TeamUSA Forum on College Tennis

Logo courtesy of USTA
Logo courtesy of USTA

 

Earlier this week, the TeamUSA division of USTA Player Development held its 3rd quarter online forum entitled “College Tennis: A Pathway to the Pros”, and I was able to sit in for the entire session hosted by USTA National Coach Kent Kinnear.

Speakers for the webinar included UCLA Women’s Head Coach, Stella Sampras-Webster, USC Men’s Head Coach, Peter Smith, and USTA’s head of collegiate tennis, Stephen Amritraj. You can click here to watch the forum in its entirety, but here are some of the highlights that I tweeted out yesterday:

From Stella Sampras-Webster:

  • Coachability & being willing to do what’s best for the team are key factors in recruiting.
  • Coaches have to be careful when signing athletes because most have a 4-year scholarship agreement. Editor’s Note: This is NOT a widespread practice, except for the very top recruits.
  • College coaches have to put pro events on the calendar now so their best players have an opportunity to play pro events in between college events and schoolwork.
  • There is now pressure on college coaches to sell the fact that their program can help players transition to the pro tour.

From Peter Smith:

  • How does a player treat his parents? This is an important factor during the recruiting process.
  • Recruiting is a very inexact science.
  • “A complete person makes a great pro. A complete athlete makes a great pro.”
  • Recommended reading for all parents: CHANGING THE GAME by John O’Sullivan
  • Tennis is tennis. Playing college tourneys is just as valuable as playing pro tourneys for overall development.
  • Tennis is a brutal, tragic personal sport. Players need to learn how to lose, especially if they are planning to turn pro.
  • There really aren’t many recruiting rules for kids. Coaches are the ones who have rules to follow. Kids should be reaching out to coaches!
  • The NCAA limits practice to 4 hours/day. Smith says kids have to do additional work on their own if they want to reach the next level.

From Stephen Amritraj:

  • The increased cost of pro tennis changes way we need to approach turning pro.
  • If you’re not financially ready to take on the cost of the pro tour, then college is right path.
  • Players have to go through the proper progression. There’s no easy way to the top.
  • The Collegiate National Team is a great transition opportunity for college players to get pro experience during the summers.
  • The new USTA Pro Circuit Series offers a cost-effective way for college players to dip their toe in the pro pool during the late summer/early fall.
  • USTA has put together an 18-month transition program for players meeting excellence grant criteria that includes coaching, strength/conditioning, and physio services.
  • USTA has put together a 3-part webinar to aid in the transition to the pro tour. Click here for the link.

The next forum is scheduled for Wednesday, November 9th, 8pm ET, and will focus on Mental Skills. All of the TeamUSA Forums are appropriate for parents and coaches to attend. Click here to register.

Asics Easter Bowl, Martin Blackman, & TRN Profile

asics_logo_popupAs y’all know, I’m back in the Coachella Valley at the Asics Easter Bowl this week, helping out with some of the media stuff, doing a little commentating for the livestream (you can watch at EasterBowl.com), and just helping out wherever I’m needed. If you’d like to keep up with results throughout the day, I suggest you follow @zootennis on Twitter – Colette is doing her usual amazing job of following all the action and reporting it quickly! It’s a bit bizarre to be at a junior tournament without a junior in tow, but it does offer me a very different perspective and allows me the opportunity to tune into other families’ experiences. If your child is competing in the California Desert this week, please let me know so we can connect. I would love to hear your thoughts on what the tournament is doing well and where it can make improvements for the future.

Yesterday, I had the chance to participate in a conference call hosted by USTA to hear from newly-appointed General Manager of Player Development, Martin Blackman. While I’ve already posted the information that came from USTA, it was really nice to hear from Blackman himself on what he has planned in his new role. There were a variety of media folks on the call, including Colette Lewis from ZooTennis and Pam Shriver representing ESPN. You can read the complete transcript of the call here (and, by the way, the question about college tennis came from Yours Truly!).

Last but not least, I have to do a little Mom Brag here. My son is featured in this article on TennisRecruiting.net, and I’m just a bit proud! This Junior Tennis thing is such a long haul with lots of bumps along the way. To see your child reach his destination is a wonderful thing. There were times we doubted whether he would be able to – or even still wanted to – achieve his goal of playing Division I tennis. He persevered and pushed himself beyond his comfort zone to get there, and I’m so excited for him. As we have done with each of our kids, we will become die-hard Broncos fans and proudly wear our red-and-white as we cheer on the team. Go Broncos!

 

New Head of PD Named

Click here to read Tom Perrotta’s piece on USTA’s new head of Player Development, Martin Blackman.

Click here to read Colette Lewis’s piece on the appointment.

As Colette mentioned, there will be a conference call today hosted by USTA. I plan to participate and will let you know if I hear anything else of importance regarding the future of Player Development.

And please pardon any typos or formatting errors – I originally posted this from my iPhone on the plane!

The Future of Tennis (Part 2) With Marc Lucero

UR10s NetworkThis week’s podcast with Marc Lucero discussing the future of US Player Development:

 

http://youtu.be/946qbO5JuMc

 

ParentingAces is proud to be part of the UR10S Network, an internet-based radio station.  Click here for the weekly show schedule.

To listen live to the ParentingAces show, tune in from any internet-connected device at BlogTalkRadio/UR10Snetwork or call 714-583-6853 to listen from your phone and to ask questions of my guests.

The next ParentingAces show will be Monday, September 29th, at 12:00pm ET. Stay tuned via Facebook and/or Twitter for updates.

Click here to listen to all archived podcasts.

 

The Future of US Tennis with Tim Mayotte

UR10s NetworkThis week’s podcast with Tim Mayotte discussing the future of US Player Development:

 

http://youtu.be/aUhmgGUZBI8

 

ParentingAces is proud to be part of the UR10S Network, an internet-based radio station.  Click here for the weekly show schedule.

To listen live to the ParentingAces show, tune in from any internet-connected device at BlogTalkRadio/UR10Snetwork or call 714-583-6853 to listen from your phone and to ask questions of my guests.

The next ParentingAces show will be Monday, September 22nd, at 12:00pm ET. Stay tuned via Facebook and/or Twitter for updates.

 

UPCOMING SHOWS

October 6: Marissa Gould discussing her new children’s book A Magical Racquet Ride

Click here to listen to all archived podcasts.

What Is Going On In College Tennis?

There is so much happening on the College Tennis Front these days – some good, some not so good – that I wanted to do a quick update for those of you who are, like me, on the brink of getting your junior player ready for this next step. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the following points in the Comments section.

  • The Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) recently published its pre-season individual ranking list for both men and women (see below) as well as its ranking list for incoming freshmen. Just looking at the names on the men’s list, 26 of the top 50 (those in bold type below, 52%) are from outside the US. For the freshmen men, 8 out of 10 (80%) are foreign. Yet, on the women’s side, only 14 out of the top 50 (28%) are foreign while 3 out of the top 10 (30%) freshmen women are from outside the States. Why are the women’s coaches doing so much better at attracting top American players?
  • When you consider the fact that fully-funded Division I universities only have 4 1/2 scholarships to award on the men’s side and 8 on the women’s, it makes you think twice about why we in the US are willing to spend well into the 6 figures to help our juniors develop their tennis games when the chance of them getting any type of college scholarship – or a spot in the lineup – is so slim. Yes, tennis has become a global sport – and college tennis has become global as well – and that’s a great thing, in my opinion. But, what are the ramifications of that globalization? I’ve posed this question before, but does the NCAA need to limit the number of foreign scholarships and should USTA and ITA take a strong leadership role in bringing this about? The USTA (and ITA to some extent) have said limiting foreign scholarships would open up universities to a slew of discrimination lawsuits, but there is no evidence to back up that assumption. In fact, effective August 2012, the National Junior College Athletics Association (NJCAA) limits the number of foreign players on any sport team to 25% of the total roster (2 for tennis). At the moment, only 25% can be on scholarship but there is NO limit on the number of students who can pay their own way and be on the team. Why couldn’t the NCAA adopt a similar rule?
  • While the ITA approved no-ad scoring and clinch-clinch for the 2014-2015 season, NCAA has decided to table the discussion on the format for its 2015 National Championships. Colette Lewis of Zootennis.com spoke with the ITA’s David Benjamin who told her that the ITA Operating Committee will convene soon and will likely make a decision concerning scoring for the Fall events by early next week. Historically, the college coaches have adopted whatever format would be used at the National Championships during the Spring dual-match season. If the NCAA decides to stick with traditional scoring for now, it will be interesting to see if the ITA and the coaches themselves follow suit. As of publication, there is still no additional information on either the NCAA or ITA website regarding yesterday’s decision.
  • I had a chance to speak with several college coaches while I was at the Open. Though they may have differing opinions when it comes to no-ad scoring, I didn’t find a single coach who felt that using a clinch-clinch format is in the best interest of their players or their team. Luckily, ITA allows the coaches to choose whether or not to play no-ad or clinch-clinch in dual matches. As long as both coaches agree before the match begins, they can decide to play out all singles and doubles matches even after one team secures the overall match win. I suspect we’ll see all (or at least most) teams playing to completion despite the ITA ruling.

 

Men’s rankings

Rank Name School
1 Julian Lenz Baylor University
2 Yannick Hanfmann University of Southern California
3 Axel Alvarez Llamas University of Oklahoma
4 Mitchell Frank University of Virginia
5 Søren Hess-Olesen University of Texas
6 Jared Hiltzik University of Illinois
7 Brayden Schnur North Carolina
8 Winston Lin Columbia University
9 Gonzales Austin Vanderbilt University
10 Farris Gosea University of Illinois
11 Harrison Adams Texas A&M University
12 Austin Smith University of Georgia
13 Mackenzie McDonald UCLA
14 Amerigo Contini Virginia Tech
15 Shane Vinsant Texas A&M University
16 Dane Webb University of Oklahoma
17 Nathan Pasha University of Georgia
18 Denis Nguyen Harvard University
19 Roberto Cid University of South Florida
20 Romain Bogaerts Wake Forest University
21 Hunter Reese University of Tennessee
22 Leandro Toledo University of Minnesota
23 Ronnie Schneider North Carolina
24 Mikelis Libietis University of Tennessee
25 Andrew Adams University of South Carolina
26 Diego Galeano Baylor University
27 Jason Tahir Duke University
28 Ryan Shane University of Virginia
29 Leonard Stakhovsky Penn State University
30 Hunter Harrington Clemson University
31 Lloyd Glasspool University of Texas
32 Lukas Ollert Auburn University
33 Roberto Quiroz University of Southern California
34 Nick Chappell TCU
35 Jordi Vives Florida Gulf Coast University
36 Florian Lakat Mississippi State University
37 Alen Salibasic Drake University
38 Connor Glennon University of Memphis
39 Jonny Wang University of Southern California
40 Andrew Harris University of Oklahoma
41 Austin Powell North Carolina State University
42 Carlos Lopez Villa Old Dominion University
43 Felipe Soares Texas Tech University
44 Tim Kopinski University of Illinois
45 Gage Brymer UCLA
46 Jeremy Efferding Texas A&M University
47 Max de Vroome University of Southern California
48 Becker O’Shaughnessey University of Alabama
49 Chris Simpson Louisiana State University
50 Ben Wagland University of Georgia
Incoming freshman men’s rankings
Rank Name School
1 Noah Rubin Wake Forest University
2 Guillermo Nunez TCU
3 Cameron Norrie TCU
4 Alexander Ritschard University of Virginia
5 Wayne Montgomery University of Georgia
6 Piotr Lomacki University of Miami
7 Martin Redlicki UCLA
8 Nicolas Alvarez Duke University
9 Hugo Di Feo Ohio State University
10 Julian Cash Mississippi State University

Women’s rankings

Rank Name School
1 Jamie Loeb North Carolina
2 Robin Anderson UCLA
3 Hayley Carter North Carolina
4 Beatrice Capra Duke University
5 Julia Elbaba University of Virginia
6 Lauren Herring University of Georgia
7 Chanelle Van Nguyen UCLA
8 Lynn Chi California
9 Silvia Garcia University of Georgia
10 Danielle Collins University of Virginia
11 Emina Bektas University of Michigan
12 Ester Goldfeld Duke University
13 Breaunna Addison University of Texas at Austin
14 Brianna Morgan University of Florida
15 Zoë Scandalis University of Southern California
16 Zsofi Susanyi California
17 Carol Zhao Stanford
18 Stephanie Wagner University of Miami (Florida)
19 Sabrina Santamaria University of Southern California
20 Lorraine Guillermo Pepperdine
21 Ronit Yurovsky University of Michigan
22 Taylor Davidson Stanford
23 Romy Kölzer Clemson University
24 Yana Koroleva Florida International University
25 Denise Starr California
26 Viktoriya Lushkova Oklahoma State University
27 Kyle McPhillips UCLA
28 Desirae Krawczyk Arizona State University
29 Quinn Gleason University of Notre Dame
30 Krista Hardebeck Stanford
31 Stefanie Tan TCU
32 Stephanie Nauta University of Virginia
33 Caroline Doyle Stanford
34 Saska Gavrilovska Texas A&M University
35 Caroline Price North Carolina
36 Pleun Burgmans Auburn University
37 Kiah Generette Baylor University
38 Giuliana Olmos University of Southern California
39 Frances Altick Vanderbilt University
40 Eve Repic University of Tennessee
41 Nadia Ravita University of Kentucky
42 Georgiana Patrasc Mississippi State University
43 Maegan Manasse California
44 Georgina Sellyn Vanderbilt University
45 Erin Routliffe University of Alabama
46 Stephanie Vlad Arizona State University
47 Kelsey Laurente Oklahoma State University
48 Alanna Wolff Princeton University
49 Ellen Tsay Stanford
50 Sydney Campbell Vanderbilt University

Incoming freshmen women’s rankings

Rank Name School
1 Brooke Austin University of Florida
2 Josie Kuhlman University of Florida
3 Christina Makarova Duke University
4 Peggy Porter University of Florida
5 Ellen Perez University of Georgia
6 Borislava Botusharova Old Dominion
7 Johnnise Renaud Georgia Tech
8 Gabrielle Smith University of Southern California
9 Meredith Xeopoleas University of Southern California
10 Asiya Dair Boston College

How to Walk Forward on the Tightrope of Player Development

Image courtesy of Etsy.com
Image courtesy of Etsy.com

By Craig Cignarelli

The following article originally appeared on 10sballs.com

After a quarter century of questionably-successful exploits, the USTA Player Development (PD) division is, once again, making a change.  Patrick McEnroe no longer sports the PD crown, and the National Board has begun the search for a successor.  Having spent the last two decades watching regime after regime take the PD division’s reigns – only to drop them a few years later after effecting policies that have yet to produce a US Champion – I’m inclined to offer some thoughts about the next evolution in PD’s history.

Decide whether you are going to hire a leader or a representative.  When there is a conflict between what constituents desire and the personal principles of the PD chief du jour, how do you want that person to act?

Recently, we’ve seen a mandate imposed against the will of the masses, changes to college scoring against the will of the masses, changes to the national junior schedule against the will of the masses – see the theme here – and the masses have developed some serious skepticism toward the administrative powers-that-be.  Prior PD chiefs have come into the position with their own visions and plans for execution. During the interview process, they broke out their bullet points and impressed the Board with ideas and their ability to articulate a vision.  Except, those visions have never produced a US champion.  In fact, all too frequently, those visions have gone against the wishes of players and coaches and created a chasm between the private tennis community and USTAPD.  There is a pervasive US against THEM mentality that prevents synergy between the parties, and this antagonistic relationship between the tennis world and USTAPD is not helping the nation’s rising stars.

The latest PD regime took many hits – the US has failed to put a male player into the second week of a major for several years – and the former PD chief had little interest in hearing ideas from the tennis community at large.  Some accused him of succumbing to the arrogance of power, while others suggested he was too busy with performing other duties.  At present, there is both animosity and mistrust of the USTA PD, coming mostly from the private coaching community, but too, from parents and players.  Thus, the national governing body has a choice – to hire another leader to create another regime with fresh ideas and to, once again, hope that they work, or to revisit and reconstruct the PD leadership model.

Should you choose to hire a representative, that individual should take time to talk with parents, players, coaches, colleges, former professionals, tournament directors, media personalities, and other players in the tennis world, to gather information about the current state of tennis topography and to procure ideas for developing a national PD plan.  Gather Wayne Bryan, Chuck Kriese, Nick Bollettieri, Robert Lansdorp, Bill Scanlon. Round up Richard Williams, Blanche Roddick, Betty Chang, Steve Johnson Sr.  Bring in James Blake, Lindsay Davenport, Jim Courier, Tim Mayotte, John McEnroe.  Toss in a few PD trench-men like Frank Salazar, Dave Licker and me.  Invite Joel Drucker, Lisa Stone, Peter Bodo.  Buy us all lunch and dinner and let’s talk out what the future of USTA PD should look like.  Hell, I’ll even splurge for an extra magic marker and a white board.  Once there are enough ideas on the table, let’s post them on the USTA website and let the membership have a say in where they want their PD dollars to go.  Even if you are not inclined to heed their advice, at least let them be heard and then make the arguments as to why you believe they are right or wrong.  After all, it’s about them and the country, not you.

Too, the National Board must not be swayed by the international community’s tennis models, for as we have seen with the hostility toward the ROG mandate, not to mention political policies coming from the UN, the international community’s interests do not necessarily dovetail with American interests.  Yes, we can learn from them, but one man’s treasure is often another man’s trash, and to follow on the heels of foreign successes means we will no longer be trailblazing future paths to success.

All of this implies it is critical to select a PD steward whose acumen lies in the arena of synthesis. Visionary thinking is important, however, collecting ideas from the constituent communities and synthesizing them into an effective national program is a far more worthy and desirous talent for an incoming PD chief.

In the hierarchy of international tennis, America’s status has fallen, but few things inspire this country’s citizens like the threat of non-exceptionalism.  Recently, strong voices have emerged onto the tennis landscape.  It seems tennis aficionados want more for this nation of rugged individualists, and the idea of a national governing body is antithetical to that individualism. Some would dismantle the entire PD program and allow the private coaching community to continue its work to produce the next American champions.  “After all,” they say, “PD has never turned out a champion. It’s always been private coaches doing the hard work in the trenches, giving millions of feeds and with intense concentration on the individual athlete, that has produced the Grand Slam titlists.”  Others would suggest PD be reconstituted into something else – perhaps an advisory board for emerging players, maybe a group of coaching educators that travels around the country disseminating the best practices to the private coaching community, or possibly the entity just continues to run tournaments in a fashion that offers enough prize money to help support young Americans trying to make their way in the professional arena.  Whatever the decision, PD requires new thinking.

Whoever you select to wear the crown, help is here.  This is a conch shell call to all parties interested in US player development.  We are at a critical and crucial time for expression.  The absence in PD now needs a significant presence.  We need your thoughts, your ideas, your words – now.

Whatever the Board decides, it is not White Plains, but rather, the fruited plains that are filled with stories of successes.  It is time to turn an ear to the purple mountain’s championship echoes, to touch the fonts of achievements coming from the shining seas.  Player development will always work best when you leave the ivory tower and till the soil with the people doing the work.  In the interest of promoting the marketplace of ideas, I’ll start with the following and hope some others jump in to help the cause:

Begin with addressing the culture of PD in the US so we all know your intentions.  There are some deep wounds that should be resolved before we all attempt to move forward. 

Develop a meritocratic American circuit where rising players can earn enough money to give themselves a shot at professional tennis.  Something like: a series of 50K events where it’s winner take all and once you’ve won one, you cannot play another, American players only, and you must be outside the top 200 ATP/WTA. 

Identify the nation’s successful player development coaches and promote conferences/social media/webinars/other methods of dissemination where they can transfer their knowledge to the greater coaching community.  A rising tide lifts all boats and if more coaches can offer more information, more players will benefit. 

Create more team events for the youngsters.  Most competitive players will tell you that their most enjoyable experiences come from Zonals, Intersectionals, Junior Team Tennis.  Ultimately, kids want to be around other kids who push them and who understand them.  Past regimes have done an admirable job innovating in this area.  Do more. 

Create a SIMPLE tournament system where your average ten year old can figure out what he/she needs to do to get a ranking and to get into tournaments.  Make it so kids can’t duck each other. And then try not to change it every other year. 

Very quickly, archive the knowledge of some of the more senior coaches in this country.  We are about to lose hundreds of years of tennis insight, and while the game may have evolved beyond some of their methods, few things inform like the wisdom of experience.  Think Lansdorp, Segura, Bolletieri. Braden, Gould, DePalmer, Fox etc.. And then open-source that information for comment and analysis. 

And finally, how about an honest conversation with kids and parents about “What it Takes” in today’s world of international competition?  Certainly, there are many paths to the top of the mountain, but none of them exclude athletic development and hard work. If parents, players, and coaches had a better understanding of professional habits, we might gain an edge early on in the development process.  With their access to all of the top players, I’m a believer that one of PD’s greatest offerings could be information. 

The point is, there are hundreds of passionate advocates screaming out for American achievement. We all have ideas and energy, and most importantly, PLAYERS – with hearts and strokes and ambition. We are a corps of very invested folks out here, and we are prepared to help.  Whoever the National Board chooses, if the new chief can find a way to harness it all, to find a balance between vision and collective wisdom, perhaps the next regime will finally be successful playing its role in returning America to a dominant place upon the international tennis landscape.