Tennisrecruiting.net a crippled bird?

[andfor]

When a 15-16 year old junior wins first few hundred bucks in M15 or M25, he (she) won't let it go. The experience of that is like an addictive drug. It's so important to make sure such kids don't start flying high in the sky with their dreams. The road to future sure should have more options at this vulnerable time. What is tough for those kids is the education and support that sponsors could provide a bit better than they have with some young players who'd like to be more independent than hooked up on an academy or a coach.

Last I knew, NCAA's allows H.S. and college players to keep $10K in prize money plus expenses per year. There's also a number of programs that help players in the fall season play a few futures and challengers. We've even seen a few players at marquis programs play a pro tourney in the spring in the middle of the dual season. Guessing the player negotiated that with the coach before committing.

There are some coaches who preach pro or bust mentality, and if the player has to go to college they couldn't hack going pro at 17 or 18. I mostly see it from internationals, have seen an example of that here in the states. Whole other story. That's hog wash. There's a number of internationals and Americans in the top 100 who played college first.

 

[Sureshot]

There can be a wild variation in the level of Futures in US vs globally. Even though my son only played a couple Futures a year during college summers or in Nov, twice he had to play UTR 13.8 in the Qualis and he did win one of them. I can’t see a 10.5 winning 2-3 matches in a US Future starting in Qs. In US Future Qs there can be ITA ranked players, top juniors-for another match son had to play NCAA singles SFist in Qualis. We see collegians playing challengers but those are limited WCs; many still have to start tourneys in F Qualis. That said it is still worth it to try and play. However there are other prize $$ events including UTR PTT, other UTR and USTA platform $ events where players can earn $750-$3K. Some events provide housing to seeds or if players have a friend of a friend to stay with, they can play tourneys occasionally while working FT as a coach or if remotely in a corporate job. Even some of the ITA (USTA platform) summer events were prize $ and those would be much easier than a Future. The ITA summer national champs held now only has two guys ranked around WTN 4, the rest of the top half under WTN, and the other half WTN 10-20. I would expect most of the guys playing even in Future Qualis are WTN 3-6 with most below WTN 5 or above UTR 12.5. Few players without a WC will win get in MD without a UTR 13+ at least in summer and fall. Some high level international collegians may stay and play in US during the summer as well as most domestic collegians and of course many top collegians play Futures in fall. Now Jan-May there is a possibility of easier draws. My son played his last Future 2 1/2 years ago. He qualified only to lose 6-7 in the 3rd in MD 1st rd. His former opponent is now top 300 ATP. There is so much potential talent from collegians, but even those who break top 100 and or top 50 struggle to stay there-many fall out of top 150. At least there are multiple options to play post collegians and to have a side hustle of coaching if desired if player joins corporate world.

Sounds like your son could have made a career on court if he had persevered but I guess the surety of success off court is a major factor for not pursuing the former path for many. One gripe I have about the prize money tournaments is that besides offering $s and perhaps a UTR bump they don’t add much especially for players trying to climb up the ATP ladder. It’s an “opportunity cost” in that sense as time spent playing the prize money gigs takes away from trying to grind it out in the Futures.

 

[jcgatennismom]

Sounds like your son could have made a career on court if he had persevered but I guess the surety of success off court is a major factor for not pursuing the former path for many. One gripe I have about the prize money tournaments is that besides offering $s and perhaps a UTR bump they don’t add much especially for players trying to climb up the ATP ladder. It’s an “opportunity cost” in that sense as time spent playing the prize money gigs takes away from trying to grind it out in the Futures.

Not every guy who plays Futures plans to go pro. During the summer they are great to play to prepare for fall ITA tourneys. If a player is only playing a few tourneys a year, they can actually make more $$ playing prize $. Players only earn $250 when they qualify to MD of Future while it is not too hard to earn $750-$1500 either playing smaller prize $ or reaching SF of better prize $ tourneys with a fraction of the practice time one would have to put in to prepare for a Futures event. Post college it is more of a hobby for him and a way to keep up WTN/UTR. A year on tour without USTA or booster support would cost $60-$100K; his budget was a couple of Futures a year when he had a place to stay. LOL

 

[silentkman]

Not every guy who plays Futures plans to go pro. During the summer they are great to play to prepare for fall ITA tourneys. If a player is only playing a few tourneys a year, they can actually make more $$ playing prize $. Players only earn $250 when they qualify to MD of Future while it is not too hard to earn $750-$1500 either playing smaller prize $ or reaching SF of better prize $ tourneys with a fraction of the practice time one would have to put in to prepare for a Futures event. Post college it is more of a hobby for him and a way to keep up WTN/UTR. A year on tour without USTA or booster support would cost $60-$100K; his budget was a couple of Futures a year when he had a place to stay. LOL

I read somewhere about a decade ago, that it would cost about 140K in expenses to play on the tour. Only the best of the best can make tennis a succesfull career. You really have to love the sport.

 

[Tennis2349]

Thank you for that perspective. I thought when looking at metrics the TRN ratings holds a pretty high weight in recruiting US players as one of the big three (national ranking, UTR and TRN). I am assuming when recruiting international the ITF ranking might be replacing the TRN. In general, i am hearing that international players have more drive and put more work to get recruited compared to US players. This might be a generalization. Would you agree with that?

American players are the best. Which other country would put up their top 100 vs our top 100 and come out victorious?

What people confuse over and over and over, is that it is USA college spots vs the entire world. So if you take the top 3 players from each country, that fills up the college spots.

It would be like saying “foreigners are better at basketball!”, because Luka doncic, Jokic,Embiid, Gianni’s, and Alexander are stars, and arguably the best players in the nba.

Are we saying the same? “Foreigners are better at basketball”? Or our best athletes don’t play basketball!” Or “ foreigners work harder”.

Or do we have common sense to realize as a whole the USA is the best, but of course if you take stars from the entire world, that entire world team will be better. That doesn’t mean foreigners “work harder”, or “are better”, and that would be a dumb thing to say. Each nation has a few tennis orodigies… It’s just that the only place for them to play is in the USA collegiate system

 

[silentkman]

American players are the best. Which other country would put up their top 100 vs our top 100 and come out victorious?

What people confuse over and over and over, is that it is USA college spots vs the entire world. So if you take the top 3 players from each country, that fills up the college spots.

It would be like saying “foreigners are better at basketball!”, because Luka doncic, Jokic,Embiid, Gianni’s, and Alexander are stars, and arguably the best players in the nba.

Are we saying the same? “Foreigners are better at basketball”? Or our best athletes don’t play basketball!” Or “ foreigners work harder”.

Or do we have common sense to realize as a whole the USA is the best, but of course if you take stars from the entire world, that entire world team will be better. That doesn’t mean foreigners “work harder”, or “are better”, and that would be a dumb thing to say. Each nation has a few tennis orodigies… It’s just that the only place for them to play is in the USA collegiate system

I disagree, American players are not the best at Tennis. The best athletes in The USA don't play tennis. I love tennis, but why would a top American athlete play tennis?

 

[Tennis2349]

o

I disagree, American players are not the best at Tennis. The best athletes in The USA don't play tennis. I love tennis, but why would a top American athlete play tennis?

Maybe you don’t know what an athlete even is. What is your idea of an athlete?

Again, let’s put our top 100 players against the top 100 players from another country. Which country has 100 better players than the USA? I didn’t say vs the entire world, I asked which cojntry has a top 100 better players?

Tennis is a mental skill sport. It’s not a sport for track stars.

Even look at basketball. Who are two of the best basketball players. Luka doncic and Jokic.

Are they stereotypical “best athletes”. Do they jump the highest? Run the fastest? Obviously not.

 

[silentkman]

o

Maybe you don’t know what an athlete even is. What is your idea of an athlete?

Again, let’s put our top 100 players against the top 100 players from another country. Which country has 100 better players than the USA? I didn’t say vs the entire world, I asked which cojntry has a top 100 better players?

Tennis is a mental skill sport. It’s not a sport for track stars.

Even look at basketball. Who are two of the best basketball players. Luka doncic and Jokic.

Are they stereotypical “best athletes”. Do they jump the highest? Run the fastest? Obviously not.

OMG, I can be as condescending as you. The top athletes in the USA don't play tennis. Unfortuately the normal tennis don't care about the Top 100 players. Luka is a great offensive player, horrible on defense. Tennis is just not a ttractive option for players in the States. In a lot of coutries tennis is in the top three of sports. In the United States it could be 7th. You have more Golfers than tennis players by a wide margin. I'mm happy to debate, but if you attack me i will reciprocate.

 

[Tennis2349]

OMG, I can be as condescending as you. The top athletes in the USA don't play tennis. Unfortuately the normal tennis don't care about the Top 100 players. Luka is a great offensive player, horrible on defense. Tennis is just not a ttractive option for players in the States. In a lot of coutries tennis is in the top three of sports. In the United States it could be 7th. You have more Golfers than tennis players by a wide margin. I'mm happy to debate, but if you attack me i will reciprocate.

Well you stated USA is not the best at tennis. So I asked which country is better. Germany? Italy? Bulgaria? England?

I don’t feel being the best nation at a sport means you have to have all Of the best players in the entire world. It’s not possible. Even in a sport like basketball that the USA dominates.

Yes, we also have basketball, and football. But 350 lb lineman are not going to be tennis players. Nor are 6ft 8 basketball players.

 

[silentkman]

Well you stated USA is not the best at tennis. So I asked which country is better. Germany? Italy? Bulgaria? England?

I don’t feel being the best nation at a sport means you have to have all Of the best players in the entire world. It’s not possible. Even in a sport like basketball that the USA dominates.

Yes, we also have basketball, and football. But 350 lb lineman are not going to be tennis players. Nor are 6ft 8 basketball players.

Sheesh, I'm talking about top players. The USTA has done a great job recently with players. we still don't have a player that can win a major. stop with foolishness about the 350 lineman. On sheer numbers, the USA should be a overwhelming number one. The USA is 32 times the size of Italy, yet they have same number of players in the top 100. Tennis is a niche sport in the USA. even tennis fans care only about the big names. The best athletes will never consider tennis. Yes, the USA is not the best at tennis.

 

[Tennis2349]

Sheesh, I'm talking about top players. The USTA has done a great job recently with players. we still don't have a player that can win a major. stop with foolishness about the 350 lineman. On sheer numbers, the USA should be an overwhelming number one. The USA is 32 times the size of Italy, yet they have same number of players in the top 100. Tennis is a niche sport in the USA. even tennis fans care only about the big names. The best athletes will never consider tennis. Yes, the USA is not the best at tennis.

Ok. Which country is better at tennis?

I am talking about top players also. Let’s line up the top 100 Americans and put them against the top 100 from Italy. Who will win?

I guess you are saying THE ENTIRE WORLD has many better tennis players than the USA. Which I agree with.

 

[silentkman]

Ok. Which country is better at tennis?

I am talking about top players also. Let’s line up the top 100 Americans and put them against the top 100 from Italy. Who will win?

I guess you are saying THE ENTIRE WORLD has many better tennis players than the USA. Which I agree with.

The USA is 32 times bigger than Italy. I'll take Italy per capita. Even the Aussies have more players in top 100. American exceptionlism does not apply to Tennis.

 

[tennisfan17]

The USA is 32 times bigger than Italy. I'll take Italy per capita. Even the Aussies have more players in top 100. American exceptionlism does not apply to Tennis.

France has as many players in the top 100 compared to America. for what it's worth

 

[Tennis2349]

The USA is 32 times bigger than Italy. I'll take Italy per capita. Even the Aussies have more players in top 100. American exceptionlism does not apply to Tennis.

What does per capita matter? Italy is better at soccer. So is Germany. So is Croatia.

USA better at tennis.

 

[Tennis2349]

France has as many players in the top 100 compared to America. for what it's worth

So the top 100 French players would beat a team of the top 100 Americans?

Not even close. France gets destroyed.

 

[tennisfan17]

So the top 100 French players would beat a team of the top 100 Americans?

Not even close. France gets destroyed.

ok

 

[Tennis2349]

ok

There’s no depth. Since this is about college, USA colleges take the top 3- 5 from each country. Sure. The ENTIRE WORLD has more tennis players that are better. Same with any sport. For any country.

 

[tennisfan17]

There’s no depth. Since this is about college, USA colleges take the top 3- 5 from each country. Sure. The ENTIRE WORLD has more tennis players that are better. Same with any sport. For any country.

ok

 

[silentkman]

What does per capita matter? Italy is better at soccer. So is Germany. So is Croatia.

USA better at tennis.

it actually does matter. Based on the size, the USA should be better at more sports than anyone sans China. Italy is better

 

[Tennis2349]

it actually does matter. Based on the size, the USA should be better at more sports than anyone sans China. Italy is better

Well USA did get the most medals at the Olympics. Also the best country in the world at tennis.

Maybe geography isn’t everyone’s forte, but Europe is not a country. It is comprised off 44 nations.

So which country can put up their top 100, and defeat our top 100? Sort of a team challenge event .. USA beats everyone maybe 95-5.

5 of the top 20 men are American…out of 195 countries. 1 Nation has 25 percent of the top 20 men.

 

[silentkman]

Well USA did get the most medals at the Olympics. Also the best country in the world at tennis.

Maybe geography isn’t everyone’s forte, but Europe is not a country. It is comprised off 44 nations.

So which country can put up their top 100, and defeat our top 100? Sort of a team challenge event .. USA beats everyone maybe 95-5.

5 of the top 20 men are American…out of 195 countries. 1 Nation has 25 percent of the top 20 men.

I'm not going to sink to your level. I never mention Europe. Maybe logic isn't your forte. The top 100 thing is stupid. when was the last time a USA man won a major? it's been 21 years. Run a poll on this forum.

 

[Tennis2349]

I'm not going to sink to your level. I never mention Europe. Maybe logic isn't your forte. The top 100 thing is stupid. when was the last time a USA man won a major? it's been 21 years. Run a poll on this forum.

Well, you have no answer. Name 5 guys who won a major besides the big 3 players. It’s difficult.

I guess using your logic Serbia is number one in basketball, because jokiic won the mvp. And Slovenia second for doncic.

Complete tennis genius is highly
Individual, and will always be scattered around the world.

So again. Which country is better? It seems the USA must be held to a higher standard because we are so much better. No, nadal, fed, or Djokovic were not born here. They are from 3 different countries.

 

[tennisfan17]

Wawrinka, Murray, Cilic, Del Potro, Thiem

 

[Tennis2349]

Yes. It’s difficult. But again, 5 different countries.

 

[silentkman]

Well, you have no answer. Name 5 guys who won a major besides the big 3 players. It’s difficult.

I guess using your logic Serbia is number one in basketball, because jokiic won the mvp. And Slovenia second for doncic.

Complete tennis genius is highly
Individual, and will always be scattered around the world.

So again. Which country is better? It seems the USA must be held to a higher standard because we are so much better. No, nadal, fed, or Djokovic were not born here. They are from 3 different countries.

Per capita Italy is cleary better. Talk to me when a American wins a major. One your basketball knowledge is horrible. You are asking questions after the fact. I thought Nadal , Federer and Djokovic were born in Wyoming. probably percentage wise the USa may be in the lower half. You are the classic rambler. lol

 

[Tennis2349]

Per capita Italy is cleary better. Talk to me when a American wins a major. One your basketball knowledge is horrible. You are asking questions after the fact. I thought Nadal , Federer and Djokovic were born in Wyoming. probably percentage wise the USa may be in the lower half. You are the classic rambler. lol

Clearly the USA is tennis Mecca of the world.

It seems to be almost all foreign players dream to leave their country and families at a chance to play here. Best facilities. Best coaching. And the best players/ competition . Extremely deep talent pool. Not 5 good Italians then a severe drop off to probably 9 utr.

The question is should we continue to train ,educates, pay for and welcome foreign athletes to the detriment of our own. Yes, we make their dreams come true, but it should probably be limited.

As related to the thread, parents can stare at recruiting stars all day. But if lazy coaches and programs would rather just pay foreigners to try and win, the star system isn’t that accurate.

Clearly a 4 star SHOULD have the red carpet rolled out for them. Top 200 in the country. And 224 programs. But we make it far more difficult for our kids because coaches prefer to be sellouts and pay foreigners.

 

[mikej]

Clearly the USA is tennis Mecca of the world.

It seems to be almost all foreign players dream to leave their country and families at a chance to play here. Best facilities. Best coaching. And the best players/ competition . Extremely deep talent pool. Not 5 good Italians then a severe drop off to probably 9 utr.

The question is should we continue to train ,educates, pay for and welcome foreign athletes to the detriment of our own. Yes, we make their dreams come true, but it should probably be limited.

As related to the thread, parents can stare at recruiting stars all day. But if lazy coaches and programs would rather just pay foreigners to try and win, the star system isn’t that accurate.

Clearly a 4 star SHOULD have the red carpet rolled out for them. Top 200 in the country. And 224 programs. But we make it far more difficult for our kids because coaches prefer to be sellouts and pay foreigners.

Not this again

Please see the other thread w hundreds of posts on this topic

 

[silentkman]

Clearly the USA is tennis Mecca of the world.

It seems to be almost all foreign players dream to leave their country and families at a chance to play here. Best facilities. Best coaching. And the best players/ competition . Extremely deep talent pool. Not 5 good Italians then a severe drop off to probably 9 utr.

The question is should we continue to train ,educates, pay for and welcome foreign athletes to the detriment of our own. Yes, we make their dreams come true, but it should probably be limited.

As related to the thread, parents can stare at recruiting stars all day. But if lazy coaches and programs would rather just pay foreigners to try and win, the star system isn’t that accurate.

Clearly a 4 star SHOULD have the red carpet rolled out for them. Top 200 in the country. And 224 programs. But we make it far more difficult for our kids because coaches prefer to be sellouts and pay foreigners.

learn how to stick on the topic. We are talking about players not the facilaties. Talk to me when they can win at least a Davis Cup., its been 16 years. ironically italy won last year.

 

[Tennis2349]

UTR and TRN are the 2 big ones, so these are my findings.

TRN
Pros:

A. Extremely accurate when looking at my state and sons grade. Kids above are better, kids below are weaker.

B. You get credit for big wins and you see your rating increase.

C. You do not magically keep rising without playing.

Cons:

A. Website could be a little better. Took a while to understand what they mean by “two rating periods”, and unclear about the effect of beating older or younger kids with a similar star rating. Is beating a 2029 5 star the same as beating a 2030 5 star? If you lose to a 2 star that is 3 years older does that have a less negative affect? Needs a better Q and A section.

B. It’s all geared towards college tennis, but (not the fault of TRN), most recruits on the site aren’t rated at all, because they are foreigners. So a huge portion of college recruits won’t be listed, meaning where you actually stand is a bit unclear if the overall goal is college tennis.


Utr :

Pros:

A. generally accurate, sort of addictive to follow. Straight forward.

B. Can compare internationally.

Cons:

A. Do not get any credit for best victories. If you beat someone 2 utr ahead it is discounted completely. (Website is misleading. When actually emailing UTR they finally tell you the truth that beating much better players are not counted in results)

B. When comparing graphs, they make little sense.

2 kids can be a 7 utr. 1 kids best victory is a 6.8. Another kid beat 9 players over 8.1. Somehow the algorithm says they are both a 7.0.

C. Still a component of travel and money involved. Somehow it seems much easier to beat higher utr kids of the same age in big
tournaments. The problem is being able to find and play them. It’s rare. And when you do find and beat them, utr says it doesn’t count or it is weighted less.

D. Many players just keep automatically going up without competing at all. I have seen some players rise over a point in 4 months without even playing. Other kids they played inproved, so they get credit for it.

e. Seems to ruin tennis is a way. Have never seen or heard of a kid drop out of a match to protect their TRN or USTA ranking. But happens constantly with UTR.

F. Is geared towards games won and lost. Which in tennis isn’t even a real thing. Nobody cares how many games the us open winner dropped. It matters who wins.

Less weight towards whom actually wins.

G. Playi the last minute in current age group to have a higher utr. Notice many kids that are 12 , who only beat 10-12 year olds have an inflated utr. Also helps them as there is rapid improvement amongst others they beat.


Overall the main downer for utr , in my opinion , is the secrecy and arrogance surrounding their algorithm.


Sure, they claim it is 100 percent accurate. So if you travel to a tournament, your kid figured out the style of beating a pusher and played great, but he is a 7, and the other boy a 9, utr says it doesn’t count. It never existed. The 9 must have been sick! It may be 6 months before you even play another 9. So the 9 isn’t harmed, and the 7 isn’t helped. So it stays “100 percent accurate”

 

[Tennis2349]

Sheesh, I'm talking about top players. The USTA has done a great job recently with players. we still don't have a player that can win a major. stop with foolishness about the 350 lineman. On sheer numbers, the USA should be an overwhelming number one. The USA is 32 times the size of Italy, yet they have same number of players in the top 100. Tennis is a niche sport in the USA. even tennis fans care only about the big names. The best athletes will never consider tennis. Yes, the USA is not the best at tennis.

Well well well.

So which nation makes up 50 % of the US open men’s semi finals?

 

[andfor]

Well well well.

So which nation makes up 50 % of the US open men’s semi finals?

................and the last time was 2003. Let's hope this anomaly becomes the norm.

I do agree with that given the population and tennis numbers in the U.S., we should have two players in the semis of the USO and many majors year over year. Thinking the U.S. can dominate the world of tennis the way we did up through the 90's given the worldwide popularity of the game is highly optimistic.

Although the big 3 is going away, I still feel Djoker has another major in him in 2025 and from there on out it's going to be Sinner and Alcaraz monopolizing the majors. Maybe one of the Americans can be the 3rd addition to a new big 3, but given the ages of the current US players in the top 20 I'd have to go with either Korda or Shelton to be that person. At the moment Draper seems to be in the best form to be next in line for #3 though.

Funny thing here is, with the exception of Shelton (2 yrs. UoFL) we are on the college thread talking about players that never went to college.

 

[Tennis2349]

I agree. I was just saying we have the most depth of any country in the world. Only a handful of people on earth will win grand slams, and I don’t think that directly correlates to the tennis program of that country itself.

Brazil can have a huge population. An athletic population. The best athletes playing only soccer. Soccer 24-7 everywhere. But the ultra superstars will be scattered around the world. Messi Ronaldo Modric Zidane etc. one Balo d or winner in the past 18 years in 2007.

If the USA somehow had a better program, and our top athletes played tennis, does that mean we have players easily beating fed, Djokovic and nadal? It doesn’t work like that.

I guess it relates to the conversation as the point of college is to get a degree, and how many players actually got a degree and went pro to make a living? How many players played college tennis in the last 20 years? 100,000? How many got a degree and went pro? 1 or 2?

It being our system, it would
Make sense that the top 200 in America get a full ride. Top 200-350 partials.

So that just counters the thought that we need more foreigners to take college spots so the level of tennis becomes higher. And I am saying what for? If somehow they make the average go from 13 utr down to 12.7, who cares? The best will never lose 4 years of their career to sit around in college.

 

[andfor]

I agree. I was just saying we have the most depth of any country in the world. Only a handful of people on earth will win grand slams, and I don’t think that directly correlates to the tennis program of that country itself.

Brazil can have a huge population. An athletic population. The best athletes playing only soccer. Soccer 24-7 everywhere. But the ultra superstars will be scattered around the world. Messi Ronaldo Modric Zidane etc. one Balo d or winner in the past 18 years in 2007.

If the USA somehow had a better program, and our top athletes played tennis, does that mean we have players easily beating fed, Djokovic and nadal? It doesn’t work like that.

I guess it relates to the conversation as the point of college is to get a degree, and how many players actually got a degree and went pro to make a living? How many players played college tennis in the last 20 years? 100,000? How many got a degree and went pro? 1 or 2?

It being our system, it would
Make sense that the top 200 in America get a full ride. Top 200-350 partials.

So that just counters the thought that we need more foreigners to take college spots so the level of tennis becomes higher. And I am saying what for? If somehow they make the average go from 13 utr down to 12.7, who cares? The best will never lose 4 years of their career to sit around in college.

Sort of follow and agree with your first half. The college part, not sure what you're getting at.

1. Your scholarship concept is fantasy and not workable due to Title IX.
2. No U.S. citizen is prevented from playing college tennis. The bar for D1 is lower than often stated. I see on many D1 teams males UTR 9 and above and females UTR 7 and above. Some are in the top 6. While this level will not get you on a P3 team, opportunity exists. Not to mention the numerous college tennis opportunities across DII, DIII, NAIA and JUCO.

 

[silentkman]

Well well well.

So which nation makes up 50 % of the US open men’s semi finals?

seriously?

 

[Tennis2349]

Sort of follow and agree with your first half. The college part, not sure what you're getting at.

1. Your scholarship concept is fantasy and not workable due to Title IX.
2. No U.S. citizen is prevented from playing college tennis. The bar for D1 is lower than often stated. I see on many D1 teams males UTR 9 and above and females UTR 7 and above. Some are in the top 6. While this level will not get you on a P3 team, opportunity exists. Not to mention the numerous college tennis opportunities across DNAIA and JUCO.

My point was that many say “we need” foreigners in college tennis, because that raises the level of play , and that higher level of play helps Americans that want to go professional. I am saying that college tennis is not turning out professional tennis players at all, so that argument makes little sense.

How much money do foreign male
Tennis players receive? I am thinking that they have 60-70 of roster spots, d-1 d2 and naia.

Obviously those aren’t all scholarship. But they are getting many full rides and partials that shoulder not go to them. Then their probably would be money for the too 350 Americans.

 

[silentkman]

I agree. I was just saying we have the most depth of any country in the world. Only a handful of people on earth will win grand slams, and I don’t think that directly correlates to the tennis program of that country itself.

Brazil can have a huge population. An athletic population. The best athletes playing only soccer. Soccer 24-7 everywhere. But the ultra superstars will be scattered around the world. Messi Ronaldo Modric Zidane etc. one Balo d or winner in the past 18 years in 2007.

If the USA somehow had a better program, and our top athletes played tennis, does that mean we have players easily beating fed, Djokovic and nadal? It doesn’t work like that.

I guess it relates to the conversation as the point of college is to get a degree, and how many players actually got a degree and went pro to make a living? How many players played college tennis in the last 20 years? 100,000? How many got a degree and went pro? 1 or 2?

It being our system, it would
Make sense that the top 200 in America get a full ride. Top 200-350 partials.

So that just counters the thought that we need more foreigners to take college spots so the level of tennis becomes higher. And I am saying what for? If somehow they make the average go from 13 utr down to 12.7, who cares? The best will never lose 4 years of their career to sit around in college.

You mentioned three of greatest players ever. Nobody in the last 20 years could beat them on a consistent basis. horrible analogy. Again tennis is nowhere near the top of options for American males. Obviously I'm happy for Fritz and Tiafoe. based on the past, as someone indicated, this is a anomaly. will we have to wait another 20 years for this to happen again?

 

[Tennis2349]

You mentioned three of greatest players ever. Nobody in the last 20 years could beat them on a consistent basis. horrible analogy. Again tennis is nowhere near the top of options for American males. Obviously I'm happy for Fritz and Tiafoe. based on the past, as someone indicated, this is an anomaly. will we have to wait another 20 years for this to happen again?

Well which American athletes are you saying would be the top tennis player in the world, if they played tennis? What is your idea of an athlete?

A running back? A lineman? Simone biles? Mike Tyson? Michael Phelps? Lebron James? The guy who won the slam dunk contest? A sprinter? None of those are fit to be tennis players.

Look at the top tennis players and tell
Me which one is built like a football or basketball player.

 

[andfor]

Well which American athletes are you saying would be the top tennis player in the world, if they played tennis? What is your idea of an athlete?

A running back? A lineman? Simone biles? Mike Tyson? Michael Phelps? Lebron James? The guy who won the slam dunk contest? A sprinter? None of those are fit to be tennis players.

Look at the top tennis players and tell
Me which one is built like a football or basketball player.

Arguing hypotheticals. No one wins.

None of the athletes you mentioned trained to be tennis players, nor do any tennis players train for those sports, at the least, they do those sports for recreation and fitness.

Tennis players built like FB and BB players:
Ben Shelton 6"4", 195 lbs. = Football. May only need to add 5 lbs or more depending on position
Jack Draper 6'4", 187 = Football. *Jack just needs to add another 10 depending on position
Reilly Opelka 6"11" = Basketball
GM Perricard 6'8" - Basketball
This list could go on for days.

 

[silentkman]

Well which American athletes are you saying would be the top tennis player in the world, if they played tennis? What is your idea of an athlete?

A running back? A lineman? Simone biles? Mike Tyson? Michael Phelps? Lebron James? The guy who won the slam dunk contest? A sprinter? None of those are fit to be tennis players.

Look at the top tennis players and tell
Me which one is built like a football or basketball player.

You only mention two postions in football. LOL The top athletes decide on a sport at a young age. Most tennis players are great at tennis and nothing else. I heard that Mac Jones the Kicker from the Eagles were good juniors. John Lucas played tennis and basketball. He made a business decision to play basketball. Obviously all you know is tennis. A Ben Shelton Type could play point guard. Look at the Salaries of the top tennis players versus every other sport. Sinner has made 7 Million for playing 53 matches.

 

[Tennis2349]

Arguing hypotheticals. No one wins.

None of the athletes you mentioned trained to be tennis players, nor do any tennis players train for those sports, at the least, they do those sports for recreation and fitness.

Tennis players built like FB and BB players:
Ben Shelton 6"4", 195 lbs. = Football. May only need to add 5 lbs or more depending on position
Jack Draper 6'4", 187 = Football. *Jack just needs to add another 10 depending on position
Reilly Opelka 6"11" = Basketball
GM Perricard 6'8" - Basketball
This list could go on for days.

Athleticism is a part of tennis. As it is for baseball, soccer etc.

But to be ELITE, athleticism is a smaller component. What makes Messi the best soccer player, arguably that ever lived? Many intangibles that are unique to only him, that are perfect for that PARTICULAR SPORT, that you can’t just replicate with sheer athleticism. An amazing athlete (even more athletic) can train soccer since 5, exactly as he did, and never even make a professional team, much less be Messi.

So “more Americans” playing soccer on top of the billion that play around the world would somehow make us the best, with players better than Messi? Seems pretty arrogant.

It’s even more so for tennis. It’s a fine motor skill sport, and just being athletic, or being a certain size, and choosing that sport, doesn’t mean you would ever get past 10 utr, as you aren’t naturally designed to be elite in that PARTICLUAR SPORT.

It’s comical to assume an athletic basketball player would be too 10 in the world in tennis if he would have chose that. , because he is athletic. Or a random cornerback in the nfl would excel at tennis or soccer because he plays football and is athletic lol.

Not Many people no matter how much training, can throw a baseball 100 mph. Nor can a random athlete corner back just be assumed that they would possess the hand eye coordination, the endurance, the quickness, the brains, the mental, and want to endure the daily 10 year slow progression to become elite at tennis.

Just so used to hearing this nonsense for soccer. “Oh if lebron James chose soccer. “. “Our best athletes don’t play soccer “. It’s all a joke.

 

[silentkman]

Athleticism is a part of tennis. As it is for baseball, soccer etc.

But to be ELITE, athleticism is a smaller component. What makes Messi the best soccer player, arguably that ever lived? Many intangibles that are unique to only him, that are perfect for that PARTICULAR SPORT, that you can’t just replicate with sheer athleticism. An amazing athlete (even more athletic) can train soccer since 5, exactly as he did, and never even make a professional team, much less be Messi.

So “more Americans” playing soccer on top of the billion that play around the world would somehow make us the best, with players better than Messi? Seems pretty arrogant.

It’s even more so for tennis. It’s a fine motor skill sport, and just being athletic, or being a certain size, and choosing that sport, doesn’t mean you would ever get past 10 utr, as you aren’t naturally designed to be elite in that PARTICLUAR SPORT.

It’s comical to assume an athletic basketball player would be too 10 in the world in tennis if he would have chose that. , because he is athletic. Or a random cornerback in the nfl would excel at tennis or soccer because he plays football and is athletic lol.

Not Many people no matter how much training, can throw a baseball 100 mph. Nor can a random athlete corner back just be assumed that they would possess the hand eye coordination, the endurance, the quickness, the brains, the mental, and want to endure the daily 10 year slow progression to become elite at tennis.

Just so used to hearing this nonsense for soccer. “Oh if lebron James chose soccer. “. “Our best athletes don’t play soccer “. It’s all a joke.

sheesh man, you dont get it. it's so obvious that have to train to become a ELITE ATHLETE. Everyone has to start somewhere. Soccer is more organic than tennis. Tennis is a secord tier sport here in the States. I've never heard one person dicuss the merits of Lebron playing soccer. Only the top 125 can make a decent living playing tennis. Tennis has a specialized skill set but you can't make any money playing. there is no allure for a young person to play tennis.

 

[Tennis2349]

sheesh man, you dont get it. it's so obvious that have to train to become a ELITE ATHLETE. Everyone has to start somewhere. Soccer is more organic than tennis. Tennis is a secord tier sport here in the States. I've never heard one person dicuss the merits of Lebron playing soccer. Only the top 125 can make a decent living playing tennis. Tennis has a specialized skill set but you can't make any money playing. there is no allure for a young person to play tennis.

I agree. There isn’t much money in tennis, and on top of that, with title 9 and foreigners there is much scholarship money left either. Track swimming. Gymnastics. Fencing. And dozens of other sports have no money either.

But to be fair the average nfl career is 3 years, and the average pay is only high because quarterbacks get most of the money.

After taxes, and agents, the vast majority of nfl players aren’t rolling in dough. The perception however is much different. Atleast if they make the college team they get a full ride. 85 per school.

 

[silentkman]

I agree. There isn’t much money in tennis, and on top of that, with title 9 and foreigners there is much scholarship money left either. Track swimming. Gymnastics. Fencing. And dozens of other sports have no money either.

But to be fair the average nfl career is 3 years, and the average pay is only high because quarterbacks get most of the money.

After taxes, and agents, the vast majority of nfl players aren’t rolling in dough. The perception however is much different. Atleast if they make the college team they get a full ride. 85 per school.

If you are drafted in the first round, the average career is eight years. You have almost $2,100 players making good money. he top players in tennis are making peanuts compared to the d to other sports. Luke Garza is making more money than Sebastian Korda. addionally, tennis players have to pay for the their own travel. this is why the top atheletes will never consider tennis. How many Tiafoes can you get?

 

[Tennis2349]

If you are drafted in the first round, the average career is eight years. You have almost $2,100 players making good money. he top players in tennis are making peanuts compared to the d to other sports. Luke Garza is making more money than Sebastian Korda. addionally, tennis players have to pay for the their own travel. this is why the top atheletes will never consider tennis. How many Tiafoes can you get?

Yeah. Best if they stick to football. The chance of them becoming top 125 is close to zero if they tried or not.

 

[silentkman]

Yeah. Best if they stick to football. The chance of them becoming top 125 is close to zero if they tried or not.

No and No. Luke Garza is a basketball player. He makes 2.2 million for the Timberwolves averaging 4 points a game. You just had a WTA 125 tournament that ended on August 17th and players have not been paid yet. The WTA said they are working on the issue.

 

[Tennis2349]

No and No. Luke Garza is a basketball player. He makes 2.2 million for the Timberwolves averaging 4 points a game. You just had a WTA 125 tournament that ended on August 17th and players have not been paid yet. The WTA said they are working on the issue.

It’s been my impression that when Americans thinks of an athlete, They are thinking of a big guy with muscles that runs fast. Or tackles someone. Or a tall guy who jumps high.

In reality, a Messi, a medvedev, a Gretzky, look nothing at all like that.

The “American standard” of what people think athletes are , are only made for/ good for American football and basketball. It doesn’t mean they could be good at anything on earth if they chose to, or chose to in the past.

That’s when people say “well if our best athletes wanted to, then we could dominate tennis and soccer!” Which simply isn’t true.

 

[silentkman]

It’s been my impression that when Americans thinks of an athlete, They are thinking of a big guy with muscles that runs fast. Or tackles someone. Or a tall guy who jumps high.

In reality, a Messi, a medvedev, a Gretzky, look nothing at all like that.

The “American standard” of what people think athletes are , are only made for/ good for American football and basketball. It doesn’t mean they could be good at anything on earth if they chose to, or chose to in the past.

That’s when people say “well if our best athletes wanted to, then we could dominate tennis and soccer!” Which simply isn’t true.

That's a false narrative thqat you presented, the big guy with muscles gave you away. Soccer players are great atheletes with average statue. Most baseball players are maybe a bit above average. I follow hockey a bit, but the height appears a bit above average. The point is nobody wants to play tennis and soccer.

By sheer numbers, Americans should dominate tennis, but the interest is not there. The American men will never dominate soccer, because of the history and accessibilty. If you have a athelete that's 6'4" with quick feet and hands, tennis is far down the list. The weird thing about tennis is that top coaches don't want a short player. The first thing they will do is look at the parents.

 

[Tennis2349]

That's a false narrative thqat you presented, the big guy with muscles gave you away. Soccer players are great atheletes with average statue. Most baseball players are maybe a bit above average. I follow hockey a bit, but the height appears a bit above average. The point is nobody wants to play tennis and soccer.

By sheer numbers, Americans should dominate tennis, but the interest is not there. The American men will never dominate soccer, because of the history and accessibilty. If you have a athelete that's 6'4" with quick feet and hands, tennis is far down the list. The weird thing about tennis is that top coaches don't want a short player. The first thing they will do is look at the parents.

More American kids play soccer than any other sport.

Why should American dominate tennis by sheer numbers? We are 5 percent of the world’s population.

 

[silentkman]

More American kids play soccer than any other sport.

Why should American dominate tennis by sheer numbers? We are 5 percent of the world’s population.

 

[andfor]

More American kids play soccer than any other sport.

Why should American dominate tennis by sheer numbers? We are 5 percent of the world’s population.

Another false narrative. Even by percentage and some stats have the U.S. as low as 4.1% of the worlds pop., the U.S. has the 3rd largest population behind India and China. Take into account the 3 countries populations percentage of wealth to poverty ratios, which I don't know, but would have a strong suspicion the U.S. is way ahead of the rest.

This discussion is all over the map, pun intended. To better determine what countries would or should do better at one sport vs. another, I think it would be best served to look at accessibility to the sport in question, total participation numbers of sport in question, total number of accessible facilities, access to affordable coaching, opportunities to compete, etc. The whole conversation becomes a theoretical exercise in demographics, data and to cobble together some sort of summation that if done by different folks will all have different outcomes. In the end, while mildly interesting, still theoretical with little practical outcomes and a waste of time.