If I Ran USTA High Performance....
When I posted Scott Price's article on the USTA's role in player development, I didn't have sufficient time to digest all it said, as well as the other discussions we had about the subject. It's a very complex subject, but the sentences that stand out the most to me are these: But shoved along now by the momentum of his own hype, USTA chief executive Arlen Kantarian ignores the central historic fact of American tennis: No Open era Hall of Famer arose from a centralized bureaucracy. The modern game has been built on developmental anomalies like Pete Sampras and the Williams sisters, on self-promoting zealots like Macci, and parents will continue to trust those teachers with their little stars -- and resent the USTA for not financing them.
So do we just wash our hands of the whole process? Chalk up the budget of High Performance as a waste of money and the new Evert initiative as the latest reactionary response to the "do something" clamor arising from an unfortunate Wimbledon?
Not me. I think there is room for improvements that can make a difference. If you are reading this and you've had a son or daughter in junior tennis, play or haved played junior or college tennis yourself, have volunteered for your section or a tournament, you've seen enough to know what those things might be. I don't care if you post anonymously or spend the USTA's money. Tell me what you would do if you were responsible for player development in the United States. I'll start.
The first thing I would do:
Invite the singles winners of the USTA National Championships (this would be a maximum of 32 players, realistically it will be fewer) to a high performance camp at Carson, the National Tennis Center or Key Biscayne, all expenses paid. The player would have his or her choice of several possible dates, so it can be scheduled around school.
The second thing I would do:
Send an employee to meet the coach or coaches of these winners at their clubs or academies, and ask how the USTA could help them.
In order to keep this post near the top of the blog, I'll be changing the posting date to the current day for the first few days of this week. Hope it doesn't confuse any of you using FeedBlitz.
18 comments:
Colette, or anybody else: Do you think the emphasis, especially in the younger age groups (12's-14's) should be on the "winners" of the National Championships? I am not saying that these "winners" should be ignored, and also, looking back historically, some of these winners have gone on to success on the PRO Tour (which is High Peformance's ONLY goal for these kids.. perhaps they wont admit, but College is considered a "shortcoming..ie failure" in their eyes, for anybody they have supported). The first thing I would do if I were in charge were to put the SAME amount of emphasis on risky players who may NOT have the game to win Gold Balls in the 12's or 14's...for various reasons..perhaps they are big hitters, who pull the trigger too fast...perhaps they come to net on their big groundies..(imagine that?)..perhaps they are not as "tournament tough" as the seasoned kids who's parents have shuttled them all over the country to get tournament tough have done. You know, calling lines tight, KEEPING BALLS IN PLAY, (which I admit is the way to win, even in the PRO's)
People on this board (me included) have tried to imply that the USTA former touring PRO coaches are not qualified. But even THEY should be able to tell which type's of young kids have the Physical/Mental "chance" to be a top PRO (which again, is their stated GOAL). I feel these players are being ignored by the USTA because of rankings and GOLD Balls. And again, to any parents who feel my idea is ignoring the accomplishments of these Gold Ball winners, you are wrong. History has showed that these players have/and will achieve great success.
But lets show equal attention to BOTH, and lets search lower in the rankings to find these other prospects, and help develop some of the skills needed to be great for the end result.
C'mon people, lets get this thing goin!
If I ran USTA High Performance, I would first abolish this "birth year" thing. I'm going to use the '89 boys as an example because they are most familiar to me, I am not picking on anybody! But Kids should not be grouped and categorized because of the month and day they were born. It's proposterous! Donald Young , an '89 ( experience and exposure), has different needs than Brennan Boyajian (rapid grouwth and fortitude), Ryan Thacher (athleticism) or Tyler Hochwalt(size and serve). These kids are all distinctive, they are all in different places with their mental toughness, they all need different types of fitness and conditioning, yet all are National Champions. Some travel to ITF's...some do not, some play tons of USTA tournaments...others do not, yet in the big USTA scheme of things, they are grouped as one, treated as such...the '89's. Its like comparing apples to oranges, players have very distinctive and unique needs that differ from those of their top peers and the USTA needs to acknowledge and accept that and train the players in that fashion.
I do agree that the USTA should pull from the National Champions, it provides a foundation for them, which is what they badly need. But they also need to scout and delve deeper into the rankings of the 14's and 16's. It is there where they will find the talent pool. By 15 and 16, one has an idea as to the size and maturity of a player, and what type of development is needed to achieve high performance.
The courts at Carson are usually empty, run a camp, charge a fee and scout the players who come, gosh... what a novel idea. Just don't do it once, do it a couple of times and I'd have to gather that some talent would come out of that. Some parents complain that the USTA "doesn't even look at" their kid, this would be the golden opportunity for those parents.
We all don't have the time and space to write a book about the USTA and it's shortcomings, in the end, I'd more than welcome their involvement in my kid's development. They are the real deal, they just need a little help.
This isn't brain surgery..... Get all the top (20) players together once a month and let them play sets and matches for a week...Listen to Tony Robbins...Surround yourself with talent and watch what happens...
If I ran USTA high performance I would: :
1. Not concentrate limited $s and resources on 5 kids chosen at a young age based on birth year. It does not take a medical degree to know that you can’t compare a 12 or 13 or 14 year old born in December with one born in January.
(USTA high performance does this, it seems, to be competitive in World Team Tennis for the 14s and 16s, two team events that mean nothing in our development of players long term. They ignore too many talented kids and the four or five chosen kids the USTA backs act like they are the future of US tennis when 99.9% are not. These kids get handed everything despite often mediocre results and others are ignored.)
Instead, from the 12s to the 16s support at least 10 boys and girls in each age group based on their development, don’t compare a kid born in December with one born in January.
2. Limit the amount of $s spent on each kid until they are older and a more realistic assessment can be made of their real ability to play pro tennis. The USTA needs to do more for many with potential than throw the dice with a few. This fans resentment among parents and players, and it gives the chosen USTA kids a false sense of their worth and ability. (I know for a fact the USTA is spending close to $100,000 a year EACH on two 1991 boys which is ridiculous when they don’t give a dime to several very talented players it that age group. With the 1988 and 1989 kids they have paid for this same group year after year to play all these tournaments around the world and only Donald Young can get past the second round in singles at a junior grand slam. Clearly these kids are probably not pro material, and this is a cycle that repeats with each age group, so why not support more kids and give the US a better chance one will pop through. The last few ITFs I have gone to and seen the USTA coaches with their players is so in your face how they walk around, stay at the these very nice hotels, all gather in the lobby to go out to dinner.)
3.Give $15,000 annual grants to every player in the top ten of each age group to use for travel and coaching.
4.Support players, especially at a young age, to get an education, instead of having 13, 14 and 15 year olds on their select teams travel to ITF tournaments for weeks at a time during the school year like they are touring pros. What happens these kids get so far behind their home schooling, which is often the bare minimum standards to begin with, they essentially become 8th or 9th grade drop outs. As 99.9% won’t be good enough to play professional tennis, they will end up feeding balls at $20 an hour, unless they are lucky enough to get a job as a high performance coach at $150,000 a year. Collete is it legal for the USTA to promote missing shcool for these very young kids?
6. Not have high performance coaches based in Fl or CA but have high performance coaches at the section level and have these coaches put together camps for the tops kids on a regular bases.
thats it for now
The USTA needs to enlarge the program and trust the process. They should not hand pick from the 12s and 14s because they will inevitable get it wrong as they have done in the past. It's really in the 16s that talented players wise rise and their ability to be pros can be assessed. Size plays too dominant a role in the success for the 12s and 14s as growth rates and maturity varies randomly. The 16s is where size effects will be less of a factor and the cream will rise to the top. Enlarge the scope of the High Performance program and trust the process without bias and players like Boyijian and Querry can get USTA support although they were not hand picked in the 12s and 14s.
If I ran USTA High Performance I would:
1: Pressure on the ITF to abolish the birth year thing. Until boys or girls reach their full maturity it put players with a bad birthday at a huge disadvantage. In the broader scheme stats show that a lot of kids with bad birthdays drop out of the sport.
The revolving birthday for aging up seems to work well for US tennis. I would have the U.S. take the lead (like Harvard did with dropping early decisions) and have the US Open Juniors be based on age, not birth year. Would be first step for USTA to step outside the box and take a leadership role.
2. Would not pick permanent traveling teams until kids are 15/16 years old and have two teams per gender, an A team and B team, with movement up and down based on current results and a waiting list. Until that age revolve travel opportunities to as many talented players as possible.
The UTSA needs to put an end to giving a selection few all the $, wild cards etc. at an early age. As the SI article points the system has yet to produce world class players and creates a system of entitlement among their team players. Current example of Sam Querry being ignored (a 14 hard court gold ball winner) is to the point.
3. Give $10,000 one time grants each year to all top ten players per age group to use as they see fit. They earned it!
4. Decentralized player development to a degree, with more emphasis on the sectional level with high performance coaches working with their players and coaches. And have more regional camps with top players.
5. Keep the coaches who made these kids good dialed in.
6.
I agree with the idea of giving the top ten in each age group a grant, discontinuing the CA and FL coaches and have reps at each section level working in unison with the junior section offices, and keeping the coaches of the individual players in the loop. I can recommend this, because I have seen no money ever on a national level for my child who has been in the top ten nationally. I have also seen USTA coaches at ITFs with the chosen few actually rooting for "their" players over other US players whose parents foot their bill to get there and who do better than the chosen few.
The kids who work hard and can be in the top ten, not because they travel all over, but because they have results, should be rewarded.
Congratualations to all who have posted their comments and ideas: all extremely good ones. How can we get the USTA to change for the better and take into account all of these good ideas? It seems that given past USTA results/performances using current model has yielded not very good results but they do not seem willing to change, Do they? Does anyone out there know as a fact that the USTA is looking to introduce improvements?
I do like the ideas presented by the last anonymous. As I had a kid consistently in the top ten, won a gold ball and never receive a dime from USTA, was never invited to a camp, never taken on a trip and never supported by a national coach at an ITF event, I have absolutely no use for the organization and have found the methods they use to select "future players" to support ridiculous.
Can anybody tell me exactly what a "bad birthday" is? I dont have a tennis playing child, so am just curious what this means?
thanks
If I ran the USTA/High Performance, the first thing I would do is: a) get rid of the USTA/HD's "puppy" love for the ITF - instead I'd be American and do my own thing; b)get rid of the prejudice against a player's birthday as promoted by the ITF - tell the ITF what's wrong (what the USTA research really indicates) don't let the ITF tell you what to do; c) get rid of the USTA/HD's bias towards on-line education and promote a normal traditional American Education (high school/private school). A healthy mind and a healthy body has been a prescription for sucess forever and it continues to work for football, basketball, and baseball where the sport does not blatantly short change a player's education (what are you thinking USTA/HD?!!!!!!!) At the very least don't give public schools and private schools a black eye every single time you organize (or the ITF) a tournament requiring the student/athlete to miss school and lie about it; d) explain to everyone that the reason for the points per round system is nothing more than a tool for the USTA to make more money; increases the odds that the players chasing points get injured; and let's face it, discriminates against those who don't have the the time or money to chase points; e) put the emphasis back on the star system which for obvious reasons more accurately reflects talent; f)increase the players that HD supports to at least approach that of a third world country; g)try more often...please...to recruit players based on a merit and not politics; g) last but not least, I would encourage a much stronger code of ethics in the sport particularly at the various tennis academies. My observation has been that the academies are so fired up that there is a win at all costs philosophy...which unfortunately gives the sport a very bad reputation.
Hi Colette,
The last post which started... "....healthy mind and a healthy body has been a prescription for sucess forever and it continues to work for football, basketball, and baseball where the sport does not blatantly short change a player's education (what are you thinking USTA/HD?!!!!!!!..." really struck at one of the serious problems with junior tennis. I know of so many kids in my section who are opting for home schooling so they can either chase points, or chase an unrealistic dream. None of these kids have the talent to go pro, and I am also referring most of the kids we see at tournamnets on TEAM USA for various age groups. There is something very wrong with a sport that promotes no education because it leaves these kids with no options. All these posts made very good points.
So my suggestion to add to the mix:
If I ran the USTA I would find a way to develop talent without having our top players sacrifice education, if that is possible. Any ideas about that Colette. if not, that is pretty scary that in order to develop into a world class player you have to be willing to be essentially an eighth grade dropout.
Is it true that everybody who home schools, does not get the "healthy mind"? Do the majority of home schooled kids end up working at gas stations, or 7-11's, if they do not turn PRO. Everybody has their own "plan" for success, and to imply that all homeschooled kids are lacking a "healthy mind" is wrong. Maybe some are. And maybe some kids in classromms are too!
C'mon be realistic. I know plenty of kids who are at academy schools or home schooling and in general, they all tell me it's a joke! It's a tragedy to see all these kids with little talent chasing the impossible dream. Yes, the USTA in their actions condones the sacrifice of education for their own selfish needs- creating the next U.S. champions. Every year, the system gets more corrupt and ridiculous. If my son had little talent, we would have abandoned tournament tennis in the 12's with the scarry cost of this sport. Yes he plays level I nationals but he won't travel to all those silly level 3's to chase points. He has an education to attend to! He's won a silver and a bronze ball. His approach will not hurt him in national rankings as he always top 35 but it will certainly hurt him when the High Performance chooses their disciples. In the head to head system (old days) only the summer nationals and the Easter Bowl were the "must play" tournaments so a kid can focus on school work. Now with the silly points system, you have many players with little talent playing every level 3 in the country and buying their way into the top 20 for crissakes! They game the system that the USTA has created! Let bring the tournaments back to a system that makes sense without the sacrifice of education. As others have said, football and basketball don't sacrifice education, why should tennis?
I agree with you 100% about how USTA High Performance will/does encourage kids to homeschool, so the ranking can get higher, by playing all the crazy events (level 3's)..etc. They state on their website that having a top ten ranking means being entitled to many of the benefits (some have argued, DETRIMENTS!), of their support. But I disagree with you suggesting that all kids who homeschool are going to be second class citizens of society, as far as not having a "healthy mind". I am sure some will be lacking, but others have gone on to very successful colleges, and so on. You should not scorn on parents who decide to take this route. But you should scorn on the USTA, and their (rich families, or USTA finacially supported families) chasing points, keeping balls in play) mentality, whose track record of success, speaks for itself.
I agree with the above posts that the USTA tennis is heading down a slippery path by its actions which tell young kids to essentially blow off school. Ironically, as many above posts points out, their top prospect Sam Querry went to a regular school and was not on team USA. It is disconcerting that USTA tennis, particularly by embracing the ITF system (tournaments place during the school week), is telling players tennis comes before education. No one, from what I have read in the above posts, is criticizing home schooling. Any educator worth his salt would agree that home schooling for the right reasons is equal to any education. A lot of home school kids go to Harvard and win spelling bees and all sorts of academic awards. However, the bottom line here is that many of my daughter's tennis friends who home school FOR their tennis do the bare minimum and take classes, either online or correspondence, that require the bare minimum. She said that with one girl she helped at Clay Courts this summer complete her junior level history work was at the level of what she did in eighth grade. I also see parents doing their kids work with regularly, so they can play more tennis.
The point here is that 99.9% of these kids do not have the X factor to go pro, and I will throw in there a lot of the USTA’s “hot” prospects”. So why are these parents so eagerly taking their kids out of school, often for a mediocre education. Why? so they can play tennis 7 hours a day and study 2 hours a day. Also, my daughter is friends several team USA girls and how much studying do they do, not much at all. How many have to goods to be top 50, probably none. So, I agree with the above posts that tennis is the only sport that tells kids and parents they need to home school to be great at the sport.
My suggestion is that Sam Querry is a example that the USTA look at and we should all heed, you can get an education and go pro if the talent is there, which is a rare. If not, way sacrifice a regular education.
All the comments are relevant and it kills me what the USTA has done to the national junior tournament scheduling. They have place a new Level I and ITF International Spring Chmps in Carson,Ca one week before the Eastern Bowl. Now the kids have to miss two weeks of school to compete with the home school kids in the riduclous points system. Can't we go back to head-to-head so that significant wins counts more than point chasing? I just want to scream!
if anybody is interested, a good thread on this subject is brewing on undergroundtennis.com. I believe the heading is "Kalamazoo winners who have been successful ATP players".
Post a Comment