Tag: United States Tennis Association

U.S. Open 2013 – Serena Delivers Again

horvath Leave a comment

There were high expectations for the American women at the 2013 U.S. Open.

  • Would Serena continue to dominate?
  • Was Venus capable of advancing in the singles bracket?
  • Would Sloane Stephens continue to make her mark on the big stage?
  • Would other up and coming players (Madison Keys, Victoria Duval, Jamie Hampton, Mallory Burdette, or Sachia Vickery) have a breakthrough tournament?

The American women had a solid start as 10 of the 19 women won first round matches. First-round losers included:

  • Grace Min
  • Mallory Burdette
  • Nicole Gibbs
  • Maria Sanchez
  • Varvara Lepchenko
  • Lauren Davis
  • Vania King
  • Madison Keys
  • Shelby Rogers

Half of the remaining women advanced to the second round (64). Second-round losers included:

  • Sachia Vickery
  • Victoria Duval
  • Venus Williams
  • Coco Vandeweghe
  • Bethanie Mattek-Sands

Five women advanced.

Jamie Hampton and Christina McHale were the only two women to lose in the third round (32).

Three women advanced.

In the round of 16 Serena Williams thumped Sloane Stephens and Daniela Hantuchova ended Alison Riske’s unexpected run.

Williams was also convincing in her quarterfinal and semifinal matches. Her only challenge came from Victoria Azarenka in the finals. Williams captured her fifth U.S. Open and 17th Grand Slam.

Combined, the American women won 22 matches and lost 18. In 2013 Williams was virtually unbeatable in the Grand Slams, but her days as the top women’s player are numbered. But there is hope for the American women. Despite losing badly to Williams, Stephens showed she is a player to be reckoned with and Riske showed potential.

The next generation of Grand Slam champions and WTA frontrunners includes a group of talented young American women. Unfortunately, it also includes a group of equally talented women from other countries who will be vying for the top spots.

 

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.

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.

 

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.”

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.

 

Performance of U.S. Men and Boys at Australian Open was (You Fill in the Blank)

horvath Leave a comment

Ho hum! The Men’s bracket of the Australian Open was just another win by the Big Three.

In 2003 Roger Federer won Wimbledon and Andy Roddick won the U.S. Open, this was Federer’s first Grand Slam title and the last time an American man won a Grand Slam. Since then Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 9 of 10 Australian Opens, 8 of 9 French Opens, 10 of 10 Wimbledons, and 7 of 10 U.S. Opens – combined they have won 34 of the last 39 Grand Slams.

The performance by the American men and junior boys was (you fill in the blank).

Men’s Open

Overall the 8 American men were 6-8 at the Australian Open.

First Round

Ryan Harrison, Sam Querry, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram won their first round matches.

Michael Russell, Steve Johnson, and Rhyne Williams lost in the first round.

Second Round

Sam Querry won his second round match.

Ryan Harrison, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram lost their second round matches.

Third Round

Sam Querry lost his third round match.

The age and world ranking of the American men who participated in the Australian Open are listed below (source: Australian Open website).

  • Sam Querry, 26, ranked 22.
  • Brian Baker, 28, ranked 57.
  • Ryan Harrison, 21, ranked 64.
  • Michael Russell, 35, ranked 94.
  • Tim Symczek, 26, ranked 125.
  • Rajeev Ram, 29, ranked 130.
  • Steve Johnson, 24, ranked 175.
  • Rhyne Williams, 22, ranked 194.

There isn’t a club player in the United States who would love to play as well as these 8 players. Unfortunately, the top American men are not elite players.

Junior Boys

Overall the 3 junior boys were 1-3.

First Round

Mackenzie MacDonald won his match and Martin Redlicki and Thai-Son Kwiatkowski lost their matches.

Second Round

Mackenzie MacDonald lost his match.

The ITF rankings show there are 4 American junior boys ranked in the top 20 junior boys and 6 in the top 50. Kwiatkowski has the highest ranking at #14. MacDonald is ranked 17th and Redlicki is ranked 45th.

Over the past 25 years, the USTA has spent millions of dollars on player development. The results of this and other tournaments suggest that has been a (you fill in the blank) investment.

 

The Significance of the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference

horvath Leave a comment

The bright lights of the City, free tickets to the U.S. Open, and a chance to hang out with leaders in the tennis industry blinded participants about the message the USTA delivered at the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference.

American professional tennis was at a turning point. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Chris Evert were near the end of their careers. Andre Agassi had just turned pro, Pete Sampras was a teenager, Jennifer Capriati was 11, Venus Williams was 7, and Andy Roddick was 5. The future of American tennis was actually bright, but it wasn’t evident at the time.

The top players were groomed by professionals and coaches such as Harry Hopman and Robert Lansdorp. Other players trained at academies, such as those run by Rick Macci and Nick Bolleteri. The United States was home to the best coaches in the world and the top American players trained with them.

Because the strength of the American high performance coaches wasn’t fully appreciated, there was a belief that more and better American champions could be developed if the process was formalized. As a result, featured speakers at the 1987 conference included officials from the Swedish and German tennis federations. They were invited to discuss what they were doing to produce such great champions as Boris Becker, Steffi Graf, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Stefan Edberg.

Admittedly, it was inspiring to hear the success stories about the German and Swedish players. Attendees left the sessions nodding their heads that the future of American professional tennis was in dire straits and the USTA was going to “save American tennis” by developing a high performance program modeled after the German and Swedish programs.

In short, there was one significant difference between the German, Swedish, and American programs. The foreign federations controlled all aspects of the sport. That included oversight of a formal network of training centers where high performance players received coaching, an approach that seemed reasonable given the size of their countries (Germany is slightly smaller than Montana and Sweden is slightly larger than California). In the U.S. an informal network of high performance programs existed, but they were not centralized under the USTA.

To the casual observer, it appeared the USTA had performed due diligence by reviewing the best practices of the Swedes and Germans. In retrospect, that was a naive view of the situation, particularly given the fact humility has never been a strength of the USTA. The headline speakers at the conference should have been the top American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors. The 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference would have been the perfect place for them to talk about the juniors in the pipeline and how the knowledge of the coaches could have been coordinated to ensure that American tennis remained at the top.

In hindsight, it is obvious that USTA officials were clearly aware of the best practices of the Swedes and the Germans when they invited them to speak. They simply used the 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference as a coming out party to announce their intent to have a greater presence in all aspects of the sport. From an economic perspective their motive was to create a monopoly in high performance coaching and it was time for the American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors to get in line with the USTA’s way of thinking. The number of top ten players developed by the USTA’s Player Development program since 1987 defines the effectiveness of the program.

 

The End of an Era at the USPTA – Bad News or an Opportunity?

horvath Leave a comment

This past year marked the end of an era at the USPTA (United States Professional Tennis Association) when Tim Heckler stepped down as CEO. Heckler’s departure will be a major loss to tennis because of his vision, respect within the industry, ability to work with all organizations, and commitment to represent the viewpoints of all members, even those he disagreed with. Under Heckler’s leadership, the organization truly set the standards by which the sport was taught.

It is fully recognized that John Embree, the new USPTA CEO, is a capable man and a proven leader, but it remains to be seen whether he can garner the support of all 17 divisions. For the past two years, some of the association’s elected leaders have been so focused on creating change they have failed to develop and communicate a vision for the future. It is the membership, i.e. Executive Committee, not the CEO who provides the direction for the association. It will be Embree’s job to work with the divisions to fulfill the wishes of the membership. Good luck!

There are a number of challenges to be faced in the months ahead. Some of the questions that must be answered are listed below.

  • The USPTA has been a leader in the industry. Over the past two years its credibility has been diminished by the hatred, lack of ethics, greed, and pettiness demonstrated by key leaders. How much will this hurt the association and industry?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of its family feud? Will new members be incented to join the USPTA because of the hope and change provided the new leadership?
  • Does the new leadership have a vision for the future, now that they have accomplished their goal of ousting Tim Heckler? If so, when will it be communicated to the members?
  • Will the new leadership be transparent in its operation of the association?
  • What new, fresh, cutting-edge ideas will the new leadership put on the table to raise the standards for teaching the sport? How will they increase the number of players playing the game?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of the weak economy that plagued the U.S. for a majority of the past decade? What will be done to get them back in the fold?
  • Historically, sponsors have played a major role in supporting the organization. How many USPTA sponsors will be lost because of a diminished base of members and the change in leadership? Will additional sponsorships be attracted because of the change in leadership?
  • This past fall there were rumors that the USPTR and USPTA would be merged. The groups have co-existed for 35 years in a manner that has made the teaching profession stronger. Why has this issue again become a priority? How will such a merger, if it occurs, further the teaching profession and help promote the sport of tennis?
  • It makes sense for USPTA members to also be members of the USTA, but they should not be required to do so. Will the new regime require USPTA members to join the USTA?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of women professionals?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of minority professionals?
  • There have been rumors that the recent tumult was driven by the USTA to divide and conquer the USPTA. Will the USPTA be folded into the USTA within the next five years?
  • Will continuing education be mandated?
  • Will John Embree last longer than four years in his new position?
  • Will the USPTA be in existence ten years from now?

Moving forward there are three priorities for the USPTA and the industry.

Tennis is a great sport. As difficult decisions are addressed within the USPTA and between it and other groups, it must be remembered that Tennis has to remain the top priority.

Second, it is essential that the companies and alphabet soup of organizations in the industry remember that The players are the most important part of the game. They buy the goods and services provided by industry. For the most part, the players don’t care about the politics of the sport and industry. They just want to play tennis.

Third, The tennis professional introduces players to the sport, teaches them how to play and improve their game, sells them equipment, provides them with opportunities to play, encourages them to watch their favorite pros on television, and creates an experience they allows players to enjoy the sport for a lifetime. There is no need to have the USTA, USPTA, USPTR, WIlson, Penn, Head, and others without the tennis professionals who bring the players to the sport. The professionals have an obligation to maintain high standards by which the sport is taught and abide by those standards. The rest of the industry has the responsibility to respect and support the professionals.

Game on!

 

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.