A lot of the other European countries have sports like handball and volleyball though, Not an expert on either but I assume good movement and height would be useful in volleyball and fast hands and a powerful throw in handball.
We do have cricket and rugby as an alternative but that's no excuse as every country has some other sport to compete with. Also France are just about to win the Grand Slam and their rugby success doesn't seem to be harming their progress in tennis.
I would still blame cricket for generating more interest, publicity and sponsorship in England. It is the main summer sport and a more realistic proposition for a professional sporting career than elitist tennis, where unless you break into the top 150 you have to have some financial security behind you to continue into your twenties.
The US has also been faltering as American football, baseball and basketball take the cream of their sporting talent. It is Europe which produces the most top players. Partly due to the egalitarian sporting traditions of the former Eastern Block countries and partly because the long Mediterranean summer and lack of outdoor compitition from other sports has made tennis very popular in Spain and France.
One contribution to the debate I did notice was someone who thought the answer for British tennis was to disband the LTA and put everything in the charge of the All England Club! Oh I say!
But county cricket is hardly in great shape either. The county championship is dying, most 4 day matches don't even attract 100 people, hence why a lot are trying to get into the IPL to make a bit of money. It's a bit like tennis in the sense that the national team are very well supported and followed quite closely while very few actually follow the county game (excpet twenty20 which is a bit of a novelty)
Tennis is the same in that Wimbledon is very well supported and everyone watches it while no one follows the Futures circuit the rest of the year. The only difference is that England play a lot more often than Wimbledon and Queens are on tv, making cricket more attractive.
Cricket is an interesting comparisson. With all the focus on Roger Draper, it stired a vague memory that the Chairman on the England & Wales Cricket Board, Giles Clarke, did the job on a voluntary basis because he loved cricket. I was about to make the comparison with Draper's renumeration being a disproportionate amount of the LTA budget, when I realised Clarke is Chariman, not CEO - David Collier is in the equvilient position for cricket and is paid.
So who is the Chariman of the LTA? What's he doing when the competence of his CEO and organisation as whole is being called into question? Apparently he's a 'president' rather than a chairman, and the post is held by Derek Howorth, and the answer to what he is doing seems to be 'not much'. The guy is practically invisible. I did a search of the archives on google news and got 8 stories since his appointment in December 2008, most of which were about him "attending" some event or other, rather than doing anything productive. Search for his name on this board: 0 hits. In the same period, Giles Clarke popped up in the news according to Google in over 3,000 stories.
-- Edited by RBBOT on Thursday 18th of March 2010 11:04:06 PM
yeh Josh the county game might be dying but as far as talented youngsters are concerned they aren't short of guys like Broad, Steve Finn, Joe Denly and Hamilton-Brown on top of the established leading players like Pietersen and Strauss
I don't think the issue for British tennis is whether the county cricket game is dying. The issue is whether a young talented sportsman plays cricket (where about 300 British players make a living, and about 25 make a very good living) or tennis (where 2 make a living, and 1 makes a very good living).
A possibly simplistic view is that you will only get more top 100 British tennis male players by taking them away from cricket when they are under 10.
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
Greg just discussed briefly his DC captain aspirations on sky sports. He said he had a chat with Martens on Friday but don't expect an announcement on the next captain any time soon as Martens still has to interview all the other potential canditates and will not be rushed into any decision.
When asked about his working relationship with Andy he just said that Andy needs to decide whether he wants to play DC on more of a full time basis. Suggesting that he should have played against Lithania.
He didn't choose to publicly criticise JL but said that losing to Lithuania was unacceptable.
Loosing to Lithuania was totally unacceptable and yes you can say all you like about the players and whether Andy should have made himself available (the inference been we would have thrashed them 5-0 if he had)
but in reality we should not have lost to Poland in September if JL's selections had been better Flemski instead of Andy & Ross on the Saturday Wardy instead of Evo or even once it was coming down to the final rubber Flembo instead of Evo for that rubber would have seen us win that tie so we would not have been playing Lithuania! and for that alone notwithstanding all his other weird and bizarre decisions he had to go
I would throw my weight (considerably it is) behind Greg I have seen him at work with the young players at futures, the positive vibes, the talks, the thumbs up at change of ends ect for me make him the perfect candidate for where we are at today whether he would still be the one if we had three Andy's I don't know (we should be so lucky)
Seems RD is listening a little too much to Andy. I think the rest of the guys need someone they respect and who has experience of DC in the past. I hear JL has joined Greg in critisising Andy for ducking out of the Lithuania tie. It saddens me. Did anyone really expect Andy to disrupt his schedule to play at such a low level?
Mark Petchey took Jamie Baker to task a little while ago for backing the LTA. He asked if he had seen the state of his local park courts lately. Well I found myself in Glasgow's Victoria Park last week and had a look. They are ashphalt and aside from a poor motheaten excuse for a net the courts are now being used for basketball. They were very busy! This is not fair criticism as the large Scotsoun complex with its indoor and outdoor courts is only a hundred yards away! There is also an indoor facility nearby I believe and well kept public park courts in a park not far away. These are all in the west of the city.
Elsewhere there is something of a tennis desert. My own local park courts were buildozed to make way for a motorway 35 years ago. My school courts were built over to provide a swimming pool about the same time. New schools built by the PFI initiative have notoriously poor PE facilities as this would cost the private builders a lot more money. So although Glasgow has new facilities they are all grouped in the one area with far less courts spread around the city. But this is the fault of the local council, not the LTA!