View Single Post
Old 08-06-2010, 10:14 AM   #12
tenniscrazed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flat View Post
I can see JM's argument...but I'd like to hear from USTA on their official explanation and if they've considered JM's point or not?

The first I've heard of this issue is from JM. While I guess I am not completely plugged into the USTA flow of things...given that I do travel regularly with my kid to various national tournaments, I'm surprised a decision of this magnitude wasn't communicated more broadly to the point that parents/kids are aware of it?

JM, just a funny coincidence. the first I heard of this issue is when I overheard you discussing this with a certain coach at LB nationals, on top of that bleacher section. I wasn't paying much attention then...as I was much more worried about my son's match. It's all coming together now...your son played very well that day.
I've heard about the reduction in draw sizes but did not hear about the limit on the actual numbers of events.

Personally, I think reducing the draw sizes is a great idea. Further I think they need to raise the levels of Open, and designated events. (L4's should be L3s, L5's should be L4's). L1's to L3 nationals should be cut in half. This group should represent the creme de la creme.

With respect to JM's son not being able to get into a National event next year that he would qualify for this year should be an eye opener that he simply isn't ready for that level yet. When he is he will win his matches and will get in either by direct entry or wild card.

I will say however that this may make the strongest sections even stronger and regretfully the weaker sections even weaker.