The McCraw Method

Navigation

Home
Player Development
Coach Education
Research
Consulting
Contact

Research Institute

For the past 10 years I have conducted numerous studies on the ITF Junior Circuit and the ATP / WTA Tours. These have shaped my philosophy enormously and validated both my beliefs and dispelled long-held coaching myths about the game. Below you will find a selection of studies that I think will shape your outlook on coaching. Enjoy!

If you would like to join the McCrawMethod Research Team for 2010 and be part of this years studies, please contact me.

2009 Transition -Top 100 ATP/WTA Tour

Just how many ITF Junior and Pro Circuit events did the current ATP/WTA Top 100 players compete in? How often did they win and what was their ranking at ceratin ages?

This study investigated transition from a Top 10 ITF Junior Circuit rank to Top 100 WTA Tour rank for 10 years (1996 - 2005). It provides an up-to-date Senior profile of players’ average:

Age, age at highest and first ATP / WTA Rank,
Transition time to Top 100 Rank,
Years in the Top 100,
Win:Loss Ratios - ITF Junior, Pro Circuit & ATP / WTA Tour,
Number of Junior and Senior events played between 14-18 yrs,
Ranking in the years prior to entering the Top 100.

This study also outlines a proposed Competition Based Development Schedule which could be used as a template for long-term player development planning and ccheduling.

The intended use of this study is to establish a range of statistical benchmarks coaches and Federations can use for players aspiring at a professional career on the ATP/WTA Tours.

So here it is, a 10 Year study of the transition from ITF Top 10 Junior to Top 100 ATP & WTA Tour (1996-2005):

ATP Tour - Top 10 ITF Junior to Top 100 ATP Tour.
WTA Tour - Top 10 ITF Junior to Top 100 WTA Tour.

2009 ATP/WTA - 20 Year Overview

The past 20 years have seen exponential growth in the number of ITF Junior, ITF Pro Circuit and ATP/WTA Tour events. This is in addition to a relentless drive from National Federations and coaches to develop professional players.

Just how much has the pathway changed to a Top 100 ATP/WTA Tour ranking? Do players need to achieve age-based ranking and performance benchmarks earlier and earlier, or have very little changed in the past 20 years?

This study provides an up-to-date profile of players’ average age in Top 100 and Age of First ATP / WTA Rank and entry into Top 100 (2009). It also compares transition of Top 10 ITF Juniors to Top 100 ATP / WTA Rank from 1985-1991 to 1996-2005.

So here it is, Age-Profile Top 100 ATP/WTA Tour (1990-2009).

2008 ATP & WTA Tour Comparison

This study looked at outcome type and percentage of point outcome for Clay, Grass and Hard Court for the 2008 ATP & WTA Tour Comparison.

You can also download an overview of Coaching Applications broken down by surface. This will assist in the tactical development for junior players.

ATP & WTA Tour Point Outcome by Surface:

Hard Court - Australian Open and US Open findings combined.
Clay Court - Findings from Roland Garros (French Open).
Grass Court - Findings from Wimbledon.
Coaching Applications - Tactical development for junior players.

2008 Point Outcome - ATP Tour

This study was conducted on the ATP Tour at the 2008 Australian Open (Hard Court - Plexi-Cushion), Roland Garros (Clay Court), Wimbledon (Grass Court) and US Open (Hard Court - Deco Turf) Championships. It attempted to investigate the connection between outcome type, percentage of point outcomes and court surface.

The intended use of the study was to assist in the tactical development of junior tennis players. Download Research.

The conclusions of the study and implications for coaches and players are:

ATP Tour players do not change their game when changing surfaces to end points any differently.
They may however, change the type of shot hit during the point to achieve a different outcome type, but the point ending combinations are the same no matter the speed and type of surface.

2007 Point Outcome - WTA Tour

This study was conducted on the WTA Tour at the 2007 Australian Open (Hard Court - Rebound Ace), Roland Garros (Clay Court) and Wimbledon (Grass Court) Championships. It attempted to investigate the connection between outcome type, percentage of point outcomes and court surface.

The intended use of the study was to assist in the tactical development of junior tennis players. Download Research.

The conclusions of the study and implications for coaches and players are:

WTA Tour players do not change their game when changing surfaces to end points any differently.
They may however, change the type of shot hit during the point to achieve a different outcome type, but the point ending combinations are the same no matter the speed and type of surface.

For further discussion on coaching and player development implications that came from the study click here.

2006 Point Sequence - WTA Tour

This study was conducted on the WTA Tour at the 2006 Australian Open (Hard Court - Rebound Ace), Roland Garros (Clay Court) and Wimbledon (Grass Court) Championships. It attempted to investigate the sequence in which points were won and to explore the connection between this and winning games, sets and matches. The intended use of the study was to assist in the tactical development of junior tennis players. Download Research.

The conclusions of the study and implications for coaches and players are:

Not all points in tennis have equal weighting. If you win certain points you gain a statistical advantage over your opponent.
While the total number of points won in a match is important, the sequence in which a player wins points is more important.
The significance point sequence has on determining the outcome of a match necessitates players be educated on it's importance.
Knowledge of point sequence should serve as a platform from which players build tactical intentions and act as a framework for decision making during a match.