Managing Tennis Ratings and Rankings at Your Club

Why ratings matter

A rating system does three things for your tennis community: it creates fair matches, it gives players a measurable sense of progress, and it helps you organize better events.

Without ratings, tournament draws are guesswork. You end up with first-round blowouts, frustrated beginners, and bored advanced players. With ratings, you can seed draws properly, create skill-appropriate groups, and ensure competitive matches from the first round.

Ratings also give players a goal beyond just winning. A player who went from a 3.5 to a 4.2 over a season has concrete evidence of improvement — even if they didn't win a tournament. That sense of progress keeps people playing.

Common rating systems explained

NTRP (National Tennis Rating Program)

The NTRP uses a scale of 1.0 to 7.0 with half-point increments. It's based on observed playing characteristics at each level — a 3.0 player can rally consistently, a 4.0 can use variety and placement, and so on. NTRP is widely understood in the US but relies on subjective assessment unless backed by match data.

UTR (Universal Tennis Rating)

The UTR uses a 1–16.5 scale calculated from match results. It accounts for the quality of opponents and the margin of victory. UTR is gaining popularity because it's purely results-driven and works across different levels and locations.

Elo rating

Originally developed for chess, Elo assigns a numerical rating that goes up when you beat someone and down when you lose. The amount of change depends on the rating difference — beating a much higher-rated player earns you more points than beating someone at your level. Simple to implement but doesn't account for rating uncertainty.

Glicko-2

An evolution of Elo that adds two important concepts: rating deviation (how certain the system is about your rating) and volatility (how consistently you perform). A player with high deviation needs more matches before their rating stabilizes. This makes Glicko-2 particularly well-suited for club environments where some players compete weekly and others play once a month.

Implementing a rating system at your club

You don't need to understand the mathematics of Glicko-2 to use it. What you need is a clear process for collecting match results and a system that does the calculation.

Step 1: Establish initial ratings

For new players without match history, use a self-assessment questionnaire to place them in a starting range. Be transparent that initial ratings are provisional and will adjust as players compete.

Step 2: Define which matches count

Decide which matches feed into the rating system. Tournament matches typically have full weight, ladder matches slightly less, and casual play even less. Walkovers and retirements should have minimal or no impact.

Step 3: Process results consistently

Ratings should update within 24 hours of match completion. Delays in processing create confusion and reduce trust in the system.

Step 4: Display ratings clearly

Show each player their current rating, their trend (improving or declining), and how many rated matches they've played. Use clear labels to distinguish between self-assessed, provisional, and fully established ratings.

Provisional vs. established ratings

A rating based on 2 matches is very different from one based on 50. Your system should make this distinction visible.

A common approach: ratings are "self-rated" until 3 matches, "provisional" from 3–10 matches, and "established" after 10+ matches. Display a suffix or indicator so players and organizers know how reliable the rating is.

Provisional ratings have higher uncertainty, which means they can change more dramatically with each match. This is actually desirable — it lets the system quickly correct players who initially self-rated too high or too low.

Using ratings for fair matchmaking

Ratings unlock several matchmaking improvements:

• Tournament seeding: Place players into draws based on ratings to avoid first-round mismatches
• Category creation: Offer multiple skill brackets (e.g., 3.0–4.0, 4.0–5.0) in the same event
• Opponent suggestions: Help players find practice partners and challenge opponents near their level
• Balanced doubles: Form doubles teams with combined ratings that match the competition level

The key is using ratings as a guide, not a rigid gate. A 3.8-rated player who wants to compete in the 4.0–5.0 bracket should be allowed to — ratings inform decisions, they don't make them.

Communicating ratings to players

Ratings are emotional. Players who see their rating drop feel personally judged, even if the drop is statistically insignificant. Handle communication carefully:

• Explain how the system works before launching it
• Emphasize that ratings fluctuate and a small drop after one loss is normal
• Show rating trends over time, not just the current number
• Make it clear that playing (and occasionally losing) is how you establish an accurate rating
• Celebrate rating milestones publicly to associate ratings with progress, not judgment

The worst thing you can do is launch a rating system without explanation. Players will fill the information vacuum with anxiety and suspicion.

Automating ratings with software

Manual rating calculation is error-prone and time-consuming. A spreadsheet Elo formula might work for a few players, but it won't handle the nuances of Glicko-2 rating deviation, provisional status, or match weighting.

Rating management software processes match results automatically, maintains complete history, handles provisional-to-established transitions, and presents ratings in a player-friendly way.

Playgrade uses the Glicko-2 algorithm on a 1–10 scale, with automatic match weighting for tournaments, ladders, and casual play. Ratings update after each match with full transparency — every player can see their rating history and understand why it changed.