Coup Droit wrote:

---

And it has become far more common. It's compulsory at many academies and nothing to do with spouting Shakespeare but to do with showing application and rigour in all aspects of life.

McEnroe claims that the physicality of the tour is so hard now that young men actually have a better chance of making it if they do not enter the tour at 18 but go to college and do college tennis and then move on to professional tennis at 21. He would completely disagree that "staying at school runs the risk that "miniscule" - sic- becomes "non-existent", quite the reverse - he makes the point that the demographics of the sport have changed dramatically, which actually favours staying in education, at least until 18.

---

Well, I suppose that there's never going to be evidence one way or the other, but common sense inclines me to think that if one wants to be successful in a walk of life where almost no-one is successful, then one's "application and rigour" needs to be directed entirely in one direction, and everything else can go hang.

And the cynic in me wonders just how good these academic results really are. I'm sure we would all agree that getting a group of testosterone-fuelled young athletes in a classroom is not exactly conducive to quiet application and hard work. (A friend of mine once taught Math at Brown - the Ivy League college in Rhode Island, and a centre of academic excellence. He was told on joining: "Rule One - never fail a football player".)

And as for John McEnroe, he's a guy whose persona is built on having lots of opinions, and the more controversial the better. Where's his evidence? John Isner? That makes, er, ONE example in support of his theory. I can have controversial opinions too, and here's one of them: Mac is talking bullsh*t.

Thanks

Using terms from Nate Silver's trendy book, I don't see much "Signal" in your data. The sample size is far too small. And the first thing in testing a theory, before data analysis, is a sense check: is it likely to be true? And I don't see any good reason for thinking that.

ratty, as for it making your chances 'non-existant'... just a quick look at the womens top 10 in the world shows 3 went to university.... i realise 30% isn't huge but it's certainly not zero as you implied. if you want stats for the top 100 im sure someone has the data somewhere!!!

there is absolutely no harm in having education up to 16... 18 even... and then I personally think university is a great route for both male and female players but at that point it may be the correct decision to pursue a full time career depending on the individual.

quitting when you haven't even completed your GCSE's is mindless.... plus tennis players don't fall into the 'dumb jock' category... most of them are very intelligent, as you need this on the tennis court.

focusing all your efforts on tennis may work for that 1 in a thousand- but what if you get to 30years old, a career high of 200 and no GCSE's to your name? I would say 200 in the world is a good achievement, but you make zero profit and you have no backup plan for the next 30-40years of your working life. you can coach, which is great for some and I'm sure most coaches absolutely love their job- but why would you want to limit your options?

most of our best players have high school and even further education to their name. not everyone can be an andy murray or a roger federer so unless you are having REAL success on the pro tour when you are 15 then I see no reason to stop learning. i really, truly believe that having something in your life other than tennis is a positive for your playing career.

I came on here to see if anyone had any updates on the boys (as mark Hilton is with JWH-Fitzy and Liam this week) and very interested to read everyones thoughts. Thank you also for the free advertising of the Academy!

i can't speak for other Academies and I am certainly not saying we are trying to reinvent the wheel with what we are setting up for the players at the Academy, but hopefully this will give you a little insight into our thought processes..

Number 1 objective at the Academy : Player Welfare. Every decision we make has the players best interest at the heart of the decision. Is telling a load of 12-15 year olds to leave school early to pursue an almost impossible job of making top 50 in the world fair on them? 99/100 i would say No. I hope a young Andy Murray walks through the door though! (even so, i feel it is important that he/she would keep up some form of education- see why below)

Our players have 2 choices of education, One through the International school which is a 'physical' school- this works well for the younger players as the school are amazing sat understanding the demands of International Tennis, so time off and online learning is fully supported while 'on the road'. the second option which has worked for the older players well is seeing a team of tutors 2 hours a day.. This allows for as much tennis/physical/mental training that a player needs throughout the day.

My thought on this, a player in some form of education is

1. More disciplined- time management
2. Does not have the 24 hour a day tennis tennis tennis which the majority of individuals can't handle at a young age.
3. Gives the player options in this life

In my experience a player who continues to educate themselves (even beyond 18 whether it be a language or learning to play a guitar) is a better player to work with. Look at Federer he speaks 5 languages- this is education. Serena Williams is highly educated int he world of fashion. lets not be naive and only look at education in the classical sense of 8 hours in the classroom.

Few of my thoughts..

Enjoyed reading everyones opinions on this subject and certainly not saying we have it 100% right or different to others who are doing what they can for their players..

Dan Kiernan

First break to Fitzy. He leads *3-2

Not looking so good now. 3-5* down

Come on Fitzy

Broke back for *4-5 but then got broken again.

First set down the pan 6-4