Activity

I agree with Marc that only Canadians should play our Nationals, since it is such an important tournament for the National Team selection. In the US there are so many regional tournaments, as well as multi-surface nationals (Grasscourt Nationals, Clay court Nationals, Hard court Nationals), that there are more opportunities for US players to gain ranking points. We have relatively few opportunities in Canada, and fewer still in the West vs. Ontario/Quebec. Players from the prairie provinces or the Maritimes (like Marc) must travel for nearly EVERY higher-level tournament, which gets costly.

I also believe that players should have to qualify for Nationals by playing at least one sanctioned tournament such as Provincials, Easterns, Westerns, or an ITF event. I don’t believe that the highest-level tournament in the country should be the place to “grow the game.” That should happen at lower-tier tournaments.

Senior ranking points is a problematic issue. Should a player who has had to play more rounds get more points for winning a tournament, even if the level of play is low? Sometimes a specific draw can be small, but every match is a tough match. On the other hand, a player can play more rounds in a tournament, but never get challenged in any of them. Should the semis and finals in these two situations be ranked equally? Very difficult call, and highly subjective. Whatever system is used to determine ranking points, it will be an imperfect system. There are just too many variables at play. But we should strive for the *best possible* system, all things considered. And there will always be those players who feel they’ve been unfairly treated, regardless of the system that is used.