Tag: USTA

International Junior Competition is Stronger – American Juniors Struggle at Australian Open

horvath Leave a comment

The talent in the junior division at the Grand Slams has become more diverse over the years. As a result, both the American boys and girls faced stiff competition in the Australian Open Juniors competition, but both managed to have players reach the round of 16.

Nicole Mossmer, J. Rodriquez-Benito, Caty McNally, Hurricane Tyra Black, and Natasha Subhash lost their first round matches. Both Carson Branstine and Taylor Johnson posted 2 wins and 1 loss as they bowed out in the round of 16.

To illustrate the diversity of the draw, the 8 quarterfinalists represented 8 countries:    Canada, Great Britain, India, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Ukraine.

Overall, the 7 American girls won 4 matches and lost 7.

In the boys draw Olukayode Ayeni and Trent Bryde lost in the first round. Tristian Boyer won his first match before losing in the second round.

Alexandre Rotsaert won two matches before losing in the round of 16.

Overall, the 4 American boys won 3 matches and lost 4.

As was the case in the girls draw, there was also significant geographic diversity on the boys side. The 8 quarterfinalists represented the following 7 countries: China, Cyprus, (2) France, Hungary, Finland, Israel, and Russia.

It is easy to be critical of the USTA Player Development Program for the fact that none of the American juniors advanced past the round of 16. Typically very few American juniors play the Australian Junior Open and their performance is often lackluster.

In addition, it is easy to see that a number of countries other than the United States are developing world-class players. With stronger and greater geographic diversification, it is even more challenging to for the USTA to develop the top junior players in the world. Look for better things at the French Open and Wimbledon.

 

Women’s Australian Open 2016-Hats off to Serena

horvath Leave a comment

For the second consecutive Grand Slam Serena Williams was denied in the finals. This time Angelique Kerber delivered the knockout punch in a magnificent three-set match at the Australian Open. Williams loss begs the question, “Who will be the face of American tennis (not just women’s tennis) when Serena retires?”

Seventeen American women were entered in the first Grand Slam of 2016. Only eight advanced to the second round. The nine first-round losers included Alison Riske, Christina McHale, Sloane Stephens, Anna Tatishvili, Coco Vandeweghe, Samantha Crawford, Victoria Duval, Venus Williams, and Bethanie Mattek-Sands.

The three second-round losers included Irina Falconi, Nicole Gibbs, and Vania King. They were all 1-1.

Another three Americans lost in the third round including Varvara Lepchenko, Madison Brengle, and Lauren Davis. Each of these players had 2-1 records.

Madison Keys held her #15 seed by losing in the round of 16. She was 3-1 overall.

On a day-to-day basis, Williams continues to be untouchable, even though she won 6 of 7 matches and had to settle for the second place trophy.

So which of the American women is going to fill Serena’s shoes when she retires?

Martin Blackman began to address that question ten months when he was picked to head USTA player development. During his short tenure he has indicated that we need to produce more quality tennis players as a way of producing a few elite players.

While ten months isn’t time enough to turn a ship that sunk many months ago, the presence of the American juniors at the 2016 Open was abysmal. Maria Mataes was the lone competitor and was trounced 6-1, 6-1 in the first round of the Girls Junior event. Clearly the U.S. has a ways to go before there is quantity and quality.

While all of the American women athletes are outstanding players, only Madison Keys and Sloane Stephens have demonstrated they may have the potential to become  elite players. In the case of Stephens, her stock has fallen sharply over the past year.

Americans can only hope that Serena finds the fountain of youth. While there is reason to feel good about what if being said by Blackman and those in the USTA Player Development program, the future of American men’s and women’s professional tennis remains bleak.

Hats off to Serena Williams for another great performance!

The Junior Team Tennis Scoring System

horvath Leave a comment

With summer upon us it is time for clubs and recreation programs to begin play in the USTA Junior Team Tennis (JTT) program.

The rules are fairly simple. First and foremost, you have to be a junior player at any level. Players are placed on teams of at least 4 players of the same gender and ability.

Most teams hold practices several times a week that may include all players (boys and girls). Once a week, team matches are played that consist of 2 singles and 1 doubles. Play is the best of three sets using no-ad scoring with a tie-break at 6-6. If players split sets they play a 12-point tie-break for the match.

The interesting part of the program is the match scoring. The winner of a match is the team that wins the most games, not necessarily the most matches. Standings for the season are based on the team that has won the most games.

For example, a team can win one match 6-0, 6-0 and lose the other two matches 6-4, 6-3. They will be awarded 26 points, while the other teams earn 24 points. In this case, the team that won only one of the 3 matches came out on top.

The scoring system seems inappropriate for the following reasons:
• Most players are familiar with playing on teams where points are awarded for matches won. If there is a tie in the standings, it would be broken by sets won, and games won. In JTT, the only thing that matters is games won!
• When players are just learning the sport they are forced to learn the JTT scoring system on top of everything else. It seems that a simpler approach will make the sport easier to learn.
• The scoring system puts pressure on players to win every point. Often they are struggling to stand in the proper space and keep track of the score. The pressure of trying to win every point adds an unnecessary burden.
• Players are rewarded for beating their opponents as badly as possible. Is that the message that should be sent to entry level players and intermediate players in a recreation program?
• If the two singles matches are played first and one team wins both matches by a score of 6-3, 6-2 or worse, then the match score is 24-10. It is impossible for the other team to win the team match even if they lose the final match 6-0, 6-0.

The rationale provided by the USTA divisional organizers justifies the scoring system by saying:
• Every game matters – players shouldn’t give up if losing or take it easy if winning.
• A lower skilled player can contribute to the team, even if he/she never wins a match.
• In cases where teams have less than 4 players, you can either play the doubles or two singles. Once two matches are completed, it is possible the match has been decided, i.e. one team won both matches.
While the merits of the scoring system can be debated ad nauseam, league coordinators usually notify parents about the intricacies of the unique scoring system in advance. In other words, most players enter the team match knowing how the winner will be determined.

Despite the oddities of the Junior Team Tennis scoring system, the important thing is that kids are playing tennis.

Lessons From a Bad Situation – Support Your Local Team

horvath Leave a comment

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!

Chicago Cubs, ’69 Mets, USTA Player Development

horvath Leave a comment

What do the Chicago Cubs, 1969 New York Mets, and USTA Player Development have in common? They are the laughing stock of professional sports.

The performance of the American men at Wimbledon was embarrassing. The men won five matches and lost ten. Nobody advanced past the third round.

On the stage of the U.S. Open, the greatest Grand Slam for American players, the performance of the American men was even worse than Wimbledon. They won five matches and lost twelve. Even worse, they lost nine of the matches 3-0, i.e. the American men were not competitive.

First round losers included Marcos Giron, Bradley Klahn, Donald Young, Wayne Odesnik, Jack Sock, Steve Johnson, Noah Rubin, Ryan Harrison, and Jared Donaldson.

Tim Smyczek was 1-1, winning his first round match before being thumped by Roberto Bautista Agut in the second round.

Both Sam Querrey and John Isner won two matches before bowing out in the third round. Querrey was destroyed by Novak Djokovic while Isner lost in four sets to veteran Philipp Kohlschreiber.

The combined record of the American men at the U.S. Open was 5 and 12.

The American men are excellent players; however, none of them are elite players and they never will be. It is clear the player development programs of other countries have aspirations for greatness that far exceed those of the USTA Player Development program.

At best, the USTA Player Development program has developed sparring partners for the world’s elite players. Hopefully, the leadership of the USTA has taken notice and will make changes. The U.S. Open would be a lot more fun to watch, if American players were strong enough to compete in the second week of the tournament.

USTA Player Development Not Producing Elite Players

horvath Leave a comment

The USTA Player Development program has never been effective, but in 2014 it continues to reach new lows. Prior to the U.S. Open there are only two men ranked in the top 50  and 6 men ranked in the top 100.

Going into the 2014 U.S. Open there are 27 countries with men ranked in the top 50 according to the ATP rankings. There are three countries with more than two ranked men:

  • Spain – 10 players
  • France – 6 players
  • Czechoslovakia 3 players.

The following countries each have two players ranked in the top 50:

  • Switzerland – 3rd and 4th
  • Argentina – 13th and 26th
  • Canada – 6th and 46th
  • Croatia – 27th and 30th
  • Germany – 25th and 35th
  • USA – 15th and 47th
  • Italy – 17th and 49th

John Isner and Donald Young are the top ranked Americans.

The following countries each have one player ranked in the top 50:

  • Serbia – 1st
  • Bulgaria – 8th
  • Great Britain – 9th
  • Japan – 11th
  • Latvia – 12th
  • Rhodesia/South Africa – 20th
  • Ukraine – 22nd
  • Russia – 23rd
  • Columbia – 32nd
  • Taipei/Taiwan – 34th
  • Portugal – 38th
  • Uruguay – 40th
  • Australia – 41st
  • Poland – 43rd
  • Uzbekistan 44th
  • Austria – 45th
  • Kazakhstan – 50th

Only six American men are ranked in the top 100. In addition to Isner and Querrey, the other top 100 Americans are:

  • Steve Johnson – 51st
  • Jack Sock – 55th
  • Sam Querrey – 57th
  • Tim Smyzcek – 90th

Thanks to the USTA Player Development Program, the state of American professional tennis has never been worse.

Is it Fair to Bash the USTA for their Men’s Player Development Program?

horvath Leave a comment

Is the USTA Player Development Program getting the job done?

A quick look at the January 6 ATP rankings shows that 32 countries have players ranked in the top 100. They are:

  • Spain 14 players
  • France 11 players
  • Germany 8 players
  • USA 8 players
  • Argentina 6 players
  • Russia 5 players
  • Australia 4 players
  • Czechoslovakia 4 players
  • Columbia 3 players
  • Croatia 3 players
  • Italy 3 players
  • Kazakhstan 3 players
  • The Netherlands 3 players
  • Poland 3 players
  • Serbia 3 players
  • Canada 2 players
  • Switzerland 2 players
  • 15 countries have 1 player

Tennis is an international sport, but the combined total of ranked players from Croatia, Kazakhstan, and Serbia is greater than the U.S. total.

A closer look at the men’s rankings shows the following for the American men:

  • 14 John Isner
  • 46 Sam Querrey
  • 89 Tim Smyczek
  • 91 Michael Russell
  • 95 Bradley Klahn
  • 96 Donald Young
  • 99 Ryan Harrison
  • 100 Jack Sock.

If you asked 1,000 people to name the top American male tennis players in the U.S., they most likely couldn’t name one of these individuals. In fairness to the USTA, part of the problem is the popularity of tennis in many foreign countries. Some in tennis also feel that the best American athletes play sports other than tennis.  Still others will say that American youth lack the work ethic to be world class tennis players.

These factors play a part in the lack of dominant American tennis players; however, the major source of the problem is USTA Player Development. Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, and Arthur Ashe have to be rolling over in their graves at the state of American men’s tennis.

 

USTA Women’s Player Development – Quantity or Quality?

horvath Leave a comment

After dominating the women’s circuit in 2013, it was no surprise to see Serena Williams’ name at the top of the WTA January 6, 2014 rankings. Given the global appeal of the sport it was also no surprise that players from 10 countries filled out the top 10 slots.

  1. Serena Williams  United States
  2. Victoria Azarenka  Belarus
  3. Maria Sharapova  Russia
  4. Na Li  China
  5. Agnieszka Radwanska  Poland
  6. Petra Kvitova  Czech Republic
  7. Sara Errani  Italy
  8. Jelena Jankovic  Serbia
  9. Angelique Kerber  Germany
  10. Caroline Wozniacki  Denmark.

Only two Americans earned spots in the top 25. In addition to Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens was ranked 13th. The top 25 included players from 16 countries. The following six countries had multiple players in the top 25:

  • 5 Russia
  • 2 Germany
  • 2 Italy
  • 2 Romania
  • 2 Serbia
  • 2 United States.

Players from 37 countries were ranked in the top 100. The following 21 countries had multiple players in the top 100:

  • 11 United States
  • 7 Germany
  • 6 Italy
  • 6 Russia
  • 6 Spain
  • 5 Czech Republic
  • 5 Slovakia
  • 4 China
  • 4 France
  • 4 Japan
  • 4 Romania
  • 3 Serbia
  • 3 Ukraine
  • 2 Austria
  • 2 Belarus
  • 2 Belgium
  • 2 Croatia
  • 2 Israel
  • 2 Kazakhstan
  • 2 Poland
  • 2 Switzerland

A closer look at the rankings shows that most of the Americans women are not in the upper echelon.  The American women and their ranking in the top 100 follow:

  • 1  Serena Williams
  • 13  Sloane Stephens
  • 28  Jamie Hampton
  • 36  Madison Keys
  • 38  Venus Williams
  • 48  Bethanie Mattek-Sands
  • 52  Varvara Lepchenko
  • 55  Alison Riske
  • 65  Christina McHale
  • 67  Lauren Davis
  • 71  Vania King

On a positive note, there are more American players in the top 100 than any other country. On the downside, Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens are the only impact players.

Clearly, the focus of the USTA Player Development is quantity rather than quality. Time will tell whether Stephens and her younger counterparts will follow in the footsteps of the Williams sisters and someday become difference-makers.

 

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.

 

The Green Dot Ball – A Well-Intended, but Bad Mandate

horvath Leave a comment

This year the USTA mandated that 12U Satellite/Challenger and Junior Team Tennis players had to play with the green dot ball (GDBs) in competition.  The following 10 reasons explain why the GDB should NOT be mandated in USTA junior tennis play. These comments are based on countless hours of discussions with parents and coaches while watching their sons, daughters, and students play with both the GDB and real tennis balls.
1. For many years, some teaching professionals have advocated the use of “dead” tennis balls as a training tool.  As a commercial product, low compression balls  (LCBs) have been in existence for 25-30 years. GDBs are a more recent phenomenon. Many parents view the GDB mandate as a gimmick by the manufacturers to sell more products.

Many years ago the teaching profession informally endorsed LCBs as an excellent teaching tool, along with shorter and lighter racquets, and smaller courts. If the teaching professionals had felt that LCB tournament play would have benefitted the sport, they would have developed LCB junior circuits many years ago. The LCB mandate is the USTA’s way of saying to teaching professionals that they are not knowledgeable about the sport they teach.

2. The quality control for the LCBs does not appear to be as good as it is for real tennis balls, i.e. some balls bounce better than others in match play.

By design, the balls are lighter and not as lively. As a result, they don’t play well in the wind or at temperatures below 50 degrees.

It is common for satellite players, particularly girls, to develop incorrect strategies when they use GDBs. For example, it is common for girls to swing hard on service returns and hit shots that barely clear the net and bounce in the middle of their opponent’s service court. More often than not, the returns do not carry to the service line and go for a winner.

3. In a similar light, satellite players, especially girls, have difficulty putting the GDBs away. They learn that an effective strategy is to hit the ball back and forth down the middle of the court until the other person misses, gets bored and goes home, or they turn 13 and become too old to finish the match. Frequently, these long, pointless rallies feature bad footwork and many poorly executed strokes. It is easier for some beginning players to get by with sloppy strokes and bad strategy when they use GDBs.

4. The LCBs seem to be better suited for players who are physically stronger or more coordinated, i.e. boys. They are more capable of having longer rallies that include spin, pace, placement and side-to-side movement, and reasonable technique. The use of GDBs with strong athletic boys brings back memories of the days when Jimmy Arias, Harold Solomon, and Eddie Dibbs were the top American players.  They were great players, but their style of tennis was so boring that the industry quickly ended the “slow-court experiment” that was in place at the time and began building courts with faster surfaces.

5. Most parents don’t like the GDBs. At the tournaments early in the season they wondered why tournament directors were having their kids play with “dead” balls. Although parents pay for the racquets, balls, and lessons they have been vilified for questioning the GDB mandate.  Many parents regard the ball as a short-term necessary evil that is not worth addressing. Others avoid dealing with the GDB by having their kids play in the 14U division, an option that is not always in the best interest of the player.

6. When given a choice to play with GDBs or real balls, most 12U kids choose to play with real tennis balls.

7. Real tennis balls often bounce too high for shorter boys and girls. LCBs are a great teaching tool that address that challenge, particularly when players are younger or in the early stages of learning.  It is ironic that juniors are taught to use semi-western and western grips to deal with high bouncing balls on the forehand side, yet they are mandated to play with balls that aren’t lively and don’t have a high bounce.

8. GDBs have a low bounce and are not lively. As a result players have to hit a lot of “lunge” groundstrokes. The contact point on many shots is often at a height between the player’s ankles and knees (that is very low for a short 11 year old girl).  These shots are hit less frequently when real tennis balls are used.

The grips of choice (western and semi-western) do not work well for “lunge” or “ankle” groundstrokes.  In short, LCBs eliminate some problems and introduce others which mean they may help some players while hindering others.

9. When younger players, or players who are not as strong, play with GDBs, they may not be rewarded for hitting clean strokes. As well they may not be rewarded for hitting with spin. On the other hand, stronger and more accomplished players can hit GDBs with excessive spin and make the ball dance like a whiffle ball.  For many players, playing tennis with GDBs is a different game than playing with real tennis balls.

10. As players become more accomplished it may be easier to have longer rallies with GDBs than real tennis balls. That is not justification for mandating the use of GDBs in competition. When players can consistently hit with spin, pace, and placement it is time to switch them to the balls they really want to play with – real tennis balls.  GDBs are a wonderful teaching tool, but players should be weaned from them based on their ability, not their birthday.

Over the years, the USTA has done many wonderful things for the sport of tennis, mandating the use of GDBs is not one of them.