Tennishacker
Professional
another rich parent worried that his privileged kids will be left behind by the change of rules. only this one has a megaphone.
Troll statement!
another rich parent worried that his privileged kids will be left behind by the change of rules. only this one has a megaphone.
Tomorrow's B12 Clay Court final will be #1 Bellamy-CA vs #2 Bryde-GA.
Perspective 1) They should have just flown here, eliminated all the matches for past 5 days, played each other, and been done with it. Would have saved both player families lots of money and top players are the ones who deserve to compete in national junior tennis tournament.
Perspective 2) We did not expect that he'd win this tournament - not even close - but it was important to us that he was exposed to top-level competition, which will be of great help to his development. We flew from Puerto Rico for 3 or 4 days and we would do it again.
Both perspectives are valid and THIS is why the proposed changes are so very controversial, not to mention the heavy-handed dictatorial method of decision-making.
I've gone on record that I'd willingly kiss Wayne Bryan on the LIPS for using his big voice to speak UP on behalf of junior tennis players...I wouldn't even want to shake hands with Sean Hannity (for reasons having nothing to do with tennis) but I do say HATS OFF to him for saying what we hear ALLLLLLL THE TIME.
If the boy competed throughout his section but rarely played tourneys that awarded national points, it might explain why he probably has a high ranking in his section but a low national rank. In a sense though, his national ranking at #833 is falsely too low.
If the circumstance was different than above, a #833 or #1300 national ranked kid got accepted to a Supernat level 1 sounded really bad for the current schedule. I would then agree that the draw should be smaller, but definitely not just a draw of 32.
His #833 ranking might be right on target, you never know. He is a 2 star. The next lower person from that section is ranked over 650 spots higher than him nationally and is a 4 star.
Some sections have high level tournaments the same time as the National tournaments. This can skew the numbers because a player might have a high sectional ranking and not be nearly as good at the player playing the National tournaments.
The player met the requirements for entry into the tournament so he has every right to play. I am not knocking the player, just the system.
The only good thing I think about making the draws 128 is that the seeds and the lucky 32 don't get a bye the first round.
His #833 ranking might be right on target, you never know. He is a 2 star. The next lower person from that section is ranked over 650 spots higher than him nationally and is a 4 star.
Some sections have high level tournaments the same time as the National tournaments. This can skew the numbers because a player might have a high sectional ranking and not be nearly as good at the player playing the National tournaments.
The player met the requirements for entry into the tournament so he has every right to play. I am not knocking the player, just the system.
The only good thing I think about making the draws 128 is that the seeds and the lucky 32 don't get a bye the first round.
I was for making it a 256 draw instead of the 192. I still don't understand why the Supers are going to take a week to play when they knock them down to a 128. Our 128 draws are done in 4 days and that is with full sets in doubles.
What does "our" refer to in this sentence?
The real question to me is: In the current large (192) draws, how many matches are competitive in the early rounds?
I decided to define "competitive" as the loser winning at least 7 games. I made one exception for a match that was 6-0, 7-6, and another exception for a 6-0, 4-6, 6-0 match in a later round (see seed results later in this post); those is a tense situation for the winner, so it seems like a competitive experience to me even though only six games were won by the loser. So, the worst a match could be was 6-4, 6-3, or 7-5, 6-2, and still be considered competitive.
I applied this criteria to first round matches in the Boys' 18s at the National Clay Courts, which are still going on as we discuss this. The pattern in the top half of the draw was pretty consistent: Slightly less than half of the first round matches were competitive (18 non-competitive, 14 competitive). On the surface, that means to me that there is no burning need to get rid of the first round and make it a 128 draw, much less to make it a 64 or 32 draw.
However, there is another perspective. None of the 32 seeds were involved in these matches. The unseeded players can have competitive matches with each other at L2 and L3 nationals; they don't need to be allowed into L1 nationals in order to have development and growth opportunities. So, the second important question is: At what point do the 32 seeds start having competitive matches?
By seed group, the round at which the first "competitive" match occurred was:
1-8 seeds: R32, R32, R64, R32(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(loss), R32 (then R16 loss)
9-16 seeds: R128(loss), R64, R128(then R64 loss), R128(then R32 upset loss), R32, R128(then R32 loss), R128(loss), R64
17 seeds: R64(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(upset higher seed), R128(loss), R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed), R128, R128, R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed and again in R16), R64(then R32 loss), R64(loss), R128, R64(loss)
It appears that one section was missing a 17 seed due to withdrawal.
It does not appear to me that seeds have to wait very long to get good matches. I also don't think that anyone is missing school in July. So, that leaves only the hotel costs as justifications for smaller draws at L1 nationals held in summer.
I believe "our " refers to those tournaments in his/her section.
Also remember that this year the national rankings are skewed because the USTA changed the point values for all national tournament wins as of January 1 - on a rolling calendar a player who got a majority of his/her points in the latter half of 2011 will have a distinct advantage in points and ranking over the kid that got his/her points in 2012 - for some kids it is a difference of 50 points a match!
Kids are being picked for the national tournaments on how well they did in that age group last year while kids who are doing well now are being passed over.
The real question to me is: In the current large (192) draws, how many matches are competitive in the early rounds?
I decided to define "competitive" as the loser winning at least 7 games. I made one exception for a match that was 6-0, 7-6, and another exception for a 6-0, 4-6, 6-0 match in a later round (see seed results later in this post); those is a tense situation for the winner, so it seems like a competitive experience to me even though only six games were won by the loser. So, the worst a match could be was 6-4, 6-3, or 7-5, 6-2, and still be considered competitive.
I applied this criteria to first round matches in the Boys' 18s at the National Clay Courts, which are still going on as we discuss this. The pattern in the top half of the draw was pretty consistent: Slightly less than half of the first round matches were competitive (18 non-competitive, 14 competitive). On the surface, that means to me that there is no burning need to get rid of the first round and make it a 128 draw, much less to make it a 64 or 32 draw.
However, there is another perspective. None of the 32 seeds were involved in these matches. The unseeded players can have competitive matches with each other at L2 and L3 nationals; they don't need to be allowed into L1 nationals in order to have development and growth opportunities. So, the second important question is: At what point do the 32 seeds start having competitive matches?
By seed group, the round at which the first "competitive" match occurred was:
1-8 seeds: R32, R32, R64, R32(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(loss), R32 (then R16 loss)
9-16 seeds: R128(loss), R64, R128(then R64 loss), R128(then R32 upset loss), R32, R128(then R32 loss), R128(loss), R64
17 seeds: R64(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(upset higher seed), R128(loss), R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed), R128, R128, R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed and again in R16), R64(then R32 loss), R64(loss), R128, R64(loss)
It appears that one section was missing a 17 seed due to withdrawal.
It does not appear to me that seeds have to wait very long to get good matches. I also don't think that anyone is missing school in July. So, that leaves only the hotel costs as justifications for smaller draws at L1 nationals held in summer.
The real question to me is: In the current large (192) draws, how many matches are competitive in the early rounds?
I decided to define "competitive" as the loser winning at least 7 games. I made one exception for a match that was 6-0, 7-6, and another exception for a 6-0, 4-6, 6-0 match in a later round (see seed results later in this post); those is a tense situation for the winner, so it seems like a competitive experience to me even though only six games were won by the loser. So, the worst a match could be was 6-4, 6-3, or 7-5, 6-2, and still be considered competitive.
I applied this criteria to first round matches in the Boys' 18s at the National Clay Courts, which are still going on as we discuss this. The pattern in the top half of the draw was pretty consistent: Slightly less than half of the first round matches were competitive (18 non-competitive, 14 competitive). On the surface, that means to me that there is no burning need to get rid of the first round and make it a 128 draw, much less to make it a 64 or 32 draw.
However, there is another perspective. None of the 32 seeds were involved in these matches. The unseeded players can have competitive matches with each other at L2 and L3 nationals; they don't need to be allowed into L1 nationals in order to have development and growth opportunities. So, the second important question is: At what point do the 32 seeds start having competitive matches?
By seed group, the round at which the first "competitive" match occurred was:
1-8 seeds: R32, R32, R64, R32(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(loss), R32 (then R16 loss)
9-16 seeds: R128(loss), R64, R128(then R64 loss), R128(then R32 upset loss), R32, R128(then R32 loss), R128(loss), R64
17 seeds: R64(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(upset higher seed), R128(loss), R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed), R128, R128, R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed and again in R16), R64(then R32 loss), R64(loss), R128, R64(loss)
It appears that one section was missing a 17 seed due to withdrawal.
It does not appear to me that seeds have to wait very long to get good matches. I also don't think that anyone is missing school in July. So, that leaves only the hotel costs as justifications for smaller draws at L1 nationals held in summer.
Mitch
still wonder about your ranked #1300 student getting in that tourney. Was it a supernat level 1 or a national level 3 tournament? Don't want people to think that getting in a level 1 is a piece of cake, even at a current USTA schedule.
One of the USTA's counterpoints to your excellent analysis is that the Clay Courts are not drawing the best American juniors. Thus the seeds in many cases are not the best juniors out there. Hence the matches tend to be more competitive. In the example you cite, only 2 of the top 8 boys 18's are playing the tournamnent. And 4 of the top 12. No matter where you stand on this issue the tournament is, in reality, not a National Championship if 8 of the top 12 do not play. By making the tournament smaller they are trying to attract the top players.
Supernational hardcourts boy's 14s in San Antonio. Waiting list player. I have been there twice and all spots haven't been filled after exhausting the wait lists. A 128 draw is probably sufficient in this case.
Filling the draws in the lower age groups seems to be a problem. I remember onsite alternates getting into San Antonio years ago. I thought San Antonio was great. The problem comes in the 18s where everybody wants in.
If the top US players are playing ITFs and Futures events, it is not a priority to play the clays. Give a main draw wildcard into a US 250 level ATP/WTA tournament later in the year and interest will grow among the US elite. Making 64 players miss an opportunity to play because of 3-6 top players passing on the event possibly because the draws are too big is not smart for overall US junior development.
One of the USTA's counterpoints to your excellent analysis is that the Clay Courts are not drawing the best American juniors. Thus the seeds in many cases are not the best juniors out there. Hence the matches tend to be more competitive. In the example you cite, only 2 of the top 8 boys 18's are playing the tournamnent. And 4 of the top 12. No matter where you stand on this issue the tournament is, in reality, not a National Championship if 8 of the top 12 do not play. By making the tournament smaller they are trying to attract the top players.
You could even have an arrangement with several tournament directors: Winner gets a main draw wild card into a Challenger (more realistic chance at a first round win than an ATP 250), finalist gets a main draw wild card into a Futures, and so do the semifinalists, or something like that. That way, players know they do not have to be the one guy to win the whole tourney in order to get something special out of it.
The 256 player draw in the boys 18's Clay Court Nationals did not come close to filling.
.....They are also, by limiting the supernats to only during the summer, making September the best month to be born and July the worst for juniors in tennis. With 4 supernats spread throughout the year this was not nearly as much of an issue. The problem discussed in Outliers has reared it ugly head because of the misguided plans of the USTA. Now, they are limiting, as shown in the book, the pool from which talent will be cultivated to a temporally limited group- those born immediately after hard courts in August. They will always on average be relatively bigger and stronger at the time of their last supernat and more opportunities will be provided to them.
Really ashame.
The real question to me is: In the current large (192) draws, how many matches are competitive in the early rounds?
I decided to define "competitive" as the loser winning at least 7 games. I made one exception for a match that was 6-0, 7-6, and another exception for a 6-0, 4-6, 6-0 match in a later round (see seed results later in this post); those is a tense situation for the winner, so it seems like a competitive experience to me even though only six games were won by the loser. So, the worst a match could be was 6-4, 6-3, or 7-5, 6-2, and still be considered competitive.
I applied this criteria to first round matches in the Boys' 18s at the National Clay Courts, which are still going on as we discuss this. The pattern in the top half of the draw was pretty consistent: Slightly less than half of the first round matches were competitive (18 non-competitive, 14 competitive). On the surface, that means to me that there is no burning need to get rid of the first round and make it a 128 draw, much less to make it a 64 or 32 draw.
However, there is another perspective. None of the 32 seeds were involved in these matches. The unseeded players can have competitive matches with each other at L2 and L3 nationals; they don't need to be allowed into L1 nationals in order to have development and growth opportunities. So, the second important question is: At what point do the 32 seeds start having competitive matches?
By seed group, the round at which the first "competitive" match occurred was:
1-8 seeds: R32, R32, R64, R32(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(loss), R32 (then R16 loss)
9-16 seeds: R128(loss), R64, R128(then R64 loss), R128(then R32 upset loss), R32, R128(then R32 loss), R128(loss), R64
17 seeds: R64(loss), R64(loss), R128, R16(upset higher seed), R128(loss), R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed), R128, R128, R128(loss), R32(upset higher seed and again in R16), R64(then R32 loss), R64(loss), R128, R64(loss)
It appears that one section was missing a 17 seed due to withdrawal.
It does not appear to me that seeds have to wait very long to get good matches. I also don't think that anyone is missing school in July. So, that leaves only the hotel costs as justifications for smaller draws at L1 nationals held in summer.
Supernational hardcourts boy's 14s in San Antonio. Waiting list player. I have been there twice and all spots haven't been filled after exhausting the wait lists. A 128 draw is probably sufficient in this case.
But FWIW, there ARE over 50 kids on the (current) alternate list for the San Antonio Tourney in two weeks. & I agree that 128 is probably ok for 14s.
But if 10 guys pull out & don't show up.....& only 8 alternates had the means to travel to the site & get plugged in (leaving two vacancies).....one shouldn't come to the conclusion that we should whack down the draw because there are two vacancies.
& I'm sure that's how the occasional low ranked kid (that the good Dr. likes to cherry pick) possibly gets into a SuperNat. He's either a local kid or a little brother of a big dog & the TD plugs them in because he has a warm body & the TD picks up an extra $150. (who cares.....the TD gets some extra scratch & the scruffy little brother gets a learning experience?)
Current situation right now- Girls 16's National Hardcourts in Va Beach. In the finals is a NON-SEEDED player ranked 14 in her section( 98 nationally). Would she even get in the tournament under the future system?
I don't think making the draws smaller is going to help Clays attract the top players at all. Top players who do not play on clay all the time don't want to waste their time. Even the USTA PD Boca's top players like Spencer Papa and Michael Redlicki are not playing Clays this week.
There is a very easy solution for the 3 Supers that are not drawing the higher talent. Give the winners a Futures, Challenger, or even an ATP main draw wildcard. Now if that wouldn't be enough incentive to play then I don't know what would. Do they honestly think Jack Sock would have signed up for Kzoo last year for any other reason than to get the US Open Wildcard? Do they think Alexios Halebian is signed up this year for any other reason?
I actually agree with what you are saying and completely get your point. But will also add this is more likely to occur at clay where a ton of great players don't show up because of the surface change to close to hardcourts.
For you older players, when being recruited, I would also ask the coach at the schools you are interested in what they think about clays. At the schools our player was looking at the coaches said they could care less about claycourts and didn't even check results cause it is typically skewed, and college tennis doesn't play on clay. Saved us a ton of money and allowed us to focus on hardcourts, which is what a lot of the top players do.
Pretty sure Michael Redlicki was already playing a Futures this week.
depending on the player.
Yes misterbill, not all players are created equal and for some clays is a total waste of time. I don't know what happened to you, every response of yours lately is so defensive or argumentative - even when people are trying to be helpful. I believe others could see my suggestion was directed at certain players, not all. Fact is claycourts just aren't that important, crammed in before zonals, team and hardcourts. Clays can be disruptive to the hardcourt schedule and there are in fact a lot of coaches that don't care because we just don't play clays here in college. If you want to be seen by those schools there, or are the one really good kid trying to get that gold ball while your peers are training for hardcourts, or you just want to have fun, then by all means spend your time and $ and go to clays. But if not, a good week of training may be better for SOME PLAYERS.
It just occurred to me that if the reason that we have competitive early round matches at the Clay Courts is that a lot of top players don't care about that tournament, then the implication is that the Clay Courts are simply different from Kalamazoo; therefore, why go to a 32 draw at the Clay Courts? If top players are paying for extra nights at hotel rooms in Kalamazoo so they can double bagel opponents in the first couple of rounds, then go to a 32 draw in Kalamazoo and leave the Clay Courts draw at 192, right?