Letter to the Editor: An Open Letter to the USTA

At its Semi-Annual Meeting on Sept. 7, the USTA voted to further reduce the number of tournaments that count for men’s singles and individual doubles rankings from five to four starting in 2012. When the points ranking system took effect in 2004, the six best tournament results counted. A few years ago, the USTA reduced it to the five best tournaments. Let’s analyze the USTA’s recent reduction to four tournaments using three highly important criteria.

1. In the 2011 USTA Yearbook, Jon Vegosen, chairman of the board and president, wrote: “The USTA already has a compelling mission—to promote and develop the growth of tennis.” We believe that keeping the number at five better achieves this laudable mission than reducing the number to four, which diminishes, rather than promotes and grows, our sport. Specifically, more competitors playing more tournaments is better for players, fans, tournaments, sponsors and the media.

2. A fair and accurate ranking system is another extremely important goal for every tournament division. This goal requires having sufficient data and results to evaluate. We believe the results of five tournaments—rather than only four—provide more data. That will result in more accurate, and thus more fair, rankings.

3. Since USTA national tournaments are spread across our vast country and some large sections cover several hundred miles, the burden of competing should not be unduly onerous in terms of travel, cost and time. The rationale for the rule change from five to four tournaments hinged largely, if not solely, on the claim that competing in five tournaments would prove unduly onerous. Since players have an entire year and the option of playing in many tournaments in many parts of the country or their sections, we believe the claim of the supporters of this reduction is clearly unjustified. There is no requirement to play in any particular number of tournaments—the only requirement to get ranked nationally is that a player plays one National Championship. Beyond that, it is entirely optional whether he or she plays in any additional tournaments. (The statement in the Autumn 2011 issue of Super Senior Tennis by the chair of the USTA Adult/Senior Competition Committee that “Men will need four tournaments for a USTA ranking, instead of five” is inaccurate and misleading—only one tournament, a National, is needed for a USTA ranking.)

Just as a ranking rule should not discriminate against players who compete in relatively few tournaments, it also should not discriminate against players who compete in many tournaments. But, where do the players themselves believe the line should be drawn?

In the late fall of 2010, anticipating USTA Florida’s upcoming 2011 Annual Meeting, Julien Moussalli, a leading Florida senior player, circulated a petition intended for USTA Florida. The petition proposed a rule change for the Florida Sectional Rankings that would count all tournaments played—not the current five tournaments. Due to time constraints, Moussalli was only able to circulate the petition at a couple of tournaments. Nonetheless, he obtained 35 signatures.

One signatory, Joe Bachmann, a prominent and highly-ranked national player, signed the petition on the condition that eight tournaments be counted for Florida Sectional Rankings. All things considered, we believe his proposal to count eight tournaments is a sound, reasonable and fair compromise between the extremes of counting only four tournaments (USTA) or five tournaments (USTA Florida), and counting all tournaments, as Moussalli proposes for Florida. (The number of tournaments that count in the rankings can vary depending on the age division, and it may be advisable for lower age divisions to have fewer tournaments count.)

Moussalli met several times with USTA Florida officials and presented the signed petition, but to no avail. The USTA Florida official to whom the petition was submitted was a member of the USTA Adult/Senior Competition Committee, which, in September, reduced the number of tournaments that count for a national to four. He had, in his possession for six months prior to the Semi-Annual Meeting, both Moussalli’s petition and a five-page protest letter from Ron Tonidandel, to which he never responded. It is disappointing that, to the best of our knowledge, he did not disclose the contents or even the existence of either the petition or the letter to the other national committee members.

We submit that, even though Moussalli’s petition was directed to USTA Florida and not the USTA committee in charge of national rankings, the principles involved are the same on both levels. Therefore, in fairness, the USTA Florida official should have informed other members of the USTA National Committee, on which he sits, about what transpired in Florida, particularly Moussalli’s petition and Tonidandel’s unanswered letter. Without that important information, there could not be an informed, thorough and fair debate on this vital issue.
In closing, we would like to note the proliferation of players from all over the country competing in National Category II tournaments since their inauguration and the creation of the ranking points system in 2004. This sharp increase in player participation and its momentum can and should be accelerated—rather than be reversed. Indeed, it is important to note that the mission of the Adult/Senior Competition Committee is:

“To promote all activities associated with adult/senior competition, including rankings, sanctions and schedules, and to find ways to increase participation in all national adult/senior competition events.”

The USTA can do exactly that by re-focusing on its stated mission to promote and develop the growth of tennis, in this case, tournament participation. The rescinding of its decision to again reduce the number of tournaments that count in the rankings would be a prudent and productive first step toward that end. In discussing the 2004 National Ranking System, New England Senior Tennis in 2005 pointed out:

“The new points-per-round system would increase tournament participation as the more tournaments played, the higher the possibility of the ranking achieved. Note that the junior tournaments in New England also changed to points-per-round and their participation increased significantly.”

Thank you for considering and evaluating the facts, criteria and arguments presented here.

Sincerely,

Ron Tonidandel (Sarasota, Fla.)
Paul Fein (Agawam, Mass.)
Leon Kennedy (St. Petersburg, Fla.)
Roger Upton (Atlanta, Ga.)
John Natolly (Harbor Hills, Fla.)