Transcript of Player Development Roundtable
I'll admit to being disappointed that I wasn't invited to participate in this conference call (that's what I get for not being at Wimbledon) about the new Player Development initiative, but I appreciate having access to the entire (lengthy) transcript.
Paul Roetert, Chris Evert, John Evert, Billie Jean King, Pat McEnroe (before he was disconnected) and Franklin Johnson discussed the move from Key Biscayne and took questions from reporters. (Someone did try to get some dollar/budget numbers). My initial reaction is, as I said yesterday, positive, but if they keep to the 20 player number, I don't like the math. That boils down to just two players from each birth year--10 boys and 10 girls. One of the biggest complaints I hear, and share, is that the USTA selects a few players at a very young age and devotes all their efforts and resources to them, ignoring hundreds of other talented juniors who may develop or come to the game later. These small numbers put even more pressure on the USTA to make unerring talent assessments, and frankly, their past track record in that regard doesn't inspire confidence.
Here's an interesting quote I ran across in the London Times from Craig Tiley, now Australia's Director of Player Development, and from some of the comments I received on yesterday's post, I think many of you share this view.Tiley said: “I am not a believer that national federations are the answer to player development. They play a part, they can accelerate the process, but the moment they become the ‘whole solution’ to the process, the athlete will likely not make it anyway. And I don’t believe in measuring success by a player’s ranking — success is measured based on the pathway the player has through a process, whether it be privately funded, government funded or federation funded. In that way you are more likely to have positive results."
17 comments:
The USTA should really try to work with some of the long term development coaches that have actually come to the US and have international players training with them... somehow, the US parents seem to look for short term results instead of long term development. Ask Victor Estrella of Domican Republic where he has come to train a few months ago(not too bad - finals in Boca futures, winner in Buffalo, quarters thus far in Pittsburgh)...he's training in Weston Florida with PTA - former ITF Development Officer is running the academy (from Argentina) and the head coach is a Davis Cup Player from DR. Why doesn't the USTA hook up with long term focused centers like this who want to appeal to the "grass roots"development?
Yeah to Billie Jean!My husband and I are raising two fine young first generation American boys in of all places the South. We have met Billie Jean and she was extremely inspirational to myself. Unfortunatly, my family has had some "health" issues, which are fine, but they caused us to scale back our oldest travel plans. Not that the USTA cares, even after they were contacted. My kids are hungry, they know how to work, they also know what is like to have grandparents with the "American" dream
but they are not"ranked" high enough to be "noticed" by the USTA. In other words they didn't play enough matches to get a bunch of points. But thank goodness we have great training for one of the kids. He managed to get some scholarship help on his own, he may not be number one in the USTA's eyes, but he is number one in our eyes. And he keeps playing and handling all of life's curves on his own. So yes Ms. King, you are right, there are first generation American born kids out there, looking for the dream. Unfortunately you won't see them again unless they make it on their own.
The USTA tends to pick their would be stars based solely on rankings. You can be the biggest pusher in the world with no weapons and you will be on their exclusive list as long as you are in the top 10 at the early age of 12. You will then be enconsed there as the USTA will attempt to groom you and defend their original choices. Donald Young is an example of this methodology. The USTA's past record of success in picking winners is not vert good. A great junior does not necessarily become a good pro.
agree 100%...I elaborated on this a bit on the initial thread about the USTA press release. I strongly feel that issues such as these, where winning is SO important at the young age groups..can discourage any creative shot-making..any ventures to net..etc..The message being sent to players who are developing their games (8-14) is "keep the ball in play..get your ranking up, and perhaps get some assistance from USTA!". This is IMO a "reward" to play steady. How can "steady" foster the development of OFFENSE?..
I really can't argue too much with what is proposed. But I would like to throw in a couple of things to think about. First, when we talk about many of the top players in the past, and the top players of today, they did not grow up in programs. Chris Evert, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, Henin-Hardenne, etc. Maybe, the answer is to identify the top players, and then give them all they need to keep going on their own. maybe the problem is not identifying potential, but taking it out of the things that were developing.
Second, we seem to spend money and then when players get to pro level, back off. Maybe, once a player gets to specific ranking (top 200 maybe), the USTA gives a $100,000 grant to the player which must be used on coaching only. Third, while I have a great respect for Chris and Billie Jean and all the others, how many players have they developed. How many players has Eliott Telscher brought to the top 10. I would bet that I could come up with a group of individual coaches who have developed many great players. i would rather spend the USTA's money in finding a way for a Landsdorp to get involved, along with other great pros around the country. Fourth, I think the overall view I have is: Who controls the players and the money. The USTA wants to have control of it all, it is after all their money, but maybe it should be the coaches, the players and the parents who do the controlling!
The USTA should think outside the box. How about getting parents of jr. players and players themselves that have been through the entire process.
Why was Eliott Telscher at the French Open????????No wonder USA had the results they had.
Colette,
Read below with interest on player development posted as a comment on your story on new center. Is it correct that USTA dolls out as much as $50,000 per year on each junior in 1991 age group having them travel from tournament to tournament? That makes me so furious as I know many top kids who dont receive a penny and whose parents sacrifice so they can develop their game. Would appreciate your opinion on this. No wonder US junior tennis is in crises, espeically if they are on ly going to have 10 boys and 10 girls, or two for each age group. Once again USTA high performance got it wrong.
Junior TENNIS IN A CRISES
US junior tennis is in crisis because of USTA high performance and unless they change their philosophy a multi million training center won't make a difference. Fact: the most promising junior today Sam Querry was never asked to be on Team USA. The USTA picks 4 or 5 kids at an early age, and many get early results because they are big for their age, or are the kids of coaches who have hitting thousands of balls before age 8. USTA high performance throws thousands of dollars into developing their little primadonas and ignore the rest of their top kids, at least for the boys. The 4 or 5 Team USA kids that comprise each group for their age-year travel all the time with food, top hotels, coaching picked up by USTA high performance. That's really wrong when many juniors in the top ten of their age group have never received a penny of support from high performance, or invited to any one of their camps, and some are kids who crush their counterparts on Team USA for their age groups. Look the crop they have been sending to the grand slams for the past two years. Most cant get beyond the first round and that is the future of US tennis we are real trouble. I can't tell you how many parents of top players I know would NOT do tennis again because of the expense and lack of support from USTA high performance. Before they invest millions in a "long awaited training center" they need to revamp their approach to developing juniors. Right now 4 kids from team 92 are in Europe for several meaningless 14 and under tournaments where there is no real competition because all the good 14 year olds are playing up. Rather then make that sort of investment in 4 kids, when it's too soon to tell if any will be really good, why not have several camps where the top 15 1992 boys are invited to play each other. It is extraordinary what they are spending on team 91, weeks and weeks of non stop travel since the beginning of their year. I would estimate an easy $50,000 per kid so far. They put all their dollars in a few. This is a big country and until high performance broadens their reach they will continue to get burned and alienate everyone else. Would welcome
I know that the USTA does pay for travel for four or five boys and girls in each birth year, primarily for overseas travel to play in team and individual ITF events. I don't have access to the information on what they spend to on that.
I know one of these "selected" boys on this trip. He is a good player but there another kid in his section that blows him off the court with power and owns him. He double bageled this USTA annointed kid, 6-0, 6-0 in the last sectional tournament they played. unfortunately, he was not annointed although he is top 25 in the USTa national ranking, where the USTA boy is top 10, same birth year. This is the problem with their exclusionary approach.
Why not inculude the top 25-30 kids. Is the USTA broke? How much do they profit on the US open? How much do they spend on Jr tennis? I've heard the French out spend us disproportionately. Loosen up the purse strings USTA and you might find a diamond in the rough that can't afford the travel and elite competition. The international tennis community also want Americans in the top 10. It's good for the entire sport.
I wish someone could be a "spy", and go look at the Bolletteiri top players, age 10-14. Then go to Carson, or Key Biscayne to one of the High Performance USTA camps, usually represented by kids within the top ten of their age group. After all, why should they not be included? They have earned all the rankings points, and in most cases, traveled all over the country to do so. The Bolletteiri kids, for the most part do not even play USTA events. The spy would report that the talent difference is vast. So vast that they cannot even compete against each other..the Bolletteri kids are playing up, even at the Orange Bowl! "Something" is wrong with the way this has played out, and the USTA should find out what this is. My thinking is that the USTA does not stress the development of "weapons" at the younger age groups. The emphasis is on winning, and to win, you need to make balls, which in turn limits development. If Nick B saw a kid that could hit a forehand at Mach 10, but at age 9 could only keep it in play 1 out of 20 times, do you think he would care if this same kid was being bludgeoned in some USTA tournament by the #1 seed with the quick feet, and safe game? And I bet that #1 seed is involved with USTA High Performance!
Great dialogue. Please, let us continue to enlighten one another as more information becomes availble. To the point, I agree and believe that the USTA is actually part of the problem. Their results prove that. By funding any player, they give that player an unfair advantage. Why should your dues pay for another kid to travel to more tournaments and earn more points than your own children? For example,a kid with wealthy parents can be top ten just by playing a lot of tournaments and earning a record of 45-20. On the other hand, a kid with less affluent parents might earn a better winning percentage, say a 20-5 record, but since the USTA with give money to the kid with more points, they can actually increase the financial gap between the two.
And to get the most points, you keep balls in play, in the younger age groups..you barely venture to net, and you do not hit so hard as to make errors. This style of play wins. Its not exaxctly "pushing", although some would argue that, its more like a counterpunching style. Whatever it is, it does not develop the skills needed to make it to PRO Tennis, which is what the USTA says it wants! Just an idea, but it would be foolish of anyone to think that ZERO of these USTA top ten High Performance kids with all the rankings points will NEVER make it to the tour. I think the number will be very small, and if they do make it...most likely top 100 at best...but there is always that chance someone will come through. The idea: Why not have a "division" of USTA High Performance that does not focus on rankings points. Maybe the focus could be on the boy/girl who shows some unusual God-Given ability? Extraordinary timing? Taking balls unusually early off the rise? A cannon of a backhand, or forehand? SOMETHING, that would surely draw the eye of a tennis coach looking at the future of this potential player, NOT whether they can call lines, and not make mistakes! If they had a seperate division of these prospects, then the parents of the kids who "earned" the right to the USTA attention, with the rankings points would maybe not be upset as to why "these kids" are in my kids group!? And if they catch these prospects at a young age, isnt it easier to teach "steadiness", and match play, while they can develop the skills they may have..of course playing matches, but not having to worry about rankings points, at least, not right away?
Let's make it so the wealthy can't buy their rankings with travel. Keep the focus sectional and tighten the fields in Level 1 Nationals to a field of 128. The expanded 192 fields prolongs the expense of tournaments and the bottom 64 players don't belong there anyway. If the USTA truly wants to broaden the sport, how about lowering the ever rising tournament fees?! With our 12 sectional tournaments costing $65 entry cost, how are you going to get inner city athletes to pony up $780 to play these tournaments?! basketball and football are free.
The whole idea is flawed because it assumes that the solution to the problem is to do more of the same. It's like putting a larger gas tank on an SUV; the larger tank would hold more gas and permit one to drive longer between stops but it would not improve performance or gas mileage. It's just more of the same.
Suggest you send these blogs to USTA high performnace. They need to look outside ther ivory tower and get a sense on what is really happening and how they are disliked. Just spoke with a former touring pro who made it in to the low 100s in ATP ranking and he said when he was a junior there was the small select Team USTA kids who got everything handed t o them and everyone else who hated them. Sounds like much the same today. It seems USTA high perofrmance gets crushes and throws the bank at a few kids. the endless hype on Donald Young. The thousands and thousands being spent on Rhyne Williams. the need be more equitable and hedge thier bets.
Post a Comment