Indonesia's padel community is one of the most engaged and fastest-growing in Southeast Asia. 94% of respondents play at least once a week. Half are player-hosts who organise sessions for their own communities. And 92% say ratings motivate them to keep improving. That is a community that cares deeply about getting better together.
We asked 1086 padel players and hosts across 72 Indonesian cities what they think about ratings, levelling and matchmaking. The answers paint a nuanced picture: the foundations are working (53% say levels at meets mostly match reality), but there is a clear opportunity to make them stronger. Players want to be rated, they want ratings to mean something, and they have specific ideas about how to get there.
1086 responses from 72 cities across Indonesia, led by Jakarta (449) and the Greater Jakarta area (67% of all responses). 84% have been playing padel for less than a year, 94% play at least weekly, and just over half identify as player-hosts.
The Community Pulse
Five threads running through the answers
Across all 1086 responses, five ideas come through again and again. The community is young (84% under a year of experience), growing fast, and highly engaged.90% check levels before joining a meet, 82% are comfortable with visible ratings, and the energy throughout is constructive: people aren't asking for less structure. They're asking for structure that keeps pace with how quickly they are growing.
1. Levels mostly work, but the community sees room to grow.
53% of respondents say levels at meets usually or always match reality. That is a solid starting point, and it reflects the work hosts already put into curating their communities. At the same time, 47% say levels are hit-or-miss or rarely match. The gap between those two groups is where the biggest opportunity sits.
The challenge concentrates around self-rating. 79% of respondents self-rate (e.g. “upper beginner”) but have no formal rating to anchor against. Only 65 out of 765 use Playtomic, and 33 have a league or tournament rating. Without an external benchmark, self-declaration carries more weight than it should, which creates two opposite problems: experienced players who underrate themselves to join easier games, and newer players who rate too high because they lack a reference point.
The community already does a lot of informal levelling through host curation and social accountability. Giving hosts and players better tools to validate levels would build on that existing trust rather than replacing it.
2. Hosts and players see different sides of the same picture.
One of the most useful cross-cuts in the data is between hosts and players on level accuracy. 49%of players say levels often don't match reality, versus 45%of hosts. That gap is natural: hosts see the organiser's view, while players feel the on-court impact. Neither perspective is wrong; both are valuable inputs for a better system.
On trust, both groups are aligned. Both rate trust in others' ratings at 4.9/10. That shared awareness is actually a strength: when hosts and players agree the system could be stronger, the appetite for collaborative improvement is high. Hosts bring community knowledge; players bring on-court experience. Together, they can shape what comes next.
"When you see another player's rating or level, how much do you trust it?"
When asked to pick all the reasons levels sometimes don't match reality, respondents highlighted a few recurring patterns. These are useful signals for where to focus improvements.
Multi-select, 715 respondents. Percentages show share who selected each option.
3. Algorithm first, community second. Self-assessment last.
When asked to pick one method they'd trust most, 35% chose an algorithm based on match results. 21%chose peer ratings from people they've played with. Only 9% trust their own self-assessment. Together, coaches (10%), hosts (13%), and structured skill tests (14%) round out the picture.
The open-text answers explain why. Objectivity is the recurring word. Players want something they can't game: “It's objective. When you win, you win.”They don't trust subjectivity, not because they doubt their own skill, but because they've been burned by others' subjective claims.
The community is signalling what it wants: a rating that reflects real play, not just self-declaration. The practical next step is bridging the gap between where matches are scored today (Padlup, Americano, SKOR) and where ratings live (Reclub). Hosts can accelerate this by encouraging in-app scoring; Reclub can meet them halfway by integrating external results.
When asked where ratings would actually help, court separation, fair rotations, and knowing the level before joining are neck and neck. Ratings are not just for competition; they serve navigation.
Multi-select, 765 respondents.
4. People want visible ratings. They're ready.
Visibility comfort sits at 8.1/10, with 82% scoring 7 or above. This community is not nervous about being rated publicly; they want it. And 65% say having a rating actively motivates them to play more and improve.
The preference on format is split: 30% want simple labels (Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced), 30% want a Playtomic-style number (e.g. 2.75), and 18%want a tier system (Bronze / Silver / Gold). The split is not a deadlock; it's a design clue. Players who say “simple label” might also accept a numeric rating underneath, as long as the label is what they see first.
Among those who do feel rating anxiety (38% of rated players), the pressure comes not from visibility itself, but from misrepresentation: being placed with the wrong level, or losing a rating because of a social game. The anxiety is about the system being unfair, not about being seen.
Multi-select, 266 respondents who reported feeling rating anxiety.
5. Greater Jakarta is the proving ground.
Greater Jakarta makes up 67% of responses and is where the opportunity is sharpest. Larger cities have more anonymous play, more first-time meeting partners, and more pressure on the rating system to do the work that social familiarity handles in smaller communities. If a new rating approach works in Jakarta, it will work everywhere.
Outside the capital, smaller cities report slightly higher trust in others' ratings, consistent with tighter community dynamics. These communities already demonstrate what good levelling looks like when the social layer is strong, and their insights are a useful model for features that scale that trust digitally.
The largest and most vocal market. Players here are more likely to want algorithm-based ratings and more likely to encounter unfamiliar opponents. This is where better tools will have the biggest impact, and where hosts are most eager for system-level support.
Smaller cities report higher trust in others' ratings and tighter community bonds. The social layer already does much of the levelling work. Their model of host-driven curation is a pattern worth building on in features that serve every market.
Five threads from 1086 responses. The breakdown below shows every question individually, filterable by city and role.
Where Levelling Can Improve
Themes from 1045 open-text responses
The current system works well for players who are in stable, familiar communities. But when we asked where it falls short, the answers cluster around four common patterns. Importantly, none of them blame individual players. All of them point to gaps in the system that the community is ready to help close.
Some experienced players underrate themselves to join easier games. This is the most-cited concern and an area where objective verification would make the biggest difference.
“High rating players join low rating meets just to bully lower level players to validate their own ego.”
Newer players rate themselves higher than their skill, often because they don't have a reference point. They show up to intermediate meets and can't keep up.
“New joiner don't know the rating system so they rate themselves much higher than they are.”
Without a universal reference, the same number means different things in different communities. A 2.0 in one group plays like a 1.5 in another.
“There's no clear standard, so everyone only rates by their own.”
People improve, but their labels stay the same. A player who was genuinely a beginner six months ago may now be upper beginner, but their profile still says 1.0.
“People's skill changes but their label stays the same. There's no way to verify someone's actual level.”
The thread underneath: each of these patterns traces back to the same root: when self-declaration is the only input, the output is only as good as the self-awareness of each player. The community is ready for tools that supplement self-rating with other signals, and hosts, players and Reclub each have a role to play in making that happen.
In Their Own Words
24 quotes from across the survey, lightly edited for clarity
The Frustration on Court
What players feel when self-rated levels don't match the game they signed up for.
“I hate the sandbagging, especially when high rating players join low rating meets just to bully lower level players to validate their own ego.”
Surabaya
“I have no problem with newbies or beginners. Only when the Reclub title says upper beginner or lower bronze and new people join, it's frustrating.”
Jakarta
“Many padel players create second accounts just to enter competitions below their actual levels.”
Jakarta
Read 3 moreShow fewer
“It's too vague. 2.0 in women is way different than 2.0 in men. Also people who are actually already 3.0+ are sometimes being too humble because they're afraid of people mocking them.”
Jakarta
“Since the levels and ratings are not curated by Reclub, there have been a lot of misunderstandings. Sometimes the 2.0 doesn't play as good as the 1.5.”
Yogyakarta
“It's not about the rating itself. I think the most important thing in padel right now is a system to differentiate social and semi-competitive sessions.”
Jakarta
What They Want Built
Specific asks for a better system, from algorithm ratings to social signals.
“People rarely use Reclub to keep score. They use Americano or Padlup. It's simply not preferred. That's your homework.”
Jakarta
“Please implement Playtomic style rating where it changes based on matches played.”
Purwokerto
“Remove self-rate!! Make it like Playtomic rating based on real win rate.”
Jakarta
Read 3 moreShow fewer
“Rating should affect match results on Reclub like DUPR. Players can also hide the rating, but hosts can strictly limit level of players.”
Tangerang / BSD / Bintaro
“Make a feature after a meet where you can mark someone as 'a person I want to play again with in the future'. Higher or lower self-rate players can sometimes be toxic.”
Yogyakarta
“If there's an official body that can do a proper test which is independent, it will be more credible and no one can cheat.”
Jakarta
What Already Works
The community wisdom: hosts, coaches, match results and peer knowledge.
“A local problem needs locals to solve the issue. You need a system that allows inputs from all related parties to make the screening process work and trustworthy.”
Ho Chi Minh
“Hosts who know their community can tell within 5 minutes if someone belongs at that level. No algorithm can do that yet.”
Jakarta
“I like hosts with the notion 'growing together'. Same number of players, same level, and we grow our skills together.”
Jakarta
Read 3 moreShow fewer
“Good coaches can gauge how technical you are and how much knowledge of the game you have. Great coaches can see if you have potential to go to the next level.”
Jakarta
“Match result carries more weight than self assessment.”
Bandung
“Big big big thanks to you guys, I have nothing more to say but thank you. Superbbb job gents and ladies!”
Jakarta
The Bigger Picture
Stepping back from ratings to the culture and community around them.
“Kudos don't tell you if someone is good. They tell you if someone plays a lot. Those are two very different things.”
Jakarta
“There's no clear standard, so everyone only rates by their own.”
Jakarta
“Most people's rating is not in line with their actual level of play. Most good players set low ratings, and some new players rate themselves too high.”
Palembang
Read 3 moreShow fewer
“Reclub should give a suggested rating based on performance or kudos, but still have an option to edit if they feel it's not right.”
Jakarta
“Do you have any vacancy for product manager? I can help you build product for this.”
Jakarta
“I feel like it makes padel less fun and somewhat toxic. I pity first-timers and newbies, they feel unaccepted in most games. That is the reason I created my club.”
Jakarta
What the Community Wants to Build Together
Product ideas ranked by how often they appeared in open text (134 respondents wrote something; one response can appear in multiple themes)
The most common ask in the survey. Players want self-rating to be supplemented or replaced by objective measures. The recurring phrase is “remove self-rate”, often followed by constructive suggestions like “make it like Playtomic” or “like DUPR.”
Show community quotesHide quotes
“Please fixed this self rating. Lots of people lower their rating just to win the prize. It makes the rating very very unreliable.”
“Remove self-rate!! Make it like Playtomic rating based on real win rate.”
“Totally random self assessment, rarely reflective of actual skill level.”
“There is no way you can rate yourself. Other people's judgement is more honest and accurate.”
4 moreShow fewer
“Please remove self rating, change it with anything else.”
“If it is not solved, perhaps no rating is good.”
“Most people's rating is not in line with their actual level of play. Most good players set low ratings, and some new players rate themselves too high.”
“No system at all, people just do self rating and it is subjective.”
The constructive partner to idea #1. Players want a rating that moves when they win or lose, adjusts for opponent strength, and removes human bias. Multiple respondents named Playtomic, DUPR, and UTR as models.
Show community quotesHide quotes
“I think Reclub may discard the self rating option and start developing the app to automatically decide the player's rating based on games or activities.”
“Please implement Playtomic style rating where it changes based on matches played.”
“Rating should affect match results on Reclub like DUPR. Players can also hide the rating, but hosts can strictly limit level of players.”
“Please create an algorithm rating based on how many matches the players have played including the number of wins.”
4 moreShow fewer
“Most host use other matchmaking apps like Americano or Padlup. Make a feature to sync those match results to the player, and use them to correct the current rating.”
“Make a rating system where it combines score matches, player rating, feedback, etc. to better reflect the player rating.”
“Sometimes people put lower rating but their skill is higher. With an algorithm maybe it can fix the automatic rating with the system.”
“I trust the algorithm because it reflects actual match data, not opinions.”
Better Mexicano and Americano rotations, more balanced playing time, and a scoring interface that wins adoption from third-party tools. Getting the scorer right is the foundation for everything else: match-based ratings need match data.
Show community quotesHide quotes
“Better matchmaking because Reclub matchmaking sucks (padel).”
“The matchmaking is still underused because people are already comfortable with the ecosystem of Ayo for booking, Reclub for finding matches, Padlup for matchmaking.”
“Please fix the algorithm for mexicano, people often skip more than 2 games in a session.”
“Fix the match generation, the rotation is not balanced.”
2 moreShow fewer
“Better matchmaking algorithm, because we tend to not use Reclub matchmaking.”
“You need to fix the generate matches especially the mexicano because sometimes some players get more playing times while the others do not.”
Let players rate each other after a session. Several respondents suggest this as a stepping stone while algorithm-based ratings are being built, and a permanent complement afterward. Hosts and regular playing partners are well placed to provide this feedback.
Show community quotesHide quotes
“People play in different clubs. With other people giving me a rating after we played together it should be a valid rating.”
“Crowdsourced rating based on feedbacks by players and hosts that actually watch you play.”
“Other people's judgement is generally more objective after seeing me play.”
“Rating by another player after the match.”
1 moreShow fewer
“Make a feature after a meet where you can mark someone as a person you want to play again with.”
The headline: ideas 1 and 2 are two sides of the same coin. Evolving self-rating is the problem statement; algorithm-based rating is the solution statement. Together they account for over half of all product-related open text. The community is not just identifying problems; they are proposing a roadmap.
Building It Together: What Comes Next
Three priorities shaped by what the community told us
The message from this survey is clear: the padel community in Indonesia is engaged, growing, and ready to invest in a better levelling experience. Self-rating was the right starting point for a young sport; the opportunity now is to layer objective signals on top of it. Here is what that looks like, and who can help at each step.
1. Make the scorer worth using
Match-based ratings need match data. Today, many players use Padlup, Americano, or SKOR alongside Reclub. The first step is closing that gap, whether by improving the native scorer, importing from third-party apps, or both. Hosts can help by encouraging their communities to record results in-app.
2. Introduce a match-based rating alongside self-rate
Start computing a provisional rating from recorded matches and display it to the player privately. Let it coexist with self-rate initially, so hosts and players can see how the two compare. Over time, as match data grows and the algorithm earns trust, the computed rating grows in prominence. Cold-start players keep a self-declared level until they have enough matches for the algorithm to contribute. The community can help by playing, recording, and sharing the feedback loop.
3. Let the community contribute to trust
Peer ratings, post-session feedback, and host verification are all signals the community is already asking for. The best approach layers them: an algorithm sets the baseline, peers adjust the edges, and hosts vouch for the community context. No single signal is enough; the combination is what earns trust. Reclub's role is to build the infrastructure that lets all three signals coexist and reinforce each other.
The padel community in Indonesia is young, passionate and growing fast. They want ratings to work because they want better games. The distance between where the system is and where they want it to be is real, and so is the collective energy to close it, together.
Themes drawn from 1086 survey responses and 808 open-text answers across two free-text questions. Coverage: 72 cities across Indonesia, led by Jakarta and the wider Jabodetabek area.
Reclub Feedback
337responses to “Anything you'd like to tell the Reclub product team about ratings, matchmaking, or anything else?” grouped into four themes.
“I think Reclub may discard the self rating option and start developing the app to automatically decides the player’s rating (based on games, or activities, etc.).”
“Please implement Playtomic style rating where it changes based on matches played”
“Kudos is non accurate! Better use level”
“copy the playtomic elo thing”
“Pls use algortihm”
“You guys need to give us more formats, and if possible, the screening system above”
“Hope you can make good system for rating everbody skill”
“If it is not solved perhaps, no rating is good”
“Change the self rating system”
“Please hide the "online" status in our profile.”
“You've done a great job on addressing this issue. I believe you can come up with the best solution. I really appreciate it”
“Big big big thanks to you guys, i have nothing more to say but thank you Superbbb job gents and ladies!”
“Its ok, thanks alot”
“keep it up”
“thanks for creating this platform”
“So far it's okay”
“nope that's it”
“I dont know, tbh...”
“already good kok”
“Do you have any vacancy for product manager? I can help you build product for this”
Frustrations
471responses to “What's your single biggest frustration with how levels or ratings work in padel today?” grouped into four themes.
“People intentionally lower their rating, then join meets with people with actual lower rate but get mad and act rude on court”
“Many fake level player”
“No system at all. Too much sandbagging.”
“it feels like people are trying to take advantage of new player”
“I hate the sandbagging, especially when high rating player join low rating meet just to bully lower level player to validate their own ego”
“People self rate themself far beyond their skill”
“No benchmark”
“Its self rated”
“Since the ratings are self-claimed, maybe it would be nice if such ratings went check and balances.”
“May players can't be trusted with self assessment rate”
“levels not matching reality, people saying theyre 1.5 but they cant really play to that level”
“Level sometimes not match”
“Hard to find person with higher rating to play together”
“Game become more competitive but its fun”
“To be honest, I feel like it makes padel less fun and somewhat toxic. But it makes me see different kind of people. I pity those first timer and newbirs, though,, they feel unaccepted in most games.. that is the rrasom i created my club.”
“I use another platform to play but have to check my rating on another platform.”
“Ada yang sudah silver cuma ratingnya masih 1.5/2.0”
“Why use numbers from 1-10? Why not just use bronze, silver and gold?”
“Nothing, everything is fine”
“To my community club, player has been concern with level, to avoid judging player”
Question By Question
Filter by city or role to see how the answers shift. Greater Jakarta carries the bulk of the responses.
Which city do you mostly play padel in?
Which best describes you on Reclub?
How long have you been playing padel?
How often do you play padel?
What level do you currently consider yourself?
How much do you trust another player's rating or level?
Do you check levels before joining a meet?
Do you review someone's match history for level insight?
How often does the level at a meet match what was described?
If you could pick one way to set your level, which would you trust most?
How would you most like your padel level to be shown?
How comfortable are you with your level being visible?
Does having a rating motivate you to play more?
Has your rating ever made you feel anxious or pressured?
How much do you trust your Playtomic rating? (Playtomic users only)
How much do you trust your league/community rating? (league users only)
Do you currently have a padel rating or level? (multi-select, post-fix cohort)
765 respondents (multi-select: totals exceed 100%)
What do you think causes the mismatch? (multi-select, post-fix cohort)
715 respondents (multi-select: totals exceed 100%)
How would you use ratings for matchmaking? (multi-select, post-fix cohort)
765 respondents (multi-select: totals exceed 100%)
What triggers rating anxiety? (multi-select, post-fix cohort)
266 respondents (multi-select: totals exceed 100%)
Methodology and Disclosure
Based on 1086 anonymous survey responses collected on 7 May 2026 via the Reclub app. The survey uses progressive disclosure, so conditional questions only appear when relevant to the previous answer. Multi-select answer options are randomised per response to avoid order bias. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Sample size caveat. 1086 responses give clear directional signal for the Indonesian padel community, weighted toward Greater Jakarta (67%). City-level reads outside Jakarta are directional only.
Data note. Five multi-select questions (current_rating, mismatch_causes, playtomic_experience, ratings_for_matchmaking, anxiety_triggers) were added mid-survey after a storage fix was applied. The first 321 responses do not include these fields; the final 765 responses do. Multi-select statistics in this report are based on the 765-response cohort that answered those questions.
Where responses came from. Jakarta 41% (449) · Tangerang / BSD / Bintaro 16% (176) · Bekasi / Depok / Bogor 10% (108) · Bandung 7% (80) · Surabaya 6% (70) · Bali 1% (13) · Yogyakarta 1% (13) · Semarang 1% (12) · Batam 1% (12) · Palembang 1% (11) · Balikpapan 1% (9) · Malang 1% (9) · Banjarmasin 1% (8) · Solo 1% (7) · Surakarta 1% (6) · Manado 1% (6) · Pekanbaru 1% (6) · Makassar 1% (6) · Purwokerto 0% (5) · Medan 0% (5) · Tasikmalaya 0% (5) and 70 from smaller cities.
How respondents use Reclub. Player 51% (550) · Player and Host 49% (528) · Host 1% (8).
Insights on this page are written by Reclub Labs based on aggregated survey data. No individual responses or identifying details are disclosed.
Want to review the exact questionnaire shown to participants? View the original survey page.