Quick Start

[jbill]

A Panacea for American Tennis?

By Jim Bill

If you have been keeping up with USTA activities recently you will have noticed that the organization is wholeheartedly promoting the QuickStart Tennis (QST) program (smaller courts, lower nets, lower bouncing balls) for kids as a way to build the popularity of tennis and as a possible remedy for the growing concern that the USA isn’t presently producing Grand Slam champions. Although I agree that QST may be an appropriate way to introduce tennis to young children and possibly sustain their long-term interest in the sport, I don’t believe it will prove to be a panacea for America’s tennis ills. The eras that produced numerous American major tournament champions are gone forever and here is why:

Most importantly what should not be overlooked is the fact that the organization for developing professional tennis players has given birth in recent years to a system that has vastly extended itself throughout much of the world. If we look at the present day organization of the ATP Challenger and Futures Tour and the ITF Women’s circuit, we see aspiring players are competing in literally hundreds of events in almost seventy countries throughout the calendar year. This was not happening twenty to thirty years ago. As a result, we are seeing more and more highly-ranked professional players coming from different parts of the globe. (Serbia, Croatia, China, Belarus, Denmark, Latvia, and Cyprus to mention a few.)

Another factor is the large amount of prize money associated with the ATP and WTA Tours in the present times (2.2 million dollars each for the men’s and women’s winners of the Australian Open this year). The substantial increase in prize money associated with professional tournament events has had a huge impact by attracting topnotch athletes who might have otherwise gone into other professional sports. This is another reason why we are seeing more and more professional tennis players come from a much wider array of countries than years past.

One should also take note of how many foreign players we now have playing in our university system. This is taking away significant developmental opportunities from American players by eliminating possible positions on the team rosters. For the most part this was unheard of in previous decades in university and college tennis.

One last basic point in this argument as to why QST will not solve America’s tennis ills is the idea that for American children the opportunities to play such sports as football, basketball, baseball and soccer are much more accessible primarily because of cost. Parents can get their children involved and help them to develop relatively cheaply. Tennis, on the other hand, tends to be more technical in nature and undoubtedly costs parents more to develop their children’s talents due to the cost of equipment, one-on-one private lessons, club memberships, academies, tournament play, traveling expenses and the like. This factor obviously diminishes what could be a rather large pool of potential American Grand Slam champions and top-ten players.

The USA will always produce very high caliber professional tennis players, but it won’t dominate the field like it may have in the past. The game and the professional scene have changed forever. I for one, think that is good. It makes for more variety and is thus more
interesting.

JBill

[bottle]

The Dearth

Personally, I attribute the dearth to 1) anti-intellectualism, 2) anti-animalism, 3) anti-individualism, 4) too many film students.

[tennis_chiro]

Explaih

Personally, I attribute the dearth to 1) anti-intellectualism, 2) anti-animalism, 3) anti-individualism, 4) too many film students.

Please explain anit-animalism!
don

[tennis_chiro]

Couple of points

A Panacea for American Tennis?

By Jim Bill

If you have been keeping up with USTA activities recently you will have noticed that the organization is wholeheartedly promoting the QuickStart Tennis (QST) program (smaller courts, lower nets, lower bouncing balls) for kids as a way to build the popularity of tennis and as a possible remedy for the growing concern that the USA isn’t presently producing Grand Slam champions. Although I agree that QST may be an appropriate way to introduce tennis to young children and possibly sustain their long-term interest in the sport, I don’t believe it will prove to be a panacea for America’s tennis ills. The eras that produced numerous American major tournament champions are gone forever and here is why:

Most importantly what should not be overlooked is the fact that the organization for developing professional tennis players has given birth in recent years to a system that has vastly extended itself throughout much of the world. If we look at the present day organization of the ATP Challenger and Futures Tour and the ITF Women’s circuit, we see aspiring players are competing in literally hundreds of events in almost seventy countries throughout the calendar year. This was not happening twenty to thirty years ago. As a result, we are seeing more and more highly-ranked professional players coming from different parts of the globe. (Serbia, Croatia, China, Belarus, Denmark, Latvia, and Cyprus to mention a few.)

Another factor is the large amount of prize money associated with the ATP and WTA Tours in the present times (2.2 million dollars each for the men’s and women’s winners of the Australian Open this year). The substantial increase in prize money associated with professional tournament events has had a huge impact by attracting topnotch athletes who might have otherwise gone into other professional sports. This is another reason why we are seeing more and more professional tennis players come from a much wider array of countries than years past.

One should also take note of how many foreign players we now have playing in our university system. This is taking away significant developmental opportunities from American players by eliminating possible positions on the team rosters. For the most part this was unheard of in previous decades in university and college tennis.

One last basic point in this argument as to why QST will not solve America’s tennis ills is the idea that for American children the opportunities to play such sports as football, basketball, baseball and soccer are much more accessible primarily because of cost. Parents can get their children involved and help them to develop relatively cheaply. Tennis, on the other hand, tends to be more technical in nature and undoubtedly costs parents more to develop their children’s talents due to the cost of equipment, one-on-one private lessons, club memberships, academies, tournament play, traveling expenses and the like. This factor obviously diminishes what could be a rather large pool of potential American Grand Slam champions and top-ten players.

The USA will always produce very high caliber professional tennis players, but it won’t dominate the field like it may have in the past. The game and the professional scene have changed forever. I for one, think that is good. It makes for more variety and is thus more
interesting.

JBill

Just a couple of points:

1) Scope: There are a lot more people playing tennis today around the world than there were 30 or 40 years ago and there are a lot more opportunities to play professionally, no question. But (and I don't know the statistics) I imagine that the number of 6 to 10 year-olds that walk on to a tennis court for the first time with an opportunity to fall in love with this game is far greater, multiples greater than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, most of them don't have much of a good time. In fact the good athletes among them are probably put to shame by the kids who have a headstart in lessons. QuickStart awards those athletes right away.

2) Prize Money: It motivates everyone. But for societies that offer no other way out for their underclasses, tennis is a true meritocracy. If you can win, you will advance. Our kids don't have that "back against the wall" mentality.

3) College roster positions and scholarships going to foreigners. No question, that is the case. But only 2 of the current top 50 in the ATP singles rankings ever went to college(and they are both over 6' 8"). If you are going to make it on the ATP or WTA tours, you had better be world class before you enter college. Players from other countries can make a living being highly ranked in their countries and playing club matches and getting some endorsement deals. In this country, if you are not at the very top of the game, you can barely pay your traveling and coaching expenses, much less put something aside for when you stop earning that prize money. You are much better off putting that energy into a business or professional career.

4) Cost of becoming a player. Many of the foreign players that succeed come from underprivileged beginnings. Part of that is because many other national associations with much shallower pockets than the USTA make it a policy to support outstanding talent by paying for the coaching and development of those players under the direction of the coaches that brought those players along. The USTA assistance is very limited beyond bringing players into a system that has consistently proven it is unable to produce world class professional players (top 50).

Quickstart is no panacea, but it is a much better way to get young players started playing the sport in a way that develops essential fundamental strokes and tactics necessary to develop into a top player. Our junior system rewards players at the key developmental stages for using counterproductive strokes and strategies. The best way to dominate in the 10s and 12s is to push and moonball. Certainly, we coach away from that, but in the end the tournament system rewards results without regard to developing technique. Quickstart addresses that.

don

[stotty]

Many of the foreign players that succeed come from underprivileged beginnings.

Who?. I cannot conceive how someone from a truly underprivileged background can succeed at tennis to a world-class level. The LTA (here is the UK) fund many a tennis player to a high degree....but all the players they fund are from good backgrounds with plenty of money of their own.

A lot of the Eastern Europeans are rich and send their kids to Western Europe (and the US) to be coached.

Very true about mini tennis (quick start). Technically a great move by any governing body. It has downsides, too, but on the whole a great concept that will improve the game in the long run.

[tennis_chiro]

Perhaps it's more middle class

Who?. I cannot conceive how someone from a truly underprivileged background can succeed at tennis to a world-class level. The LTA (here is the UK) fund many a tennis player to a high degree....but all the players they fund are from good backgrounds with plenty of money of their own.

A lot of the Eastern Europeans are rich and send their kids to Western Europe (and the US) to be coached.

Very true about mini tennis (quick start). Technically a great move by any governing body. It has downsides, too, but on the whole a great concept that will improve the game in the long run.

Perhaps it's more middle class families that I am thinking of because they can afford to get a kid to a good level in the 10s or maybe even the 12s, but from that point on a player needs a lot of quality hitting that he will get from coaching or hired hitting partners (or an older sibling or parent) that will run at least $30,000 or more per year when you get done with traveling to tournaments, etc. Most families in the US don't have that extra $30,000. If they make it to the next level at the top of the junior ranks as a 15 or 16 year-old, then it really gets expensive, but at that point there is some help available or sponsorship for the kids that really stand out.

But for the kid that manages to excel as an 11 year-old, unless he is one of the few that gets a scholarship at an academy or the national program, he is on his own. My understanding is that in Germany, the national association would underwrite that player's coaching and expenses and see that player periodically through the year. I understood in France, there are 4 national academies where all the expenses are paid by the French Federation. I am not sure of the actual details. But I do know the USTA does very little to underwrite coaching and expenses for players who show real promise, except to offer them a chance to be coached by USTA National coaches who were all very good players, but have a long track record of limited if any success with developing players. On the other hand there are many players who have been very promising 12 to 14 year-olds, who became part of the National programs and were never heard from to any significant degree on the international circuit.

I'd really like to see the USTA do more to support local coaches who have developed players and understand better what those players need to go to the next level. Even if they did do a good job with these young kids (I don't think they do), those kids should not be leaving home until they are much older.

don

[stotty]

Perhaps it's more middle class families that I am thinking of because they can afford to get a kid to a good level in the 10s or maybe even the 12s, but from that point on a player needs a lot of quality hitting that he will get from coaching or hired hitting partners (or an older sibling or parent) that will run at least $30,000 or more per year when you get done with traveling to tournaments, etc. Most families in the US don't have that extra $30,000. If they make it to the next level at the top of the junior ranks as a 15 or 16 year-old, then it really gets expensive, but at that point there is some help available or sponsorship for the kids that really stand out.

But for the kid that manages to excel as an 11 year-old, unless he is one of the few that gets a scholarship at an academy or the national program, he is on his own. My understanding is that in Germany, the national association would underwrite that player's coaching and expenses and see that player periodically through the year. I understood in France, there are 4 national academies where all the expenses are paid by the French Federation. I am not sure of the actual details. But I do know the USTA does very little to underwrite coaching and expenses for players who show real promise, except to offer them a chance to be coached by USTA National coaches who were all very good players, but have a long track record of limited if any success with developing players. On the other hand there are many players who have been very promising 12 to 14 year-olds, who became part of the National programs and were never heard from to any significant degree on the international circuit.

I'd really like to see the USTA do more to support local coaches who have developed players and understand better what those players need to go to the next level. Even if they did do a good job with these young kids (I don't think they do), those kids should not be leaving home until they are much older.

don

Thanks for clarifying that, Don. It's pretty much the same here in the UK. Most kids come from reasonably well-off families. It's downright impossible if a child is from the gutter, or just working class.

The LTA are generous over here, though. They have funded many of my players from the age of 10. I have a girl of 8 who they currently fund. They pay for her to have one private lesson a week on the understanding that the parents must fund an additional lesson per week also. Part-subsidizing like this is a good idea as it involves commitment on both sides.

I coached one boy until the age of 12 who went to boarding school to further his tennis - funded entirely by the LTA. The school tailored education and tennis around the child. This cost around £50,000 per year. Eight other kids of the same age were funded in this way, and to the same extent.

Despite the generosity of the LTA, we have very few (just 2 top 50 men in 20years) top players to show for it.

[tennis_chiro]

Pretty Amazing Commitment or Foolishness?

Thanks for clarifying that, Don. It's pretty much the same here in the UK. Most kids come from reasonably well-off families. It's downright impossible if a child is from the gutter, or just working class.

The LTA are generous over here, though. They have funded many of my players from the age of 10. I have a girl of 8 who they currently fund. They pay for her to have one private lesson a week on the understanding that the parents must fund an additional lesson per week also. Part-subsidizing like this is a good idea as it involves commitment on both sides.

I coached one boy until the age of 12 who went to boarding school to further his tennis - funded entirely by the LTA. The school tailored education and tennis around the child. This cost around £50,000 per year. Eight other kids of the same age were funded in this way, and to the same extent.

Despite the generosity of the LTA, we have very few (just 2 top 50 men in 20years) top players to show for it.

Stotty,
that's a pretty amazing level of commitment from the LTA. Doesn't 50000 pounds translate to about $70,000 dollars or more. It's kind of foolish in my mind when what kids need at that age is excellent hitting partners and a little guidance from their original pro who understands their game. At 14 or 15, I understand. If the kid is good, he needs a much higher quality hitting partner, but a 12 or 13 year old can get plenty of the practice he needs from a good local open player; that player doesn't even have to be a professional. But certainly, some young college player or former wanna-be who needs a little money should be glad to hit with such a player for a few dollars of found money. Six to eight hours of hitting with someone like that here would cost $20 to $30 per hour. Call it $150 to $200 per week. Then $300 a week for a daily lesson with his coach and the rest can be accomplished in local tourneys playing up if necessary. And the kid gets to stay with his parents where he belongs at this age. Then they could spread that money to 3 times as many kids.

If you are telling me national coaches are working one on one or even two on one four or five hours a day with these kids; it's too much. You can't know at that age who is going to make it. And if they are in groups of 3 or 4, then they are wasting their time.

But what I am suggesting would mean the national associations would have to trust the coaches who brought these players to where they are. Sounds like you are at least getting some help for needy kids from the LTA. The USTA just offers kids their programs and their coaches. There is little if any subsidizing of players with the coaches that have developed them. I think that is a big mistake.

As for Quickstart, I did a seminar with USTA national coaches this weekend for HP coaches from around the country. They are pushing Quickstart big time for the younger players. They had some videos that were absolutely convincing as far as I was concerned. I do think the Quickstart will give us a much better chance to keep good athletes in the sport so they have a chance to fall in love with it. With the slow balls and small courts, the little guys play amazing points; I mean, fun to watch with strategy, net play, power and deception. Any other 8 year old watching this in person is going to want to try to play. With real balls and courts, they usually get turned off right away: too hard. But with Quickstart, the good athlete will get right into it. And they have to use real athleticism to compete; just moonballing is not an option. They certainly sold me.

don