Tennis News You Can Use
A couple of months ago there was a spirited thread on the National Senior Men’s Tennis Association (NSMTA) discussion board regarding consolation brackets at National Cat/Level 1 tennis tournaments. Some of the viewpoints and experiences expressed in that forum illuminated the feedback that most likely will influence back draw implementation once competitive play results at that level.
According to the initial post that kicked off that discussion, the USTA is requiring Level 1 tournaments conducted in 2021 to offer voluntary consolations. I have heard that idea floating around, but always interpreted it to have an implied “at a minimum” tagged onto the end. In other words, if a tournament wanted to still have Feed In Consolations through the Quarters (FICQ) it would be permitted. Now I am not so sure.
The discussion on the NSMTA forum revealed that many senior men were abandoning and no-showing back draw matches. As a player who has twice lost a first round match at a Cat/Level 1 tournament and fought my way all the way through the back draw to reach the Consolation Finals, I think that’s a shame. That final match determines the 5th and 6th place finishers. I appreciate the opportunity to salvage significant points following a first round loss.
Among the many artifacts coughed up recently in the house of the Umpire Who Gave Birth to Me, is the printed program from the USTA 1986 National Championships in Kalamazoo. That tournament includes both the Boys 16s and 18s divisions.
The mid to late 80’s was the junior heyday of the United States players that would soon come to dominate men’s professional tennis. You know… back when the American men could actually compete at the highest levels of the professional tour. There are a lot of recognizable names and faces printed in that program in the section with highlighted the previous year of Kalamazoo.
Among those was a picture of a young Jim Courier signing an autograph. He was depicted because he was the “Consolation Champion” the previous year in Boys 16s. It was an achievement worthy of mention and celebration.
Had that tournament been played with “voluntary consolation” I don’t believe the same thing could have been said. Winning a draw composed of some small subset of the first round match losers definitely doesn’t have the same prestige.
I am astonished to learn that not only is voluntary consolation acceptable for a Level 1 tournament going forward, that the USTA is actually encouraging or requiring tournaments to go with that implementation. Voluntary consolations dilutes the competitive opportunities for an event. Barring injury during a first round match, I am one of those players who is always going to step up to play any additional matches available. More is better.
There were a lot of thoughtful and well-considered points on the NSMTA discussion forum. As I read through the entirety of the thread, I was struck by the thought that the fundamental problem was not the format of the consolation draw. There seems to be a cultural issue. Some players eschew the back draw because of perceived stigma. Voluntary consolation will exacerbate that situation.
Promoting and celebrating the back draw as an opportunity to still finish as high as 5th makes playing the back draw much more attractive to players. Additionally it could be marketed as the “Feed In Champion” as was the case when young Jim Courier won that honor in 1985.
I don’t think that playing through a consolation bracket stunted his growth and development as a tennis player.
