Tag: USTA Player Development

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

horvath Leave a comment

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!

 

 

U.S. Men Continue to Disappoint in Grand Slams (Australian Open)

horvath Leave a comment

Julius Caeser is credited with saying, “Veni, vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered). Clearly Caeser was not in charge of the USTA Player Development program.

Of the 12 American players entered in the Australian Open 9 were first round losers (Ryan Harrison, Bradley Klahn, Tim Smyczek, Rhyne Williams, Wayne Odesnik, John Isner, Steve Johnson, and Michael Russell).

  • Jack Sock finished the tournament 1-1 and exited in the second round.
  • Donald Young and Sam Querrey won 2 matches before bowing out in the third round.

Overall the 12 men won 5 matches and lost 12.

Based on the performance of the U.S. men in this and previous Grand Slam events, it is clear the USTA needs someone with a Julius Caesar mindset to take charge of USTA Player Development.

Note:  In 2003 Roger Federer won his first Wimbledon. There have since been 43 Grand Slams Including that event and the most recent Australian Open. Only eight men have won titles during that period:

  • Roger Federer 17
  • Rafael Nadal 13
  • Novak Djokovic 6
  • Andy Murray 2
  • Stanislas Wawrinka 1
  • Juan Martin del Potro 1
  • Gaston Gaudio 1
  • Andy Roddick 1
  • Marat Safin 1

As an aside, Murray defeated Djokovic in the finals of both his Grand Slam victories, del Potro upset Federer in his only Grand Slam victory, and Wawrinka upset Nadal in the most recent Grand Slam. In other words, at least of the trio (Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic) have been in the finals of all but three Grand Slams since the 2003 Wimbledon tournament.

It is safe to say that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have dominated the sport for the past decade.  Unfortunately, they are only part of the reason the U.S. continue to disappoint in Grand Slams. A major part of the problem is the USTA Player Development program.

 

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.

 

American Junior Girls Have Solid Performance at U.S. Open – Boys Performance is Subpar

horvath Leave a comment

The Americans had a strong contingency of junior players with 16 boys and 15 girls in the 64 draws.

Junior Girls

First-round losers for the American girls included:

  • Usue Maitane Arconada
  • Jamie Loeb
  • Raveena Kingsley
  • Johnnie Renaud
  • C. Quellet-Pizer

Ten American girls advanced.

In the round of 32, the following six players were defeated:

  • Christina Makarova
  • Claire Liu
  • Kaitlyn McCarthy
  • Brooke Austin
  • Katerina Stewart
  • Peggy Porter

Four American girls advanced.

In the round of 16 Michaela Gordon and Catherine Bellis were ousted.

Louisa Chirico lost in the quarterfinals.

Tornado Alicia Black dropped a third set tiebreaker in the finals.

Overall, the American girls won 18 matches and lost 15.

There is mixed news in these results. Eleven of the fifteen girls lost in the first two rounds. Chirico exited earlier than expected and Black had a stronger than anticipated performance.

There are a group of American junior girls who have potential to be difference makers on the WTA Tour. At the same time, there are a number of strong foreign players who are equally as talented.

Junior Boys

The performance of the American boys was subpar.

Of the 16 American boys entered, 10 lost their first round match:

  • Taylor Harry Fritz
  • Tommy Paul
  • Alex Rybakov
  • Francis Tiafoe
  • Reilly Olpeka
  • JC Aragone
  • Luca Corinteli
  • Jared Donaldson
  • Stefan Kozlov
  • Ernesto Escobedo

Only 6 of the 16 American boys advanced.

In the round of 32, Daniel Kerznerman and Noah Rubin were defeated. Four American boys advanced.

In the round of 16 Martin Redicki, Mackenzie MacDonald, and Cage Brymer were ousted. Only one player advanced.

Collin Altamirano was defeated in the quarterfinals.

The 16 American boys won 11 matches and lost 16. Twelve of the sixteen boys lost in the first two rounds and only one player reached the quarterfinals.

While the American boys are incredibly talented, as a group they have not fared well against their foreign competitors. The USTA Player Development program appears to be ineffective, particularly in developing world-class male players, i.e. players capable of winning Grand Slams.

 

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.”

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.