Robert Lansdorp Talks About 10 and Under Tennis
This is an excerpt about 10 and Under Tennis from the USTA site:
“Originally developed to bring kids into the game by utilizing specialized equipment, shorter court dimensions and modified scoring tailored to age and size, 10 and Under Tennis is also ideal for individuals with disabilities or with differing abilities and circumstances. For seniors, it’s a perfect alternative to the game of Pickleball.
10 and Under Tennis is divided into two different levels — ages 8 and under and ages 10 and under — though it can be used for kids and players of all ages. It’s the fast, fun way to get kids into tennis — and to keep them playing for life.”
Below is an opinion of Robert Lansdorp about this program. Robert calls it “Miniature Tennis.”
I am getting back at this miniature tennis for the 10s and under. Had a disagreement with one of the more well known coaches in Florida. He seems to think that this miniature tennis is fine. I think it is wrong for the very talented kids, 7 and older.
Can you imagine Maria Sharapova, Anna Kournikova, Pete Sampras, Monica Selles, The William Sisters.. yeah the William sisters. Richard Williams would have gone nuts. Agassi, Agassi’s Dad would have challenged them by boxing them, Stephan Edberg, Rod Laver or the great Lew Hoad, man was he great, or my friend Pancho Segura. Forced to play miniature tennis. Let’s not forget Tracy Austin, Tracy was great at 7 on regular courts, Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Lindsay Davenport, and Nadal or Noah, champions, who were great and very competitive at the age of 6. And let me say again very competitive.
Can you imagine John McEnroe being forced to play miniature tennis? He probably would have broken his baby racket in no time, and would have been cursing baby talk. It’s great to have little 3,4,5 maybe 6 year olds involved. BUT THAT IS IT!! Patrick McEnroe would have done great in miniature tennis. I also feel that it is a money maker for some people, and that’s why it is getting pushed down the throats of these little ones. It is always the money. I sometimes hear that Hennin played miniature tennis, but never heard any details. Like when she was 4 for several months, or what? I hope pro’s will run their own tournaments for young ones, so the little ones can compete. You don’t need the USTA.
What are they going to do for any Junior younger than 14. Sending them to Spain, to learn how to speak Spanish?? Nothing, but screw them up and then steel them from the pro who got them there. One of these days I will tell you what happened to Nick Saviano. Unreal !!
If you enjoyed this article, please don’t forget to tap 
. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you.
I’m with Robert about not using a smaller court for ten and under. With the smaller court, we are teaching our kids to hit short with no pace. Thus, we are limiting their potential. I’m presently training this 7 year old on a regular court. I have given him a one handed backhand and he can hit the full length of the court plus more. Actually, he was able to hit the one hander when he was only 5 years old which I’d worked with him for one month since he is coming from overseas. We need to train our kids to play regular court so they can develop their hitting and strokes properly.
You are 100% correct to state that it is wrong for the elite players, but for the masses its fine. How else do you engage the tons of players who play for fun. Think of it like this:
10% of the US population plays tennis, approximately 30+ Million or so, of those 18% are between the ages of 5-17, there are 5.4 Million kids playing in the US. of those roughly 1% are really competitive
that leaves you with 5400 kids or about 100 per state and that is among ages 5-17. Certainly they would not have massive competition due to low numbers, weather, economics etc.
The masses should be guided by the USTA, undoubtedly so, the elites should be guided by the local pros who know them, with “opportunity for all” funding from the USTA to support the pro and the player.
The elite players need the funding the USTA provides, but the players should be the combined work of local pro and USTA.
Champions and driven people, will find a way with or without the USTA.
those happen to be the elite of the elite or 1% of the 1%. In our scenario its about 6 people per year per category or age group. That sounds about right.
In other words, the “mini balls” as you call them are fine, the elite players should play with whatever they like, but in the end the bet result is that at best you get 6 kids per age group (3 boys 3 girls) with any real chance to succeed. Talking about the small number of kids that belong on that group (the 5400) makes little sense in relationship to the entire body of kids 5.4M. The USTA has to worry about the 99%, the 1% will be fine.
As a developmental coach, meaning I start kids from the ground up, I have used the 10 and under (QuickStart, or whatever we are calling it this year) as a beginning tool to get kids “playing” tennis. Any kid with basic eye-hand can rally quickly. I have never had a kid stay in that program longer than 5 months. I move them on to regular stroke development on full court, sometimes we do use the softer ball and we rally in the boxes. My advanced groups rally in the boxes with soft balls as a warm up for clinic.
I have sat in USTA trainings for the 10 and under program and have always ask the question “for how long do they stay this program?”. No one will answer the question. That is the problem, you can’t have kids as they get better stay in this program until they turn 11.
I believe common sense should dictate that a player, no matter the age, becomes stronger/better they move on the full court and regular ball. One size (one program) does not fit all, even those under 10.
Javier Palenque, with all due respect to you, after reading your post the saying of “figures don’t lie but any fool can figure” came to mind. Were did you get your figures from?
And as for “the masses should be guided by the USTA and elite by local pros”. The USTA isn’t doing the heavy lifting of teaching kids to play, it is coaches(local pro), like me, who get up each day and go out to make tennis fun, interesting and doable for kids. I teach kids who would never been given a chance to play tennis. I work with over 200 kids a year most of them would never have picked up a racquet if I had not provided a low cost program for them. Over the course of time a few of those kids develop out of that program and in to my advanced programs. I have never seen the USTA on court with me.
I cannot agree more with this article. Miniature tennis should have waivers for those who are gifted. Where I work we have four of those 6 year old gifted kids whose potential is been delayed.
10 and under tennis is merely a baby-sitting device. There is absolutely no exercise science or data that supports any of this latest USTA gimmick.
Now of course it’s not isolated to the USTA the just happen to be the most mercenary in their programs. It’s amazing how they just push this crap out there and gullible people swallow it because a gargantuan institution ‘sez it’s so.
Hey, maybe if some of these pros actually knew how to feed balls to little kids we wouldn’t need low pressure balls. But that would take skill and technique. Ooops can’t have that- need gimmicks and whistles- gotta keep the money flowin’…
My eight year old NEVER uses this crap- or any of the kids I teach- they are all the best kids in the area. Go figure.
Michael Allen “maybe if some of these pros actually knew how to feed balls to little kids we wouldn’t need low pressure balls”
The idea with the program is self feed and self rally. The pro doesn’t feed or start balls, kids do it themselves and the pro is able to adjust kids swings by move through the group one by one, it does work, it just doesn’t work forever.
i agree with all the comments. i have a 6 year old i’m working with right now. all i did was lower the net, use the regular balls and have her swing as many as she can by hand tossing them. and she gets them over. then as she progresses i raise the net little by little and push her back little by little until she can strike the ball effectively. it will take time but she will be hitting regulation balls on a full size court in no time.
Bullseye Javier – you nailed it. The numbers separate the emotion from this interesting debate. And your last sentence says it all.
I can understand where a purist may resist adopting small ball. So don’t. It’s really that simple. If you think it’s a money making gimmick being crammed down your throat by the evil empire, just move on.
Small ball is just another tool in the toolbox. Use it or don’t use it. It’s not a mandate. Elites can play up just as they did before small ball.
IMHO, there’s definitely a home for small ball in junior development. We lower the hoop in basketball, play with a smaller ball on shorter courts. It just makes sense.
Here is the beauty of the sport, here’s the beauty and the art of being a good coach. Is for the coaches who decide’s with what kind of balls and how much space the kids need in order to evolve. I used to learn tennis playing inside the service boxes and with yellow balls normal balls and it was just fine. I’m not against soft balls but I think we should not abuse using them if the capacities of the kids are far beyond other kids. Some of the kids will learn faster than the others … so were’s the problem. Once again, the art and the imagination stays in the coach’s hands. We all have a “brain” use it it’s for free.
Debbie
Thank you for your reply, the total number of players in US from the USTA. The breakdown of the %’s from the 2010 census. What I mean by the USTA has to deal with the masses, it is doing that, providing tournaments, enabling the technology and attempting to have more players from which they hope, by having larger number of players they increase their chances of finding an elite player. The USTA does not have to be in court with you, they have to enable a pattern of progression for you the local coach, they provide team tennis which is great to make the kids have a team and love the sport. Granted the best competitors are not there. They also provide with the collaborating pro many tournaments, where a kid developed by the local pro can grown and maybe succeed.
A better way to think of the USTA is as the government, no they are not the best at anything, but they do have roads (tournaments), mail (tournament software for all), regulations ( etc.) You get the point. Now expecting the USTA to develop a great new car ( player for that matter) well that kind of sounds and reads absurd. That is the car company’s job ( the coaches job). That is why you see no great new talents (Isner 28 and #14). Also remember that the USTA has most of its funding from the US Open. There are very few other sources of revenue from them. So the more people like and watch and play, the more revenue they will get. Thats perfectly fine.
The ultimate goal of getting to see many pro players from a single program is also absurd. Tennis is an individual sport and now wether you line in Boca Raton or some little town in Serbia, you have basically the same chance at succeeding. The advantage the serbian kid has though, is that “his DESIRE” to succeed because of his environment is greater than the american kid. My last point is that the secret ingredient for a player is to have “the need to win” either to escape poverty, to build a future, to work harder, or simply to have more opportunity (William sisters?)this cannot be taught, understood or imagened. It has to be lived. This is why Sharapova left for the states, this is why Djokovic left a war country, this is why the Williams left Compton. That secret ingredient is the 99% of the difference of players. In conclusion, the serbian kid who does not have choices of balls, has a far better chance of becoming a pro than the elite player trained in Boca.
Because the differentiator (the need to win) is a product of your circumstance. Expect many more top players from countries that are too hard to pronounce. Belarus, Khazaskstan etc etc.
I hope I made a better point. Thank you.
Amen.
It takes all kinds…you don’t have to be from a poverty stricken home to chase a dream. The formula of Success breeding Success has repeated itself throughout history and certainly within professional sports. Grant Hill, Kobe Bryant, and Stefan Curry are all examples of professional athletes that were not raised in a war zone on bread and water. Look at Ernie Gulbis…raised in one of the wealthiest families in tennis. While he’s not Top 10, he is a professional tennis player that many top players hate to see early in the draw. Yannick Noah’s son Joakim is arguably one of the hardest working guys in the NBA.
George, while i agree that dreams are for all rich and poor.
My point maybe was not explained well. The secret sauce is “hunger”, and you have to have that to be a top woman or gal in tennis. Everybody works hard. But there is only one champion. Make a run through the top players men and woman. Final US open (probably Nadal – Djokovic) (spain and Serbia), then the woman ( Azarenka-Williams)
The american representative is at the top because she was “hungry from the day they learned they could play tennis. No other american player comes close. Watch the documentary on them it is really clear what took them to the top. Nothing but “hunger”. Azarenka is from Belarus, similar story as Djokovic, parents not well off at all, just hard working people with a dream to be a better generation.
Nadal is from a well to do family and has the best work ethic and a true champion. 3 of the 4 top this weekend (75%) validate my premise. Rafael Nadal you must admit is truly exceptional.
Gulbis on the other hand, is never going to have the hunger and of the three have. This is why he is not anywhere near the top echelon nor will he ever be, he lacks what is needed most.
To All,
If you start the 10 and under with the smaller court, you are actually limiting the kids to express their optimal potential. If you have a bunch of kids in your group there might be a couple that can be fantastic tennis players and you will not find out if you have them playing on the smaller court.
Robert, what happened to Nick Saviano? You created a nice mystery there.
I agree with your comments above. There should be freedom for choosing the ball you want to compete at, no matter your age. Many kids are talented that they need and want to feel the regular ball from a young age. It’s wrong to prohibit them to do so, or to have competition only with baby balls. It’s killing kids dreams and possibly futures.
The 10 and under balls and programs are good business for many clubs, but it should not be an imposition. Freedom of choice in a sport is a must!
I respectfully disagree with this article. As the parent of a gifted 7 year old girl who is currently in mini-tennis in the UK, I can state without a doubt that mini is the way to go. The problem with using full court yellow ball tennis with small kids is that they do not learn the fundamental stroke mechanics, footwork, etc. My daughter can hit a yellow ball full court with loads of pace with no problem, but she compromises her swing mechanics to do it. I don’t know about the USTA but here in the UK, there are lower compression balls at 4 stages (Red, Orange, Green, yellow) and it has been proven to be a fantastic and effective way to train juniors…and yes, JUNIOR CHAMPIONS.
Jack, time will prove you right or wrong. I want to wait to see your daughter’s transition into the 12 and under, and see how she performs.
Best wishes, Oscar
Jack, you do not have any idea if your daughter will be helped or not. Until they have to bust it against big hitters for 2 hours, 4 matches in a weekend, in the hot, humid sun, you do not know. Almost every kid looks great in mini tennis. But you have no idea until she gets out there for real tennis, over and over again, whether she is a real player.
Jon, thanks for your comment. I respectfully disagree with you, as I think that there are many merits to mini-tennis which you’re overlooking. I, like you, started off with serious doubts about mini-tennis, however, I have changed my mind simply due to the fact that it teaches kids the right way to play tennis without in any way handicapping them. As they grow, the court and balls grow with them. They learn to compete against other kids their age in match settings. My daughter’s coach also coaches the under 12 European champion, number 1 in the UK and 2 or 3 in the world. This kid came up through mini-tennis (just as did Justine Henin) and is absolutely amazing. His fundamentals are great. I’m not saying it’s the only way to go, but I’m saying that from all I have seen, it is superior to starting them on yellow balls which due to today’s racquet technology and technique (topspin, etc) will discourage most kids, even if they are talented, because they cannot keep it going. I totally disagree that every kid looks great in mini-tennis … sorry, I have been to enough tournaments with my daughter to have seen dozens if not hundreds of players, and trust me, you can separate the good from the bad. Mini-tennis is a tool, not an end in itself. It gets kids having fun, learning the game of tennis, and teaches them how to be a match player. Best of all, it grows along with them. All the best, Jack
Jack,
I totally agree with Jon in this situation. Mini tennis and the real thing is no comparison. I’d consider myself a technical analysis and creator of Physio Technical Tennis. Mini tennis is a big mistake and it restricts the child’s ability to demonstrate their full potential. Tennis is a game of reaction and must develop quickness and agility to react. This should be started at an early age so their brain and the muscles can simultaneously working together. For example, I have a boy that started with me when he was 5 and now 7 years old that have been hitting a one handed backhand on a full court since he was 5 years old. Tennis should be developed instages on a full court and regular balls.