want USTA support ? it's who you know not how good your kid is

[dannythomas]

I have read all these posts about red clay courts with interest. But I have to ask this question. While I accept that the bounce on green clay and red clay is a little different , is it so different that those brought up on red clay have hugely better footwork over those brought up on green clay ??
You could also extend the argument and say that if we had some grass courts we would have much better net players because the surface would promote that style of play.
Is the real answer not in fact that in Spain and France the coaches tend to be ex players who were brought up to hit with huge top spin and it is that style of play that is producing today's Champions especially when the European Tennis Federations work much more with talented kids at a young age and on their fundamentals. They do not do as some have suggested the USTA should do and wait until the kids are 14 or 16 and help those ranked in the top 10 juniors at each age level by virtue of tournament results. Too little too late I am afraid.
I do not believe that if in Europe the kids had been brought up on green clay it would have made any real difference to their fundamentals in general and footwork in particular. Just like in the UK the availability of grass courts ( real and synthetic ) have not produced any serve volleyers of quality other than Henman. The surface is not the only factor. It is what and how and when the kids are taught and of course will to win . Clay courts are great not only because the surface is slower but because the kids get injured less than those who play mostly on hard courts.
But nothing can convince me that the best use of USTA funds is not to work with as many young kids as they can at the earliest possible age .THE USTA should either employ more high level coaches themselves or " contract out " the kids to work with those coaches and provide some funding for the kids to do it privately. And why not send groups of kids to play in the European Academies against their counterparts and experience the different training methods ?

 

[ClarkC]

The club system in Europe is much closer to the basketball playground system here. Every town has an active tennis club.

I don't think the club system in Europe is like any system in any sport in the USA. It is far superior to anything we do in any sport.

The USA "succeeds" in sports to the extent that we have far more participants and resources devoted to a sport than other countries, because we are bigger in population than every country except China and India (whose resources are nothing compared to ours, and whose vast rural populations are not really much a part of their national sports organizations, so their population is deceiving). How do we really compare to any nation in any sport, when you consider number of participants and financial resources? Want to start adding up populations, participants, etc., for baseball and basketball and any other sport? We excel in sports that no one else plays (football) and when other countries start to play them (baseball, basketball) they far excel us when you take into account the participants available. Want to compare baseball in the Dominican Republic to the USA?

The USA has had narrow wins in basketball against the likes of Lithuania, population 3 million. How would a USA national team do against Lithuania if we limited the team to players from a single metro area with population 3 million? So much for our wonderful basketball system.

The superiority of the European athletic club system is that they have actual sports curricula, with trained coaches. At a European sports club, the soccer coach for 9 year olds knows that they are supposed to develop skills A, B, and C, and the coach for 10 year olds darn well expects to have players with such skills passed off to him, so he can start on skills D, E, and F. In the USA, parents like me are scrambling to learn how to coach the 9 year olds at the local soccer club, because our oldest child just turned 9 and we got collared into volunteering to coach. Guess which system produces better soccer players?

On the other hand, much of the world relies on street soccer to develop the kids. In street soccer, kids get (1) lots of extra after-school playing time to hone skills without massive resources being needed (like our street basketball), and (2) they develop creativity in their play by practicing wild new moves, etc., without dopey parent-coaches telling them to stop horsing around with the ball (also analogous to the benefits of street basketball).

In Brazil, you have a tremendous street soccer environment, AND you have a tremendous organized club soccer environment. The kids get the creative development, AND they get the structured coaching and organized curriculum. In the public schools, they play indoor soccer ("futsal") with a low-compression ball that teaches a different skill set (lots of short passing). [NOTE: American parents would complain that this is "not real soccer" and "my kid is good enough to play with a real ball" and other gems of ignorance that have more to do with parental ego than with understanding the game and how it should be taught.] The kids play beach soccer if they live near the coast (fitness development is more intense than clay court tennis, and different skills are developed as well). They play with regular balls in the street. They play for coaches at a club and get discipline and intense teamwork.

This is why Brazil is the best in soccer. The wealthier European nations have the athletic club system perfected, but they don't have as much street soccer and almost no beach soccer. The African and some Asian nations have a lot of street soccer but don't have the athletic clubs at the level of Europe or Brazil.

The USA has the creative but undisciplined game of street basketball. What is lacking is the disciplined, professional coaching curriculum. Players spend part of the year in AAU ball with one coach, part in high school with a different coach (who might or might not have ANYTHING to teach to a really good player). As big as basketball has become in many countries in the world, it is still not THE sport anywhere like it is in inner-city USA. Lucky for us, because that is why we maintain our advantage despite our unstructured, haphazard system.

The street soccer/street basketball analogy breaks down somewhat when we talk about tennis. Developing "creativity" by playing with no coaches around, fooling around with fancy new "moves" and so on, is not a significant aspect of becoming a great tennis player. Hanging around a court and having all the guys try to hit a "tweener" will not make the next Federer come from the USA. What is important is being able to play cheaply, many hours per week, without paying for a club or a coach or court time. THAT is where tennis could learn from these other sports. But the model of "roll the ball out and let them play, and they will teach themselves to be great" does not work perfectly in soccer or basketball, and it would work a whole lot less well in tennis. Tennis is a technique sport. There is no street tennis player, no such thing as street golf, etc. At some point, you have to be taught every technique and taught well by someone who can teach competently. Building lots of courts all over the country and not having coaches who are available and affordable will not do much for tennis compared to what it can accomplish for soccer and basketball in various countries.

 

[ClarkC]

I also find it interesting how many parents expect that because they pay taxes, their children should benefit from the USTA. To me, it is the right expectation. However, a large number of these parents will deride other people for expecting other things from the government, and advocate "free enterprise." They will also take potshots at the "government-run" programs in other countries. To me, it reveals how much hypocrisy is there.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The USTA is not a government entity. Parents who pay dues to it sometimes wish their kids got more USTA attention in some way, but I have never seen a parent say they "pay taxes" so the USTA should do more with their kid. Got any examples of this?

 

[AndrewD]

most foreigners never learn how to throw ,thus they never develop a booming serve ..

........LMAO.

 

[ClarkC]

Lots of these kids play multiple sports, and tennis could be one of those sports, but is isn't. I'm not 100% sure why not, but I can say that it really doesn't have much of a position in their collective psyche.

Tennis is a technique sport. You don't "play a little tennis" and get any good at it. Just like golf. Pro golfers make more money than pro tennis players, especially when you compare the #50 golfer to #50 tennis player, #100 vs. #100, etc. But that can only make so many kids play golf, because (1) it is expensive, and (2) it is a technique sport, so if you only play a little, you just realize that you are not very good and it sure is a frustrating sport.

Sports that depend less on technique (although there is technique in every sport) and more on being able to run and jump get the high school athletes you are talking about. The guy who can run and jump can play three different sports in a high school year and be a local hero. If he wants to be a pro, he better specialize at some point, but he can be pretty darn good in the scheme of things locally without specializing.

Then, when he plays a little tennis, some kid who does not even run and jump and lift weights etc. as well as he does blows him off the court. He says, to heck with that sport, there is something wrong with that sport!

Tennis is expensive, requires lots of technique mastery, and technique mastery can make up for lack of running and jumping and weight lifting ability, until you try to reach the elite level, at which point you need all of these things at once. The American sports psyche is: The guy who is bigger and faster should always be better at a sport. Tennis does not fit that. Neither does soccer. Neither does golf. Those will always be niche sports in America. Tennis fans should get used to that (not that we cannot improve on what we are now).

 

[trojankid]

I guess we will have to disagree on this one crazed. I see boys from Europe come to train with Johan Kriek at the club, I also see them at IMG. I see the American boys. They all practice with the same intensity, they all play video games after practice. In fact, the Euro boys seem more into off the court stuff and less into training. But these boys grew up on clay. Their footwork and shot selection and balance is way ahead of the American boys. They accomplish much more on the court with less effort.

Most of the Euros are not poor. Many of the top 20 Euros had very nice lives and did not train any more than the Americans. They just know how to play the game properly. They work smarter, not harder.

Mr.Tennis Coach Florida when did they bring out red clay before or after Sampras or Mac or Conners ? Just trying to get and idea of this thought you have about this surface.

 

[notennis]

Mr.Tennis Coach Florida when did they bring out red clay before or after Sampras or Mac or Conners ? Just trying to get and idea of this thought you have about this surface.

I will answer for TCF (Trojambabybooboo). The game is totaly different now than what it was when mac, connors and sampras were playing. All three would have a much harder time in my opinion now than when they played previously especially Mac with that crummy forehand that looks like he has a stiff arm when hitting. Connors as well his stroke on the forehand side sucks. Both had good backhands and the right attitude but would have a hard time playing today even with the new technology (Racquets). Sampras would be the only one who would have a good chance at claiming # 1 and thats it (Dummie).

 

[ga tennis]

I will answer for TCF (Trojambabybooboo). The game is totaly different now than what it was when mac, connors and sampras were playing. All three would have a much harder time in my opinion now than when they played previously especially Mac with that crummy forehand that looks like he has a stiff arm when hitting. Connors as well his stroke on the forehand side sucks. Both had good backhands and the right attitude but would have a hard time playing today even with the new technology (Racquets). Sampras would be the only one who would have a good chance at claiming # 1 and thats it (Dummie).

You really are clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mac and Conners could play with the best from any era!!! Look at what you wrote....Mac and Conners crummy forehands???? W.T. .???????? This shows what an expert DONTKNOWTENNIS is.

 

[dannythomas]

I don't think the club system in Europe is like any system in any sport in the USA. It is far superior to anything we do in any sport.

The USA "succeeds" in sports to the extent that we have far more participants and resources devoted to a sport than other countries, because we are bigger in population than every country except China and India (whose resources are nothing compared to ours, and whose vast rural populations are not really much a part of their national sports organizations, so their population is deceiving). How do we really compare to any nation in any sport, when you consider number of participants and financial resources? Want to start adding up populations, participants, etc., for baseball and basketball and any other sport? We excel in sports that no one else plays (football) and when other countries start to play them (baseball, basketball) they far excel us when you take into account the participants available. Want to compare baseball in the Dominican Republic to the USA?

The USA has had narrow wins in basketball against the likes of Lithuania, population 3 million. How would a USA national team do against Lithuania if we limited the team to players from a single metro area with population 3 million? So much for our wonderful basketball system.

The superiority of the European athletic club system is that they have actual sports curricula, with trained coaches. At a European sports club, the soccer coach for 9 year olds knows that they are supposed to develop skills A, B, and C, and the coach for 10 year olds darn well expects to have players with such skills passed off to him, so he can start on skills D, E, and F. In the USA, parents like me are scrambling to learn how to coach the 9 year olds at the local soccer club, because our oldest child just turned 9 and we got collared into volunteering to coach. Guess which system produces better soccer players?

On the other hand, much of the world relies on street soccer to develop the kids. In street soccer, kids get (1) lots of extra after-school playing time to hone skills without massive resources being needed (like our street basketball), and (2) they develop creativity in their play by practicing wild new moves, etc., without dopey parent-coaches telling them to stop horsing around with the ball (also analogous to the benefits of street basketball).

In Brazil, you have a tremendous street soccer environment, AND you have a tremendous organized club soccer environment. The kids get the creative development, AND they get the structured coaching and organized curriculum. In the public schools, they play indoor soccer ("futsal") with a low-compression ball that teaches a different skill set (lots of short passing). [NOTE: American parents would complain that this is "not real soccer" and "my kid is good enough to play with a real ball" and other gems of ignorance that have more to do with parental ego than with understanding the game and how it should be taught.] The kids play beach soccer if they live near the coast (fitness development is more intense than clay court tennis, and different skills are developed as well). They play with regular balls in the street. They play for coaches at a club and get discipline and intense teamwork.

This is why Brazil is the best in soccer. The wealthier European nations have the athletic club system perfected, but they don't have as much street soccer and almost no beach soccer. The African and some Asian nations have a lot of street soccer but don't have the athletic clubs at the level of Europe or Brazil.

The USA has the creative but undisciplined game of street basketball. What is lacking is the disciplined, professional coaching curriculum. Players spend part of the year in AAU ball with one coach, part in high school with a different coach (who might or might not have ANYTHING to teach to a really good player). As big as basketball has become in many countries in the world, it is still not THE sport anywhere like it is in inner-city USA. Lucky for us, because that is why we maintain our advantage despite our unstructured, haphazard system.

The street soccer/street basketball analogy breaks down somewhat when we talk about tennis. Developing "creativity" by playing with no coaches around, fooling around with fancy new "moves" and so on, is not a significant aspect of becoming a great tennis player. Hanging around a court and having all the guys try to hit a "tweener" will not make the next Federer come from the USA. What is important is being able to play cheaply, many hours per week, without paying for a club or a coach or court time. THAT is where tennis could learn from these other sports. But the model of "roll the ball out and let them play, and they will teach themselves to be great" does not work perfectly in soccer or basketball, and it would work a whole lot less well in tennis. Tennis is a technique sport. There is no street tennis player, no such thing as street golf, etc. At some point, you have to be taught every technique and taught well by someone who can teach competently. Building lots of courts all over the country and not having coaches who are available and affordable will not do much for tennis compared to what it can accomplish for soccer and basketball in various countries.

Excellent post . The last paragraph states EXACTLY the right conclusion.

 

[jrod]

ClarkC- Some really excellent posts here. Very well stated.

 

[notennis]

You really are clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mac and Conners could play with the best from any era!!! Look at what you wrote....Mac and Conners crummy forehands???? W.T. .???????? This shows what an expert DONTKNOWTENNIS is.

I will take Federer over mac or connors in a heartbeat. Nadal as well. So whats your point? Just shows your knowledge as being very closed. The game is different and it shows with the condioning of the players...They are bigger, stronger and faster and the great ones use a lot of wrist which connors and mac didn't do GAGAGOOGOOTENNIS........How many on here would dissagree that mac or connors could handle Fed?

 

[ga tennis]

I will take Federer over mac or connors in a heartbeat. Nadal as well. So whats your point? Just shows your knowledge as being very closed. The game is different and it shows with the condioning of the players...They are bigger, stronger and faster and the great ones use a lot of wrist which connors and mac didn't do GAGAGOOGOOTENNIS........How many on here would dissagree that mac or connors could handle Fed?

15 grandslam titles between the two and you say they both had crummy forehands?????? You are talking about two of the greatest ever...DONTKNOWTENNIS!

 

[WARPWOODIE]

I will take Federer over mac or connors in a heartbeat. Nadal as well. So whats your point? Just shows your knowledge as being very closed. The game is different and it shows with the condioning of the players...They are bigger, stronger and faster and the great ones use a lot of wrist which connors and mac didn't do GAGAGOOGOOTENNIS........How many on here would dissagree that mac or connors could handle Fed?

Totally different era/equipment. But McEnroe in his prime would have given Fed a run for his money. Fed probably wouldn't have been able to handle the "head games" Mac played with his opponents.

 

[mike53]

Excellent post . The last paragraph states EXACTLY the right conclusion.

Too bad. Tennis seems like a nice enough activity for kids and I still think it's athletic, but I don't see any way the sport is going to dig itself out of it's coaching deficit compared to other kid's sports.

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

Great thread. A few issues brought up I wanted to address.

1. Green clay vs red clay. Someone had asked how differently they play. There are all kinds of 'clays'. The green Har Tru does not play like the true Euro red clay. The true red clay makes the balls heavy and it works the legs way more. You play a few sets on true Euro red clay and your leg muscles are burning. Har Tru just does not have that effect. You hit way less winners on red clay. You need to set up your points using shot selection and angles.

I feel the red clay produces kids with stronger legs, better balance, and the ability to both blast the ball and use shot selection patterns better than either hard courts or Har Tru does. Har Tru is better than hard courts....but it is not red clay at all.

2. The Connors, Mac era debate. I don't want to say the old time guys could not compete today. My point is that there is way, way more competition these days. 25 years ago you did not have boat loads of Russian and Serbian and Croatian and Spanish boys to compete with.

The days of American's dominating the top 10 is long gone. The competitive pool is now global and it was not so back in their day.

Injuries are part of the game. Could McEnroe play today? Of course. Could McEnroe handle these monstrous guys blasting shots at him day after day and week after week and not break down...or would he spend lots of time out injured? Who knows.

The best guy to talk to about this is Nick Bollettieri. He readily admits that it is impossible to do today what happened 20 years ago when American dominated tennis. He says the depth of the competition pool is just much deeper now. Mike Agassi says the same thing. He says he would not put his boy into tennis today as everything has changed as far as the amount of competition.

 

[mike53]

I feel the red clay produces kids with stronger legs, better balance, and the ability to both blast the ball and use shot selection patterns better

Amen brother, and don't forget aerobic capacity

 

[ga tennis]

Great thread. A few issues brought up I wanted to address.

1. Green clay vs red clay. Someone had asked how differently they play. There are all kinds of 'clays'. The green Har Tru does not play like the true Euro red clay. The true red clay makes the balls heavy and it works the legs way more. You play a few sets on true Euro red clay and your leg muscles are burning. Har Tru just does not have that effect. You hit way less winners on red clay. You need to set up your points using shot selection and angles.

I feel the red clay produces kids with stronger legs, better balance, and the ability to both blast the ball and use shot selection patterns better than either hard courts or Har Tru does. Har Tru is better than hard courts....but it is not red clay at all.

2. The Connors, Mac era debate. I don't want to say the old time guys could not compete today. My point is that there is way, way more competition these days. 25 years ago you did not have boat loads of Russian and Serbian and Croatian and Spanish boys to compete with.

The days of American's dominating the top 10 is long gone. The competitive pool is now global and it was not so back in their day.

Injuries are part of the game. Could McEnroe play today? Of course. Could McEnroe handle these monstrous guys blasting shots at him day after day and week after week and not break down...or would he spend lots of time out injured? Who knows.

The best guy to talk to about this is Nick Bollettieri. He readily admits that it is impossible to do today what happened 20 years ago when American dominated tennis. He says the depth of the competition pool is just much deeper now. Mike Agassi says the same thing. He says he would not put his boy into tennis today as everything has changed as far as the amount of competition.

T.C.F i played college tennis with a bunch of guys who grew up on the dirt and i just dont see the big difference you are talking about. If anything when they started playing on the hard courts they were late and often took alot of time and sometimes having to tweek there strokes to deal with the speed of the hard courts.Doubles play was also a problem for the dirt ballers when they start playing on the hard courts.I think the kids today need to practice on all surfaces,but i dont think that growing up on dirt is the only way to be great.

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

I don't think the club system in Europe is like any system in any sport in the USA. It is far superior to anything we do in any sport.

The USA "succeeds" in sports to the extent that we have far more participants and resources devoted to a sport than other countries, because we are bigger in population than every country except China and India (whose resources are nothing compared to ours, and whose vast rural populations are not really much a part of their national sports organizations, so their population is deceiving). How do we really compare to any nation in any sport, when you consider number of participants and financial resources? Want to start adding up populations, participants, etc., for baseball and basketball and any other sport? We excel in sports that no one else plays (football) and when other countries start to play them (baseball, basketball) they far excel us when you take into account the participants available. Want to compare baseball in the Dominican Republic to the USA?

The USA has had narrow wins in basketball against the likes of Lithuania, population 3 million. How would a USA national team do against Lithuania if we limited the team to players from a single metro area with population 3 million? So much for our wonderful basketball system.

The superiority of the European athletic club system is that they have actual sports curricula, with trained coaches. At a European sports club, the soccer coach for 9 year olds knows that they are supposed to develop skills A, B, and C, and the coach for 10 year olds darn well expects to have players with such skills passed off to him, so he can start on skills D, E, and F. In the USA, parents like me are scrambling to learn how to coach the 9 year olds at the local soccer club, because our oldest child just turned 9 and we got collared into volunteering to coach. Guess which system produces better soccer players?

On the other hand, much of the world relies on street soccer to develop the kids. In street soccer, kids get (1) lots of extra after-school playing time to hone skills without massive resources being needed (like our street basketball), and (2) they develop creativity in their play by practicing wild new moves, etc., without dopey parent-coaches telling them to stop horsing around with the ball (also analogous to the benefits of street basketball).

In Brazil, you have a tremendous street soccer environment, AND you have a tremendous organized club soccer environment. The kids get the creative development, AND they get the structured coaching and organized curriculum. In the public schools, they play indoor soccer ("futsal") with a low-compression ball that teaches a different skill set (lots of short passing). [NOTE: American parents would complain that this is "not real soccer" and "my kid is good enough to play with a real ball" and other gems of ignorance that have more to do with parental ego than with understanding the game and how it should be taught.] The kids play beach soccer if they live near the coast (fitness development is more intense than clay court tennis, and different skills are developed as well). They play with regular balls in the street. They play for coaches at a club and get discipline and intense teamwork.

This is why Brazil is the best in soccer. The wealthier European nations have the athletic club system perfected, but they don't have as much street soccer and almost no beach soccer. The African and some Asian nations have a lot of street soccer but don't have the athletic clubs at the level of Europe or Brazil.

The USA has the creative but undisciplined game of street basketball. What is lacking is the disciplined, professional coaching curriculum. Players spend part of the year in AAU ball with one coach, part in high school with a different coach (who might or might not have ANYTHING to teach to a really good player). As big as basketball has become in many countries in the world, it is still not THE sport anywhere like it is in inner-city USA. Lucky for us, because that is why we maintain our advantage despite our unstructured, haphazard system.

The street soccer/street basketball analogy breaks down somewhat when we talk about tennis. Developing "creativity" by playing with no coaches around, fooling around with fancy new "moves" and so on, is not a significant aspect of becoming a great tennis player. Hanging around a court and having all the guys try to hit a "tweener" will not make the next Federer come from the USA. What is important is being able to play cheaply, many hours per week, without paying for a club or a coach or court time. THAT is where tennis could learn from these other sports. But the model of "roll the ball out and let them play, and they will teach themselves to be great" does not work perfectly in soccer or basketball, and it would work a whole lot less well in tennis. Tennis is a technique sport. There is no street tennis player, no such thing as street golf, etc. At some point, you have to be taught every technique and taught well by someone who can teach competently. Building lots of courts all over the country and not having coaches who are available and affordable will not do much for tennis compared to what it can accomplish for soccer and basketball in various countries.

Nice post....some good points, some over generalizations.

In regards to the tennis/basketball/soccer comparison, I disagree. Sure the basketball on the play grounds is creative and haphazard....and almost none of those guys make it. Same with the soccer kids.

The basketball players that make it are very talented AND go on to be well coached. They are developed in the AAU and high school and/or college.

An NBA point guard is an extreme athlete and smart and well coached. He knows all his plays. He knows where every offensive and defensive player is at all times.

The comparison to tennis works just fine. You put programs in all the cities, you get kids playing tennis. You let them just play. Then the cream rises. Many are eliminated, and more and more and more are eliminated.

You get to the top and you have the athletic, hard working, creative, coachable boys at the top.

No soccer player or basketball player ever makes it to the top solely because he was raised playing beach soccer or grew up in a basketball hotbed.

Thats just the base of the pyramid....only the athletes who go on to be well coached make it in any sport. We tend to be tennis snobs and think our players need more coaching. Nonsense, an NFL QB and NBA point guard, etc. all need extreme levels of specific coaching to make it.

Building and maintaining and programming red clay courts all over the country would work. Attracting better athletes into tennis would work. Making tennis affordable to more kids would work. It sure as heck has a way better chance of working than spending countless millions on high performance programs.

Tennis kids do play on their own. I have seen it many times. They will just hit the ball back and forth for hours, they will invent games on their own.

Again, lets come off our high horse. Tennis can follow the same path as soccer or basketball. Kids can start out just having fun and gradually be selected for higher coaching. The problem is tennis is not affordable or cool because the USTA is clueless.

Or perhaps the American tennis snobs want it that way.

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

T.C.F i played college tennis with a bunch of guys who grew up on the dirt and i just dont see the big difference you are talking about. If anything when they started playing on the hard courts they were late and often took alot of time and sometimes having to tweek there strokes to deal with the speed of the hard courts.Doubles play was also a problem for the dirt ballers when they start playing on the hard courts.I think the kids today need to practice on all surfaces,but i dont think that growing up on dirt is the only way to be great.

I have no idea who coached them so its hard to say....lots of bums grow up on red clay and hard courts. Of course hard courts are faster and that is an adjustment. We are talking overall how to make a top pro.

Look, the stats are what they are....more and more kids raised on red clay are at the top. And that trend will continue to increase.

 

[tenniscrazed]

I don't think the club system in Europe is like any system in any sport in the USA. It is far superior to anything we do in any sport.

The USA "succeeds" in sports to the extent that we have far more participants and resources devoted to a sport than other countries, because we are bigger in population than every country except China and India (whose resources are nothing compared to ours, and whose vast rural populations are not really much a part of their national sports organizations, so their population is deceiving). How do we really compare to any nation in any sport, when you consider number of participants and financial resources? Want to start adding up populations, participants, etc., for baseball and basketball and any other sport? We excel in sports that no one else plays (football) and when other countries start to play them (baseball, basketball) they far excel us when you take into account the participants available. Want to compare baseball in the Dominican Republic to the USA?

The USA has had narrow wins in basketball against the likes of Lithuania, population 3 million. How would a USA national team do against Lithuania if we limited the team to players from a single metro area with population 3 million? So much for our wonderful basketball system.

The superiority of the European athletic club system is that they have actual sports curricula, with trained coaches. At a European sports club, the soccer coach for 9 year olds knows that they are supposed to develop skills A, B, and C, and the coach for 10 year olds darn well expects to have players with such skills passed off to him, so he can start on skills D, E, and F. In the USA, parents like me are scrambling to learn how to coach the 9 year olds at the local soccer club, because our oldest child just turned 9 and we got collared into volunteering to coach. Guess which system produces better soccer players?

On the other hand, much of the world relies on street soccer to develop the kids. In street soccer, kids get (1) lots of extra after-school playing time to hone skills without massive resources being needed (like our street basketball), and (2) they develop creativity in their play by practicing wild new moves, etc., without dopey parent-coaches telling them to stop horsing around with the ball (also analogous to the benefits of street basketball).

In Brazil, you have a tremendous street soccer environment, AND you have a tremendous organized club soccer environment. The kids get the creative development, AND they get the structured coaching and organized curriculum. In the public schools, they play indoor soccer ("futsal") with a low-compression ball that teaches a different skill set (lots of short passing). [NOTE: American parents would complain that this is "not real soccer" and "my kid is good enough to play with a real ball" and other gems of ignorance that have more to do with parental ego than with understanding the game and how it should be taught.] The kids play beach soccer if they live near the coast (fitness development is more intense than clay court tennis, and different skills are developed as well). They play with regular balls in the street. They play for coaches at a club and get discipline and intense teamwork.

This is why Brazil is the best in soccer. The wealthier European nations have the athletic club system perfected, but they don't have as much street soccer and almost no beach soccer. The African and some Asian nations have a lot of street soccer but don't have the athletic clubs at the level of Europe or Brazil.

The USA has the creative but undisciplined game of street basketball. What is lacking is the disciplined, professional coaching curriculum. Players spend part of the year in AAU ball with one coach, part in high school with a different coach (who might or might not have ANYTHING to teach to a really good player). As big as basketball has become in many countries in the world, it is still not THE sport anywhere like it is in inner-city USA. Lucky for us, because that is why we maintain our advantage despite our unstructured, haphazard system.

The street soccer/street basketball analogy breaks down somewhat when we talk about tennis. Developing "creativity" by playing with no coaches around, fooling around with fancy new "moves" and so on, is not a significant aspect of becoming a great tennis player. Hanging around a court and having all the guys try to hit a "tweener" will not make the next Federer come from the USA. What is important is being able to play cheaply, many hours per week, without paying for a club or a coach or court time. THAT is where tennis could learn from these other sports. But the model of "roll the ball out and let them play, and they will teach themselves to be great" does not work perfectly in soccer or basketball, and it would work a whole lot less well in tennis. Tennis is a technique sport. There is no street tennis player, no such thing as street golf, etc. At some point, you have to be taught every technique and taught well by someone who can teach competently. Building lots of courts all over the country and not having coaches who are available and affordable will not do much for tennis compared to what it can accomplish for soccer and basketball in various countries.

Well stated. I think it comes down to even just 2 sentences.

 

[mike53]

We tend to be tennis snobs and think our players need more coaching. Nonsense, an NFL QB and NBA point guard, etc. all need extreme levels of specific coaching to make it.

I think there is a huge cultural gap here that creates a complete misunderstanding of the amount of adult/parental involvement that exists at the earliest levels of basketball. There are plenty of competent (and usually way overqualified) adults and older kids helping the youngest kids from the first time they pick up a ball. I see this every day. The adults play, they show the kids how to do it, the kids copy the adults. And these kids pick up the adult's attitude which is a love of the game and a love for playing the game. When kids love playing the game, they are motivated to achieve their own level of personal excellence through whatever means they have available.

 

[Matt H.]

My coach has told me some horror stories about the USTA and their politics. One of his players made it to a career high ranking of like 200ish (205?) without any help from the USTA. Coach tried to negotiate deals for a wildcard or two in exchange for no money (just getting the atp points) or helping to promote and gather up X number of ticket sales to watch his match. No go. Apparently they didn’t see it in him and once they write a player off they’re done.

It’s a shame because he said a wildcard here or there could have broken him into the next level. You can only spend so much money and energy fighting in the challengers and having to qualify for every ATP event. He qualified for a few, and masters series too. Played against Ferrer.

 

[chalkflewup]

Too much he said/she said hearsay this and hearsay that. I can tell you horror stories about academies, private coaches, crazy parents, blah, blah, blah. Deal with it. Politics are part of life.

 

[Matt H.]

Oh I agree, no doubt. The difference is that USTA is “supposed” to be a friendly non-profit organization out for the good of tennis and junior American players….when the reality is that they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing and just another corporate fat cat.

 

[jigglypuff]

Oh I agree, no doubt. The difference is that USTA is “supposed” to be a friendly non-profit organization out for the good of tennis and junior American players….when the reality is that they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing and just another corporate fat cat.

I wouldn't go as far as that. They might be incompetent in mining talent and that in itself has no cut and dry surefire approach, but generally speaking the folks running it at the ground level are nice people trying to do their jobs the best way they can.

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

I am not buying into the differences between basketball, other sports, and tennis. The key is getting the kids into tennis early.

Of course basketball is cheaper and many kids can play on a court. We are not talking about things even close to that level. That is not realistic. And the scale does not have to be that large.

But I have seen a tennis dad or mom start playing at a local court and before long 10 area kids are there. I have hit with kids at local parks and in a short time other kids want to play. But getting any USTA support is super hard and the money given tiny.

Just last weekend we were traveling to PA. My 5.5 year old and I went to a local park to hit. There was a huge baseball tournament there. Many teams, boys age 6-12. The tennis courts sat right below a few fields and by the parking lot.

When my daughter put her things down a boy by the fence said, "Ha, the kids playing baseball are having fun. The kids playing tennis are not". He was Mr. Smart Pants.

We started hitting and within 15 minutes, 20 kids were watching. That boy who made the comments watched the entire hour we were there. Many of the kids asked about lessons. While all this huge important baseball was going on a few feet away, many kids were more interested in the tennis.

I see this happen over and over and over again. Kids do want something different than soccer and baseball and basketball.

But it has to be local and affordable and fun. Thats where the USTA does not get it. Grow the dang game locally and forget high performance. Spend the millions to support local tennis.

I am telling you there is a huge untapped market of kids who will play tennis if we bring it to them. We don't need it to be nearly the scale of hoops or baseball. Just grow it by 50,000 kids, 100,000 kids. Make sure they can afford to play right up until age 18 and see what happens.

 

[dannythomas]

I am not buying into the differences between basketball, other sports, and tennis. The key is getting the kids into tennis early.

Of course basketball is cheaper and many kids can play on a court. We are not talking about things even close to that level. That is not realistic. And the scale does not have to be that large.

But I have seen a tennis dad or mom start playing at a local court and before long 10 area kids are there. I have hit with kids at local parks and in a short time other kids want to play. But getting any USTA support is super hard and the money given tiny.

Just last weekend we were traveling to PA. My 5.5 year old and I went to a local park to hit. There was a huge baseball tournament there. Many teams, boys age 6-12. The tennis courts sat right below a few fields and by the parking lot.

When my daughter put her things down a boy by the fence said, "Ha, the kids playing baseball are having fun. The kids playing tennis are not". He was Mr. Smart Pants.

We started hitting and within 15 minutes, 20 kids were watching. That boy who made the comments watched the entire hour we were there. Many of the kids asked about lessons. While all this huge important baseball was going on a few feet away, many kids were more interested in the tennis.

I see this happen over and over and over again. Kids do want something different than soccer and baseball and basketball.

But it has to be local and affordable and fun. Thats where the USTA does not get it. Grow the dang game locally and forget high performance. Spend the millions to support local tennis.

I am telling you there is a huge untapped market of kids who will play tennis if we bring it to them. We don't need it to be nearly the scale of hoops or baseball. Just grow it by 50,000 kids, 100,000 kids. Make sure they can afford to play right up until age 18 and see what happens.

Yes but on the other hand there are thousands of hardly - used courts up and down the country. In Florida for instance 1 mile from the Evert / USTA Adademy there is a park with about 20 courts in good shape open to the public - most of the time only 3 or 4 of them are in use ( usually overflow kids from Evert ). Last summer I was in Minneapolis and all the schools gave free access to all of their well maintained tennis facilities during summer break. I never saw more than 1 or 2 courts in use. Change these courts into clay courts and would that change much ? Not really.
If on the other hand the USTA ran sponsored events with qualified coaches in these places and marketed it consistently and right as " tennis for all " that would make a difference. But is it realistic to do this up and down the country ? If they only have funds ( so they say ) to help 2% of the existing junior player base what sort of national push can they afford to run ? And rip up all the courts and put down red clay at the same time ?
I don't really know where the USTA spends its money from the Open and other revenue to the extent that there is so little available. But maybe they should employ people with stronger backgrounds in sports marketing / sponsorship and persuade some of our larger Corporations to team up with them to tackle these grass roots issues. The challenge of course is that while say Sony Ericson might like the profile of sponsoring the pro tour there is not the same publicity in helping the USTA to have a regional development center in every major US City or population center that is accessible not just to the elite 2%.
In the meantime as I have said they have to work with the talent they do have at their disposal and grab it early and show more imagination about what they can do to help maximize that potential.

 

[mike53]

Seriously, one only needs to look at what other sports are doing and copy it. We have a mission comprehension crisis.

 

[papatenis]

USTA is a great company to work for.

Unlike many other companies, your job there is a lifetime job! There is no incentive to try anything new, they are only interested in the status quo.

When these people become accountable for their job, then maybe we may see some new changes/programs at the USTA.

 

[trojankid]

I will take Federer over mac or connors in a heartbeat. Nadal as well. So whats your point? Just shows your knowledge as being very closed. The game is different and it shows with the condioning of the players...They are bigger, stronger and faster and the great ones use a lot of wrist which connors and mac didn't do GAGAGOOGOOTENNIS........How many on here would dissagree that mac or connors could handle Fed?

Your all getting close, I'll help you guys out it was their "attitudes" if they were playing today they would fix their forehands improve their serves and fit right in.
Thats the difference with the players shoot Rochus just beat Jok. Americans are not hungry period has nothing to do with dirt or inner city!! Thats my final answer Social Studies 101

 

[Soianka]

We started hitting and within 15 minutes, 20 kids were watching. That boy who made the comments watched the entire hour we were there. Many of the kids asked about lessons. While all this huge important baseball was going on a few feet away, many kids were more interested in the tennis.

I see this happen over and over and over again. Kids do want something different than soccer and baseball and basketball.

But it has to be local and affordable and fun. Thats where the USTA does not get it. Grow the dang game locally and forget high performance. Spend the millions to support local tennis.

I am telling you there is a huge untapped market of kids who will play tennis if we bring it to them. We don't need it to be nearly the scale of hoops or baseball. Just grow it by 50,000 kids, 100,000 kids. Make sure they can afford to play right up until age 18 and see what happens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen this happen as well. When my daughter practices at a public court, invariably lots of little kids will end up wandering over and watching her for a good amount of time or asking if they can play.

The interest is there.

One program that was actually good in Atlanta was dismantled when UTA took over all of the public tennis facilities in the city. Lots of good players came out of this program -- one notable one is Nathan Pasha.

 

[Soianka]

I should say, UTA took over all of the public tennis centers in Atlanta.

 

[dannythomas]

USTA is a great company to work for.

Unlike many other companies, your job there is a lifetime job! There is no incentive to try anything new, they are only interested in the status quo.

When these people become accountable for their job, then maybe we may see some new changes/programs at the USTA.

Well now they have the impementation of Quick Start / Mini Tennis that will not permit any tournaments other than mini tennis with soft balls on mini size courts below 12 years old. So even those 9 or 10 year old kids who have been playing since age 5 are now supposed to start playing mini tennis. Brilliant ! That will justify their existence for the next few years while in reality it is a huge backward step.Works for beginners , fine, but for kids that already play ....

 

[ga tennis]

Well now they have the impementation of Quick Start / Mini Tennis that will not permit any tournaments other than mini tennis with soft balls on mini size courts below 12 years old. So even those 9 or 10 year old kids who have been playing since age 5 are now supposed to start playing mini tennis. Brilliant ! That will justify their existence for the next few years while in reality it is a huge backward step.Works for beginners , fine, but for kids that already play ....

Hey dannythomas. I am starting to see your point on playing tournaments. My 8 year old daughter played the number two seed at little mo last weekend and played a good match she was very intense and very into the match she won 6-0 in the third set. Then her next match she played a little girl that i didnt see her having any problem with and she went out there and put forth minimal effort and was more interested in inviting the little girl to spend the night and go to six flags and lost.I just couldnt understand what she was doing and how one match she was so intense and her next match she did not care.She was just talking to her opponent and just socializing but not trying to compete.As a parent i kept asking myself what just happened.My father was at the match and he said to me its a maturity issue with her.He said remember she is only 8 and still a little girl.After her match i tried with all my might not to show her any negative attitude and we didnt even talk about the match until the next day.I asked her the next day how does she think she played and her response was she just didnt want to play??? I didnt know how to respond to that answer??I finally told her that maybe we dont need to play tournaments right now because in tournaments you need to wanna play every match and that mom and dad dont have much money and this tournament cost us a few hundred dollars so we cant afford to spend this kind of money for you to not wanna play.Her response was daddy i do wanna play tournaments and that will not happen again.I know now that no matter how hard we train and how much i want it for her THAT IS IS UP TO HER WHERE THIS JOURNEY WILL END!!!I know its a marathon and we are still in the first few miles and this was just a little speed bump on the journey.

 

[andfor]

Hey dannythomas. I am starting to see your point on playing tournaments. My 8 year old daughter played the number two seed at little mo last weekend and played a good match she was very intense and very into the match she won 6-0 in the third set. Then her next match she played a little girl that i didnt see her having any problem with and she went out there and put forth minimal effort and was more interested in inviting the little girl to spend the night and go to six flags and lost.I just couldnt understand what she was doing and how one match she was so intense and her next match she did not care.She was just talking to her opponent and just socializing but not trying to compete.As a parent i kept asking myself what just happened.My father was at the match and he said to me its a maturity issue with her.He said remember she is only 8 and still a little girl.After her match i tried with all my might not to show her any negative attitude and we didnt even talk about the match until the next day.I asked her the next day how does she think she played and her response was she just didnt want to play??? I didnt know how to respond to that answer??I finally told her that maybe we dont need to play tournaments right now because in tournaments you need to wanna play every match and that mom and dad dont have much money and this tournament cost us a few hundred dollars so we cant afford to spend this kind of money for you to not wanna play.Her response was daddy i do wanna play tournaments and that will not happen again.I know now that no matter how hard we train and how much i want it for her THAT IS IS UP TO HER WHERE THIS JOURNEY WILL END!!!I know its a marathon and we are still in the first few miles and this was just a little speed bump on the journey.

Good story about your 8 year old. I have a 15 year old who is a competitive player and still see varying levels of effort from match to match. My mantra to him is "I'll never tell you that you have to win and I'll never be upset with you if you lose. All I expect every time you come to play is to give your best effort, have a good attitude and be a good sport". Now if he does not try of has a bad attitude I will be disapointed. I make sure to emphasis praise in his matches win or lose where I see him display excellent effort and attitude. If he comes off the court and has given everything he has in effort and attitude he should be able to feel good about his match, win or lose. He wants to win bad enough on his own and occasionally that can overwhelm his effort and focus on the ball and executing and spill over to outbursts. Is it working for my kid, well he is still improving and he's still learning. Does he or I expect superstardom? Far from it. As long as he continues to imporve and learn and keep trying to see how good he can get, great.

Regarding U.S. juniors, technique, footwork, strength stamina and flexibility are important, goes without saying. More importantly I believe if it was instilled in juniors to put more emphasis on giving 100% effort on every point the positive results they desire (winning) will take care of itself. Good effort and attitude should also take place on the practice court and be reinforced. I don't see it all that often being reinforced by the USTA or many teachers (sure some do). Is desire and mental strength cultural or taught? Here in the U.S. I see many tennis kids more concerned about what equipment they use, who is better than who, what's my ranking, what will my friends think if I lose to so-and-so. Not all kids, but I see it a bunch.....

Just wondering other than clay courts what the tennis teaching philosophies are from successful federations compared to the USTA. Where's the REAL gap?

Heck with the USTA supporting our kids. Let's do it on our own. Am I just another crazy? Trying not to be...........

 

[chalkflewup]

So if Americans aren't hungry, why is it that we excel in the Olympics over and over? Sorry but I'm not buying into the starvation story.

 

[andfor]

So if Americans aren't hungry, why is it that we excel in the Olympics over and over? Sorry but I'm not buying into the starvation story.

I'm not buying into the "Americans aren't hungry" either, on its own. I'd have to say the biggest factor in more foreign and less Americans at the top of the game has to be world-wide increases in participation of the game in the last 20 years. Making the game more appealing, popular and accessible to more kids in the U.S. would be a start.

Many kids in the U.S. who are the best athletes gravitate to football, basketball and baseball. Sports like skateboarding, soccer and video games etc. also can often take precedence. Take Drew Brees for instance. You know him the Superbowl winning QB for the N.O. Saints. He beat Roddick when he was in the juniors. If he would have stayed with tennis his chances to be a top player would have been good. The point is Brees picked football. Of course on the other side of the coin there's Isner.

Make the game more accessible.

 

[ga tennis]

If the United States wants to have another grandslam champion its best chance is to make tennis a more popular sport.I dont think that building more clay courts is the answer.I think it will help,but the best way is to get more and more kids into tennis at a very young age.If tennis could compete with the big 3 sports in America we would have no problem winning grandslams. We have the BEST athletes in the world the problem is they dont play tennis.Imagine if some of those N.B.A point guards started playing tennis when they were 4 with great coaching..

 

[andfor]

If the United States wants to have another grandslam champion its best chance is to make tennis a more popular sport.I dont think that building more clay courts is the answer.I think it will help,but the best way is to get more and more kids into tennis at a very young age.If tennis could compete with the big 3 sports in America we would have no problem winning grandslams. We have the BEST athletes in the world the problem is they dont play tennis.Imagine if some of those N.B.A point guards started playing tennis when they were 4 with great coaching..

NBA point guards.....sure. But don't forget the rest of the NBA including the big men. I had this argument a few years ago and said imagine if Kobie or LeBron played tennis insted of basketball. My notion was scoffed at. Given the rise of players like Del Potro, Clilic, Isner and other 6'4", 6'5" plus world class players I still contend I'm right on. Of course as we know many of the worlds best athletes are also in the NFL (not the linemen and fatguys) and MLB. If U.S. tennis only had a few of these guys......

 

[TennisCoachFLA]

NBA point guards.....sure. But don't forget the rest of the NBA including the big men. I had this argument a few years ago and said imagine if Kobie or LeBron played tennis insted of basketball. My notion was scoffed at. Given the rise of players like Del Potro, Clilic, Isner and other 6'4", 6'5" plus world class players I still contend I'm right on. Of course as we know many of the worlds best athletes are also in the NFL (not the linemen and fatguys) and MLB. If U.S. tennis only had a few of these guys......

Exactly....I have also been saying this for years. I have coached basketball, baseball, football and tennis over the years.

No offense to U.S. tennis boys....but they are mostly mediocre athletes when compared to the other sports. Sorry, thats just the cold, hard facts. I have watched Ryan Harrison play and train numerous times and he isn't even half the athlete of an elite basketball guard of equal age and size. Yet he is at the top of our boys US tennis prospect list.

The sad thing is that America COULD dominate mens tennis. If we had our best athletes in tennis and trained them on clay, they would be the best players in the world.

America has 2 problems that will most likely lead to no more top 10 men after Roddick....no red clay courts and the best athletes not going into tennis.

Either one is hard to overcome....both will make it impossible.

 

[ga tennis]

Exactly....I have also been saying this for years. I have coached basketball, baseball, football and tennis over the years.

No offense to U.S. tennis boys....but they are mostly mediocre athletes when compared to the other sports. Sorry, thats just the cold, hard facts. I have watched Ryan Harrison play and train numerous times and he isn't even half the athlete of an elite basketball guard of equal age and size. Yet he is at the top of our boys US tennis prospect list.

The sad thing is that America COULD dominate mens tennis. If we had our best athletes in tennis and trained them on clay, they would be the best players in the world.

America has 2 problems that will most likely lead to no more top 10 men after Roddick....no red clay courts and the best athletes not going into tennis.

Either one is hard to overcome....both will make it impossible.

You are so right!!! MEDIOCRE AT BEST,thats sad but true.

 

[mike53]

My father was at the match and he said to me its a maturity issue with her.He said remember she is only 8 and still a little girl.After her match i tried with all my might not to show her any negative attitude and we didnt even talk about the match until the next day.

Congrats on your daughter's and your accomplishments over the weekend. Your father is correct, an 8yo is only going to be able to concentrate for a certain amount of time. Your daughter understandably ran out of mental/emotional juice. This is not a matter of resolve. More tournament experience is what you need.

Personally, I am not always able to completely withhold my emotional reaction to the sting of defeat, but I am getting better and I try to limit it to a little pouting. After I recover, we take stock of our accomplishments and compliment ourselves for a job well done. Later, we resolve to train harder, come back again and improve our results. And I never, ever mention anything about money.

 

[Ash_Smith]

We come across kids in Florida from the UK pretty often and the parents tell me that the UK system of mini tennis strictly by age is too rigid and not working . There are no tournaments for young kids except mini tennis so many parents take their kids out of the UK. That is what many believe will happen under Quickstart here in the US .However there is an Academy run by Alan Jones former coach to Jo Durie ( who is also there ) who continue to work with kids with regular balls on full size courts and the LTA reluctantly recommends some kids to go threre.
Returning to the point in question I am told that the LTA have recognized independent Performance Coaches and when these Coaches recommend their kids for LTA training groups their judgement is normally accepted.

You're absolutley correct about the Mini-Tennis competition structure in the UK too rigid and I believe the ITF are looking at bringing in this competition structure to all Play and Stay nations! In the UK there are some events organised by the RPT (based on Spanish principals) which use a full ball at under 10's. We have Talent Performance Coordinators in each county who's job it is to look at under 10's and talent id those who look more capable but i'm still not impressed with the way it's handled.

My own theory (based on my experiences in the UK and Spain) is that mini-tennis is fine for teaching but should not be the only competition structure available. The tools (low compression balls etc should be available to coaches) but the system should allow players to play at a level that suits them and them only, not the association or anybody else. I cannot believe that if Rafa couldn't play with a real ball untill he was 11 he would have been a better player!

 

[andfor]

.......And I never, ever mention anything about money.

True and not to an 8 yr old. Now when you have a 15 yr old who wants to be on the court all the time, wants lessons and to go to an acadamy, it gets tricky. Unless money is not an object.............

Wanting to be on the court all the time is a problem I can deal with. No complaints. Just wish we could see the same effort for the studies. Oh kids gotta love em..............

 

[Ash_Smith]

No offense to U.S. tennis boys....but they are mostly mediocre athletes when compared to the other sports. Sorry, thats just the cold, hard facts.
The sad thing is that America COULD dominate mens tennis. If we had our best athletes in tennis and trained them on clay, they would be the best players in the world.

America has 2 problems that will most likely lead to no more top 10 men after Roddick....no red clay courts and the best athletes not going into tennis.

Either one is hard to overcome....both will make it impossible.

Substiute America for UK and Roddick for Murray and you could be the other side of the Atlantic! Our biggest problem here is Football (soccer for most of you guys ) - every kids wants to play football, so the local clubs hoover them up, the most athletic get selected to go to a local academy of a league club, they get badly coached, badly schooled and then at 13/14/15 get told they won't make it and spat out. By which time they are too far behind in their sport specific development to try their hand at anything else and tennis looses a potential athelete and great player!

I'd rather have a great athelete to teach tennis to, that a great player to train to be atheletic!

Ash

 

[vandre]

back to the original question...

...yup this sucks, and yup the usta isn't doing what many of us think it should be doing...

/sarcasm on

...but isn't this a "valuable" lesson to teach our children about the way the world works? that it doesn't matter how good or how talented or how hard you've worked, it only matters whether or not the powers that be smile upon you or if you have indeed kissed the correct tuchas.

otherwise, we're gonna have to change the world... :twisted:

/sarcasm off

 

[ga tennis]

True and not to an 8 yr old. Now when you have a 15 yr old who wants to be on the court all the time, wants lessons and to go to an acadamy, it gets tricky. Unless money is not an object.............

Wanting to be on the court all the time is a problem I can deal with. No complaints. Just wish we could see the same effort for the studies. Oh kids gotta love em..............

I think she needs to be aware of the money issue..I know people say that you shouldnt talk about the money issue with kids, i just think she needs to understand that money doesnt grow on trees and tournaments are EXPENSIVE, and if we play tournaments she needs to try her best. Maybe im wrong???

 

[mike53]

I think she needs to be aware of the money issue..I know people say that you shouldnt talk about the money issue with kids, i just think she needs to understand that money doesnt grow on trees and tournaments are EXPENSIVE, and if we play tournaments she needs to try her best. Maybe im wrong???

I think you can take it on face value that she is trying her best. High achievers deal with setbacks by redoubling their efforts and returning next time with more to offer. The financial considerations are for adults to decide.

 

[ClarkC]

I am not buying into the differences between basketball, other sports, and tennis. The key is getting the kids into tennis early.

Kids need instruction in any sport. If they play basketball, they probably are passing techniques down from generation to generation. Same with baseball, or football.

If you have a sport that is heavy on technique (golf or tennis) and not a high percentage of the adult population has really good knowledge of the technique (golf and tennis, again), then you have to grow the sport by getting kids from non-tennis families to play tennis. Therefore, you need to provide lessons from a real coach, because they are not going to be taught by their parents. There's a very real difference between the "major" sports in America and every "minor" sport. Most American parents cannot teach even the basics of golf, tennis, soccer, and many other minor sports.

Affordability of lessons is thus a crucial element. If the USTA would not just sponsor local events, but subsidize lessons for new players who are attracted by the hoopla of these local events, then the combination could be significant. Right now, the USTA is doing only a little of each of these two elements.

If the USTA says that it cannot afford to do this nationwide, then maybe they could run a pilot program. Pick some states that will serve as a test, e.g. Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, Illinois. Put the programs in place, including subsidizing the teaching. See what happens over time. If those states start getting over-represented on the national scene in terms of rankings, college players, maybe even ATP players, then they will have proven the concept works. If not, they will need to try something else. I don't recommend doing it somewhere like Florida or California or Texas, because it will be hard to sift out the signal from the noise in places that already produce a lot of top USTA and NCAA players.

You could also build some red clay courts over time in just these states and see if it makes a difference.

Surely the USTA has the money to do this in six states for a decade.

 

[ClarkC]

Exactly....I have also been saying this for years. I have coached basketball, baseball, football and tennis over the years.

No offense to U.S. tennis boys....but they are mostly mediocre athletes when compared to the other sports. Sorry, thats just the cold, hard facts. I have watched Ryan Harrison play and train numerous times and he isn't even half the athlete of an elite basketball guard of equal age and size. Yet he is at the top of our boys US tennis prospect list.

The sad thing is that America COULD dominate mens tennis. If we had our best athletes in tennis and trained them on clay, they would be the best players in the world.

America has 2 problems that will most likely lead to no more top 10 men after Roddick....no red clay courts and the best athletes not going into tennis.

Either one is hard to overcome....both will make it impossible.

Were McEnroe and Connors comparable as athletes to the best baseball, basketball, and football players of their generation?