Where the rating comes from
Any app can show you a number. The question is whether there's a reason to believe it. Here's what we do differently.
The number comes with evidence
Under the level you see how many shots were analysed and which mistakes counted. Each mistake isn't a phrase but a moment of the match: you can open it and watch it back. If you disagree with the rating, you have something to check it against, not just a feeling.
The warm-up doesn't count
A relaxed knock-up before the match isn't your game. We separate it from real rallies, so five easy minutes don't lower your level. Sounds like a detail until you see how much it distorts a rating where nobody does it.
Only shots that made it into frame are rated
We say this plainly rather than hiding it in small print. If half the court is outside the frame, the analysis will be thinner — and you'll know why. That's also where our filming advice comes from: it's about coverage, not camera quality.
The level is recalculated, not fixed
The first rating isn't a verdict. From the second match you see the trend: which shots improve, which mistakes fade. A number that never moves is useless; a useful one shows progress.
Why the 1–7 scale
It's the Playtomic scale — the one European players already use to rate themselves and find partners. We didn't invent our own: a proprietary scale would mean your rating can't be compared to anything, which makes it less useful.
What we don't promise
- That the rating will match how you feel. It usually comes out below self-assessment, and that's fine: the useful number isn't the flattering one, it's the one that tells you what to do.
- That one match is enough. One match shows a state; repeating problems only show up across several.
- That we replace a coach. We show what happened on court. What to do about it in training is still where a human is far better.