USTA Junior Development Debate...???

[don_budge]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/2012/10/20/usta-changes-junior-tennis-10-and-under/1642239/

I ran across this article and was curious as to whether anybody at tennisplayer.net had any input or comments or ideas?

I wonder why American tennis could have hit rock bottom so quickly?


This is my 1,000th post since 3/21/11.

[tntenniswhiz]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...under/1642239/

I ran across this article and was curious as to whether anybody at tennisplayer.net had any input or comments or ideas?

I wonder why American tennis could have hit rock bottom so quickly?


This is my 1,000th post since 3/21/11.

Don,
I think this is a great question to throw at the members of Tennisplayer.net. We deeply analyze through videos and discussion the strokes/patterns of top pros but to this point haven't spent a great deal of time with junior development. I'm excited about J. Yandell's new teaching thread he has introduced and am hoping it will merge some junior development into it as well.

I have been following this situation for the last few months. USTA has been conducting "listening" meetings around the country, the idea being to hear from it's members the complaints against the proposed changes.
I'm not terribly impressed with the level of listening being done! My impression is that "management" has made decisions and this is more a strategy to placate stakeholders.

My personal biggest complaint against these changes is a reduction in the size of tournament draws at the national level and the reduction in the number of total tournaments available. Those who are closest to the situation seem to come away with the perception that USTA is an elitist type organization, and point to these areas as examples of that.

I've recently attended a coaching workshop, "Training Players the Spanish Way" with Luis Mediero and Emilio Sanchez-Vicario and asked them directly how would compare junior tennis development between the U.S. and Spain. In regard to competition, they believe U.S players just don't compete often enough against each other, being more worried about points than honing skills under the pressure of match play. Clubs there constantly have players competing internally and against the other clubs around them. It seems to me, this idea being considered by reducing tournament availability and numbers goes against that general thinking. I'm not in a junior development hotbed here in East Tennessee, (trying to create one!) so feel I'm on the outside looking in, however some people I respect greatly have strong feelings against these actions, Wayne Bryan for example. The comments of Tim Mayotte in the article also reinforce what many others are saying about USTA in general.

However, I personally believe what Todd Martin said is more at the heart of the problem:

"My personal opinion is that the USTA's role in player development would be greatly reduced if the private sector did better," said Todd Martin, a former World No. 4 and a current USTA board member. "If we all did way better for our kids locally I don't think we'd need so much centralization of development."

I think the heart of the issue is coaching throughout the U.S. is very fractured. Luis Mediero has spearheaded a uniformity in coaching philosophy in Spain that I'm told no matter which academy a person were to attend, the approach or process of player development is the same. We are very very far from that! Once a person in the States is certified to teach, he can practice his craft for years without needing to learn anything new. I think this lack of teaching uniformity, lack of a required re-certification process, resistance to philosophical change more resembling the Spanish approach coupled with these aforementioned issues that include elitist attitudes and ideas are largely the problem.

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

p.s. this is my 7th post, but my frequency is increasing!!! lol

[GeoffWilliams]

The problem is ego. When any young junior gets good, his parents emphasize the ego too much. Ala: Donald young. Done virtually nothing due to his entourage's influence. Imagine him with Gilbert or Stefanki as his coach from day one. Instead of: his mother yanking on his underwear and saying: "It's wet, change it!" Too sad there is no centralized practice area other than a Bolletieri camp. Chang, sampras, agassi, courier had each other there. NOthing like it now. Instead we have isner, querrey, and a large drop off. No Barcelona in the US. No clay court training. No one teaching snap back fh/serve/oh to the women. Separated ego camps get what they deserve. An overly entitled sense of importance followed by the simple truth of a lot of losses due to no practice partners on the same page, and coached by people who can motivate them with a variety of approaches; fear; praise; combat/technique; embarrassment, that parents: such as you name it, would object to.

So we have ended up with an "To each his own parents." style of stagnated development the world over.

[DougEng]

Don,
I think this is a great question to throw at the members of Tennisplayer.net. We deeply analyze through videos and discussion the strokes/patterns of top pros but to this point haven't spent a great deal of time with junior development. I'm excited about J. Yandell's new teaching thread he has introduced and am hoping it will merge some junior development into it as well.

I have been following this situation for the last few months. USTA has been conducting "listening" meetings around the country, the idea being to hear from it's members the complaints against the proposed changes.
I'm not terribly impressed with the level of listening being done! My impression is that "management" has made decisions and this is more a strategy to placate stakeholders.

My personal biggest complaint against these changes is a reduction in the size of tournament draws at the national level and the reduction in the number of total tournaments available. Those who are closest to the situation seem to come away with the perception that USTA is an elitist type organization, and point to these areas as examples of that.

I've recently attended a coaching workshop, "Training Players the Spanish Way" with Luis Mediero and Emilio Sanchez-Vicario and asked them directly how would compare junior tennis development between the U.S. and Spain. In regard to competition, they believe U.S players just don't compete often enough against each other, being more worried about points than honing skills under the pressure of match play. Clubs there constantly have players competing internally and against the other clubs around them. It seems to me, this idea being considered by reducing tournament availability and numbers goes against that general thinking. I'm not in a junior development hotbed here in East Tennessee, (trying to create one!) so feel I'm on the outside looking in, however some people I respect greatly have strong feelings against these actions, Wayne Bryan for example. The comments of Tim Mayotte in the article also reinforce what many others are saying about USTA in general.

However, I personally believe what Todd Martin said is more at the heart of the problem:

"My personal opinion is that the USTA's role in player development would be greatly reduced if the private sector did better," said Todd Martin, a former World No. 4 and a current USTA board member. "If we all did way better for our kids locally I don't think we'd need so much centralization of development."

I think the heart of the issue is coaching throughout the U.S. is very fractured. Luis Mediero has spearheaded a uniformity in coaching philosophy in Spain that I'm told no matter which academy a person were to attend, the approach or process of player development is the same. We are very very far from that! Once a person in the States is certified to teach, he can practice his craft for years without needing to learn anything new. I think this lack of teaching uniformity, lack of a required re-certification process, resistance to philosophical change more resembling the Spanish approach coupled with these aforementioned issues that include elitist attitudes and ideas are largely the problem.

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

p.s. this is my 7th post, but my frequency is increasing!!! lol

Hi Greg,

Great points!

Although the Spanish model is admirable, the French model is far better than Spanish model as far as requiring standards. US doesn't have standards in private coaching and USTA wants to create some standards. The proposed junior structure I think was grossly misunderstood but in any case USTA is listening (to a few who like to be vocal) and placed a hold on the changes.

USTA is clearly not elitist given most of their funds is spent at grassroots.
Very little (%) is actually spent at the elite level. The problem is we have 300 million in this country on a NGB budget of $450 million or so. Compare that with France or UK. But that alone is not the problem, rather most people want more from USTA (e.g, grants, support, coaching) and USTA can only reach so far. So you have a "touch-up" system that makes few happy but realistically it is the best under circumstances.

Private coaching needs to raise its standards but quite a few clubs continue to be ignorant of good coaching and club management especially in my area. USTA wants to raise the bar but many coaches resist. Part of that problem is the club management. Paying pros less, having them independent contractors without benefits keeps many on the courts instead of requiring continuing education or knowledge of what makes a good coach.

Another major problem in the US is actually NCAA. Restrictions are imposed on our best players (college players) which disrupts the cycle of competition and closes it. The European system is a merit club system. Age matters less but competition in order is more important. So a top club junior there goes through a culture of competition against good 20 year olds and former top players like age 30 who still play at the club. In the US, it's broken up too much. So a good high school player can't find matches against a good 19 year old because of NCAA rules. College tennis is good and bad. It helps those players in college to develop (but can also restrict their development by restricting hours of participation) but not enough younger players to move through.

The proposed junior structure would be localized the competition more and make it more accessible to those without resources but are talented. However, it would then limit the numbers who go national. National competition is debatably less important, rather than quality of competition close to you is far more important. When Belgium produced Henin and Clijsters, everyone was asking how? It was the cluster effect, much like Sweden (Borg) or training at ACS.

Best,
Doug

[johnyandell]

I think the biggest factor here is the lack of elite athletes. Too many other sports, too little money unless you are a top 3 player. The number hundred nba player makes $3mill plus, the number 100ATP player less than a 10th that.

When a few players emerge--probably from backgrounds like Pete or Andre or Connors--that will change but it won't be coaching that is the fundamental key.

Not to say all the points above don't have validity. They do. But what's the saying? You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear...

[GeoffWilliams]

Is Ryan harrison a "Pig's ear"? Steve Johnson? Donald Young? Brian Baker? Every one of those guys could be top ten with the right practice/coaching. Equipment choices are also going the way of too loose string jobs, too light frames. None of them are using high tech string techniques, such as varying the cross tensions/main tension, to exaggerate the pocketed feel of each shot. Pros are not less sensitive/vulnerable to equipment, they are ultra sensitive, hence, even a journeyman like Russel can tell a single gram difference in his frames. http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2011/0...t-to-the-gram/

"To find out, we asked Michael Russell to be our lab rat. Russell turned pro in 1998 and has played tennis since age 5. He has hit thousands upon thousands of tennis balls and knows what he likes in a racket. He agreed to meet us at the Sportime tennis club on New York’s Randall’s Island last Saturday for a racket challenge.

“I’m very anal about my rackets,” he said. “Obviously when you’re playing for a lot of money, you want to control everything you can.”

Russell gave us two of his rackets and we asked Dunlop, his sponsor, to provide us with three more—except those three, while the same make and model with an identical look, had slight differences in weight and balance. One racket was lighter and two were heavier. The weight on the heavier rackets was hidden under the bumper guard or in the handle. One of them was heavier by a mere gram, or four-hundredths of an ounce.

When Russell arrived last Saturday, we realized we had a little more work to do to make sure he didn’t know which rackets were dummies and which ones were his. Russell, it turns out, builds up the butt caps of his rackets with athletic tape. So we had to do the same to the dummy rackets. He also had a stencil on his rackets, so we had to paint them on the other rackets, too. The dummy rackets looked new, while Russell’s rackets were scuffed up. We used scissors to take care of that.

Oh, and one last bit of detail. Dunlop provided us with a color-coded table that showed which racket was which. We changed the colors of Russell’s real rackets and one dummy racket, just in case he had been tipped off about which color to choose (we trust you, Dunlop—but we just had to do it).

Russell had no idea how many dummy rackets we had in stock, and didn’t know if I would ever give him one of his real rackets. In the end, we couldn’t stump him, not even with the racket that weighed a gram more.

So are tennis players crazy? Maybe. Just don’t call them oversensitive."

U.S. Open tennis 2011

It's sad the site does not have a resident equipment expert, testing new technique, frames, strings, rpm tests off edged/round/crosses, or ribbed strings with high coefficients of friction such as spiky shark, cyclone versus l-tec 4s teflon imbued strings, which affect snap back more due to their low friction. Players the world over would sign up just to read the results.

[klacr]

Private coaching needs to raise its standards but quite a few clubs continue to be ignorant of good coaching and club management especially in my area. USTA wants to raise the bar but many coaches resist. Part of that problem is the club management. Paying pros less, having them independent contractors without benefits keeps many on the courts instead of requiring continuing education or knowledge of what makes a good coach.

Sadly, I will have to agree with Doug on this point. I don't think its just in his area as it's a problem in many areas. Even a tennis hotbed like South Florida, some club managers and municipal facilities hiring independent contractors and not requiring any sort of professional growth or continuing education stagnates the learning process for not just the teaching professionals but also their students. Not to mention some professionals with questionable backgrounds who have been hired, not based on their character or reputation or drive, but because they can feed a tennis ball relatively well. Nothing is more frustrating to me than not wanting to grow as a professional in your field or not leading others for personal and professional growth.

Is this the only reason why USTA Player development is an issue? No, there are many. But I feel it is one of them.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA PhD(Poor,hungry,Driven )
Boca Raton

[DougEng]

Sadly, I will have to agree with Doug on this point. I don't think its just in his area as it's a problem in many areas. Even a tennis hotbed like South Florida, some club managers and municipal facilities hiring independent contractors and not requiring any sort of professional growth or continuing education stagnates the learning process for not just the teaching professionals but also their students. Not to mention some professionals with questionable backgrounds who have been hired, not based on their character or reputation or drive, but because they can feed a tennis ball relatively well. Nothing is more frustrating to me than not wanting to grow as a professional in your field or not leading others for personal and professional growth.

Is this the only reason why USTA Player development is an issue? No, there are many. But I feel it is one of them.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA PhD(Poor,hungry,Driven )
Boca Raton

Very true and I know how it is in Florida having many friends teaching and coaching there. But I don't have first-hand experience as yourself. Even on the tour sometimes quality of coaches is an issue. USTA works with USPTA and PTR to help raise the standards but unless there is some enforcement and agreement, it is difficult to implement. Take the case of USA Hockey for example. USA Youth Hockey coaching gains greater relative support than USPTA or PTR certification. Many clubs have moved towards certification. And its often required for coaching (public) high school teams. So it's not impossible in the US. The concept of team coaching requires more organization and is easier to implement than coaching individuals on any park or private court. That is, if tennis was a team (only) sport and tennis courts only existed in "guarded" situations like golf courses or hockey rinks, it would be easier to enforce a standard of coaching.

Best,
Doug

[DougEng]

I think the biggest factor here is the lack of elite athletes. Too many other sports, too little money unless you are a top 3 player. The number hundred nba player makes $3mill plus, the number 100ATP player less than a 10th that.

When a few players emerge--probably from backgrounds like Pete or Andre or Connors--that will change but it won't be coaching that is the fundamental key.

Not to say all the points above don't have validity. They do. But what's the saying? You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear...

Nice points, John. Definitely many sports pay more than tennis. And that definitely contributes to what sport some great athletes choose. But like any human law, it's not 100%. And I, for one, believe tennis does have the base to support a larger professional tour.

Aside from pay being an attraction, NCAA keeps a tab on college athletes going pro. And it was published, I think, in NCAA Magazine...maybe 3 months ago. Of the 4 major US sports, we often think the best athletes go into basketball or football. Relatively, ice hockey and baseball players are considered lesser athletes. However, due to the high organization and infrastructure in baseball, baseball touts over 9% of college athletes going pro. There is a good summary online (from NCAA):

http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/percentage-high-school-athletes-ncaa-college.htm

So there are a good deal of reasonably good, not great, athletes turning pro and making a great deal of money. (Baseball).

Better athletes in football or basketball don't have the same options but they still play for the love of the sport. A great example was Charlie Ward, the former Heisman Trophy winner who didn't play pro football but chose the NBA where he was a very average guard, wasn't a star and didn't make as much money as he might have as a top football QB. But he said he'd do it again (and NBA pay is quite comfortable).

Football careers are short and poor-paying. Basketball is very difficult to break in with the small squads unless you are willing to play anywhere in the world.

Basically I would venture to say, baseball most likely does not have the best athletes but a wide base of professional organization/infrastructure. The ATP/WTA Tours unfortunately have steered towards smaller, exclusive audiences by eliminating many tour events (e.g, US tour and Hamburg). Auto racing has to steer itself that way, such as F-1 Racing since it is very costly and the teams spend a significant amount of funds. Hence the F-1 Circuit is small. There is not reason why tennis should be thinking small. If baseball did that, we'd have 12 teams and not much minor leagues.

Basically, I'm saying not every great athlete follows the money. I think tennis has some outstanding athletes. Professional tennis needs to look more closely at other sports (especially golf with the PGA European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Senior Tour, etc) and follow their lead rather than eliminate pro tournaments.
Tennis has not truly sanctioned a senior tour (but left it up to Jim Courier and others) and the 'minor league' tour is underdeveloped and it demands central control rather than separating control of the tour. There is no reason why there can't be a USA Tennis Tour, European Tour or Pacific Tour. I think indirectly, the pro players also endorsed such thinking by shooting down Tennis Australia's prize money by spreading the funds to lesser players in the 1st or 2nd Rd. Tennis is a big enough sport to support 400-500 athletes in singles rather than 150 on the ATP Tour and 50 on the doubles Tour. Relatively the WTA Tour has been far more successful since it's base (female tennis players) is smaller than the male base and less people watch. To offer the same prize money at majors and have the top players make about 75-80% of their male counterparts is a huge plus for the WTA Tour. So what is the ATP Tour missing?

Finally, in an end game summary, tennis, aside from golf, has been a remarkably successful individual sport. Fans, by affiliation, will flock to the excitement of team sports whether it is the New York Yankees, Manchester United, San Francisco 49ers, AC Milan or Seibu Lions. Hence, many teams and leagues have sustainable large-scale economies. The closest thing tennis has is the Davis Cup. But look at other sports for relative lack of economic success: swimming, track and field, badminton, figure skating, boxing, skiing, etc. Yes, all have success stories but not the same sustained tour success. Still tennis can take a bigger step forward. The most notable recent 'sports' that have economic success are mixed martial arts and poker. Questionable in my mind compared to other sports such as triathlon, skiing, etc.

Perhaps we may see some great athletes move to poker.

Just my thinking...

Doug

[tntenniswhiz]

The problem is ego. When any young junior gets good, his parents emphasize the ego too much.

So we have ended up with an "To each his own parents." style of stagnated development the world over.

Love these two comments...especially "To each his own parents" I think you could add: "To each his own coaches domain!"

[tntenniswhiz]

Hi Greg,

Great points!

Although the Spanish model is admirable, the French model is far better than Spanish model as far as requiring standards. US doesn't have standards in private coaching and USTA wants to create some standards. The proposed junior structure I think was grossly misunderstood but in any case USTA is listening (to a few who like to be vocal) and placed a hold on the changes.

USTA is clearly not elitist given most of their funds is spent at grassroots.
Very little (%) is actually spent at the elite level. The problem is we have 300 million in this country on a NGB budget of $450 million or so. Compare that with France or UK. But that alone is not the problem, rather most people want more from USTA (e.g, grants, support, coaching) and USTA can only reach so far. So you have a "touch-up" system that makes few happy but realistically it is the best under circumstances.

Private coaching needs to raise its standards but quite a few clubs continue to be ignorant of good coaching and club management especially in my area. USTA wants to raise the bar but many coaches resist. Part of that problem is the club management. Paying pros less, having them independent contractors without benefits keeps many on the courts instead of requiring continuing education or knowledge of what makes a good coach.

Another major problem in the US is actually NCAA. Restrictions are imposed on our best players (college players) which disrupts the cycle of competition and closes it. The European system is a merit club system. Age matters less but competition in order is more important. So a top club junior there goes through a culture of competition against good 20 year olds and former top players like age 30 who still play at the club. In the US, it's broken up too much. So a good high school player can't find matches against a good 19 year old because of NCAA rules. College tennis is good and bad. It helps those players in college to develop (but can also restrict their development by restricting hours of participation) but not enough younger players to move through.

The proposed junior structure would be localized the competition more and make it more accessible to those without resources but are talented. However, it would then limit the numbers who go national. National competition is debatably less important, rather than quality of competition close to you is far more important. When Belgium produced Henin and Clijsters, everyone was asking how? It was the cluster effect, much like Sweden (Borg) or training at ACS.

Best,
Doug

Doug,

I'm also a huge fan of how USTA has committed themselves to spreading the gospel of tennis more effectively these recent years. I use a great many of their programs, and hope to use many more as I build my independent teaching business. However, when it comes to the development of that elite player, from the outside looking in a great deal of evidence points to a problem turning the ship! Saying the problem lies in oversized egos, ect. but in my too many years on this planet I've learned that money and pride are very large obstacles. And as you stated, some "loud" voices have been stating those obstacles very much exist in the USTA.

While I very much applaud the French standards of coaching of which you referred, the philosophy of which I was speaking addressed more about where and when the training emphasis lies in player development. While understating it immensely, Spanish introduction and development has very much to do with the lower half of the body, whereas U.S. training has much more to do with the upper segment of the body. This approach begins at the earliest stages.

Regarding your comments about age levels, and the NCAA greatly restricting development, I couldn't agree with you more. Elite tennis players MUST put more time on the court than is presently allowed by NCAA rules, and it's why for the most part our colleges are not the primary path for professional level development. I would find it interesting if college golf accomplishes that for the PGA. Difference in the physical component and the time it takes to develop that as well as the bio-mechanical aspect?

Regarding the cluster effect, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!!! The problem we currently have, is that the typical local standard of clusters is so low, and the coaching quality is unable to raise it beyond it's, pardon my bluntness, pitiful self. We have been a system centered on a country club model, reflected in the earlier comments about the great protection we build around the best players. To break through that, to build those clusters almost an alternative system must somehow be formed. It's actually what I'm attempting here in small measure. I've done my country club time, and got tired of determining how and what I was going to do based on what I thought my head pro or a parent was going to say. I'd rather lose a student, which I have, to the notion, I'm going to do this knowing it's currently the best method known than to not doing something because it's different!


Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

[tntenniswhiz]

I think the biggest factor here is the lack of elite athletes. Too many other sports, too little money unless you are a top 3 player. The number hundred nba player makes $3mill plus, the number 100ATP player less than a 10th that.

When a few players emerge--probably from backgrounds like Pete or Andre or Connors--that will change but it won't be coaching that is the fundamental key.

Not to say all the points above don't have validity. They do. But what's the saying? You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear...

John,
I really appreciate you weighing in on this issue. It's one of the great things of the site is to have your very engaged contributions!!!

I do take a different look at the number of athletes engaged in tennis and why. Up to the last few years, USTA hasn't really pushed young person participation. It sort of let it happen in my opinion. Didn't have to push in the very early years, the American star players were generating that buzz for it! Much to their credit, I believe we have begun to make major changes on that front. However, even though much greater numbers of young people are picking up a racquet, it is still incredibly difficult to access quality coaching! In my neck of the woods, and while certainly it's behind most of the country tennis wise, I think in some regards we are typical, and that is: those in charge of bodies of kids playing tennis know NOTHING about the game! Every county school here has a classroom teacher as head of the tennis team. Middle schools, same thing. My point is that thousands and thousands of kids "touch" tennis and come away with a bad experience, a misconception, or are simply stunted by not getting exposed to anything resembling correct technique! I was talking to a wrestling guy today, nothing too great while he participated, just high school....he had a coach in a county school who knew wrestling! How many elite athletes did our sport have a shot at obtaining, but we just didn't have any representatives showing what the way might look like?

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

[DougEng]

John,
I really appreciate you weighing in on this issue. It's one of the great things of the site is to have your very engaged contributions!!!

I do take a different look at the number of athletes engaged in tennis and why. Up to the last few years, USTA hasn't really pushed young person participation. It sort of let it happen in my opinion. Didn't have to push in the very early years, the American star players were generating that buzz for it! Much to their credit, I believe we have begun to make major changes on that front. However, even though much greater numbers of young people are picking up a racquet, it is still incredibly difficult to access quality coaching! In my neck of the woods, and while certainly it's behind most of the country tennis wise, I think in some regards we are typical, and that is: those in charge of bodies of kids playing tennis know NOTHING about the game! Every county school here has a classroom teacher as head of the tennis team. Middle schools, same thing. My point is that thousands and thousands of kids "touch" tennis and come away with a bad experience, a misconception, or are simply stunted by not getting exposed to anything resembling correct technique! I was talking to a wrestling guy today, nothing too great while he participated, just high school....he had a coach in a county school who knew wrestling! How many elite athletes did our sport have a shot at obtaining, but we just didn't have any representatives showing what the way might look like?

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

Interesting take, Greg. Very true. But I would add that USTA has always been involved in youth tennis. It's just that they have tried different things. Only the last effort is specifically directed towards competition. As far as I remember, USTA has pushed for tennis among young people but mostly in coaching and grassroots. in the 1990s, they instituted, for example, the USTA Sport Science Competency Exams, which I believe to date, less than 7,000 coaches have taken Level 1 and maybe 1500 Level 2. The exams sound sophisticated, but they were directed at youth coaching with ACEP. USTA also has the Schools Program and NJTL, programs in relatively long existence since I think around 1980. And support in grants for community tennis which is directed at almost always grassroots junior tennis. Around 2000, the Recreational Coaches Workshops were instituted for working with young students. There is considerable grant monies and programs for children.

The youth tennis movement has gained increased interest as of late due to QuickStart and TAUT bringing foam, red, orange, green balls into more organized play although the foam and orange (as Penn Star balls) have been in existence for quite a while now.

USTA has hit at grassroots and coaching programs primarily in the past. USTA has also been involved in youth competition/tournament play for a long time. But the recent foray into tournament play acknowledges a relatively lack of u10 competitive players. There were only 10,000 such players about 6-7 years ago, which I am not sure now, but it think the number is up to 30,000-40,000 (which I predicted back 3 years ago). They would like to see something similar to France, maybe like 300-500k but I'm not sure that is possible for the near future. But perhaps in 15 years.

USTA has recently (last month) joined Community Tennis with Player Development. That effectively means USTA is acknowledging that TAUT is a Player Development strategy, not just a grassroots strategy. This was always implicit and USTA knows, but the recent merger makes it an official joint venture and pooling of resources. Several pros (RCW workshop leaders) mentioned that RCWs stopped, but actually USTA is going ahead and retooling them. So it's not an intention to stop but rather taking a 10-minute pre-third set break to talk to the coach.

You definitely hit the bull's eye on comments regarding coaching quality at schools. I agree with you about the relative lack of coaching effectiveness as it can be seen that not enough people have been trained by USTA in youth coaching. Furthermore, until recently certification with PTR and USPTA have been considered for higher level coaches. The perception is that if you were coaching 6-10 year olds, you don't need certification or training.

But traditionally, we pass our better trained coaches to the older, more advanced players and leave the youngest to a couple high school girls barely on the team. With TAUT, it has changed somewhat as some coaches now specialize and are better trained for working with those populations. Still, it remains a gender difference...there are relatively more female coaches working with ages 6-13 and more male coaches working with 14-21. The implication is obvious, much like the female schoolteacher, male school administrator OR female nurse / male doctor stereotype. The good news is that quality coaching is getting more evenly distributed. Often public high school coaches are required to have coaching certification which definitely helps. But often, it isn't enough to do a level 1. But many coaches stop there because there isn't incentives to do better. Schools often don't cover professional development. And neither do clubs encourage extended professional development, rather just the first step.

Some people point to the few numbers and relative drop off with youth sports. For example, out of 100 children at age 10 who play sports, that number tends to be fairly consistent until age 12. Then at 14, it perhaps drops to 80/100, at 16 it drops to 60/100 and by age 18, it is 30/100. Perhaps the opposite is more true given that most fundamentals or root cause of motivation is established before the age of 14. The developmental years for many talented players is 7-10 and refinement at 11-14. That requires fairly well trained coaches.

Many people argue it is because teenagers are not interested. Some also point that tennis drops off but in reality, tennis actually holds on to its numbers well.
Sports that drop off tremendously are the most successful youth sports such as little league baseball and soccer. Those sports might go 100/100 at age 10 to
15/100 by 18 years old. Tennis, by numbers start off much lower than soccer, little league or Pop Warner football, but keep the numbers better. If USTA is successful in creating a base of 500,000 u10 competitors by let's say 2025, we should expect to see a tremendous drop-off like soccer or little league.

I think a main reason of drop-off is not because teenagers lose interest which even USTA suggests, but that as a society, we don't provide sport opportunities the same way. Instead, we ask our teenagers to volunteer, work, get ready for college, etc. Parents are willing to take their 9 year olds to a tennis lesson and wait but most parents won't do the same for a 16 year old. In addition, parents will try to introduce different sports to a 9 year old. A parent might have a child play four different sports even if the child does not like two of them. When the child is 15, the child might chose one to focus on or the parent will say drop them if the child isn't at a strongly proficient level. That won't happen to a 8 year old. So it goes from a try-everything (parent-based decision) to a pick-one (child-based decision) or spend-my-money another way. Sport specialization is for elite athletes but in my opinion, less skilled teenagers should still be encouraged to do many physical activities as a lifelong habit. We are an unhealthy obese society unfortunately. Add other factors such as learning how to drive, dating, etc...and a teenager has far more diverse activities than a 9 year old. Finally, with many girls, self-confidence drops off between the age of 14-20 before beginning to rebound. This can contribute to involvement in sports, although again, it may be a socio-cultural artifice.


Best,
Doug

[DougEng]

Doug,

I'm also a huge fan of how USTA has committed themselves to spreading the gospel of tennis more effectively these recent years. I use a great many of their programs, and hope to use many more as I build my independent teaching business. However, when it comes to the development of that elite player, from the outside looking in a great deal of evidence points to a problem turning the ship! Saying the problem lies in oversized egos, ect. but in my too many years on this planet I've learned that money and pride are very large obstacles. And as you stated, some "loud" voices have been stating those obstacles very much exist in the USTA.

While I very much applaud the French standards of coaching of which you referred, the philosophy of which I was speaking addressed more about where and when the training emphasis lies in player development. While understating it immensely, Spanish introduction and development has very much to do with the lower half of the body, whereas U.S. training has much more to do with the upper segment of the body. This approach begins at the earliest stages.

Regarding your comments about age levels, and the NCAA greatly restricting development, I couldn't agree with you more. Elite tennis players MUST put more time on the court than is presently allowed by NCAA rules, and it's why for the most part our colleges are not the primary path for professional level development. I would find it interesting if college golf accomplishes that for the PGA. Difference in the physical component and the time it takes to develop that as well as the bio-mechanical aspect?

Regarding the cluster effect, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!!! The problem we currently have, is that the typical local standard of clusters is so low, and the coaching quality is unable to raise it beyond it's, pardon my bluntness, pitiful self. We have been a system centered on a country club model, reflected in the earlier comments about the great protection we build around the best players. To break through that, to build those clusters almost an alternative system must somehow be formed. It's actually what I'm attempting here in small measure. I've done my country club time, and got tired of determining how and what I was going to do based on what I thought my head pro or a parent was going to say. I'd rather lose a student, which I have, to the notion, I'm going to do this knowing it's currently the best method known than to not doing something because it's different!


Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

Hi Greg,

Sounds like you are doing a great service to your tennis community. I think you hit all the right Jeopardy questions. I agree and most coaches would, that the Spanish train more on legs and Americans more on upper body (serve and power). Several elite coaches (including Americans) also remarked that American players tend to be among the best technical, fundamental players. OK, I agree on the serve but not other parts of the game.

Of course, the Europeans focus on clay courts which demands greater attention to footwork. On the other hand, the Spanish (and European) models have focused on "anti" directionals. I think the biggest flaw in US coaching has been directionals with power. The question is: is it better to drive the ball in the "high" percentage direction back to the opponent, OR move your opponent with the "low" percentage direction. The answer by more and more coaches, is the second (which is good). There is clearly a move away from directionals. A problem is that many US juniors were coached in such methods in the 1990s and 2000s. Keep in mind the last great generation was groomed in the 1980s (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin, etc). Rather, today with poly strings, directionals are less important but playing inside the baseline, playing angles, and movement (moving and moving your opponent all over) are increasingly important. Given that, I predict the women's big babe game will die out as give way to a game more similar to the men's game: more shot-making, angles, etc. We have seen traces of success with Henin, Hingis, Schiavone, Errani...and now Stephens. Even Serena and Stosur don't play the big babe game (e.g, Sharapova, Safina, Davenport, Ivanovic) but a heavier, modern all-court brand.

In the near future, the best women won't be 6'0" or 6'2" but I think 5'7" to 6'0" due to increasing demands on mobility and ball movement. Because women are generally smaller in the shoulders, they will rarely develop as good serves as men (although some coaches always think they will) so it's more important to develop an all-court game rather than a game dominated by serving (e.g, Roddick). Good-sized, highly mobile all-around athletes. Like basketball moving from center-dominated traditional games (of the 1960s or 1970s, e.g, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Abdul Jabbar) to the modern game where Jordans, James, Bryants, Wades can control the game not with size but athleticism and skill. So WTA may parallel Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray.

In fact, just re-checking the last ranking list, 5-8 is the most common height on the top 10 WTA (4 players).

Best,
Doug

[don_budge]

No Slams for Americans in Foreseeable Future...

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?iid=article_sidebar#/video/sports/2013/02/21/open-court-us-men-grand-slam.cnn

Here is what the last American champions have to say about the state of American tennis. Everyone seems to agree that the future looks pretty dismal as they only begin to realize how bad it really is. Anyways we have heard from a few of the panelists here on the forum. I am tempted to tell you what I really think. But I hesitate...the truth sometimes hurts. I know...it hurts me too!

Here is another take on the deal from CNN...not my favorite source for news by the way. CNN is part of the propaganda machine.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/28/sport/tennis/us-tennis-mcenroe-roddick-bollettieri/index.html?iid=article_sidebar