Originally Posted by ClarkC
I think that you are missing the point here. First of all, the boys have a different situation than the girls, so the same statements are not true of both. Second, not every playground basketball player is another Michael Jordan, but there are plenty of them who are good enough competition to develop your game even if you are at an elite level.
Tennis has unique problems. There is no equivalent of the "pusher" in many sports. Girls in USTA tournaments do not have very many of the right kind of opponent to develop their games properly. That is not a statement about the elites being better than the average players, which is true of every sport. It is a statement about the available depth of talent, the steep rather than gradual drop-off as you move down the tennis ladder, and the unique nature of tennis tactics (e.g. the "pusher" phenomenon).
This is really bizarre statement - never noticed this problem. As long as the girl plays at the correct level maintaining around 2:1 win/loss ratio it all should be good for the development. Not everyone is a pusher - there is always variety of playing styles. Are you talking about moonballers? - go work on your swinging volleys and moving in and see if you can execute this in a real match - how can it be bad for the development? Girls (and their parents) are usually not open to play practice matches anyway so tournament may be the only option. Girls can play against boys of the same level (and some of them are pushers too) but it is not exactly the same experience above BG10. I agree that the girls field is relatively shallow but there is so much going on during girls tennis matches so it not just about who hits the better ball.
PS. Watched Radwanska today doing successful drop shots on Kerber's second serve - so unfair. Kerber should have probably just picked her stuff up and leave.