are our college programs really a stepping stone for pro tennis??

S

SoCal10s

Hall of Fame
are our college programs really a stepping stone for pro tennis??

in other sports I would say yes ,but the more I watch college men's and women's tennis I have to really say no.. I can't foresee any college players today making any kind of dent in pro tennis.. I hope I'm wrong but the pros are so much better and no way these college players are going to catch up...the USTA is pushing top juniors towards college tennis -- why ? unless they are admitting their own failures to produce pros ..
 
Absolutely not. Our tournament system does not prepare kids for futures out of the juniors. So unless you are rich, or lucky enough to have someone else paying for everything, you are only prepared for the college level. It completely shocks me to see these USTA kids playing college, Sarmiento, Efferding, Newman, Giron, if they came from any of the european federation systems....they are not even thinking college.

Its incredible to spend that amount of money on a small group of players and have them playing college tennis. That money should be divided up into every section, and form a prizemoney circuit.....it would take me a week to develop a prize money circuit for each section, where kids could fight it out every week with pros and college players for a paycheck....
 
umm...John Isner and Somdev Devvarman did it. Even graduated. Other sports do have age restrictions that pretty much require college attendance. With tennis, however, the level of athleticism required means that you have a much narrower window than other sports. Very few tennis players have successful singles careers past 32, but in basketball, football, and baseball you are probably just passing your prime.

For all but the top 1 or 2% going to college can be very valuable learning experience both for your tennis game and for yourself as a person. Most people are unable to handle the pressures of professional tennis at 18 years old. Going to college gives you a chance to get a bit of normalcy that you may never get again if you forgo it. Many players learn how to play doubles and make careers out of playing on that tour (look at Mark Knowles and Eric Butorac).

Look at it the other way also. Do you think there are more players who were worse off for going to college than players who went to college and then played pro tennis? Meaning they would have had better pro careers had they not gone to college? I personally don't think so.
 
well the point was are they better prepared or not. Yes Isner did it, but with his weapon as a serve he is an anomaly as with Karlovic. Both Late bloomers which is normal with that playing style.

I give you credit for Somdev. Other then those to, which other college play has been prepared in college? Robert Farah did alright as USC. But the point is that all of the top 100 except Isner and Somdev, thats 98 percent of the top 100 did not go to college.

You also dont give Somdeve credit, he was ranked in the 600s as a teenager, so I would say he was prepared for the tour before he went to school. He just did not have the motivation to really go for it so he chose college. Same for Arnau Bruges at Tulsa. He had the game to make it to 200, but he was not really motivated and decided to take a few year vacation to Tulsa.

I also would like to point out that practices are structured much differently at schools like UVA, UGA, Illinois, Baylor, A & M compared to weak places like that I won't bother mentioning...
 
do we want to add Sweeting on the list too? but UF had absolutely nothing to do with his game, if anything the drugs and alcohol made it worse lol
 
cmb said:
well the point was are they better prepared or not. Yes Isner did it, but with his weapon as a serve he is an anomaly as with Karlovic. Both Late bloomers which is normal with that playing style.

I give you credit for Somdev. Other then those to, which other college play has been prepared in college? Robert Farah did alright as USC. But the point is that all of the top 100 except Isner and Somdev, thats 98 percent of the top 100 did not go to college.

You also dont give Somdeve credit, he was ranked in the 600s as a teenager, so I would say he was prepared for the tour before he went to school. He just did not have the motivation to really go for it so he chose college. Same for Arnau Bruges at Tulsa. He had the game to make it to 200, but he was not really motivated and decided to take a few year vacation to Tulsa.

I also would like to point out that practices are structured much differently at schools like UVA, UGA, Illinois, Baylor, A & M compared to weak places like that I won't bother mentioning...
Click to expand...

mention those weak places i'm interested
 
My answer to the original question is "It's too early to tell".

The USTA only began pushing juniors towards college several years ago. The Americans that should be challenging for spots in the Top 100 right now did not go through college. So, if anything, it says that by not sending players to college, the USTA's current drought of top international level talent could be a result of pushing too many players to skip college, and having them go pro before they were ready.

The USTA has obviously reversed their stance, pushing most juniors to go through college. We'll see over the next several years how that strategy works. But the sample size is too small right now.

Personally, I think it says something when Steve Johnson, the most pro-ready player in college right now, is going to play his senior year. He obviously is finding value in the experience.
 
Isner, Blake, O'Brien, Devarman, S. Johnson, Farah
Lots of players making waves on the tour maybe not Top 50 but plenty inside Top200-300 in order make a profit, I do think though that some kids get big heads by winning to much in college and are not yet ready for the grind, such as Britton and many others.
 
JLyon said:
Isner, Blake, O'Brien, Devarman, S. Johnson, Farah
Lots of players making waves on the tour maybe not Top 50 but plenty inside Top200-300 in order make a profit, I do think though that some kids get big heads by winning to much in college and are not yet ready for the grind, such as Britton and many others.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Becker the Bryan bros there are others.

At any given time pro tennis only supports about 150-200 players (males) each year. With the whole world competing what are the odds? The average pro who is making it to the top 200 is around 20-23 years old. My guess is the USTA is figuring that instead of going it on your own between 17-23 years old, why not go to college, improve there, and mature before going full time on the pro tour.
 
I don't think college will produce any notable future pros, but I think the effect will force mediocre players (had pro aspirations) to college, (which is good) and force the kids with the ability to really think about turning pro.
 
The thinking behind the college tennis players going to the pros is that MOST pros don't really start coming into their own until around 22-24. That is the age that many guys are graduating from college.

Plus, by going to college there is always something to fall back on. Unless you are in the top 50 in the world you are really not making great money after traveling and coaches expenses.

The problem with the NCAA is that a coach is only allowed to be on the court with players a certain amount of time and for a defined number of weeks. It is hard to develop a player when you can't spend as much time as needed to get to the next level. The other thing is that players on the same team get sick and tired of playing eachother all the time when not in season.

Rather than spend the $100K a year for each player the USTA has down there in Boca. They would be better off funding the top 20 American college players each summer and pay for their travel expenses to the futures events. They would be much farther ahead both financially and with results.

As long as the current people at the USTA are in power you will never see another American player in the top 5, let alone #1.
 
TennisFan2Day said:
The thinking behind the college tennis players going to the pros is that MOST pros don't really start coming into their own until around 22-24. That is the age that many guys are graduating from college.

Plus, by going to college there is always something to fall back on. Unless you are in the top 50 in the world you are really not making great money after traveling and coaches expenses.

The problem with the NCAA is that a coach is only allowed to be on the court with players a certain amount of time and for a defined number of weeks. It is hard to develop a player when you can't spend as much time as needed to get to the next level. The other thing is that players on the same team get sick and tired of playing eachother all the time when not in season.

Rather than spend the $100K a year for each player the USTA has down there in Boca. They would be better off funding the top 20 American college players each summer and pay for their travel expenses to the futures events. They would be much farther ahead both financially and with results.

As long as the current people at the USTA are in power you will never see another American player in the top 5, let alone #1.
Click to expand...

Another idea is for the USTA to fund/support many future style tournaments in the U.S. that makes it easy to travel to.
 
I think it would be great to have some of the top juniors play a year or two of college tennis and if they dominate move on to the pro's, otherwise stay and get stronger and an education. Make it more like college hoops, say a school gets a Sock, or Harrison, lots of buzz and fans. Need to get college teams stronger so kids can use as stepping stone. Otherwise they end up like Devon Britton, winning NCAA going pro, and nothing.
 
the other thing I want to touch here is ... are the D1 coaches really teaching/giving the players the other aspects of tennis they need to go to the next level? -- as far as I have seen.. the only college player who is turning his tennis into the pro's game may be Steve Johnson.. everyone that I have seen are transformed into ''grinders'' ...they don't developed any kinds of weapons needed for the pro game.. some coaches even discourage the player to ''go for the big shot'' -- yeah the grinding game will win a lot of matches and that's what college coaches want ,but that 'grinding' game doesn't work as well in pros tennis unless you do something special ...

I've seen a lot of SoCal kids go to college and their game didn't do anything after that.. Thacher for example .. this kid had a hugh lefty serve,he was a good -excellent athlete(playing multiple sports),he got the size,and the last time I watched him, he was hitting 5-10 feet behind the baseline.. yes he comes to net,but not enough for the skills and talent he has..

this is what happens to a lot of kids who ends up going to college instead of doing the pro tours .. in college tennis you end up playing the coach's personality but when you're out there putting your own *** on the line,you learn about who and what kind of tennis you want to be or need to be to win..

yeah,yeah, we all know about how important a college education is but that's not what I'm asking for.. in most part 99.9% of all college players will be better off going and finishing school and get a regular life after college tennis.. but I'm asking about that 1% who may have a REAL chance to make it..
 
are our college programs really a stepping stone for pro tennis??



In addition to the players already mentioned, don't forget Kevin Anderson (Illinois).

Based on today's rankings, both Anderson and Isner will be seeded at the upcoming Australian Open.

One thing that seems clear. If you can dominate college tennis, you're odds of success (reaching top 100-150) are pretty good.

Guys who have had dominant spring seasons (i.e., have gone on lengthy win streaks, especially to end the season, with few overall losses) in recent years include Isner, Devvarman, Anderson, Levine, Farah and Johnson. The first four on the list have all reached top 100 at one point and fortunately got to compete against each other in college.

Odds are the latter two will eventually get there.

The confidence that these top college guys leave with seems to go a long way.

All pretty much immediately won multiple futures and quickly progressed to the challenger level.


Otherwise, if you didn't dominate while you were in college, it seems like future success is questionable
Britton was not anywhere close to dominant. He didn't even play #1 on his own team. It's more that he had a good run at one event, then got offered too much signing money to turn down.
Same with Klahn's results...so far. Certainly, hope he recovers from injury and has a great spring. Always easy to cheer for the college graduates.


On a different note, College seems to be pretty good preparation for the Doubles tour.

Here's a list of some of the college guys currently in the Top 100:

Bryans, Bhupathi, Matkowski, Butorac, Rojer, Lipsky, Isner, Knowles, Ram, Cerretani, Huey, Farah, Siljestrom, Skupski, Parrott and Fisher
 
SoCal10s said:
the other thing I want to touch here is ... are the D1 coaches really teaching/giving the players the other aspects of tennis they need to go to the next level? -- as far as I have seen.. the only college player who is turning his tennis into the pro's game may be Steve Johnson.. everyone that I have seen are transformed into ''grinders'' ...they don't developed any kinds of weapons needed for the pro game.. some coaches even discourage the player to ''go for the big shot'' -- yeah the grinding game will win a lot of matches and that's what college coaches want ,but that 'grinding' game doesn't work as well in pros tennis unless you do something special ...

I've seen a lot of SoCal kids go to college and their game didn't do anything after that.. Thacher for example .. this kid had a hugh lefty serve,he was a good -excellent athlete(playing multiple sports),he got the size,and the last time I watched him, he was hitting 5-10 feet behind the baseline.. yes he comes to net,but not enough for the skills and talent he has..

this is what happens to a lot of kids who ends up going to college instead of doing the pro tours .. in college tennis you end up playing the coach's personality but when you're out there putting your own *** on the line,you learn about who and what kind of tennis you want to be or need to be to win..

yeah,yeah, we all know about how important a college education is but that's not what I'm asking for.. in most part 99.9% of all college players will be better off going and finishing school and get a regular life after college tennis.. but I'm asking about that 1% who may have a REAL chance to make it..
Click to expand...

Good post.....99% OF THE players (any sport) will have great opts after school, because they have a work ethic and toughness many employers want.
All this talk of next level stuff for most of these kids is a waste of time. As for the rest of the 1%, sure, a few can make a living, but we still have not seen a mega star (other than the Bryan Bros. maybe i am missing one/two more?) for a long time.
Someone posted somewhere recently about varying degrees of BlueChips & Stanford, only a handful of Bluechips can even get into Stanford, these guys nowadays are going to Stanford, because they know the value of the education, not to be the next mega star. I read somewhere in another post about schools letting subpar athelets in......well, perhaps some do. Ivy's & Stanford do not make a practice of that....i am guessing some of the other fine institutions make room for certain bluechips, i am sure we could all guess which other schools they are
 
Bash and Crash said:
I think it would be great to have some of the top juniors play a year or two of college tennis and if they dominate move on to the pro's, otherwise stay and get stronger and an education. Make it more like college hoops, say a school gets a Sock, or Harrison, lots of buzz and fans. Need to get college teams stronger so kids can use as stepping stone. Otherwise they end up like Devon Britton, winning NCAA going pro, and nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree with the 2 year strategy. If you are not going to dominate in the NCAA, you are definitely not going to dominate on the tour.

Personally, I think Devin came out of college a little too soon. He should have spent the summer doing the mini tours and then decided from there. He signed in the beginning of July when he could have waited until almost Sept. I would like to know now if he wishes he would have stayed a year or two longer in school.
 
"Only a small percentage of people playing college tennis will go pro, but if we can get a few into the top 100 we will be pleased," (Patrick) McEnroe said. "It can only increase our chances of producing a grand slam winner."

It is like what they are trying to do with the Junior ITF tournaments here. If we Wildcard enough of our USTA players into the tournament, eventually one of them has to make it to the end. Then we have success. WRONG!!!!
 
I meant to put this in the one above.

We have a club here that does the same kind of stuff. They put 16 of their kids in a 32 draw tournament. Then when they win they post up that their club has won 31 of the 35 tournaments in the are. The sad part is that none of them seem to do well at level 2 or 3 tournaments, let alone level 1.
 
cmb said:
well the point was are they better prepared or not. Yes Isner did it, but with his weapon as a serve he is an anomaly as with Karlovic. Both Late bloomers which is normal with that playing style.

I give you credit for Somdev. Other then those to, which other college play has been prepared in college? Robert Farah did alright as USC. But the point is that all of the top 100 except Isner and Somdev, thats 98 percent of the top 100 did not go to college.

You also dont give Somdeve credit, he was ranked in the 600s as a teenager, so I would say he was prepared for the tour before he went to school. He just did not have the motivation to really go for it so he chose college. Same for Arnau Bruges at Tulsa. He had the game to make it to 200, but he was not really motivated and decided to take a few year vacation to Tulsa.

I also would like to point out that practices are structured much differently at schools like UVA, UGA, Illinois, Baylor, A & M compared to weak places like that I won't bother mentioning...
Click to expand...
Could you name the major programs that have coaching, facilities and players to develop someone to the pro level? Seems to me that the top players have a kid, a close relative and a maniacal desire that produces grand slam winners. It doesn't seem to be any one academy, coach or system but almost like boxing it's an individual lucky enough to get coaching at critical junctions in careers then they flourish.
 
It should be, but it isn't. I think it's a money question. It takes money for a pro prospect to compete on the Futures or Challenger tour for a few years while maturing physically and mentally. Theoretically, college should be a training ground like in other sports, but for some reason it isn't. Why? Again, I think it comes down to money. Tennis doesn't make a college money. Football and Basketball make colleges big money. So, what's a pro prospect to do?
 
BMC9670 said:
I think it comes down to money. Tennis doesn't make a college money.
Click to expand...
Not only does tennis not make money for the school, but only a minuscule percentage of "professional" players can make a profit from the game. So if a given collegiate-turned-professional player turns out to earn a ATP/WTA rank of 200 or so for a couple of years, I doubt he or she would earn back expenses. The point of the entire college-tennis enterprise can't really be develop a handful of successful professionals--can it?
 
People, people, stop believing the hype and look past the anecdotes. How many #2s, 3s, 4-5-6s on Isner and Devvarman's teams "make it"? Seriously stop lying to yourselves. You are delusional. Look at the percentages not the outliers. If you're not at the very top in the country, just have a chavela an enjoy the ride.
 
For the most part I'd say "NO". Very few actually go to college and get an education then hit the pros. That and hit the pros with any success, percent wise. I'm sue there are exceptions to this. Just as you mentioned Isner, etc.. Most want to get one or two years of college in and then go pro. Do to the fact of such a constant schedule I think they believe they need to try and get all the cash they can before their bodies wear out or injuries set in. It seems to me there are more doubles experts out there that graduated college than singles players.
 
SoCal10s said:
the other thing I want to touch here is ... are the D1 coaches really teaching/giving the players the other aspects of tennis they need to go to the next level? -- as far as I have seen.. the only college player who is turning his tennis into the pro's game may be Steve Johnson.. everyone that I have seen are transformed into ''grinders'' ...they don't developed any kinds of weapons needed for the pro game.. some coaches even discourage the player to ''go for the big shot'' -- yeah the grinding game will win a lot of matches and that's what college coaches want ,but that 'grinding' game doesn't work as well in pros tennis unless you do something special ... I've seen a lot of SoCal kids go to college and their game didn't do anything after that.. Thacher for example .. this kid had a hugh lefty serve,he was a good -excellent athlete(playing multiple sports),he got the size,and the last time I watched him, he was hitting 5-10 feet behind the baseline.. yes he comes to net,but not enough for the skills and talent he has..

this is what happens to a lot of kids who ends up going to college instead of doing the pro tours .. in college tennis you end up playing the coach's personality but when you're out there putting your own *** on the line,you learn about who and what kind of tennis you want to be or need to be to win..

yeah,yeah, we all know about how important a college education is but that's not what I'm asking for.. in most part 99.9% of all college players will be better off going and finishing school and get a regular life after college tennis.. but I'm asking about that 1% who may have a REAL chance to make it..
Click to expand...

This is a real concern, We have had a young guy from our club spend a season at a good DII school, watched him hit the other day. (he was home for the break)

what a change! Gone from being an attacking baseliner who was prepared to S&V to being a grinder. Just rallies and rallies and rallies.
His younger brother reckons he is nowhere near the threat he was when he left.
(mind you, he is a year older too, so...)

he played every match last year as a freshman at number 5 singles and played a couple of doubles matches, won about 80% so I guess he will move up a couple of lines this year as a sophomore.

it will be fascinating to see what happens with his tennis over the next couple of seasons..

he is a pre-med, though, so I guess it doesn't matter!
 
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
This is a real concern, We have had a young guy from our club spend a season at a good DII school, watched him hit the other day. (he was home for the break)

what a change! Gone from being an attacking baseliner who was prepared to S&V to being a grinder. Just rallies and rallies and rallies.
His younger brother reckons he is nowhere near the threat he was when he left.
(mind you, he is a year older too, so...)

he played every match last year as a freshman at number 5 singles and played a couple of doubles matches, won about 80% so I guess he will move up a couple of lines this year as a sophomore.

it will be fascinating to see what happens with his tennis over the next couple of seasons..

he is a pre-med, though, so I guess it doesn't matter!
Click to expand...

DI/DII college tennis for the most part:

#1: can do everything
#2: can do everything, but not as consistently well as #1
#3: usually can play big, usually a little erratic
#4: usually a counterpuncher
#5: usually a grinder
#6: usually a grinder/pusher

If you play #5/6, you almost will always play #5/6 unless more players in front of you graduate than recruit come-in, assuming those recruits are weaker than the #5/6 veteran. If not, you will be stuck at #5/6, and #7/8 will be looking to crawl-up your rear end. At good programs, #5-8 are interchangeable, so you better win the tough dual-match match-ups, or someone else is getting a shot. Be prepared for your butt to smell like Pine-Sol, or you better get the equipment that those in front of you have. If your boy is a freshman, he has a shot to move-up. If he's a sophomore, he maybe #5-8 till his eligibility is over. Welcome to college tennis.
 
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
There is that, and yes, he is indeed on a scholarship.
Click to expand...

He's probably pushing either because that is how the coach wants him to play or he's scared and wants to keep a spot/scholarship by winning at #5. He must be playing in the Northeast, right? The DII teams in the South are real serious and can easily compete with DI.
 
Last edited:
treeman10 said:
That's a great point. Players bring this ability and growth potential with them from juniors, then the coaches want to make changes to their game which makes complete sense but funks them up for awhile (which is why I don't like to judge freshman, especially fall season cause it's like someone added squares to their chessboard ---like wtf? ---- some adjust quick, others not).

But the point that a player will play a certain way that guarantees them a spot - security with that spot, that is an interesting point I hadn't pondered. That'll halt the growth for sure especially tied with pleasing the coach.

Players can certainly lose some of that instinctual talent/their individuality/that something special they have - whatever you want to call it - trying to please the coach or protect a position (scholarship). Interesting stuff guys.
Click to expand...

Many coaches at the weaker DII level and certainly very pervasively at the DIII level, is that consistency wins. But to them, consistency means keeping the ball in-play ONLY, not using all of your talents/tools consistently. There is a huge difference conceptually.

Frequently, because of the coach's limited mindset or limited ability, they cannot take a talented multi-tooled player anywhere but to the bench. Instead of coaching how to use the player's tools effectively, they pigeon-hole the player as erratic. They either force him to push or to ride the pine, and that especially happens since they are getting zero coaching and lose challenge matches to vastly inferior talent, just because the inferior talent will win by getting just one more ball back. That wins in the short run, but that does not pave the way to Nats. that just gives you a 4.0-4.5 team. Better teams have more options and more flexibility in their tactics for winning.

If I have a player whose game is set and talented, I send him DI. If he is talented but needs development, DII, because usually, DII coaches work with their players more than DI coaches do. If my player is solid but has no weapons, I send him DIII. If he is very talented and multi-tooled but doesn't win, I send him to a talented coach, regardless of the division, because said coach will know what to do with the talent. That kid, will have a future beyond college if he plays for the right coach.
 
I never said he was pushing, I said he was grinding, sort of like a big, tall, heavy serving Wozniacki!
(so not that much like Wozniacki, really, but you get the idea.)

And you might be right, he is also doing a bit of coaching juniors while he is here, so maybe he is happy to just groove his groundies while he is on holiday...
Or maybe its the Dunlop, ruined his game!! :)

Rory.jpg
 
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
I never said he was pushing, I said he was grinding ....
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that most posters here don't know the difference, so watch what words you use. :)

In fact, if you aren't going for a winner in the first 3-4 shots, if you are waiting for the right opportunity (e.g. a short ball that bounces close to your optimal striking zone), then you are a pusher according to about half the posters here. That's one reason you see all those posts whining, "I lost to a pusher!" Most of the time, it was not actually a pusher in the first place. No wonder that happens so often!
 
Timbo's hopeless slice said:
I never said he was pushing, I said he was grinding, sort of like a big, tall, heavy serving Wozniacki!
(so not that much like Wozniacki, really, but you get the idea.)

And you might be right, he is also doing a bit of coaching juniors while he is here, so maybe he is happy to just groove his groundies while he is on holiday...
Or maybe its the Dunlop, ruined his game!! :)
Click to expand...

Just looking at this kid tells you that the team he's on is serious. If he was an American, I'd put money on it that if he wasn't lazy or stupid and had the typical tennis player's grades, that he would be playing DI. He should get his grades up, play a tourney every week in the summer, and then transfer to a DI institution.
 
Our college tennis should be for tax paying Americans and should be considered an occupational training so that Americans professional tennis players can make a living playing USTA Professional tennis tour culminating with the US Open, which should be the premiere Open championship for all American pros.

No foreigners in US colleges, no foreigners in US Open.
 
dennis10is said:
Our college tennis should be for tax paying Americans and should be considered an occupational training so that Americans professional tennis players can make a living playing USTA Professional tennis tour culminating with the US Open, which should be the premiere Open championship for all American pros.

No foreigners in US colleges, no foreigners in US Open.
Click to expand...

Well, according to some, a great deal of our citizens do not pay taxes - and they would be the ones in need of scholarships to begin with.
 
donnymac10s said:
Well, according to some, a great deal of our citizens do not pay taxes - and they would be the ones in need of scholarships to begin with.
Click to expand...

yes, the vast majority of citizens do not pay any taxes and they use my tax money. No scholarship for them. I'm tired of having to support 300 Million plus free loaders.

The USTA takes my membership fees, invest in it and makes hundred of millions of dollars and then do I get any piece of it? No.

I feel like I'm supporting the entire USTA.
 
dennis10is said:
Our college tennis should be for tax paying Americans and should be considered an occupational training so that Americans professional tennis players can make a living playing USTA Professional tennis tour culminating with the US Open, which should be the premiere Open championship for all American pros.

No foreigners in US colleges, no foreigners in US Open.
Click to expand...

How do you even spew this xenophobic garbage and live on the Island? And tennis wise, your POV is typical Eisenhower Park BS where no one there even knows how to play!

There is no such thing as the USTA Pro tennis tour. There is the US Open, and the USTA Pro Circuit, which is run by Brian Earley, the head referee at the Open. Secondly, the more varied the competition, the better American players can become. American players are very homogenous in style, and you'd know that if you played. Playing ITF Junior, ITA Collegiate, and USTA Pro Circuit events against non-Americans, introduces American players to all styles of play. That develops a better quality competitor. PERIOD. And, collegiate tennis is the first place that most American players get to see non-American players, since, few American juniors play ITF Junior events. If you want to see American tennis come out of the doldrums, cutback on the hate.
 
I think it's funny that at least one poster took it seriously......"how do you even...live on the Island?"

Guess xenophobia would be understandable and acceptable in places like Fla or SoCal, but on the Island?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Tyler Junior College a stepping stone to pros?
Replies
13
Views
3K
BMC9670
B
J
Are you a none Qualifiers and need to go to junior college in the fall?
Replies
0
Views
918
jgravagna
J
dallasoliver
Inside College Tennis Premieres Tonight
Replies
2
Views
2K
gully
G
V
Black players in college tennis
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
DariaGT
DariaGT
Nacho
Opinion of mens tennis programs cut.....
Replies
15
Views
3K
illzoni
I
Back
Top