Ciudadanía Activa: Un Concepto con Perspectiva Emancipadora

The incumbent methods of talent identification in tennis are largely based around ranking and tournament results (Brouwers et al., 2012). In Australia, there are detailed criteria specifying the ranking, tournament result or participation level that you must achieve to be eligible for a support scholarship (e.g. top 4 Australian ranking, competing in Nationals or State championships) ("Athlete development scholarship criteria," 2015). Despite acknowledging individual pathways of development in the document, the continued reliance on competitive, performance related benchmarks does not reflect this viewpoint.

The literature surrounding talent identification in tennis is scarce and conflicting, focusing on the legitimacy of junior tournaments and rankings as a predictor of future success (Brouwers et al., 2012; Kolman, Huijgen, Kramer, Elferink-Gemser, & Visscher, 2017; Miley & Nesbitt, 1995; Reid et al., 2009; Reid, Crespo, Santilli, et al., 2007; Reid & Morris, 2013). The predictive value of under 14 year old youth tennis tournaments and the rankings of junior (under 18) tennis players revealed they both have low success rates at predicting later achievement (Brouwers et al., 2012). Participation in the youth tournaments resulted in 6.2% of the males achieving a top 200 ranking and 9.2% for females. A top 20 junior ranking resulted in 65.8% of players achieving a top 200 ranking for males and 64.6% for females. No significant relationship was found for players who achieved a top 20 ranking at a younger age (males p=0.102, females p=0.069). Whilst it is acknowledged that good results at younger ages can increase the chances of senior success, it is not a pre-condition for senior success. Therefore, the use of current performance as best practice to predict success must be questioned.

Achieving a top 10 ITF junior ranking has been reported to equate to a 50% chance of achieving a top 100 men’s or women’s ranking (Miley & Nesbitt, 1995). Applying a contrasting top-down approach found that of the top 100 ranked senior men, 91% had achieved a junior ranking, although no stipulation was placed on this ranking (for example, top 100) (Reid & Morris, 2013). When examining this result more closely, the average peak in their junior ranking was 94.1±148.9. This demonstrates the marked variability that can occur when using only performance based measures and brings into doubt the importance of a high junior ranking. A study investigating the importance of a junior ITF top 20 ranking for girls reported that 99% achieved a professional ranking, however this reduced to 58% when a top 100 ranking was the determinant of success. A similar study for boys reported 91% ranked in the ITF junior top 20 achieved a professional men’s ranking. However the junior ranking only

accounted for approximately 4.5% of variation in the professional rank (Reid, Crespo, Santilli, et al., 2007).

The varying markers of ‘success’ in these studies limit comparison and lack practical reasoning. Two practical examples are provided as a more appropriate definition of success. Firstly, for direct entrance into a ‘grand slam’ a player has to be ranked in the top 104 players. Secondly, it has been estimated that a player has to be ranked inside the top 130 to earn enough prize money to cover their costs of competing on the tour (Bane, Reid, & Morgan, 2014). These appear to be more relevant measures than achieving a singles ranking alone. The insight these studies provides is significant. However, only Brouwers et al. (2012) investigated under 14 age group tournament results with the main focus being the under 18 age group. This presents an opportunity for research with younger children, as talent identification processes are occurring in the field with this population despite the lack of research (Bastieans, 2006; Pankhurst, 2013).

In an attempt to identify the most pertinent variables for TI in tennis, current research findings have been unclear. A systematic review attempting to identify the most relevant variables for TI in racquet sports (tennis, table tennis, badminton and squash) provided valuable insights (Faber et al., 2016). Perceptual abilities and coordinative skills discriminated between elite and non-elite populations but their predictive ability was not able to be established. Physical attributes returned conflicting findings, preventing a clear conclusion (Faber et al., 2016).

An investigation into the relationship between competitive tennis level and a number of physical attributes (anthropometric, maturity status, grip strength, vertical jump, 20m sprint, tennis specific sprint test, serve velocity, medicine ball throws and the hit and turn tennis test) discovered that serve velocity (females r=0.43-0.64, males r=0.33-0.49) and medicine ball throw (females r=0.26-0.49, males r=0.20-0.49) yielded the strongest correlations (Ulbricht et al., 2016). These variables combined with the hit and turn tennis test discriminated between national and regional level players (Ulbricht

et al., 2016). A physical performance test battery (assessing strength, agility, speed and endurance) did not predict the competitive level of junior (8-12 years of age) tennis players (Roetert et al., 1992). The hexagon text, a test measuring agility and speed, was correlated (r=0.23) to sectional rankings explaining 8% of the variance, whilst stroke ratings and physical tests yielded no significant correlations (Roetert et al., 1992). For national rankings, 47% of the variance was explained by forehand tennis stroke ratings (Roetert et al., 1992). Expanding on their previous work, Roetert et al. (1996) discovered that a test battery containing speed, agility, strength and flexibility measures correctly classified 91.5% participants from 3 different junior tennis levels. However, these athletes were previously talent identified, experiencing greater training loads, exposure to better coaching, and strength and conditioning programs, therefore potentially biasing the results.