What"s Wrong With USTA???

[kmoranon]

Hi Everybody: I've been in tennis since the early '60s and I've seen tennis(American tennis)go down so much that it can't find a new beginning. I like to use this thread as maybe a helpful hint to someone out there from the USTA in hope that we all can give them some useful input to see American tennis go back to some respectable form...So let me hear you.... km

[johnyandell]

The assumption here is that the USTA controls or even heavily impacts player development. Can you name a top American player in the last 20 years who came up thru player dev?

I think the factors here are mainly beyond the control of the USTA--what types of athletes are going into tennis, and how motivated are they? Connors, Mac, Pete, Andre-those guys were all outsiders and/or second and third generation immigrant families.

And there is also the cyclical nature of it. These may be to some extent random statistical events: Australia, the US, Belgium, now Serbia.

[kmoranon]

exactly: you've hit upon something here... USTA's players development is in my opinion a joke... It rewards all the has-been 10 and 12 year old, past winners and spend $$$$ trying to promote them to the next level and over-looks the new future up-coming or up-performing Jr. I can't name any Jr. that came out of the USTA program in recent years that made into the top pro level. I wonder ,what did the USTA do to help the Williams sisters ,Michael Chang,Jim Courier,Devenport,Sampras ect. if anything...

[airforce1]

You got it, the USTA doesn't want to know who u are if u didn't win big events by 14.
I don't buy that it is beyond the USTA to get on the map with this. You can develop some indicators that would help to recognize potential. the percentages won't ever look great but they will be better than what they are currently doing.

All you need is a couple times being right with this thing every 2 years and we dominate the face of the game again

Hey, John, how about we look at making a sticky for the forum where members can input indicators of tennis success? Who knows, the USTA might give it a glance.

[CraigC]

It's out there

John,

Based on this latest request, it seems like a great time for an article on our program. Any interest?

-CC

[uspta146749877]

USTAacademies

John,

Based on this latest request, it seems like a great time for an article on our program. Any interest?

-CC

CraigC,
a related issue:
USTA sponsored tennis academies.
See an article in the uspta magazine addvantage about Cassel"s Academy
in Naples Florida and related issues.
Click

http://www.addvantageuspta.com/

scroll to the middle of thor example pdf document.
Any opinions?
For example:
how do u rate Spanish tennis academies comparing to American ones?

[johnyandell]

I just have a different take. I don't think it matters which 12 or 14 yr olds the USTA subsidizes. If not getting that little bit of money when they are 12 makes the kid quit tennis no way he/she had a chance to make it to the top. If you stop to think about it, that's preposterous.

Look at history, and look internationally. The players who make that highly improbable climb to the top have a highly improbable combination of talent and will. Pancho Gonzales, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, the new Serbs, Agassi, Pete--the list goes on and on. Sorry support from the governing authorities was a non-factor. These guys were going to make it period. And it's always going to be that way--champions will find away to emerge no matter what the odds.

Does the NBA need a player development system for 12 yr olds?

If the player is not in the system, then the player is not in the system and no amount of money or coaching can change that. Are there things that probably could be done to increase the number of talented athletes in tennis?
Maybe. Would it be nice if the USTA made every right decision to help every truly promising player? I guess.

But blaming the USTA for the state of American tennis I think misses the point.

[airforce1]

Interesting comments John, but it appears to just point out how "in the box" most of the thinking on this is!

The point is that no 12-14 year olds should be getting USTA money or favors. This only furthers one of the biggest obstacles in the Jrs, "the pecking order", and furthers the idea that any of those youngsters will the next American star. Your take on this sounds like the USTA should just keep all the $$s since the Champions will emerge not matter the obstacles placed in front of them.

The USTA needs to realize that the "Greats" in all sports rarely emerge till later teens and early 20s(talking men's sports). Tiger and Lebron are so rare. Let private individuals with more money than brains take the fools bet of backing the next great 9 yr old, which by the way, virtually seals the deal he won't be the next Great top 10 player. You could even suppose that the only reason it works at all is sheer weight of the system pouring in with the "ordained" group getting every opportunity that comes along. From wildcards to college scholarships, this group gets 90% of everything that can be sucked up. We further this problem by letting most of the college scholarships go abroad to weaken domestic opportunity, while strengthening that of the other countries.

For those who don't understand how the college situation affects the pros since many of the greats don't play much or any college, it is very very simple. You can't count the number of parents who quickly figure out (or are told by other parents who figure it out) that the money they "would" put into tennis is a "for sure" way of paying for school, while the money invested in lessons and tourneys is the worst long shot going, given the number of scholarships that domestic kids will get! Baseball and Football scholarships are sure a thing for a good athlete compared to Tennis.

Money is already way too important in our sport due to the importance of quality informantion and coaching and probably accounts for the primary reason Tiger and Serena were able to do it !! So the money that is expended by the USTA and others needs to go towards countering this tendancy of exclusion, not making it worse. It needs to go toward keeping bigger numbers in the sport for a longer period of time, not towards seeing how fast they can narrow the field and support the exclusionary aspect of our sport.
Let me repeat,
" It needs to go toward keeping bigger numbers in the sport for a longer period of time, not towards seeing how fast they can narrow the field. "

That is the GREATEST thing about this site! It gives a great price for maybe the BEST information out there on training, coaching and Technique! The GREAT price and GREAT Info are there for the cost of 2-3 private lessons per year. This is one of the Best things going in Tennis and we need more things like it in other facets of the sport!

Thanks John, for what you and your staff have done here!

[johnyandell]

I think anything the USTA can do that furthers more athletes in tennis and helping the athletes in tennis is a positive. Of course people are going to disagree about what that is. But the point is the USTA cannot produce champions just by spending money.

Glad you appreciate the site so much and I will agree--it's a tremendous value and that is one of the things we are the most proud of.

[CraigC]

At The End Of The Day???

Airforce, I agree they have no reason to fund the highly ranked youngsters. I also completely agree with your comment and will repeat it again for all.

"(USTA Money) needs to go toward keeping bigger numbers in the sport for a longer period of time, not towards seeing how fast they can narrow the field. "

{By the way, I am working on a program that does just such a thing}

Having worked with high level kids for many years now, I am constantly at odds with the USTA because they come in to my private business and make offers of grants, coaching, travel etcc. to the top players, and almost never include me in the equation. Obviously, the establishment has enough money and power to take the kid away from any private coach and we see the wonderful results it has produced (note sarcasm here!) My arguments to the national staff, to include the private coaches, always fall on deaf ears. But here is my real question for you:

We all agree that player development is a long term process (even the USTA says its a 10 year program to reach the top). We also agree that rankings in the 10-12 year old division rarely proves meaningful in the long haul. In fact it often is detrimental as winning in the 10's requires a different type of game than winning in the 18's and at the pro level. Now, the USTA wants to be able to say they support American champions. SO, the conundrum:

If they cannot select kids based on early rankings because it is simply stupid, and they cannot select talent based on their own visual acuity because they'd be accused of being political, how are they supposed to select the players to support, in order to be involved with next American champions?

I hope I know what you are going to say and I am really looking forward to it. Julian, you might chime in here as well, as I believe you have a strong opinion on this issue. Then, perhaps we can all end up on a back court somewhere, shirking from the massive administrative body, at the US OPEN.

Craig C

[uspta146749877]

Incremental Training

Airforce, I agree they have no reason to fund the highly ranked youngsters. I also completely agree with your comment and will repeat it again for all.

"(USTA Money) needs to go toward keeping bigger numbers in the sport for a longer period of time, not towards seeing how fast they can narrow the field. "

{By the way, I am working on a program that does just such a thing}

Having worked with high level kids for many years now, I am constantly at odds with the USTA because they come in to my private business and make offers of grants, coaching, travel etcc. to the top players, and almost never include me in the equation. Obviously, the establishment has enough money and power to take the kid away from any private coach and we see the wonderful results it has produced (note sarcasm here!) My arguments to the national staff, to include the private coaches, always fall on deaf ears. But here is my real question for you:

We all agree that player development is a long term process (even the USTA says its a 10 year program to reach the top). We also agree that rankings in the 10-12 year old division rarely proves meaningful in the long haul. In fact it often is detrimental as winning in the 10's requires a different type of game than winning in the 18's and at the pro level. Now, the USTA wants to be able to say they support American champions. SO, the conundrum:

If they cannot select kids based on early rankings because it is simply stupid, and they cannot select talent based on their own visual acuity because they'd be accused of being political, how are they supposed to select the players to support, in order to be involved with next American champions?

I hope I know what you are going to say and I am really looking forward to it. Julian, you might chime in here as well, as I believe you have a strong opinion on this issue. Then, perhaps we can all end up on a back court somewhere, shirking from the massive administrative body, at the US OPEN.

Craig C

Craig C,

I am a very unimportant person.I prefer NOT to express
any views.
Instead I would like to ask a question about your sentence
---->
In fact it often is detrimental as winning in the 10's requires a different type of game than winning in the 18's and at the pro level.
---->

How do I transition/coach a student from winning in the 10's to winning
in 18's?
Do I sacrifice short term goals to win at the age 18?
Would students/parents would stick with me for 6 years ?
If u want to talk ,say,about specific strokes please drop couple lines,.
I am more or less a technical person so please do NOT be afraid
to be specific.
I understand more or less what to do in terms of footowork and conditioning.
I understand some potential goals in terms of strategy/tactics.
This conversation is very interesting,at least in terms
of rethinking the way I coach.
It is possible that I am NOT addressing what is the MOST
intersting for you but I do NOT have enough courage

julian

PS

Just to make myself a very easy shooting target I work at a club
and I coach at a high school in MA.
You may click

http://www.ndatyngsboro.org/page.cfm?p=271&teamID=10&display=Coaches

to see my high school team.
Read
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/s...=1&oref=slogin -

[airforce1]

Sure Craig,
They need to quit worrying about specific players and focus on what they do for the group. When a large group in the later ages (17-21) has been achieved and maintained, from this group they can provide further assistance to the ones who distinguish themselves in this deeper, more mature pool of players.
They also need to look at developing a project group of young men who show some of the things that could be isolated as indicators of potential. We know these indicators don't mean much on a 1 for 1 basis, but out of a large group, they could yield enormous results.

Nick Bol. essentially did this at the beginning, but the downfall was his mngt skills and becoming too comercial, which USTA can avoid. Well maybe, haha. His early idea was to amass a huge group of kids to slug it out on the courts and let the cream rise. Refine this some with some actual coaching on a level playing field and some effort to weed out the ploys to unlevel the field (that always creep into the system).

I think your points about rewarding (or not) the local coaches are enormous. It's incredible how they could undercut the foundation of the whole system. They need to do the exact opposite and use the local standout coaches to amass this big field of players! Funnel in the grants to the coaches who have the biggest groups of later age group players. These coaches need to be rewarded for keeping kids in the program longer and giving them more time and hope to improve! Local coaches need to get in with local colleges and send them there best players if they will get a fair shake there.

We need to start local booster groups and support our area colleges that recruit local players! We need to go the their matches and support these players, win or lose. Good players will come to a place with a grand tradition of support. We need to raise private scholarship money where kids can be selected on potential and desire. Why do we stand for 3 scholarships per team in college??? We can fix that, I know we can! With more scholarship $$ kids can have a year or 2 to develop and compete as a jr and sr maybe and not have to come in and play 1 or 2 since past recruits didn't cut it. Get coaches hired that actually coach, not just recruit and manage, So maybe a player will actually improve during college if he is working hard.
We have more control on this stuff than we realize. If we don't like the rules, we can get them changed.

We need to allow on court coaching up to 10s, coaching on change overs in 12s and between sets for 14s. These kids would be so much more prepared to think more by 16s and some savy cheating 12 yr old couldn't lock up the division so easy.

hows that?

[uspta146749877]

miaa rules of tennis matches

Sure Craig,
They need to quit worrying about specific players and focus on what they do for the group. When a large group in the later ages (17-21) has been achieved and maintained, from this group they can provide further assistance to the ones who distinguish themselves in this deeper, more mature pool of players.
They also need to look at developing a project group of young men who show some of the things that could be isolated as indicators of potential. We know these indicators don't mean much on a 1 for 1 basis, but out of a large group, they could yield enormous results.

Nick Bol. essentially did this at the beginning, but the downfall was his mngt skills and becoming too comercial, which USTA can avoid. Well maybe, haha. His early idea was to amass a huge group of kids to slug it out on the courts and let the cream rise. Refine this some with some actual coaching on a level playing field and some effort to weed out the ploys to unlevel the field (that always creep into the system).

I think your points about rewarding (or not) the local coaches are enormous. It's incredible how they could undercut the foundation of the whole system. They need to do the exact opposite and use the local standout coaches to amass this big field of players! Funnel in the grants to the coaches who have the biggest groups of later age group players. These coaches need to be rewarded for keeping kids in the program longer and giving them more time and hope to improve! Local coaches need to get in with local colleges and send them there best players if they will get a fair shake there.

We need to start local booster groups and support our area colleges that recruit local players! We need to go the their matches and support these players, win or lose. Good players will come to a place with a grand tradition of support. We need to raise private scholarship money where kids can be selected on potential and desire. Why do we stand for 3 scholarships per team in college??? We can fix that, I know we can! With more scholarship $$ kids can have a year or 2 to develop and compete as a jr and sr maybe and not have to come in and play 1 or 2 since past recruits didn't cut it. Get coaches hired that actually coach, not just recruit and manage, So maybe a player will actually improve during college if he is working hard.
We have more control on this stuff than we realize. If we don't like the rules, we can get them changed.

We need to allow on court coaching up to 10s, coaching on change overs in 12s and between sets for 14s. These kids would be so much more prepared to think more by 16s and some savy cheating 12 yr old couldn't lock up the division so easy.

hows that?

AF1,
three new issues:

1.tennis coaching at the high school level in MA- good or bad?
useful or useless?

2.rules and regulations and a right to breeze

3.do we need tennis at high schools?


Some "orthogonal" commments about coaching teens and college.
Practically no tennis development at the high school level in MA.
I wish u would coach a high school in MA.
You will understand very quickly how unflexible miaa is
and who decides for example about rules of matches.
I cannot breathe without a permission from miaa.
A rule suggested 10 years ago will be valid for next 20 years.
Probably Florida,Texas,Georgia and California are different.
Maybe the upper New York State as well.

AF1,you are so far from reality and from MA ,if I may say so.
Switching gears to the issue of tennis scholarships:
please read articles in a sport section of New York Times
about scholarships printed around 10 days ago.
The article shows that dreams are good but ...
julian
PS Another example from a different area
how regulated sports are:
New York Times of today Page 3 of the Sport section
For people reading this thread Roy Williams is a college
basketball coach ( North Carolina).

"On Friday,Williams pulled out a bottle of Coca-Cola
in clear violation of the N.C.A.A.'s 11th commandement:
Thou shalt have no unapproved commercial products
before me"

Does everything have to regulated and covered by rules?
Obviously AF1 would say that no rules means chaos

[uspta146749877]

Russian coaching

Airforce, I agree they have no reason to fund the highly ranked youngsters. I also completely agree with your comment and will repeat it again for all.

"(USTA Money) needs to go toward keeping bigger numbers in the sport for a longer period of time, not towards seeing how fast they can narrow the field. "

{By the way, I am working on a program that does just such a thing}

Having worked with high level kids for many years now, I am constantly at odds with the USTA because they come in to my private business and make offers of grants, coaching, travel etcc. to the top players, and almost never include me in the equation. Obviously, the establishment has enough money and power to take the kid away from any private coach and we see the wonderful results it has produced (note sarcasm here!) My arguments to the national staff, to include the private coaches, always fall on deaf ears. But here is my real question for you:

We all agree that player development is a long term process (even the USTA says its a 10 year program to reach the top). We also agree that rankings in the 10-12 year old division rarely proves meaningful in the long haul. In fact it often is detrimental as winning in the 10's requires a different type of game than winning in the 18's and at the pro level. Now, the USTA wants to be able to say they support American champions. SO, the conundrum:

If they cannot select kids based on early rankings because it is simply stupid, and they cannot select talent based on their own visual acuity because they'd be accused of being political, how are they supposed to select the players to support, in order to be involved with next American champions?

I hope I know what you are going to say and I am really looking forward to it. Julian, you might chime in here as well, as I believe you have a strong opinion on this issue. Then, perhaps we can all end up on a back court somewhere, shirking from the massive administrative body, at the US OPEN.

Craig C

CraigC,
read it,please
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/s...=1&oref=slogin -

[airforce1]

Of course these suggestions are far from reality, but they are closer to where our reality needs to be.

Tennis in the US has thrived to some extent in spite of our systems.
Is it no wonder that our successes have come from those who drop out of the system, like the Williams sisters not playing much Jrs?