View Single Post
Old 10-10-2012, 01:08 PM   #25
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 469

Originally Posted by ClarkC View Post
In that case, each large USTA section should produce as many top pros as a single European country of comparable size. They should be able to do it all at the sectional level, without a whole lot of involvement with the USTA and its national tourneys and PD. They can host plenty of USTA sectional tournaments under the current system, their players don't have to travel as far as players in less populous sections, and some of the most populous sections have really good weather for tennis.

But it seems as if these top sections, while they are producing a disproportionate number of the top American players, are not producing a great proportion of the top world players. E.g., when was the last time that Southern California produced a player with singles accomplishments that equaled Robin Soderling, who comes from a country of about 8 million people, with not very good weather for tennis?

They should be. But what you seem to be assuming above is that European players play primarily within there own countries, which at the higher levels is not the case. See the post above abut the European tournament system. Robin Soderling played all over Europe, not just in Sweden. So, while sections should be producing tour players proportional to European countries, they still need the national tournament system. No argument from me on PD being a waste of Money.

Originally Posted by ClarkC View Post
There is a lot to be concerned about with the USTA, but as cmb indicated, there are plenty of other things to be concerned about than national draw sizes and the wasted money at USTA PD and so on. Maybe sectional leaders can break down the age segregation barriers on an experimental basis by getting some clubs to sponsor open-age tournaments, for example. I would not wait for the USTA to figure it all out at a national level.
I think we can do both, mulit-task. Fight for a better national tournament system, as well as for innovation and more control at the sectional level.

That's my main problem with PD. Seems to be recreating 80's eastern-bloc methods, top down centralized approach. I think a more typical American approach would work better - let the sections innovate, compete, be labs for different approaches.
Alohajrtennis is offline