Patrick McEnroe at G12 Super Nationals

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by klu375

Today's R16 matches of G16 in San Diego - only 2 matches of 8 were competitive. Following your logic this tournament 's draw should be reduced to 8 players.
Lew Brewer did a road show in SD on Tuesday. Among things that were said - finer details of the changes will be discussed in September in NYC, this includes point tables. Max number of wildcards will be 16 in BG18, 8 in BG16, 3 in BG12, do not remember BG14.
The most important - this particular board is full of disinformation!

Are you kidding?????????

We should go with what you HEARD versus what is in WRITING by the USTA on their WEBSITE about wild cards?

Wow! Way to misinform folks.

Do your homework buddy.

[JLyon]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

I posted an analysis of how competitive the matches were at the USTA Clay Courts. The basic point is that you only need to reduce the draw until (A) most first round matches are competitive, or (B) most seeds have a competitive opening match. You also want to avoid excluding players who proved they belonged, as I also mentioned.

The same logic applies to all levels of tournaments, from Champs and Challengers (a.k.a. top two levels of sectionals) up to L3 and L2 nationals and then L1 Supernationals.

If the USTA had done such an analysis, they would have already posted the numbers. Obviously they did no such analysis, but they might have gotten a few things right by accident, I suppose.

I also doubt that each age group of nationals would end up with the exact same recommended draw size after such an analysis. The proper sizing to make a funnel shape that suits the numbers and quality of players depends on such an analysis.

EDIT: It is also possible that boys and girls do not need the same draw sizes to create the right funnel shape.

match this morning in B12s SF was 6-2, 6-1 so should we now just have highest 2 ranked kids play a national tournament?
I know your point just showing that scores can be crazy and seem uncompetitive at any round.

[10ismom]

Originally Posted by tennis5

Are you kidding?????????

We should go with what you HEARD versus what is in WRITING by the USTA on their WEBSITE about wild cards?

Wow! Way to misinform folks.

Do your homework buddy.

Numbers of wildcards are being adjusted. Klu's info might be the new numbers. Does that look more fair, matching smaller draws to you?

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by JLyon

match this morning in B12s SF was 6-2, 6-1 so should we now just have highest 2 ranked kids play a national tournament?
I know your point just showing that scores can be crazy and seem uncompetitive at any round.

Yes, a 6-2,6-1 match can be full of multi-deuce games, etc. When examining a draw sheet, I needed something objective rather than subjective, and cannot be there to watch all the matches.

An important point is that a semifinal could be uncompetitive while the quarterfinals that preceded it were competitive. So, the uncompetitive semifinal would not be a good argument for getting rid of earlier rounds that were competitive.

I also care NOTHING about 12 and under nationals.

[JLyon]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Yes, a 6-2,6-1 match can be full of multi-deuce games, etc. When examining a draw sheet, I needed something objective rather than subjective, and cannot be there to watch all the matches.

An important point is that a semifinal could be uncompetitive while the quarterfinals that preceded it were competitive. So, the uncompetitive semifinal would not be a good argument for getting rid of earlier rounds that were competitive.

I also care NOTHING about 12 and under nationals.

To bad because your missing some really good players that are up and coming, tomorrow's final will be a barn-burner.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by 10ismom

Numbers of wildcards are being adjusted. Klu's info might be the new numbers. Does that look more fair, matching smaller draws to you?

My issue is that the poster states what he heard at a meeting,
and uses words such as "do not remember" in reference to factual details.....
And then states that the Board is full of disinformation all in the same paragraph.

Please come here and share information, but the spirit of attacking this board which actually provided the meat for many letters of complaint to the USTA, including Mr. Walkers, is at best disingenuous.

The facts of the wild cards are provided by the USTA themselves..
The members on this board have just COPIED that information and tried to get the word out.

First info on actual facts from this poster has the words - "I do not remember "
from a USTA meeting...

Hopefully, some other posters can remember the actual details and not attack the posters on the board in the same breath.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by tennis5

Are you kidding?????????

We should go with what you HEARD versus what is in WRITING by the USTA on their WEBSITE about wild cards?

Wow! Way to misinform folks.

Do your homework buddy.

I'm thinking you didn't see the smiley face after the last line of the message. I read Kulu's message as just telling us what they heard from Brewer, not necessarily an endorsement of that sentiment, but I could be wrong..

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by JLyon

To bad because your missing some really good players that are up and coming, tomorrow's final will be a barn-burner.

Yes, and since PD KNOWS who the potential pros are by 13, you must realize these are the most important matches...

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

This is what you said:



That is disinformation. Ripken has a national championship tournament. The others aren't state, regional, or national leagues, and the tournaments are first-come-first serve. Year-round? In Cooperstown and Aberdeen? Disinformation.

In the tournaments the others beside Ripken sponsor from time to time you can be assured of playing against a team that can afford the entry fee and travel. You cannot be assured of the level of competition because there are no competitive qualification standards. If you were talking about the USA Baseball East/West Championships or the Arizona Fall Classic or tournaments like that, I would consider them regional/national and competitive. But not the Cooperstown Baseball World tournament...........that's mostly vacation and a chance to visit the Hall of Fame. Maybe that one was Googled

It's not disinformation. My quote said here are "some examples". It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list or that they were all identical and equal in to Ripken or LL. There are numerous national leagues - ripken, Little League(tm), PONY, there are regional leagues like Dixie (15 southern states, etc) Yes, some are more competitive then others. Some are more elite than others. Some are just tournaments. There is no question about that. But in your nitpicking of the trees, I think you are affirming my larger point vis-a-vis the forest - PMac's analogy to Little League is a bad one, becuase MLB does not control LL, LL is not a monopoly, and there are numerous opportunities for regional and national competition outside of LL.

[JLyon]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Yes, and since PD KNOWS who the potential pros are by 13, you must realize these are the most important matches...

Honestly I did not see anyt of the 8 QF as anything special. The #1 seed is solid but not spectacular but did show the most all court game and mis of spin, his opponent in the finals looks very athletic, but watching so of SF match was content to moonball back with to many balls landing mid court but opponents did not attack. Also he does appear very much like a DY clone, hopefully with a better work ethic.
For comparision look at S Koslov and I just do not see the kids anywhere close to the same level even with 2 more years of training.
Even the SF from last years 12's looked a little stronger than this year.

Good players, but nothing super about them right now.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

If I recall an earlier post, didn't you say if someone lives in a "small catchment" area such as yours, there is no need to compete at the state or regional levels to hone college-style skills? Begs the question of why "hundreds" of kids from your little backwater are on traveling teams in baseball, plus "hundreds" for soccer, plus "hundreds" for volleyball. Something doesn't fit or is maybe a little exaggerated is the impression I am getting.

It varies by sport. I didn't meant to says state, if I did, what I meant in the case of our particular back water was regional - for us, west coast, and national, becuase for us state barely counts as traveling.

The point is, for instance, to stick with baseball, they have scouts here and scouts that come here all the time. El Cid is a high school baseball coach. If there is a kid here who has the goods, MLB and college coaches are going to know about it. The competition here is tough enough from an early age that they don't need regional or national experience and/or exposure to develop. But they travel anyway. Not because they have to, but becuase they want to. Because they can.

[Pro_Tour_630]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I hereby submit for consideration my much superior drawing. I personally dont need royalties, but Lego might :.

flexing muscle with lego minifigures stickman is the best

nice drawing BTW

[klu375]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I'm thinking you didn't see the smiley face after the last line of the message. I read Kulu's message as just telling us what they heard from Brewer, not necessarily an endorsement of that sentiment, but I could be wrong..

You are not wrong - these are all quotes from the meeting by USTA brass, not my opinions. Unfortunately I had to take care of others more important things during this meeting so was listening with one ear and had to leave early. I do not think they ironed out all finer details of the changes, including the number of wcs. They may shorten ranking period to 6 months. It seems there are changes in allocaions of sections to regions since the original proposal. Sectional quota will be 40% size/60% strength of section, strength being sum of all players with top 150 national ranking in all age groups on Dec 31st, recalculated yearly. I got an impression that they are not sure what exactly they are doing. Only tennis5 has all the answers - maybe USTA should consult her.
It seems they are having trouble recruiting TDs to conduct 32 draw nat/reg. tournaments. Barns TD said that they would be fine with losing entry fees from 128 players There was a mid-major coach who expressed concern that he would not be able to recruit players from out of his region given his recruiting budget of only $2K (and he does not recruit by video only!). Brewer agreed that it was a legitimate concern but said that the coaches had to be creative. (How creative - drive for 10hs to 32 draw regional and stay in a motel 6 or take all expense paid trip to Russia?)
Brewer mentioned that this was the lest contentious road show - not many parents there cared about 2014, myself included Overall it is a very well organized tournament in a very nice location, with a lot of great players to watch and learn from and it is not clear who will benefit from cutting 128 kids from being part of it. In 2014 at this time they will have an opportunity to go to Midland, TX and Horsham, PA to play regionals.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by klu375

You are not wrong - these are all quotes from the meeting by USTA brass, not my opinions. Unfortunately I had to take care of others more important things during this meeting so was listening with one ear and had to leave early. I do not think they ironed out all finer details of the changes, including the number of wcs. They may shorten ranking period to 6 months. It seems there are changes in allocaions of sections to regions since the original proposal. Sectional quota will be 40% size/60% strength of section, strength being sum of all players with top 150 national ranking in all age groups on Dec 31st, recalculated yearly. I got an impression that they are not sure what exactly they are doing. Only tennis5 has all the answers - maybe USTA should consult her.
It seems they are having trouble recruiting TDs to conduct 32 draw nat/reg. tournaments. Barns TD said that they would be fine with losing entry fees from 128 players There was a mid-major coach who expressed concern that he would not be able to recruit players from out of his region given his recruiting budget of only $2K (and he does not recruit by video only!). Brewer agreed that it was a legitimate concern but said that the coaches had to be creative. (How creative - drive for 10hs to 32 draw regional and stay in a motel 6 or take all expense paid trip to Russia?)
Brewer mentioned that this was the lest contentious road show - not many parents there cared about 2014, myself included Overall it is a very well organized tournament in a very nice location, with a lot of great players to watch and learn from and it is not clear who will benefit from cutting 128 kids from being part of it. In 2014 at this time they will have an opportunity to go to Midland, TX and Horsham, PA to play regional.

God is in the details. Or is it the Devil??? I have heard it both ways, but never mind, the point is that details are important.

As I have said from the beginning of this debate, these changes just don't seem well thought out. Everything that has been reported (and recorded) this week bears that out. Way to many "That's a good question" and "we need to look into that" responses.

At one point they said "we need to make sure there is a way for kids to move up an down". What ? You didn't think of that before you designed the system ??? Your going to look into that now ???

They clearly didn't understand many of the complexities and subtleties of the system they are changing, and many of the unknown unknowns of the system they are implementing. That unintended consequences thing.

They seem to think that the problems with their proposed system will be solved by moving some sections around, modifying the point tables, etc.

"Rearranging Deck Chairs"

[gameboy]

Travel teams in kids sports are abomination that do nothing but increase the influence of sleazy operators who use kids to manipulate the system and squeeze out profit for themselves.

That is not something you want to emulate.

I for one am very glad that USTA is doing its part to eliminate extensive travel.

If I wanted my daughter to be involved in shady stuff like that I would have her play basketball instead. I am trying to get AWAY from stuff like that.

[t135]

Originally Posted by gameboy

Travel teams in kids sports are abomination that do nothing but increase the influence of sleazy operators who use kids to manipulate the system and squeeze out profit for themselves.

That is not something you want to emulate.

I for one am very glad that USTA is doing its part to eliminate extensive travel.

If I wanted my daughter to be involved in shady stuff like that I would have her play basketball instead. I am trying to get AWAY from stuff like that.

I have seen this too in baseball and soccer. Didn't know it happened in basketball.

[TennisEko]

Patrick is doing something no one has tried. Give it a chance. He is not stupid, I think that we will produce more and more champions in the next few years. What we've got now is not working.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by TennisEko

Patrick is doing something no one has tried. Give it a chance. He is not stupid, I think that we will produce more and more champions in the next few years. What we've got now is not working.

Maybe..... maybe not......

You state "Patrick is doing something no one has tried".

When the USTA got rid of the competition for the boy's 12's, I am sure they thought it was a good idea at the time.
After all, no one had tried that yet......
I mean they wouldn't intentionally mess up a whole group of boys development by taking away their competition.
But, it turns out they did, and then they REVERSED themselves, even though at the time it seemed like a "good idea".
So, here is a nice example of a well intentioned plan that was not researched or thought out,
it went bad,
and then they had to reverse themselves.
So, the elimination of competition has been tried before and it was not a success.

And on a different note, you state they will produce "more and more champions in the next few years".
What bothers me about that statement is the following:

1) They had to eliminate 50% of the Super National tournaments to produce more champions?

2) They had to decrease the other two Super Nationals tournaments to produce more champions?

3) What does the national tournament schedule have to do with the other 99% of the kids who want to first play college tennis and now their exposure to college coaches has just been eliminated or vastly reduced?

4) When did the USTA become only about producing champions?

The USTA can greatly change everything and then change it back ( 12's Boy's - OOPS) as there is no accountability.
We can't vote them out.