View Single Post
Old 06-27-2012, 05:54 AM   #18
Mitch Bridge
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 145
Default

"It is difficult to justify corralling all players within their regions and then only allowing the very best players in the nation the opportunity to compete against out-of-region opponents. Reducing out-of-region playing opportunities by at least 75 percent makes no sense from a developmental standpoint, to say nothing of how it will affect the players motivationally. All players should have the chance to be exposed to as many different opponents as possible within a framework that meets their personal schedule, and not be limited to the very rigid July-August time frame."



I have two huge problems with these changes. The first is reducing the amount of matches by limiting the level 3s. If a player is used to playing 10 of those tournamnets averaging 6 matches with singles and doubles at each event, he will play 60 matches vs 24 at the new regionals. Next, players are going to play the same players at all of their tournaments except the L1 and L2s-which they won't qualify for anyway. The system wasn't broken. If players were skipping some designateds because they had strong national rankings, then change the rules sectionally. Having a national mandate like this is changing a system that is actually working. These changes do take 10 years to fully realize the affects, and the old system is just starting to show positive professional results.
__________________
Director/Head-Coach
Southern California Tennis Academy
Mitch Bridge is offline