At what age do results matter???

[ga tennis]

Just wanted to see what my fellow posters think about this. I know for my 10 year old daughter results dont matter just as long as shes improving and doing it right.What age do results really matter if the plan is to become a money making pro??

[Soianka]

I don't have an intelligent or answer based on personal experience for raising a potential pro player.

I think we can all agree that results at a young age really should have no effect on a child's later potential.

What I just wonder though is whether losing a lot when young could possibly have a negative effect by getting the child used to losing?

I can think anecdotally of the williams sisters who were very dominant as young juniors and then didn't really compete in organized tournaments until they were professionals. I have to wonder if the early dominance made a profound effect on their mental game -- in thinking they always should and would win over anyone else.

[Ash_Smith]

Average age to enter top 100 for women is 20.6 years (a year later for the guys), so you can roughly work back from there to benchmark where she should be at certain times, so I'm thinking 14-16 for girls is where results really start to become important?

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by Soianka

I don't have an intelligent or answer based on personal experience for raising a potential pro player.

I think we can all agree that results at a young age really should have no effect on a child's later potential.

What I just wonder though is whether losing a lot when young could possibly have a negative effect by getting the child used to losing?

I can think anecdotally of the williams sisters who were very dominant as young juniors and then didn't really compete in organized tournaments until they were professionals. I have to wonder if the early dominance made a profound effect on their mental game -- in thinking they always should and would win over anyone else.

Thats a GREAT point. I kinda feel the same way wanting her to only play college players and men until she is 14 and technically perfect. My dad thinks that i should keep her out of tournaments until she is 100% ready with no holes in her game. Her coach thinks that she needs to play tournaments for the mental and psychological development. I like the way Richard handled his girls.I am torn and not sure which is the best route for my daughter.

[treblings]

i think it´s important to choose tournaments well. a ratio of 2 wins - 1 loss in matchplay is a good basis.
you need the wins to build up confidence in your game and the losses to learn from them

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Average age to enter top 100 for women is 20.6 years (a year later for the guys), so you can roughly work back from there to benchmark where she should be at certain times, so I'm thinking 14-16 for girls is where results really start to become important?

At what age are they allowed to play professional events?

[Ash_Smith]

Can't play WTA or ITF womens circuit before 14.

Between 14 and 15 can play max of 8 ITF's (no more than three at $50,000) and can receive a max of 3 wild card into WTA events, plus Fed Cup.

Between 15 and 16 can play a max of 10 pro events (ITF or WTA), plus Tour Champs and Fed cup.

Between 16 and 17 a max of 12 pro events

Between 17 and 18 a max of 18 pro events

[ga tennis]

I think thats one of our biggest problems in American tennis.We want them to be great by 16 and i think that we give up on too many players way too early.Gone are the days of 14 year old girls winning pro tournaments the womens game has gotten so much more physical.

[Ash_Smith]

I think you're right in one sense, in that there is too much emphasis put on results too early (certainly I feel this s the case over here). On the other hand though, players do have to be "great" by 16 (depending on your definition of great of course). Whilst there is a second window of opportunity between 16-18(ish) to develop coordination chain based tasks, it is much less effective than the earlier window (up to around 12-13) - so the groundwork must be done.

So for me, great in terms of tec/tac/phys/mental skills by 16 or thereabouts is essential, great in terms of results starts at 16.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

Just wanted to see what my fellow posters think about this. I know for my 10 year old daughter results dont matter just as long as shes improving and doing it right.What age do results really matter if the plan is to become a money making pro??

GA,

FYI, I have been reading this post and trying to respond since you posted it. However, I keep typing posts and deleting them.

Don't know what to tell you.

By any objective measure, the prospect of beecoming a pro tennis player, even if she won 12U sectionals at the age of 10 are dismal.

The fact is, you can hire a bunch of math geeks an/or statisticians to comb through the past data and draw charts and graphs for you, but that will only tell you what happened in the past. The future is unwritten. Your daughter is not a statistic.

[Ash_Smith]

Aloha - true, but having markers from the past along the pathway is useful and can help inform decisions for the future.

[andfor]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

Thats a GREAT point. I kinda feel the same way wanting her to only play college players and men until she is 14 and technically perfect. My dad thinks that i should keep her out of tournaments until she is 100% ready with no holes in her game. Her coach thinks that she needs to play tournaments for the mental and psychological development. I like the way Richard handled his girls.I am torn and not sure which is the best route for my daughter.

If you wait until she is "100% technically perfect with no holes in her game" she will never play a tournament. Think about that in a literal sense. So, then it comes down to your judgement, or her coach or your dad to determine if she has no holes in her game. When that's determined then you play her right? Even the pros are always trying to improve technically and work to improve holes in their game. All I'm saying is with a 10 yr old you could be waiting to play a tournament a long time. Now, when you do finally play there's going to be expectations on winning, right? If you answer yes to any of my questions you are setting her up to be a results based athlete. Not good. Short term fast burn out path.

Keep her eye on the process, learning, improving, always trying 100%, perfroming your best, making adjustments, having a good attitude. Long term always developing path.

No one can contol winning, even the best pros will tell you this. The only thing you can contol is effort and attitude.

Read "Fearless Tennis by Jeff H. Greenwald or get the CD's. Look him up, interesting background. At age 46 he still plays some Futures and Challengers, not like he used to but he's still winning a match here and there at that level applying his principles. Age group wise he's been #1 in the world ITF 35 and unders, I believe. More recently he won the world championship 45's.

Judge the effort and the attitude. When she gives 100% effort and she has a good attitude, be sure to praise that. CRYING during or after a match does not mean she was trying, might mean she cares, but cares about what? Pleasing you, her coach, grampa, her friends or herself? The answer should be herself....... Anyalize the results and learn from them. Don't judge results and certainly never over-emphisize them. Of course we play to win, but if you put the results(winning) before the process(playing one point at a time, measuring effort and attitude) there will be limitations built in. Play and develop as an athlete in this way and I promise you will have a fierce competitor and there will be many more wins than losses.

Just play and learn to love the battle.

Now if you decide to play full court and skip the short court stuff, fine. If you want to play a limited and calculted schedule, fine. Just play.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by treblings

i think it´s important to choose tournaments well. a ratio of 2 wins - 1 loss in matchplay is a good basis.
you need the wins to build up confidence in your game and the losses to learn from them

Sorry, only just read this back. Good advice, when our players start their touring career we look for 2:1 win:loss ratio over the first year or two.

[justinmadison]

This subject has been discussed a couple of times. I will include a link to one discussion and a quote from that thread.

The data are clear. Most people agree with the statement … If you are a top 12’s player it does not mean you will be a top 18’s player. The part many people miss is … If you are a top 18’s player you were a top 12’s player. Put another way … If you are not a top 12’s player you will not be a top 18’s player.

During the last discussion I looked at the ranking history of the top 10 boys 18’s. Almost all were elite players in 12’s.

Results matter in 12’s.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...ng#post4549022

Originally Posted by justinmadison

Here are the top 10 boys 18’s from the current USTA bonus point list. 8 of the 10 players had top 100 rankings for boys 12s. I could not find Blake Bazarnik in the top 100 until boys 14s. The only one I could not find at all was Daniel Kosakowski. On tennisrecruiting Daniel has a freshman year recruiting list ranking of 95%. I don’t know why I did not find his ranking.

Do you still believe the statement “if you look at the top ranked 10-12 year olds you know who will NOT be a highly ranked 18”. It will not surprise me if you do. We are all entitled to our own opinion but not to our own facts.

1 Bangoura, Sekou Coker Bradenton FL B12s #4 7/30/2004
2 Sarmiento, Raymond Fontana CA B12s #7 3/4/2004
3 Sock, Jack E. Lincoln NE B12s #1 4/4/2005
4 Fratangelo, Bjorn Pittsburgh PA B12s #3 2/1/2006
5 Kosakowski, Daniel Downey CA
6 Bazarnik, Blake A. Kildeer IL B14s #89 8/9/2006
7 Leslie, Zachary San Diego CA B12s #89 3/4/2004
8 Austin, Gonzales Miami FL B12s #80 4/4/2005
9 Pasha, Nathan Atlanta GA B12s #12 12/2/2004
10 MacMaster, Casey E. Fort Collins CO B12s #29 6/3/2004

Chase Buchanan #1 b12s 3/4/2004
Ryan Harrison #1 b12s 7/30/2004
Evan King #5 b12s 12/2/2004

[gplracer]

I think the point is that success in the 12s does not guarrantee success later. BUT if a player is not already a standout by 12 then the chances of being a standout by 18 is very small. There are always exceptions but not many. Most of the stand out players who are not highly ranked at 12 could be if they went the tournament route AND played in their age division. Players like the William sisters played a very limited amount of tournaments and Pete Sampras played up. Agassi played up as well. He was playing in the 12s at 9 and 10.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

Her coach thinks that she needs to play tournaments for the mental and psychological development.

I agree with this sentiment. Learning how to win is a skill in and of itself. Some kids have it naturally, others take longer to figure it out. That's what you see in 12's all the time. Girls with happy feet and confidence and no technical skills beating kids with perfect strokes. Shot selection under pressure, etc. dealing with the isolation, etc. I think she needs to play, and after she has played maybe you can be a better judge of how much she needs to play based on what you and your coach see and what she's getting out of it.

[hhollines]

"Just wanted to see what my fellow posters think about this. I know for my 10 year old daughter results dont matter just as long as shes improving and doing it right.What age do results really matter if the plan is to become a money making pro??"

Given your question, "results" would matter when your daughter can compete and defeat professional level players, at least the level of professional players required to be a "money making pro," which I assume you mean actually making a living at tennis (better chance winning your state lottery of course but that's another discussion). Talk about the 80/20 rule; you better be one of the handful of best players on this planet to "make a living at it."

However, if that's the goal, then "results" are by-products and shouldn't be the focus. The focus is how best to prepare your daughter (physically, mentally, technique, form, etc.) to be the best player she can be (taking into consideration the reality of life; what you can do; how much $ you can spend; etc.) so that she can try to compete at the professional level (when will that be? when she starts winning even entry level satellite professional tournaments, etc.).

I come from a family with pro athletes (dad played in the NBA; I played Div. I) and it doesn't matter what sport, the best in the world in a given sport have a very unique mixture of ingredients which no one "completely" understands (and, of yea, there's luck).

Only you know your daughter so do the best you can and let the marbles fall where they may . . . the creme generally rises to the top. All the money in the world can't buy a champion b/c some of the key ingredients can't be bought (hence, don't forget where Venus/Serena grew up and in that neighborhood, you are born with "hunger," and that alone can take you a long way; of course, they are talented also, but just making a point).

This sport of junior tennis is very morbid. I feel for you as I have a 12 yr. old daughter that loves this sport (plays at the sectional/nat'l level) but I caution you against any focus on the professional level (not that it can't be a goal or dream but it's a by-product and it's why we have so many insane tennis parents). My daughter dreams of playing professional tennis and good for her but as parents our job is to keep the big picture in mind and, of yea, preparing our kids to have good, productive and happy lives outside of TENNIS (that day will come, even for the best on this planet). I meet so many unhappy teaching pros at local clubs making very little money (many of which were nationally ranked; dreamed of being a pro; tennis was their focal point in life, etc. - in the real world, that's what happens to many that come out of the world of junior tennis).

Sorry to ramble but I think these points are connected . . . however, I'll admit I'm not a fan of this sport and I'd have no issue if my daughter quit tomorrow . . . so when do results matter? when you feel they matter

[SprintCoach]

Originally Posted by hhollines

"Just wanted to see what my fellow posters think about this. I know for my 10 year old daughter results dont matter just as long as shes improving and doing it right.What age do results really matter if the plan is to become a money making pro??"

Given your question, "results" would matter when your daughter can compete and defeat professional level players, at least the level of professional players required to be a "money making pro," which I assume you mean actually making a living at tennis (better chance winning your state lottery of course but that's another discussion). Talk about the 80/20 rule; you better be one of the handful of best players on this planet to "make a living at it."

However, if that's the goal, then "results" are by-products and shouldn't be the focus. The focus is how best to prepare your daughter (physically, mentally, technique, form, etc.) to be the best player she can be (taking into consideration the reality of life; what you can do; how much $ you can spend; etc.) so that she can try to compete at the professional level (when will that be? when she starts winning even entry level satellite professional tournaments, etc.).

I come from a family with pro athletes (dad played in the NBA; I played Div. I) and it doesn't matter what sport, the best in the world in a given sport have a very unique mixture of ingredients which no one "completely" understands (and, of yea, there's luck).

Only you know your daughter so do the best you can and let the marbles fall where they may . . . the creme generally rises to the top. All the money in the world can't buy a champion b/c some of the key ingredients can't be bought (hence, don't forget where Venus/Serena grew up and in that neighborhood, you are born with "hunger," and that alone can take you a long way; of course, they are talented also, but just making a point).

This sport of junior tennis is very morbid. I feel for you as I have a 12 yr. old daughter that loves this sport (plays at the sectional/nat'l level) but I caution you against any focus on the professional level (not that it can't be a goal or dream but it's a by-product and it's why we have so many insane tennis parents). My daughter dreams of playing professional tennis and good for her but as parents our job is to keep the big picture in mind and, of yea, preparing our kids to have good, productive and happy lives outside of TENNIS (that day will come, even for the best on this planet). I meet so many unhappy teaching pros at local clubs making very little money (many of which were nationally ranked; dreamed of being a pro; tennis was their focal point in life, etc. - in the real world, that's what happens to many that come out of the world of junior tennis).

Sorry to ramble but I think these points are connected . . . however, I'll admit I'm not a fan of this sport and I'd have no issue if my daughter quit tomorrow . . . so when do results matter? when you feel they matter

Excellent post..

[anhuynh16]

Simple answer: everything starts to matter at around 16, mostly in 18s- its also when your daughter will be in her prime and colleges will be watching!

[gplracer]

It always matters. A pro player is the lucky person who has the skill and mental motivation to get the job done. It is a very rare person that has both of these things. Some people have the drive but not the skill. Some have the skill but not the desire. At younger ages it is important to have positive experiences that will encourage a youngster to continue to love the game. That does not mean winning all the time but it does not mean losing all the time. There should be a good balance of both. That balance is different for each child. Too many wins too young can be a bad thing. Look at Al Parker as an example. He won the double grandslam for juniors at 12.