Power Player Powwow

Gene Scott of TennisWeek thought it was time for another summit, a meeting of the minds, a back-and-forth among the power players in tennis to discuss the current state of tennis, where it is headed, and what should or could be done to insure its future. I'm sure John Yandell will fill you in on the details, he attended and filmed the meeting for TennisONE readers.

I wasn't invited, that's understandable since I've been out of the loop a couple of years completing my doctoral research, which by the way is very relevant to player development. But I don't feel that bad because many people were not invited who might have had something to say and contribute to this discussion and much more.

Regarding player development; from my perspective, a social psychological and international one, I believe organized initiatives on the part of the USTA and even private entities to produce a crop of new stars are doomed to fail. Sure, the USA will support good players, with some possibly becoming great players (maybe Roddick), but a concerted effort to somehow manufacture top players will be futile.

Good young players like Roddick will benifit from USTA support but a concerted effort to manufacture top players will be futile.

For one, I don't believe the climate is presently right to produce a bumper crop of new talent that will rule the tennis world. Tennis is not booming now like it was when Sampras, Agassi, Chang & Co. emerged to dominate for over a decade. Furthermore, stars who do emerge will do so in a random manner, they will come out of the woodwork so to speak, like the Williams sisters. They will emanate from individual families and not USTA or academy efforts. The USTA and academies will support players once they show potential but I am not convinced these entities are capable of providing the best comprehensive infrastructure and science necessary to get to the next level, let alone produce great players.

I attribute this to the "Hollywood" factor or "Star" mentality that permeates most of American society. The quest to market players before they are ready or have even done something of note and the obsession to shape a media persona often supersedes focusing on the basics. As John mentioned in a previous column, this new girl with the big contracts, the supposed next Kournikova is more a canned product than remotely a complete player. Why even introduce her at this point in her career, let alone invest big-bucks in a fragile image? So we can have another Alexandra Stevenson?

On top of this quest to make dollars off technically, tactically, physically, and mentally immature players, we have parents and coaches who have the same goal as the agents have for their clients, namely to be a star in their own right. That's the American way, everyone wants their moment of fame. This creates a very unhealthy dynamic, a tennis Darwinian environment in which the most brash, aggressive, and loud people eat up anything in their path as they climb to the top of the tennis food chain. But what have these people really done? They've contributed to the hype and even the bottom-line of the tennis industry but have they insured the future of American tennis?

How can we take seriously the USTA who puts people on sport science committees whose only credentials are that they managed to get a ranking in their forties and helped a contestant win a place kicking contest for big bucks (Eastern Division of the USTA)? How can the USTA and many academies develop players when they are unaware of cutting edge research and information they should be begging for? Instead these institutions play the star-game, thinking names made big in the media will create magic over and over again, essentially relying on false prophets.

The American star culture mentality, which is more pervasive in tennis than any sport is what is hindering the development of tennis players today.

If the USTA is really serious about developing another bumper crop of top players it only needs to look to other countries who have managed astounding things. Unfortunately, America will never be able to emulate countries like Belgium, Sweden, and France because their success to a large extent is psycho-sociological and culturally driven. In these countries players are developed in stages. Players experience coaches whose goal is not to be the biggest star or greatest teacher in the land, but to develop the player through a stage of their technical progression. These countries also draw on scientists, not star fitness or psych gurus, but persons dedicated to their profession, not their media aura or bank account. Teamwork is the name of the game even in an individual sport like tennis in these and other countries.

It's not the national tennis centers they have (something the USTA thinks), it's the cooperative and yes, socialistic approach to teaching and learning. This may sound like heresy to an American, the supreme individualist, but such a social system and group oriented mentality is what is producing the numbers these days in much smaller countries than the US.

In my opinion things will not change until there is another major tennis boom in the United States. Should this happen the numbers alone will lead to another crop of US stars, similar to when the Sampras/Agassi generation took off.

Until then, you can POWWOW all you want, things won't change. The American tennis scene is too political, ego-driven, and dependent on persons who are the loudest and most aggressive, but not necessarily the most competent, knowledgeable, and altruistic.

Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you about think this article by emailing us here at TennisONE.

Dr. Roland A. Carlstedt has followed the professional tennis tours since 1985, fulltime from 1989-1998 in which he on average attended 25 tournaments a year including all Grand Slam events and important Davis Cup ties. During this time he complied perhaps the most extensive database in existence on the psychological performance, tendencies, and profiles of most ATP and WTA players. His annual Psychological World Rankings for Tennis have been published since 1991 more than 500 times in over 40 countries. His rankings and data are based on his Psychological Observation System for Tennis. Interestingly his 2000 rankings which were released prior to the 2001 Australian Open had 2 of 4 semifinalists and 8 of 16 quarterfinalists on them including such unlikely players as Arnaud Clement and Sebastian Grossjean. His 2001 rankings will appear in TennisONE at the end of the year.

Last Updated 8/30/01. To contact us, please email to: webmaster@tennisone.com