|
|
 |
|
Nothing new!... By Jim Reffkin
November 2003
Finally, there is today, a unanimous consensus that we must look at new
programs and innovative ideas to increase the number of junior players and the
quality of there play. One thing is for sure, everyone agrees that more
competition, with a wider variety of opponents, is essential for increasing the
performance of our juniors.
This is nothing new. In 1987 I served on the original USTA National Blue
Ribbon "Player Development Committee," representing the United States Professional
Tennis Association. Arthur Ashe was chairman along with many legendary
figures: Jack Kramer, Billie Jean King, Bill Talbert and Cliff Drysdale, to name
only a few. And thanks to Ron Woods, the first USTA director of what is now "high
performance," we received an incredible amount of research on what other
nations were doing with their "national" programs.
It was nothing new. After great expense and endless meetings, the consensus
was unanimous - our juniors need more match play. And in order for this to
happen and to create a sense of camaraderie and purpose among juniors and their
coaches, the "area training centers" were developed.
And thanks to the committee's efforts, "Zonals" were created, while national
rankings for twelve year olds was eliminated. And some time later, in an
effort to create more match play, "consolation" draws were mandated in most
tournaments. But the one thing no one considered, was the lack of time available; so
without realizing what would result, this change pretty much killed junior
doubles. Coaches systematically did what was necessary to earn a singles ranking
and told their players to concentrate on singles and stuff doubles. To this
day junior doubles is still hurting, but that's another story.
Then most recently, the National USTA Youth Competition and Training
Committee, with their research and study, exhausted the issue of getting the kids to
play more matches. A sub committee (Calvin Davis Chairman) was established to
reduce barriers that keep our juniors from participating more often. A few of
the obvious barriers were: school time lost; travel/hotel expense; poor
scheduling with monotonous delays, and the real health and safety issue of injuries
from marathon matches.
These barriers have kept our total number of juniors competing in ranking
tournaments at a humble 160,000 players. But thanks to Nancy Alfano and her
National Committee, it was obvious that changes would have to be made to eliminate
these barriers; the same barriers that prevent our juniors from playing more
and against a variety of opponents. It was nothing new, it was clear that the
only way to successfully achieve this growth in competition is by offering time
definable and appropriate formats that allow it - that means promoting
innovative scoring formats.
Great start, but we need to do much more. How is the USTA going to offer
practical, time definable formats of competition that will help eliminate the
barriers that have prevented frequent participation?
Its nothing new, copy what all other youth sports do - enrich the competitive
menu of events that are time definable and suit the needs of the players.
Because if you don't, nothing new will ever work effectively. In the real world,
because of the barriers we are trying to eliminate, you can't expect players
to play more of the traditional three and four day events. And if it is not for
ranking, don't be thinking you will be able to get the kids together on a
regular basis to play serious competitive tennis. It did not work in the area
training centers, it has worked with the one hundred elite players in high
performance but it will not work at the sections and district with the 160,000 kids
that are the blood and guts of our junior development program. In other words
broaden the base of competition and let the cream rise to the top.
Has anyone compared our junior tennis with other sports: basketball; soccer;
baseball; football and volleyball? All of these sports are time definable,
following a logical progression of time played in their respective competition
based on their age and maturation. Professional basketball for example is 48
minutes playing time, college 40, high school 32, grade school 24 etc. My
question is, does anyone believe that one day events using match tiebreak or superset
in singles prevents a quality competitive experience; and would it hinder a
youngster from doing well in college tennis or for that matter professional
tennis?
Based on every major sport played today, the answer is NO. Tennis is the only
sport that uses professional rules at every level of the game. In my opinion,
if we do not copy the success of other youth sports, by offering a logical
progression of definable time played, we will continue our drop in popularity
and once again become thought of as primarily a "country club" sport.
Its nothing new, on page 123 in the "Friend at Court" is a listing of formats
that will accommodate the goals of all competition below the one hundred
elite juniors in high performance. This would help guarantee the elimination of
almost all of the barriers preventing our kids from playing more. The USTA
National Rules and the National Youth Competition and Training committees support
these formats and they are available to sections if allowed by their governing
body.
Its nothing new, and of course we all know how difficult it is to change. So
lets congratulate our own Southwest Section, because with their cutting edge
leadership, they have allowed their tournament directors to implement these
proven formats and "grow the game."
Please send me your comments - jreffkin@aol.com
|
|
|
|
