How come Great Britain and Australia can't produce players like France, Spain,? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How come Great Britain and Australia can't produce players like France, Spain,?

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 06:16 AM
French could teach the LTA how to develop talent

A familiar face was stalking the grimy corridors of the Palais Omnisports this week - Patrice Hagelauer, coach to Yannick Noah when he won the 1983 French Open. Hagelauer was hired to become the director of performance at the Lawn Tennis Association in 1998 - he departed, unfulfilled, four years later and has now been restored to lead the French Federation (FFT) in its determination to retain its foremost position in the hierarchy of world tennis.

A changing of the guard at the FFT has brought openness and experience back to a country that has never gone in for handing its heritage to those of another nation the way Britain has fumbled and fidgeted in the past twenty years, with an Australian Davis Cup captain, a French performance director (Hagelauer) and now, everywhere you turn, a Belgian in a position of technical influence.

Hagelauer had spent three years helping cement the influence of Team Lagardere, the brainchild of Arnaud Lagardere, who runs the family conglomerate which has interests in publishing, media, retail, aerospace and has a love of sport, especially tennis. A number of French players are now represented by the Lagadere group, including Richard Gasquet, Gael Monfils and Julien Benneteau, bolstered by a number of quality French coaches.

The FFT watched the Lagadere recruitment drive with a concern that often bordered on paranoia. Now, with Hagelauer - a man of infinite wisdom and knowledge - restored to the federation with Gilbert Ysern, as director-general of the federation and Roland Garros, a sense of calm has descended. A couple of the players who had been working at the Lagadere flagship have crossed the road, literally, to Roland Garros from Stade Jean Bouin, the Lagardere headquarters. Hagelauer emphasises, though, how vital it is for French tennis that every element flourishes.

Chatting with the Net Post, Hagelauer's mantra was plain. "Good coaching, good coaching, good coaching," he said. "It is vital we have this at every level and that one level feeds the next with a clear strategy. In the aspect of coach education we have always been strong (the LTA has had four different directors in the past four years) and those in charge of that programme are excellent people."

There are four elements to the Hagelauer philosophy - regional, national, international and coach education. At regional level, he says - "whatever we do as a nation begins in the clubs and the coaching in the clubs, in every department. This is what I was trying to develop in the UK. The imperative aspect is the junior programme, that those who are in charge of the players at 8, 9 at 12. There can be no mistakes at that age. We need the right ideas, but also we need to listen. It is about building a pathway to excellence.

"Then we have the national programme, with 14 centres of excellent across the country and we have to make sure we take care of those with better management systems. Everybody needs to work together. At the international level there are currently 32 players - double last year's number - who are working at Roland Garros. We have seven players in the top 100, 11 in the top 200 and many other junior players working through the rankings (Note to the LTA: we are only talking singles players here, doubles does not figure). It is important that players like Arnaud Clement and Michael Llodra, those with great experience, can mix with the younger ones, because they act as points of reference."

Out of the blue, Hagelauer nominated 30-year-old Arnaud Di Pasquale to become the head of the men's section, with Alexia Dechaume-Balleret, taking on similar responsibilities for the women. "These are people with proven playing track records from the juniors to significant world rankings. With Arnaud, he is going to be responsible for supporting almost 20 players, but he knows them by heart and they know him, there is trust."

From the moment Hagelauer was appointed and said that those working for him are, for the present, going to 'be French and only French', the lines from so many former players were humming. "Yannick 9Noah) told me that I only had to ring him and he would be there. The same is true of Amelie Mauresmo. Everyone wants to be a part of what we are doing. I am so very pleased with that."

And so, unlike the situation in Britain, where many former players with proven coaching track records feel they have no part to play in the sport under its current ownership, where to have been attached to the past is to be treated as a relic, dismissed as an interference rather than someone who might be able to help. It is very sad. And very wrong.

SW19 still the LTA's crown jewel

The All England Club and the LTA were quick off the mark in raising their objections to the recommendations of David Davies' review into events that should be protected for live broadcast on free-to-air television. Their response to the recommendation that the whole Wimbledon championships should be protected would - "severely compromise the Club’s ability to negotiate its TV rights in an open competitive market place".

Suggesting that grass roots funding would be damaged, the club said that all the profits from Wimbledon are given to the LTA to reinvest in the development of infrastructure and British tennis players. They argued that "any artificial curtailing of the competitiveness of the TV rights’ marketplace caused by listing the entire Championships is bound to mean less money will be available for the LTA to invest in grass roots tennis and the players of the future."

The Davies report had been based - they said - on "erroneous information" and that "in virtually its only reference to Wimbledon, it quotes Frontier Economics which says 'although broadcast revenues are a significant source of revenue for Wimbledon, much of these accrue from overseas broadcasters unaffected by the UK’s listing policy. Any changes to the proceeds from the sale of UK broadcasting rights (arising from a change in the listed status of the event) may therefore have only a limited impact on the LTA’s funding of UK tennis programmes’. This is completely wrong. UK broadcast rights do form the major share of Wimbledon’s broadcast income. Therefore any change in listing which limits the competitiveness of the UK market-place will definitely have a material effect on the LTA’s income."

Ian Ritchie, chief executive of the All England Club, said: "Wimbledon has been extremely successful and it seems strange at this time to alter a model that works for viewers, the public and funding of tennis. We value our relationship with the BBC but the market place needs to be balanced. The proposed change is based on entirely erroneous information and will seriously damage our ability to obtain the best deal for The Championships and for British tennis. Listing the whole event is not in the interests of Wimbledon or tennis fans and we will be vigorous in presenting our case during the consultation period.”

In his enduringly excellent column in the Mail on Sunday, Patrick Collins wrote at the weekend. "Cricket will serve as the battleground for this argument, since it is here that the problem is most sharply defined. True, there was a small squeak from Roger Draper, the chief executive of the LTA, who complained that listing Wimbledon would have a 'negative impact' on their ability to 'develop British talent'. The LTA receive about £30m a year, every year, to do just that. Suffice to say 2010 will be the 74th anniversary of Fred Perry’s singles victory at Wimbledon."

It would perhaps concentrate the specificity of the argument if, at their annual general meeting next month, the LTA gave a transparent breakdown of how the money they receive from Wimbledon (£29.2m this year) is spent, on whom and on what. Could we know, for instance, the wages and bonuses paid to the executive and the Tennis Leadership Team? Then, maybe, we can enter a serious debate and strike a balance between what is invested in the grass roots (which got everyone hot under the collar when Davies' recommendations became public) and on the performance side of the game where the sport has failed for decades to deliver on targets and promises.

Murray attracts praise in defeat

Jean-Francois Caujolle, tournament director of the BNP Paribas Masters, singled out Andy Murray for special praise at his end-of-event review and disclosed that next year there could be a dramatic change to the format in Paris. There is a powerful case, Caujolle believes, for the tournament to become a 32 rather than 48 man draw - "for it is quite normal that the draws become progressively smaller in order to arrive towards the Masters where there are only eight players."

He said Murray had been a victim of the current numbers and the consequent pressure it places on scheduling with only one court at the Palais Omnisport of a standard required for an event of this prestige. "[Murray] ended one match on Wednesday at 1.45am and there had been a real problem with the scheduling that day because we had six matches to play on he Centre Court," Caujolle said. The problem had been exacerbated by Marat Safin's three set loss to Juan Martin Del Potro, after which there was an extended retirement celebration for the Russian that put another spanner in the works.

"The next day Murray had to play on Court No 1 (against Radek Stepanek) and sincerely I believe he would not have lost that match if it had been on the Centre. He was a victim of those problems we have with a tournament with 48 players. He was extremely decent and said nothing about it. He just said the other player was better than him."

Caujolle revealed that his plans for a reduction in draw size would be put to the ATP Board next week. He also declared that an ATP 250 tournament would be scheduled in the same week as Paris next year - "so we are not only guaranteeing the existing jobs of the players but creating new ones," he said. "I trust it will be possible."

Murray made a point of mentioning in the press conference after his defeat to Stepanek that he had heard there would be 200 journalists attending the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals at the O2 Arena. That is a pretty formidable level of media interest but the Net Post hears that not one of those writers is coming from the United States; whether Andy Roddick comes or not. It is quite some dark moment in tennis-writing history that not a single member from America will make the trip, and this from the richest nation in the tennis world. Truly terrible news.

Rafa in the swing of things

It is not easy to get the subject away from golf when you bump into Rafael Nadal and it was the same this week. He has only ever played once on a British course and would like to have a far wider experience of our courses. That, and the Net Post learns he is a great admirer of Ross Fisher, the English professional who was deep in contention for the Open Championship at Turnberry this year until he came to grief with a quadruple bogey eight on the 5th hole of his final round. "I had a great sensation and sensitivity for what happened to Fisher," Nadal said. "He is one of my favourite players."

Taylor makes a Dent on return to top 100

We could not be more delighted to report that, with his 6-3, 7-6 victory over Ilja Bozoljac of Serbia in the final of the ATP Challenger in Knoxville, Tennessee, American Taylor Dent is back in the world's top 100 almost four years after it was feared that a terrible back injury would rob him of his career altogether. It has been a long, often painful progress but Dent is making the most of his second chance and everyone in the sport is grateful for that. In conversation with Phil Brook, Wimbledon's chairman-to-be, many moons ago, the Net Post suggested Dent would win a grand slam one day. He may yet give me a run for my optimism.

Isn't the spanish model way much more successful? (Slams, Masters, Olympics, DC, number of top players, etc)

and I'm not just talking about right now, but the last 20 years or so

fast_clay
11-20-2009, 06:56 AM
spanish is just survival of the fittest... lta already copy the french... spanish system just puts the carrot at the end of the junior path, doesnt feed it to 'em young... no rocket science needed for this method... just get as many kids playing till they adults by placing rewards at the end of juniors, not before... how many weeks did spain host a futures tournament this year..? how about last year...? not including challengers or atp tour events... there is something going on most weeks if you wanna make a name for yourself... just you gotta do it in the pros... not before...

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 02:16 PM
still, if the LTA is copying the french system, it has been a total failure, I don't believe that I'm gonna say this, but at least France has some top players unlike the UK who only has Murray

Action Jackson
11-20-2009, 02:20 PM
Not sure how it is in France, it seems easier to be able to play there, and is more accessible to people of different backgrounds, whereas in the UK, the sport still seems to be for the upper middle classes.

Spain has an excellent club structure with the regional federations, but as fast_clay said, there are many tournaments there, once the players do well in their clubs and they are ready to play on tour.

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 02:51 PM
yes AJ, but it wasn't always like that, nowadays Spain is strong in many sports because both the government and the private sector are supporting it, building good arenas, giving support to the players, etc

The whole Spanish success started with something called Objetivo '92 on which the spanish sportspeople started preparing for the Barcelona Olympics, from then on, the success made it possible for the upcoming generations and we're getting excellent results in nearly every sport (football, basketball, handball, tennis, soccer, volleyball, etc)

What I said is that the LTA should try to get more support from the private sector (since it seems like the government isn't up to the task) and get a much better club structure, instead of copying another country's model which works with the infrastructure they have but not with the LTA one

The countries that are getting better results have all been growing in clay and it's quite hard to find that in the UK, at least for the general public

rhinooooo
11-20-2009, 02:59 PM
It will not take off for a long time in the UK because as AJ pointed out, it is too inaccessible for the masses.

Shit weather. Not many great free courts. Generally poor facilities.

The places with the best courts are tennis clubs that are very aristocratic. They can cost hundreds to a thousand pounds for membership. One of the local clubs around here spends most of its time advertising events such as wine tastings, so all the old upper middle class ladies and gents can have a spiffing old time...

It's a shithouse culture for tennis here, no wonder kids aren't interested.

Corey Feldman
11-20-2009, 05:27 PM
face facts that tennis is no where near popular in GB as it is in France and Spain, simple as that.

why do the Spanish and French not produce world class snooker and darts players? they should learn from us.

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 05:34 PM
nah Mikey, we're too busy producing top football, basketball and tennis players :p

PiggyGotRoasted
11-20-2009, 07:22 PM
To get anywhere in the uk your parents must have a slightly larger than normal income, not be selfish enough so that they spend it for you on tennis, get into an academy somewhere from a young age and there you go. While im sure in spain that doesnt apply so much, because there are that many more players that more parents are willing to send their kids away and stuff because they are not so selfish unlike the English who are pig headed selfish twats all the way from the top. So much that one person being elected as the head of the lta wont be able to change anything unless he can give 6 hours a day coaching from when someone is 8 for everyone who plays tennis for free.

DrJules
11-20-2009, 07:37 PM
Isn't the spanish model way much more successful? (Slams, Masters, Olympics, DC, number of top players, etc)

and I'm not just talking about right now, but the last 20 years or so

The Spanish system has produced clay surface specialists mostly.

Nadal is the only Spanish player in the open era to win a Grand Slam on a surface other than clay. Sweden with a much smaller population has achieved more Grand Slam wins on a greater diversity of surfaces.

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 07:45 PM
I agree with you in that Dr Jules, but it is easier to switch from clay to other surfaces than the other way around, the movement you learn playing on clay cannot be learned in other surfaces and it's vital to construct a good game

Nowadays Spain is getting more and more different surfaces, we got a Masters 1000 played in indoor HC till last year, now we got Valencia as well and the facilities are getting more and more different surfaces than before, so the future of our tennis players isn't as bad in the rest of surfaces, Verdasco, our other top 10 player is much better on hard than in clay for example

Sweden has been a great place for champions since Borg, but in the last 10 years (bar Johannson) they haven't gotten real champions, so it has got to do a lot with the sustainability of the tennis program, something Spain and France excel at ;)

DrJules
11-20-2009, 07:52 PM
I agree with you in that Dr Jules, but it is easier to switch from clay to other surfaces than the other way around, the movement you learn playing on clay cannot be learned in other surfaces and it's vital to construct a good game

Nowadays Spain is getting more and more different surfaces, we got a Masters 1000 played in indoor HC till last year, now we got Valencia as well and the facilities are getting more and more different surfaces than before, so the future of our tennis players isn't as bad in the rest of surfaces, Verdasco, our other top 10 player is much better on hard than in clay for example

Sweden has been a great place for champions since Borg, but in the last 10 years (bar Johannson) they haven't gotten real champions, so it has got to do a lot with the sustainability of the tennis program, something Spain and France excel at ;)

Sweden with only around 9 million people is never in the long term going to sustain it at the previous level, but Spain and France have more than 4 times the population. Realistically if they produce 1 grand slam winner a decade and at least 1 player in the top 10 (current decade)they are doing very well given their population

Arkulari
11-20-2009, 07:57 PM
yes, and the French example shows it, their latest GS champ is Noah back in the early 80's, two full decades without a title :shrug:

the UK with their 60? million people should be able to develop a good sustainable model for their tennis youth

same goes for Australia and USA, former tennis powerhouses, whom have lost a lot of their shine in the latest years

GhostUnholy
11-20-2009, 08:18 PM
Tennis isn't really popular in the States, and I think it's mostly been declining. Tennis was much more popular during the McEnroe/Conners/etc era than in the last 20 years. America's best athletes get pulled into basketball, american football, etc that are much more popular, so I'm not surprised they don't have that many up and comers right now.

As for England, I have no idea. The French for sure develops some very talented players, but they also seem to develop mentally weak players...

Arkulari
11-21-2009, 02:29 AM
yes, the Frenchies tend to be huge headcases :eek:

Ouragan
11-21-2009, 03:42 AM
Our model really isn't that enviable, plenty of top 100 players all right who own the MM tourneys, but hardly a grand slam contender since Noah.

I'm glad we have JWT, Gillou, even la Monf, they all have good personalities to boot, but potential wise I'd prefer Muzzug.

fast_clay
11-21-2009, 12:19 PM
many different systems will work... of course the system you put in place has to be a sound one to begin with, but, the main things are that a) you stick with that system for a solid period of time and dont chop and change, and... b) it has the belief of all participants top to bottom... the second point would lend itself well to making transparent where all funding goes... whether this already happens at the lta i am not sure...

again, i'd refer to the spanish systems where if you check the new itf futures program for 2010 you have pro futures tournaments already listed 10 of 12 weeks... what is known about the spanish system is that they have a high dropout rate of juniors... but, this matters not because inside the tennis culture there is a massive volume of players so the drop out rate is negated...

what is enviable of this system now, is that you have a long list of stars competing on the world stage week in week out... so, if you dangle a carrot at the end of the junior path, you get this cycle where you drag the best right through, and, it is a hard, battle-weary road... part of the problem in over investing in junior talent is that you can sometimes reward mediocrity and players are too comfortable by the time a player needs to break into tour main...

another pleasing byproduct of a system like this is a player like oscar hernandez, who, at 29, breaks the top 50 for the first time... the culture again is seen to be rewarding players 18+... you cant tell me a 3 set battle with The King would not teach a budding 17 year old spaniard a thing or two... its a great culture... not only that, spain becomes a feared place to travel to pick up the odd point... it has an aura, and so, you get mighty fields exclusively iberian gaurenteeing that many home grown prospects pick up points... so, yeah, rewarding senior players equally is right and just and is very transparent... its not rocket science...

the lta would be well served in investing in a few crack teams of tournament organisers at futures and money tournament level that enable players to compete for cash week in week out... this would play on the strength of the great britain itself, where, distances travelled between major cities is minimal compared with most tennis playing nations... more money should be invested here... british tennis have a good figurehead in murray, not only would he help serve to inspire players to play on for longer, but, it would also be wise to get him onside and publicly say 'yeah, here is a system that rewards hard work, no matter what age you are... talent and hard work have no age...'

Action Jackson
11-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Sweden with only around 9 million people is never in the long term going to sustain it at the previous level, but Spain and France have more than 4 times the population. Realistically if they produce 1 grand slam winner a decade and at least 1 player in the top 10 (current decade)they are doing very well given their population

There are lots of reasons for that, it was one a special generation and then they got lazy, expected it to happen all the way through without looking at the latest trends, in addition to a federation that doesn't have much cash.

tommyg6
10-22-2011, 09:15 PM
Why can't Great Britain and Australia produce a bunch of top 100 players like France, USA, and Spain can? Both nations host a Grand Slam, Both nations had Grand Slam winners before, Both nations have storied tennis history.

Cuz as of now, Australia has a couple of players in top 100 and Great Britain only has Andy Murray whereas France, USA, Spain have a bunch of players in the top 100.


So what's the problem? Will it ever change?

Saberq
10-22-2011, 09:19 PM
Great Britain and Australia produced better players than France ....

fast_clay
10-22-2011, 09:21 PM
in a few lines...

both GB and Australia many produce world class juniors... and, in both cases, success on the junior front is a mechanism to save the hide of those in at the helm... that is all...

only now australia is taking a more senior approach to player development... we will see the fruits of this sooner rather than later i think...

in spain, it is survival of the fittest - dangle the carrot with itf pro circuit tournaments most weeks a year and let the juniors play up and get experience to know what it takes earlier... there is no secret... no magic formula... and it is the best system with a high volume of players...

rewarding junior success is a sure fire way to celebrate and encourage mediocrity...

Roadmap
10-22-2011, 09:22 PM
We have just won the junior davis cup and have some fine young players. I am a huge fan of Liam Broady who's forehand I could masturbate to footage of.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-22-2011, 09:22 PM
im not sure why but even the women side of austrailians and britishs players are playing better than the mens brits and aussies, i know thats a total different scenario but ITS TRUE!!!!!!:shrug:

Ibracadabra
10-22-2011, 09:23 PM
britain is just a nation of losers, they rarely produce world class athletes in any sport unlike us irish.

Sapeod
10-22-2011, 09:23 PM
We have Murray, and he's far better than any French player.

Nowadays, Murray >>>>> France/USA/Australia's players combined.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-22-2011, 09:26 PM
We have Murray, and he's far better than any French player.

Nowadays, Murray >>>>> France/USA/Australia's players combined.

that doesnt mean ANYTHING, yes the brits have murray but what if they want more players than jus murray, murray is a scot that represents brit, they want more of their own british players not jus murray

Roadmap
10-22-2011, 09:27 PM
We have Murray, and he's far better than any French player.

Nowadays, Murray >>>>> France/USA/Australia's players combined.

Murray would beat them blindfolded :cool:

Naudio Spanlatine
10-22-2011, 09:34 PM
its crazy that the brits put TOO MUCH pressure on one guy whose not from great britain but yet represents them, why are they not focusing on produce more of their own brit players, that broady kid will do good, but you need to add more skill and level players to produce them in the pro league, i mean look at serbia, spain, france, and even surprisely america, their not jus producing players their making them perform into TOP LEVEL PRO tennis, which both austrailia and great britain needs to do, take their players into the next step and let them perform in big and small tournaments in pro level, dont jus expect them to get their on their own

Belludal
10-22-2011, 09:34 PM
The problem in Britain is the concentration of grass courts. In the current tennis game that requires both a well established background with very many changes due to evolution of rackets and courts of the speed reduction is necessary that the players have pretty regularly background and they can exchange a lot of balls because the points are now much more long. This is so that I speak the fact that the British players get great performances on grass courts in tournaments like Newport and Queens (Bloomfield, Ward, Bogdanovic and other players). For Australia I believe is related to something like Britain probably in the sense that the players adapt to blocks very fast and has little evolution in the core game beyond them to be more suited to grass than gravel that is the clay court tournaments have 10 times more than the grass.

Both Britain and Australia in my opinion because of its tradition and money has the capacity to be great forces in tennis.

But you need better training of players at the base because both countries have many talents and many practitioners who appear in Juvenile and Grand Slams do not end up becoming major players on account of a training game with his blocks very fast over the gravel that evolves over the game background and consistency for many exchanges.

Another country that I believe have a similar problem with Australia and Britain is Sweden.

Sorry my poor English, I used the google translator.

Aphex
10-22-2011, 09:35 PM
Swedish tennis is dying because the federation has been run by morons since the mid 90s especially when it comes to player developement programs. Sweden should honestly always have 2-3 players in every 100-segment of the rankings based on tradition alone. That small country argument is such a lame excuse for failure to uphold a winning educational culture.:wavey:

DrJules
10-22-2011, 09:38 PM
Interesting question although agree and disagree with some points.

In the case of Great Britain there has been no Grand Slam or Davis Cup victories in the Open era and it is surprising there has been such a shortage. Agree with your point fully.

Australia has had a similar record to France in the last 30 years since 1981. Australia have won 4 Davis Cup while France have won 3 Davis Cup and Australia have seen players win 5 GS while France has only won 1 GS. France do not seem more successful than Australia.

Spain have been far more successful winning 4 Davis Cup in 10 years and mostly likely number 5 this year and seen players win 15 Grand Slams in the last 20 years. So certainly agree although I do not seen any players of potential Grand Slam winning quality coming through in the next generation (not seen Spanish players in discussions of future top players).

Action Jackson
10-22-2011, 09:40 PM
Swedish tennis is dying because the federation has been run by morons since the mid 90s especially when it comes to player developement programs. Sweden should honestly always have 2-3 players in every 100-segment of the rankings based on tradition alone. That small country argument is such a lame excuse for failure to uphold a winning educational culture.:wavey:

Kent Carlsson summed it up after he retired. They used to lead the way with organisation, then got lazy and everyone else passed them.

DrJules
10-22-2011, 09:42 PM
We have Murray, and he's far better than any French player.

Nowadays, Murray >>>>> France/USA/Australia's players combined.

At times I do feel your rating of Murray is in excess of the factual reality.

fast_clay
10-22-2011, 09:43 PM
Swedish tennis is dying because the federation has been run by morons since the mid 90s especially when it comes to player developement programs. Sweden should honestly always have 2-3 players in every 100-segment of the rankings based on tradition alone. That small country argument is such a lame excuse for failure to uphold a winning educational culture.:wavey:

i agree...

player development is about investment yes... but, it is a MASSIVE secondary to leadership and the systems they employ...

LawrenceOfTennis
10-22-2011, 09:44 PM
I bet GB spends more money to find new talents than the other 3 together. Maybe they just don't have talented youngsters.
Liam Broady is very talented IMO, but his career management looks like shit so far and his father fucked up his FO.

Belludal
10-22-2011, 09:45 PM
One solution for Great Britain, Australia and Sweden could be put their players to play in Spain.

Pirata.
10-22-2011, 09:47 PM
fast_clay loves this carrot metaphor :lol:

Naudio Spanlatine
10-22-2011, 09:47 PM
One solution for Great Britain, Australia and Sweden could be put their players to play in Spain.
Spain has AMAZING tennis facility for years, florida in america is another good place to train, florida is tennis' haven their alot of players in america and around the world, either go to spain or go to florida, look for example, rafa invited murray to train in spain when murray was 15 and murray absolutely loved it their

Belludal
10-22-2011, 09:50 PM
Spain has AMAZING tennis facility for years, florida in america is another good place to train, florida is tennis' haven their alot of players in america and around the world, either go to spain or go to florida, look for example, rafa invited murray to train in spain when murray was 15 and murray absolutely loved it their

I agree! :yeah:

DrJules
10-22-2011, 09:51 PM
One solution for Great Britain, Australia and Sweden could be put their players to play in Spain.

It worked for Murray although it took until this year before Murray was taken seriously on a clay court.

Action Jackson
10-22-2011, 09:59 PM
he for some reason struggles on clay sometimes i dunno why, he loved clay, he trains their before alot of times, but for some reason he jus doesnt get clay that much at all, i thought he'll be better that djokovic tbh, but i forgot that nole did train on clay in serbia too, but still it doesnt make sense that hes not doing well on clay

This is not a Murray on clay thread, it's actually getting away from the topic of this thread which is overall player development why the UK and Australia aren't producing and not specific players.

It's very easy as to why Murray doesn't do as well, try the forehand and that's it.

Different economic conditions help as well as the cyclical nature of sport.

fast_clay
10-22-2011, 09:59 PM
fast_clay loves this carrot metaphor :lol:

heh heh... it's true though... ever read freakanomics...?

the western world runs almost entirely upon incentive...

so then, where do you place the largest volume of incentive...?

it is very simple...

so, when everybody is on the same page and all have transparency from top to bottom, then even the local coach with a few good juniors will buy into it... they will go to work on developing a kid's serve much quicker with clearer direction for that player 8 years down the road knowing that the kid is not gonna be a junior forever - a scene where only senior achievement is rewarded...

get every single person buying into a path leading in the same direction and boom - you have a culture delivering many different ways to get the job done at senior level...

Action Jackson
10-22-2011, 10:12 PM
heh heh... it's true though... ever read freakanomics...?

the western world runs almost entirely upon incentive...

so then, where do you place the largest volume of incentive...?

it is very simple...

so, when everybody is on the same page and all have transparency from top to bottom, then even the local coach with a few good juniors will buy into it... they will go to work on developing a kid's serve much quicker with clearer direction for that player 8 years down the road knowing that the kid is not gonna be a junior forever - a scene where only senior achievement is rewarded...

get every single person buying into a path leading in the same direction and boom - you have a culture delivering many different ways to get the job done at senior level...

The fact when you see a player who is your peer doing well that forces others to work harder creating competition to raise their level. It's a long term project, but the instant gratification always want results straight away, doesn't work.

MuzzahLovah
10-22-2011, 10:12 PM
What exactly was America doing so well before that it isn't doing now? Isn't this more tied to tennis popularity and chance than anything? Why did we have two all time greats a the same time and along with a couple of grandslam winners? Shouldn't all those young boys be playing tennis watching then be playing at the top now? What about the Williams- we've had again, two phenomenal Grand Slam champs at the same times on the women's side, but no one on the horizon.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-22-2011, 10:22 PM
What exactly was America doing so well before that it isn't doing now? Isn't this more tied to tennis popularity and chance than anything? Why did we have two all time greats a the same time and along with a couple of grandslam winners? Shouldn't all those young boys be playing tennis watching then be playing at the top now? What about the Williams- we've had again, two phenomenal Grand Slam champs at the same times on the women's side, but no one on the horizon.
i have to agree with this, its so sad that you have great young talents on the mens side like isner, querey, young, harrison, that guy who played well against nadal um that 22 yr old white guy(i forgot his name:o ) and then on the women side we have mcchale, glatch, king, stephens, vandeweghe, falconi and oudin:bigcry: but yet i think either their coaching staff is not doing well or their managment is jus plain stupid, for one thing if your gonna bring up talents, why dont you train them in another country instead of jus playing in america and jus training in america:facepalm:

the tennis association on the american side is jus:help::tape: right now its not even funny

DrJules
10-22-2011, 10:23 PM
This is not a Murray on clay thread, it's actually getting away from the topic of this thread which is overall player development why the UK and Australia aren't producing and not specific players.

It's very easy as to why Murray doesn't do as well, try the forehand and that's it.

Different economic conditions help as well as the cyclical nature of sport.

In terms of GS, Davis Cup, Master series winners etc France is barely doing any better than Australia. Yes France has produced a pool of top player for 30 years but the conversion rate to GS, Davis Cup and Master series winners has been very poor so their model does not seem to work. Some would even say an Australian (Tomic) or British GS winner (Murray) is more likely in the next 10 years than a French GS winner.

From a British perspective I would much rather have Murray than all the French players. I may be wrong, but have more confidence in 1 player Murray actually achieving a GS win than Monfils, Tsonga, Gasquet and Simon combined.

shiaben
10-22-2011, 10:38 PM
still, if the LTA is copying the french system, it has been a total failure, I don't believe that I'm gonna say this, but at least France has some top players unlike the UK who only has Murray

I personally think it has to do with mentality, as well as sporting culture.

In countries like U.S., Australia, Great Britain, people have lots of opportunities to get better jobs and lives than a lot of the world. In countries like Spain, France, and Italy, there are lots of working class people as well as unemployment problems.

So I think when you look at France or Spain, a lot of these people in these countries, realize if they were to fail as athletes, there is a high possibility that they could end up working at some poor crappy jobs and/or careers. So in this regards, there is huge hunger for athletic competition in these types of countries. This is their way of creating wealthy opportunities if they feel that education is too challenging, expensive, and hard to attain in their respective countries.

Also in addition to that. Spain and France, are passionate about football. Some of the greatest football players come out of these two countries. So to me, it's certainly not surprising to see Spanish and French dominate the NBA or even tennis, because their footwork is superior to others. In basketball, this allows you to defend better and drive and dribble efficiently to the hoop. In tennis, this translates to staying alive in long rallies, and setting up opportunities for cleaner shots and winners.

The Magician
10-22-2011, 11:56 PM
Not all countries have the same regulations for testing and accountability. When tennis was a sport of talent and aggression rich countries did well because extraordinary players could excel. When the sport became about endurance and all the players were interchangeable the poorer countries did better because more kids had nothing to lose and with the right enhancements anyone could be a top player. The sport is not quite international enough to have the truly poor countries start to flood the ATP but in the next 10-15 years it'll happen.

Sri
10-23-2011, 02:33 AM
Want a cynical answer?

Compared to France - Britain isn't attracting the right sort of immigrants (North African)
Compared to Spain - Britain is better at dope testing

To bring Australia in this list is sad. They've (like USA) only had a slump in the past 7-8 years. They've already done well getting enough Eastern Europeans in to bolster tennis, and not to mention their football (soccer) team.

Caesar1844
10-23-2011, 03:41 AM
Don't know about the UK, but with the US and Australia it's a question of how attractive the sport is. In most countries, there aren't a whole lot of professional sports to choose from - there's soccer, and not much else. Australia and the US are sports mad - each country has half a dozen sports (at least) that there's the prospect of a lucrative domestic pro career in.

And the reality is that tennis is a bloody hard sport to be a professional in. Even if you're one of the top couple of hundred players in the whole world, it can still be a massive slog to make a good living and put money away for your post-playing career. You play Challengers, Futures and qualifiers all year round, all over the planet to grind out a good living. If you don't win you don't earn, and it's an individual sport so there's nobody to fall back on when you have a bad day.

Alternatively, if you're one of the best couple of hundred (say) baseballers or footballers in your own country then you are set for life. You travel a lot less. You're employed on a contract and play as part of a team, so dips in form/injury layoffs have less of an immediate impact on your fortunes.

If you're a young athlete who plays and shows talent in multiple sports (as most young athletes do) then where's the incentive to pick tennis over one of the others? You have to fight against the whole rest of the world, under some of the toughest conditions of any sport, to get to the very top before it becomes really lucrative.

Unless you really, really love tennis (or you're much more talented at it than your other options), it's just not that attractive.

fast_clay
10-23-2011, 03:47 AM
Don't know about the UK, but with the US and Australia it's a question of how attractive the sport is. In most countries, there aren't a whole lot of professional sports to choose from - there's soccer, and not much else. Australia and the US are sports mad - each country has half a dozen sports (at least) that there's the prospect of a lucrative domestic pro career in.

And the reality is that tennis is a bloody hard sport to be a professional in. Even if you're one of the top couple of hundred players in the whole world, it can still be a massive slog to make a good living and put money away for your post-playing career. You play Challengers, Futures and qualifiers all year round, all over the planet to grind out a good living. If you don't win you don't earn, and it's an individual sport so there's nobody to fall back on when you have a bad day.

Alternatively, if you're one of the best couple of hundred (say) baseballers or footballers in your own country then you are set for life. You travel a lot less. You're employed on a contract and play as part of a team, so dips in form/injury layoffs have less of an immediate impact on your fortunes.

If you're a young athlete who plays and shows talent in multiple sports (as most young athletes do) then where's the incentive to pick tennis over one of the others? You have to fight against the whole rest of the world, under some of the toughest conditions of any sport, to get to the very top before it becomes really lucrative.

Unless you really, really love tennis (or you're much more talented at it than your other options), it's just not that attractive.

correct... 100%... not a hint of a wrong word written...

Henry Chinaski
10-23-2011, 04:08 AM
a good clay court infrastructure is essential in the modern game.

it's clearly the best surface to learn the game on and I don't think anyone would deny that.

Topspindoctor
10-23-2011, 04:12 AM
UK shouldn't be compared to Australia - they failed to produce a slam winner - to quote Olderer "for about hundred thousand years" - Mugray is a loser and their WTA line-up doesn't look good either. Australia >>>>> UK in tennis :bigwave:

Dmitry Verdasco
10-23-2011, 04:16 AM
Not enough clay courts !

rocketassist
10-23-2011, 04:23 AM
Clay best surface to learn the game, certainly the 2011 form of it.

UK shouldn't be compared to Australia - they failed to produce a slam winner - to quote Olderer "for about hundred thousand years" - Mugray is a loser and their WTA line-up doesn't look good either. Australia >>>>> UK in tennis :bigwave:

On overall tennis history Australia, on current tour UK. WTA ain't tennis. And in the important sports like footy and Australia's own number one sport of cricket, they are miles off the pace alongside their former masters.

Mountaindewslave
10-23-2011, 04:31 AM
I personally think it has to do with mentality, as well as sporting culture.

In countries like U.S., Australia, Great Britain, people have lots of opportunities to get better jobs and lives than a lot of the world. In countries like Spain, France, and Italy, there are lots of working class people as well as unemployment problems.

So I think when you look at France or Spain, a lot of these people in these countries, realize if they were to fail as athletes, there is a high possibility that they could end up working at some poor crappy jobs and/or careers. So in this regards, there is huge hunger for athletic competition in these types of countries. This is their way of creating wealthy opportunities if they feel that education is too challenging, expensive, and hard to attain in their respective countries.

Also in addition to that. Spain and France, are passionate about football. Some of the greatest football players come out of these two countries. So to me, it's certainly not surprising to see Spanish and French dominate the NBA or even tennis, because their footwork is superior to others. In basketball, this allows you to defend better and drive and dribble efficiently to the hoop. In tennis, this translates to staying alive in long rallies, and setting up opportunities for cleaner shots and winners.

i think this to some degree definitely drives players from economies like Spain BUT let us recall almost all pro tennis players, even Spanish ones, are from relatively wealthy families and get send to private academies from when they are very young! private training and equipment does not always come cheap, travel etc. so I agree with this to some degree but to some degree I don't at least as far as Spain is concerned.

the other countries however, esspecially Germany and England, are fairly well off which explains maybe there being less drive

SaFed2005
10-23-2011, 04:34 AM
Tennis isn't really popular in the States, and I think it's mostly been declining. Tennis was much more popular during the McEnroe/Conners/etc era than in the last 20 years. America's best athletes get pulled into basketball, american football, etc that are much more popular, so I'm not surprised they don't have that many up and comers right now.

As for England, I have no idea. The French for sure develops some very talented players, but they also seem to develop mentally weak players...


Exactly!
Hardly anyone cares about tennis in the United States. Sports like basketball, football and baseball are far more popular. Tennis hardly ever gets attention. For example: even little league baseball will get priority over tennis in the US. Sad but true. :sad:
Tennis also has much higher costs, which does not help matter. Every other sport apart from tennis seems to be free in most places.

Topspindoctor
10-23-2011, 04:40 AM
Tennis is still top 5 in popularity in the world and most popular individual sport by far. Who cares if the Yanks care about American Fatball and Baseball more than tennis? Not the rest of the world, that's for sure. Tennis is on the rise globally, it doesn't matter if America fails to produce good tennis players and loses interest in it... because tennis is the most exciting sport to watch and people are slowly recongnizing it.

Caesar1844
10-23-2011, 04:54 AM
It's not about popularity, it's about economics. A tennis match takes as long (or longer) to watch as a game of football, but involves 2 athletes instead of 30+. Therefore the rewards are spread amongst a very small group of athletes that play the matches that people want to see. Everyone else, no matter how good they are, are left to fight for the scraps.

Combine it with the fact that you're fighting against a whole world of tennis players to make it to the top level (rather than just other people your own country) and it just doesn't make economic sense for someone looking to become a professional athlete to pick tennis. For the vast majority of athletes the rewards just aren't there.

Corey Feldman
10-23-2011, 04:56 AM
UK shouldn't be compared to Australia - they failed to produce a slam winner - to quote Olderer "for about hundred thousand years" - Mugray is a loser and their WTA line-up doesn't look good either. Australia >>>>> UK in tennis :bigwave:still on todays current date we Brits still have a top class male player, we knocked you's off your perch in the Rugby, the cricket, far better at football, motor sport, Boxing, olympic medals won... anything that matters

you are still tops in Aussie rules Football, so props to ya's for that :yeah:

Topspindoctor
10-23-2011, 05:05 AM
still on todays current date we Brits still have a top class male player, we knocked you's off your perch in the Rugby, the cricket, far better at football, motor sport, Boxing, olympic medals won... anything that matters

you are still tops in Aussie rules Football, so props to ya's for that :yeah:


:superlol: At least we clinched third place in rugby WC - I didn't see England anywhere :hug:

Don't worry, I am looking forward to Olympics and Australia with fraction of UK's population to humiliate the Brits in medals on their own soil.

syc23
10-23-2011, 07:28 AM
Don't know about the UK, but with the US and Australia it's a question of how attractive the sport is. In most countries, there aren't a whole lot of professional sports to choose from - there's soccer, and not much else. Australia and the US are sports mad - each country has half a dozen sports (at least) that there's the prospect of a lucrative domestic pro career in.

And the reality is that tennis is a bloody hard sport to be a professional in. Even if you're one of the top couple of hundred players in the whole world, it can still be a massive slog to make a good living and put money away for your post-playing career. You play Challengers, Futures and qualifiers all year round, all over the planet to grind out a good living. If you don't win you don't earn, and it's an individual sport so there's nobody to fall back on when you have a bad day.

Alternatively, if you're one of the best couple of hundred (say) baseballers or footballers in your own country then you are set for life. You travel a lot less. You're employed on a contract and play as part of a team, so dips in form/injury layoffs have less of an immediate impact on your fortunes.

If you're a young athlete who plays and shows talent in multiple sports (as most young athletes do) then where's the incentive to pick tennis over one of the others? You have to fight against the whole rest of the world, under some of the toughest conditions of any sport, to get to the very top before it becomes really lucrative.

Unless you really, really love tennis (or you're much more talented at it than your other options), it's just not that attractive.

It's probably a factor but glad when met with that decision, Murray chose tennis over soccer.

Kids in the UK don't get much opportunities to try out tennis at school level, most gravitate towards football, football and football which is a no brainer as to why they grow up not wanting to be tennis players.

Ibracadabra
10-23-2011, 07:49 AM
Ireland dominates the olympics.

Lurking
10-23-2011, 08:17 AM
Don't know about the UK, but with the US and Australia it's a question of how attractive the sport is. In most countries, there aren't a whole lot of professional sports to choose from - there's soccer, and not much else. Australia and the US are sports mad - each country has half a dozen sports (at least) that there's the prospect of a lucrative domestic pro career in.


Such a myth.

Easy to point out what's wrong UK/Aus, no Clay courts, much harder to point out what's wrong with Italy, no high end talent, Germany, mediocre, and Russia, 5 best players are 28 or older.

Caesar1844
10-23-2011, 08:38 AM
Such a myth.
Oh I see. If you say so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Lurking
10-23-2011, 09:15 AM
Oh I see. If you say so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Spain/France/Germany all play Handball, which UK/Aus don't even compete in.

France/Germany/Spain/Italy in Cycling may compete with UK/Aus as far as medals/titles are concerned, but as far as depth is concerned the difference as big as it is in Tennis.

France/Germany/Spain all have active NBA all stars, Italy has a recent #1 draft pick, Aus/UK have none. France even has the son of a Slam Champion playing in the NBA. There domestic leagues are also much deeper.

France play Rugby seriously.

Even in Motorsport:
France has an active 7 time world rally champ
Germany has an active 7 time F1 Champ, 2 time Champ in the waiting
Italy has an active 9 time Moto GP Champ
Spain has an active 2 Time F1 Champ, active Moto GP Champ

France/Germany/Italy compete in the Winter Olympics seriously, and not as a token event unlike Aus/UK.

France/Germany/Italy/Spain may not compete that well in Athletics, but then neither do Aus/UK. France/Germany/Italy don't have the record Australia has in the pool recently, but they aren't mediocre, admittedly Spain is a joke.

Easy to blame things you either can't fix, or can fix overnight, than to point out you need time, which is entirely what youth development is about.

Caesar1844
10-23-2011, 09:25 AM
Very few of those countries and sports you listed have viable domestic professional leagues where a large number of athletes can achieve significant financial success - without having to be good enough to make it as an import player overseas in another country. Which is the point being made.

If a player can choose a sport where only the top 200 in the world have a secure and lucrative career, or a sport where the top 200 athletes in their own country do so then the choice is pretty clear.

Lurking
10-23-2011, 10:03 AM
Very few of those countries and sports you listed have viable domestic professional leagues where a large number of athletes can achieve significant financial success - without having to be good enough to make it as an import player overseas in another country. Which is the point being made.

If a player can choose a sport where only the top 200 in the world have a secure and lucrative career, or a sport where the top 200 athletes in their own country do so then the choice is pretty clear.

It is, they'd choose the sport they enjoy. Culturally you may be onto something, but it has nothing to do with money if you can't leave your own nation to pursue the sport you love.

The athletes in Australian sport aren't poor, but they aren't making absurd amounts outside of the elite. It's only the big 4 American leagues and Football that pay mediocrity 500k a year, in every other sport you have to be in the elite for it to be a life changing amount of money.

Caesar1844
10-23-2011, 10:21 AM
It is, they'd choose the sport they enjoy. Culturally you may be onto something, but it has nothing to do with money if you can't leave your own nation to pursue the sport you love.
It's about opportunities. Slots for foreign players in domestic sports leagues are restricted by visa opportunities, import player slots, and so on. The development pathways and quality of coaching is vastly inferior. And so on and so on.

You cannot seriously say that players without a professional sports league in their country have the same opportunities to carve out a career in that sport as those who do.

The athletes in Australian sport aren't poor, but they aren't making absurd amounts outside of the elite. It's only the big 4 American leagues and Football that pay mediocrity 500k a year, in every other sport you have to be in the elite for it to be a life changing amount of money.
We're not talking about a lifechanging amount of money. We're talking about the ability to make a viable career out of a sport.

Sombrerero loco
10-23-2011, 10:57 AM
right now, the british have their hopes in guys like golding, liam broady, they can do something for tennis i think.future top 200 for sure, and i think top 100 too
and for australia, well right now outside of tomic, they have good players for future top 200 but i dont see if they will have many top 100...it was kubler there but he is depressed all the time so who knows T_T

MaxPower
10-23-2011, 11:14 AM
Very few of those countries and sports you listed have viable domestic professional leagues where a large number of athletes can achieve significant financial success - without having to be good enough to make it as an import player overseas in another country. Which is the point being made.

If a player can choose a sport where only the top 200 in the world have a secure and lucrative career, or a sport where the top 200 athletes in their own country do so then the choice is pretty clear.

Exactly. That's been the case for Sweden a long time now. The amount of talents any country has is limited and even more so in a country with a smaller population like Australia or even more so Sweden. If other sports "steal" those talents there is nothing left.

When you are really young you can try multiple sports but there is always a time when you must choose. In Sweden the best talents have been choosing soccer and ice-hockey for a long time now. Why? Because we have domestic leagues for both sports where you get a real juicy monthly salary (and plenty of scholarships and special opportunities before that too). If you can become pro in hockey you go to the NHL and make millions, in soccer one of the big european leagues and make millions. But if you don't you can still play at home and live on your sport with good pay. In tennis our non-stars have been forced to play club tennis in Germany or what not just to go around. Not that tempting to travel between futures and challengers and make some cash when you can live in luxury, play less, travel less and have more money saved up after your career?

Tennis is not an attractive option for extreme talents in either GB, Australia or the Nordic countries unless you go really big. But the chance of doing that is so tiny. Only a few spots and the whole world is competing for them...

scoutreporter
10-23-2011, 11:51 AM
when you look at Serbia, 7-8mill people, they are good at all 'ball' games, football, basketball, volleyball, handball, waterpolo, tennis... Pretty impressing considering the corruption in the different assosiations...

Matchu
10-23-2011, 12:18 PM
It is, they'd choose the sport they enjoy. Culturally you may be onto something, but it has nothing to do with money if you can't leave your own nation to pursue the sport you love.

The athletes in Australian sport aren't poor, but they aren't making absurd amounts outside of the elite. It's only the big 4 American leagues and Football that pay mediocrity 500k a year, in every other sport you have to be in the elite for it to be a life changing amount of money.

In Australia majority of youth growing up either want to play Australian Rules Football or Rugby League professionally. Considering we have the strongest league in both sports(AFL and NRL) it is a very attractive option with the average annual salary of an AFL player being around 250k and an NRL player being around 150-200k. Rugby Union is an exception where we play with New Zealand and South Africa and our players get paid quite well too. After that it starts to get much worse in other sports like Basketball, Soccer etc.

Australia has always been able to produce juniors and junior grand slam champions but very few of them actually come through in the senior level. If you look over the last 5 years at the juniors who have made a junior grand slam final you will find the following - Nick Lindahl (JAO '06, highest ATP ranking 187), Brydan Klein (JAO '07, highest ATP ranking 174), Greg Jones (JRG '07, highest ATP ranking 179), Bernard Tomic (JAO '08, JUS '09, highest ATP ranking 44), Sean Berman (JAO '10, highest ATP ranking 839), Ben Mitchell (JW '10, highest ATP ranking 272), Luke Saville (JAO '11, JW '11, highest ATP ranking 1428).The point I am trying to make is that our player pool, while very limited due to other sports being more attractive, is actually pretty strong for a country of 20 million people.

Probably the biggest mistake was Tennis Australia ripping up most of the clay courts throughout Australia and replacing them with synthetic grass courts. Another thing going against us is the lack of constant tournaments around the Oceania/Asian region. It is slowly changing but until there is at least one challenger tournament in Asia every second week or so we will continue to struggle.

Time Violation
10-23-2011, 12:24 PM
when you look at Serbia, 7-8mill people, they are good at all 'ball' games, football, basketball, volleyball, handball, waterpolo, tennis... Pretty impressing considering the corruption in the different assosiations...

Yes and no. :) After Novak/Tipsy/Viktor retire, I don't think Serbia is going to have another top 100 player, let alone a top player. Though Britain seems to be in the same boat, remove Murray and only mugs remain :p

jmjhb
10-23-2011, 02:33 PM
its crazy that the brits put TOO MUCH pressure on one guy whose not from great britain but yet represents them, why are they not focusing on produce more of their own brit players, that broady kid will do good, but you need to add more skill and level players to produce them in the pro league, i mean look at serbia, spain, france, and even surprisely america, their not jus producing players their making them perform into TOP LEVEL PRO tennis, which both austrailia and great britain needs to do, take their players into the next step and let them perform in big and small tournaments in pro level, dont jus expect them to get their on their own

Scotland is a part of Great Britain, despite political manoeuvring towards possible secession.

Sofonda Cox
10-23-2011, 02:35 PM
Scotland is a part of Great Britain, despite political manoeuvring towards possible secession.

Sooner the better.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-23-2011, 05:15 PM
face facts that tennis is no where near popular in GB as it is in France and Spain, simple as that.

why do the Spanish and French not produce world class snooker and darts players? they should learn from us.

Snooker and Darts are for the unathletic people who fail at real sports.
Not games any country should be proud of.

Super Djoker
10-24-2011, 12:57 AM
As someone mentioned earlier , tennis In the UK is considered upper class. Fact is we have made massive progress in my opinion! No way I could of had a opportunity to play back when I was a kid! There is a lot of investment going in but the fact is it will allways have a small intake of our sportsmen/Woman in Britain to football! Probebly behind cricket aswell!

Super Djoker
10-24-2011, 01:01 AM
Rugby is bigger in this country aswell , I,de dare say formula 1 has a bigger following in Britain than tennis! What,s wrong with having Andy Murray and a cluster of top 400 players? Some quite young

Henry Chinaski
10-24-2011, 01:38 AM
Yes and no. :) After Novak/Tipsy/Viktor retire, I don't think Serbia is going to have another top 100 player, let alone a top player. Though Britain seems to be in the same boat, remove Murray and only mugs remain :p

haven't you heard of Filip Krajinovic?

remains to be seen if he can be a top player but he'll be top 100 easily.

Not sure I buy the economic arguments raised by Caesar.

The strong presence of other sports competing for young athletes is an important factor but in the majority of cases it is cultural rather than economic.

A 13 year old about to devote himself to one sport seriously isn't thinking about life as a future pro. There is more subtle cultural peer pressure involved, the preferences of friends and family pushing him towards one sport or other.

Ireland is a perfect example of this. Many promising young soccer, tennis and rugby players will pack those sports in to concentrate on Gaelic Football, a sport of huge cultural standing but one that given its amateur status offers no economic future (apart from the handful of players who catch the eye of AFL scouts).

Fujee
10-24-2011, 03:37 PM
Snooker and Darts are for the unathletic people who fail at real sports.
Not games any country should be proud of.

Brainless comment.

You also have to consider land mass and population pool. Spain and France have larger land mass, and equal or larger population pool.
Also fund the sport alot more.

Gagsquet
10-24-2011, 03:49 PM
Brits are clumsy. It's not a asset in tennis.