree that focusing too heavily on ratings and rankings can impede development, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t know and understand the “rules” under which our kids are competing.

  19. Before I saw this article, I had gone through a similar exercise for the boys of the class of 2016 (which includes my son). There are no college commits yet for the class of 2016, but I was curious to see how UTR ratings stacked up against TRN rankings. The magnitude of the divergence between the two is similar for the class of 2016. One thing that is different, however, is the absolute UTR level at each point along the way. For example, here are the UTR’s for each 25 spots of the classes of 2015 and 2016 (with 2015 first): 25: 12.96,12.94; 50: 12.71,12.47; 75: 12.44,12.11; 100: 12.17,11.79; 125: 11.86,11.58; 150: 11.59,11.41; 175: 11.35,11.23; 190: 11.08,11.13. (I didn’t go to 200 because the data gets a little funky after 190). I think you would expect that a set of kids that is one year younger ought to have a consistently lower UTR at each corresponding spot in the rankings. It would be very interesting to see how the UTR’s of the class of 2016 today compares to the UTR’s of the same set of kids one year from today.

  20. One issue with UTR is that it only considers the last 30 matches played. In our section, most of the top tournaments are frontloaded Jan-June with the national championships of course in late summer. My son has played over 30 matches in 4 months. If they are only taking 30 matches, I wish they would take the 30 matches vs highest ranked opponents over the last 6-12 months. UTR is in effect possibly punishing players for playing more matches. If a player will age up in the next 6-12 months, he/she is probably playing tournaments in two age groups-thus more matches and some lower UTR opponents in the mid level tournaments they play in the older age.This fall when there are no higher level sectional(1/1A) tournaments between Labor Day and Thanksgiving, the UTR rankings of players in our section may drop even if they are playing well. UTR says players cannot game their system like they can others. However, if the 30 matches are good for 12 months, and a player did really well the first half of the year-esp for seniors they might not want to risk playing matches that would put the count over 30 and cause some of their best results to drop off. I know Lisa is encouraging parents to report high school matches. That might help some players on the team, but if the top singles have to drop earlier wins vs higher UTR ranked players because again their count goes over 30 if varsity matches are included, then it does not make sense to include varsity matches. If UTR really wants to have a large database of results, they may want to increase the count over 30. I have asked UTR about this and they say the count is 30 whether 30 is reached in 3 months, 6 months or a year. Why not include a full 6 months of results at a minimum regardless of match count? How can we compare TRN and UTR if TRN has 12 months of results for some players and UTR is only counting the last 3-4 months?

  21. Hello Lisa,

    Thank you once again for providing Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) information to your readers. We greatly appreciate the mention of our services.

    Here are a few comments that may help provide further clarification about our UTR system:

    UTR is, first and foremost, a rating system; it is not a ranking system. A primary focus of UTR is to determine each player’s LEVEL OF PLAY… not each player’s “ranking”. Ranking systems are typically based entirely on whether or not a player wins a match, and, it is of no concern to such “ranking” systems how well a player actually plays in a given match.

    UTR is a dynamic rating system, with the ratings of every player in the UTR database (currently near 200,000 players) being updated every week of the year. If a player has played “well” over his/her most recent 30 matches (during the past year), then it makes sense that his/her rating reflects that. If, on the other hand, a player played well nine or ten months ago, but has been playing “poorly” over a thirty-match stretch over, say, the last few months, then it makes sense that his/her rating reflects that he/she is playing “poorly”. And that is what the UTR system does.

    For “ranking” purposes, how a player performed sixty or seventy matches ago may very well have importance; but for purposes of identifying how well a player is playing (i.e., the player’s “rating”), going back sixty or seventy matches ago is a very poor indicator of his/her current level of play. Thirty matches is not a “snap shot”. Based on research conducted by Universal Tennis, it has been determined that including the results of a player’s most recent past 30 tennis matches (during the last 12 months) is a fair and accurate indicator of his/her expected level of play.

    In particular…

    1) To suggest a strategy of not playing matches in order to “protect” one’s rating is self limiting and, ultimately, an ineffective way of propping up one’s UTR. If, for example, a player has thirty “good” match results in, say, January, he/she could decide not to play any more matches for the next eight months, just to maintain his/her high UTR for, say, an October tournament. As tennis players know, laying off the game for eight months doesn’t help a player develop, and almost always impedes development. So, having laid off the game for 8 months, the results in the October tournament(s) is(are) not likely to be very good… which will lower the player’s UTR. So, while this approach might have merit in the very short run, ultimately it will backfire on the player and hurt the player’s development.

    Also, for each player in the UTR database, there is a corresponding “Rating Reliability” number. If a player chooses to sit out of matches in order to protect a rating, over time his/her Rating Reliability percentage will drop, which is typically taken into account by tournament organizers, recruiters and coaches when assessing players’ levels of play.

    2) The idea that a player can help raise his/her UTR by either feasting on (or avoiding) lower-level opponents, or by feasting on (or avoiding) higher-rated opponents is flawed at the outset. UTR doesn’t work that way.

    Because the UTR system isn’t a “ranking” system, and because it considers both the strength of each opponent and the percentage of games won against each opponent (rather than simply who won the match), it is no easier (nor harder) for a player to raise his/her UTR by playing against easy competition than it is to raise his/her UTR by playing against difficult competition.

    The confusion about this almost certainly arises from the fact that in most “ranking” systems, which typically only count match wins and match losses, a player cannot raise his/her “ranking” following a loss and cannot lower his/her “ranking” following a win. That is why UTR is considered a “rating” system (not a ranking system); and that’s why it’s simply untrue and incorrect to suggest that a player’s rating can be unduly influenced by the time of year (and quality of the tournament) that matches are played.

    3) Universal Tennis is fine with the observation that it’s difficult to compare UTR “ratings” with “ranking” systems, as they don’t attempt to do the same thing.

    Most ranking systems used for junior tennis attempt to give a periodic report card for a player, based on match wins and losses, alone, with respect to others in that player’s same age group over the past year.

    UTR, on the other hand, gives a continuously updated indication of the level at which a player has been playing over his/her last 30 matches (within the past year), regardless of the gender or age of the opposition and regardless of the time of year during which the matches were played.

    Additional information on the UTR system can be found on our website at http://www.universaltennis.com

    Better yet, we would invite anyone interested to sign up for a free account and explore our tennis player ratings system. Measuring your UTR might even help you improve your game, or just find a better one.

    The Universal Tennis Team

  22. I personally find the TR and UTR websites facinating. Each are quite accurate, IMO, although certainly it would be arrogant to claim that either does not have flaws or inaccuracies because they do!!!!!!!!!!
    Like I believe Lisa wrote, I like to look at both websites along with the USTA rankings and between all of these it gives me a pretty good idea what ability level an opponent is or the pecking order of my own kid.
    That said, I think it would be better if these rankings were not posted every week. Many kids and parents look at these every week and make short term training and development decisions based upon them in many cases. I know I’m guilty of knee jerk reacting and I know I should not but that’s easier said than done. I over heard a kid the other night after my son played a practice doubles match that ended at 9 pm on a Monday night, “only 3 hours till the TR rankings update” I thought this is bad if kids are waiting up till midnight to check rankings.
    I think overall these weekly updates can have a serious detrimental effect on player development as kids try to avoid a bad loss or get a big win. All short term and not long term goals.
    I’ve been bad about this and am trying to ignore these websites due to this. It’s hard!!!

  23. I find TRN STARS to be completely inaccurate. A lot of players have their age entered wrong (they appear younger than they are). This allows them to compare to younger players, increasing their star rating. I also see players playing age or two up and possibly loosing to good players with lower number of stars, moving their star rating down. There are just to many ways to game this system to be of ANY value.

    On the other hand, UTR appears to be very accurate and hard to game. It is constantly recalculated based on your results AND the results of your current and past opponents. If you beat someone recently who is on the way up, it will move you up as well. It also matters by what margin one wins, making each and every game count. Loosing to someone with higher UTR in the competitive match will increase your UTR…

    So far I have not personally seen any other system to be as reliable predictor of a relative player level as a UTR. USTA Norcal created SuperSeries tournaments based solely on the UTR. 32 players are grouped in flights of 8 each (A, B, C, and D). Within each group players end up within a very tight UTR range. As a result, all matches are competitive, with most going to 3 sets.

    College coaches should stop looking at the TRN stars and focus on the UTR, although both systems miss doubles.

Share Your Thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.