One of the more annoying aspects of the situation I have been writing about over the past couple of weekends was more evidence of the USTA’s continued deprecation of singles. In case you missed it (and congratulations if you did), it rained during a recent local USTA League playoff in my area, precipitating an administrative decision to eliminate the singles and play only the doubles lines. Rather than an isolated data point, this is an ongoing pattern of concern for organized USTA adult competition.
In recent years, a growing trend in USTA League play has been shifting the emphasis away from singles matches in favor of doubles. It creates a phenomenon that an engineer would call a self-reinforcing loop, a cycle where the result of a process feeds back into itself to amplify the original effect. For example, there have always been fewer singles lines than doubles in all USTA League official formats. That (quite predictably) produces data that more doubles matches are played than singles. Unfortunately, that information is sometimes erroneously interpreted as an indication that most players don’t prefer singles and then used as a justification to further reduce or eliminate singles lines. It is an insidious cycle.
I have also seen hints and circumstantial evidence that the USTA has examined match data and keyed in on the inescapable fact that singles lines are defaulted more frequently than doubles lines, reinforcing the perception that players don’t like singles. The alternate explanation in many cases is one team suddenly finding itself a player short on match day. It is considered polite to default the singles lines so that only one person is impacted by not playing rather than three. That data fuels the fire that players don’t want to play singles when, in reality, other factors are frequently in play.
The de-emphasis and undervaluing of singles have created a generation of players who view playing singles as a burden rather than a privilege. Attitudes toward that format have dramatically shifted since participation in the sport skyrocketed during the tennis boom of the 1970s. Rather than the cornerstone of tennis that it is, singles has been relegated to a form of the sport reserved only for the most elite players.
This trend also kills adult tournament tennis, which has historically revolved around singles play. In fact, the prioritization of singles can be seen in the “order of play” rules and regulations within the USTA Friend at Court. In a tournament, a player’s singles matches are played first each day, followed by doubles, then mixed. Back in the day, players entered tournaments for the singles and then would add other divisions as an afterthought. While USTA League has created a huge population of tennis players, it has actually been a significant factor in reducing overall interest in competing in singles, which hurts tournaments.
I am among a tiny population of people actively brainstorming methods to get USTA League players to engage with tournaments. I have very recently started to wonder if framing it in those terms is actually not the root of the problem. Before we can expect players to embrace tournament play, interest in singles must be reignited. A fundamental shift in how singles is promoted and valued at the league level could help. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to ever happen within that corner of the USTA League ecosystem.
By de-emphasizing singles in USTA League play, we risk losing the competitive integrity that comes with a balanced team structure. Both singles and doubles bring unique and valuable elements to tennis competition, and neither should be seen as less important. When singles lines are treated as optional or expendable, it creates an imbalance that undermines the full scope of competition that USTA League is meant to embody.
In the quest to accommodate a growing and diverse player base, USTA League must be careful not to lose sight of the foundational elements of tennis. Singles matters just as much as doubles, and both formats should be equally valued in team play. By teaching players that singles is to be avoided, the competitive balance that makes tennis such a unique and compelling sport is further eroded. We must find a way to re-emphasize the importance of singles in USTA League. It is essential for the growth and development of tennis.
In Europe doubles are mostly canceled if the tie is decided before the doubles is to be played (not during the league but during playoffs). And the format is 6 singles/3 doubles or 4 singles/2 doubles depending on the age. Europeans are shocked to know leagues are all doubles here as doubles is considered unimportant in Europe in general. The leagues there are mostly on clay and so not so hard on the body, maybe that’s a reason. Also maybe a reason Europeans dominate tennis.
Contrast USTA league with intersectionals where singles is the most important in most divisions…
The fact that NTRP is one rating for singles and doubles is a problem as well. A decent singles player can help their NTRP rating up a level…which may or may not be what that player wishes to do.