An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
A short time after I wrote extensively about the ITF tennis ball testing procedures in 2020, I learned that both the USTA and Tennis Australia also have testing facilities and procedures for tennis ball testing. In fact, both of those national associations publish a list of approved balls that is divergent from the ITF list.
On this final day of 2020, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the past year. This site emerged from a goal that I set for myself on New Year’s Eve in 2019. Specifically I wanted to write a page a day about tennis in 2020. The fact that this was done publicly via a blog was an accountability afterthought. Today I am celebrating successful achievement of that goal.
The final discussion point in the Rules surrounding the use of Player Analysis Technology is over how the allowability of various devices is litigated. Last week we discussed that the ultimate authority over these devices is the ITF. There are detailed policies and procedures that define how the determination is made.
There is an odd psychology in hitting the overhead. The majority of recreational players seem to regard what should be an easy “put away” with a mixture of apprehension and fear. The simple fact of the matter is that it is embarrassing to miss an overhead. For the same reason, some players are reluctant to practice the shot.
The NSMTA site has an undated post that has been up for at least a month that provides a summary of the problems that the USTA Adult Competition Committee (ACC) has been trying to solve for National Senior Tennis. I find this summary to be insightful as to the challenges faced by the ACC. Additionally, it illuminates the perception of the problems from the NSMTA perspective.
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) asserts the authority over whether Player Analysis Technology is legal for use during sanctioned play. Section 31 of the ITF Rules of Tennis published in the USTA Friend at Court essentially boils down to specification of the policy and procedures. The definition of Player Analysis Technology is actually in an appendix to the rules, and was the subject of last week’s post.
From the earliest posts about the tennis related impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I have bemoaned the lack of rigorous scientific evaluation of potential transmission of the SARS-CoV family of diseases via tennis balls. A recently published study has changed that situation. At first glance, the news is fairly promising which apparently prompted the USTA to issue a statement on the topic.
I continue to discover tennis artifacts scattered about the house during my extended stay with the Umpire Who Gave Birth to Me. Today’s object turned up in a cabinet under a sink. It is a metal tin with a nice early 80’s style custom paint job. “I’d Rather Be Playing Tennis.”
When I was in school, I never failed to complete required reading assignments. I simply loved books too much to not manage to find the time to read them. Especially when an essay or a test was in the offing. Consequently, on the eve of the publication of today’s content, I had the completely new experience that I had failed to complete my planned reading. I basically owe a book report on material that I have not read. I did what any self-respecting student would do in that situation: I watched the movie.
It was a safe bet that there would be growing pains as the USTA transitioned tennis tournament registration to the new digital platform. Registration is now open for tournaments scheduled in early January. It is apparent that players are struggling to complete their entries. Progress is sometimes painful.