Category: Tennis

Wimbledon 2013 – Upsets or Changing of the Guard

horvath Leave a comment

Most sports enthusiasts expected the Cubs to win the World Series before either Marion Bartoli (seeded 15th) or Sabine Lasicki (seeded 23rd) reached the finals of Wimbledon 2013.  Based on their seeds they were projected to exit the tourney in the round of 16 and 32.

With due respect to both players, the consensus was that the Jamaicans would win the Olympic bobsledding gold medal before Bartoli would reach the finals at the All England Lawn Tennis Club in the same year as Lasicki.  Their presence in the finals raises the question, “Were the upsets at Wimbledon 2013 an anomaly or were they a sign that a new era of women were joining the top ranks?”

While it is an accomplishment to be ranked in the top 10, only 5 of the top-ranked women (rankings prior to Wimbledon), have won Grand Slam women’s singles events.  The players and their birth years are:

  • Serena Williams  1981
  • Victoria Azarenka  1989
  • Maria Sharapova  1987
  • Agnieszka Radwanska  1989
  • Sara Errani  1987
  • Na Li  1982
  • Angelique Kerber  1988
  • Petra Kvitova  1990
  • Caroline Wozniacki  1990
  • Maria Kirlenko  1987

On average the top 10 players are 26 years old. While this is young by most standards, some of the upsets at Wimbledon are an indication that about half of the top 10 are closer to the end of their careers than to their peak competitive years and their ability to win a Grand Slam singles title.  Serena Williams and Na Li are both over the 30 while Kvitova and Wozniacki are the youngsters at 23.

The American women have a chance to make their presence felt as the changing of the guard continues to unfold over the next 18 months. The 14 American women Wimbledon entrants and their birth year follow:

  • Serena Williams  1981
  • Alison Riske  1990
  • Mallory Burdette  1991
  • Bethanie Mattek-Sands  1985
  • Madison Keys  1995
  • Varvara Lepchenko  1986
  • Sloane Stephens  1993
  • Jamie Hampton  1990
  • Christina McHale 1992
  • Alexa Glatch  1989
  • Lauren Davis  1993
  • Melanie Oudin  1991
  • Coco Vandeweghe  1991
  • Vania King  1989

Nine of the players lost in the first round:

  • Burdette, Hampton, Davis, Oudin, and Vandeweghe are 23 years old or younger.
  • Mattek-Sands, Lepchenko, Glatch, and King are at least 24 years old.

Most of the first round losers are young and have potential for success in future Grand Slams.

Overall the American women won 12 matches and lost 14. First round winners included Serena Williams, Alison Riske, Madison Keys, Sloane Stephens, and Christina McHale. With the exception of Williams the other four are 18 to 23 years old.  McHale lost in the second round and Riske and Keys were third round losers. Williams was upset in the round of 16 and Sloane Stephens lost in the quarterfinals.

Stephens has demonstrated that she is a force to be reckoned with.  Her losses in the 2013 Grand Slams follow:

  • Australian Open – lost to Azarenka (winner) in the semifinals.
  • French Open – lost to Sharapova (finalist) in the quarterfinals.
  • Wimbledon – lost to Bartoli (winner) in the quarterfinals.

On August 26, the U.S. Open begins.  At that time the next step in the evolution of women’s tennis will be showcased. It will be interesting to watch the role that the American women play in the changing of the guard.

 

USTA Men’s Player Development Missing In Action

horvath Leave a comment

Wimbledon 2013 began on Monday June 24, and by Thursday June 27, the 11 American men entrants had been dismissed.

First round losers and their birth years included:

  • Steve Johnson  1989
  • Ryan Harrison  1992
  • Wayne Odesnik  1985
  • James Blake  1979
  • Sam Querrey  1987
  • Alex Kuznetsov  1987
  • Michael Russell 1978

These seven players captured 8 sets while losing 24.

The second round was even more depressing as the remaining four players won only 1 set. Second round losers and their birth years included:

  • Bobby Reynolds  1982
  • Denis Kudia  1992
  • John Isner  1985
  • Rajeev Ram  1984

These 11 American men are tremendous athletes – that is not the issue. Since its inception the USTA has spent millions of dollars on player development without producing any Grand Slam competitors or winners.  A closer look at birth years of America’s top men players shows that most are in the same age range as the current top 10 in the world.  In other words, they are closer to retirement than to winning a Grand Slam.  Querrey and Isner are currently ranked in the top 25 (closer to 25 than 1), but they are not serious competitors for a Grand Slam title.

A look at the top 10 men players in the world and their birth years shows:

  • Novak Djokovic  1987
  • Andy Murray  1987
  • Roger Federer  1981
  • David Ferrer  1982
  • Rafael Nadal  1986
  • Tomas Berdych  1985
  • Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 1985
  • Juan Martin Del Potro 1988
  • Richard Gasquet  1986
  • Stanislas Wawrinka  1985.

Only Steve Johnson, Ryan Harrison, and Denis Kudia provide a glimmer of hope for the future.  Looking further down the food chain, the top American juniors include Noah Rubin (third round loser at the French Open), Stefan Kozlov (second round loser at the French Open), and Spencer Papa and Luca Corentelli (first round losers at the French Open).

The future of American men’s tennis is very clear. The USTA Men’s Player Development has not been ready for prime time for a long time – if ever. That is not likely to change in the months ahead.

 

Chirico and Townsend Lead American Juniors at French Open

horvath Leave a comment

The results of the American juniors at the French Open paralleled their adult counterparts – the boys were subpar, while the girls had a solid performance.

The four boys posted a combined record of 3-4. Only Noah Rubin reached the third round.

The record of the American boys follows:

First round losers (0-1)

  • Luca Corenteli
  • Spencer Papa

Second round loser (1-1)

  • Stefan Kozlov

Third round loser (2-1)

  • Noah Rubin

The four girls fared better as Louisa Chirico lost in the semifinals.

First round loser (0-1)

  • Christina McKenzie

Second round loser (1-1)

  • Jamie Loeb

Third round loser

  • None

Quarterfinals loser

  • Taylor Townsend (3-1)

Semifinals loser

  • Louisa Chirico (4-1).

The performance of both the boys and girls at the French Open was better than the Australian Open.   Here’s to a strong performance at Wimbledon!

 

Serena Williams Leads Field of American Women in French Open

horvath Leave a comment

For the first time in years, the American women made their presence known at the French Open. The 15 American women in the 2013 event  won a total of 23 matches, while losing 14. Serena Williams led the way by capturing her second title at Roland Garros.

On a positive note, 10 of the 15 players were born after 1989. In other words, there appears to be a group of talented players waiting in the wings to fill in when Serena Williams retires.

The record and birth year of the American Women follows.

First round losers (0-1)

  • Grace Min, 1994 Coco Vandeweghe
  • Christina McHale, 1992
  • Venus Williams, 1980
  • Coco Vandeweghe, 1991
  • Lauren Davis, 1993.

Second round losers (1-1)

  • Mallory Burdette, 1991
  • Madison Keys, 1995
  • Shelby Rogers, 1992
  • Vania King, 1989
  • Melanie Oudin, 1991

Third round losers (2-1)

  • Varvara Lepchenko, 1986

Fourth round losers (3-1)

  • Bethanie Mattek-Sands, 1985
  • Jamie Hampton, 1990
  • Sloane Stephens, 1993

Finals

  • Serena Williams, champion (7-0), 1981.

On to Wimbledon, where the U.S. women should make an even stronger showing.

American Men Have Weak Performance at French Open

horvath Leave a comment

The performance of the American men at the 2013 French Open was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the women. Ten players entered the tournament, four made it to the second round, and two played their final match in the third round. Combined, they had a total of six wins and three losses.

Unfortunately, the outlook for the future is more of the same.  Only 4 of the 10 American entrants were born after 1990, i.e. they are less than 23 years of age.

The record and birth year of the American men follows:

First round losers (0-1)

  • Alex Kuznetsov,  1987
  • Michael Russell, 1978
  • Rhyne Williams, 1991
  • Steve Johnson, 1989
  • James Blake, 1979
  • Denis Kudia, 1992.

Second round losers (1-1)

  • Jack Sock, 1992
  • Ryan Harrison, 1992

Third round losers (2-1)

  • John Isner, 1985
  • Sam Querrey, 1987.

Without a doubt, every player on this list is a talented player. Unfortunately none of them have made a name for themselves as consistently strong performers in the Grand Slams.

Will we see a breakthrough performance for the American men in the 2013 Wimbledon? Can John Isner’s big serve carry him to a strong performance? Will one of the younger players advance into the third or fourth rounds?  Not likely.

A Shift in Power for the Grand Slams?

horvath Leave a comment

Without a doubt Wimbledon is the premier tennis tournament in the world. It was the first held in 1877 and is the oldest Grand Slam. The inaugural U.S. Championships where held four years later, in 1881, followed by the French Open in 1891. Finally, the first Australian Open was held in 1905.

With the increased importance of China, India, and surrounding countries, a shift in power may be in place that favors the Australian Open. This shift would be driven by the increased population and television viewership in these countries and the fact that they are in the same time zone as Australia.

This is illustrated by the following summary of viewership for select Grand Slam events.

U.S. Open

  • 2012 US Open Men’s Finals – 16.2 million viewers watched Djokovic beat Murray (Source: AP).
  • 2012 US Open Women’s Finals – 17.7 million viewers watched Serena Williams beat Vika Azarenka (Source: AP).
  • 2002 US Open Women’s Finals – 20.1 million viewers watched Serena Williams beat Venus Williams (Source: AP)

French Open

  • 2011 French Open Women’s Finals – 65 million viewers in China watched Li Na defeat Francesca Schiavone (Source: Xinhua)
  • 2011 Australian Open Women’s Finals – 135 million viewers in China watched Li Na lose to Kim Clijsters. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald).
  • 2013 Australian Open Women’s Finals – The projected viewership in China was estimated to be greater than 200 million for finals – Vika Azarenka beat  Li Na. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald).

The increased prominence of the Asian market will ultimately impact the other Grand Slam events and the relative strength of tennis in the U.S. Consider the following questions:

Despite its tradition, will the Australian Open continue to reside “Down Under”, or will it be relocated to a more centrally located  Asian-Pacific city?

  • How much will the prestige and importance of the Australian Open increase given the size of the Asian market?
  • Will other majors be added to accommodate tennis in Asia?
  • How much will excitement over players such as Li Na increase the number of participants in China and around the world?
  • How will increased viewership in Asia impact the role of the USTA in global tennis?
  • With projected growth of the sport in Asia, will American players ever dominate the Grand Slams to the extent that the Williams sisters have?
  • Because of the time zone difference, will the U.S. be able to capitalize off the projected increase in popularity of tennis in Asia.

It will be interesting to see what changes occur in the Grand Slams over the next ten years.

 

USTA LCB Mandates now Include Some 12U Players

horvath Leave a comment

Thanks to a mandate of the USTA/Colorado Player Development Committee, 12U players in satellite events must play their tournament matches with the green dot low compression balls (LCBs).   Most teaching professionals agree that LCBs and graduated tennis racquets are valuable teaching tools for some entry level players. For younger players, the shorter and lighter racquets are easier to control. Shorter players may find it easier to hit balls in the hitting zone because the balls travel slower and bounces lower. USTA officials claim this combination helps players develop good footwork and better strokes and learn how to be patient, construct points, and develop strategies.

To date, the limited research on LCBs does not show that graduated racquets or LCBs help players learn the game more quickly; however, anecdotal evidence suggests it makes the learning process more fun and less frustrating. Most will agree that LCBs are a useful teaching tool for some players.

From a business perspective, LCBs are valuable only if players continue to play the sport after their introduction to it. There is no evidence to prove this is the case and some anecdotal evidence suggests LCBs have had no impact on participation.

Highlights from a local early season junior tournament follow:

  • The host facility had a strong 10U instructional program, yet there were not enough entrants for a 10U tournament/play day. This was the case for most of last season.
  • There were eight players in the 12U girls’ satellite event, including two open players from the state’s junior excellence program. All participants had previously played for the past year or more with real tennis balls.
  • The LCBs bounced inconsistently. On multiple occasions, shots that were hit with medium pace to midcourt often did not carry to the baseline.
  • The LCBs performed erratically in the wind and in temperatures below 50 degrees.
  • Because the ball bounced inconsistently, carried a shorter distance, and had a lower trajectory, players frequently had to lunge to hit the ball or hit it at knee level or lower. Frequently, they would push the ball because they were out of position to hit it properly.
  • As well, players began trying to hit the ball short as a means of winning points – a tactic that doesn’t work with real tennis balls.
  • Players who could hit a real tennis ball with spin had difficulty hitting the LCBs with spin.
  • Players tended to over swing on their groundstrokes because they were not able to put the ball away. This is counterproductive to development of good strokes and winning strategies.

The current USTA mandates regarding the use of LCBs for 10U and 12U satellite events are hopefully well intended.  Time will tell if the LCB mandates will “grow the game” or if they will “grow the list of failed USTA mandates.”

Title IX – Opportunities for Men and Women Tennis Coaches

horvath Leave a comment

The adoption of Title IX in 1972 created opportunities for women athletes and coaches.

Currently, 8 of the 11 head coaches in the PAC 12 women’s’ tennis programs are female. The USC, Oregon, and Utah programs have male head coaches and Oregon State is the lone school without a tennis program.

Four of the 10 assistant coaches are female and 2 of the 6 volunteer coaches are female. Overall 14 of the 27 coaches for women’s’ teams are female.

It is a much different story with the men. There are 8 schools with programs (OSU, WSU, CU, and ASU do not have men’s programs.)  All 23 coaches (head, assistant, and volunteer) are males.  This is a bit surprising, given there are qualified women who are capable of coaching men.

Given there are differences in coaching men and women, it makes sense that a majority of the head coaches are female. The fact that a majority of the assistant and volunteer coaches are male is an indication that men have learned the subtleties of coaching women.  It is also an indication that

there is a larger labor pool of male coaches and teaching professionals than women. Finally, many head coaches, including women head coaches, prefer to have men on their staffs because they can hit the ball harder in workouts with the women players.

Overall, the PAC 12 ratio of male to female coaches is 72% men/28% women. This is not significantly different from the male/female ratio of the teaching/coaching profession. The good news is that because of Title IX, more qualified women coaches are working in coaching positions and more men have become qualified to coach women.

Are Women’s College Coaches Looking for Mercenaries to Fill Their Tennis Rosters?

horvath 1 Comment

Right or wrong, PAC 12 women’s tennis coaches are looking outside their state to fill their tennis rosters.

The short report “Gender of Coaches and Residence of Players – PAC 12 Tennis 2013” looked at the rosters of PAC schools during the month of April 2013 and found that 32.7% of the players were in-state. Of the 101 players, 26.7% were out-of-state and the remaining 40.6% were foreign players.

A majority of the USC and Stanford players were in-state (8 of 11 and 7 of 8). Four schools did not have any in-state players, including both Washington schools, Arizona, and Oregon. ASU only had 1 in-state player.

Stanford had no foreign players and USC only had one player from out of the country.  More than half the players on the Arizona, Oregon, California, Washington, and WSU teams were from foreign countries.

For a similar analysis on men’s tennis go to the post “Are There Too Many Hired Guns in Men’s College Tennis?“

Are There Too Many Hired Guns in Men’s College Tennis?

horvath 1 Comment

The short report “” evaluates whether PAC 12 schools are bringing in “hired guns” to make their men’s tennis programs successful. The analysis evaluated rosters published on athletic websites in April 2013.

Only 8 schools in the PAC 12 had men’s programs (ASU, CU, OSU, and WSU did not have men’s programs).  Of the 88 players listed on the rosters, 32 players, or 36.4%, were in-state and 17 players, or 19.3%, were out-of-state.  In other words, 55.7% of the players were Americans and 44.3% were from other countries.

All schools had at least 1 in-state player. Only UCLA and California players had 50% or more in-state players.   Stanford and Washington had the least number of foreign players (3 of 13 and 3 of 11). At least half of the USC, Oregon, Arizona, and Utah players were from other countries.

Clearly, most men’s programs (at least in the PAC 12) look outside their state to find players to build their program. The effectiveness of this tactic might be debatable in situations where programs need to build local fan or alumni support.

For a similar analysis on women’s tennis go to the post “Are Women’s Tennis Coaches Looking for Mercenaries to Fill Their Rosters?”