But I suppose one argument is that GB players develop later partly due to our education system and the tendency to not drop out of school until much later than in other countries. Or at least thats the perception anyway.
I doubt whether that perception is true. I don't think that many of our top 1000 players have any A Levels, and most have devoted enormous amounts of time to tennis from the age of 10 or earlier.
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
Suffice to say, certainly on an overall world level, it is twaddle that the mean breakthrough age to the ATP top 100 is 27. As I always instinctively thought, it is quite a few years earlier. As I said, it had passed me by that this had been suggested at all, anyway very interesting to see such figures.
I can and do believe that the average age of these who are in the top 100 at any time has been increasing, if maybe not as significantly as some suggest, and I still personally think that the cut off after age 19 for futures bonuses is too young. There are enough players that break through later for such rigidety to be arguably both unwise and unfair.
Generally to me in funding / bonus matters the LTA make far too much of a distinction between late teens and early twenties and I worry that a recurring effectively "you lot are not good enough, next" policy could cost GB some current decent future prospects and put others off at an early stage. A vicious circle of having fewer and fewer players younger players can relate and aspire to.
I've always felt the root cause of our British tennis problem was the sport's inability to attract each year's young "super athletes" in half decent volumes. The kids who will go on to be top athletes in whichever sport they choose. Mostly they choose football or rugby, but are typically excellent at everything they try. Andy Murray and Rafa could have played football professionally I'm sure if they had chosen to. Christian Wade was at my boys' school, and was already in the GB age group basketball team, when he was shown a rugby ball for the first time in his life.....!
Almost none of these kids ever choose tennis here. Because the clubs are often so unwelcoming to kids, because kit and courts are too expensive, because tennis coaching is generally poor here, because tennis is barely played in schools, and because the trials and junior competitions are dominated by kids of rich families or kids from tennis families, with experience and connections. I know there are many exceptions, but I still think the general thrust rings true......
Given all of this, the key actions from the LTA to create stars of the future, or 20 James Wards, will all need to be about grass roots changes, and none of these have been announced yet. I do agree that some of the funding cuts to elite tennis seem over simplistic and ill thought through, but perhaps the new regime have decided to write-off the current crop of 18 year old and above players as "not their problem"......perhaps tough love might work for 3 or 4 of them.......so the new regime wins either way. I suspect we'll see a revised elite funding approach in 3 years or so.
Having said all the above, I loved the suggestion from one poster than any LTA funding for players post juniors might be restricted to, say, a maximum of 4 years.....but the player would determine when the tap was ON and when it was OFF, no age limit. Would help post injury or post college.
At one of the tennis clubs I belonged to in France, we used to pair up with the local football club and when the football club had try-out sessions at the beginning of term for kids, we would give out flyers for the tennis club's 'open day', and vice versa. The city council also organised a big introduction day for all sports at the beginning of each school year and all the sports would have stands, and little games, and - in the case of tennis - a couple of courts that the different clubs in the town would share as part of a promotion package.
I also thought the four-year tap idea for funding was ingenious. The idea of an 'easy' loan, like a student loan, has also been mooted and seems a good possible idea - invest in your future, if you believe in it, and have a lifetime, on easy repayment terms, to pay it back (not from tennis earnings, but - like a student - from whatever, as long as you have the means).
But if the break-through top 100 age is 22 and the the average top 100 age is 27/28, it doesn't makes a difference to what the LTA should be doing i.e. they should be creating a structure, overall, with all the funds at their disposal, that produces a whole heap of players ranked 500-1000 or so, as well as a few in the top 100. At whatever age. You wouldn't have Man City/Chelsea if you didn't also have Luton and Bury.
NB another nice site for stat-heads, which shows the top 20 players of each age group, is:
Yes, I love the 30+ numbers too - quite amazing, some of them.
And also agree - great to see Kyle and Liam well in the mix.
Especially Liam. And it makes me wonder what would be the case, with the new funding rules, if Liam were starting last year again this year.
i.e. he was age 19, and about WR 500. Not particularly impressive, really. Certainly not by the standards the LTA seem to be setting. Yet, with a lot of thanks (presumably) to the LTA's help last year, he had a stellar year. Life-changing maybe. Would that have been possible if the LTA had 'cut' him off as not making the grade?
Indeed, it's very much a mirror image of Luke Bambridge now - a year younger and also about WR 500. Where does he stand with the LTA? A potential top 200 at end-2015, aka Liam? Or too old, not high enough ranked, let's move on to the 14 year-olds ?
Well, better truthfulness than flattery. One would hope people might recognise that.
Indeed, was just reading the Pope's list of 15 ills he'd like to see cured in the Roman Curia - one of which was glorifying one's bosses in hopes of preferential treatment. LTA, take note!
I kind of worry a bit that the LTA may have Arsene Wenger Syndrome though. The more and more people unitedly, and apparently logically, point out seeming major deficiencies in their thinking, the more stubborn they may be in following their own path.
(There may well be English links too - happy to translate if anyone needs it).
Having just found this site, I'm a little late to this thread, however I think that some of my personal experiences may shed a different light.
Back in 2009 I was mainly based at the NTC with a player I was 1-on-1 with (privately funded). We were on court with Julien and Dan Evans. The players were playing a tight practice set. towards the end of the set Dan got broken and lost control and started tubing balls into the Priory. What I was horrified at was that Julien did noting about it and just laughed it off.
After the practice I said to Julien that I was worried about how Dan's behaviour would affect my player as he looked up to him. His answer was even more amazing/depressing. He told me that Dan had a lot of player power and if he got tough with him and it went wrong he could lose his job.
So I agree with what Julien said in his interview but have little respect for it. I don't want to just pick on him as this sort of thing happens a lot.
But the ones who come worst by far are the LTA - after all, the 'corporate' message comes from on high.
'Player power' ??? Dictating policy ??? In the UK ??? and Dan Evans, of all people ???
This is, of course, assuming that Julien's telling the truth but it rather ties in with other similar stories so it, unfortunately, definitely has a good ring of truth about it. Staggering . . .
Basically the NTC increasingly appears to have been a bit of a mess in at least some aspects, with as CD the major responsibilty for that surely lieing with LTA chiefs.
It becomes more and more understandable why many results from these players largely based at the NTC rather underwhelmed ( although folk being all different, it seemed to suit a few ).
So much talk about hard work and standards and this stuff is going on at their flagship NTC