Tennis Scoring abbreviations: The hidden consequences will impact everyone
                                                                                                                      by chuck Kriese





For 141 years, the consistent barometer for marking levels of playing abilities, determining the rites-of- passage to new levels and the measuring of every competitor’s achievement has been the fascinating and challenging scoring system of tennis. Traditional Tennis Scoring is now under assault as there is an attempt to change or abbreviate it at nearly every level. The ITA and USTA are behind the effort as they promise that the shorter matches will be more exciting and will attract larger fan-bases at events.
As the 10-pt Tie-Breaker is now being used regularly instead of a learning-packed 3rd set for matches in junior tennis, No-ad Tennis is being bled into our youngster’s events as well. In the college ranks, strong opposition by coaches and players for 4 years was not enough to prevent the ITA from finally forcing it through. Multiple junior events are now following suit with a USTA narrative that suspiciously states, “Our kids need to play no-ad to get ready for college tennis.” REALLY!!! It is time to take notice!
The unintended consequences of such changes to the fundamental structure of tennis does much greater harm than is noticed on the surface. Youngsters and Collegians are getting skewed and random results. More harmful is that they are not learning the game in its entire depth. Seemingly, the path is being paved for abbreviated tennis to go into other levels of tennis. Since experimentations are already commonplace at the junior and collegiate levels, it might not be a stretch to assume that it soon becomes experimental at Grand-Slam and Davis Cup events. The plan seems to be that in a few short years our youngsters and collegians to be integrated into acceptance of abbreviators. Unfortunately, making things ‘easier to pick-up also makes them easier to put down!’ ‘Dumb-downs do not inspire.’
The fall-out of trying to make tennis easier could be far reaching and be impossible to reverse if allowed to continue. The following list shows 10 reasons why ‘Hard to pick up has also been proved as hard to put down’ and why Traditional Tennis Scoring and this great game have survived the many up’s and downs since 1874. Other sport’s scoring systems have never been able to compare in depth nor in genius. The scoring system of tennis is the game’s ‘most precious heirloom.’ It must be protected as such. The following list represents the brilliance of our game’s wonderful scoring system. Maybe it is not too late to let our tennis voices be heard.







Honor our Game - Protect Traditional Scoring!!!


Like many aspects of tennis that seem simplistic on the outside, the depth and intrigue of its scoring system have inspired and challenged players for 141 years. Successes or non-successes have been benchmarked and gauged by its accuracy of measurement. Its’ genius has presented the ultimate challenges to the body, mind and spirit of the competitor. It is a most precious heirloom and should be respected as such. Consider the following:



1. Traditional scoring is a fair, accurate and time-tested barometer for the many skill-sets that it takes to win in tennis. Skills to overcome ‘pecking orders’ and to go through the normal ‘rites-of-passages,’ for tennis levels have been assessed by consistent measurement for over a hundred years. These give critical guidelines for player development. Randomness and skewed results greatly harm developmental process.


2. Tennis is a game of simultaneous scoring opportunity for both offense and defensive postures. Thus, the need to win by 2 points instead of one per-game is paramount!! The 7th point of no-ad is of double-jeopardy value and is actually worth two games instead of one. (eg. This overloaded value is easily understood when the set-score is 4-2 and one point makes it either 5-2 or 4-3; however, the same weight is true every time a player loses the 7th point.) Sadly, the benefits gained from dishonest line-calls are enhanced because such weight is given to the 7th point of the game.


3. Fitness is a Corner-stone for Success in Tennis. Abbreviations to traditional scoring dilute and minimize the elements of conditioning and endurance of mind, body and spirit; therefore, results are often skewed. Best USA athletes will not be inspired by dumbing down the physicality of the great sport of tennis!!!
 
4. Conversion Point (3-in-a-row) mastery is a critical skill-set for success in traditional scoring – The length of every game in no-ad scoring is 4-7 points. Also, no-ad requires the winning of only 1 point in a row for success. Those multiple situations that require very disciplined skill-sets to solve are minimized by no-ad. The skill of ‘War-Zone Endurance’ or the ability to carry and defend a lead is critical for success in tennis.


5. Abbreviated scoring promotes random momentum swings and neutralizes the small differences in the better player’s skill base. Traditional scoring is designed for small differences of skill to become a big advantage as a match unfolds. This is where separation of players takes place. Early war-zones that are won usually set the tone for the match; however, no-ad diminishes that hard-earned separation earned by the stronger player. Momentum that is well-earned by the better player is usually minimized.
6. Point Construction and a well-rounded game are highlighted by Traditional Scoring. No-ad accelerates false parity between levels without the deeper mastery of skill-sets usually required for advancement. Abbreviated scoring rewards Ball-striking skill more than Point-construction skills.

7. Traditional Scoring produces great drama in the closing out of each game, set and match. The bi-product is usually heightened excitement. No-ad and abbreviated scoring dilute these opportunities for drama as one false crescendo after another is manipulated by the scoring system and not by skill-sets.

8. Players and Coaches want to play regulation tennis! They want to play the same system that professionals have used for 132 years. They do not want to mark improvements nor important rites-of-passage that are manipulated by hybrid scoring methods.

9. No-Ad is not a rule of tennis – No-ad was originally invented as a novelty experiment during the tennis boom of the 1970s. There was no research done before its implementation into competitive arena. It has always been marketed as a ‘Time-Saver.’ Research in the 1980s prove that is causes more 3-set matches.



10. When we use traditional scoring, we are ‘Honoring of the game’ and protecting a precious Heirloom. Abbreviated forms of scoring will not sustain interest nor do they inspire players for the long-run.






Please Do Your Part to Protect and to Promote Traditional Scoring….Ask our tennis leaders to do the Same!!!

“Honor our Game - Protect Traditional Scoring!!!” The depth of the tennis scoring system has inspired and challenged players for 143 years. Benchmarks and barometers for excellence during that time have been set by it’s accuracy. It is unmatched in sport for it’s fairness to advance credible champions. It is a most precious heirloom. We must protect it. Please consider the following: 1. Traditional scoring is a fair, accurate and time-tested barometer for the many skill-sets that it takes to win in tennis. Skills to overcome ‘pecking orders’ and to go through the normal ‘rites-of-passages,’ for tennis levels have been assessed by consistent measurement for over a hundred years. These give critical guidelines for player development. Randomness and skewed results greatly harm developmental process. 2. Tennis is a game of simultaneous scoring opportunity for both offense and defensive postures. Thus, the need to win by 2 points instead of one per-game is paramount!! Every 7th point of no-ad has harmful double-jeopardy value and is an 8-point swing. (eg. This overloaded value is easily understood when the set-score is 4-2 and one point makes it either 5-2 or 4-3; Game point at 4-4 shows the overload very well.) Sadly, the chance of bad line-calls are enhanced because such weight is given to the 7th point of the game. 3. Fitness is a Corner-stone for Success in Tennis. Abbreviations to traditional scoring dilute and minimize the elements of conditioning and endurance of mind, body and spirit; therefore, results are often skewed. When need for fitness is reduced or eliminated the need for good training regimens are reduced as well. 4. Conversion Point (3-in-a-row) mastery is a critical skill-set for success in traditional scoring – The length of every game in no-ad scoring is 4-7 points and requires the winning of only 1 point in a row for success. A great void to tennis developmental process is that ‘War-zone endurance’ is not taught by no-ad. 5. Abbreviated scoring promotes random momentum swings and neutralizes the small differences that become big advantages in the better player’s skill-base when traditional scoring is used. The Match Momentum that is hard-earned by the better player is minimized and easily overturned by no-ad scoring. 6. Point Construction and a well-rounded game are highlighted by Traditional Scoring. No-ad accelerates false parity between levels without the deeper mastery of skill-sets usually required for advancement. Abbreviated scoring rewards ball-striking skill more than Point-construction skills. Smaller players and players of less athletic skill-set are greatly disadvantaged by no-ad scoring. 7. Traditional Scoring produces great drama in the closing out of each game, set and match. The bi-product of great drama is heightened excitement. No-ad and abbreviated scoring dilute these opportunities for drama as one false crescendo after another is manipulated by the scoring system and not by skill-sets. 8. Players and Coaches want to play regulation tennis! They want to play the same system that professionals have used for 143 years so that wins are credible and losses are learning situations. Players and coaches do not want to mark improvements nor gain important rites-of-passage that are manipulated by hybrid scoring methods. 9. No-Ad is not a rule of tennis and it has been forced into the game without consensus of coaches and players. No-ad was invented as a novelty experiment during the tennis boom of the 1970s. There was no research done before its implementation into competitive arena. Although it has been marketed as a ‘Time-Saver,’ It’s real purpose has been to produce random results while creating immediate parity. 10. Every tennis player and every coaches has the duty to Honor the History and Heritage of Tennis! Please Do Your Part to Protect and to Promote Traditional Scoring….Ask our tennis leaders to do the Same!!!

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.

2014 Total Tennis Traning Camp Dates Announced

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
   

Open to all youth, ages 8 to 17, who would like to improve their physical, mental, and emotional tennis skills.

For more info, go to TotalTennisTraining.com

Or call 864-710-6973 or email: clairekriese@yahoo.com.

Chuck Kriese Speaks Out About Abbreviated Collegiate Scoring Systems

‘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

 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.

These 8 Proposals are needed for US tennis to Rise to Prominence once again:
 
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.

Proposal II: 
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.

HOLIDAY COMPETITION AND TACTICAL TRAINING CAMP ANNOUNCED; Open for all Junior Competitive Players 9-17,  December 20-22, 2013; Charleston, S.C. Coach Chuck Kriese has announced his 2013 Total Tennis Training Competition and Tactical Training Camp. On-court and Off-court Decision making, Momentum Control and match-flow tactics, Shot-selection strategies and Tournament Scheduling Strategies will be the focus of the camp. The Camp will take place at 'The Citadel.'  The three day training session is open to all youngsters  who wish to improve their knowledge and skill-set for competitive situations.   Registration and Sign-up can be done by email at: t3camps@yahoo.com  ; or on www.chuckkriese.net registration page or by calling 864-710-6973.
best email for registration is Clairekriese@yahoo.com

 

 

Coach Chuck Kriese's T3 Coaching Certification Course Announced:  On January 3-5, 2014, in Charleston, S.C., Coach Chuck Kriese will be conducting his T3 Coaching Certification Course for coaches, teachers and tennis enthusiasts.NOTE
Total Tennis Training Certification will be the course content. This course curriculum offers multiple facets for team and individual coaching including: Technical proficiency for movement, recovery steps, stroke production, fitness training and more. Tactical proficiency for shot selection, momentum control and pressure decision making will also be a focus. Team coaching proficiency in team practice planning and structure; scheduling for players team and individual competition excellence and more. .   A session on mental/emotional toughness for competition will also be held. All participants will receive a copy of Coach Kriese's 'Coaching Tennis' which is largely regarded as one of the most complete coaching book ever written.  The 'Coach Chuck Kriese T3' Coaching Certification Course will take place at 'The Citadel.'   Coaches, teaching professionals and tennis enthusiasts can sign up for the course on-line by email at:  t3camps@yahoo.com  ; or by going to the www.chuckkriese.net registration page   or by calling 864-710-6973.Best email for registration is clairekriese@yahoo.com THIS COACHING CERTIFICATION COURSE HAS BEEN CANCELLED - PLEASE CALL COACH KRIESE FOR INFORMATION ON UPCOMING COURSES AT 864 710 9928

Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Kriese Selected to Head The Citadel Tennis Program

Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Kriese Selected to Head The Citadel Tennis Program - The Citadel

JTCC College Recruiting Timeline

Click here for the JTCC College Recruiting Timeline (developed by Kyle Bailey) - a valuable resource for any high schooler considering playing on a college team. ATTENTION ALL YOUNG PLAYERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN PLAYING COLLEGE TENNIS!!! This is a schedule of what to do and when to do it as you progress through your high school years. Coach Kyle Bailey has spelled out each and every step to take en-route to your college career. Best of luck with your college search..coach kriese

2013 Tennis Camp Dates Announced

I’ve posted on my website the dates for four of my 2013 Junior Summer Camps. 

Week-Long Day Camps at:

• Sumter, SC (The Palmetto Tennis Center): July 14 - 19
• Landrum, SC: July 21 - 26
• Lawrenceville, GA (Collins Hill Athletic Club): July 28 - August 1

Weekend Day Camp at:

• Lexington, SC (Country Club): July 12 - 14

Registration will open on February 1.

For more info, go to TotalTennisTraining.com

2013 High School Tennis Coaches Certification and Seminar

With Coaches Chuck Kriese, Jerry Baskin, Ned Caswell, J.P. Weber, and Thabani Sithole.  Special Room Rates with Hilton. Space is limited.

For more info, and to sign up, click here or on the image above.

Why didn't I hold on to a few of these?

...not to mention all the other tennis-themed shirts that were once piled in my closet. Some guy sold a T-shirt from one of my camps from the '80s on Ebay for $52.

Understanding Passion in Tennis

Three Types of Players

Article: "Workshop is Net Gain for Coaches"

From the Tribune & Georgian

http://www.chuckkriese.net/Kriese_Camden_Workshop_Article.pdf

2012 Tennis Camp Dates Announced

I’ve posted on my website the dates for three of my 2012 Junior Summer Camps.

Week-Long Day Camps at:

Sumter, SC (The Palmetto Tennis Center) July 15-20

Lawrenceville, GA (Collins Hill Athletic Club) July 22-27

Weekend Day Camp at:

Lexington, SC (Country Club) July 13-15


For more info, go to TotalTennisTraining.com

Not So Super: The Third-Set Tie-Breaker

At junior tournaments throughout the country it has become common to use so-called ‘Super Tie-Breakers’ instead of playing out third sets.  This is being done in spite of disapproval from players, coaches and parents.

“It teaches our players some very bad habits about competition,” says Frank Salazar, the 2009 USOC National coach of the year. “The biggest problem is that it does not instill the qualities of what competition is really all about; most importantly: perseverance! Perhaps this has contributed to why very few young Americans are surfacing in tennis on the world scene. We are the only country in the world that uses this system, and maybe that says something about us falling behind.”

Cris Robinson, a Coach from Richmond, Va. states, “We might be self-sabotaging player development with its use. Players grow the most when learn how fight through hard matches and win. The byproduct is learning to think through adverse situations while developing strength of body and mind along the way. If the player always engages the heart, the pain of losing will have its upside as well.”  “The third set is where all of the learning takes place.”

VesaPonnka,  the 2011 USOC National Coach of the Year says, “On the outside, the abbreviated matches have been looked by tournament directors as a solution to playing many matches in a short period, but they have had a negative effect on youngster’s development.”   “It is through tough, close three-set wins and close losses that players usually make the breakthrough to a new level. Easy matches seldom pave the way for growth.”

Winning and Losing are both tools for growth.  A player who wins does not earn full credit by winning a third-set tie-breaker; likewise, losing a TB instead of a third set makes it easier to shrug off a loss.  As Salazar states, “The losses are supposed to hurt and the wins are supposed to feel really, really good. Both of these emotions are critical incentives for player improvement.”


Players Agree with Coaches

Likewise, many players like 17-year-old player Collin Johns, have spoken out against third-set STBs. “I take a lot of pride in my fitness and in the program of training that I do,” he says. “The ten-point breaker allows players to get victories without paying the full price. The skill and toughness that I gain though hard work should be my advantage and the STB system doesn’t allow the work I do to make a difference.”

ATP professional Ryan Young holds a similar opinion. “The ability to finish off an opponent and learning how to carry leads throughout a long, tough match are incredibly hard skills to learn,” he says. “There is no substitute for having to learn how to do this over and over again. Our sport has no clock to do the dirty work, and it is unlike any other when it comes to learning how to win. The third-set set tie-break system is unfair to the favored player when the underdog knows from the start that it is a smaller mountain to climb in order to win. Tennis is a lot like boxing. You often don’t really gain small advantages on the lesser player until 45 minutes or an hour into the match. It is unfair to stop at the point when you finally gain control of the match and have to play a tie-break.”



Where Did the Third-Set Super Tie-Breaker System for Come From?

The third-set STB was first tried at the college level back in the early 1990s. It was during an experimental era when college tennis was attempting to find a way to shorten matches to increase the fan appeal. It quickly flopped. Many top-ranked teams suffered upsets to lesser teams. For example, under the STB system, the Lander College team beat the heavily favored University of Georgia by winning three of these 10-point STBs.  Though abandoned for college dual matches, the system has crept into youth tennis as a solution to bigger draws and multiple consolation rounds.

Lately there seems to be an agenda to use them as it is the easiest way to get more players into events and to conduct back-draw matches as well. A tournament can run multitudes of matches and finish on time; however, the down-side of this approach lies in stunted development of the player.  “The advantages of the STB are notable for a tournament director when there is bad weather or indoor court space is limited,” says  BonnieVona, Manager of Competitive Tennis and Player Development for Middle Atlantic Tennis. But she conversely points out, “The training of high-performance players requires full matches for best growth. “We probably need to define more clearly the differences between developmental needs of competitive players and recreational events.”


Are Traditional 2 out of 3 matches Too Strenuous for Younger Players?

A junior tennis official recently stated that the long matches in hot conditions were often too taxing on our young players.  Citing a recent study done he maintained that STBs should be used to prevent injuries and health problems stating, “Our kids are often being exposed to tougher conditions than Marine Boot Camp.”  Although convenient, this may not be the best correlation.All coaches and players know that acclimatization is a big part of being good. If players have properly conditioned, there are very few situations in a tennis match where overexertion becomes dangerous. When tennis players get fatigued or too hot to play, they simply miss balls and lose.

For certain, safety should always be a consideration. Tennis is primarily an outdoor sport. Hot and humid conditions are often an element of the game. Thus, conditioning and heat acclimatization is an essential training fundamental. If safety is really a concern, a medical waiver at tournaments would seem to be sufficient.Multiple sports that are much more dangerous already do this.


Perhaps we should Re-evaluate Doubles

Many coaches feel that the whole problem might be solved by making doubles more important again.  “The skills used for doubles really round out a player’s game,” says former US Davis Cup Chairman Roy Barth.
Tournament officials are stuck however. With so many tournaments playing back draw consolation matches, shortened doubles matches are now being played as well. Limiting back draws to one extra match for first round loser is a recommendation.  Doubles should go back to two-out of three sets for best player development.

Two rounds of doubles should start the tournament as well. The doubles matches could be held in conjunction with participant socials and organizational meetings on the first eve of the event. If 2 doubles were played first, 75% of the doubles matches would be completed before singles were started.  This would provide breathing room for the directors and other options.


Honoring the Game

The traditional tennis scoring system is one of our most sacred heirlooms. It should be protected as such. This scoring system sets multiple problem solving opportunities that makes it quite unique.  Based on threes, tennis scoring constantly tests one's ability to construct and win points in sequences that constantly changeand vary in pressure.  A player can only go forward in levels of achievement when he or she has mastered the ability to manage these fluctuating pressures. The third-set STB fails to measure this nor does it measure important aspects of momentum-control and understanding of the flow of the match.

A bad rule is like a bad law. They are easy to implement, butvery  hard to eliminate. Our traditional scoring system is fundamental. Modifications like no-ad scoring, pro-sets and super tie-breakers are devaluing our game. Such scoring schemes should be abandoned.


Chuck Kriese was the head coach at Clemson University for 33 years. He coachesd 5 Junior Grand-slam Titles. He is Author of 5 books and is in the national collegiate hall of fame. He is the Senior Director Competition and Coaching, at the Junior Tennis Champions Center in College Park, MD. Visit his website at ChuckKriese.net.

Criticisms of Current Rules: Part III: No-Ad and Super-Tie Breaker Scoring

I wholeheartedly agree with the ITF including doubles at all junior events. It tremendously contributes to the overall development of junior players. However, the use of the No-Ad scoring and the Super-Tie Breaker for third set is not beneficial.

There are three goals that should be considered in making a rule change:

1. The Process Goal for the player’s developmental learning.

2. The Product Goal to establish an even playing field.

3. The Fan Goal to attract and appeal to the spectators.

In junior tennis, the Process Goal is not satisfied by No-Ad scoring. The players do not learn the discipline to labor through the lengthy, war-like games that are the key to becoming skilled in tennis.

Perhaps the most important key to achieving high level of success in tennis is developing the skill that it takes to manage the momentum of traditional scoring. Traditional scoring is multi-dimensional. No-Ad scoring is not.

Likewise the Product Goal is not satisfied either, as the best players lose some of their edge in regards to their mental, emotional, and physical skills. All advantages are neutralized by the immediate fluctuations of momentum and pressures caused by the No-Ad system.

With traditional scoring, the subtle separation that a slightly better player has in his or her skills becomes a large advantage during the match. With No-Ad scoring, however, even a big skill separation is potentially nullified with the quick gains and losses of momentum.

The Fan Goal is not being satisfied either. The No-Ad scoring system eliminates the drama and suspense of a player being able to put together three consecutive points.

The traditional scoring system is an heirloom of tennis. It is unique in the sports world. It tests the player’s ability to group points and convert games. This deep skill should not be compromised. The athlete should impact the outcome of each game, not the scoring system.

Key momentum fluctuations are drastically impacted by the use of No-Ad scoring: For example, a 30-0 lead gives the player 16:1 odds that he/she will have a game point in No-Ad scoring. Likewise, a 30-15 lead gives a player 8:1 odds that he will have a game point.

At other key times, the impact of one point unfairly loads the deck as well. The critical 7th game is a good study of this. A 4-2 lead can turn into 5-2 or 4-3 based on a net cord or a bad line call. Even though this is the most obvious example, all game points are worth two games.

In tennis, it is fascinating when players with a similar skill level are competing. The winner must be able to closeout his or her opponent at the end of the match by gaining mastery over his or her nerves. No-Ad scoring takes this dimension away from the player’s developmental process.

Lastly, major tournaments should never be determined by the use of a 10-Point Tie-Breaker for the third set. For example, at the 2008 US Open Junior event, there were 23 doubles matches on the boys draw. 17 of these were decided by a Super-Tie Breaker. This demeans a great achievement and is not a good indicator of the better team.

There should be a valid reason for that the No-Ad system and the 10-Point Match Tie-Breaker to be used for Junior ITF events. Mostly likely, they were implemented with the hope that it would prepare junior players for its use in professional doubles. There is, however, no evidence that there is a carry over value. Most doubles players in the professional ranks are singles players who did not advance far enough in the singles rankings to sustain their career.

The No-Ad system in professional tennis was implemented as a compromise to prevent doubles from being dropped from the tour. Since then, however, it has remained extremely unpopular.

Tournament owners have ignored a simple scheduling solution. Before playing any singles matches, they may consider playing two rounds of doubles on the first two days of the event. Thus, players can use the doubles matches to ready themselves for singles competition, and the first two days can be dedicated to fan appreciation and kids clinics (perhaps even conducted by the doubles players). After these first two days, tournament owners would only have to take care of the remaining 4 doubles teams.

A bad rule is much like a bad politician. Both are easy to put into place, but the ramifications can be long lasting. And once in place, the bad rule or the bad politician are very hard to remove.

The integrity of the game is founded on a level playing field. The physical, mental and emotional skills of tennis should be the sole criteria that determine the outcome of a match, rather than a well timed injury or bathroom timeout. Furthermore, No-Ad scoring and the 10-Point Super-Tie Breaker impairs the crucial role of momentum in the sport. Players and coaches who spend thousands of hours of preparation and training to execute their skills deserve the best chance to win.

Criticisms of Current Rules: Part II: The Bathroom Break

Bathroom Breaks are being used as strategic tactic to break momentum in matches. Most tennis players would agree that there is rarely a need to use the bathroom once the tennis match starts. During a match, there is, typically, a greater concern for water replacement than excessive urination.

On rare occasions, diarrhea may be a factor. Diarrhea might be considered an acute injury. Urination is not. Perhaps the best rule for bathroom breaks may be to only allow it at end of split sets.

In a comparison, it would be unimaginable to see the situation in a boxing match where one boxer has delivered enough body punches to have his opponent leaning into the ropes - ready to submit. Then the player who is under duress, suddenly call for a trainer to give him medical attention or to call for a bathroom break. Likewise, in a tennis match, it often takes over an hour of steady shot selection and pressure to weaken an opponent.

The current rules for tennis should be adjusted to eliminate such disadvantages for the player that who has diligently worked to gain momentum.

Criticisms of Current Rules: Part I: The Injury Timeout

This is a three-part essay regarding disagreements that I have with ITF tournament rules.

In 2010, I attended 19 ITF events, during which I witnessed several matches won by abusing the rules with well timed injury or bathroom timeout. Also, I have concluded that the No-Ad and Super-Tie Break systems create topsy-turvy results. Upon questioning multiple of fellow coaches and players, I have heard many similar sentiments.

The issue that may be of most immediate concern is the abuse of

the rule for

Injury Timeout. The existing rule for on-court injuries may be of good intent, but it has been grossly abused by multiple players on the ITF Junior Circuit.

Faking injuries is now a very common method to change to momentum of matches. Its abuse is noticeable to all coaches and players and many spectators.

Momentum is the most powerful force in sports, and it is very hard to earn, fairly, through good tennis tactics and skilled play. During a tournament, there are some occasions where there may be a legitimate injury – a player has been hurt enough to stop play. However, even when a legitimate injury does happen, it should not be weighted so heavily as to cause an unfair disadvantage to the healthy opponent.

In no other sport are athletes penalized by their opponent’s injury or lack of conditioning. In a tennis match, a player’s health is rarely in peril.

Here are a few recommendations to remedy this issue:

A. A distinction made between an acute and chronic injury.

Chronic injuries and pre-existing injuries should never be treated on the court. Acute injuries are different, but there should still be some consideration for the concerns of the healthy player and the preservation of the momentum that he or she has earned.

B. A one-game penalty for a player that calls for a trainer.

This would eliminate bogus injuries, but still be a fair trade-off if for the player who is seriously injured.

C. A trainer can only be used during the normal change of sides.

If a trainer is needed, the normal 3 minutes for treatment would be fair under these circumstances. If the trainer is called for during a change of sides break, then the athlete should have to wait to be treated during the next change of sides break. This would not disturb the momentum of the match.

D. Cramping should not be considered an injury.

It is, rather, a symptom of poor conditioning.

The decision making burden, concerning what is and what is not an injury, should not be put on the referees or the trainer at the site. This leads to an inconsistency of assessments. Officials and trainers will usually conservatively error on the side of the injured as they fear making a mistake. Therefore, a consistently enforced rule should be in place to take subjectivity out of the situation.