Month: October 2012

How ITF Junior Tournaments Work

Just when I thought I had the USTA tournament thing finally figured out, my kid decided he wanted to try playing some ITF events.  And, after reading the current ITF Junior Regulations and searching all over the Web for information and coming up pretty much empty-handed, I started asking questions of those with way more knowledge than I have so I could understand how the ITF process works.  Here’s what I’ve learned so far about ITF events held in the US:

  • You must be between the ages of 13-18 to play in an ITF Junior tournament. You may enter a tournament starting at age 12 years 11 months, however.  Unlike USTA which uses the player’s birth month to determine age and eligibility, the ITF uses the calendar year.  For the 2012 ITF season, for example, players must be born between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1999.
  • Before you can sign up for an ITF Junior Tournament, you have to get an iPin number.  Plan ahead as it can take a day or two for you to get the actual number.  All requests are authorized within 24 hours Monday-Friday.  You cannot enter a tournament without this number.
  • Most ITF Junior events have a qualifying draw that plays the Saturday and Sunday before the Main Draw starts on Monday.  Usually, a player has to win 3 rounds in Qualies to get into the Main Draw, but that can vary according to draw size.  The Main Draw is typically scheduled to play Monday through Sunday.
  • There are Singles and Doubles events in all tournaments.  You can sign up for the Doubles once you arrive.  Even if you don’t get through the Qualies, there may still be an opening for you to play Doubles – you’ll need to check with the tournament officials.
  • It is very important that players and parents check the tournament Fact Sheet for information regarding sign-in dates, locations, and times.  There is a do-or-die sign in deadline for the Qualies and the Main Draw, typically 6pm the Friday before matches start for Qualies and 6pm the Sunday before matches start for the Main.  In order to sign in, you must bring a passport or other photo ID.  You must also know your iPin number and USTA number.  A parent or coach has to sign the Medical Release, just like in USTA tournaments.  Without any one piece of the aforementioned information, you could be denied the opportunity to check-in and play!
  • For those who don’t get into the Main Draw or Qualifying Draw, there are on-site alternates.  It’s important to note that even alternates must have an iPin number, so if your child is even thinking about playing one of these events, you might as well go ahead and apply now.  Check the specific tournament’s website for details on how to alert the tournament officials that you want to be considered as an alternate in case of an opening.
  • After check-in on Friday night, the Qualifying Draws are created and posted online along with first match times.  Often, it is after 10pm before the draws and times are available.  Also, the draws and times may be posted on the ITF Junior website OR the tournament site OR the USTA site – you may have to do some digging before you find your first match time.  Be persistent!  And, be sure you know when you play BEFORE you go to sleep on Friday night – it could be 8am!
  • Only those who are in the Main Draw are given a tournament t-shirt.  Those who don’t make it through the Qualies may be able to purchase a shirt if they want.  I know, this isn’t all that important to some of you, but for others, the t-shirt is key!
  • All singles matches play out a full third set – no 10-point tiebreakers here!  And, just so you know, there is NO COACHING and NO BREAK between the 2nd and 3rd set.  Doubles play two tie-break sets and a 10-point tiebreaker in lieu of a 3rd set with no-ad scoring.  In the case of bad weather, alternative scoring options may be used in accordance with the ITF 2012 Rules of Tennis (see page 22).
  • If your child has dual citizenship, please refer to Page 36 of the Rules for information as to how to determine which passport your child should use in these events.
  • The time an entry is submitted is not significant; it does not matter if a player is first or last to enter a tournament.  Waco ITF Referee, Ken McCain, told me, “A common comment I receive is that ‘my child has a higher ranking than some players placed higher on the Acceptance List.’  The Federations can send a ranking list to the ITF, usually once a Quarter, to determine the Acceptance List Order (non ITF-ranked players).  One tournament may be using an old list and the following week an updated list is used.  This does occur and this is my best explanation.”  Read Section 45 (starting on page 13) of the rules for details on how selection into the tournaments works.  I’ve read it, and I’m still a bit confused, so if you understand the process, please enlighten the rest of us in the Comments box below!
  • There is a “freeze deadline” which occurs at 14:00 GMT on the Wednesday preceding the tournament week.  At this point, iPIN closes, and it is no longer possible to withdraw online. Instead, withdrawals must be made using the official withdrawal form and sent to the ITF and Referee before the close of sign-in. The published acceptance lists will not update with any withdrawals. The reason for this is that this is the moment the tournament information is sent to the Referee to prepare for the tournament. The acceptance list is sent to the Referee, who now manages the withdrawals. Any questions about the acceptance list from this point on should be directed to the Referee.  Any player who withdraws from a tournament Main Draw or Qualifying Draw after the Freeze Deadline without using the official withdrawal form, sent to the ITF and ITF Tournament Referee, will be subject to a No Show penalty.
  • Wild cards are decided by the host nation.  If players wish to apply for a wildcard they should get in touch with the host National Association (i.e. USTA) and/or Tournament Director.  ITF does not give out wild cards.  Numbers of wild cards available is based on the size of the draw.  For example, a 64 Main Draw will have 8 Wild Cards available.  For US tournaments, a player can apply for a wild card at www.usta.com/itftournaments.  The application deadline is typically right after the regular entry deadline – check the individual tournament’s website for details.  Refer to page 20 of the Junior Circuit Regulations for more information.
  • Lucky losers almost always come from those losing in the final round of qualifying.  If more Lucky Losers are required for substitutions, those players who have lost in the previous qualifying rounds are considered.  Lucky Losers must sign the Lucky Loser list that the Referee will open. It closes 30 minutes before play begins.  Colette Lewis told me that she watched all this take place last year at the US Open juniors. If you don’t have an ITF junior ranking, you go to the bottom of the list, in a similar number assignment with any others without an ITF ranking.  There can be zero lucky losers or as many as seven or eight, which happens at some sparsely attended events in less desirable locations. I think at this week’s Atlanta ITF four boys made it in as lucky losers. Late withdrawals or no shows are the most frequent reason for lucky losers getting in, but an injury or illness can also lead to a last-minute vacated spot.  See page 23 of the rules for more information.

A big thank-you to Colette Lewis of ZooTennis.com for her willingness to share her vast knowledge with me and, by extension, you!  If you have any questions or need more clarification on any point above, I urge you to contact the ITF directly at:

International Tennis Federation, Bank Lane, Roehampton, London, SW15 5XZ
ph: +44 20 8878 6464 | fax: +44 20 8392 4735
email: juniors@itftennis.com   www.itftennis.com/juniors

For the complete rules of Junior ITF play as well as the ranking points table, click here.

NOTE (added December 2, 2012):

APPENDIX G: ITF JUNIOR CIRCUIT AGE ELIGIBILITY RULE
1. ITF Junior Age Eligibility Chart

Age/Number of tournaments permitted

18/Unrestricted
17/Unrestricted
16/25
15/16 (unless player achieves a top 20 ITF Junior Ranking in which case an additional 4 tournaments permitted)
14/14 (unless player achieves a top 20 ITF Junior Ranking in which case an additional 4 tournaments permitted)
13/10 (unless player achieves a top 50 ITF Junior Ranking in which case an additional 4 tournaments permitted)
11-12/0
NOTES
1. The number of tournaments permitted is counted between the date of a player’s birthday and the day before their next birthday, not between 1st January and 31st December.
2. Participation in an ITF Junior Circuit tournament includes singles and/or doubles and/or qualifying.
3. Minors under the age of thirteen (13) shall not be eligible for entry. For the
purposes of this Rule, the player’s age as of the first day of the tournament Main Draw shall be used.
4. The number of tournaments permitted by the ITF Junior Age Eligibility Rule is in addition to the number of professional tournaments permitted by the Age
Eligibility Rule (please refer to ITF Professional Circuit Regulations, and WTA
Regulations for details on the Age Eligibility Rule.)

A Great Fix

I recently met with Ross Greenstein of Scholarship for Athletes to talk about various aspects of junior and college tennis.  Ross grew up playing junior tennis and went on to play at the University of Florida.  He now works with junior players and their families to navigate the college recruiting process, so I trust him as a reliable resource on matters having to do with junior tennis and college.

He asked me to give him the down-and-dirty rundown on what’s going on with the USTA’s proposed changes to the junior competition schedule and the feedback I’ve been hearing from other parents as well as coaches.  Then, he shared with me what I consider a brilliant solution . . .

Instead of making the draws smaller at the big national tournaments (Winter Nationals, National Clay Courts, and National Hard Courts), taking away the opportunity for many junior players to have the experience of playing at these events, why not have 2 equal-sized draws of 128 each where the players ranked 1-128 play in one draw and the players ranked 129-256 play in the other?  There would be a modified feed-in consolation for each draw, so players would either be guaranteed 2 or 3 matches (that detail can be worked out later).  The two separate draws could have a staggered start-date so that court availability wouldn’t be an issue, and play would continue on a daily basis so no player would have a day off, needlessly spending money on a hotel and meals and rental car.

What made Ross come up with such a format?  He says, “I was looking at how many matches are uncompetitive at our national events.  I looked at Hard Courts and Clay Courts in the 18’s for boys and girls this summer, and over 20% of all main draws matches are not competitive.  I would define that as one of the players not getting even 3 games in either set.  6-2, 6-2 is not competitive.”

From the tournament directors’ perspective, this approach is a win-win.  More players means more income from entry fees.  More players also means more revenue for the host community in terms of hotel rooms, restaurants, rental cars, shopping, etc. which makes the event an easier “sell” to potential sponsors.

From the college coaches’ perspective, it’s a win-win.  The coaches from the top D1 schools could focus their time watching Players 1-128, those most likely to be candidates for their programs.  The coaches from the 2nd tier D1 and the D2 and D3 schools could focus their time watching Players 129-256, those most likely to be candidates for their programs.  This format would attract more coaches from a variety of schools, which would give the players and their families a chance to speak to those coaches face-to-face and learn more about the individual programs.

I asked University of Georgia’s Men’s Head Coach, Manny Diaz, what he thought of the proposal.  He says, “I like the idea. In the context of keeping more kids involved in the highest levels of our sport, I would also think having a 64 qualifying draw with 8 qualifiers into a 128 draw would be a good consideration.”  Not a bad addition to the plan, Coach!

From the players’ perspective, it’s a win-win.  More kids get to play in the most prestigious American junior tennis tournaments.  They have the opportunity to play more competitive matches from the get-go since the draws will be separated by ranking, which should avoid that dreaded 0&0 “triple crown” effect that Lew Brewer alluded to when I spoke to him about the smaller draw sizes.  More players have the opportunity for face-to-face meetings with coaches who will be interested in, and have the possibility of, recruiting them.  For those players in the 129-256 draw who aspire to play at a higher-level D1 school, getting their ranking into that top 128 so those coaches will watch them play gives them a concrete goal to work toward for the next year.  For those who say it’s too expensive to travel to these national events, this proposed format would reduce the amount of time you would have to stay at the event by ensuring play (barring weather delays) on consecutive days.  Of course, whether or not a family chooses to travel for a child’s tennis is completely their own decision, but if the child’s goal is to compete on the national level and eventually play college tennis, why not provide a scenario that gives them the best chance of getting into the tournament and playing some good competitive matches while there, not to mention the best chance of being seen by the appropriate college coaches?

And, unlike the “waterfall draws” of our current Southern Level 3 tournaments, under this proposed format the top kids would get the chance to compete against one another, driving each other to get better.  Ross told me the story of a player he worked with a few years ago.  He asked me, “Do you remember when Federer was #1, Nadal was #2, and Djokovic was #3?  Do you know how many times Djokovic played Federer and Nadal that year?  Thirteen times!”  Ross talked about how much Djokovic improved that year, how playing the top two guys drove him to work harder to figure out how to beat them.  He then went on to tell me about his player, ranked #3 in the country, a very strong recruit.  “Do you know how many times my player got to play the #1 and #2 players during his junior year?  Zero!”  That is one of the often-overlooked flaws in our current tournament system.  We need rivalries at the top.  That’s what fuels hard work, ambition, and a hunger to get better.  And it’s one of the reasons we see many college players at the top programs develop to the next level – that daily competition against their peers.

To summarize . . .
Benefits:
  • Better match play for all participants
  • Better for athletes and parents in the recruiting process
  • Better for college coaches in the recruiting process
  • Better for the host city and the tournament director
  • Gives more kids a chance to play the big national events
  • Gives kids concrete goals to shoot for
Negatives:
  • I just don’t see any.  Do you?  If so, please share in the Comments below.

Growth & Development

My son is at an interesting place in terms of his tennis development.  As I’ve mentioned, he’s now playing up in the 18s even though he could still play another year in the 16s.  But, because of his July birthday, and because of his goal to play at Kalamazoo (which is the first week of August) next summer, he had to start working on his 18s ranking a year early.  That means he is often 2 years younger than his opponent, 2 years behind developmentally-speaking, 2 years behind growth-wise, and 2 years behind in the maturation process.

His goal during tournaments is still to win matches, of course, because he needs to get his 18s ranking to a place where he has a chance of getting into the National Hardcourts.  And, to that end, we look for tournaments for him to play where (A) he can get in and (B) he can, hopefully, win a few matches.

However, he also has another, equally (more?) important, goal:  to gauge his skill on the court against boys who are already playing the big national events and who are heading off to top college programs next year.  He needs to be able to see in black and white how his game holds up against more experienced players.  He needs to see where his strengths lie and where he still needs work.  He needs to see what specific developmental steps he has to take over the next 2+ years.

We were at a Southern Level 3 tournament in Hilton Head this past weekend.  First round, my son had the opportunity to play the 1 seed, a young man who recently committed to play at Clemson next Fall.  After the match, which my son lost 1 and 4, we all went to lunch together – my son, his opponent, his opponent’s dad, my husband, and me – and the boys talked about their match and about playing college tennis.  My son asked the young man for an honest evaluation of the match, and the young man told him that he made him work much harder than he anticipated and that my son is way ahead of where he was as a 10th grader.  I could see the smile peeking out from behind my son’s eyes!  Then, much to my surprise, my son asked his opponent if he would mention my son to the Clemson coach in hopes that the coach would take a look at him.  The boys went on to discuss the recruiting process and the things my son needs to be doing this year to get the ball rolling.  Mind you, it wasn’t anything that I haven’t been telling him for the past several months, but you know how it is with teenagers – they often don’t hear it until it comes from a peer!

The next morning, my son played another high school senior in his 2nd backdraw match and won.  It was a great boost confidence-wise for him to see that he had the goods to claim a victory over a solid player two years older and 124 ranking spots ahead of him.

Even though my son wasn’t playing his best tennis during the tournament, he found a way to eke out strong victories over two very experienced players and earn those precious ranking points.  He had the privilege of playing against someone heading off to the same post-junior-tennis life my son hopes to have and of putting his skills to a real test.  Developmentally, my son is still two years behind these guys – he still has two years to figure it out – but he needs to keep testing himself against these older players to monitor his progress.  As he has more opportunities to play these high-level guys at USTA, ITF, and ITA events, he’ll be able to keep a running tally of where he’s making strides and where he still needs work.  He and his coach will keep tweaking the training plan to help my son get where he wants to go.  And my husband and I will keep being the supportive Tennis Parents.

From TennisInsiders.com – USTA Pushed the Pause Button

The following is posted on TennisInsiders.com:

The junior competition committee of the USTA has spent the last couple of years working on a plan for growth that focuses on noble causes such as trying to lower costs for competitors, lowering school absences and adhering to Wayne Bryan’s “Don’t get on a plane to play a tournament until you can win the tournaments you can drive to and don’t get in a car until you can win the tournaments you can pedal to.”

After hearing the tennis industry’s reaction to the changes, the USTA agreed to have a series of meetings with a group of tennis industry insiders  to discuss the situation.

After in person meetings in NY, Los Angeles, Carmel and now Chicago with the industry group, the USTA has decided to do the following:

  • Leave the 2013 changes alone and continue the same schedule as 2012
  • Conduct a series of Town Hall Listening Meetings between now and mid-March
  • Use the information gleaned from that Listening Tour to help determine refinements for the tournament schedule for 2014 and beyond
I can’t express how impressed I was with the level of concern of making double, triple, quadruple sure that they got this right.  A lot of great people spent years volunteering their time to put this plan together.  These USTA Execs were super sensitive about those volunteers balanced against a concern that the kids were getting enough opportunity.

The spirit of cooperation was off the charts and the results will hopefully be something that is more appreciated by more constituencies in tennis.

The joint announcement is below:

Hard to Believe It’s Almost Been a Year!

Our First Anniversary is coming up soon – November 3rd, to be exact!  To celebrate, we’re giving away a $50 Holabird Sports gift certificate to one lucky Parenting Aces reader! All you have to do is “Like” our Facebook page (click here), post on our Facebook Wall the title of your fav ParentingAces post from our first year, then “Share” our Facebook page with your friends. We’ll draw a winner on November 3rd. Good luck!

And a big THANK YOU to our friends at Holabird for their generosity and support!

Who’s Really #1?

USTA rankings vs. Tennis Recruiting star ratings vs. Universal Tennis levels . . . is anyone else confused here?  I don’t know about the rest of you, but this obsessed Tennis Momma spends an inordinate amount of time trying to understand what the different ratings and rankings actually mean and how my son can best use the information to improve as a player.

A quick overview of some of the different ranking/rating systems out there . . .

USTA currently uses the Points Per Round (PPR) system which awards ranking points based on the level of tournament and which round the player reaches in the tournament.  A player’s top 6 singles tournament results and top 3 doubles tournament results for the previous 12 months are included in his/her ranking.  There is a National PPR chart, but each USTA Section also has its own PPR chart based on how its tournament levels are set up.  Please note that it doesn’t matter if a player loses his/her first round main draw match or whether that player wins several rounds in the main draw – all that matters is where the player ends up in the draw at the end of the tournament.  So, in a 64-draw, a player who loses in the first round of the main but gets to the semifinals of the backdraw will earn more ranking points than a player who wins three rounds in the main then loses his/her first backdraw match.  Head-to-head wins/losses are not considered in the PPR system.  Quality of wins is considered only when a lower-ranked player has a win over a player in the top 100, though this can also vary by Section.

The Tennis Recruiting Network (TRN) uses the Star Rating system which awards stars based on a player’s ranking within his/her high school graduating class.  The Star Ratings are updated twice a year – once in the Fall near the beginning of the school year and once in the Spring in mid-March.  TRN does consider head-to-head match-ups in its rankings, so many coaches, players, and parents consider these rankings to be more accurate and reliable than the PPR system.  (See my blog post on TRN for more details.)  As one fellow tennis parent commented, unlike USTA’s system, “TRN rankings aren’t influenced at all by where you go to play a tournament and which #900 ranked player in the nation you happened to knock off in the back draw for your only win of the event (to secure those prized PPR points).”

Universal Tennis features 16 levels of tennis and provides tennis players worldwide a common rating system to determine their level of play. The 16 levels – ranging from 1 for beginners to 16 for the top professional players – are based on actual match results (the last 30 matches within the last 12 months) without regard to age or gender using the Competitive Threshold (i.e. how close were the matches?) to determine accurate ratings.  This system – developed by Harvard Head Coach David Fish and former Old Dominion players Dave Howell (who will be my radio show guest on December 3rd) and Alex Cancado – is relatively new on the tennis scene and is meant to be used in conjunction with the other rating/ranking systems.  Thankfully, it, too, is becoming more recognized as a reliable resource for parents, players, and coaches.

Unfortunately, all sanctioned USTA junior tournaments currently use only the PPR rankings – the least reliable of the three, in my opinion – to determine which players get into the events and who is seeded in those events.  One complaint that I hear repeatedly is that PPR rankings can be “bought” by players who have the means to travel to tournaments with weaker draws in order to win more matches and, as a result, wind up with better rankings, allowing them entry into the higher-level events.  I am loathe to admit that my son and I have taken that approach on more than one occasion – driving to the other side of our very large section where the competition runs a little less deep – in order to boost his USTA ranking to the point where he could get into events closer to home without going through the alternate list.  And, sadly (but fortunately, I guess), it worked, but is it honestly in the best developmental interest of a junior player to take this tack?

Of course, the answer is no, but it’s oftentimes a necessary step under the current PPR ranking system in order for a player who is aging up or is a late bloomer to get into the tournaments where he/she has competitive matches.  One parent commented on a previous blog post, “How do you reasonably explain to a 12 year child (or any child, for that matter) that a child he/she has beaten easily (possibly numerous times) is ranked above him/her [and, therefore, getting into tournaments when your player is not]?  The only reasonable explanation is that he plays more tournaments. In other words, his parents spend more money.”  It may not necessarily be that the child is playing more tournaments but that he/she is traveling all over to tournaments with weaker fields to get those match wins and coveted ranking points.

Another parent shared, “It would be great to see at least a few tournaments each year use that [TRN] ranking system to select and seed fields. If the USTA were to switch to TR[N] as their primary ranking system, I think that would solve many of the problems they’ve been trying to address with the proposed changes to national tournament structures, etc. (i.e., players/parents trying to buy PPR points/rankings by traveling to all the big national events).”  I agree wholeheartedly!  At the very least, USTA could use other ranking or rating systems in conjunction with PPR for a more accurate overall picture, especially when creating acceptance lists for the larger national tournaments.

We’re now seeing some creative tournament directors putting on events – like the Holabird-Adidas All-In Junior Tennis Challenge – where PPR ranking isn’t the sole criteria for entry or seeding.  Hopefully, our junior players will have more opportunities outside of USTA to develop and test their tennis skills.  ITA, ITF, and other organizations offer several options.  In the meantime, though, we have to work with what we’ve got and either (1) learn to play the system effectively and/or (2) be creative ourselves and help our kids find opportunities outside the system to become better players.

I would love to hear from you about how your junior player is balancing the challenge of getting into the tournaments he/she wants (needs?) to play while at the same time continuing to develop his/her game.  Please share your Comments below.

Southern Level 3s: One Parent’s Take on the New Format

We are more than 6 months into the new format for our Southern Level 3 tournaments, and, given that the Southern Section is often a testing-ground for policies that are later rolled out nationwide – and after spending yet another weekend at one of these events – I thought I would share my thoughts and experiences in hopes of generating some constructive dialog between us parents and USTA.

A quick recap on how the format changed in 2012 . . . the tournaments now have two 16-player draws for each age group with the brackets arranged by “waterfall” – for an explanation of exactly what that means, click here.  These tournaments must be played and completed on Saturday and Sunday with the goal of reducing missed school days.  Players are guaranteed at least 3 matches via a second consolation bracket.  The “real” consolation bracket will not play its final match, though the second consolation bracket will.  All singles matches will consist of a 10-point tiebreaker in lieu of a third set in both the main draw and consolation brackets.  There is also a new Points-Per-Round table for these tournaments with more points being awarded in every round (please note that there is NO CONSOLATION WINNER, however, so the most points awarded in the backdraw is 180).

The first thing I noticed with this new format is that there are two 1 seeds, two 2 seeds, 2 three seeds, and 2 four seeds in each age group; however, the winners of the two brackets in each age group do NOT play each other (i.e. there are 2 tournament winners in each age group).  That means the two top players at the tournament never have the opportunity to compete against one another, never have the chance to drive each other to work harder to improve.  Since healthy competition and rivalry are key factors in junior development, I don’t see how this new format is in the best interest of helping our players become stronger and more competitive once they leave the Section.  At the very least, I would like to see these tournaments add one more match to the main draws where the winners of each bracket play for the Championship.

I’ve also noticed that these events tend to have very long Alternate Lists in most age groups.  To me, that indicates a need for either (a) bigger draw sizes or (b) more tournament options.  I know y’all are sick to death of reading about my son’s experiences on the dreaded Alternate List, but, really, the size of these lists is a clear sign that there are players who want to play, so why not accommodate them somehow?

Another thing I noticed is that there are now 6 different draws – 2 Main, 2 Consolation, and 2 Extra Consolation – for each gender of each age division.  According to several Tournament Directors with whom I’ve spoken, this creates a mountain of extra work at the end of the first day of play, especially since the TennisLink tournament software hasn’t been updated to include the second consolation draws, meaning they have to be created and scheduled manually.  Assuming the Saturday matches finish by 9pm, that means the Tournament Director and staff start working on the second backdraws at that time for every single age division.  Not only do they have to create the draws, but they also have to schedule the matches and make sure they have enough courts available to accommodate the Main Draw, Consolation, and Extra Consolation matches.  Then, they usually have to be back on site before 7am on Sunday to be ready for Day 2 of play.  And we parents wonder why the folks at the tournament desk are sometimes a little grouchy on Sunday!

And, really, what’s the point of that second backdraw?  In no other tournament that I know of are players guaranteed three matches.  Why at this higher level sectional event is that the case?  Wouldn’t the players be better served by having the opportunity to play out the third set and play out the final of the “real” backdraw?  And, if you think the number of defaults is high in regular consolation draws, you should see what happens in that second backdraw.  There are so many defaults and no-shows which indicates to me that even the players don’t see the value in sticking around for that extra match or two on Sunday when they’ve already lost twice.  Why not use the second backdraw idea in lower level local tournaments instead where the participants could really benefit from the additional match play simply to gain experience?  At these higher-level events, the players are looking at the quality of the matches they get to play, and, really if we’re honest here, the quality in the second backdraw just isn’t there.  If you don’t believe me, take a look at this example from this past weekend’s Boys 18s second backdraw:

I would love to see USTA Southern take a good hard look at these Level 3 events and seriously consider tweaking the format going forward.  I would also love to see more Southern Level 4 tournaments offered on the same weekends as the Level 3s for those players who are struggling to get into the smaller draws of the Level 3s.  That way, more juniors would have the opportunity for tournament match play, increasing participation numbers which USTA keeps saying is one of its top goals.  But, you know, this is just my take on things.  How do the rest of you feel???