Hello again! I’ve been writing a lot of regional recap articles over the past few weeks, and it’s been great to recognize all of my different regional teams. However, I wanted to switch it up a little bit and write about a subject that I’m personally very passionate about, and that is how a college tennis team can improve. In the past few years, we’ve seen a lot of teams go from irrelevant to relevant, from unranked to ranked, from a nobody to a somebody, a walkover to a threat. I can go all day with this but I’ll stop. Here are just a few examples of some of these teams!
Case Western Reserve:
2009-10 season: finished sixth in the UAA
2010-11 season: finished fifth in the UAA
2011-12 season: finished third in the UAA
2012-13 season: finished third in the UAA, made round of 16 at NCAAs
Wesleyan:
2010-11 season: 1-6 record in the NESCAC
2011-12 season: 1-7 record in the NESCAC
2012-13 season: 5-4 record in the NESCAC, made NESCAC tournament
2013-14 season: 4-5 record in the NESCAC
2014-15 season: win over #11 Kenyon, hopefully more to come!
Chapman:
2011-12 season: 1-5 against SCIAC teams (did not join SCIAC until the next season), #14 in the west
2012-13 season: 2-8 in the SCIAC, #13 in the west
2013-14 season: 3-7 in the SCIAC, #11 in the west
2014-15 season: 2-3 in the SCIAC, #40 national ranking, #9 in the west
RPI:
2011-12 season: tied for 20th in the northeast
2012-13 season: #19 in the northeast
2013-14 season: #38 national ranking, #15 northeast
Stevens:
2011-12 season: #16 in the northeast
2012-13 season: #27 national ranking, #8 northeast
2013-14 season: #40 national ranking, #18 northeast
2014-15 season: #24 national ranking, #8 northeast
Basically, I wanted to explore how these teams got so good! Each of these teams has a different identity. Case plays excellent doubles and grinds in singles, while Wesleyan is extremely deep in singles. Stevens is strong at the top in singles, (although they’ve gotten much deeper over the last year), while RPI guts out doubles wins and a few singles matches where they can. There is no one way to build a nationally ranked tennis program, but I wanted to find what these teams, and others, have in common. Here are my four keys to improving a team, weighted by importance in my opinion.
Recruiting: 50%
Recruiting is obviously very difficult, and coaches cannot control every single aspect of the recruiting process. However, I believe that every school has a certain type of appeal, and with enough effort, every team can improve their recruiting. For example, Wesleyan used to be one of the worst teams in the NESCAC, until Coach Mike Fried came on the scene and decided he was going to work harder than a Wesleyan tennis coach has ever worked before. Coach Fried himself said in our article on Tennis Recruiting that he just works really hard at recruiting, and really looks to build relationships with recruits. He said that “kids want to be part of a team where their coach is completely invested in them as a player and a person, and my job on the recruiting trail is to show them that Wesleyan is that place”. Sure, Wesleyan is one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country, but the fact of the matter is that Coach Fried was willing to put in the hours of travelling to showcases and meeting with recruits in order to bring in some of the highest ranked recruiting classes in the country.
Like I said, I think every school has some type of appeal that coaches can use to attract the right type of student to play on their team. While Wesleyan is a terrific liberal arts institution, there is no way that a student who really wants to study engineering is going to come to Middletown, CT. Along these lines, Stevens is a team that has reinvented their program partly because of their focus on recruiting. I don’t know exactly why each Stevens player chose to be a Duck, but I would have to guess that Stevens’ strong engineering program has to play into it to an extent. If not for Coach Gachko’s effort on the recruiting trail, these same players might have chose to go to RPI, MIT, or a different school. It is on the coach to figure out the appeal of their school, be it academics, admissions department, location, conference, financially cheaper, or even international friendly. For example, Wisconsin-Whitewater is a public university and therefore has very affordable tuition, definitely a big factor for recruits (and parents!). Also, NC Wesleyan has found great success with international recruiting, and has really taken advantage of that niche. Coach Rodgers of Coe College has recruited very well in the state of Iowa as well as in nearby states like Minnesota and Kansas, and Coe’s small size (1300 undergrads) definitely appeals to certain recruits. Every team has a niche, and it is on the coach to find that niche and use it to their advantage.
It is impossible for most coaches to instantly start getting three and four stars to come to their school. However, there are always those one and two stars that slip through the cracks for one reason or another, and with enough hard work, coaches can find these players. Finding these diamonds in the rough is very difficult, but they are out there. For example, there might be a two or three-sport athlete that has not fully committed to playing USTA tournaments, or players that do not have the resources to travel to tournaments outside their own state. It can be done, with enough hard work. Also, once a few good players start to go to a school and a team starts to win, local recruits definitely take note and it becomes easier to get players to visit.
Recruiting is difficult, but is far and away the most important part of developing a team (which is why I am writing like five paragraphs on it). This does not always mean trying to recruit all four-stars, but it could mean focusing on getting under the radar two-stars who are tall and have great hands, meaning they could be developed into doubles studs. It can be done!
Coaching: 20%
There is a different way to deal with every player. Some guys need a coach on their court literally at all times of the match. Other players have to have a coach get angry with them when they are playing poorly to fire them up, while some may need to be comforted. Lastly, some players preferred to be left completely alone, and hate the idea of having a coach anywhere near their court. It is on the coach to know his or her squad, and know exactly where to place him or herself as well as an assistant in order to get the most out of their team. In order to do this, coaches need to know their team. A lot of this can be done through match experience, but it can also be done through individual meetings and practice matches.
In addition to coaching in matches, coaching outside of matches is just as important. There are so many ways that coaches can structure their practices, from just having guys play practice sets every day, to drilling, to balancing when to play singles versus doubles. Also, it is important for coaches to know the health of their team, and decide when it is appropriate to give a day-off or a lighter practice. Even things like getting to an away match an extra half hour early, especially for an indoor match, can be the difference between a win and a loss. Losing a guy to injury or illness can greatly affect a team on the rise as they don’t have the deep bench like more established programs.
Another big aspect of coaching is personality management. As a team improves, the team culture also needs to change to more of a winning culture. Tennis is a very ego-driven and individual sport, and teams need strong veteran leadership to turn these egos into hard work. As a team gets more talented, somebody who may have been playing #1 or #2 as a freshman might now be #5 or #6 as a junior or senior, but it’s those same guys who the freshmen look up to, even if they do not play as high in the lineup. They set the tone of the team, and if they become lazy because they are not playing as high, then the entire team will suffer.
Scheduling: 15%
Wesleyan is lucky in that they play in the NESCAC, so they automatically get matches every year against schools ranked anywhere from #5 to unranked, with just about any type of ranking in between. Other schools are not so lucky, and it is up to the coaches to work to put together a good schedule. And by good schedule, I don’t necessarily mean playing top ten schools, because when a team is first looking to get into the top 40, they are most likely going to be dominated by a top ten or top fifteen school. I mean scheduling matches against schools in the 30-50 range. In order to do this, these schools have to be willing to travel. I know I’m using Stevens several times in this article, but I’m going to use them again. Stevens this season has traveled to Virginia (to play NC Wes, Mary Wash, and Denison), Pennsylvania (Swarthmore), Vermont (Middlebury, Brandeis), Florida (Wisconsin-Whitewater), and Ohio (Case Western). That is a crazy schedule! However, I doubt that any of these schools wanted to travel to New Jersey to play the Ducks. Sure, Stevens could have stuck to their Empire 8 schedule, and stuck with their nearby tough matches against Skidmore, NYU, and TCNJ, but it is all about quantity of opportunities for an up and coming team. Sure, Stevens didn’t beat Mary Wash or Denison, but they beat NC Wes, Brandeis, and Whitewater, and that is why they are #24 in the country right now! If Stevens just had the one ranked match against Skidmore, they may have won, but they also would have had no difficult matches leading up to that and they may have lost, giving them absolutely no shot to get in the rankings otherwise. Traveling is difficult for the coaches and the players, but I’m sure in the next couple of years, teams will be willing to travel to New Jersey, because Stevens will be their opportunity for a top 30 win!
One important aspect of scheduling is understanding the rankings process. A team that is in a weaker conference can go 50-0, but will never become nationally or even regionally ranked unless they beat a team that is nationally or regionally ranked. An example of this is Coe, who went 32-2 in the 2012-13 season, but never got nationally ranked because they did not beat anybody who was nationally ranked. Could they have beaten UT-Dallas or Chicago, the two teams that finished #29 and #30? It’s definitely possible, but they didn’t play so we don’t know. Once a team is in the rankings, they are more or less in until they lose to an unranked team and get knocked out. For example, 2014-15 Coe is currently #38 nationally, but they really have just held their own and avoided any bad losses.
Development: 15%
While Wesleyan suddenly pulled down one of the best recruiting classes in the country, this is unrealistic for many schools. For most schools, they need to develop the talent that they get into players that can beat ranked schools. This is incredibly difficult, but not impossible. The main place where new teams can make an impact is doubles. Most players come in mainly as singles players, and if they can be developed into doubles players, they can make a huge difference. An example of this is George Fox, who pretty much just gets one or two two-stars every year, and nearly beat Whitman because they swept doubles.
A big part of development also is a result of team culture. Winning teams play a ton of tennis outside of practice, and for teams that hope to make it in the national rankings, this is even more important. Individual hits, outside practice matches with teammates, and offseason training all fall into this. The offseason is one of the biggest opportunities for improvement and one that many teams don’t take advantage of. Playing tons of doubles pro sets and just working out a ton as a team first of all really helps improve the level of tennis, but also has a big impact on team culture, and creating that winning attitude.
To conclude, I just wanted to emphasize how important a coach is to developing a program. Wesleyan and Case Western are two schools that were near the bottom of their conferences until new hungry coaches came along. Ultimately, a new coach can be huge for a team, if they are willing to put in the work to recruit and schedule smart, and understand how to coach and develop a team. However, if a coach is content to just go through the motions, then that will set the tone for the team, and other harder-working teams will pass them by.
Well there are my thoughts! Special thanks to D3 Central who helped me out with this article. Definitely comment below and add your ideas, as I’m always eager to learn about the different ways to improve, because it really is a topic without any one answer. It’s a ton of hard work, but gets easier as the team culture shifts, and a winning culture is created. Thanks for reading!
Great article. I think recruiting plays an even greater part. Without the top quality players there is no way for a team to win it all. I could be the greatest coach in the world, but without that talent, all I could do is improve my team as much as possible, but possibly not even bring home a conference title.
As a coach, I live for that 20% where my coaching, whether in practice or in that match plays the difference in winning or losing the match. Most matches, I could do nothing an we win on talent. But, there are a few matches where a change of strategy, a reference to something done in practice, and a confidence boost wins the match for the team.
Scheduling is obviously huge for ranking purposes. Since I couldn’t get ranked D3 teams to play me, I added D1 and D2 teams. It does nothing for ranking, but it does help to prepare us for the rigors of nationals. Now, going into planning my second season, I can try to get the competitive matches to be at a more crucial time of the season.
In commenting on another post here, possibly using UTR might be more valuable than the star system in evaluating a recruiting class. My top guys don’t have any stars since they didn’t grow up playing tournaments in the US. If you check out their UTR rating, it is much more reflective of their true level. I would guess, however, that most teams don’t have that many foreigners.
Hey thanks for your comment tennisjon – you make some great points. I agree that recruiting is by far the biggest part of improvement. I like what you said about scheduling as well. Your comments are in line with Coach Belletto’s comment lower down. It’s good to get your guys wins but they won’t get significantly better unless they are pushed.
Might UTR be a superior tool to TRN for purposes of determining the strength of a particular recruiting class?
Yeah, UTR would probably be better for the strength of recruiting, but the disadvantage would be the lack of consistency between how you evaluate recruiting and “improvement.” Also, junior UTRs are often unreliable, especially in high schoolers’ senior year when many stop playing as many matches. UTR is fantastic for college tennis though
Putting together a good schedule is about a lot more than just being willing to travel. I know my team would be more than willing to take as many trips as a team like Stevens has, but unfortunately the program’s budget makes that impossible. Additionally, to use Stevens as an example again, their location allows them to drive to so many different places where they can get several good matches in one weekend. This is just not viable for many teams, especially those in the west like Chapman or Whittier and in the Midwest like Coe. Finally, another aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked when considering scheduling is the fact that many programs have one coach for both the men’s and women’s teams, and therefore the teams almost always travel together. So even if a match sets up nicely for the men, if it’s going to be a blowout for the women (or vice versa), I think coaches would be hesitant to use up a match date and part of the budget for a match only one team will benefit from.
Overall, all of these obstacles can definitely be overcome, but they are worth pointing out anyway. The bottom line, as you made clear, is that there is no secret formula, it just takes a lot of hard work and commitment from everyone involved.
Thanks for the article. It seems as if your assumed readers are coaches who want to earn regional or national rankings but are stuck in lousy conferences. As you point out, these coaches need to get creative with scheduling. But it also seems to me that weaker teams in really strong conferences have a tough burden in front of them, since they play mostly ranked teams but stand little chance of beating them. I think it falls on these coaches to schedule as many winnable matches as possible, even if means travelling to do so. Whittier is a case in point; Belletto spent so many of his match dates on what would seem to be obviously unwinnable non-conference matches–Chicago, Bowdoin, Middlebury, etc. It seems to me that he might have been better off taking his teams out of California and probing the depths of the Northwest Conference, where they could have faced George Fox, Pacific Lutheran, Linfield, etc. This would have given them a chance to earn more regional wins, or at least compete in closer matches. They probably wouldn’t be 1-13 right now.
All of this is to say: Whittier’s 2015 season just illustrates that teams in strong conferences have their own challenges and may need to travel in order to compete in winnable matches.
That’s a good point Matt. For a team that is at the bottom of a strong conference, like Whittier, the first step to improving is to schedule a ton of winnable matches, so even if the team loses almost all of its conference matches, at least the team still gets a good amount of wins and does not get used to losing. For instance, Connecticut College in the NESCAC is 7-6 right now due to their Spring Break trip to Florida and early season matches against Coast Guard and Ithaca. They really only have a chance to win one NESCAC match this year (Hamilton), but at least the team got a good amount of wins under their belt. The next step is obviously tougher, which is to recruit talent and turn that into ranked wins, but I definitely agree with you that creating a winning culture can start before that, by willing to travel and playing teams outside the conference.
I’m going to come to Belletto’s defense here. The dude set his schedule for the team he thought he was going to have, and not the team he ended up having. At the time the scheduling was done, he couldn’t have known that his sophomore #1 singles player was going to “go pro.” He also likely did not predict as many injuries as his teams have had, expected to get a better recruiting class, and perhaps had an unrealistically sunny outlook on how well his players were going to develop.
It’s not like you can get to January and be like, “Alright, this is the team I’ve got. I’m going to schedule these teams at this time, and this should optimize my team’s ranking, and, more importantly, their experience of striving towards something greater as a team.” Whittier just got a string of bad breaks this year. They probably would be 7-7 right now even in the best of scenarios, but Ben has always loved creating a tough schedule for his squads.
I agree with you to an extent, at least with regard to injuries. But there are less than 10 guys on that roster, and even if he hadn’t had anyone get injured, I think you’re very generous to suggest they could have made it to 7-7. As for Konstantinov turning ‘pro,’ that happened in May of last year, less than 2 weeks after NCAAs ended–I’m well aware that you can’t modify your schedule in January, it just seemed as if that would have been more than enough advance notice (but I could be wrong.)
(Sorry to hijack this into a Belletto thread, especially as he seems to be a great coach overall)
In my experience, coaches start setting their schedule about a year in advance, meaning the matches would’ve been agreed upon before DK left. Once a match is set, it would be poor form to back out because your #1 “went pro.” I stand by my comment. I think Whittier would be much, much better with him in the lineup. I think they would’ve beaten CNU, Vassar, and Chapman, possibly picking off a team like Cruz on an off day. You’re right that the 7-7 was pretty generous, but that would’ve been enough for a top 35 ranking.
I have a few minutes, so why not chime in. In terms of building a winning program, there are many many ways. That is evidenced by the great programs out there. There are so many variables and factors that go into a winning program: location, academics, facilities, etc. I don’t ever think it’s a good idea to make assumptions about how a coach should go about doing their job because there are so many factors that impact a coach’s decision at every turn. It’s easy to second-guess (and I’m not talking specifically about my scheduling).
I’ll offer my own perspective, and it is only my perspective. I don’t believe in empty wins. I believe wholeheartedly in the process that leads to wins. In the process of building a winning program, I am more concerned with building winning habits, routines, a work ethic, and the confidence to beat anyone. Obviously, I would have preferred to avoid a season such as this one, which has been difficult. But, I make no excuses. Players going pro, injuries, etc., you focus on the things you can. Yes, coaches typically schedule far in advance, and in CA, we have teams knocking on our door constantly to play, and we play a lot of the same teams every year, so it can be hard to say no. But, as a competitive person, I will never back away from a challenge or an opportunity to get better. I believe that in order to grow in confidence, and reach new levels, you need to be pushed. Well, while our record is, to be polite, not good, I can promise you that those players who have gone through this challenging experience, are starting to internalize the information that they need, in order to compete at the next level. In short, that that does not break you, makes you stronger.
As I said, there are many variables in this process, but as a coach, I am not single-mindedly focused only on this season. I am looking at this program in a bigger sense (where are we now, where are we going, and how can we get there). Yes, winning breeds confidence, and confidence is crucial. But, I also believe in loving challenges. I don’t ever want my players to have to go through another year as challenging as this one, and will do whatever it takes to avoid it in the future, but, it has been a challenge that we take head on and will become better as a result. Part of my job is to help shape what players internalize, and the feedback from results. To be perfectly honest, I am not specifically concerned with the number next to our name (though I understand what it can mean for recruiting and for a program). I want to be the best. We are not particularly close to the best, but that’s our program goal. That is the goal of our players. What can we do today to be the best? How can we compete better? It may not show this season, but, I promise you it will…
Respectfully,
Ben Belletto
Great article! If the bloggers have some free time (maybe post-season), a nice followup piece would be to discuss programs that take “diamond in the rough” recruits and develops them the best. For example, Top 10 programs that have had the lowest star recruiting classes over the past few years and achieved the highest rankings by developing these players? Conversely, Bottom 10 programs that have had the top recruiting classes and underperformed in rankings. This may help 1-2 star recruits get a sense of where there is the best coaching in D3 that will give them the best shot of improving.
That’s a great idea!
I created some “Development Rankings” a couple years ago following the same basic design you’re suggesting. It was a lot of work and generally didn’t get a great reception. If you would like to do it yourself, we would be glad to post it here.
After my third year, here is the methodology I would suggest
1. Take the highest TRN ranking from each starter on each team. Average them. This is probably the best indicator of how well a team recruits
The star system is seriously flawed if you look at a guy like Krimbill (3-star rated 150 in the nation) vs. Flora (3-star rated 350 in the nation. You can’t count non-starters because teams like Amherst have these massive rosters. Trying to weight for how long a player has been in the program was a lot of work and it didn’t really change the rankings.
2. Rank the teams from 1-40 based on that average ranking
3. Subtract that ranking from the teams actual ranking
4. Rank the teams based on ranking differential
– Obviously, a higher ranking differential is better, but this methodology had a number of huge problems. Mainly, the higher your recruiting ranking is, the more difficult it is to have a positive ranking differential. This methodology also doesn’t really reward a team for finding a “diamond in the rough” that ends up imrpoving his/her TRN ranking between the recruiting period and the start of college. It also doesn’t have an answer for international players. UTR would probably be the best way to do this if they had a time stamping feature.
Anyways, feel free to borrow this methodology or do whatever you like. We’re always amenable to guest articles
We deleted your earlier comment because it was a long-winded and inaccurate version of what we had already done in the past. I do not disagree that the average age of the starters should be taken into account, but I cannot think of a reasonable way to quantify how much coaching influence can happen in a year of college tennis. In my area of expertise, we often find that simpler models often end up outperforming the more complex ones.
This is a really insightful and thoughtful article. My main criticism is that you attribute nearly all of these aspects to coaches, and very little of teams’ improvement to the players themselves – technically 15% – but even that portion is heavily influenced by coaches. There is absolutely no doubt that coaches are an integral part of team-building, skill-improving, and scheduling. But as a current player, I wish you had said more about the players themselves. Personality management, getting top players -those may be coach-centric, sure. But D3 tennis players, as we all know (assuming we’ve all played), are dynamic creatures who improve out of seemingly nowhere and who fall hard from freshman hype. I didn’t come away from this article knowing what I and my teammates should be doing to improve our team, other than making sure we hit outside of practice; I came away wondering whether my coach will have a strong enough schedule in 2016.
Attitude, confidence, trust – these are the foundations of team culture, and while the coach is a necessary piece in its creation, it is primarily a product of the players. I believe you should analyze this more in depth.
Thanks for your comment! You’re right, I do put a lot of this article on the coach. However, it really does fall on the players to take what the coach says and use it to create a winning culture. I know I stuck it at the end of my “Coaching” paragraph, but veteran leadership is another big aspect, especially in the offseason, when the coach isn’t directly working with players every day. It falls on the upperclassmen to make the team atmosphere not only business-like, but also fun, which will get everybody to work even harder.
I know that I do talk a lot about scheduling, just because there are a lot of examples to give, but I did only rate it at 15%, the same amount as development, which really falls mostly on the players. If a coach wants to improve the team’s doubles, the coach can have his guys play pro-sets every practice, but unless the team buys in and trusts their coach, they will only get minimally better.