I don’t think influencers and thought leaders within the tennis ecosystem spend enough time strategizing about the competitive pathway. Alternatively, perhaps we just don’t think about it holistically enough. As evidence of that, the competitive pathway for juniors is distinctly different from that of adults. I have recently warmed to the idea that in a healthy tennis ecosystem the competitive pathway should be a singular concept. In other words, there should be only one.
One of the most important problems that the USTA should be confronting is the precipitous dropout rate as players age out of juniors. I previously wrote about this challenge in “Culture Clash,” which (as the title suggests) describes the issue as one of culture. As it turns out, the divergence in the competitive pathway is probably the most significant driver of that cultural divide.
The junior competitive pathway focuses on player development through various age-based divisions and tournament levels. Players progress from local tournaments into sectional, regional, and eventually national competitions driven by performance-based mastery. The system is designed to promote skill development and provide clear milestones for advancement. It is intense, with almost a singular focus on rankings and results.
Some juniors will achieve a level of performance that leads to a professional playing career. Others will continue for a few more years throughout collegiate play. In either case, that is where their journey on the junior competitive pathway effectively concludes as they hit that dead end.
One of my new tennis conversation starters is asking adult players to describe the adult competitive pathway without mentioning the NTRP system. Typically, that evokes a perplexed response because the NTRP system has become inextricably linked with adult tennis. Many people cannot conceive of a competitive pathway that doesn’t revolve around it.
The NTRP system was not originally intended to be part of the competitive pathway for adult tennis. Rather, it was developed as a tool for recreational players to help match opponents of similar skill levels for more enjoyable play. The idea was to foster participation by making tennis more accessible to a broader audience. Unfortunately, the structure of USTA Leagues advancing to National Championships turned it into the de facto framework for adult competitive tennis. Adopting the NTRP system into tournament play wasn’t the end of the performance based adult competitive pathway, but rather an acknowledgment of what had already occurred.
I have written extensively about how the NTRP system is the antithesis of a true competitive pathway. Rather than encouraging players to achieve the highest performance level possible, it incentivizes players to carefully manage and curate their NTRP ratings to improve their chances of advancing along with their teams to the National Championships. Unfortunately, that can create negative experiences for players who are accurately rated as they are forced to compete against players who should be rated in the next tier of competition. That creates an insidious temptation for other players in the competitive ecosystem to manage their ratings similarly.
The absence of a competitive pathway excludes adults who have achieved a high level of performance mastery over other players in their cohort. The dead end occurs when they exceed the NTRP ratings of the other players in their local area. Worse, the erosion of tournament and league play at the higher levels of the NTRP spectrum is evidence that the dead end is trending downward to lower NTRP divisions. Soon, we will all be 3.5s or out of tennis altogether. That will ultimately drive down participation.
Neglecting and marginalizing the Adult tennis ecosystem’s elite players has seriously constrained the entire playing population. The solution necessarily starts with a holistic view of a singular, unbroken competitive pathway that starts in juniors and extends “til death do us part.”
As the USTA frequently reminds us, tennis is a sport for a lifetime. Unfortunately, failing to support an effective adult competitive pathway means that for many of our best and most engaged players, that simply isn’t a reality. We need to better define the adult competitive pathway and allocate resources toward making it a reality. Ignoring this vital aspect of the competitive ecosystem is hurting adult tennis across the board. Identifying and eliminating the dead ends is essential.
