Why is tennis so afraid of a quantitative approach (Part 2)

A couple of posts ago, I started this thread about taking a more quantitative approach to identifying and developing world-class tennis players and why the tennis world is not really into looking at the sport from a more quantitative viewpoint.

In that initial post, I talked about the “cultural” issues in the sport of tennis that hinders taking a more objective perspective on developing larger numbers of world-class tennis contenders. In this post, let’s now begin a more objective analysis of the actual physical attributes that are required to perform at a world-class level in tennis.

You see, in other sports, they define specific standards for the various physical and sports-specific skills that are required to succeed at an elite level. In track and field, they specify times (i.e. run 10 kilometers under 28 minutes) and distances (throw the javelin over 85 meters) that potential competitors must first meet before they are allowed to participate in high level competitions. In Major League Baseball (MLB), professional scouts are employed to evaluate 10 separate general athletic and baseball-specific skills before a prospect is even offered the opportunity to train with even an entry-level professional team.

In tennis, especially in US Tennis, the only “quantitative” standard used to evaluate potential pro prospects is simply the tournament win/loss record of the prospect. Really, that’s the only crucial factor. In tennis, results and performance are synonymous. Is that really true? Of course not, but you have to consider the historical reality that tennis up until say the middle to late-1980s was more similar to golf in that tennis was more of a (country club) game, not a true athletic event.

So, based on this perception and understanding that tennis is a game, not an athletic event or “sport”, success in the “game” of tennis was presumed to be fundamentally based on hitting skills, having a strong tactical/strategic understanding of how to play the game, and being a strong, mentally-disciplined competitor. The athletic elements of the game (foot speed, racket speed, and physical conditioning) were seen as secondary and more of a “bonus” to a player that would enhance his/her success, not as a fundamental, core determinant of their future success.

Essentially, all the gatekeepers in US tennis today think and behave as if tennis was still the country club game they remember when they grew up and when they were actively playing, and so they base all of their current and future decisions on how to govern tennis (including the selection and development of future pro prospects) on those old-school ideas… As if the rapid evolution of tennis into a true athletic event—a true sport—over the past 20 to 25 years never actually happened.

This collective old-school perspective of the US Tennis Establishment from the people who run the USTA, all the way on down through the membership of the two tennis teaching guilds (the USPTA and PTR), trickling down to the players themselves is one of the factors that prevents the US from being the dominant tennis nation in today’s tennis world. It’s as if US tennis has been operating in a time warp where the calendar still says “1985” on it. Being that it’s now 2007, it’s no surprise that US tennis has been eclipsed by Spain and France as the vanguard of the SPORT of tennis.

So how could our once mighty tennis nation return to its former stature?

The answer is simple... We need to take a fresh, objective look at how to succeed in the SPORT, not “game”, of tennis. We need to try to look past all of our old biases and preconceptions, and really study tennis from a very objective, practical perspective and then make decisions and take action based on those new findings.

We need to ask the basic questions such as: what physical attributes are required to give a player a realistic chance at becoming a top touring pro today?… Because the answers are all out there, performing before our eyes.

Am I discounting the classically appreciated attributes of ball-striking prowess, tactical savvy and gritty competitiveness? Of course not. What I am saying is that with the transformation of tennis from being more of a “game” to a full-on sport, all the issues and challenges that arise in the overall development of a world-class athlete must also be considered.

So, for example, did you realize that according to statistics,

• Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal serve at essentially the same speed on first (117 to 120 MPH on average) and second serve (90 to 95 MPH on average).
• Roger Federer can hit his forehand at speeds up to 110 MPH?
• Gael Monfils has hit a forehand in a live match at over 120 MPH?
• Roger and Rafa can generate over 5000 RPMs of topspin on their forehands?
• Rafael Nadal can run the equivalent of 4.2 second-40 yard dash (the same as a superstar NFL cornerback)?

(As a reminder, I’ve already covered the stroke speed standards established by a typical Top 100 player in an earlier entry titled “Introduction to racket speed: How fast are the pros anyway?".)

Those physical standards are there, folks. The majority of us just don’t seem to see them, or if you’re part of the “coaching establishment”, you may be simply unaware that you should care about such quantitative performance standards. But these standards exist, no question.

Basically, pro tennis is like all the other true professional sports. If you can’t physically perform to certain minimum standards, you will not be a part of “The Show”. If you can’t serve over 120 MPH on first serve, or achieve a running speed of 14 to 16 MPH (for the average human, this is the equivalent of a full sprint) within three or four strides, the odds of being a successful touring pro are stacked wayyyyy against you.

The long-standing football cliché: “Physical superiority cancels out all theory” definitely applies to modern professional tennis, no matter how much the gatekeepers of the sport continue to tell us otherwise.

TTFN! (short for "Ta-ta For Now" for all of you new readers)

Why is tennis so afraid of a quantitative approach? (Part 1)

One reason I’m really into tennis is because tennis is at heart a very democratic sport. What I mean by “democratic” is that anyone who wants to compete in the sport, even at the highest levels, has the opportunity to enter competitive events and prove themselves against their peers.

No other sport is truly “Open” in the way that tennis is… That is not to say anyone can walk off the street and enter an ATP Tour event, but anyone could enter and compete in an entry level professional tournament (a “Futures” tournament) and potential earn pro ranking points if they can win enough matches.

In other sports, the powers-that-be that operate and regulate the sport at the pro level do not have anything resembling tennis’ “open door policy”. In fact, in other sports, the powers-that-be choose whom they want to participate as professionals and exclude all others. That’s the whole basis of a player “draft” as is conducted by all the great pro sports of the world. The sport decides who’s qualified to play and they invest millions of dollars in trying to identify and sign future pro-level participants. You have to be “chosen” to train and eventually play.

In their extensive evaluation of future prospects, the powers-that-be in pro baseball, football, hockey, etc. go to great lengths to objectively evaluate the long-term potential of the athletes they choose as participants. Take the NFL and its Draft Combine for example… After a long process of initial screening, they assemble every new pro football hopeful in one place and every fundamental attribute that may potentially contribute to the athlete’s ability to perform against other chosen professionals is measured and evaluated, from their 40 yard dash time to their psychological profile and family background.

Think about it… Does anything resembling this level of evaluation exist in tennis?

Well, it does to a certain level. It just happens between the ages of 10 (if you’re a girl) and 14 (if you’re a boy) if the powers-that-be in tennis—the management companies that own and operate the sport, if you were wondering—identify the future stars of our sport, And, if they feel you have that potential, they offer to pick up the tab (which today runs typically into the 100s of thousands of dollars) for all of the world-class training you’ll need to develop into a successful tennis touring professional.

So, there are a few, chosen “golden children” in tennis, so what? Well, ever wonder why there isn’t more of a concerted effort to develop more pro tennis prospects?

One answer to this question that I’ve been thinking about recently goes like this: in reality, there’s no real pressure to produce a steady stream of pro tennis prospects by anyone except by the management companies who have the greatest stake in the sport.

Think about it, the way that pro tennis is set up by the management companies; only 10 to 30 players in the tennis world generate any interest in the pro game. Add to this the fact that tennis is an individual sport where the competition is set up in a “knockout” format with only one winner every event, all you need is 1 or 2 really good players, and the rest of that week’s field (all 30 or 62 or 126 of them) function as stand-ins for the two drawing cards.

Cynical as this sounds, you see, unlike an NFL game or Premiership match where all 22 performers must be of star quality to produce a high-enough quality event to attract and maintain the interest of the fans, tennis only requires 3 to 4 stars to keep fans and sponsors interested. Expand this picture to higher, wider perspective, the NFL has what, 30 teams today each with a 50 player roster… So to operate that sport at a high-enough level to create and maintain fan interest requires finding 1500 players of a true “pro” level, and 22 players per team or 660 players who are capable of becoming true stars to even make the team worth supporting to the fans.

Folks, tennis relies on natural selection to weed out the participants who make it to the highest level of the sport, and even then, the powers-that-be focus the vast majority of their resources on promoting only the 10 to 20 best pros in any timeframe. So, there’s no real interest in measuring, evaluating, or quantifying the performance capacity or performance potential of any of the participants, unless an insider “knows” that a given player might become one of those core 10 to 20 top pro players.

And, all these insiders really care about is a potential prospect’s innate talent level and a demonstrated ability to win matches. They really don’t care about the “numbers” that are associated with performance potential (even though they should) because they can always find someone else, and they can hide behind the excuse that competitive success in tennis is a very “complicated process”.

Basically, the way that tennis at the highest levels is organized and operated today—the cultivation of a chosen few prospects (because that’s all that’s required to keep interest in tennis at a profitable level)—trickles down and affects the way that future tennis competitors are trained.

The players that the powers-that-be want to emerge to carry the sport in the future are all taken care of with the best possible resources and competitive opportunities (except if you’re American or British). The rest are on their own and left to their own devices. On top of that, due to the overall culture of “secrecy” that prevails in tennis (you don’t tell your competitors about things that give you your “edge”), there is very little useful information that’s publicly available that you could use to propel yourself to the ranks of those successful touring pros.

In other sports, you have to demonstrate the ability to run, swing, throw, and compete at known, measurable levels before they even let you near the playing field. In tennis, it’s just win baby… literally.

The first person to develop Sabermetrics for pro tennis players could change the whole landscape of tennis as we know it. If you (and your coaches) knew what the performance standards are that you would have to achieve to have a real chance of being a successful pro athlete, you might improve your chances of making it…

I’ve been using my own informal version of Sabermetrics tailored for tennis to evaluate the players I was interested in coaching, and I must admit that my “Tennismetrics” system has been quite successful so far. I will expand on what I’m interested in measuring from prospective touring pros next time.

TTFN!