No idea on the funding, but the thing now is if the set up or the training group does not suit there are choices to switch to.(Bath/Nottingham/Gosling/Bolton/overseas). The benefit of this is we are seeing a lot more players swopping training groups and locations and finding the right combination.
What Rusedski was indicating, I think, was that LTA-player contracts are subject to a clawback provision whereby development funding is provided now in exchange for a portion of the player's future tournament prizes. At what level that kicks in or whether it was still under discussion was not detailed. I didn't catch the full conversation.
What Rusedski was indicating, I think, was that LTA-player contracts are subject to a clawback provision whereby development funding is provided now in exchange for a portion of the player's future tournament prizes. At what level that kicks in or whether it was still under discussion was not detailed. I didn't catch the full conversation.
Thanks, Eddie.
That's interesting. (Hope their legal-beagles draw up the contracts a bit better than the Chinese ones did with Li Na ). Still find the whole thing a major puzzle but . .
NB Alex Ward tweets that he's just done his first day of training at Nottingham. Good luck to them all . . .
It seems as though the "shake-up" at the LTA goes on. Yesterday, Beechy was tweeting his thanks to all those who attended his leaving party. Having spoken to him recently, I know he was unsure of his future.
If he has left the LTA, it will be a shame because I felt he did an excellent job with Kyle. Surely there must be another up and coming player that would benefit from his expertise. I hope he finds a role for himself somewhere amongst the various regional acadamies.
Having said all that, Beechy is also world renowned for his twitter practical jokes, so maybe he has just caught me out with that one.
I did read something on the forum ( forget where ) suggesting that Beechy had left the LTA. He had evidently referred to his "leaving night".
Yes. There were several tweets about his "leaving night" although Beechy and twitter is a minefield when trying to work out if he is being genuine or "having a laugh". But these did seem genuine as did the responses.
I know from speaking to him a month or so back, he knew this possibility was on the cards. I am hoping he has got fixed up somewhere.
I sort of have this vision where (assuming Oli's problems are just financial, which may or may not be the case) that a sponsor steps in to help him and Beechy is paid to be his coach. Think it would be a good combination. Can anyone give me next week's winning lottery numbers please ?
-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Tuesday 23rd of September 2014 12:32:59 PM
Just to say (and not swearing it's gospel) but I heard 'on the grapevine' that Oli's decision was definitely NOT a financial one.
Which makes sense, as he's earned enough this year (pre sponsorship and bonus and any other sources) to pretty much cover his expenses anyway. Any shortfall he has will be very minor and nothing compared to his potential (and relatively short-term) upside.
Petchey also feels whoever follows Murray will struggle with expectations, and that the UK's aim should instead be to develop several "top 100" ranked players.
"I think that's really the health of a system," Petchey explained. "Not whether we've got another Andy Murray or three Andy Murrays.
To be fair, 20 James Wards would still leave us without any top 100 players (come on James just get there already!). #20LouiseLatimers
But i agree with the point, we need a solid base of top 100 pros, we had it for a small period in the womens when we had 3 or 4 in the top hundred for a good while, but when you look at other countries a good aim would be to develop 5-10 men anf women in the top 100 at all times.
Question is how you get there. I see very few of our current 18 and up who look like getting that high (plenty of top 200 capability players, but top 100 is a bigger stretch).
To be fair, 20 James Wards would still leave us without any top 100 players (come on James just get there already!). #20LouiseLatimers
But i agree with the point, we need a solid base of top 100 pros, we had it for a small period in the womens when we had 3 or 4 in the top hundred for a good while, but when you look at other countries a good aim would be to develop 5-10 men anf women in the top 100 at all times.
Question is how you get there. I see very few of our current 18 and up who look like getting that high (plenty of top 200 capability players, but top 100 is a bigger stretch).
I knew someone was going to say that
My point when I start the #20JamesWards was that if we have that many people with that sort of ranking, it is far more likely that one or two more will go on to be Andy Murrays, or at least Top 50 or Top 30 players.
Andy has been the best thing since sliced bread for the British tennis spectator - nothing gets better than a home player winning the home grand slam (especially when that player has struggled before, and the big hope before him got close but no cigar...)
Unfortunately, he's done nothing for the tennis industry in the UK (not his fault) which includes other players, pro and amateur, clubs etc. etc.
As the Lottery funding people said, it's almost inconceivable that uk participation rates FELL during the 12 months after Andy won. (But they did).
For tennis on the TV, one Andy is where it's at.
For tennis as a thriving sport, having 20 James Wards is infinitely preferable.
And even the question is the wrong way round : it's not that we should aim to have 20 James Wards; it's that we should aim to have a healthy, thriving tennis industry and that, in itself, will produce 20 James Wards.