July 9, 2014
Maximizing the Effect of Competition for the Junior Tennis Player By chuck kriese Tennis should have two unique goals/ objectives for our youngsters: #1 – Competitive development goals: which includes all junior tournament structures and any programs that aid direct or non-direct pathways to highest levels of competition in the world. #2 – Participation goals; which includes everything else to get our youth to play. While multiple avenues might be used to accomplish participation objectives, competitive structures should be developed in formats that provide best opportunity to test the youngster’s body, mind and spirit. Formats for best competitive growth opportunity should address: The Physical Challenges - that is the best indicator of who is the best player and also is equal to or exceeds the challenge and competitive structures we face from the other nations of the world. The Mental Challenges – that mental endurance and stamina of thought process under pressure are trained for the multiple momentum changes that happen in tennis. The Emotional Challenges – to maximize the emotional growth opportunities that take place through heart-engaged competition for a prize that has substance and meaning no-matter the level of play. Best Competitive Formats for Maximum Physical, Mental and Emotional Growth (in order of effectiveness for growth goals to be accomplished in youth): 1. Best for true result: 3 of 5 full-sets with regulation scoring 2. Next Best: 2 of 3 full-sets with regulation scoring (the following should be used sparingly (if at all) for best junior development) 3. 2 of 3 sets (set 1 and 2 are full sets. Set #3 starts at 2-2,3-3….maintains teaching of momentum principles 4. 2 of 3 sets ( set 1 and 2 are started at 2-2 and third set is a full set) (This format is the best abbreviated format played under 2hrs. still rewarding 3rd set play as full set. 5. Set 1 is a Ten-pt TB – set #2 and potential 3rd if needed are full sets. 6. 2 of 3 sets (all sets start at 2-2) (may be good for young age group multiple matches) 7. 2 of 3 sets ( set 1 and 2 are full sets – TB for third set * 8. 2 of 3 sets – no ad scoring** 9. 2 of 3 sets – first 2 sets no-ad scoring. 10 pt breaker for third set* 10. 8 game pro-set (regular scoring) 11. 8 game pro-set (no-ad scoring)** *Most Learning takes place in the 3rd set of a Match. Tie-breakers for third sets does not teach the most important mental skills of the game; nor does it fully reward hard-earned successes while likewise teaching the important lessons of a tough-lossl. **No-ad scoring formats should never be used in Junior Competition as learning important dimensions of the game are compromised. (Traditional Tennis Scoring is based one’s ability to win points in groups of 3’s and to manage momentum once it has been earned. Subtle technical and tactical advantages become big differences as a tennis match progresses. No-ad allows radical momentum swings of scoring that impact the game disproportionately more than these hard-earned competitive skills.) Learning opportunities should never be minimized in Junior Competition as the result of a hybrid scoring system.
February 7, 2014
I’ve posted on my website the dates for six of my 2014 Junior Summer Camps.
Week-Long Day Camps at:
- Charleston, SC (at The Citadel): June 1 - 6
- Charleston, SC (at The Citadel): June 8 - 13
- Landrum, SC: July 13 - 17
- Sumter, SC (Palmetto Tennis Center): July 20 - 25
3-Day Camps at:
- Lexington, SC (Country Club): July 11 - 13
- Lawrenceville, GA (Collins Hill Club): July 27 - 29
- Marietta, GA: July 30 - Aug 2
February 6, 2014
‘The Vote of 21-19’ by Chuck Kriese
The Scoring System of tennis is one of its most sacred heirlooms. The fluctuation of pressures from one lead to the next is why tennis dwarfs other racquet sports in comparison. The tennis player must not only become adept in skill-sets of physical performance, but the scoring forces him/her to develop good abilities in mental and emotional aspects as well. The intrigue and drama of the game happen largely because of the implications of rapidly changing momentum swings enhanced by a scoring system established over 100 years ago.
The ITA (Intercollegiate Tennis Association) had its annual convention and coaches meeting in December. The hottest and the most pressing topic of 2013-14 has become ‘Collegiate Dual-match Formats and Scoring Systems.’ The overused talking point being promoted this year is: ‘College tennis will not survive unless dual match format starts and finishes under 3 hours.” Interestingly, this same issue was also the hot topic in the spring of 2012 a collegiate committee had randomly injected a radical system destined to drastically change college tennis’ long-used traditional format. There had been obvious scheduling problems at the 2012 NCAA tournament as 32 teams (16 men and 16 women’s) had to play late into the night making the event looked much less than professional.
The college committee reacted to long days of tennis at the NCAA event by trying to push forward a deviation from the normal format. The new dual match proposal in summer of 2012 was met with 10,000-plus signatures of protest from around the country. An internet site had been set up by tennis student-athletes in protest. Tennis coaches, players and college tennis supporters expressed serious disapproval. To slow down the fire-storm, the committee tabled their idea and waited. The movement continued this summer as a joint USTA/college group introduced a ‘morphed’ version of what they had tried to do a year earlier.
Prior to 2006, men and women’s teams played at different sites. A 51-2 vote by men’s coaches in 2005 wanted to keep it that way, but the board pushed forward an agenda to combine all men and women’s teams to be the same site anyway. Scheduling before that move was always a challenge, but it was never a great issue as the unique needs of both groups were handled well.
Multiple collegiate coaches believe that the 3-hour time limit for college match is a talking-point and a potential ‘Ruse.’ It is primarily based on entertainment objectives with little regard for player development issues. ‘Brian Boland, coach of the National Championship Virginia Cavaliers stated at the ITA meeting, “The real problem is not the time, but more it is that there were too many moving parts at our NCAA championships with 32 teams to take care of.” “It has created a logistical nightmare.” In agreement are traditional coaches who believe that the educational aspects of tennis are a more important part of the college game. Those coaches disdain the abbreviated and bastardized formats for scoring. To not use traditional scoring drastically deemphasizes important elements of work ethic, conditioning and important learning aspects that only come from tough matches.
The December meeting of the ITA brought the fight between ‘Education vs. Entertainment’ to the floor. After nearly 5 hours of debate and heated emotions of philosophical divisions, the board members eliminated all options but two from the black-board and gave the men’s coaches a choice and a vote. Both were designed to shorten the matches and no-other option would be acceptable for the first one third of the season of 2014. . ‘There was never an agreement of the coaches in the room that ‘Time’ was the true reason for the problems of college tennis’. That early talking- point and need to shorten the match seemed to have become as an assumption of truth.
The two formats were presented. The First format was that singles matches would be 2 out of 3 sets with traditional scoring. However, a tie-breaker would be played at 5-5 instead of 6-6. The doubles would only be a 6 game set instead of a pro-set. The Second proposed format was that the players would play full singles matches and a pro-set for doubles. However, the abbreviated system of no-ad would be used. The vote was made. Coaches voted to protect the integrity of traditional tennis scoring with a 21-19 vote in favor of using regular scoring with TB’s at 5-5 instead of 6-6. A vote had been made, and most left the room feeling that a small victory had been won in the preservation of a scoring system that would not diminish the game.
The board of directors met for a separate meeting later that day to finalize the matter. It was decided that the vote taken in the afternoon was too close to call, and there was definitely not a mandate for either system. In a turn-of-events, the decision made by the board was that it should therefore be allowable for another format to be promoted as the solution. As if an election between two political candidates was too close to call, an outside candidate was put into place. The format decided on to be played for the first six weeks of the season would therefore be abbreviated sets with TBs at 5 and the use of No-ad scoring. Arguably, this new option actually took the worst aspect of the first two proposals and pushed them into play. The mandate to be put into place had never been debated by the general coaching body nor had been brought up as an alternative in the coaches meeting.
The great game of tennis should be protected and not be compromised by political agenda. College tennis is one of the most important developmental tools that our country has for our youngsters to hone their skills and develop important leadership abilities. It is simplistic at best to conclude that the saving of a few minutes in a tennis match is worth all that is lost by the dismantling of its scoring system.
8 Proposals for the Future of American Junior Tennis by Chuck Kriese
- "Comfort bares no Fruit" when it comes to preparing our youngsters for excellence.
- We cannot EVER be Excellent as long as we continue to remove (or Dumb-Down) those very necessary 'Rights-of-Passage' benchmarks that it takes to be excellent.
- We need to speak to the 'King' and the 'Queen' in our youngsters, not the little boy or girl.
- We need to call upon their potential greatness.
- Abbreviated Scoring and soft training will never produce champions.
Proposal I: In the construction of USTA National, Regional and State Jr. Competition, consideration should be given for the goals and objectives of 12 and 14 age groups to be different than those given for the 16 and 18 age groups. The priority for 12 and 14 year old age groups should be participation centered with an avenue for ranked advancement for best players; whereas, priority for 16 and 18 year old age groups should have performance priorities with avenues for participation objectives for those players who would require that avenue.
Rationale: The goals and objectives for participation versus performance differ for each age-group (maturity level) of competition. These considerations take on greater and lesser importance at different stages of each player’s physical/mental/emotional careers. In general, younger age groups can usually orient toward participation with avenues to break out to higher levels when ready to do so. Older age groups require a much higher level of importance and urgency placed on performance objectives. Although each and every case is unique, the general base of development should range from younger to older with participation being more important when young and performance being more important when older. Readiness can be age-related, but should not be age-determined. These factors are of high significance and importance when consideration for various match/tournament formats, consolation events, Full doubles matches, and scoring systems are being used.
Part A - Use of Traditional Scoring System (2-out-of-3 complete sets) exclusively for All Matches in 16 and 18 Age-groups as these are: (Performance Priority age-groups) of Boys and Girls Divisions.
Part B - Use of Traditional Scoring Systems whenever possible in 12 and 14 age divisions (Participation Priority age-groups) (When there are extreme situations such as rain postponements etc. only abbreviated systems that closely follow traditional scoring systems should be used. (example: 1st set starting at 2-2 and use full sets for deciding 2nd and/or 3rd sets. A second option when rain is a problem could be to start at 3-3 for third set instead of a TB.) There are multiple options that can be used for closest uniformity to actual match play, but 3rd set 10pt. TB should not be used as the player’s learning is diminished and skill advantages of the best players are compromised greatly with TB for 3rd set.))
Rationale: The most impactful learning process takes place in the third set of a match. Breakthroughs to new levels of play and advancement to new player-pecking-orders also take place through the process of the winning (and the losing) of tough 3 set matches. The use of Tie-breakers for deciding third-set matches prohibit necessary mental/emotional/physical learning skills that are paramount for junior tennis players to advance through pecking orders and skill sets. The lessons learned by both the winning and the losing of hybrid matches do not advance maximum confidence and match-momentum skills and often dumb players down to a medium level of performance.
Proposal III: Full doubles matches (2-out-of-3 sets) should be played at 16 and 18 year old age group events instead of pro-sets. Full doubles matches should take a higher priority than consolation events in performance-objective events.
Rationale: In Performance-objective events (16 and 18s), player development and best-team advancement should be a priority. Player development for transition skills, volleys, serves, returns, momentum-management and teamwork are developed most accurately by the use of two-out-of-three set matches instead of pro-sets. Full Doubles matches have always been one of main catalyst for players to advance in pecking orders first as they would quickly gain confidence for advancement to higher levels in singles from successes to late rounds. Pro-sets do not have this impact for player development. If time is a problem with the play of doubles matches, first and second rounds can be played with pro-sets as first events of tournaments with two-of-three set matches being played after these opening two rounds.
Proposal IV: No-Ad scoring should not be used for Junior Tennis Competition.
Rationale: The base of traditional scoring in tennis is that it is necessary to win 3 points in a row to be successful at any level. (for example, if a player does not win the first point of the game, he/she must always win 3 in a row or win 4 or the next 5 to win the game.) No-ad scoring slows the learning process of players as it allows players to have success by winning only one point at a time in, sometimes in alternate sequence. This hybrid scoring system favors an under-dog player as it does not allow the better player to work through performance pressures of long games and to use his/her small skill-set advantages that become big differences late in a match.
Proposal V: In the 18 year-old division, play should be continuous after the 2nd set of a two-out-of-three set match. Extended breaks that also cause a loss of momentum should not be used.
Rationale: Momentum is a critical component involved with the winning or the losing of a tennis match. Momentum gained in the second-set of a match is disturbed, and often eliminated, when a rest-period is given at the end of the second set. Conditioning should also be a factor of consideration in higher age-groups where performance and player development start taking priority.
The Remaining Three Proposals are made Primarily for National Junior Competition Committee, but can be made for regional and state junior competition committees as well.
Proposal VI : Return to the Head to Head System for the evaluation of tournament performance and rankings.
Rationale: There are unintended consequences in having established a Point-per-round system instead of the traditional head-to-head system for rankings and scoring results at tournaments. Although the premise of points-per-rounds system initially appeared to be logical and potentially energizing for the play of more matches, there are three adverse effects to player development and growth of junior tennis.
#1. The Point System has encouraged top-down management for the growth and management of events; therefore, it has indirectly caused diminished incentive for local entrepreneurial action. This further harms enthusiasm of long-established events that are historical and provide heritage for the game.
#2. Because there is no penalty or negative impact to a players ranking for a loss in head-to-head matchups, the maximum motivation that comes from dislike of losing has had a lesser impact for growth; and therefore, maximum learning opportunities are being lost in player development. This has been shown in serious form in back-draw events as the number of withdrawals and walk-overs have been numerous.
#3. Those players with the resources to play multiple events have great advantage over those youngsters who have limited funding or are challenged by location.
Proposal VII: When an injury time-out or a Bathroom Break interrupts the flow of a match, the player that asks for the break in play shall award a one-game courtesy to his/her opponent for the breaking momentum of the match.
Rationale: Gamesmanship has been the predominate motive behind taking bathroom breaks and injury timeouts. Chronic (non-acute) injuries that a player has consented to take the court with, and retreating to the restroom to urinate are constant abuses of sportsmanship. Chronic injuries should never be considered as injuries while acute injuries can be. Dehydration is a much more of an issue than over-hydration. Match Momentum should be protected by rules in these situations. A interruption caused by both actual and not-actual circumstances are a great unfairness to that player that has worked hard to achieve momentum and also prevents players from learning important skills needed for higher performance.
Proposal VIII : To have Rankings for players in the Performance ages (16s and 18 year old age groups) Grand Slam Players (Gold Group) Approx. 1-75 top ranked players would be Grand-slam players. To have Players between 76 and 400 be identified in a Rating group (Silver Group) and to have players below 400 to be (Bronze Group). Bronze group would be local, High School or state ranked players having events to earn points that help them work toward advancement to Silver etc. (high school competition, Local competition).
Rationale: Earned advancement and rankings must be identified at different levels in different ways that identify and spell out the different needs of each particular skill group. Top players need head to head results and need to be identified and separated distinctively by head to head results. Therefore rankings serve this purpose best for top players. The middle group must be mobile and be able to achieve movement to higher or fall to lower groups based on individual initiative with clearly defined goals and objectives. Entry level players must have initiatives that encourage youngsters through participation and through their own work to be able to see where they are and to see the journey ahead.