Less Tennis is Never the Answer

Fiend at Court Unplugged

Today I am wrapping up my final observations from a feedback letter I recently submitted to the USTA Adult Competition Committee (ACC). My letter was one of many from tennis advocates within the Senior Women’s Tennis Community. The conclusion of my letter shares that some of the recent innovations were likely sourced or justified from a belief that court capacity is an issue driving necessary change.

Final Observations

I am aware that court capacity and scheduling are considerations at these events. (In fact, I participated in scheduling the Texas Junior Grand Slam back in the late 1980s when we were still doing everything on paper. I appreciate the challenge in that endeavor.) It would be a very good problem to have if there were so many players that scheduling and capacity was a legitimate concern. Quite frankly, based on current participation levels it isn’t an issue and we shouldn’t make decisions assuming that it is. The solution when we get to that point is to cap participation based on the rankings list.  It would be a good problem to have.

A handful of events do have capacity issues. (The exception from voluntary consolation granted to the Wilson World Championship is an example. The event is too big for the court capacity.) That is an outlier and probably some hard decisions need to be made on how to handle it, but modifying the tournament framework to fit that unique situation should not be in the solution set.

We should not be structuring the framework around outliers, but rather taking a holistic approach to how tournaments should be structured to maximize positive player experience and opportunities to play at the highest echelons of senior competition.

Final observations from my feedback letter to the USTA ACC.

Right now anybody who meets the age category restrictions can enter a Senior USTA National Level 1 Tournament. The simple fact of the matter is that participation is not high enough to warrant or justify player selection. There are rumblings that some of the decision makers at the USTA may be operating under the belief that court capacity is a driving concern for some of the changes.

As a point of contrast, I recently took a peek at the upcoming USTA Girls’ 18 National Clay Court Championships. That Level 1 Tournament is coming up next Month in Charleston. 216 players were selected into the Singles main draw. There are 98 alternates. In other words, almost 1 in 3 of the players who submitted an entry into the event will not get to play it. I provided a link to the USTA Selection Procedures below.

When the USTA unveiled the 7 tier tournament structure for Adults in 2020, the justification provided for the absence of mixed doubles was that tournaments did not have the court capacity to support it. That simply doesn’t align with reality. Similarly, there are intermittent indications that the USTA is promoting shortened formats for the Senior National level tournaments out of the same concern for court capacity. It is a problem that simply doesn’t exist.

The most important thing that the USTA ACC should be working on are ways to increase participation levels. More tennis is the solution to that problem. Longer playing formats and guaranteed match play is the way to attract more players to events. Concern over court capacity needs to be recognized for what it is: a dangerous distraction. Less tennis is never the answer.

1. Level 1 – USTA Girls’ 18 National Clay Court Championships at LTP, Player Selection List, viewed 25 June 2021.
2. USTA Junior National Championships Entries and Selection Information, USTA National Document, viewed 25 June 2021.