MarTennis Thoughts on ParentingAces.com comments regarding Clay Courts Confusion, the USTA Jr. Competition National Structure Change and Affordability

Always great and passionate discussions at Parenting Aces. I was asked to explain why I thought the new system was more affordable, with the premise that competitive national junior tennis was obviously more affordable prior to 2010. I have no idea about ultimate affordability prior to 2010 as I am still a newbie tennis parent with a 12 year old Sectional to National competitor. However, I do endorse the changes post 2010 and the 2014 change on many grounds, among them personal affordability. The original discussion can be read over at http://parentingaces.com/clay-courts-confusion/. Comments are now closed, but feel free to respond on this page.

Sectional competition for national endorsement to me means that most local weekend play counts for something, especially upon move to next age group. Additionally, in the context of earning access to better competition, the dollars I spend for my children to compete locally matter. I can comprehend the value of each childs local competition and my childs place among her section mates. 

Moreover, the post 2010 changes leading to the 2014 changes fits into an acceptable developmental plan for my children. I drank the Wayne Bryan principle kool aid; a sectional and national schedule that honors this principle in many respects taste good. I can explain it to my children, they can accept it without a lot of wondering. It makes intuitive sense to them. They don't feel cheated by the explanation of earning their way out of NorCal for higher competition. 

I can drive to most Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 competitions. On top of that I like that the Levels are layered over the same weekend in many instances. I don't have to choose whether to try and get my kid into all of them. I avoid trying to make my kid competitive through possibly excessive travel to keep up with others who decide that their primary development plan is to schedule all Nat' Level tournaments as a priority. I need to make a better choice about what his actual level is at the particular time and choose the tournament with a clear head for where they stand competitively, not just because he could play nearly all that he enters.. He gets an opportunity to learn and feel responsible for where he is at level wise, based on the choice and his subsequent performances.  

The inequity but match play model of pre 2010 may foster high level competition among those who choose to finance such a route, but I believe it is the perfect slow narcotic to chocking off mass aspirations for better play among potentially serious tennis kids developing at the sectional level and National Level 3, 4 and 5. As much as we like to blame the USTA or even individuals by name for so called depression, burnout or lack of fun among tennis kids, it is the arms race of competitive National play prior to 2010 that could also be asserted to have the impact of discouraging higher aspirations in tennis. This is just a few of my beliefs regarding this matter. I will try to keep up the the volume of retorts, but no promises.