Stanford and California Atop ITA 2016 Women’s Rankings

The May 25th season-ending Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) women’s team rankings (http://www.itatennis.com/) saw Stanford and California at the top of the polls. Both schools are from the PAC-12.

The SEC conference had three top ten teams – Florida, Vanderbilt, and Georgia. The ACC also had two teams in the top 10, North Carolina and Miami.

Six of the top 10 teams moved up in the rankings compared to the January 5th rankings, two remained in the same position, and two teams fell in the rankings but remained in the top 10.

By the end of the season, USC, Virginia, UCLA, and Texas A&M had fallen out of the top 10 rankings (January 5th).

May 25, 2016 Ranking January 5, 2016 ranking School Conference
1 8 Stanford PAC-12
2 6 California PAC-12
3 3 University of Florida SEC
4 tie-4 North Carolina ACC
5 1 Vanderbilt University SEC
6 18 Ohio State University Big 10
7 tie-4 University of Georgia SEC
8 12 Oklahoma State University Big 12
9 19 Pepperdine WCC
10 13 University of Miami (Florida) ACC

As expected there was minimal movement in the singles rankings between January 5th and June 1st, with a couple of exceptions.

June 1, 2016 ranking January 5, 2016 Ranking Player School Conference
1 4 Danielle Collins Virginia ACC
2 6 Hayley Carter North Carolina ACC
3 14 Luisa Stefani Pepperdine WCC
4 2 Francesca Di Lorenzo Ohio State Big 10
5 12 Ellen Perez University of Georgia SEC
6 7 Sinead Lohan University of Miami (Florida) ACC
7 16 Breaunna Addison Texas Big 12
8 11 Brooke Austin Florida ACC
9 5 Maegan Manasse California PAC-12
10 9 Stephanie Wagner University of Miami (Florida) ACC

The following players fell out of the top 10 rankings over the course of the season:
• In the January 5th poll, Joana Eidukonyte, Clemson, was ranked first; she finished the season in the 30th position.
• Belinda Woolcock of Florida was ranked 3rd on January 5th, but fell to 15th by the end of the season.
• Julia Elbaba, Virginia, was ranked 8th at the start of the season and dropped to 13th.
• Finally Klara Fabikova, California, began the season ranked 10th and finished in the 16th position.

The ACC dominated the top 10 singles rankings with 5 players. Miami had two players ranked in the top 10.

The results of this year’s team and individual tournaments were interesting in the sense that the number one team in the country Stanford only had one singles player ranked in the top 25. Carol Zhao was ranked 24th.

Having strong depth is much different than having the top players in the country. Some teams have depth, some have strong players, and a few have both. That is what makes college tennis so exciting.

2016 Colorado High School Girls Tennis Season Around the Corner

Every year the Colorado high school spring sports season kicks off in mid to late February 29. For tennis fans that means about 4,500 girls will be hitting the courts in 150 locations. The boys are lucky. Their season is in the fall.

More precisely, the NFHS reported that 4,552 girls played on 153 teams during the 2014-2015 Colorado high school girls season. Despite the popularity of tennis, the number of participants has tapered off since a peak in 2008-2009. That season there were 151 programs and a peak of 4,901 participants.

The varsity season can be summed up as follows:
• The varsity season spans 59 days with a starting date of February 29th and an end date of April 27th, the final day of the regional tournament.
• There are 38 school days during the season and there are 21 scheduled off days. There will be 31 days of matches and practices and 28 days of unscheduled and scheduled off days.
• During the season, there are approximately 29 hours spent in practice and 21 hours spent in competition.

Colorado High School Girls Tennis

More specifically, the activity for the varsity season can be classified in four categories: competition, practice, unscheduled off days, scheduled off-days.
• Competition (matches and tournaments) CHSAA restricts the number of tournaments and matches that teams can play.
― It is estimated that players will play 4 matches in 3 days of tournaments. Those four matches will each last 1.5 hours per match. Athletes will play 6 hours in tournament competition during the season.
― It is estimated that players will play 10 days of dual matches. The average time of each match will be 1.5 hours. Approximately 15 hours will spend playing dual matches.
― The total time spent in competition is 21 hours.
• Practice and challenge matches – Coaches will plan to have 25 days for practice and challenge matches. In a best case scenario they will get 18 days for these activities.
― It is assumed the team will spend 3 days playing challenge matches or mini-matches to determine the lineup. During this time, a player will play 3 matches/mini matches. On average each of the 3 matches will take 1 hour, for a total of 3 hours.
― The team will have 15 days of practice scheduled for 2 hours. In a best case scenario a team will practice for 1.75 hours on those 15 days for a total of about 26 hours.
― The total time on court is about 29 hours. This is a best case scenario.
• Unscheduled off-days – As previously mentioned, coaches plan for 25 days of practice and challenge matches. Inevitably, there are at least 7 days where no time is spent on the court.
― The biggest challenge facing spring sports is the weather. There is usually at least 5 days where there is inclement weather. During some years this number may approach 10 days.
― There will be at least 2 days for school-related activities where no tennis is played. This includes photo days or unforeseen events. Sometimes coaches will give the team time off after they have played back-to-back matches. Other coaches give players the Friday off before Spring break.
― This estimate projects there will be 7 days when players are involved in non-scheduled activities. That number may be as high as 12 days.
• Scheduled off-days – During this 59-day period there are 21 scheduled off-days.
― There are 5 days for spring break.
― There are 16 weekend days.

The total on-court activity is 50 hours during the 59 day season. This breakdown is similar at many of the top schools and will vary based on the weather, qualifications of the coach, budget, and the number of players and courts.

It is great that girls have an opportunity to play in a high school tennis program. At the same time it is a challenge for high school athletic departments to make the program meaningful for the athletes given that most programs face significant budgetary and facility challenges and the fact the athletes have limited time in competition and practice while they are in the program.

Some Parents Just Don’t Get It!

A majority of parents who support their kids at sporting events understand it is essential to follow the rules and etiquette of the sport their kids are playing.

Unfortunately, some parents just don’t get it! The following situation illustrates that point with parents Mr. and Mrs. D and daughter D.

Recently two 14-year old girls were enjoying the challenges of a competitive first round match in a small tennis tournament. Daughter D won the first set 7-5, after being down 4-2. In the second set daughter D took a commanding 5-2 lead.

Mr. D was ready to break out the cigar and the bubbly. Suddenly, the score was 5-5 and Mr. and Mrs. D began verbalizing about how his daughter’s opponent was making bad line calls against daughter D. The couple couldn’t accept the fact that daughter D was being outplayed by her opponent.

Mr. and Mrs. D were making their claim about bad line calls from their lawn chairs perched on the on the clubhouse porch. Their vantage point was such that they were looking into the sun and passing judgment on line calls that were being made two courts away.

Suddenly the score was 6-6 and daughter D decided to take a bathroom break prior to the second-set tiebreaker. (If the girls would have split sets, a tiebreaker would have been played for the match, in lieu of a third set). In other words, a case could be made that the request for a potty break was gamesmanship and not a legitimate request.

When Mr. D saw his daughter heading off the court he immediately moved to the general area of the bathrooms. He waited for daughter D and coached her prior to her going into the restroom and after she came out.

Some parents just don't get it!

Much to Mr. and Mrs. D’s delight daughter D returned to the court and won the tiebreaker. While the two girls were solid players, there was nothing Mr. D. could have said that would have helped his daughter. The bottom line was that she wasn’t good enough to convert anyone’s words of wisdom into action on the court in a way that could make a difference in the match.

The score of the match is irrelevant. The real outcome was that Mr. and Mrs. D taught daughter D a lesson that gamesmanship and illegal coaching are an acceptable part of the sport of tennis.

Some parents just don’t get it!

American Women Dominate Australian Open

At the dawn of the Open era for tennis, the best women players were Australian. For example there were 6 Aussies, 1 Brit, and 1 Swede in the quarterfinals of the 1970 Australian Open.

Looking at the quarterfinalists for the Women’s Australian Open in five-year increments from 1970 to 2015 (see chart below), it can be seen that the depth of the women’s field improved and the range of countries increased. There are 23 countries listed on the table. At the same time the number of elite players remained small and they dominated the sport – Williams sisters, Sharapova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez, Navratilova, and Evert.

In this snapshot the Americans had the highest number of quarterfinalists (20), followed by Australians (11). Interestingly enough, the American women did not become a force at the Australian Open until 1980. Since then, at least 2 American women have been in the quarterfinals. Most recently, 2015, there were three American women (Madison Keys and the Williams sisters).

It is worth noting the USSR, Russia, and Belarus also had a total of 11 quarterfinalists. Many think that Anna Kournikova was the first Russian/Soviet player to hit the scene. Because she was so popular it is easy to forget that there were a number of great Russian women players over the years.

The combination of the increased depth, greater number of countries represented, and marketing by the WTA have greatly increased the appeal and drawing power of women’s professional tennis.

For additional details on the Australian Open go to its website, http://www.ausopen.com/.

australian open

Lessons From a Bad Situation – Support Your Local Team

In May, 2006 the University of Colorado eliminated its men’s tennis program, the second time in a matter of years that a Colorado Division I school dropped its men’s tennis program. A small group of “supporters” irrationally responded to the rational, but unfortunate decision in a childish manner.

In fact, the protesters coerced the United States Tennis Association, Colorado Tennis Association, Intermountain Tennis Association, and the Intercollegiate Tennis Coaches Association to purchase a full-page ad in the Denver Post condemning the University of Colorado.

On May 31, 2006 Boulder Daily Camera sports writer Neil Woelk wrote an editorial addressing the situation. The text of that article follows.

Not only did Woelk explain the situation, he offered advice for Colorado sports fans. Unfortunately, Woelk’s words of wisdom issued 8 1/2 years ago have been ignored by ‘supporters’ of about every sport at the University of Colorado.

The bottom line – get out and support your local team, whether it is junior high, high school, college, or a university athletic program!

————————————————————————————-


‘Support’ for CU tennis program rings hollow

I’ve watched with interest-and, I admit, a measure of amusement-as the heretofore unknown support for the Colorado men’s tennis program has emerged.

The first question that comes to mind is a simple one: Where was all this support over the last 10 years? Where were all these alleged die-hard college tennis fans when the Buffs routinely played home matches in front of a handful-very small handful-of fans?

The answer, of course, is that they didn’t exist.

Fact is, few people cared about CU tennis-at least, not enough to send a few bucks to the program or actually attend a match now and then. Tennis matches and seasons came and went, and nobody noticed.

But now all of a sudden-in true Boulder fashion-we have a “cause”. Now, folks who had no interest in the program suddenly have an interest because it’s become a crisis situation with all the elements that make such causes attractive.

The big, bad athletic department-yes, the one that puts so much emphasis on football-is picking on the little guy. Football stays, tennis goes. The only thing that would have made the cause more attractive would have been prairie dogs playing tennis.

But ask yourself this: How much support for tennis was there prior to this?

Here’s an interesting tidbit: Just last year, CU officials went to the tennis community and asked for help in building an indoor practice facility for the men’s and women’s programs. Such a facility would not only have guaranteed the long-term survival of the sport at CU, but would have helped increase interest in the programs by integrating the community into the program. The interest then? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nobody cared. Nobody donated.

That was the first clue for CU officials that the Buff tennis programs weren’t exactly overflowing with supporters.

Not to say there aren’t a few ardent, bona fide boosters-just like there were a handful of wrestling, baseball, gymnastics and swimming boosters 26 years ago at CU. These folks are understandably upset. Something they love had been eliminated.

But now we have the entire tennis community-a relatively affluent demographic, by the way-up in arms because CU is eliminating something that only a few you paid attention to.

It’s similar to the little kid with the long-forgotten toy in the back of his closet. He never plays with it; in fact, he seldom remembers that it exists.

But when the decision is made to sweep the toy away, it’s temper-tantrum time-and this one is a doozy.

Now tennis supporters are self righteously threatening never to support CU again. They’re issuing press releases and buying advertising detailing how much CU will lose in the long term. At the same time, they’re leveling personal attacks on people who actually do care about CU student-athletes, an offensive mob-mentality reaction.

The irony here is that most of these folks threatening never to support CU again never supported CU in the past. Had those people cared before now, the situation never would have occurred.

But they didn’t support CU athletics. They didn’t care.

And now CU’s athletic department is faced with a difficult decision:

Keep all the current sports and watch each one gradually deteriorate; or, reduce the number of sports, shore up the financial problems, and do your best to keep the remaining sports competitive.

It’s not really a choice.

Today, organizers of the recent fundraising drive will argue that they had enough money in hand to keep the program afloat for another couple of years.  Actually they had enough money in hand to pay for approximately one-third of one year. The rest was in the form of pledges-not money in hand. Had AD Mike Bohn agreed to restore the program, the likelihood of being in the same position a year from now was very real.

Personally, I wish Bohn could have found a way not to cut the program. Such moves are always a sign of deeper problems-and Bohn inherited a department that is still reeling from mismanagement of the past regime. But Bohn was hired to clean up the mess, and he will be the one whose career is balanced on those decisions.

Now, as the athletic department prepares to present its budgets for the next fiscal year to the administration, it must prove that the department is doing his best to become viable again. It must present a business plan that presents sacrifices in some areas-and the cold, hard fact is that cutting a program is a sacrifice that must be made.

The hope is that at least some of the people who pledged to save tennis will maintain those pledges to help the other existing programs. That would be a strong statement.

It does not, however, mean that lessons from the situation can’t be learned:

• Years ago, CU officials-in their infinite wisdom-changed the rules and made it virtually impossible to support a specific program. Now, if you want to donate to athletics, your money goes to a general fund and is spent at CU’s discretion.

Reinstating the ability to donate to specific programs in some form would not be a bad idea-It might encourage coaches of the nonrevenue sports to be more proactive in the fund raising arena.

• Don’t wait for crisis mode to hit again.  Like volleyball? Take in a volleyball match now and then. Enjoy soccer? Check out the soccer team, and toss a few bucks to the scholarship fund, or donate to the general athletic department fund.

• And, as illogical as this may sound to some, one of the easiest ways to support tennis-volleyball, track, cross country, skiing or golf-is to buy a football ticket. Folks, football pays the bills. If football were the only sport in the athletic department, the department would be rolling in positive cash flow. Football is the ONLY revenue-generating sport in the department.

When Folsom Field is full, every other sport in the department benefits. If Folsom Field were sold out every Saturday this fall, CU’s financial worries would virtually disappear.

Don’t like football? Give the ticket to a friend. Donate it to charity.

But don’t wait until another crisis occurs. Don’t ignore a program if you actually do care.

And above all don’t complain when it’s too late.
————————————————————————————-

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL TEAM!

Tennis Scorekeepers

For many years, tennis facilities did not have portable tennis scorekeepers on each court. Since most play is recreational, club managers didn’t feel they were necessary. The reason for not including them was certainly not the cost. Depending on the model a scorekeeper is only $50 to $75 per unit.

The scorekeepers are ideal for league play and tournaments. In addition, they can be used for instructional drills. In many cases, they are even being used for recreational matches.

Their greatest value is for junior programs. For kids just learning to play the sport, the scorekeepers reduce the confusion of keeping score. As it turns out, most juniors do an excellent job posting the score correctly, particularly if they are winning.

The scorekeepers allow parents to be more engaged in the matches because they always know the score. They can easily follow multiple matches or keep track of the score when they are interrupted.

If you are a tennis player at a facility that does not have tennis scorekeepers, encourage the facility manager to make them available. Such a simple investment improves the tennis experience for the players and spectators alike.

tennis scorekeeper

 

Best College Tennis Players in Country Go Unnoticed in Boulder

The best college tennis players in the country recently went unnoticed in Boulder. The  city has a poor track record of supporting (watching) great sports performances.  Boulderites would rather play than watch – which isn’t all bad.

Over a 10 day period (March 14th to March 24th) Colorado tennis fans had an opportunity to see the future of American women’s professional tennis in Boulder as the 74th-ranked Lady Buffs tennis team played USC (12th), Cal (16th), UCLA (2), and Stanford (4). Eleven of the PAC-12 visiting opponents are currently in the top 30 of the ITA singles rankings.

Zoe Scandalis, #1 Player USC, against CU Buffs. Scandalis is one of the top college tennis players in the country.
Zoe Scandalis, #1 Player, University of Southern California, in match against CU Lady Buffs.

The USC powerhouse is led by #1 player Zoe Scandalis (see photo) and includes a group of 9 elite junior players from California and 1 player from Mississippi. All were highly-ranked junior players who participated in a variety of USTA programs.

On the other hand Cal’s team is comprised of a mix of accomplished American and International players. For example, Hungarian Zsofi Susanyi, #3 singles player, advanced to the singles finals at the 2009 Junior Wimbledon.

The Stanford team includes 5 Californians, two East Coast players, and a Canadian. Three of the six players (Krista Hardebeck, Carol Zhao, and Carolyn Doyle) played in various junior Grand Slams and Kristie Ahn, #1 player, played in the main draw of the U.S. Open.

UCLA is coached by Stella Sampras, older sister of Pete Sampras. All six Bruin players (Robin Anderson, Jennifer Brady, Catherine Harrison, Chanelle Van Nguyen, Kyle McPhillips, and Courtney Dolehide) played in multiple junior Grand Slam events. In addition, one player played in the main draw of the U.S. Open. All of the players except Dolehide are currently in the top 50 of the singles ITA rankings.

It is disappointing that there weren’t more people in attendance to watch some great college tennis by the Buffs and their opponents. (Average estimated attendance for the four matches was less than 200 people.)

It is an even greater travesty that the Colorado tennis community doesn’t give the Lady Buffs the ongoing support the team deserves!

 

 

What’s Coming Down the Pipeline for American Women’s Tennis?

For the past couple of years the American women have had respectable showings in the Grand Slam events, in large part due to the dominance of Serena Williams. What lies ahead for American women’s tennis when Serena retires? Is the USTA Player Development Program getting the job done?

On a positive note, there are more American players in the top 100 than any other country. Unfortunately, a closer look at the January 6, 2014 rankings shows that most of the American women are not in the upper echelon, i.e. only two are ranked in the top 25. Right or wrong, this creates the perception that the focus of the USTA Player Development program is on quantity rather than quality.

The American women, their age, and their ranking in the top 100 follow:

  • 1  Serena Williams, 32
  • 13  Sloane Stephens, 20
  • 28  Jamie Hampton, 24
  • 36  Madison Keys, 18
  • 38  Venus Williams, 33
  • 48  Bethanie Mattek-Sands, 28
  • 52  Varvara Lepchenko, 27
  • 55  Alison Riske, 23
  • 65  Christina McHale, 21
  • 67  Lauren Davis, 20
  • 71  Vania King, 20.

The average age of the players in the top 100 is slightly over 25 years old. Four of the American women are older than 25 and 7 are younger. The average age of the American players in the top 100 is 24 years old.

From a practical standpoint, an argument can be made that the younger players will become difference makers as the older players retire or their level of play drops off. If that argument holds, then the 7 American women below the mean are likely to move up and those above the mean will move on.

This viewpoint is supported by the data. Statistically there is a slightly negative correlation between the ranking of the top 100 women players and their age. In other words, the higher ranked players are older and the lower ranked players are younger (see chart below).

Thirty of the top 100 players are 27 years old or older and 9 are in the top 25. Of the 4 Americans in this age group, Serena Williams is the only one in the top 25.

Twenty of the top 100 players are either 25 or 26 and 7 are in the top 25. No Americans are in this age category.

In other words, there are good players at all levels, but 16 of the players are at least 25 years old. For the younger players, the good news is that most will move on in the next 5 years.

The remaining 50 players in the top 100 are less than 25 years old. Nine of them are currently in the top 25. Their rank and age are listed below:

  • 2 Victoria Azarenka, 24.5
  • 5 Agnieszka Radwanska, 24.9
  • 6 Petra Kvitova, 23.8
  • 10 Caroline Wozniacki, 23.5
  • 11 Simona Halep, 22.3
  • 13  Sloane Stephens, 20.8
  • 15 Sabine Lisicki, 24.3
  • 21 Dominka Cibulkova, 24.7
  • 22 Sirana Cirstea, 23.8

Stephens is the only American in that top group of players. Keys and Hampton are in the top 50.

Currently the top American women under age 25 (Stephens, Hampton, Keys, Riske, McHale, Davis, and King) will face tough competition if they are to become elite players. In addition to the above mentioned names, they will be challenged by Alize Cornet, France; Mona Barthel, Germany; Urszula Radwanska, Poland; Laura Robson, United Kingdom; Annika Beck, Germany; and Eugenie Bouchard, Canada. Spain, Germany, Eastern Europe, and Russia have excellent junior development programs and the popularity of Li Na is expected to create increased competition from China and other parts of Asia.

It is interesting and entertaining to speculate about who the next great American women players will be. Some of the young Americans will win Grand Slam events, but most will be top-ranked players.

Age of ranking WTA players - Is the USTA player development program getting the job done?
Age of Ranking WTA Players.

Time will tell!

 

 

Age Breakdown of Sports Participants

Recreation departments, sports manufacturers and retailers, coaching and trade associations, and athletic departments are interested in the age breakdown of sports participants. This information helps them develop customized equipment, services, programs, and coaching techniques to the sports participants in each age group. As well, age breakdown information provides valuable marketing insight that is used to promote goods, services, and the various sports.

The U.S. Statistical Abstract publishes sports participation levels by age groups using National Sporting Goods Association data. The 2012 publication provides 2009 NSGA information.

Key findings from the data show:

  • Soccer, baseball, basketball, and volleyball are predominantly youth sports.
  • Swimmers are split between two groups. Almost 42% are under 25 and about 45% are in the 25 to 54 age category.
  • Almost 57% of tennis players are in the 25 to 54 age group. A small percentage of tennis players are over the age of 55.
  • The breakdown of alpine skiers is similar to tennis; however, there are a higher percentage of older skiers than tennis players.
  • The sports of aerobic exercising, yoga, exercising with equipment, golf, and exercise walking have the highest percentage of older participants and the lowest percentage of youth participants. For each of these sports the percentage of participants in the 25 to 54 age category is between 54% and 65%.

sports participants

Sports Participation Rates by Gender

From a business perspective it is important to understand the breakdown of sports participation rates by gender. This information can be used for everything from developing equipment and coaching techniques that are gender specific to marketing goods and services to the players and teams.

The U.S. Statistical Abstract publishes sports participation rates by gender using National Sporting Goods Association data. The 2012 publication provides 2009 NSGA information.

Overall, the split between participants in all sports and leisure activities measured by NSGA is 49.1% male and 50.9% female. This is similar to the gender breakdown for the U.S. population.

The data shows the following sports have a higher percentage of male participants:

  • Baseball
  • Golf
  • Basketball
  • Alpine skiing
  • Soccer
  • Tennis.

On the other hand, the following sports have a higher percentage of female participants:

  • Exercising with equipment
  • Swimming
  • Volleyball
  • Exercise walking
  • Aerobic exercising
  • Yoga.

More current information will be available in the 2013 Statistical Abstract or it can be purchased from NSGA; however, variances from the 2009 data are likely to be minimal.