UTR: A Great Innovation With Hidden Drawbacks

In 2008, Virginia based tennis coach Dave Howell launched Universal Tennis Rating, an online algorithm that produces player skill ratings between 0 and 16. By gathering scores of matches across the world, UTR can use data to generate a rating. This development has helped tournaments and tennis organizations create competition by skill level rather than age, ranking, or some other generalization. But as UTR has caught on, junior players and college recruiters have become obsessed with high figures. In some cases, high school coaches and junior training centers will ask new players to have a minimum UTR to join up. Is this a good thing?

What the numbers mean in layman’s terms:

UTR 1.0-2.5: Rising Intermediate/ Developing Player.

Players with this rating are usually not be strong enough to compete in junior tournaments but may earn a low position on some high school teams.

UTR 2.5-4.0: Intermediate.

Players with this rating possess functional groundstrokes and serves but often lack a weapon to beat more advanced players. This level is usually enough to play varsity high school tennis and the lowest tier junior tournaments.

UTR 4.0-5.5: Semi-advanced.

Players with this rating have a functional set of skills but none strong enough break into higher tiers of competition. This level is typical for high school varsity, low to mid-tier junior tournaments, and adult league tennis.

UTR 5.5-7.0: Advanced

Players with this rating have a complete set of skills and a few weapons. They are strong enough to compete in mid-tier junior tournaments or competitive adult leagues. Girls with this rating can compete in upper tier junior tournaments, lower division college programs, and competitive adult leagues.

UTR 7.0-8.5: Highly Advanced

Players with this rating have a relatively complete game and above average athleticism. They are strong enough to play upper-tier junior tournaments and are usually the strongest players on competitive high school teams. Girls with this rating can compete in Division 2/3 college tennis teams.

UTR 8.5-10: Exceptional Competitor

Players with this rating have a variety of weapons and a high degree of athleticism. The are good enough to play upper-tier junior tournaments, Division 2/3 college tennis, and in highly competitive adult leagues. Girls with this rating can compete at the Division 1 college level.

UTR 10-11.5: Elite Competitor

Players with this rating are strong enough to play national level tournaments and at some Division 1 colleges. Female players in the higher range of this rating are top 200 professionals.

UTR 11.5-13: Rising Professional/ D1 Competitor.

Players with this rating are strong enough to play Division 1 college tennis and lower levels of professional tennis. Female players in the middle range of this rating are top 50 in the world.

UTR 13-14.5: Challenger Level Professional.

Players with this rating are among the top 500 men in the world.

UTR 14.5-16: World Class Touring Pro.

Players with this rating are among the top 100 men in the world.

Although better than traditional ranking systems in some ways, there are hidden drawbacks to UTR.

Traditional ranking systems are essentially a game rather than a measurement of skill. Play enough tournaments and win enough rounds (including defaults and withdrawals), and your ranking goes up even if you don’t actually improve. Since someone with a healthy budget and more resilient body can compete in more tournaments than a less fortunate player, this means you can hustle your way into a high ranking in a traditional system. With UTR on the other hand, having the health and resources to play often doesn’t impact your rating as much. You can participate in three matches can have a reasonably accurate rating as long as the opposition is the right level. And if you play more often, this only improves your rating’s accuracy.

Despite the clear upsides to UTR, there are a few ways that players can try to manipulate their rating. For instance, they can withdraw from matches without any effect on their rating by claiming an injury before the score reaches more than 3-0. This practice is apparently common among junior players that begin to lose to opponents that have a lower rating. Alternatively, players can stop competing after earning a big win that’s not reflective of their typical level. For example, if a level 6 beat a level 7, he/she could protect the new, improved rating by not competing further and risking a loss to a lower rated opponent.

Another issue is that UTR is not actually universal across gender and age. Women’s UTRs tend to be slightly inflated at higher levels because the only reference matches available occur at very low levels or in mixed doubles. But the truth is, comparing men’s and women’s tennis is simply not fair at higher tiers. While the skill may be similar, the physical differences are substantial. The most elite male juniors and virtually all D1-level men can serve faster, hit harder, and move better than the best female tennis players in the world. Consider that world number 4 Elena Rybakina - who has a current UTR of 12.96 - can’t beat her coach Stefano Vukov in practice. He retired from the men’s tour about 10 years ago with a peak ranking of 1100. The current men’s player at this ranking has a UTR of 12.35.

But this is a petty point. The real issue with UTR is how it affects the spirit of competition and the behavior of players that believe in the system. Specifically, there are many players that avoid opponents with lower ratings and seek out players with higher ratings. That’s because players can only gain UTR by beating better players while they might lose UTR by losing to players that are rated lower. This practice is driven by a universal understanding that a slightly worse opponent is a significant threat while a slightly better opponent is easier to deal with mentally. But learning to defeat less skilled opponents is an important part of player development and a unique challenge. Avoiding that challenge is insecure behavior and bad for the sport.

And then there’s “treeing.” This term has been used to describe players who are playing way above their ordinary level (i.e. like “playing out of a tree”), but junior players mainly use this phrase to describe playing recklessly against higher rated opponents. By going for shots that are highly risky and far outside their abilities, the goal is to artificially raise one’s level for a single match. This behavior is considered immature by most people — a kind of audacious desperation to bypass the honest hard work they’d normally need to win a match. And though this kind of behavior happens in tennis no matter what, the anecdotal evidence suggests that the advent of UTR has made treeing more frequent. Indeed, how exactly are players supposed react when they’re told their opponent is objectively and mathematically better?

In tennis, good players beat better players and lose to worse players. The game is very nuanced, and that’s a good thing. Using UTR, we might ask, how inferior does one need to be for the difference in level to have a noticeable impact on the quality of competition? The answer is probably about two full points. In other words, a 7 should sometimes beat an 8, and an 8 should sometimes beat a 9, but a 7 should never beat a 9. Unfortunately, many players give too much credence to the system and feel defeated when one point separates them from their opponents.

If there is a bottom line here, it’s that coaches and tournament organizers need to recognize the limitations of UTR, especially at lower levels. Generally, no one reaches a rating of 8 or up by fluke. But below that rating, things can be murky. When coaches use UTR as a gatekeeping tool for lower rated players (such as 2s and 3s), they may be looking past plenty of capable players whose ratings belie their skill since many such people know how to play but not how to win.