View Single Post
Old 12-11-2012, 10:14 AM   #12
klu375
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misterbill View Post
Just to be clear, the "concerns" I have stated are not mine. They are based on my reading of posts by those who are opposed to the proposed changes

I do not have a problem with the concept of smaller USTA national draws. I have not taken the time to assess all the details, and I suppose some details could be tweaked. I generally adhere to the MarTennis line of thinking that the USTA's proposed changes shouldn't make any given junior a better or worse player.....hope I haven't misrepresented your thinking, MarTennis.

In response to your specific comment, it has been our family's experience that a coach who is recruiting in the top-50 TRN, will not usually look at #200 TRN just because #200 TRN happens to be at the same tournament with the top 50. I suppose lightning like this could strike, but I think the odds are low.

Coaches who focus on #150--#300 for example, will go where the largest concentration of these players are entered, whether it is a USTA national or a TRN national, I think.
I partually agree with you. Maybe 2 different draws one at L1 and one at L2 simultaneously would not be a bad idea. Actually this is kind of what will happen in Arizona - some juniors will not make the cut into 18th and will play 16th with the hope to be seen too. And some of them are inside 100 TRN.
klu375 is offline