Tournament Structure, Ranking and Seeding Systems, Planning and Competitive Success in Tennis—A Systematic Review

This systematic review examined the structure of tennis tournaments and their impact on player development and success. A systematic search was conducted in September 2025 according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review summarizes the literature from various sources (Web of Science, PubMed, and SportDiscus) using the following keywords: (‘tournament’ OR ‘competition’ OR ‘event’ OR ‘structure’) AND (‘ranking’ OR ‘rating’) AND ‘tennis’ NOT ‘table tennis’. The initial search yielded 363 articles. After screening, 14 articles were selected for analysis. The articles were categorized into four subject areas: success of tennis players, tournament structure, periodization and performance of athletes, rankings, and seeding systems. The results showed that early entry into professional rankings and sustained performance are closely linked to long-term success. Junior ranking was a consistent predictor of later professional success. Nations with more professional tournaments produced more players with international rankings, emphasizing the importance of competitive opportunities for player development. Studies on scheduling emphasized the role of tournament volume and periodization, with more successful players moving from junior to professional tournaments earlier. Research on rankings and seedings has confirmed their strong predictive and evaluative roles in tournament structures. This study provides insights for tennis stakeholders who want to optimize competition and training systems and promote the development of tennis players worldwide.

Introduction

Tennis has an extremely extensive and diverse competition system at the global, regional, and national levels, in which tennis players of different genders, ages, and playing levels can participate (Barnett, 2013; Filipcicet al., 2013). Crespoet al. (2003) stated that the long-term development of athletes who want to succeed in elite tennis is influenced by many factors, such as the history and tradition of tennis, competitive opportunities, training conditions, quality of infrastructure, weather, level of coaching education, number of certified tennis coaches, access to clubs and tennis courts, and the presence of top players who are role models for young tennis players and reinforce their belief in success.

The four major tennis tournaments (Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and US Open), also known as Grand Slams (GS), are at the forefront of tennis tournaments (Cuiet al., 2020). These tournaments not only have the longest tradition, but are also the most important in terms of duration, the best-of-five set rule (Prieto-Bermejo & Gómez-Ruano, 2016), playing on different surfaces (Sanchez-Payet al., 2021), the highest score for ranking (Reidet al., 2016), the annually increasing prize money (Cui, 2018), 128 participants in the main draw (Goossenset al., 2017), the different categories–juniors, wheelchair players, and seniors as well as men and women (Elliset al., 2023) and the number of spectators and television broadcasts worldwide (Chmaitet al., 2021).

In addition to the four GS tournaments, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) organizes two of the best-known and most widespread team competitions, the Davis Cup (DC) for men and the Billie Jean King Cup (BJK) for women (Crespoet al., 2003). Together with GS, these tournaments form the pinnacle of tennis and attract the attention of the tennis world when they are played. At a lower level, the ITF, together with the National Tennis Federation, offers an extensive network organized as part of the ITF World Tennis Tours: Women’s, Men’s, Juniors, Masters (Veterans), UNIQLO Wheelchair, and Beach Tennis Tour. Each ITF Tour has its own competition system, rules, scoring method, and organization, and enables the development, engagement, and promotion of many age and quality groups of tennis players worldwide. The ITF also organizes unique competitions, such as the Olympic Games and Paralympics, which take place every four years. In addition to the BJK and DC, the Hopman Cup and Junior Tennis Tour Junior Finals, Wheelchair World Team Cup, Wheelchair Singles and Doubles Masters, and Masters World Championship are held every year (International Tennis Federation, 2021).

In 2023, the ITF organized 1,135 tournaments in 73 countries as part of the World Tennis Tour, in which more than 6,000 male and 4,600 female players took part. In the youth version of the tournaments, 9,700 boys and 8,100 girls competed in 922 tournaments in 131 countries (McLean, 2023).

The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) was founded in 1973 and received its own computer ranking list one year later (Abián-Vicénet al., 2024). In 2023, the WTA organized more than 50 different individual championships and WTA Finals on six continents and in almost 30 countries and regions with a global audience of over 700 million. On the WTA Tour, more than 1,650 players from approximately 85 nations compete for WTA rankings. It remains committed to gender equality, promotion of young female tennis players, economic success, and protection of female tennis players from abuse. The WTA Tour developed and expanded in terms of competition, promotion, and marketing (WTA, 2024).

The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the governing body of the men’s professional tennis circuits (ATP Tour, ATP Challenger Tour, and ATP Championship Tour), was formed in 1972 (Abián-Vicénet al., 2024). In 2009, ATP introduced a new tour structure called ATP World Tour, consisting of ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, and 250 tournaments. Today, ATP Tour players compete for titles in more than 60 tournaments in 30 countries every season. The results of these tournaments led to the prestigious Nitto ATP Finals, in which only the best eight singles and doubles players of the season take part and ATP World No. 1 of the year is crowned (ATP, 2024).

An important part of the tennis competitive scenario at a high performance level is student competition in the USA, which takes place under the supervision of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA). The ITA is the governing body and coaching association for college tennis in the United States. It organizes tennis tournaments at all levels of the NCAA divisions and ITA championships for 8,000 college tennis players. The ITA has rankings for singles, doubles, and team competitions.

Tennis probably has one of the most popular competition systems globally level (Filipcicet al., 2013). However, the number of competitions, age, quality categories, and scoring methods at the national level are constantly increasing. The national tournament structure at the national level is designed to grow the base of players, keep them in the system, and help them reach their potential at all stages of the game, from the active beginning through the active phase and into life as a professional (Tennis, 2024). The success of each country at the global level (ATP, WTA, ITF) is influenced by many factors, such as the number of professional competitions in the country or region (Crespoet al., 2003; Filipcicet al., 2013; Reidet al., 2007a) and the total number of tennis, professional, and junior players, as well as players representing a country in the GS main draw (Cakravastiaet al., 2023).

Research conducted on the relevance of competitions organized by different tennis organizations has shown that they are crucial for all promising tennis players, as they provide important competitive experiences for players who want to compete at a high level. There is a positive correlation between domestic professional tournaments and the number of professional players from the host country (Crespoet al., 2003) or tennis players who use the branching system of professional tournaments in neighbouring countries (Filipcicet al., 2013). The competitive results of tennis players directly reflect the performance of the athletes, which is expressed in the ranking, number of wins and losses, number of tournaments won, placement in tennis tournaments, and several performance indicators that indirectly affect the outcome of a tennis match (Panjanet al., 2010).

There are several rankings and ratings for tennis systems. The ATP rankings are based on the points scored by players in official ATP-certified men’s singles or double tournaments in the previous 52 weeks, and the 19 best results are included in the rankings. Each tournament is ranked according to its prestige, history, and participation and has a different number of points according to the prize money (ATP, 2024). The WTA rankings for women’s tennis cover the rolling 52-week window and include the best results from a maximum of 16 tournaments for singles and 11 for doubles. Like ATP Finals, WTA Finals can also be a bonus tournament for qualifiers. The distribution of WTA ranking points is also slightly different from that of men (WTA, 2024).

The ITF uses the World Tennis Number (WTN) to determine the performance of tennis players. This is a rating system for all tennis players worldwide, with the aim of creating a global player standard. This scale allowed us to offer ratings from 40 (beginner) to 1 (elite professional). To calculate the WTN, the algorithm uses all the match result data shared with the ITF from a player’s history since 2016. When a single or double match begins, the algorithm analyzes the ratings of all players in the court before the match. The ratings were calculated based on the difference between the expected results and the actual match results. The reliability of the rating depends on the number of matches played (International Tennis Federation, 2024).

The Universal Tennis Rating (UTR), which measures the playing skill level of a tennis player, was introduced in 2008. UTR calculate the match rating (between 1.00 and 16.50) based on the prediction of the differences between players and the number of games won in a match, tournament format, competitiveness, reliability, and time of the match (UTR, 2024).

The United States Tennis Association (USTA) rating is one of the several ways to evaluate the performance level or ability of tennis players. The NTRP rating is a numerical indicator of the ability to play tennis and ranges from 1.5 (beginner) to 7.0 (professional). The rating determines the general characteristics of the skills and abilities of each level, separates different age categories, and changes slowly over time (USTA, 2024).

Currently, several organizations (ITF, ATP, WTA, UTR) are active in tennis at a global level, and their objectives, areas of activity, and target groups are relatively clearly defined (Filipcic, 2024).

Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to provide an evidence-based synthesis of the literature and to answer the following questions: (a) how do junior or professional rankings influence the subsequent success of tennis players; (b) how does tournament structure influence the success of tennis players in men’s or women’s categories at the national or international level; (c) what is the relationship between competition scheduling and periodization and the performance of tennis players; and (d) how do ranking systems and seeding procedures influence the performance of tennis players? These findings can increase the efficiency and sustainability of the competition system and, most importantly, enable optimal long-term development and appropriate evaluation of competition results for tennis players.

Materials and Methods

Protocol Registration

An OSF project ( https://osf.io/x9hcd/) was created prior to data extraction to outline the aims of the review. Although a formal preregistration was not completed, the review protocol was defined a priori and strictly followed to minimize bias.

Search Strategy

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines between August and September 2025 (Pageet al., 2021) to assess the importance of competition, ranking, and planning for tennis player performance. The search included literature from online databases, such as Web of Science (1960-present), Pubmed (1971-present) and SportDiscus (1982-present). The literature search used the following keywords: (‘tournament’ OR ‘competition’ OR ‘event’ OR ‘structure’) AND (‘ranking’ OR ‘rating’) AND ‘tennis’ NOT ‘table tennis’ (Table I). Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were screened to identify relevant studies. Filters were applied to find articles dealing exclusively with tennis as well as original publications where full English and Spanish texts were available.

Table I. Databases, Search Items and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Overview

Databases	Search terms	PICOS	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Web of science	Tennis, tournament, ranking	Population	Structure of the tennis tournaments of professional and junior players	Amateur tennis tournaments
PubMed		Intervention	Analysis, validation and evaluation of tournament structure, organization, planing, ranking and seeding	Economy and success
SportDiscus
		Comparison	Between different tournament systems and group of tennis players	Only between genders
		Outcome	Useful tool for analysing the relationship between tournament structure, players’ success, planning, ranking and seeding system	Outcomes are based on modelling
		Study design	Comprehensive study with multivariate variables	Studies written in languages other than English and Spanish

Eligibility Criteria

The selection of articles was based on the criteria developed by the two authors and was carried out in several steps. First, the titles and abstracts of articles were checked to determine whether they were suitable for the study. Second, abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Third, the full texts of articles that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved. In addition, the reference lists of articles were reviewed to identify potentially suitable articles. To perform the above steps, the two independent authors utilized the Rayyan app, which allows users to search existing citation records in the following fields: Record ID, Title, Abstract and Author (Johnson & Phillips, 2018). Relevant information was collected during the selection process and there was no need to contact the authors of the articles.

Using the PICOS method (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design) (Amir-Behghadami & Janati, 2020), we selected articles according to the following inclusion criteria (Table I): (1) Population: structure of the tennis tournaments of professional and junior players; (2) Intervention: analysis, validation, and evaluation of tournament structure, organization, planning, ranking, and seeding; (3) Comparison: Comparisons between different systems and organizations; (4) Outcomes: A useful tool for analyzing the relationship between tournament structure, players’ success, planning, ranking, and seeding system; and (5) Study design: comprehensive studies incorporating multivariate variables. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: (1) amateur tournaments, (2) economy and success, (3) gender differences, (4) modelling and prediction, and (5) studies written in languages other than English and Spanish.

Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the Critical Review Form–Qualitative Studies (Lawet al., 1998), a tool suitable for the assessment of different types of Qualitative Studies. Two independent reviewers reviewed the articles. All criteria were weighted equally, with a score of one being awarded if the criterion was met. Each article was assessed according to the following categories: (1) the aim of the study clearly stated, (2) relevant background literature reviewed, (3) design appropriate for the research question, (4) sample described in detail, (5) sample size justified, (6) informed consent obtained, (7) outcome measures reliable, (8) outcome measures valid, (9) results stated in terms of statistical significance, (10) methods of analysis appropriate to design, (11) practical significance stated, (12) conclusions appropriate to the results, (13) implications for future research, and (14) limitations acknowledged. The questions were scored as 1 (criteria met) or 0 (criteria not met), except for questions 7 and 8, which were also scored as NR (not covered). An NR score was assigned if no information was provided regarding the reliability or validity of the instruments used in the systematic review. Some studies only indirectly addressed the competition, ranking, and setting system, which is the case for Question 6, where many studies included an ethical statement, but no explicit evidence was provided. As a result, some studies rated NR. The percentage was calculated for each article, allowing comparisons between articles with different designs. Disagreements in ratings were discussed between the lead author (A.F.) and A.G. to reach a consensus.

Results

After the removal of duplicates, the initial search left 363 articles for the title check, 111 of which were selected for further examination. Based on the abstract review, 32 articles were selected for detailed review. Based on the exclusion criteria, we excluded 18 articles, and finally, 14 relevant articles were accepted for the systematic review. A PRISMA flowchart describing the procedures for identifying the studies is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the study selection process.

Quality Assessment

The scores for all 14 questions were totalled for each item, with an NR value of 0. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the items. The quality ratings ranged from 50% to 86% (mean: 66 ± 10%), with only 2 of the studies achieving excellent quality (> 75%). None of the studies justified their sample size (criterion 5), and many did not address the limitations of the research (criteria 6, 7, and 8), which relate to informed consent and the reliability and validity of outcome measures. Table II provides an overview of the methodological quality of the analysed studies.

Table II. Methodological Quality of Reviewed Articles

Question number b	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Score	%
Authors (year)
Aparício et al . (2016)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	0	1	0	1	1	0	7/14	50%
Brouwers et al . (2012)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	1	1	1	1	10/14	71%
Chen et al . (2023)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	1	9/14	64%
Crespo et al . (2003)	1	1	1	1	0	0	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	0	8/14	57%
Cui et al . (2020)	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	NR	1	1	1	1	1	1	12/14	86%
Kovalchik et al . (2017)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	1	9/14	64%
Maquirriain (2014)	1	1	1	1	0	1	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	1	10/14	71%
Perri et al . (2021)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	1	1	1	1	10/14	71%
Perri et al . (2023a)	1	1	1	1	0	1	NR	NR	1	1	1	1	1	1	11/14	79%
Reid et al . (2007b)	1	1	1	1	0	0	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	0	8/14	57%
Reid et al . (2007a)	1	1	1	1	0	0	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	0	0	7/14	50%
Reid et al . (2009a)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	1	1	0	0	8/14	57%
Reid and Morris (2011)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	1	1	1	1	10/14	71%
Reid et al . (2014)	1	1	1	1	0	NR	NR	NR	1	1	0	1	1	1	9/14	64%

Data Extraction and Data Analysis

The lead author summarized the most important information on the selected articles in Table III: authors and year of publication, participant information (sample size, gender, age, and performance level of participants), aims, and main results.

Table III. Characteristics of the 14 Studies Reviewed Ranking System, Rankings in Connection with the Success of Tennis Players, Tournament Structure, Tournament Organization and Seeding Procedures

Authors, year	Sample size, gender, age, level of performance	Objectives	Main outcomes
Aparício et al . (2016)	Top 25 male elite players in a period 1974–2016	Introduces a novel ranking system for competitive sports based on the notion of sub-graphs (No. 1, Top 10, Top 25 ATP players) that is specifically geared towards professional tennis but can be applied to any dominance network due to its generality.	A network is created from the results of around 140,000 tennis matches between the 100 best players. It was possible to determine that the performance of the players is strongly dependent on the playing surface, and it was possible to determine which former ATP world number one players were dominant in which seasons and which players were very dominant on hard or grass (fast) as well as on clay (slow) courts.
Brouwers et al . (2012)	Juniors U14 = 3521, juniors U18 = 377, professional players = 727 (male), 779 (female)	Determine whether there is a correlation between competitive results at a young age and later success in professional tennis.	The age at which tennis players start playing tennis has no influence on their later performance. Performance in ITF junior tournaments has a positive influence on later professional rankings (top 20, 100, 200). Junior tennis players who reach the top of the ITF rankings at a young age also perform better in professional tennis. Three quarters of the top 20 tennis players achieved a top 200 ranking in their junior years. Almost half of the top 20 professional tennis players reached the top 20 in their junior years
Chen et al . (2023)	202 male and female; Top 10 = 25.9 ± 5.43 years; Top 50 = 26.34 ± 4.98 years; top 100 = 27.10 ± 3.43 years	Examining the historical changes in the top players’ rankings and providing valuable insights for aspiring young players who want to succeed in the sport. At the same time, it is of great importance for the efficient and sustainable promotion of Chinese tennis players.	Significant correlation between: 1) the time of entry into the professional rankings, 2) the time in the top 100, 3) the age in the top 100 and 4) the age at which started playing tennis.Time of entry into the professional rankings: Top 50 < 51–100 ATP/WTAThe age at which started playing tennis: Top 10 < otherSuccess characteristics.: Chinese female players = Top 10 female players
Crespo et al . (2003)	Top 30 nations organise professional events, n = 1258 players ranked on ATP ranking list	Discuss the relationship between the structure of a country’s professional men’s tournaments (club, team and prize money tournaments) and the success of that country in international men’s tennis.	Large differences in the number of events between the countries.29 of the 30 countries had one or more male ranked players. 22 of the 30 countries had players inside the top 200.The number of professional men’s events leads to more ranked players.Countries with a greater number of professional events are likely to have more success in the international men’s game.Countries with a high number of professional events are not a prerequisite for ranking in the top 200.
Cui et al . (2020)	594 GS matches, 189 male professional players (n = 148 on AO, n = 69 on FO, n =108 on WIM, n = 108 players on USO)	Examining the technical, tactical and physical performance indicators that make the biggest difference between seeded and unseeded male players at GS from 2015 to 2017.	The seeded players had higher scores in the following performance indicators: serve and return of serve points won (%), ace (%), peak serve speed, net points won (%), break point per return game, break point saved, ratio of unforced errors won to unforced errors and dominance ratio. The seeded players differed significantly from the unseeded players in: serve and return, break point, net game and efficiency-related indicators.
Kovalchik et al . (2017)	Top 250 female professional players grouped into 4 ranking groups according to the career peak ranking, 1–10, 11–20, 21–50, and 51–100	Investigating the career development of elite female tennis talent and examining the development of the ranking of the top 250 female tennis professionals between 1990 and 2015 using regression models for the annual top rankings.	The players with the highest career highs were the youngest when they were ranked for the first time.The top 10 players were ranked for the first time at the age of 15.5, 1.2 years earlier than the top 51–100 players.The top 10 players stayed in the top 100 longer than other players: they retained their top 100 rank until an average age of 29.0 years (compared to 24.4 years for the top 51–100).The rise in the rankings was more pronounced in terms of players’ age than in terms of years since their first ranking.
Maquirriain (2014)	Top 1 male player (n = 16), female (n = 11) during the professional era (1973-2013)	Analyze and determine how the top 1 male and female professional tennis players have performed at GS tournaments in recent three years.	65% of the male and 69% of the female Top 1 have won at least one GS tournament in the year before reaching the no. 1 position.92% of the male and 82% of the female Top 1 have won a GS tournament in the same season.52.5% of men and 48.7 of women retained this position in the following year.
Perri et al . (2021)	165 juniors, future top 100 and 250 male professionals	The tournament data of boys during their international junior career was analysed retrospectively (January 2000 to December 2015), and interactions between the tournament volumes of the junior and professional categories were determined.	Significant effects were observed for age on tournament volume, with volume increasing for juniors and professionals aged 15 and 17 and higher game volumes observed for the top 100 players. The top 100 players participate in professional tournaments earlier.
Perri et al . (2023a)	258 juniors, future top 100 and 250 female professionals	The international competitions of the 100 best and 250 best female tennis players during their youth were analysed.	Significant effects for age and ranking group were found for all junior and professional category tournaments, with the annual junior tournaments being more frequented at the ages of 14 and 15.Participation in annual professional category tournaments increased for all players aged 17 and 18. The top 100 players participated more frequently in annual tournaments between the ages of 14 and 16 than the top 250 players.
Reid et al . (2007b)	The 20 best players in the ITF junior rankings (n = 106) between 1992 and 1998	An examination of the relationship between the top 20 juniors in the ITF rankings and their later professional rankings could show the value of the junior game for player development.	The junior ranking is a predictor of the future professional ranking (91% of the top 20 boys achieved a professional ranking).The combination of hard and clay courts has also been shown to have an influence on performance in professional tennis.
Reid et al . (2007a)	Countries (n = 30) that hosted the most international women’s tennis tournaments in 2003.	Investigating the relationship between the structure of national professional tennis tournaments and a nation’s success in women’s tennis.	Relationships between the number of professional women’s events in a country and the number of professional female players in that country, as well as the top 200 and top 5 female players.
Reid et al . (2009a)	240 top 20 female juniors between 1995 to 2008	Determine to what extent the 20 best juniors will be promoted to the professional rankings	The regression showed that achieving a top 20 ranking at junior level is a reasonable benchmark for the development of professional players and that playing on clay courts has a positive influence on performance in professional tennis.
Reid and Morris (2011)	100 top 100 professional male players in 2009	Describe the milestones in the rankings and the development of the top 100 ATP players.	The top 100 professionals achieved their best junior ranking and their first ATP point at a similar age (16.9 years) and need 4.5 years to reach the top 100, with an average age of 21.5 years.
Reid et al . (2014)	The 250 best players in the ATP rankings (n = 11396) between 1973 and 2011	Comparison of the ranking development of male players who achieved top rankings in the top 250, 175, 100, 50, 20 and 10 (6 bands), depending on their chronological age and the number of years on the professional tour.	Progression in the rankings: Top 10 ≠ other bands.Second year ranking: Top 10 ≠ other bands.Ranking signature of the players who did not make it into the top 100 by their fourth year on the tour: Top 100 ≠ other bands.

Study characteristics

Table III contains the most important information on 14 selected articles dealing with the following topics: rankings in relation to tennis players’ success (n = 6), influence of tournament structure on tennis players’ success (n = 4), the relationship between competition scheduling and periodization, tennis players’ performance (n = 2), ranking system (n = 1), and seeding procedures (n = 1). The results are presented according to the different studies, which were grouped according to these main themes.

Six studies were included in the category that examined the relationship between tennis player ranking and actual or future success in professional tennis. Chenet al. (2023) examines the historical changes in the rankings of top players and provides valuable insights for aspiring young players who want to be successful in tennis. Data on the rankings of the 202 players were analyzed. Correlations were used to examine the relationship between ranking position and time-use patterns, and a variance test was used to compare differences in ranking time characteristics. A significant relationship was found between the time of entry into the professional tournament ranking system and ranking, the top 100 times, the top 100 years, and age at the start of tennis. There were no significant differences in the time to success between Chinese female players and their global top 10 counterparts. Of the 600 ATP and WTA players analysed, the players ranked in the top 100 started on average at the age of five, while the players who reached the highest rank in the top 10 started at the age of four. Tennis players who achieved a higher final ranking (top 10) entered the top 100 at the age of 18.4, the less successful ones (top 100), 3 years later. Early entry into tennis, high-quality coaching, a comprehensive competition system, a long-term player development system, and competition between tennis players are the bases for success in professional tennis.

Brouwerset al. (2012) investigated the success of tennis players with the aim of finding talent and analyzed how ranking in the younger categories (14 and under, 18 and under) affects the success of top adult male (ATP) and female (WTA) players. The study came to two important conclusions: there is no specific age at which players should start performing to be successful at the professional level, and that performing well at a young age increases tennis players’ chances of reaching the elite, but that this is not the only or most important requirement. Eighteen per cent of tournament winners in the under-14 boys’ category and 22% of girls were later ranked in the top 20 of the world rankings. Among 18-year-old boys, 44% of those who are among the top 20 ITF juniors make it into the top 20 players in the world rankings; among girls of the same age, this figure is 40%.

In their first study, Reid and Morris (2011) analysed a very interesting phenomenon that frequently occurs in top-level tennis, namely, a ranking below 100 in the world rankings, which for many athletes represents a unique challenge and an important milestone in their careers. This study aimed to describe the ranking progression of a sample of the top 100 ATP players. The results confirmed the benefits of the ITF Junior Tour: 91% of the top 100 tennis players achieved a junior ranking. The top 100 tennis players achieved their best junior ranking and their first ATP point at a similar age, having already competed in professional tournaments in the junior category, and it took them on average 4.5 years to progress from their ATP ranking to the top 100, at which point they were on average 21.5 years old. In another study by Reidet al. (2014) they used a sample of more than 11,000 male tennis players to analyse the ranking history of male players who achieved top rankings between the top 250 and the top 10 professional rankings over a longer period (1973–2011). The best rankings for male tennis players of a certain age were compared. Statistical analysis confirmed pronounced ranking progressions, which were most pronounced among the top 10 players. The rankings of these players were statistically distinguishable after their second year on the tour or at the age of 17 years. The ranking signatures of all the top 100 tennis players differed significantly from those of players who only entered the top 100 in their fourth year on tour. This study confirms that the rankings of professional tennis players who ultimately achieve different top rankings are significantly different in their first year of the tour or at the age of 16. Both studies also raise the question of the possibilities and the accuracy of predicting the performance of tennis players based on the rankings and importance of ranking milestones, which can help predict the potential of tennis players.

Like many authors, Kovalchiket al. (2017) noted that official rankings are the most common measure of success in professional tennis. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive examination of the career development of 250 best female tennis players between 1990 and 2015. Using regression models for the annual top rankings, a strong correlation was found between the shape of ranking progression and the highest career ranking achieved. Players with the highest career rankings were the youngest when they were first included in the rankings. The top 10 players were ranked for the first time at the age of 15.5, 1.2 years earlier than the top 51–100 players. The top 10 players also stayed in the top 100 for longer than other players: an average age of 29.0 years, compared to 24.4 years for the top 51–100 players. Moving up the rankings depended more on the age of the player than on the number of years since the first ranking. This study also highlights the possibility that the conclusions can be used to support more objective investment decisions and goal setting for the development of female tennis players.

Maquirriain (2014) compared the development of rankings of male tennis players who have reached different positions in professional rankings and GS tournaments. The results show that all top male and female top 1 players were ranked 1-10 and 1-6 respectively in the previous year. Most tennis champions won at least one GS tournament in the year before reaching the top 1 ranking and in the same season. Female and male players who were ranked #1 retained that position the following year 48.7% and 52.5% of the time, respectively. According to the results, it seems to be extremely important for both men and women to reach a very high level of performance for at least three years before they become number 1 in professional tennis. Forty-three tennis champions won a GS tournament in the year they were ranked #1. Both male and female tennis players showed similar performance patterns before reaching the top of their professional rankings.

Four articles dealt with the relationship between the structure of national or international junior or professional tournaments and the success of nations in tennis. Crespoet al. (2003) discussed the relationship between the structure of a country’s professional tennis tournaments and the success of that nation in international men’s tennis. The results show that 29 of the 30 countries have male tennis players at the international level, and that 22 countries have tennis players in the top 200. Countries with more professional tournaments also tend to have more professional players. Finally, many tournaments is not a prerequisite for a group of players to be among the elite of the game.

Similarly, Reidet al. (2007b) examined how the structure of national professional tournaments in women’s tennis affects the success of a country’s players in professional rankings. The following criteria were used to classify the success of countries in women’s tennis: number of players with Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) points, number of players with the top 200 rankings, and the combined WTA ranking of a country’s top five players. Significant differences between the countries were found in the number of organized events. All countries had internationally ranked players, and 24 nations had players in the top 200. The results showed a correlation between the number of professional women’s events in a country and the number of professional players and the top 200 players, as well as the combined ranking of the top five players in each country. A similar correlation was found between the number of men’s professional events and ranked players. The results also suggest that female tennis players from smaller countries with a long tennis tradition can benefit from the tournament structure of other countries and, thus, move up professional rankings.

Reidet al. (2007a) investigated the relationship between the success of young male players in ITF junior tours and their success in professional male tennis. The names, countries, and dates of birth of all players who achieved the top 20 year-end ranking in the male junior category between 1992 and 1998 were recorded. The results showed that 91% of the male juniors who were ranked in the top 20 achieved a professional ranking, while a stepwise regression analysis revealed that junior ranking is a predictor of future professional ranking. Thus, for male players, the top 20 rankings of juniors appear to be a reasonable measure of future professional success. An important factor influencing the success of young tennis players is the surface on which they play and train. Significant differences in rankings were found between tennis players who have developed their games on different surfaces. Athletes who had predominantly played hard court tennis performed significantly worse than clay court players and combined clay/hard court players. A study by Reidet al. (2009a) was conducted on female tennis players to determine whether ranking in the ITF junior rankings could be a good predictor of later success in the WTA rankings. They found that 99% of the girls who were ranked in the top 20 achieved a professional women’s ranking, which tennis players on average reached at the age of 17. The court’s surface also had a significant impact on girls’ performance. A clay court is best suited for girls to develop tennis games.

One of the main activities of coaches in long-term athlete development is the planning of competitions and training sessions as well as the creation of annual plans. Periodization also plays an important role in tennis, which is characterized by many competitions in all age groups and has a significant influence on competitive success. Perriet al. (2021) analyzed the competition planning of the top 100 and 250 male tennis players using international junior tournament profiles. Significant interactions were found between the number of tournaments in junior and professional categories. This was particularly true for those in the top 100 4 years after their first ATP ranking. Tennis players who played more tournaments between the ages of 15 and 17 were also more successful later, mainly due to greater participation in higher-ranking junior tournaments and thus an earlier transition to professional tournaments. A similar study was carried out by Perriet al. (2023a) with the 100 best and 250 best female tennis players in their youth. He found significant interaction effects between age and ranking group for all tournaments in the junior and professional categories. In this study, more successful female tennis players participated in more junior tournaments at the ages of 14 and 15 and in more professional tournaments at the ages of 17 and 18. The top 100 female tennis players had more consecutive tournaments and fewer days off between tournaments at the age of 15 years. This study confirms that female junior players develop faster than male junior players because they participate in higher-level junior and professional tournaments at an earlier age. This implies that periodization is an extremely important part of long-term planning.

Aparícioet al. (2016) presented a new ranking system for professional tennis tournaments. A directed network was created from the results of approximately 140,000 tennis matches among the top 100 players. By analysing the results of tennis players, the authors investigated the influence of playing surface on long-term performance. The most dominant players tend to be those who reach more tournament finals, semi-finals, and quarterfinals but not necessarily those who win more tournaments. Owing to the unbalanced nature of the ATP ranking system, it was determined which seasons were dominated by a few tennis players. Tennis transition periods (1987–1989 and 1999–2003) were identified, and it was found that it is rare for a player to be very dominant in both fast (hard or grass court) and slow courts (clay).

A recent study examined the technical, tactical, and physical performance indicators that make the biggest difference between seeded and unseeded players in GS tournaments (Cuiet al., 2020). A total of 549 matches played by 189 individual players at male GS tournaments in the 2015–2017 season were examined, with relevant match statistics collected for each player observation. At the four major GS tournaments, seeded players performed better than unseeded players in the indicators of serve and return, net points, break points, and match efficiency. Serve and return points won, aces, serve speed at peak, first-serve speed, net points, break points, break points saved, ratio of forced to unforced errors, and dominance ratio proved to be the most important indicators between the two groups of players. The results of the study show that the ranking-based system reduces the competitive balance in men’s GS competitions.

Discussion

This systematic review aimed to provide an answer to the tournament structure in tennis, the methods for determining the success of tennis players, and the improvement of current methods for ranking and seeding tennis players. The discussion is organized according to the main research objectives mentioned in the introduction. The evidence base was derived from studies of moderate methodological quality, with common shortcomings such as the lack of sample size justification and limited reporting of study limitations. These aspects should be considered when interpreting the evidence and underscore the importance of continued methodological improvement in future research on competitive tennis.

Rankings and Success

Identifying and developing talented athletes is a key success factor in international sports (Baneet al., 2014). In many sports, such as Formula 1, soccer, golf, and tennis, there is an officially recognized world-ranking list of national teams or athletes. Tennis ranking is based on tournament and bonus points. Tennis players receive tournament points depending on how far they have come in a tournament and how high the level of the tournament is (Clarke & Dyte, 2000).

In addition to the previous study by Reidet al. (2007b), who found that the top 20 rankings at the youth level appeared to be a reasonable measure of future professional success, Brouwerset al. (2012) examined the relationship between success at three major international tournaments in the under-14 category (Les Petits As, Tarbes, French Open, and European Championships), the ITF under-18 rankings, and subsequent success in the ATP and WTA rankings. The authors found the opposite, namely, that performance at youth tournaments has little predictive power for later success. This suggests that while youth performance increases an athlete’s chances of a career as a top player, it is not a prerequisite for later success.

The conclusions regarding performance in the junior categories and the prediction of performance in professional tennis do not show a clear cause-effect relationship, but studies confirm a positive relationship between the age at which junior tennis players enter the professional tournament system or are ranked among the top 100 tennis players on the ATP or WTA rankings. Studies by Chenet al. (2023), Kovalchiket al. (2017) and Reidet al. (2014) confirmed the importance of the age at which male (17 years) and female (15 years) tennis players first appear in professional rankings. Male and female tennis players who enter professional rankings tend to remain in the world’s top 100 for longer. Conversely, tennis players who do not reach the top 100 by a certain age or within a certain period after their first appearance in professional rankings do not do so later. Reidet al. (2009a) showed that the ITF junior rankings can be a good predictor of later success in top-level tennis, as 99% of girls who were ranked in the top 20 achieved a professional women’s ranking. McCraw described the characteristics of the development of young tennis players in more detail in two studies for the period 1996–2005. Female junior players are 72% more likely to reach the WTA Top 100 if they are ranked in the top 10 in the ITF junior rankings, and it takes them 3.7 years to reach this milestone. They earn their first professional points at the age of 16.3 (McCraw, 2012). Boys appear in the ATP rankings for the first time at an average age of 17.6 and it takes them 4.3 years to reach the top 100. 58% of the top ten junior tennis players manage to reach the top 100 (McCraw, 2011). Of course, the results of both studies must be viewed from a temporal perspective, as tennis has evolved over the last 20 years and has become even more competitive, with the top players staying in the game longer.

However, it is necessary to point out another possible development path that has been chosen by more tennis players recently, namely the US college tennis circuit. Reidet al. (2007b) found that 18% of male tennis players who are ranked in the top 10 of the US college rankings were also ranked in the top 100 of the ATP rankings. On the other hand, as has always been the case in history, some exceptional athletes develop faster than their peers and already achieve top performance in their teens (Emma Raducanu, Carlos Alcaraz). However, this is an exception to this rule.

Other, mainly direct and internal, reasons must also be considered, which are important for the progress and competitive success of tennis players. The first and foremost is the influence of physical fitness on tennis performance, which plays a very important role in the long-term development of players, as numerous studies have shown (Baigetet al., 2015; Fernandezet al., 2006; Ferrautiet al., 2011; Silva & Clemente, 2019; Girard & Millet, 2009; Kovacs, 2006, 2007; Krameret al., 2016; Reid & Schneiker, 2007; Ulbrichtet al., 2016).

Maturity and relative age also have considerable influences on current and future competitive performance. This is particularly true in youth tennis, where players compete in age groups with a maximum age difference of two years. These differences can lead to biological, physiological, and cognitive differences. Studies by Loffinget al. (2010), Agricolaet al. (2013) and Ulbrichtet al. (2015) showed that the influence of the relative age of players is essential when measuring the performance level of youth tennis players. In tennis, both age and maturity can lead to physical advantages in some players, which can affect tennis performance (Krameret al., 2017). Successful young tennis players have many other advantages, such as access to sponsors and equipment suppliers, greater financial support from tennis federations and clubs, better training and competition, and greater media exposure, which can have an indirect effect on greater self-confidence and other psychological and sociological factors that are important for success in sports (Novaket al., 2020).

A study by Orsolicet al. (2023) provides deeper insights into the phenomenon of specialization in tennis among players with different levels of success based on their personal experiences. The authors found the following commonalities in the development of top tennis players: 1) tennis players start early with a very positive attitude and love for the sport; 2) specialized, targeted, and more intense training begins later in adolescence to reduce overuse and the occurrence of injuries; and 3) involvement in other sports or appropriate fitness training is important throughout development.

Tournament Structure and Success

Lisi and Grigoletto (2021) note that in recent years, tennis federations have begun to consider introducing new rules or changing the current format of the game to shorten the duration of tennis matches and make tennis more attractive. Shortening match times is important and has many positive effects, such as easier match scheduling, better coordination with television broadcasts, less stress for athletes, a reduced risk of injury, and fewer match cancelations.

Numerous studies have examined the relationship between the structure of professional men’s tournaments and various success factors of regions, countries, or individuals. One of the first studies to address this research question was a study by Crespoet al. (2003) which confirmed that nations with a high number of professional men’s events are most likely to produce more professional players and be successful in the international men’s game. However, this is not a prerequisite for a group of players to be elite in the game. The women’s study also confirmed the correlation between the number of professional women’s events in a country and the number of professional female players, the top 200 female players and the combined ranking of the top five female players in the country (Reidet al., 2007a). Reidet al. (2009a) found a complementary relationship between the Women’s Tennis Association and the World Junior Tour, which formed the basis for later success in top-level tennis.

Filipcicet al. (2013) observed the development of a relationship between the total number of players and the total number of ATP tournaments from 1975 to 2008. The correlation between tennis success, the total number of tournaments, and the total annual prize money at tournaments was highest from 1975 to 1989, and gradually decreased thereafter. Leading tennis countries organize more ATP tournaments and professional tournaments per year. There are signs that tennis is becoming increasingly global and that this trend is unlikely to reverse. Varmuset al. (2022), who investigated whether the number of tournaments in different categories, GDP, and average salaries influence the success of young and adult tennis players, arrived at the opposite conclusion. They suggested that tennis federations focus on creating a competitive environment with many tournaments when developing a concept for the long-term development of athletes from a macro perspective. GDP and average salary are factors that influence athletes’ financial support. There is a proven correlation between the number of tournaments organized in a country and the number of athletes from that country in the top 100.

Periodisation

Because of the specific characteristics of tennis, such as a long competitive season, many tournaments, and an indefinite number of single matches, with a very short transition period and changing playing surfaces and conditions, competition planning is an important but challenging process for tennis and fitness and conditioning coaches (Pluimet al., 2023). This is also confirmed by Reidet al. (2009b), who analysed the schedules of elite tennis players aged 17 and 18 and found that the number of competitions and the workload associated with all activities was extremely high or similar to that of elite tennis players. The conclusions of Perriet al. (2021, 2023b) are consistent with the results of previous studies and therefore provide very precise information on the number and distribution of competitions for different types of successful tennis players over the long-term development of the male and female junior categories. A busy competition calendar, travelling, and difficulties with regular school attendance also make it impossible to train regularly and, above all, to plan and implement a tennis, fitness, and conditioning program necessary for progress. The study concludes that young female players develop faster than males because they participate earlier in junior and professional tournaments at a higher level. Murphyet al. (2015) also emphasize the high competition and training load of juniors and add that the increasing number of matches reduces the burden of fitness and conditioning training, which currently reduces the performance of tennis players. Therefore, planning is also fundamental in junior categories, where it is important to find the right balance between competition and training, as well as between tennis, fitness, and other activities. Perri et al. (2023b) stated that planning for junior tennis players is traditional. The total annual load shows that the duration of preparatory training periods is longer than that of competition periods, and that the amount of tennis training, fitness, and conditioning training decreases during competition periods. In addition to planning, practitioners need to incorporate innovative approaches into the process, such as designing training blocks that are suitable for conditioning training (strength, power, and endurance) during both training and competition periods.

Ranking and Seeding Systems

Sports ranking systems are developed with multiple competing objectives, some of which are commercial (e.g., media exposure, fans) or sporting (determining competitive performance of teams and individuals, ranking) (Meyer & Pollard, 2012). At the same time, rankings can be an essential component in determining tournament draws and should reflect the actual performance of players and teams, so that players and fans believe they are fair and equitable (Ironset al., 2014). The overall ranking is perhaps the easiest way to determine performance in tennis, which is predominantly a knockout system with an uncertain outcome. Progression from one round of the tournament to the next is influenced by numerous factors, such as the player’s level of play, the percentage of matches won, the court, the venue, weather conditions, and even marital status (Farrelly & Nettle, 2007).

Aparícioet al. (2016) presented an interesting idea with new ranking systems for professional tournaments, which could also be used to compare tennis players in different periods. According to the new ranking system, Roger Federer has been the dominant player since 1974, followed by Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl. Dingleet al. (2012) also attempted a different evaluation of the results and used PageRank-based rankings for a 390-day sample of recent tennis matches, which proved to be better predictors of match outcomes than official rankings.

The method used to evaluate athlete performance is extremely important. As Filipcic (2024) noted, there are currently two methods for evaluating tennis performance. The first is the ranking system, which is based on the tournament results (elimination rounds) of a particular tournament. The second is the rating system, which is based on algorithms determined by the competition, opponent, and result. A study by Mayew and Mayew (2023) examined the classification accuracy of ITF WTN and UTR ratings and concluded that the algorithms are equivalent measures of tennis players’ playing strength because of their ability to predict match results. Considering the characteristics and accuracy of both systems, it is important to find new ways to evaluate performance and organize competitions, particularly in youth tennis.

Seeding may be a less important aspect, especially in youth tennis, but it is certainly related to the appropriate evaluation of tennis players’ performances in a given tournament or period (calendar year). Cuiet al. (2020) confirmed that seeded players performed better than unseeded players in several performance indicators at GS tournaments. This confirms that the rankings carry considerable weight and distinguish more successful from less successful tennis players.

This systematic review has several limitations that must be considered. First, the scope of the review was limited to studies published in English and Spanish, which may have excluded relevant studies in other languages. In addition, the review focused primarily on tournament structure, athlete success, periodization, and the ranking and seeding systems of junior and professional tournaments, which may have overlooked the important aspects of recreational and wheelchair tennis. The exclusion of performance analyses and indicators that are not directly related to tournament structure and rankings may also have limited the completeness of the results. However, the relatively small number of studies that fulfilled the search criteria suggests that areas related to tennis competitions are under-researched and that more attention should be paid to this area of research in the future. This applies particularly to ranking and seeding systems.

Conclusions

The findings of this systematic review have several practical applications for stakeholders in tennis communities, including coaches, tournament organizers, and national tennis federations. By understanding the correlation between the number of professional tournaments and players’ success, national federations can strategically plan and increase the number of tournaments to foster player development. Coaches can use the insights from the review to tailor training programs that align with the competitive demands of different tournament structures and ranking systems. Additionally, this review highlights the importance of early entry into professional rankings and sustained high performance, which can guide coaches in identifying and nurturing young talent more effectively.

This systematic review highlights the intricate structure of tennis tournaments and its significant impact on player development and success. These findings underscore the importance of a well-organized competition system at various levels, from local to international, in fostering the growth of tennis players. The correlation between the number of professional tournaments in a country and its players’ success in international rankings is evident, suggesting that increased competition opportunities contribute to higher performance levels. Additionally, role models and quality infrastructure are crucial factors that support the long-term development of athletes.

The planning of competitions and training is an extremely important activity for tennis experts, and must lead to the creation of annual plans for talented young elite tennis players. In doing so, they must consider professional and scientific knowledge and determine the work and rest periods, number of matches and training sessions, and balance between tennis and fitness and conditioning content appropriately.

This review also emphasizes the effectiveness of different ranking systems, such as ATP, WTA, ITF World Tennis Number, and UTR, in evaluating player performance. These systems provide a comprehensive framework for assessing tennis players’ skills and progress, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding player development and resource allocation. Early entry into professional rankings and sustained high performance have been identified as critical elements for achieving long-term success in tennis. Analysis of ranking trajectories and performance indicators offers valuable insights into the career progression of elite players. In conclusion, optimizing the structure of tennis tournaments and refining ranking systems is essential for enhancing competitive balance and supporting the global growth of tennis players.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.