Competitive Matches are currenly set up in the form of a “pyramid system” which is very similar in concept to a traditional tennis ladder but instead of a linear ladder members will find themselves on tiers with other members who have had similar successes.
How does a the pyramid system work?
This design is very simple ( there are some examples below)
- If the winner is lower or equal ranked he moves to a tier above his opponent.
- If the winner is higher ranked nothing changes. No one moves. Rankings do not change.
- The loser's position never changes.
This design is functionally a tradition tennis ladder in that if a lower challenger beats a higher ranked player he moves to a tier above him on the pyramid. If that challenger loses the match nothing changes. The simple difference in this version is that a member will find themselves on a tier with other players with similar success. A successful challenger gains one more tier than his opponent. One can only move to the top of the pyramid by beating the most successful players.
- When the first match is played, the winner is awarded a place on the top tier.
- If another match is played that does not include the previous winner, the winner of that match likewise is awarded a place and thus shares the top tier with the previous winner.
- When a challenger beats any tiered player he then moves into a tier above and could conceivably create a new higher-level tier.
The challenge then, is to move into and maintain the exclusive 1st place position or at least achieve the highest level you're capable of.
Anyone on the ladder can challenge anyone else, up or down, and can rise as high in the rank as his/her performance justifies.
How do we decide who wins?
You'll have to mutually decide before the match how you'll be playing. Would generally suggest playing "best of three" but should there be time constraints - only able to reserve court for one hour, getting late etc - there are some other options below to shorten match time:
- Best of three sets - first to win two sets is the winner
- Super tie-break - if you reach one set all, a tie break decides who wins thrid.
- Pro set - a pro set is first to 9 games instead of 6.If 8 games each you play a
tie break to get a 9 to 8 result
Where do I play my matches?
It's up to the players to get in contact with each other to organise and agree when and where they play their matches.
| Tier | Nat | Player name | Wins | NTRP |
| 1 | ![]() |
Raynald Korchia | 2 | 4 |
| 2 | ![]() |
Knut Bjorheim | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | ![]() |
Quintus Snapper | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | ![]() |
Daniel Mac Alister | 1 | 3.5 |
| 4 | ![]() |
Wolfgang Kowatsch | 1 | 5 |
Some examples
See an example table of the pyramid on the right. In this exmaple there are 4 Tiers of which Raynald is holding the top position, and Danniel & Wolfgang are equal on the lowest Tier.
Wolfgang and Daniel play a match (both of which are on the same tier) which Wolfgang wins. This victory for Wolfgang moves him one tier above Daniel, putting him in the same tier as Quintus. Daniel stays in at the bottom tier. See 2nd table below to see the effect.
| Tier | Nat | Player name | Wins | NTRP |
| 1 | ![]() |
Raynald Korchia | 2 | 4 |
| 2 | ![]() |
Knut Bjorheim | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | ![]() |
Quintus Snapper | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | ![]() |
Wolfgang Kowatsch | 2 | 5 |
| 4 | ![]() |
Daniel Mac Alister | 1 | 3.5 |
Quintus then challengs Knut for a match. Kunt is just too good and easily wins. Since Kunt was higher ranked nothing changes, no one moves and no rankings change.
For the last example, Wolfgang and Raynald arrange a match, which Wolfgang wins. This would put Wolfgang on one tier higher than Raynald. In doing so a new higher-level tier is created. See the 3rd table below to see how the standings changed.
| Tier | Nat | Player name | Wins | NTRP |
| 1 | ![]() |
Wolfgang Kowatsch | 3 | 5 |
| 2 | ![]() |
Raynald Korchia | 1 | 5 |
| 3 | ![]() |
Knut Bjorheim | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | ![]() |
Quintus Snapper | 2 | 4 |
| 5 | ![]() |
Daniel Mac Alister | 1 | 3.5 |
How much is it to join Competitive Tennis?
Nothing it's also FREE of charge.










