Tag: Tennis

Is Tennis Really a Lifetime Sport?

horvath Leave a comment

For many years the tennis industry has marketed itself as a lifetime sport.

Data produced by the National Sporting Goods Association shows that about 28% of tennis players are juniors, 7 to 17 years in age.

Many stop playing when they graduate from high school or college and enter the workforce. Only about 9.0% of tennis players are between the ages of 18 and 24.

Once they become more settled they again pick up their racquets or start playing for the first time. Almost 57% of the players are between the ages of 25 and 54.

Only 7.0% of players are 55 years old or greater.

When a comparison is made between the age categories for tennis and all sports and leisure activities, it is apparent that tennis is not a lifetime sport. Essentially, fewer players participate when they reach their 50s.

Is tennis a lifetime sport? It is a great sport and it can be played long after a person graduates from high school or college. Given the data, it may be a stretch to call it a lifetime sport .

lifetime sport
Is tennis really a lifetime sport?

Hope and Change – American Men Out with a Whimper at U.S. Open

horvath Leave a comment

Hope and change were on the minds of the 15 American men who entered the 2013 U.S. Open. There was hope their fortunes would change and they would have a better outing than in previous Grand Slams.

Unfortunately, the American men combined to win 11 matches while losing 15. In the first round there were 8 winners. The 7 first-round losers included:

  • Brian Baker
  • Steve Johnson
  • James Blake
  • Michael Russell
  • Collin Attamirano
  • Rhyne Williams
  • Ryan Harrison.

There was hope that James Blake would end his 13 year career by playing deep into the draw. Unfortunately, he lost a five-set match in the first round. Though he was never a Grand Slam winner, he was a world class competitor and a great representative of U.S. tennis. He will be missed.

Second round (round of 64) losers included:

  • Rajeev Ram
  • Donald Young
  • Denis Kudia
  • Bradley Klahn
  • Sam Querrey

Only three men moved to the third round (round of 32).

Third round losers included Tim Smyczek, Jack Sock, and John Isner. In other words, no American men advanced to the round of 16.

For the second consecutive Grand Slam the American men went out with a whimper.

If there is to be hope for improvement in American men’s tennis, it will be necessary for change to occur in the philosophy and management of the USTA Player’s Development program.

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 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?“

Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?

horvath Leave a comment

Spin is essential in the sport of tennis, both on and off the court.

For the past two months, the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) has been releasing information from the most recent annual TIA/USTA industry study. Like most sectors of the economy, the tennis industry felt the pain of the Great Recession. Unfortunately, the recovery has closely resembled the bounce of a dead tennis ball on a cold day.

The tennis industry has been in a mature stage since the end of the short-lived 1975 tennis boom.  Given the tradition of the sport and its global appeal, it seems reasonable to expect participation in the sport grow at a rate equal to or slightly greater than changes in the population.

Between 1999 and 2012 the tennis population expanded at a slower rate than the overall population. This would infer that Initiatives to generate interest in the sport may have prevented a decline or slower rate of growth; however, they have clearly failed to “grow the game” at or above the rate of population growth.

The tennis industry closely follows the Pareto Principle. Frequent players, those who play 21 times a year or more, account for about 70% of total spending and 17% to 25% of all players. Since 1999, this segment of the tennis population has declined, a sign that long-term efforts to “grow the game” in this critical area have not been successful.

Regular/casual players are responsible for about 30% of the total spending. Since 1999 this group has made up 75% to 83% of total players. Initiatives to generate interest in regular/casual players have had a minimal impact on long-term net increases in participation.

The growth of the tennis industry, as measured by the TEII, has been about half that of Nominal Personal Consumption and GDP for the period 2003 to 2012. The volatility of the global economy has created a challenging environment for the sport’s manufacturers and service providers.

It seems so simple looking on from the outside. Industry leaders need to develop strategies to effectively fix the problem in four areas:

  1. Retain and increase the number of frequent players. This is the easy part – Frequent players already know the merits of tennis. They simply have to be given compelling reasons to keep doing what they love to do.
  2. Convert regular player into frequent players. Again, regular players have a passion for the game. Teaching professionals should create reasons to keep them engaged. Like the age-old bumper sticker said, “Think Globally, Act Locally.”
  3. Create enough excitement about the sport that casual players turn into regular players. The onus for making this happen lies with the tennis professionals.
  4. Strategically introduce players to the game.

For a full review of the latest TIA data, without the spin, read, “Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?“

TIA Study Shows That Industry Lost Market Share, but Participation Trends Upwards

horvath Leave a comment

In December 2012 the TIA and USTA released its annual survey showing that tennis participation topped 28 million in 2012 for the first time since 2009. On the bright side, the sport appears to be making a comeback. On the down side, the sport lost market share in a big way. In 2009 the U.S. population was 306.8 million and in 2012 it had grown to 313.9 million, an increase of 7.1 million people.

There is good news when you look at different market segments.

Efforts to promote junior tennis appear to have paid off. Players in the 6 to 11 age category increased by 13% compared to 2011. Wholesale shipments of the red, orange, and green tennis balls (junior balls) were up significantly in 2012.

Hopefully, 2013 will be the year the USTA finally gets it right regarding 10U tennis.  Currently, the sport’s governing body mandates that 10U players cannot play in higher age divisions and they are required to play on the smaller courts with the lighter balls. On one hand the industry is taking steps to engage junior players in the game, while on the other hand the ego-driven policies of the USTA are taking steps to kill that growth.

On a positive note, there was an uptick in the number of “frequent” tennis players to 5.3 million in 2012, the same as in 2007.
2007 5.3 million players
2008 5.6 million players
2009 5.4 million players
2010 4.8 million players
2011 4.8 million players
2012 5.3 million players.
Industry experts have indicated that this group of players accounts for about 70% of total spending in the industry.

Finally, the TIA reported strong growth in both the rejoining and continuing players.

Like most industries, tennis was hit hard by the Great Recession. While it is great news that the sport is rebounding, it is frustrating to realize that that sport continues to lose market share overall.

 

Do Your Kids Receive Specific Instructions from Their Coaches?

horvath Leave a comment

With the fall sports season in full swing, parents have an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of their children’s coaches. Specifically, do the coaches give succinct directions?

The following examples differentiate between instructions that are not specific and those that are.

Example 1: Volleyball passes that are too low and off target.

The non-specific coach: “Come on girls, get those passes higher and to the setter!”
Result: The players shanked the next six passes before going back to their old pattern of off-target passes.

The specific coach: “Girls let’s hit 20-10 sets to the middle? Do you understand what I mean when I say 20-10?”
Result: The back row players answered, “No.” The coach said, “Make your passes 20 feet high or about 2-3 times the height of the net. They should land on the 10 foot line in the middle of the court so the setter can get to them easily. The specific instructions helped the players improve the direction, depth, and height of their passes.”

Example 2: Erratic passes (volleyball) caused by players being too upright

The non-specific coach: “Come on girls, get lower to return those serves!”
Result: Minimal long-term change in the quality of service returns.

The specific coach: “By being balanced and getting lower you will be in position to make better passes. There are two visuals that may help illustrate how low a player may need to be when returning serve. First, bend your knees much like you do when you are sitting on the edge of a bench. Another way to think of getting low is to bend your knees so that you see all of your opponent’s court while looking under the net.”
Result: These guidelines provide checkpoints for the players that will ensure more consistent passing.

Example 3: Hit tennis lobs that keep the opponents off balance

The non-specific coach: “Okay guys, mix up your lobs.”
Result: Players have mixed results as they experiment with “mixing up their lobs”.

The specific coach: “There are several ways to make it more difficult for opponents to hit effective overheads. One way is to hit lobs so the opponent has to move in two directions to hit the ball. More specifically, make them move both backwards and at least two steps to either their forehand or backhand sides. An even simpler way to look at it is to lob over your opponents’ backhand side.
Result: By having a purpose for each lob, the backcourt player hits a higher percentage of effective lobs.”

Example 4: Serve to one of three locations to develop a more effective tennis serve
The non-specific coach: “Okay guys, keep your opponents off balance with your serve.”
Result: Players may try a number of ways to keep their opponents off balance such as changing technique or altering pace and spin.

The specific coach: “Hit your serve to one of three zones: the outside corner, at the server’s body, or to the inside corner to keep your opponent off balance. For example, taller players may be able to reach balls hit to the outside corners, while they may have difficulty returning balls hit at their body. You may need to practice to do this effectively in both the deuce and ad court.”
Results: In this case, specific instructions provide the server with target areas for service practice. As well, the directions provide tactical guidelines for match play.

Do your kids’ receive specific directions from their coaches?

If you aren’t sure, ask your kids the following questions:
• Does your coach communicate in a way that helps you understand exactly what to do in drills, practices sessions, or game situations?
• Does your coach provide you with specific instructions for improving?
• If not, do you ask questions about what the coach means specific to your abilities? For example, specifically what does the coach mean when he/she says, “mix up your serve?”
• Does the coach use keys, single words, or short phrases to concisely convey a key message? Keys for the above examples might include:
o 10-20 pass
o Get low and look under the net
o Lob over the backhand
o Inside corner, body, or outside corner
If you don’t have keys, ask your coach to help you develop keys.
• Do you let your coaches know when their concise instructions help you understand a concept, technique, tactic, or how to correct a mistake? For example, the player might say, “By following your advice, I won three points in the first set by lobbing over the backhand side”.
• Do you ask your coach for clarification when specific directions are not given?

Quality coaching requires a coach who provides specific directions and players who communicate about the effectiveness of those directions. Top notch players and coaches are first-rate communicators.

 

Another Weak Performance by American Men in a Grand Slam

horvath Leave a comment

The U.S. men posted another weak performance in the final Grand Slam of 2012. Of the 128 men entered in the U.S. Open, 20 were Americans. Only two made it to the round of 16.

The 2012 event was noteworthy because of the lousy weather, the retirement of Andy Roddick, (America’s top player for much of the past decade), and someone other than Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal won the event (Andy Murray).

The singles results for Americans are listed below.

Round of 128
The 20 U.S. men players had a strong start – 12 wins and 8 losses. While all players are incredibly gifted athletes, only Roddick and possibly Fish, Blake, and Isner have limited name recognition in the U.S.
• Winners – Mardy Fish, Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, Tim Smyczek, Brian Baker, John Isner, Bradley Klahn, Steve Johnson, Ryan Harrison, Andy Roddick, and Dennis Novikov.
• Losers – Donald Young, Robby Ginepri, Michael Russell, Denis Kudia, Bobby Reynolds, Rajeev Ram, Rhyne Williams, and Jesse Levine.

Round of 64
The American players continued their winning ways in the second round – 7 wins and 5 losses.
• Winners – Mardy Fish, Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, John Isner, Steve Johnson, and Andy Roddick.
• Losers – Tim Smyczek, Brian Baker, Bradley Klahn, Ryan Harrison, and Dennis Novikov.

Round of 32
At the Australian Open 1 of 11 American men made it to the round of 32, while none of 8 American men made it to the round of 32 at the French Open. Four made it to the round of 32 at Wimbledon. Seven Americans were in the round of 32 at the U.S. Open. (It is hard to believe that reaching the round of 32 is now considered a milestone for American men’s tennis players).

The 5 American men had 2 wins and 3 losses.
• Winners – Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick.
• Losers – Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, John Isner, and Steve Johnson.

Round of 16
Both players bowed out in the round of 16, although Fish withdrew for medical reasons.
• Losers – Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick.

At Wimbledon, the 12 American men won 14 matches and lost 12.
At the French Open, the 8 American men won 3 matches and lost 8.
At the Australian Open, the 11 American men won 7 matches and lost 11.
At the U.S. Open, the 20 American men won 12 matches and lost 20.

For the 2012 Grand Slam season, the American men won 36 matches and lost 51.

The outlook for American men’s tennis is bleak with the combination of Roddick’s retirement, the less than stellar performance of the other American men and the dismal results of the junior boys. The results of the American men at this year’s Grand Slam singles tournaments raises a question about the return on investment of the millions of dollars spent by the USTA on player development.