LTA Funding and Participation

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

RE: LTA Funding and Participation

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well said, Heather.

Interesting comments about the coaches.

And great to hear the positive comments about Katy Dunne.

PaulM · Tennis legend

It's always interesting that it's often those with less natural talent that seem to be the hardest workers (Anne, Hev, Katie OB, Bally come immediately to mind on the womens side as having tremendous work ethics). I guess it's because they know they need to work twice as hard to make up for the starting deficiency, as opposed to others who rely on their talent.

Spectator · All-time great

An interesting point (though my own sense is that Ms Watson in particular is pretty strong on the natural talent side). I seem to recall a running discussion a few years ago on here, where somebody pointed out that the ability to work hard was as much a gift as (say) ball-striking ability - lack either, and you'll never get far.

Interestingly, they've done some studies in academics that indicate that the worst thing you can do is tell a child that they're good at something: it can make them get easily frustrated if there's something they don't understand ("But I ought to get it! I'm good at it!") and lead them to underperform generally. The best thing that you can do, apparently, is praise effort.

korriban · Challenger level

Spectator wrote:
An interesting point (though my own sense is that Ms Watson in particular is pretty strong on the natural talent side). I seem to recall a running discussion a few years ago on here, where somebody pointed out that the ability to work hard was as much a gift as (say) ball-striking ability - lack either, and you'll never get far.

Interestingly, they've done some studies in academics that indicate that the worst thing you can do is tell a child that they're good at something: it can make them get easily frustrated if there's something they don't understand ("But I ought to get it! I'm good at it!") and lead them to underperform generally. The best thing that you can do, apparently, is praise effort.

A lot of the most interesting theories on the sporting success debate are set out and discussed in Matthew Syed's excellent book, "bounce". The argument is that talented kids (or even untalented kids who are repeatedly told by their parents how gifted they are - we've all come across those) are more likely to not try or make excuses when faced with a challenge beyond their current abilities for fear of failing......and therefore not being praised or regarded as talented any more..........So praise ONLY effort instead

I'm not a big fan of psycho-babble, but this seems to have a ring of truth in it. I think we have perhaps only 2 or 3 outstanding natural talents in GB tennis today. But only 1 who also has the 2 other key traits: off-the-scale will to win, and off-the-scale work ethic to improve every aspect of their game. Arguably these 2 other traits trump the first.......Maria Sharapova springs to mind.

-- Edited by korriban on Saturday 28th of June 2014 11:06:23 AM

-- Edited by korriban on Saturday 28th of June 2014 11:07:41 AM

Ratty · County player

It was probably me who suggested that the desire to work hard is genetic. It's pretty mainstream in psychology that all of the physical and mental aspects of a human being (or any animal) are passed down through their parents' genes, but expressing such sentiments is likely to result in accusations of being a Nazi. As indeed happened to me on this board when I suggested that Dan Evans had as much control over his work-ethic as he had over the colour of his eyes. And of course to all scientists who are mad enough to comment publicly on the correlation between race and IQ.

I've just bought Bounce on Korri's recommendation (£3.99 on Kindle, isn't Amazon great!) The main hypothesis is clearly true, that practice and determination trump talent, but I'll be interested to read the evidence for the assertion that parents have any significant post-birth influence over their children. This is directly contrary to the radical hypothesis (again now mainstream) in Judith Rich Harris's "The Nurture Assumption", which is that parents' only influence is genetic, and that the only other significant influence is from peers. (Read the 1-star reviews on Amazon.com for a flavour of the dangers of daring to challenge the consensus on child development.)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Following on the wildcard debate (which was on other threads too) the latest BT sport article - Michael Downey welcomes Hoferlin criticism - says that next year the WC criteria will be stricter, saying that:

". . .while British players are likely to find Wimbledon wild cards harder to come by next year.

Currently, players in the top 250 in the rankings are nearly always recommended for a wild card, but from next year they will also need to show they are making progress."

indiana · Tennis legend

Interesting.

This year, putting aside my more general wider thoughts on Slam WCs, I was supportive of Sam and Tara ( two of the more questioned WCs ) getting their MD WCs. To my mind, they met the WR 250 target, and whilst their form has dipped a bit of late, there were some real exaggerations by some of how bad their form supposedly was.

So, certainly for players tight for the top 250 it looks like "progress" will now be a real issue, and indeed could effect some higher ranked players, say with regard to attitude.

Sounds fair on the face of it, though I would hope "progress" is not too rankings specific ( not more matrices, please ).

The difficulty then, I guess is you then get into more subjective judgements, so it's not straightforward, and you then are relying more on fair minded folk making the relevant decisions.

Anyway, at least it may be good if the being inside the top 250 is seen as less of a right / expectation of a MD WC, though it was already no guarantee.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I agree, indy.

In fact, I think Tara and Sam would may well probably both qualify if you needed to show progress as well as being inside the top 250. After all, both achieved career highs within the last 12 months. And, yes, you can't just look at the last few months.

All the men too would also fit, apart from James, it seems to me. And he's produced some stellar stuff for the Davis Cup (don't know if that'll be relevant). However, the principle of 'showing progress' is no bad thing, as you say, if it gets rid of the 'entitlement' argument.

Like you, I do hope they're aren't more matrices !!! There's a new head of the LTA and a new head of player development - I'd trust them both and give them discretion.

In my view, the best comments in some ways (although less reported because it's less newsworthy than 'spoilt' players) are those against the LTA staff who are 'entrenched' in their positions and having an easy life, and the fact that this will be significantly cut. I bet there's far more problems of 'entitlement' there than with the players (even if that could possibly be improved too).

PaulM · Tennis legend

It's very important to the players that wc for Wimbledon are objective. In the past they were subjective and favouritism played a part. For the past few years players have known where they stood and decisions are not contentious.

Tightening criteria is fine as long as its clearly defined. If it becomes wooly its a big step back

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
It's very important to the players that wc for Wimbledon are objective. In the past they were subjective and favouritism played a part. For the past few years players have known where they stood and decisions are not contentious.

Tightening criteria is fine as long as its clearly defined. If it becomes wooly its a big step back

Favourtism played a part because of the nature of those in control.

If you have faith and trust in those in control, then that shouldn't be an issue. And that is partly what they are being paid for i.e. they are paid large salaries because they have to make important and difficult decisions, not just apply some algorithm-based criteria (which of course they will have helped formulate originally but what about after?).

korriban · Challenger level

Ratty wrote:
It was probably me who suggested that the desire to work hard is genetic. It's pretty mainstream in psychology that all of the physical and mental aspects of a human being (or any animal) are passed down through their parents' genes, but expressing such sentiments is likely to result in accusations of being a Nazi. As indeed happened to me on this board when I suggested that Dan Evans had as much control over his work-ethic as he had over the colour of his eyes. And of course to all scientists who are mad enough to comment publicly on the correlation between race and IQ.

I've just bought Bounce on Korri's recommendation (£3.99 on Kindle, isn't Amazon great!) The main hypothesis is clearly true, that practice and determination trump talent, but I'll be interested to read the evidence for the assertion that parents have any significant post-birth influence over their children. This is directly contrary to the radical hypothesis (again now mainstream) in Judith Rich Harris's "The Nurture Assumption", which is that parents' only influence is genetic, and that the only other significant influence is from peers. (Read the 1-star reviews on Amazon.com for a flavour of the dangers of daring to challenge the consensus on child development.)

I hope you enjoy the book. It's interesting in tennis circles that, whilst there are a few famous examples of superstars who have been grilled and trained by their parents on the tennis court from almost the cradle............there are countless more of child "prodigies" who no doubt had received the same treatment, destroyed all before them in their age groups as kids, but clearly had relatively little natural talent or athletic ability.........disappearing without a trace as time went on. Tennis is one of those sports where an 11 year old with 6 or 7 years of intensive training/coaching but limited ability is still likely to beat a highly talented athletic kid who has 3 or 4 other sports on the go and whose parents aren't "tennis parents" or who can't afford to fund the dream.......

........is it really likely that, based on genuine talent, athletic ability and long term potential, the son of the outgoing LTA CEO just happens to be in the top 2 or 3 boys in the entire country for his age. Possible, yes (and I'm sure he's a great little player). But likely.......almost impossible.......It's a very difficult thing to calibrate, especially when the "influence" of tennis parents who know the system is brought to bear.

Spectator · All-time great

If we would like to feel good about the LTA in at least one area, we can, however, look at the USTA. I don't really follow what's happened (just seen things skimming Zootennis), but it looks as if they decided that the system for qualifying for nationals was favouring people who had the money to travel, rather than people who stayed local, but were quite good. Fair point, and good on them for doing something to recognise the issue. But the new system of "sectional endorsement" they put in doesn't seem to have been ideal, with the result that their national U18 tournament has now placed Collin Altamirano (who played some of ours in Futures a few weeks ago), Jared Donaldson (who won two or three of said futures), and Noah Rubin, among others, into the qualies, and left Stefan Kozlov (ITF 2), Michael Mmoh (ITF 11) and Francis Tiafoe (ITF 6) out entirely and in need of WCs. Excluding six of your best players seems quite a peculiar way of running a national championship ... (Unlike GB national championships, this one really matters, primarily as the winner gets a WC to ... is it qualies? MD? ... of the US Open).

-- Edited by Spectator on Wednesday 9th of July 2014 06:36:54 AM

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
Interesting.

This year, putting aside my more general wider thoughts on Slam WCs, I was supportive of Sam and Tara ( two of the more questioned WCs ) getting their MD WCs. To my mind, they met the WR 250 target, and whilst their form has dipped a bit of late, there were some real exaggerations by some of how bad their form supposedly was.

So, certainly for players tight for the top 250 it looks like "progress" will now be a real issue, and indeed could effect some higher ranked players, say with regard to attitude.

Sounds fair on the face of it, though I would hope "progress" is not too rankings specific ( not more matrices, please ).

The difficulty then, I guess is you then get into more subjective judgements, so it's not straightforward, and you then are relying more on fair minded folk making the relevant decisions.

Anyway, at least it may be good if the being inside the top 250 is seen as less of a right / expectation of a MD WC, though it was already no guarantee.

Certainly will be interesting Indy - I will elaborate tomorrow.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

A131 wrote:
indiana wrote:
Interesting.

This year, putting aside my more general wider thoughts on Slam WCs, I was supportive of Sam and Tara ( two of the more questioned WCs ) getting their MD WCs. To my mind, they met the WR 250 target, and whilst their form has dipped a bit of late, there were some real exaggerations by some of how bad their form supposedly was.

So, certainly for players tight for the top 250 it looks like "progress" will now be a real issue, and indeed could effect some higher ranked players, say with regard to attitude.

Sounds fair on the face of it, though I would hope "progress" is not too rankings specific ( not more matrices, please ).

The difficulty then, I guess is you then get into more subjective judgements, so it's not straightforward, and you then are relying more on fair minded folk making the relevant decisions.

Anyway, at least it may be good if the being inside the top 250 is seen as less of a right / expectation of a MD WC, though it was already no guarantee.
Certainly will be interesting Indy - I will elaborate tomorrow.

I agree Indy that it may be a good thing if being inside the top 250 is seen as less of a right/expectation but up to now by and large anyone who has been inside has not missed out. I certainly can' think of many who have (if any) and also it has been irrespective of whether their ranking has gone up and down from the previous year. This is one of the reasons I have never been a fan of the top 250 rule, which is probably not much of a surprise to you or other regular posters, but credit to Downey for at least picking up on this. One of the other reasons I've never liked it much - aside from the fact that it is only of benefit to British players - is that players can potentially to some degree manipulate their ranking by playing smaller/softer tournaments (eg weak futures events) to try and reach the required criteria. It may have been an improvement on what went before but I still think ( and this goes for all the slams) that the whole system needs overhauling, not just a bit of tinkering which is what may happen here.

I don't think the top 250 rule has been a wild success either - well not much of a success at all. From the 2008 championships right up to and including this year's championships we have handed out a total of 49 wildcards. Only 5 victories have come from those 49, by far the worst of the grand slam nations - as far as singles go. Yet the LTA/AELTC persist with it.

I've always felt the rule is a bit like saying to a bunch of students before they sit an exam that those sitting on the right and in the middle have to reach 80% to pass but those of you sitting on the left only need 50%. I remember one poster on a previous thread - I forget who it was - stating they felt to reach the top 250 in a competitive sport such as tennis was a phenomenal achievement. It was the first time I'd heard this being described as phenomenal and at the time I thought it came across as a rather desperate attempt to try and justify British players such as Samantha Murray and Tara Moore having a place in the main draw. Since then, I have tried just to look it from another angle and realise that this may not be quite as daft as it first sounded - if I was ranked inside the top 250 then that is still a relatively small amount of people in the whole world, who in theory at least, are better than you. It is still not a view I completely share because would we all describe everyone inside the top 250 as phenomenal tennis players. We tend not to usually and from my experience at Wimbledon, and I'm not naming names, and all things considered there were some who I thought were nowhere near phenomenal. Some were barely average imho.

As a compromise to all other opinions I've heard as as far as awarding slam MDWC I would reduce all slams to say 4 wc's and:-

a) allow up to 2 homegrown players amongst those 4 in addition to any who may qualify directly or via qualifying

b) one for any player whose ranking has suffered through injury/illness having previously established as themselves as top 50 if the PR does not cover this situation and

c) award one merit based wc - such as the AELTC/LTA awarding the winner of the Nottingham Challenger whichever country they may hail from(which I have come around more to thinking is not a bad idea) and it is not just because of the success of Nick Kyrgios but it is the principle of having to win the whole tournament (which is even more matches than slam qualifying) or the US Open awarding one to the best college player which does have a history of producing very good players (Isner, Steve Johnson, Bradley Klahn, Todd Martin and even further back Tim Mayotte for those who remember him) I am certainly not in favor of slams awarding these reciprocal wc's or creating situations/scenarios where only those from France, US or Australia benefit or will gain benefit. For example - Robbie Ginepri getting a wc to the main draw of the recent French Open.

I somehow think this won't happen anytime soon.