I am convinced that the most direct path toward repairing the adult tournament framework is reducing the glut of USTA League play that robs many people of the time necessary to compete in tournaments. Unfortunately, that is not an argument that gains much traction within the USTA or with many people who regard themselves exclusively as league players. While I think that the tyranny of the tennis calendar must eventually be addressed, today I am going to approach this topic from a completely different angle by examining the structural aspects of the adult tennis delivery system. Specifically, I am wondering if a new model for competition in adult tennis could bridge the gap.
At its heart, tournament tennis exists for players who value competition. While “fun” events have their place, true tournament play is about testing yourself against others and some semblance of measuring performance. That goes well beyond tallying wins and losses, to also include ranking points, changes in NTRP and WTN dynamic ratings, and “quality” wins that can unlock elite playing opportunities. There’s also a less tangible benefit, which is the performance boost that comes from facing progressively stronger opponents through the course of an event, something league play spectacularly fails to achieve.
The challenge is that the adult tennis delivery system has become increasingly fragmented following the introduction and explosive growth of USTA League play. Back in the 1970s, when the concept was first introduced, League was an innovative new model of competition that has undeniably been a participation driver in the sport. I don’t think anyone would dispute that USTA League is a good thing overall. Just as a new model once transformed tennis, it is possible that another new model of competition could emerge, revolutionizing USTA adult tennis once again.
For all the good, league play is a powerfully influential factor that drove the creation of fragmented incentive systems within the USTA. NTRP ratings are closely aligned with sanctioned league play. Tournaments award cumulative ranking points. Performance-based ratings systems like WTN (and UTR) is an innovation that exists without a well-defined purpose or organizational champion. At the margins of these systems are the players who are motivated by achieving higher performance as measured by the critical wins that build a resume for elite team competition opportunities and Gold Balls.
This fragmentation has become a death knell for local tournament participation by adults. It isn’t aligned with the incentive systems that most players compete under. Put another way, I think that many players are reluctant to play in tournaments because they either don’t see a purpose or, alternatively, correctly identify that it doesn’t meet their incentivized needs.
That is what has been leading me to think more and more about what a new model might look like that starts to ease the fragmentation. I have long advocated that every match played should equally factor into NTRP ratings. For example, I do not think that NTRP division tournament matches should count less than League matches, which they currently do. Similarly, I believe that all adult age group tennis matches should count for NTRP ratings when those valid matchups occur.
More recently, I have come to believe that the cumulative ranking point systems used in tournaments may be more of a problem for that format than a solution. I would argue that since cumulative rankings lists are routinely discounted if not completely disregarded when players are selected to elite team competition and for selection into elite events, the USTA has already tacitly recognized that the system is flawed.
Unlike the idea to ask USTA Leagues to stop dominating every single weekend on the calendar for the benefit of tournaments, this is something tournaments could do unilaterally for themselves. Specifically, I think we should start working purely off a WTN rating system overlayed with minimal requirements for tournament play. That will be controversial, because there is a lot of player sentiment that WTN still isn’t accurate. However, no sane person would argue that the cumulative ranking point system is more accurate than WTN. It’s the best we have and embracing it will force it to become better.
Discarding the cumulative rankings point system would open the door for players to congregate into local and regional events to drive the quality match play that drives true performance measures. Imagine a Section hosting an Intersectionals proving grounds tournament where the singles champion automatically earns a spot on the team. Such an event would create many more head-to-head results that would be directly applicable for the selection of the remaining roster. In conjunction, a rotating partner doubles format could be used to evaluate potential partnerships in a crucible.
I think there are a lot of players who would be attracted to a four-player, four-day event featuring a rated singles match each morning, followed by a doubles match with a rotating partner each afternoon. I envision multiple “quads” being sorted by WTN ratings at each tournament. Unless the USTA imposed shortened formats on such an event, I would 100% be interested in such an opportunity. In fact, I would get on a plane to do it.
If we want to inspire more play at the local level, we have to make those matches count for something, and in the current adult tournament system, they don’t. The current framework fails to encourage or incentivize players to participate in local and regional events, which are crucial for creating meaningful competitive match play. Adult tennis can only thrive when grassroots play is fully integrated with the big picture. I think it is possible to design a new model that does better.
The posts from the previous two days were published to the website, but failed to be distributed via email and social media channels. Connectivity to automated distribution has been restored. In case you missed it, here are links to that missing content.
