Hildas Uncle wrote:

---

EddietheEagle wrote:

---

Otto wrote:

---

Simon Timson seems very certain these academies will work.

I still don't understand what is different about them this time.

---

I expect he's counting on his past performance in bobsleigh management or whatever it was.   

---

 

My biggest problem with the LTA's strategy for performance development lies more with there understanding of why they even have any performance players in the first instance.

If you take any individual performance player and consider why their name ended up on the table in the first place it comes back to the fact that their current environment and coaching team (plus other supporting individuals) has done enough to put them on the radar. They haven't got there due to an LTA policy, strategy or any other ideal but by virtue of what they're already surrounded by.
If the LTA feel that this individual can progress further then surely the process should revolve more around what the player is used to and not by yanking them out of an environment that works and placing them into the great unknown.
Wouldn't it make greater sense to support the player in their current environment and use the knowledge gained there to assess how to move forward.
The benefit also works two fold as the primary coach has the chance to evolve alongside their player.
If the "now knowledgeable" assessment clearly shows that the player can cope with the major shift in life of relocation then the academy idea has value.

My experience, albeit limited, clearly shows that with the right environment and consistency,  ie. continuous knowledge of the players current evolutionary stage, some players can achieve far more than expected. Those players who may have flitted in and out of various "high performance centres" haven't obviously achieved the upper echelons of junior success.

The problem with the regimented academy route is that it doesn't easily allow for the fact that all kids are different.
Having watched an LTA coach use an exceptionally tough training approach with a player and be fairly certain that this style wouldn't have worked with several other players at the same site it just highlights the differences. The upshot of a full on approach was a catalyst to ongoing development of the player and continuing success at the highest levels of junior ITFs.

Support and not sacrifice perhaps?

 

---

I tend to agree with Hildas Uncle. Certainly my daughters benefitted by staying with their own coaches rather than going to their nearest performance centre.

I believe that Katy Dunne turned down the chance for coaching at Roehampton , preferring to stay at her home club in Halton??  Also, years ago, I remember being told that an under12 GB player from South Wales, Leah Cox, was told that she had to change her coach, the LTA insisting she used someone at a performance centre "approved" by them; she hated it and gave up tennis not long afterwards

The Optimist wrote:

---

 The worst thing about the 'all or nothing' system is how demotivating it is for everyone else.

totally agree. The talent id system put in place in the past would get kids to county camps then to regional camps to try get selection for national camps and matrix funding. A select few usually the same names would get thru telling the others you may be in the top 25 for the region but go back and try again. This system has made that worse. Demotivating kids and supporting parents. Hence the decline in kids wanting to do this and decline in parents wanting to support it. You can be inside the top 100 for your age group and it means nothing. Madness as a kid ranked at 99 May have more natural talent the ten year old at rank 3.  . 

The Optimist wrote:

---

It's just another version of the 'all or nothing' approach.  Everything for their few picks and nothing for anyone else.  They should have proper talent scouts out at tournaments and visiting clubs and centres looking at ALL the kids of ALL ages (not just those they have already picked and have poured money and time into).  Free weekly or fortnightly sessions with experienced performance coaches in any given area for those who are doing well, eager, have great technique etc.  The best from those to get extra coaching/support gradually leading up to a centralised academy if appropriate.  The worst thing about the 'all or nothing' system is how demotivating it is for everyone else.

---

I agree with this but at what age are you meaning for the centralised academy? Age 18? 16? or 14? 

I often get the feeling that there's a lot of self-interest in the coaches - the LTA top coaches need 'their' kids to do well, to justify all the money they've been paid in training those kids. The fact that top LTA coaches don't even say hello to other GB players when on tour (let alone watch them or have a chat with their parents), tells you all you need to know. 

Worth pointing out, though, that, if you're comparing it to other European countries, it's not all down to the federation. 

At the good local club near where I know in France, the top 25 or so kids will get 3 hours tennis a week. In groups of about 4. This is very good level, serious tennis, with regional teams and a proper pathway, with a coach who has taken players to pre-national level (and an experienced deputy coach). It costs about 230 euros for the school year i.e. less than 10 euros a week, less than 3 euros an hour. This is not subsidised by the FFT but by (a) the club and (b) (indirectly) the local sports council. As such, there's more fluidity in the elite group because others are all being trained very well, and pretty cheaply, and so can break in quite easily - given there are effectively mandatory county/regional/national championships and the domestic ranking is all-powerful, which is easily achieved because there are so many local tournaments. 

Personally, I'm not a great fan of centralised academies at all.  I think they are as likely to break as to make kids.  The coaches and managers will have their targets and the kids can end up as a bit of a commodity.   What I was suggesting was a kind of tiered system where kids making good progress can enter onto a ladder of free performance coaching at any suitable point with maybe these national academies at the top for those who feel that is the right place for them (whatever age).  One of the problems I have with national academies is that parents are sidelined.  In the case of pushy parents, maybe not such a bad thing but the majority of parents know their own kids best and their support and input is often crucial to a child dealing with the difficult times.  They also tend to lead to a house style where they develop the kinds of players they think they need as opposed to developing the variety of players they have in front of them.

The club structure here tends to drive competitive youngsters to 'performance centres'.  High level coaching is certainly available at these but without exception they are expensive to access and every activity is charged for.  And they prevent the general play that is both important to an aspiring youngster and fun.  Nearly all court time is coached time.  I remember speaking some years ago to Anne Keothavong (or it may have been her sister Lena) saying that she played for hours on park courts with siblings and how that laid such a solid foundation for her game.  But most aspiring youngsters today just don't have that element to their tennis education.  Our clubs are definitely becoming more welcoming overall but we can only dream of what France has in that department at the moment.