What do U think needs to be done by GB Tennis to reverse the dreadful state of British tennis in the world top 100?

Ratty · County player

RE: What do U think needs to be done by GB Tennis to reverse the dreadful state of British tennis in the world top 100?

Ratty · County player

steven wrote:
I'm not sure where Ratty gets the idea that Andy only spent 6 months training in Spain - I always thought it was 3-4 years and these references appear to corroborate that: http://www.sanchez-casal.com/adm/uploads/documents/andy_murray.pdf & http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/04/catching-the-tape-at-home-with-andy.html

Oh how these myths grow.

I am fairly certain that Andy spent the last few months of 2002 at Sanchez, and after that spent the odd week or two there on an ad hoc basis, often accompanied by his regular coach Leon Smith.

A quick look at his junior and senior tournament schedule - which incidentally involved many, many extensive trips with the LTA - fully bears this out.

Yes of course Emilio Sanchez sort of infers that he spent 4 years living there. Just like Bollettieri claim that anyone who ever sets foot on one of their courts "trains" there.

(But I may as well go and bang my head against a wall - I know that if one has the entrenched belief that "LTA is crap, anything Spanish is brilliant", then nothing is going to shake that belief, no matter what the evidence. Same sort of underlying psychology as 9/11 conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial.)

steven · Tennis legend

I don't have an 'entrenched belief' that anything LTA is (automatically) crap and anything Spanish is (automatically) brilliant, as should have been obvious from the rest of my post, I'm just trying to work out the facts on how long he spent there.

I'd got the 3-4 years figure from the references the Murrays have made to it in the past, I was just trying to check whether there were any written references to the length of time he spent there.

This article in the Telegraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jan/16/andy-murray-tennis-life-story covering his coaching history suggests Leon was his coach from March 1999-August 2004 and Pato Álvarez was his coach from mid-2003-July 2005 which, even if there was some overlap, probably coincides with the time he was mainly based in Spain, even if he was off playing tournaments a fair bit of the time just like any other tennis player would be.

Salmon · Tennis legend

Nothing for men's tennis, it's a lost cause because everything that could have been tried has probably been tried.

Salmon · Tennis legend

Ratty wrote:
With respect, I think the problem facing anyone who has the job of sustainably improving British tennis rankings is rather more fundamental than tweaking the junior tournament structure.
It's surely just a numbers game. Say countries like Spain, France & the UK have about 750,000 babies born every year.
Maybe about 1% (7,500) are prepared to put in the effort to try to become international sporting champions, and maybe about 1% of them (75) will be successful.
If the LTA can get all 7,500 of those Brit babies born in 2012 to play tennis, we'll jump to the top of the tennis world in about 20 years time. But this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
For a sporting youngster in the UK, cricket is a much more sensible choice. It's a more sociable game, and for the parent it's miles cheaper and doesn't take nearly so much of a time commitment. And several hundred Brits earn a living at playing cricket, whereas maybe 10 (max) earn a living from tennis.
So enjoy the odd random blips like Murray, Watson and Robson, because (IMO) their success does not provide any evidence - no matter what LTA spin doctors say - that things are getting sustainably better.

Is the cause as simple as demographics, though? Since we're discussing cricket, India probably has more people training to be cricketers than the rest of the cricketing nations put together and then doubled, but they aren't dominating cricket like they should be.

On the other hand, West Indies of the 80s had a tiny population and and even more modest amount of funding, but managed to dominate cricket for more than a decade.

It also doesn't explain how Australia manages to punch above its weight in almost all popular sports despite having a population of 23 millions. Yes, they are a sporting nation like no other and (proportional) participation rates are healthy in everything, but it doesn't explain their success at so many disciplines. Do we honestly think that if China gets all the coaches and facilities that Australia has and tells everyone to become a sportsperson, the Chinese will simultaneously become better than Australia at cricket, football, two codes of rugby, hockey and God knows what else in 30 years time?

I think there's something far more intangible behind sporting success and British (men's) tennis probably doesn't have it. Spanish tennis does and that's the reason for them doing well. And perhaps the participation rate is high because of the success?

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Helen40 wrote:
I thought this was a discussion about how to improve things, not to debate whether they are bad or not?

The fact that this has gone off topic again, with the discussion going to 'why are we here', instead of 'what can we do from here', leads me to question whether it's the excuse culture that has landed us here in the first place...

steven · Tennis legend

insomniacfolder wrote:
In the 2 hour long BBC Radio 5 Live programme "An Audience With Andy Murray", originally broadcast on 9th February 2012, Andy himself (along with Judy & Jamie) spoke at length about his time in Spain and this very topic - what can be done to improve GB representation in the Top 100.

He was particularly insistent and passionate about the Spanish method. i.e. They have one, all coaches teach the same idea and doctrine. Here he felt it's very much each to their own.

That is at least what I remember of it. I have searched for a complete version in the hope that it would provide clarity regarding the issues, straight from the horses mouth - his tenure in Spain, the duration of it and the weight he himself gives it in his development.
However, in their wisdom the BBC have removed the podcast that was available of the broadcast, and I am unable to find another source that carries the full programme, or the relevant sections.
If anyone else can find a resource, perhaps they wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction?

One thing I could never quite get about this - as you say, Muzz talked recently about the benefits of the Spanish approach of teaching everyone to do the same things ... yet don't the Murrays blame Jamie being forced into too rigid a regime that didn't play to his strengths for the damage done by going to England to train at a young age?

-- Edited by steven on Monday 16th of July 2012 11:11:43 PM

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

In the 2 hour long BBC Radio 5 Live programme "An Audience With Andy Murray", originally broadcast on 9th February 2012, Andy himself (along with Judy & Jamie) spoke at length about his time in Spain and this very topic - what can be done to improve GB representation in the Top 100.

He was particularly insistent and passionate about the Spanish method. i.e. They have one, all coaches teach the same idea and doctrine. Here he felt it's very much each to their own.

That is at least what I remember of it. I have searched for a complete version in the hope that it would provide clarity regarding the issues, straight from the horses mouth - his tenure in Spain, the duration of it and the weight he himself gives it in his development.

However, in their wisdom the BBC have removed the podcast that was available of the broadcast, and I am unable to find another source that carries the full programme, or the relevant sections.

If anyone else can find a resource, perhaps they wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction?

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Obviously everyone else has to be forced into the rigid regime that happens to be right for you ;)

Seriously, I didn't think much of Andy's suggestion in that interview at the time he made it; teaching everyone something the same way is what you settle for when you don't have the resources available to tailor the teaching to the individual students' needs, it's not a goal.

Something to be considered is if you decide at a young age to transplant yourself to an academy in a different country in order persue a career, move away from your family and friends, you are likely to work harder at it and be better focused than if you stayed living at home. Therefore, you would do better even the coaching quality was the same. And it's not all one-way traffic with the going abroad to train - e.g. Timea Babos left Hungary as a teenager to train in Hertfordshire for 4 years using British coaches, and she seems to be climbing the rankings nicely with a WTA tour win aged 18 and is 54th in the race.

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

First, compared to the other learned folk hereabouts, I'm no expert, by a million miles, so apologies if I mistake some points of fact. Second, and I add this having finished writing, this is quite rambling, and I edited a lot out (believe it or not), so apologies for that.

That's a good point.
From what I remember, Andy was saying that the Spanish system might let talented prospects slip away - if they are unable to mesh with the particular regime.
However, more prospects will prosper to a greater degree than under most every other method.
So, although you might lose a few of the really good ones, you will keep some really good ones, you will also have greater chance of maximising the potential of a greater percentage of the total number passing through the system.
If an individual didn't like it, that was fine, and they were free to go their own way. The system remained though and if you entered it, you either adapted to it or were dropped, because the Spanish Tennis Authorities believed in their way and had decent proof to show it's efficacy.
No system will be able to keep all of the brightest junior prospects in the sport and make them into world beaters, but having a uniformity and rigour of approach, it was argued, minimises the attrition and maximises realistic returns.
It also helps realise whether young talents have the discipline and application for the grind at professional level, and as everyone 'sings from the same hymn sheet', moving in the country, or changing coaches has a minimised impact in the overall development of the player as they will be taught the same method wherever, and with whomever they end up in the country.

In that context, yes, Jamie Murray probably would be one of the ones that passed through the net, and never got the most out his potential as the Spanish system would force him to play a style that did not naturally come to him and he (possibly?) would not enjoy, perhaps leading to the abandonment of aspirations of professional tennis altogether.
Conversely, a Chris Eaton, say, might come out of it as a solid top 100 player.

All of which is open to conjecture, and potential allegations of syllogistic logic or 'availability heuristic' (conveniently, no one ever seems to be able to define the line between observation, cause and effect and due process and 'availability heursitic' is, do they?).
I can back it up only with the observation that Spain seem to do very well thank you very much, in Women's and Men's singles. They also do about as well as anybody of late in having a different number of players win Grand Slams - which seems a more useful measure than total grand slams won, as Nadal's monumental achievements overrun things. But, ~since 1990: Bruguera, Moya, Costa, Ferrero, Nadal, and of course Arantxa and Conchita - Several of those with multiple wins, a pretty good haul.

Before Spain's system of the current generations was engineered into its current, highly effective form, they were also a little hit and miss. On great player (Santana) and two other Grand Slam champions (Orantes & Gimeno - though, as a caveat, I looked that last bit up on Wikipedia!). They seemed a nation much like we are today, a lot of potential, and the occasional world beater, but no regular mechanism to maximise their potential.

Of course, the heart of this question is not just uniformity, but what system to use and how to ensure it consistently evolves to maintain it's competitive advantage - the Spanish seem to have found one for now that excels.
Others have taken, or are taking the opposite journey. The fate of Australian or Swedish Tennis, both with impeccable pedigree, are struggling of late to imprint themselves consistently in the upper echelons of the game. Soderling and Stosur are the proven examples, and we'd be delighted to have either, but compared to their past that is scant reward. After the generation of Johansson, Rafter and Hewitt (perhaps a little premature to old Lleyton!) the infrastructure of those two countries have struggled to produce the quality and numbers of players that they once enjoyed. One possible reason could be that their systems have not adapted to the changing demands of professional tennis, particularly the increased global competition.

GB obviously want to implement the most effective and adaptable system possible. Would the Spanish system work for the British mindset and resources - the numbers have been well covered previously. Andy Murray didn't see why not, Jonathan Overend disagreed and though that we would need to find our own identity for coaching, but agreed that it should probably be uniform, as harsh as it can be, it did seem to offer the best returns for your investment.

The argument of time scale based on pure numbers is an interesting one. The figure of 20 years before your changes today have a noticeable effect has been suggested. Again, it is Spain that provides an interesting case to show that this seeming logic is not as solid as it might seem.
Prior to the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, Spain had competed in 15 of the 20 Modern Summer Olympics. In all that time Spanish sport was very much organised on an ad hoc, disjointed basis. in 15 games, they won a total of 5 gold medals. Yes, really, just five!
Spain began addressing the potential embarrassment a gold-less home games would cause just 8 years before the games - investing heavily in infrastructure, and particularly foreign coaches.
In 1992, they won 13 gold medals, and 22 medals in total - both figures more than their combined total in history up to that point.
A similar situation happened with Greece on an even more accelerated schedule after learning that they had been awarded the 2004 games in September 1997, results were apparent even in the 2000 games, and continued to their home games, after which funding was savagely cut, and, well, the Greek economy, as we know, is now a different story altogether.
Of course, with Spain there is a lot more going on, the end of Franco (1975) and fascism led to a more progressive sporting culture, that might have tied in to the ~20 year cycle mooted, amongst other considerations. Anecdotally, Spaniards (and, yes Catalans too - onn this they agree) will tell you tough that the "Miracle of Barcelona" took at most 10 years.

10 years is still a lot of time to wait, and we still don't have any idea exactly of what our system should be, but in answer to the original question: "What do U think needs to be done by GB Tennis to reverse the dreadful state of British tennis in the world top 100?" - I suggest that the identification of a system to be taught and practiced uniformly throughout the areas receiving their funding from GB Tennis would be a good start.

A very long answer to say almost nothing I know. There are other far better qualified minds than me to thrash out the detail. I'm just hoping to make a compelling case for it as a concept.

I would also do away with preferrential wild cards for GB players for all tournaments in the UK, including Wimbledon. Qualifying Wild Cards, perhaps, but never to amin draw - injury/exceptional factors aside.

Why? Nadal/Federer/Djokovic/Sharapova/Henin etc etc don't/didn't get an habitual easy ride into any grand slam by virtue of their nationallity, as they have the misfortune of coming from countries not graced with historically hosting an event. Smaller tournaments are certainly more arguable, and other countries do, I think (?), favour their own (If only to fill out the numbers in some cases), but at very least the distinction between award for achievement and providing experience needs to be examined.