Cameron Norrie

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Cameron Norrie

indiana · Tennis legend

But how much does it say for a "system" or "strategy" just to get top 100 players with GBR after their name? It's surely about a lot lot more than that and doing much more to produce an environment that encourages players at all levels.

I don't think they can really take much credit for making lots of promises to Cam, who then comes to the UK, spends months becoming as disillusioned as he ever seems to have been in tennis, and goes off and really finds himself in the US college system. I certainly support him and it's good to have top 100 players ( as Cam will surely undoubtably be soon ) but as for the LTA strategy there it seems they really just managed to ensure that GBR and inadvertently help decide that it was the US for him.

Sorry, I look for a heck of a lot more than a "pragmatic" strategy to have top 100 GBR players however that may be. Might impress some, but surely not particularly the vast majority of people really involved in British tennis, trying to make a living playing the game or following it.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I think you have moved on and are answering a different question, this one was about producing top 100 tennis players.

As stated there isn't a one path fits all and flexibility is the key, and like with most things those that excel are individuals who are self motivated and self directed learners. Most likely through the relative scarcity of talent with the potential to play top 100 tennis, British tennis have always kept the door open through facilitating opportunity via the wild cards it has to give and involvement in DC tennis.

Cam and his family made a decision that they thought was right for him, there was complete buy in, at 18 he wanted to be a student athlete but in the longer term an ATP touring pro. That is very different to being at a talent level at 18 where the second aspiration was unrealistic. He was motivated and very much self directed and the outcome very positive.

In terms of answering the questions you are posing I agree with a lot of what you say hence the first bit of the initial post, the US engage many more players in playing tennis occasionally as a percentage of the population and convert that into a greater proportion of avid players, that's great for other reasons but given that disparity which is what it is our yield of top 100 players at present is better.

They have issues with the age range of the avid players many of whom are older and as a proportion that continues to grow which is bad and good depending on the questions you are trying to answer. Great if one is considering the general health of the more affluent demographic of an aging population for example.

There are other countries that have much more effective strategies, a higher proportion of avid players where the younger players are represented in greater numbers but that ain't the US and it is the US and the USTA that were being touted as the model to adopt.

Spectator · All-time great

Oakland, I think I may not have been clear enough in what I was saying earlier. I do think the US and USTA have an effective strategy, and my marker is not simply number of players in the top echelons: it's how (from an outsider's perspective, admittedly) the players seem to relate to their national federation and to each other. To note the effectiveness of the British strategy, you cite our players in the top 100 - but one of them had little or no input from the LTA until he was already establishing himself as a top player; one (near top 100) came briefly into the system and then left so that while he plays for GB, he's actually primarily supported from the US; one transferred over from a different system; and only two had a prolonged involvement with the British 'system' in their main developmental years. Of those behind, one had a major family feud with the LTA and one has been coached by his family with relatively little LTA support until it became clear that he was a stronger prospect than they initially seemed to have felt. Among others, we've seen some very potentially strong players cut adrift at a point where they still had huge potential for development and wanted to play ... and others who decided they didn't want to play after being in the system, whereas they'd been quite happy outside it. So do we have strong players? Yes. But it's not suggesting to me a friendly, welcoming system that nurtures the best talent most effectively. Interestingly, I think the LTA's best work may have been with Dan Evans: the gifted and preternaturally mature Kyle Edmund would probably have succeeded anywhere; the LTA put a lot into Dan Evans as a young player and then, crucially, Leon Smith and others, especially Julien Hoferlin and Mark Hilton, helped him to realise his potential at a later stage.

It's worth noting, by the way, that I think Leon Smith and Judy Murray, among others, have done some brilliant work in changing aspects of the GB system so that it's more supportive and nurturing in the areas where they have input. I think Louis Cayer is a genius. And I'll be really interested to see what Colin Fleming does in Scotland (and the Scottish system seems to be doing a very good job with some of their young players). No system is static - and the potential in the UK system is huge where you have people with the kind of gifts and talents that the aforementioned - and others - bring.

What I was saying about the US system is not that they are producing world beaters (on the men's side - on the women's, I think any country would take having all four SFists in their home slam). It's that having tried the centralised approach and failed they seem to have put a lot of time (again, admittedly from the outside and based on the reading of a few things here and there) into working with private sector coaches and families so that people can take a variety of routes. They have a whole division designed to encourage university players who want to make the transition to the pro tour, for example: we've seen their summer group that travels around together (often to the detriment of other, including our, players!) ... rather than arbitrarily setting ages for cutting off funding that exclude university players. And, to my mind crucially, of the group of 15-16 year olds that were regarded as their most talented a few years ago, almost all are still in the game and almost all are in the top 200 by the time they're 19/20. I'm not saying their system is perfect, and you could argue that others are better. But I do think they're doing a strong job of using the advantages they have and of maintaining a sense of openness, support and collegiality.

But as noted, since I have no personal experience whatsoever of any national system, all this should be taken with several grains of salt, if not an entire shaker.

-- Edited by Spectator on Wednesday 11th of October 2017 05:59:47 AM

-- Edited by Spectator on Wednesday 11th of October 2017 07:31:55 AM

stevemcqueen · Futures qualifying

Oakland started his discourse with hard data. If only politicians would do the same! The only observation I make is that the data is a snapshot - right now the numbers look good, but they haven't always been great if we take snapshots say 5, 10, 15 years ago. I hope they continue be good over the years to come. I think having a superstar has had a trickle down effect - youngsters watching Andy on telly a decade ago will have been influenced and more of them have picked up a racquet than would have been the case.

I agree with the criticism that we do not have many players who are genuine products of the LTA / NTC. But we are fortunate (unfortunate??!!) that so many wish to become British. Have we ever lost a player to another nation?

christ · Futures level

stevemcqueen wrote:
Have we ever lost a player to another nation?

Does Izzy Wallace count?

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

stevemcqueen wrote:
Oakland started his discourse with hard data. If only politicians would do the same!

Ha. Just think about what you are asking for.

Oakie's post gained responses because those statistics are an inadequate way of gaining understanding and insight to the situation.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

christ wrote:
stevemcqueen wrote:
Have we ever lost a player to another nation?
Does Izzy Wallace count?

Naiktha Bains too. Both are more British than Brydan Klein imo.

EddietheEagle · County player

Norrie's case shows that a player with recognised elite potential comes to the UK and then regresses under LTA tutelage.

And it's not just overseas players either. Much the same was said about Jamie Murray's development, including some sharp remarks from his brother.

Lack of sunlight is just an excuse.

JonH · All-time great

www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/best-of-2017-challenger-by-the-numbers

According to the ATP analysis, Cam has the 9th best win / loss ratio on the Challenger Tour in 2017

James · Satellite level

A cool mini documentary on Cam's early career, his time at TCU and his conversion to the pro game:

www.youtube.com/watch

JonH · All-time great

I see from the entries thread that Cam is playing Newport Beach and Dallas in late January. He may/will then have the DC week on clay, wonder if that schedule will change?

I noticed he wasnt on the alts lists for New York or Delray Beach ATP 250 events on the main tour. Granted he would be around 10-14th alt but I would have thought location and surfaces would suit Cam having a go at the ATP tour - I would have hoped he felt ready to give them a limited bash at this stage even if Challengers are still his main priority for now?

seagull · Hall of fame

Yes I noticed that. I guess his choice at the moment is being seeded in decent challengers or probably seeded in qualifying for ATP?

JonH · All-time great

seagull wrote:
Yes I noticed that. I guess his choice at the moment is being seeded in decent challengers or probably seeded in qualifying for ATP?

True, he may well enter qualifying directly and wanted to wait and see. There dont appear to be any US Challengers after the DC week until Indian Wells which is just before the Indian Wells Masters series event, which is partly why I would have thought going for New York and Delray Beach would make sense.

JonH · All-time great

Looks like Cam is playing those 3 Challengers in the US and then has entered (23rd alt) in the Monterrey ATP 500 event the week before Indian Wells and Miami; presumably he will try and qualify therefore for IW and Miami?