The Great American Swindle

Since CAtennis.com got started we've had both positive and negative reviews. Several of our site frequenters have inquired whether some of our tips/suggestions (or "articles") carry a deliberate (or, perhaps, innocent) anti-teaching-pro tinge. Our answer is, as it has always been, "absolutely not". After all, we are, or have been, involved in the junior development business ourselves and, as a result, we would be hypocrites to attack ourselves or our methods. Nevertheless, what separates us from a number of our peers is that we constantly remind our students that the time on-court with us is simply NOT ENOUGH. We encourage the students to take ownership of their development and charge of their destinies. We remind them to utilize our knowledge and expertise as a guide/map, not a tour bus. "We're along for YOUR journey; not the other way around." Do the hard hammering and chiseling yourself; come to us when you require our assistance with the fine sandpapering. We do not presume to have all the answers (and are loathe to rely on the "authority" implied by our modest results). The primary purpose of CAtennis.com is to elicit a discussion of "what it takes" from people who have gone through the process. 

With the foregoing in mind, however, let's take a sledgehammer to that other great American tennis institution: the live-in tennis "academy" (I put this term in quotation because I doubt that subjects such as the history or physics of tennis are heavily studied, discussed and debated at such places). Enter "tennis academy" and "United States" into your basic search engine and you are likely to get over 1.5million hits. They all have enterprising sounding names and some are even associated with reputable former tennis players or teaching professionals. The cost of attending one of these live-in academies is usually pretty steep; most of the time, upwards of $25,000/year. At the more prestigious academies, the per-student tuition can run as much as $50,000/year - $68,000/year.  This cost usually covers housing, meals and entertainment, as well as coaching and training. At some academies, the tuition also includes education (although a lot of times this costs extra and, in several cases, it's provided through an online program), tournament entry fees as well as transportation and housing to/from the site. Most academies charge extra for racket restringing and almost none provide the basic equipment (save for balls): shoes, strings, RACKETS, grips, etc. Generally, parents - with BEST INTENTIONS IN MIND - send their children to some of these glorified day-care centers with the expectations that, upon spending $200,000+ over 4 or more years, the player will receive a full college scholarship and, perhaps, be good enough to try "the tour" for a couple of years. 

Now, you don't have to be a genius to realize that for LESS than $200,000 (cost of attending your average, high-end academy for 4-5+ years), the child could easily attend a reputable institution of higher learning AND have sufficient money left over to live in Paris and/or London or travel the globe for 1.5years after graduation. But this is not the reason why the academy system is a swindle; it's a con because, like many hucksters before them, they use limited examples (anecdotes) to market the perceived effectiveness of their program(s). Without naming names, you will often hear stories how so-and-so sent his young son to some far-off place in Florida where he trained all day and became top-10 in the world. However, what these examples dicount is the percentage of people "who make it" versus the sheer number of players who do not. For every academy player who cracks the top-100/200 there are THOUSANDS of kids from the very same program who do not. Similarly, for every player who gets a "full ride" somewhere, HUNDREDS of his academy-mates do not. Would you consider a law school to be reputable if only 1 out of 1000 graduates pass the bar exam?! What if you had to go in for major surgery and 999 of your doctor's patients have died on the operating table but he's had major success with 1 patient?! Would you let him operate on you?! 

Thus, when evaluating whether to spend good, hard-earned money on an academy you not only have to perform a cost-benefit analysis (i.e. would money be better spent on an Ivy League education?) but also look at the percentage of players who make it v. those who do not. Then, you have to ask whether those players who broke through would have made it regardless; maybe they just worked harder, were more passionate about tennis and had the qualities necessary to succeed. Some players may be very good - best in their countries or sections - but not have the resources in their home-town to develop further. These good players receive scholarships at the prestigious academies - so the process doesn't really cost them anything - that are funded by players who might not have what it takes (and never will). In other words, they serve the academy's marketing scheme to attract the paying suckers. In addition, these good players usually get to spend a lot more time with the "top" academy pros (and, if lucky, serve as sparing partners for the touring players) thereby improving at a faster rater than their colleagues. 

Conversely, the rest of the students (i.e., the average or bad players) spend 4-5 hours on the court with a "pro" who's getting paid $15-$20/hour. Wait! You thought that the academy pros are highly compensated individuals?! Did you think that the on-court ball-feeders are getting paid a king's ransom for their work?! Well that's just naive. The academy is a BUSINESS and someone's gotta be making money from this endeavor (as usual, it's the owners, not the workers). So how involved is that instructor going to be in your child's development if he receives a fraction of a cost of a lesson AND has 5-6 students to look after. Of course, some of these pros might not be qualified to teach at the local country club to begin with, but that's a separate issue altogether. Per-student, this instructor/babysitter is getting less than minimum wage. There are, of course, some who use this opportunity to learn about the teaching business, develop a clientelle and, perhaps, find one or two students with whom they can travel. However, at some point, burn-out is going to set in and the likelihood that the "pros" will continue to provide high-quality instruction will diminish.

Now let's look at the flip-side. For $30,000, your child could: (a) live at home, play the tournaments that she wants to play and not be subjected to the negative influence of the live-in peers (yes, drugs and alcohol abuse are often factors at live-in academies and you can't always count on some immature monitor - who many times is not much older than the pupils - to look after everyone's conduct); (b) at $60/hour, your child can take 300 private lessons per year (or 600 semi-private). Heck, your local pro can cut you a deal (a lesson package) and maybe work with your kid for 400 hours/year. That's 2 hours a day of individual attention (not counting days off or tournaments). We're not flip-flopping on the "lessons" concept; just pointing out that if you're sending the child away for instruction, then you can very easily secure instruction close to home. If the private lessons don't work for you, maybe you should consider hiring a gardner to mow the tennis balls around the court while lil' Johnny is grinding on the ball machine. That's $15/hour well-spent; (c) take lessons from someone who is actually getting paid a decent hourly wage ($50/hr v. $15/hr) thereby, more or less, guaranteeing quality advice and interest in the player's development; (d) have a relatively "normal" upbringing and not be removed from her friends; (e) have less stress and higher quality education; and (f) have the opportunity to work on her own development and not rely on someone else to force-feed her information. 

Again, the live-in academy system works for some and those "some" happen to be very good players who have put in the work early and have a proven commitment to the sport. Like first-born children in the middle ages, they get the benefit of the best training and attention and are groomed to become champions at the expense of the rest of the students - his "sponsors". These sponsor-players serve as the foundation of the academy pyramid scheme and are only there to fulfill their parents Walter Mitty fantasies. Of course, some parents will continue to be razzle-dazzled by the anecdotes of success. Rather than doing some critical thinking and planning, they will prefer to continue writing checks and pass along the development responsibility to someone else. After all, signing a check is way easier than being actually involved. The best advice that we could give you would be to contact the former players (and their parents) and see how the academy worked for them and whether they got everything that they wanted out of their investment and experience. 

Road-map for American Success in Tennis

A discussion has arisen as to what it would take for the US to, once again, achieve dominance in the tennis ranks (particularly for men). Although the factors are numerous, here as some thoughts to consider:

1.         Set Goals Early. Parents and players need to have a clear vision of where they want to end up 10-11 years down the road (assuming that the player picks up the racket at age 7-8) in terms of tennis. Are the parents simply interested in treating tennis as an after-school activity (“play it by ear”) or do they (and the player) intend to take this game seriously. This decision should be made early – although it doesn’t mean that the youngster becomes a “tennis monk” (i.e., foreclosed from other childhood activities) – in order to provide the player with the maximum chance to improve. Initially, many parents intend tennis to be merely a fun activity in order to keep the player off the streets and out of trouble; then, after 3-4 years into the process, they figure out that the child may have some innate knack for the game and a passion, and proceed to reverse course. For many players (not all), this may be simply too late; their competition (whether it’s Juan Carlos from Spain or Anna or Maria from Russia or Ukraine) will have spent many more hours on court developing their technique, eye for the ball, footwork and tactical understanding. In other words, while the American player is striving to become "well-rounded" (and there's nothing really wrong with that), their foreign peers would have played 500-600 hours more. There are, of course, stories about some athletes who played multiple sports and still achieved great success. You have to ask yourself whether they are the exception or the rule. 

2.        Understand the Odds of “Making It”. Whether you are intending to push for the “pros” or merely college tennis, you have to understand the odds of achieving your results. Tennis is open to people from all demographics or walks of life. In addition, for most of the world, tennis is a very, very popular sport (maybe 2nd or 3rd in popularity after football/soccer). The popularity adds to the pool of players and talent. When it comes to playing pro tennis, I will quote what Jose Higueras told me when I had the opportunity to train with him as an 18 year old: “you know, your chance of making it is ZERO [needless to say, I felt crushed]. But you know what?! Jim’s [Courier] and Michael’s [Chang] chances were also zero.” In other words, the reality is that tennis is, from a financial point of view, a zero-sum game for most people. However, despite the odds, some people take up that challenge and work hard towards their dreams while others get discouraged. Both Jim and Michael were tremendous work horses who spent a great deal of time improving their games and fitness levels. Not many people would be willing to put in the miles that Jim was doing in the middle of summer with truck tires behind him. 

3.         Avoid Negative Influences. Despite the odds, it is OK for the parents and players to admit that they have lofty goals (e.g. Top-200 in the world; D-1 scholarship; etc.). Many people, however, will not admit to harboring such dreams because they feel that other people will laugh at them - particularly if the goals are not attained. Screw those people! Why allow them to dictate your dreams?! If the child wanted to become a doctor, lawyer or astronaut would you pour water on her dreams too?! Set the standards high and then aim for them with all your energies and resources. Very few people finish a marathon if they’re only training for a 5-K race. The reality is that if you aim for the “top” (let’s say, for purposes of discussion, top-200ATP/WTA) and fail, you are still a helluva player. If you’re an accomplished (i.e. world-class/ranked) player, you can more easily get into a good college and have your education paid for and, thereafter, "make a decent life for yourself". But you cannot allow the negative noise to deter you from your goals. 

4.        Forget About Rankings. This will be a constant theme on CAtennis.com but it’s worth hammering the point home. When you’re young, worry about developing your game...all of your game (technical, tactical, physical and mental); get addicted to winning; play tournaments to see how your practices and training are coming along and then fine-tune your training further (don't "live" on results alone); seek to dominate all levels starting from the simplest one (your "backyard") first and working your way upwards (sectionals -> nationals -> internationals); stop trying to “buy” success. Some parents think that if their kids play “bigger” tournaments even if they are not ready (i.e., because they have not achieved worthwhile results at lower levels), the competitors' level/success will somehow rub off on their own kids as if it were mud (or something more colorful). Success must be earned; it cannot be borrowed from someone else. 

5.    Know the Difference Between Organizations. The USTA is, technically, in charge of tennis development. The ITA (NCAA) is in charge of college tennis. They are not related! They have different rules and interests. One (USTA) cares about one thing (tennis development); the other (ITA), about something entirely different (scholastic development). If we, as a country, are to succeed and have a long-lasting impact, we need to have coordination efforts between these organizations in order to allow players to transition from the auspices of one organization to those of another.

6.       Amateurism. A strong argument exists that antiquated notions of amateurism may be detrimental to the game. After all, many foreign players have no concept of college tennis (or the rules are more relaxed or not completely enforced). Thee aim of some of these players is the pro tour; for them, there is no secondary target. Thus, while our players are setting their sights relatively low, their foreign peers are setting their sights considerably higher.

Perhaps we need to devise a circuit of events where the players can at least be reimbursed for their travel expenses. For example, we could make it a requirement that "national" events reimburse the winner's and runner-up's expenses up to a point; no more scalping the parents for $120/event in exchange for a tournament T-shirt and "national points". It might be tough to monitor (for NCAA purposes), but the concept is that the players will learn how to view the sport as a professional endeavor and college as a mere stop along the way and not the final destination. For example, in France, cash prizes are sometimes awarded in junior events (even the smallest ones). This breeds a completely different mentality – “yes, we can make a living at this game.” While Johnny (USA) is playing for plastic trophies, Francois, Rafael, Jurgen, Dmitri or "-ova" are playing for something completely different. I wonder who will have a better chance of making it.

Nevertheless, this is really not a novel concept. Some ITF events actually reimburse the players' travel expenses so there's no reason - well, besides greed from the tournament organizers and short-sightedness - for not implementing this at other events (e.g. national tournaments). We're simply saying that more tournaments could follow the ITF approach and not be in violation of any EXISTING amateurism rules. 

7.         Player Assistance. We need to provide actual, tangible incentives for people to play the sport and push for the higher echelons of the game. The more players we have in the ranks, the greater the likelihood of players breaking into the top-100, top-50 and toop-10. Remember, when the US dominated the top spots in tennis, the US also dominated the entire ranks. As of Oct. 24, only 17 American men are in the top 300. While everyone focuses on what we need to do to get a player in the top 4, we need to focus on energy in getting more players into the top 200-300. This is the pool of talent from which we can make a push into the top-100, top-50, top-20 and top-10. As a nation, we can't afford to continue to gamble on one or two players making it big. We need to actually increase the odds of it happening. 

Again, foreign countries have a different approach than ours. Rather than adopting a “sink or swim” mentality, many foreign federations provide actual financial/development assistance to their players. In some countries, assistance is provided by the clubs themselves. Here, we could devise a system where the USTA could provide grants/loans to players attaining certain rankings. For example: if you’re top 500 ATP/WTA, you receive (from USTA) $15,000 per year (to assist with further travels); if you’re top 350 ATP/WTA, you receive $25,000 per year; if you’re top 200 ATP/WTA, you receive $30,000 (figures are arbitrary and for purposes of discussion only). Players participating in this program (i.e., it's not mandatory) could then either agree to pay it back (from future earnings; when they "break through" top 150ATP/WTA) or trade on-court time for grass-roots tennis events or exhibitions in order to “grow the game”. The reality is that the USTA is spending a lot of money in trying to develop players, but it’s doing so on salaries of non-players. The players are the face of American tennis – not the executives or administrators. 

8.         Put More Money Into the Lower Tiers. Although prize money has increased in the Grand Slams and top-tier events, it has more or less remained constant in the futures and challenger series. $1000 20 years ago meant a whole lot more than $1000 today. Not many Americans are willing to grind out, week-in and week-out, sleeping 6 to a room or in their cars, for little or no compensation (even if they manage to get good results). Again, we need to provide an incentive for people to stick with the game through the grind-stages. Otherwise, players will simply quit and start teaching or get “real” jobs. 

Discussion About College Tennis - The Idea Behind CAtennis.com

CAtennis.com came about from several discussions with juniors, parents and other coaches regarding junior development and college tennis in particular. Too many times, we found ourselves repeating the same information over and over and thought it would be more efficient if we could create a platform for people interested in raising the level of play for those with an interest in tennis and, specifically, juniors.

We expect that our authority will be challenged but, hey, if tips from the "names" are more to your liking - even if they are completely rudimentary and useless (e.g. keep your eye on the ball; move your feet; bring water on court on a hot day; put topspin on the ball if your shots are sailing) - there's not much we can do about that.  We hope that that kind information helps you out with your game. If, however, you are already familiar with those concepts and are looking for something more substantive..something that you can sink your teeth into, then perhaps you would consider giving us a chance.

With the foregoing in mind, here are some issues to consider regarding college tennis:

1. Scholarship distribution. Division 1 schools allocate 4.5 scholarship for men and 8 for women. This is not a trade secret nor is it confidential information. It's a simple fact. With an average of 100 schools (let's just go with a round number for the sake of simplicity) that means that every given year, there are 450 scholarships available for men and 800 for women, right? Technically correct; PRACTICALLY speaking - WRONG. Not every one of those scholarships will be "freed up" every year. In other words, the number of available scholarships for any given year fluctuates with the number of seniors who are graduating and who are liberating some money for incoming freshman. In some years, that number may be 1-2 per team; in others it may be 0. Therefore, the number of available D-1 scholarships per year is probably closer to 100 for men and maybe 200 for women. Still like your odds? 

2. Scholarship odds. Even assuming that you're one of the top 100/200 (nation) graduating seniors, you still have to consider the odds of actually getting a "full ride". In other words, it's one thing to receive a letter of interest from the coach, another to be good enough to play in the line-up and, yet another for getting your education (or part thereof) covered. This is because graduating seniors are not just competing against players from US, but also players from Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and about 100 other countries. Even if you take 1 or 2 players from each country, that adds 200-300 players into the pool for competing against them. OOPS!!!! guess what?! You're not just competing against foreigners who have graduated in the same year as you but also with people (foreign AND domestic) who may be 1, 2 or 3 years older and have international/ATP experience (NCAA eligibility rules subject to change). Did I forget to mention the transfer students? How silly of me. Yes, some players may be OK when they graduate but will peak somewhat later. Maybe they only got decent training or more serious about the sport at a later point in their life and are just now catching up. These people may go to a junior college for a year or two and get better. So, the reality is that now you have a pool of at least 500-600+ players (for men) competing for the afore-mentioned number of scholarships. And, some of these players don't care if the school has/hasn't a good football program or if the town has a cool "college vibe" or some other nonsense that's deemed important by US players. They just want to come to the US, get their school paid for and have a chance to a better life than the one available back home. Scared yet? There's more.

3. Diminishing programs. Let's be honest here, tennis is the center of our universe but it's not exactly a revenue generating sport for colleges. Programs may be cut due to lack of funds in the annual budget, NCAA violations, Title IX issues or other reasons. We're not here to advocate one way or another but this just another thing to consider when figuring out the odds as your "dream school" might not have a program 2-4 or 6 years down the road. So maybe instead of 100 scholarships, a couple of years in the future there may only be 80-90 scholarships available/year. That has a further effect on the odds. 

4. Rankings. Chances are that if you're been around this game for a while, you've heard two sides of this issue: rankings are important v. rankings are, for the most part, meaningless. Here's one thing to remember when thinking that rankings will get you into a top program: each school, depending on its caliber and coach's level of interest, looks at rankings similar to a flight controller looking at a radar screen. Some coaches will only look at top 10 in the nation players; others may expand their horizons to top-30, top-40 or top-100. Once a player enters the coach's "field of vision" the evaluation doesn't simply stop there, however.

The coach will then determine HOW the player got there. For example, is this a top-30 player with a 30(W)-3(L) record, or is this someone who "bought" their way into the top-30 (e.g. 164(W)-130(L) record)? To a "top" school, what good is a player who's lost 130 matches?! That means that there are at least 130 players in the nation alone who can beat him (and that's only the players he's played against). The school wants to know that it can count on the player at 5-5 in the third set with the team match tied at 3-3. Someone who's lost as many matches as he's played - but simply traveled more and played more tournaments - is not a "lock" in these situations. The only points that really matter, therefore, are either ATP points or WTA points. Everything else comes down to winning ("if College X has player Y, can my recruit beat player Y so that our school will beat College X?"). Needless to say, a number of players and parents will think that they know better...that they have found just the right wool for pulling over the coaches eyes. They will find out the hard way how wrong they really are.

5. Level of tennis. Ultimately, your level of tennis is determined by who you beat (not how many close matches you lost or how matches you lost at big events). Therefore, it's important to start getting addicted to winning early. Set the standard by dominating your back-yard first, then try to be the best in you club, then in your town, then in your county, then in your section, then in your state, then in the nation. Learn how to win and focus on developing your game. Entirely too much energy and money is spent on chasing "national" points. Before signing up for a "big" tournament, have an honest discussion with yourself: am I in a position to push 4-5 rounds into the main draw or am I simply wasting everyone's resources? Am I only going there to collect a tournament T-shirt and player's badge? Have I done everything possible - physically, mentally, technically and tactically - to improve? Have I dominated my local events and playing this tournament is the next logical challenge? Am I willing to become cannon-fodder for superior players and provide them win a "W" and a confidence boost? If I don't have a good result, can I bounce back from it? Am I willing to put in additional hours on the court? Is this what I really want to do with my life or am I doing this simply as an excuse to not get "A+" in school work? Do I enjoy tennis for the purity of the game or is something that I'm doing to put on the college application? Etc. 

To summarize: tennis is hard. The reality is that if you want to be recruited, make the team AND get a college scholarship, you better be good; REAL GOOD. With the competition being spread among players from so many countries, your goal (particularly as a male) should really be closer to become a professional player. The college ranks are full of players who may have played on the tour for 1 or 2 years and simply were not good enough to break into the ranks where they could become self-sufficient from the earnings. Logic dictates that a college coach (especially one a top tier program) will, more likely, favor a world-class/accomplished player over a junior with a couple of tournament T-shirts to his name. This is particularly true if competing programs have managed to acquire one or two world-class players.

Therefore, our advice, for players with BIG dreams, approach tennis as you would mountain climbing: ATP/WTA = Himalayas; college tennis = Mt. Baldy. Who is a more accomplished climber - the one who has striven for the highest peaks or the one who is aiming for half-way?! Tennis is no different: some players who push for ATP rankings might not make it but they would have worked harder, longer and more serious than players who look at tennis as a mere after-school activity. This is the completely un-sugarcoated reality and it's not intended to scare anybody away from the game or dissuade them from following their dreams. It is, however, intended to assist some players in focusing their objectives and priorities. Cue in the Rocky Soundtrack and get to work 'cause time's awastin'.

Overcoaching: Stop Trying To Save Them

The goal of every player is to become their own coach. Tennis coaching has turned into a multi-million dollar business. How can this be? Was this always the case?

No it wasn't. Tennis coaching is a very fraudulent business. Barriers to entry are extremely low, anyone with a heartbeat, two legs, and work ethic can break into the tennis industry. Tennis coaches can be found in every city across the United States, each with their own philosophy on how to become a champion. The supply and price of tennis coaching over the years has increased, but to no fault of the coaches themselves. The blame is placed on the naive parents who drive the business, looking to gain an edge on their fellow competitors. Parents are supplying a steady income to coaches across the country, hoping to save their children at every corner.

A lot of coaches perpetuate the problem, living paycheck to paycheck, listening and agreeing with the needs and wants of each parent (not to mention giant egos and narcissism) and pushing for more private lessons. In order to stay afloat, some coaches will say or invent just about anything to sound like they can mold and predict the future. Unfortunately, a lot parents are simply too inexperienced to know any better (most are non-athletic living vicariously through their children) and hope to be proactive by Yelping the best tennis coach in town (usually a fraud if he is #1 on Yelp).

*Think of any financial crisis, bubble, hedge fund manager promising 20% return on investment year after year (same idea as tennis)*

Prior to the tennis boom of John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, coaching was not the business it is today. Players simply went to the club, competed with whoever was around (old ladies, hacks, juniors, anyone with a heartbeat - but mostly against other juniors), and rarely took lessons. Most players picked up tips from watching others compete at the local club, college matches, or good players visiting in the area.  They were hungry about learning the game and became true scholars of the sport. A certain pecking order was established within your geographic location where each and every players goal was to climb the ranks. Competition within your club was vicious (those results mattering more than a tournament); nobody was there to help you with technique or to save you (unless you asked and were hungry to win and were willing to put in the extra effort). One learned through observation and experience - which is much more meaningful (longlasting) than having a lesson paid for by your parents (short-term bandaid). The information ingrains itself much deeper when the players discovers the aspects of the game rather than being forced the concept. 

Lessons are overrated (especially more than one private lesson a week). Most players played as many sets as they could. The great players would play anyone, anytime, amounting up to 10+ sets a week (the best players didn't care with who, they would make it worthwhile). Competition breeds champions (point system in today's USTA rankings do not promote competition). Lessons do not breed champions. Parents, please stop trying to save your children (not just in tennis, but everything!). Seek to adopt a more detached attitude when it comes to practice sessions and results (not healthy).  In addition, please stop coddling them and protecting them from unwanted losses in practices. These are learning experiences and no player in the world has a 100% W/L record (most hover around .500). Let them learn to cope and adapt. Tennis does not have to be a complicated sport and the players are the ones who win championships, not coaches.

*Big apology to all tennis coaches, but we can't expect to have tough players if we are always saving them (because we need a paycheck). Tennis coaches, like players, will learn to adapt and survive. Our primary responsibility should always be on developing players and doing what's best for them while maintaining honesty and integrity towards the students and parents.

Tennis on a Budget

Tennis is an expensive sport. Between the cost of rackets, shoes, strings, balls, coaching, entry fees, travel and club membership fees, the expenses can run into thousands of dollars. Is it all worthwhile?! Depending on your goals and commitment it may be. It is disheartening, however, to invest so much in developing as a tennis player and not get much out of it simply because you did not put in the extra effort.

Unfortunately, a lot of parents rely only on individual lessons in order to develop their kids' games. This is simply not enough. Although many aspects of the game can be taught, there are numerous components that can only be LEARNED (i.e. discovered).

Your coach can tell you how to hold the racket but only you can determine how to use the stroke in a match. Many players, however, never really learn how to "teach themselves" or how to "self-soothe" when things don't go their way in a match. They rely on constant coaching in all aspects of the game and, therefore, become automatons without any artistry or true passion for the sport. 

In addition to not being self-sufficient, many players end up playing their coaches' (or parents') version of the sport rather than their own. Furthermore, since coaches are, for the most part, authority figures, a lot of the workouts follow the "do as I say not as I do" routine. Often times, and depending on the tone and message, this can result in burn-out, dissatisfaction or outright tanking ("just to get back" to the parent/coach). 

On the other side of the equation are the players who do things completely on their own without any outside guidance. These players possess a great passion for the game and practice, whether by choice or by necessity, a lot on their own and in their own way. Of course, what they lack sometimes is structure and, perhaps, a good grasp of the fundamentals. Some of these player become quite good in their own right although it's tough to say whether they have maximized the potential. 

I believe that the best way to grow into an accomplished player would be include components from both "classes" of players: those who rely on private coaches and those who learn the game on their own. In effect, this becomes "tennis on a budget". By having some structure, the players are assured that they have proper fundamentals (what's "proper" is debatable). However, by doing things on their own or with little supervison, the players can also maintain the artistry and independence to develop one's own sense and place as a tennis player. After all, the players are not playing "for their coaches or parents" but for themselves. 

Practically speaking tennis on a budget is a blend that not only spreads the pressures and responsibilities but also minimizes the costs. In addition, the players are forced to become honest with their intentions. If they are passionate about the game, they will do things on their own in order to improve. If they are not, then no-harm, no-foul but "at least we're not fooling ourselves" or using tennis as an excuse to not study or pursue some other objectives. Although everyone's finances and goals are different, a developing player (e.g. 14+) can easily follow a disciplined routine (such as one outlined in the example below) and still manage to attain a reasonable level of success:

1. MON: 2 hours on the ball machine (FH; BH; Volleys); 30 min running/jumping rope; 30 min abs/weights. On the ball machine, work on power ("hit the ball like it owes you money"), consistency and placement. Move the ball machine around the court and learn to hit from anywhere to anywhere. Maintain good, light footwork in between shots with particular emphasis on the 3-4 "dance" steps immediately before the shot. 

2. TUE: 1.5hrs sets/points (can be a match or some adult/junior league); 30 min serves. 30 min of bike; 30 min abs/weights

3. WED: 1 hour lesson; 1 hr points/sets. 30 min running; 30 min abs/weights.

4. THU: 1 hour clinic/group-split lesson; 1 hour on ball machine. 30 min jumping rope; 30 min bike.

5. FRI: 1 hour sets; 30 min serves. 30 min stretching. 

6. SAT/SUN: tournament. NOTE: I ALWAYS recommend that the player does not rely solely on the matches provided by the tournament (i.e., don't just play your match, get in your car and drive home). Try to find a handful of players againt whom you can play a couple of practice sets AFTER the tournament match; go for a run; jump rope; do some drills with another player. Get the most out of that tennis-specific environment particularly if you're from an area that doesn't have a lot of high-caliber players to practice against. 

Again, this is just an example of a "clean" routine where the player is receiving just enough instruction so that he doesn't get too far off track but also sufficient independence in order to develop the game on his own and learn how to make adjustments independently when things go wrong in a match. Of course, the foregoing requires some dedication and discipline from the player but, then again, that's the point. In addition, there is a concern in some schools of thought that without constant instruction, the player will lose his stroke (or develop bad ones). Another school of thought, however, believes that the player is more likely to pay attenion in that 1-1.5hrs of instruction than if he were to participate in private lessons day-after-day. One cannot discount teenagers' ability to "tune things out" when they hear the same thing over and over again. 

Will this schedule produce future Nadals and Federers? Maybe, maybe not. But it will certainly result in more passionate players - in player who take charge of their games - as well as people who are capable of taking charge of their lives and being more disciplined in all pursuits.