USTA Junior Development Debate...???

[don_budge]

Human Beings and Tennis...Development Ages and Society

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.

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.

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.

Best,
Doug

DougEng...I think that this particular part of the discussion is rather fascinating. The question of age and the basic requirements to learn to play tennis.

The way that I see it...tennis is a game about making decisions. Everything that you do on the tennis court is decision based in the end. Every movement has a purpose. Technically and tactically speaking.

The question is at what age does that sort of development begin to take place in a person. I am guessing most often around the age of 11 or 12. Of course sometimes it never happens. It strikes me as incongruent to focus so much attention on the recruitment of children before that age because then you end up with what we have today. Strong gripped forehands...two hand backhands, basic repetitive motions and repetitive thinking and that is the basis for the game of tennis today.

I like the idea of starting the little people off a bit later when they are a bit older and it is clearer that it is their decision...it is their own motivation that gets them to the tennis court. I realize that there are some prodigies out there but what does a six or a seven year old really know. Many that I have encountered do not know how to tie their shoes. They realistically are not fully prepared to learn what it takes to play the game of tennis. Even physically they are limited and not strong enough for the most part to tackle fundamental key physical, mental and emotional elements of the game.

Lots of resources are being pumped into this young age group and I wonder what the point is in the long run. This discussion about development is of course a long one...and young people develop at different rates too. Somehow the whole paradigm seems to be tilted...and it doesn't seem to be working.

Then there are the questions about society too...as you point out. These are huge factors and I am fairly certain that we are relatively clueless as to how the changes in the past thirty years have effected the development of young people in modern society. Then there is the question of the game itself. It is dreadfully boring. It always took a special sort of individual to be motivated to be a tennis player. It is a lonely road. With the current mode of playing the game today, the lack of creativity spells a dead end in some ways and young creative minds are not so passionately attracted to such a one dimensional endeavor.

So what's the answer given all of the opposing forces? More accreditation? More unification? More singularity? Or should it be as it used to be...more of a laissez faire proposal? Where all roads lead to Rome.

The questions are just the beginning.

[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've been following this pretty closely, though must admit I've lost connection with it the last couple of weeks. It's been easier for me to hear from the opposing view, a group posts a blog report after each of the community "listening" meetings that USTA had set up around the country. I've arrived at the point that something is amiss, but I'm just not sure really what it is. When you have a lot of active parents screaming against the change, yet the system that's in place clearly isn't producing the elite player desired, it's tough to get to the bottom of it. I"d love to have a "tennisplayer.net" style discussion with a USTA official.

[tntenniswhiz]

DougEng...I think that this particular part of the discussion is rather fascinating. The question of age and the basic requirements to learn to play tennis.

The way that I see it...tennis is a game about making decisions. Everything that you do on the tennis court is decision based in the end. Every movement has a purpose. Technically and tactically speaking.

The question is at what age does that sort of development begin to take place in a person. I am guessing most often around the age of 11 or 12. Of course sometimes it never happens. It strikes me as incongruent to focus so much attention on the recruitment of children before that age because then you end up with what we have today. Strong gripped forehands...two hand backhands, basic repetitive motions and repetitive thinking and that is the basis for the game of tennis today.

I like the idea of starting the little people off a bit later when they are a bit older and it is clearer that it is their decision...it is their own motivation that gets them to the tennis court. I realize that there are some prodigies out there but what does a six or a seven year old really know. Many that I have encountered do not know how to tie their shoes. They realistically are not fully prepared to learn what it takes to play the game of tennis. Even physically they are limited and not strong enough for the most part to tackle fundamental key physical, mental and emotional elements of the game.

Lots of resources are being pumped into this young age group and I wonder what the point is in the long run. This discussion about development is of course a long one...and young people develop at different rates too. Somehow the whole paradigm seems to be tilted...and it doesn't seem to be working.

Then there are the questions about society too...as you point out. These are huge factors and I am fairly certain that we are relatively clueless as to how the changes in the past thirty years have effected the development of young people in modern society. Then there is the question of the game itself. It is dreadfully boring. It always took a special sort of individual to be motivated to be a tennis player. It is a lonely road. With the current mode of playing the game today, the lack of creativity spells a dead end in some ways and young creative minds are not so passionately attracted to such a one dimensional endeavor.

So what's the answer given all of the opposing forces? More accreditation? More unification? More singularity? Or should it be as it used to be...more of a laissez faire proposal? Where all roads lead to Rome.

The questions are just the beginning.

My research, ITF/Child Sports Psychologists ect. clearly point out that your right that real technical development shouldn't be greatly emphasized as you mentioned, around the 10/11 age. However, as kids are getting introduced to sports beginning around 6/7, my feeling is to expose tennis to this age group as one of many types of sports that they engage in. Elite players today have generally excelled at a couple of sports before deciding that tennis is what they wish to focus on in their post 10/11 yrs. My approach is that unless tennis is in that mix at that earlier age, it won't be later considered when it's time to choose. Why would they if they have no experience at it, or if the experience was boring and non-productive?

The Catholic Church seems to historically followed the idea that if you catch them early, they will stay with you for life. Grow the pool of kids who are choosing tennis, and the odds one of them has the heart and genetics of a champion increase!

[DougEng]

Don,
I've been following this pretty closely, though must admit I've lost connection with it the last couple of weeks. It's been easier for me to hear from the opposing view, a group posts a blog report after each of the community "listening" meetings that USTA had set up around the country. I've arrived at the point that something is amiss, but I'm just not sure really what it is. When you have a lot of active parents screaming against the change, yet the system that's in place clearly isn't producing the elite player desired, it's tough to get to the bottom of it. I"d love to have a "tennisplayer.net" style discussion with a USTA official.

Interesting points. I followed the conversations too. Essentially, the problem is the affluent tennis parents. They are the ones complaining most about changes. The other problem is that USTA listened to them since they also have the most influence. So the question is, if you want better tennis players, do you go to the affluent people? or everyone else? Tennis has as much charm as playing the violin for many talented inner-city male athletes. Girls are better in part due to Venus and Serena and the lack of other professional sport opportunities (the perception rather than the reality of becoming a professional tennis player).

The USTA changes were made to make competitive tennis more regional. A regional model more like how it is developed in Belgium, France or Spain. One might call Spain or France a national system, but keep in mind, competitions are more based on level of play and traveling is not excessive as in the US. Unfortunately, few get the concept and only look at what's directly in the front of them..e.g., my child is 15 years old and trying to qualify for nationals. Hence, individual goals and glory takes precedence. But we need to change the model. But that attempt got shot down. It was more a matter of miscommunication rather than the wrong idea.

My take, at least.

[DougEng]

My research, ITF/Child Sports Psychologists ect. clearly point out that your right that real technical development shouldn't be greatly emphasized as you mentioned, around the 10/11 age. However, as kids are getting introduced to sports beginning around 6/7, my feeling is to expose tennis to this age group as one of many types of sports that they engage in. Elite players today have generally excelled at a couple of sports before deciding that tennis is what they wish to focus on in their post 10/11 yrs. My approach is that unless tennis is in that mix at that earlier age, it won't be later considered when it's time to choose. Why would they if they have no experience at it, or if the experience was boring and non-productive?

The Catholic Church seems to historically followed the idea that if you catch them early, they will stay with you for life. Grow the pool of kids who are choosing tennis, and the odds one of them has the heart and genetics of a champion increase!

I would say yes and no. I know what you mean. But there are many technical parameters that are developed earlier. From a final professional end stage, often the starting point looks nothing like the end. During the way, it's a constant technical journey.

If we assume real technical changes occur after the age 10-11, we will probably have plenty of juniors with major technical weaknesses. I've seen lots of juniors who coaches have never made the necessary changes so their games are very limited. It is important to instill in children some essentials: coachability, full effort, sportsmanship, etc.

Some great athletes can make the technical changes later, but from the evidence, it is rare that a top pro starts tennis after age 10.

The whole purpose of TAUT (Tennis 10s, in other parts of the world) is to 1) allow children to enjoy playing tennis on a less difficult court, equipment, etc, 2) allow technical changes to occur without competition or stress 3) if #1, then more children will play tennis...and hence, a few more top pros.

The trick is finding good coaches who can do both! Have fun and make the kids learn without finding it a chore but a challenge. Kids at 9-11 can be among the most coachable since they may absolutely live tennis at this age (e.g., watch Nadal on TV anytime they can, idolize tennis players, ask for something tennis for birthday).

For a recreational player, almost anything goes. Some kids will get very good at maybe even ranked top in the 10s and 12s but by age 17 they were either outgrown, burnt out, found interest in something else, etc.

But for the elite player, every top coach will say the technical fundamentals need to be there at a young age. The technical development of a 7-10 year old is very different from a 11-14 year old which is again different from a 15-17 year old and even at the professional level there are changes.

More abstract and physical development often occurs later: strength and conditioning, tactical development, goal-setting, developmental plans, etc.
However, there is research that shows even sport psychology intervention techniques such as breathing, relaxation can be incorporated into the program of a 9-11 year old.

For the elite player, here are some technical developments (as compiled from various sources, dont' quote me since this is from my memory...which isn't concussion-proof):
Age 7-8 - correct grip on FH and BH. C-like swing. Square and slight open stance. Volleys may use slight FH/BH grips. Serve may use slight forehand grip but essential to develop a smooth rhythm. Ability to vary spins: topspin or underspin. Concept of loading and unit turn. Competition not essential.
Age 9-10 - may be using continental grip on serve and volleys. C-swings already developed and serve motion smooth. Beginning to develop slice and topspin on serve. Some use of open stance on groundstrokes. Approach shots differentiation (from groundstrokes), swing volley differentiation. Drop shots being developed (with grip). Competition is friendly, some "serious" competition, sportsmanship incorporated. Dealing with winning/losing, emotions. Basic mental training (breathing, visualization)
Age 11-12 - continental grip and some topspin on serve. Use of open stance (along with existing square and semi-open). Drop shot and swing volley developed. Volleys have a continental grip. May have a reasonable load of tournaments, competition still stressed as fun. Kick serve practice. Emphasis still on technique, placement, spin, consistency. Not power. Serve will start incorporating lower body loading. Some mental training (goal-setting, self-assessment)
Age 13-14 - development of power and kick serve. Increasing strength training.
Ability to start choosing tournaments and practice routines. Incorporating more power and spin. First age of serious competition (e.g, national or international). Decision to play tennis more seriously.
Age 15-16 - may travel international for competition (ITFs). May have individual or separate strength and conditioning and other training (mental, nutrition, etc).
Ability to self-evaluate and help create year-round program. Serve should have generally full body kinetic chain. May decide to consider professional tour in near future. Some training with world-class players. May drop other sports for pursuit of tennis only.
Age 17-18 -
Increased training for lower body movement. Body can take greater loads. Decision for college tennis or professional tour. Training with world-class players. Fine-tuning some technical changes (some players may still have major changes to make). Will need to drop most other sports to focus on tennis.
Age 19-22
College tennis or lower level professional circuit. WTA/ATP ranking, if any, is usually below 500. If touring...ranking may go from 1500 to 400.
Age 22-24
Full professional travel. for a top 50 player, rankings typically go from 500 to 50-100.
Age 25-32
mature player, will peak at ranking of 20-50.

Of course, this is general. A top 5 player usually has a different ranking history...e.g, age 18 ATP #300, age 19 ATP #90, age 20 ATP #25, age 21 ATP #12...then maybe peaking in top 5 at age 24-30.

[johnyandell]

Doug states:

A top 5 player usually has a different ranking history...e.g, age 18 ATP #300, age 19 ATP #90, age 20 ATP #25, age 21 ATP #12...then maybe peaking in top 5 at age 24-30.

Now that is interesting data...

[don_budge]

Monkeys...and Human Nature

My research, ITF/Child Sports Psychologists ect. clearly point out that your right that real technical development shouldn't be greatly emphasized as you mentioned, around the 10/11 age.

Why would they if they have no experience at it, or if the experience was boring and non-productive?

Grow the pool of kids who are choosing tennis, and the odds one of them has the heart and genetics of a champion increase!

Thanks for the response tntenniswhiz...I didn't see it as DougEng had a lot to say about your response and your response to my comments got buried.

But you are right too...this is only a numbers game. Essentially the USTA and the singularity coaching concept could conceivably be cut out of the deal...and they should be. The USTA sole responsibility should be the organization of the competitive structure and sanctioning of tournaments. They can take their whole accreditation coaching and teaching concept and stick it where the sun don't shine. It won't be missed.

It is only a numbers game. That is all. It has nothing to do with posting scientific guards at all tennis facilities to make certain that the game is taught in any specific manner...or to make sure that the infant terribles are using the correct tennis ball. The answer is laissez-faire structure...get as many facilities in as many diverse situations and landscapes and just see what happens. All of the players eventually converge to the USTA competitive sites and tournaments and have at it. The organization should represent a living thing with a nurturing process...it is definitely not a machine...mass production of tennis players cannot work because of the nature of the endeavor and the nature of the beast. It is not only art...with some hands on engineering. But it's philosophy too! It's evolutionary.


You are right in the sense it is sort of like a TennisPlayer.net discussion...lots of ideas are bantered about...in the end nobody is ever really right or wrong even though some obviously like to think so. That is not the point. The point is to share...distribute the food for thought and hopefully everyone walks away just a little bit smarter. I am convinced that we do...speaking for myself that is. Perhaps in this way a site like TennisPlayer.net is sort of a Holy Grail. It is a free exchange of ideas...in concept. When you buy the ticket you have a voice...so far that has been the case. But you can always sense that little bit of resentment.

The centralization of authority creates a Gulag like pit for group think. The coaches are creatively limited and the education is questionable. Better to have a situation where supply and demand is the guiding principle. If for example certain recreation departments or schools or private enterprises establish a good reputation then there are going to be people that are interested in participating. Even to have less than expert coaching is better than no coaching. Just get the number of participants up and as individuals they will figure it out. Such is the nature of the game...as is life. The best education is often word of mouth...like the Indians elders passing it on. Lost concepts in the flood.

The current concept is built along the lines of WalMart market strategy. The USTA is WalMart. All of the Mom and Pop enterprises have gone the way of the dinosaur. Was it a good idea in the end? For someone it certainly was...most likely the guy that is making all of the money...but not for the rest of the population. Tennis should be a family endeavor as it used to be. When collective families in a community get together and somehow make tennis the "in" thing to do then things start to happen. There is power in this sort of numbers game. The education of a tennis player may happen in any number of ways. There is no clear road to Wimbledon. But all roads can lead to Rome. But you must build Rome first.

There just might be something to the ancient German proverb...if you put a infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters...sooner or later one of them will type out the King James version of the Bible.

I just made all of this up. Thanks...tntenniswhiz.

[DougEng]

Doug states:

A top 5 player usually has a different ranking history...e.g, age 18 ATP #300, age 19 ATP #90, age 20 ATP #25, age 21 ATP #12...then maybe peaking in top 5 at age 24-30.

Now that is interesting data...

Just a typical example, John. There is actually precise average data. But of course, we rarely see teenagers break into the top 100 today, of course. And top players tend to peak at 24-30 even 5-10 years ago although we only think now.
However, more than 10 years ago (of course, we saw top 5 players reaching a peak 22-29. Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt are almost a throwback to that era (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Stich, etc). Even #1 players peak at that age although they may make their first break (major win) at 19-23 (e.g, Nadal, Del Potro), their peak is a bit later (e.g, 2-3 years after first major) as we all know.

It's wide range, lots of variance.
I would actually lower the age 20 ranking to maybe around 50.
At age 21, Federer was 13, Murray 11...Gasquet 12, Berdych 13.

Of recent teenagers (last 12-15 years) who reached top 20, only Gasquet has never won a major. That includes Hewitt, Roddick, Federer, Murray, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic.

Interesting note: Marcelo Rios broke into top 20 at 20.3 years old and got to #1 at 23.3.

Here are some ranking data (I include a few recent players who nearly reached
top 5...e.g, Fish, Gasquet)

Age - Ranking

Federer (reached #1 at 22.5)
18 - 103
19 - 39
20 - 13
21 - 13
22 - 2

Nadal (reached #1 at 24.0)
18 - 47
19 - 3
20 - 2
21 - 2
22 - 2

Djokovic (reached #1 at 24.3)
18 - 97
19 - 63
20 - 6
21 - 3
22 - 3

Murray (reached #2 at 22.3)
18 - 367
19 - 46
20 - 11
21 - 11
22 - 3

Roddick (reached #1 at 21.2)
18 - 325
19 - 15
20 - 11
21 - 2

Hewitt (reached #1 at 20.7)
18 - 58
19 - 13
20 - 6
21 - 1

Tsonga (top 5 at age 26.8)
18 - 385
19 - 460
20 - 139
21 - 313
22 - 161
23 - 16
24 - 11

Berdych (reached #6 at age 25.1)
18 - 104
19 - 55
20 - 37
21 - 13
22 - 10
23 - 27

Mardy Fish (reached #7 at age 29.7)
18 - unr
19 - 305
20 - 141
21 - 84
22 - 20
23 - 37

James Blake (reached #4 at 26.9)
18 - unr
19 - 682
20 - 219
21 - 212
22 - 73
23 - 28

Ferrer (reached #4 at 29.4)
18 - unr
19 - 368
20 - 207
21 - 54
22 - 67
23 - 32

Del Potro (reached #4 at 21.4)
18 - 106
19 - 51
20 - 12
21 - 5

Gasquet (reached #7 at 22.7)
18 - 105
19 - 20
20 - 66
21 - 12
22 - 10

Tommy Hass (reached #2 at 24.4)
18 - unr (but was 1241 a few months earlier)
19 - 153
20 - 34
21 - 19
22 - 19
23 - 24

[julian1]

Current trends

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

The current trend in MA is that a high school coach should be a teacher or a retired teacher.
A basketball coach (winter sports) is another option for a tennis coach (spring sports)
The average pay for a hiogh school tennis coach in MA is around $12 per hour when the minimal pay is around $8.75 if NOT higher

[hockeyscout]

The current trend in MA is that a high school coach should be a teacher or a retired teacher.
A basketball coach (winter sports) is another option for a tennis coach (spring sports)
The average pay for a hiogh school tennis coach in MA is around $12 per hour when the minimal pay is around $8.75 if NOT higher

Revisit this thread anyone?

[gzhpcu]

I train with an ex-ATP Challenger level pro (45 years old). He has two sons. One is 5 years old and has a terrific style: great forehand, backhand and serve. I asked him how long he'd been playing and he said he started playing at the age of 2! His brother is 9 years old and has beaten 6' juniors 14 years of age handily. His father has taught them Argentine tennis. Great kids. His father is very laid back and does not push them at all, but shares his enthusiasm for the game with them.