Marcus Willis

Vandenburg · Futures level

RE: Marcus Willis

Spectator · All-time great

Come, come, Vandenburg. You know it wasn't funded by the LTA. And you're just taking another excuse to have a potshot at numerous players whom we support (and whom, as you are well aware, the LTA hasn't funded in years.) And even if it were true - which it isn't - that they had failed, it wouldn't justify using such derogatory language.

And no. Marcus Willis, having realised what he needs to do, seems prepared to start doing it - and his summer outings can hardly be described as failure. (Or if they were, you'd have tennis players queuing up to fail in that way). And Dan Cox and David Rice have worked hard, on their own, and done well - far better than most of us will do in our chosen careers. I'd be quite happy to have a career high of being the 206th best person in the world at a highly competitive endeavour. If you don't want to read about them, you can simply skip these threads.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Spectator wrote:
Come, come, Vandenburg. You know it wasn't funded by the LTA. And you're just taking another excuse to have a potshot at numerous players whom we support (and whom, as you are well aware, the LTA hasn't funded in years.) And even if it were true - which it isn't - that they had failed, it wouldn't justify using such derogatory language.

And no. Marcus Willis, having realised what he needs to do, seems prepared to start doing it - and his summer outings can hardly be described as failure. (Or if they were, you'd have tennis players queuing up to fail in that way). And Dan Cox and David Rice have worked hard, on their own, and done well - far better than most of us will do in our chosen careers. I'd be quite happy to have a career high of being the 206th best person in the world at a highly competitive endeavour. If you don't want to read about them, you can simply skip these threads.

Well said, Spectator. If the so & so keeps it up, I'll delete the offending posts. He makes a lousy devil's advocate! disbelief

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Spectator wrote:
Come, come, Vandenburg. You know it wasn't funded by the LTA. And you're just taking another excuse to have a potshot at numerous players whom we support (and whom, as you are well aware, the LTA hasn't funded in years.) And even if it were true - which it isn't - that they had failed, it wouldn't justify using such derogatory language.

And no. Marcus Willis, having realised what he needs to do, seems prepared to start doing it - and his summer outings can hardly be described as failure. (Or if they were, you'd have tennis players queuing up to fail in that way). And Dan Cox and David Rice have worked hard, on their own, and done well - far better than most of us will do in our chosen careers. I'd be quite happy to have a career high of being the 206th best person in the world at a highly competitive endeavour. If you don't want to read about them, you can simply skip these threads.

Beautifully said, Spec.

Although I wouldn't delete him, SC, everyone has the right to be a bit 'provocative' - within limits.

And if he hadn't posted it, then Spec's words would not have seen the light of day,

indiana · Tennis legend

The posts speak for the man. Well left.

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

Vandenburg makes a very fair point. All the players he has named, and you can add in Milton, Marsalek, Gabb etc have only played financially loss making tennis through their entire career. Rice was recently seen begging on a funding website for donations ( it was posted on here) and if rumour is to be believed Josh Goodall's parents re-mortgaged their house twice to support him.

The LTA have thrown a fortune at these guys and have had virtually nothing back, they are clearly not good enough yet many of you on here still think they should be funded to play at futures level - amazing!

I can't believe that Spectator thinks these people have done well in there careers, if they had been cleaners or dustmen ( no disrespect intended ) they would be financially far better of. How can playing loss making tennis for years make you a success - logic says it doesn't.

There are a few people on here who think they own the forum and don't like people who have alternative views but I notice there are far less people following / commenting on our guys in their mid 20's now than there were a couple of years ago, because they know it's a waste of time, says a lot really.

I am desperate for all our players to succeed but we need to be realistic, if you have played for 3 or 4 years and are not making money you need to accept it's not for you and pack it in, Ward - Hibbert for example.

Cox might still come good again if he can sort his head out and Marcus could be an interesting one but he has to many personal distractions now, but lets see.

Spectator · All-time great

Mark, thanks for your post, which makes an argument, rather than just using derogratory language. While I may not agree with the argument, it's the derogatory language, setting up of straw men, and suggesting that people on this forum are wrong to care about some of the GB players that I did and do object to most in the previous poster. The players are, as we all know, people - and speaking about people in a way that's needlessly derogatory and uncivil is getting our country (and others) into enough difficulty without our engaging in it on a sports forum!

In terms of the arguments: my own view is that there are many reasons for doing things, of which financial gain is one, but not the only one. So while Dan Cox, say, may not have benefited hugely financially, he has still been highly ranked at a competitive sport at the highest level. So yes, I do think he has been a success. But I accept that if you equate 'success' and 'financial viability' it's hard to argue that any other than the very top players are successful.

In terms of their careers, it seems to me that no one from 'outside' can tell people what they should do: they and those near them need to work it out for themselves. With careers stretching on, and people reaching their career highs ever later, I should think it's actually quite a difficult decision at present. Do you pack it in and spend the rest of your life with a big "What if?" Or keep trying to make a go of it as long as you can, in the hopes that things will pay off. Very complex: there are probably quite a few people who would have advised Jamie Murray at various points to get out while his career was stalling, for example. And we've seen an interesting 'test case' in Colin Fleming, who indeed left for energy trading after a few decent but not stellar years on the futures tour. I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that he returned after he saw Jamie Murray, whom he knew as an equal, win the Wimbledon mixed doubles. But whatever the reason, he returned to a career that saw him reach the highs of being an alternate for the World Tour Finals. Who would have predicted that from his first few years? So I prefer to hope that people and those around them are being realistic - and recognise that what appears realistic to us and what appears realistic to them may be different, and that they may have information we don't.

As for thinking anyone owns the forum, I don't think that's the case. Indeed, my objection was to the suggestion that the other members of the forum were wrong to continue supporting GB players ... which in itself suggest the right to arbitrate what forum members should and shouldn't do.

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 5th of November 2016 12:16:34 PM

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

Spectator wrote:
Mark, thanks for your post, which makes an argument, rather than just using derogratory language. While I may not agree with the argument, it's the derogatory language, setting up of straw men, and suggesting that people on this forum are wrong to care about some of the GB players that I did and do object to most in the previous poster. The players are, as we all know, people - and speaking about people in a way that's needlessly derogatory and uncivil is getting our country (and others) into enough difficulty without our engaging in it on a sports forum!

In terms of the arguments: my own view is that there are many reasons for doing things, of which financial gain is one, but not the only one. So while Dan Cox, say, may not have benefited hugely financially, he has still been highly ranked at a competitive sport at the highest level. So yes, I do think he has been a success. But I accept that if you equate 'success' and 'financial viability' it's hard to argue that any other than the very top players are successful.

In terms of their careers, it seems to me that no one from 'outside' can tell people what they should do: they and those near them need to work it out for themselves. With careers stretching on, and people reaching their career highs ever later, I should think it's actually quite a difficult decision at present. Do you pack it in and spend the rest of your life with a big "What if?" Or keep trying to make a go of it as long as you can, in the hopes that things will pay off. Very complex: there are probably quite a few people who would have advised Jamie Murray at various points to get out while his career was stalling, for example. And we've seen an interesting 'test case' in Colin Fleming, who indeed left for energy trading after a few decent but not stellar years on the futures tour. I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that he returned after he saw Jamie Murray, whom he knew as an equal, win the Wimbledon mixed doubles. But whatever the reason, he returned to a career that saw him reach the highs of being an alternate for the World Tour Finals. Who would have predicted that from his first few years? So I prefer to hope that people and those around them are being realistic - and recognise that what appears realistic to us and what appears realistic to them may be different, and that they may have information we don't.

As for thinking anyone owns the forum, I don't think that's the case. Indeed, my objection was to the suggestion that the other members of the forum were wrong to continue supporting GB players ... which in itself suggest the right to arbitrate what forum members should and shouldn't do.

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 5th of November 2016 12:16:34 PM

Your point re Fleming and Murray is a fair one but these two are exceptions to the rule and it must be remembered that neither would have made a living playing singles, because as tennis players they are simply not good enough.

I have said on here before that more of our guys should play doubles as this is their best chance of success, Corrie ( a challenger tour winner with Smethurst) is a perfect example of someone who should be playing dubs every week but hardly plays at all. David Rice's career peaked when he was having his success with Thornley and sadly started to go down hill when this partnership fell apart. I know O'Mara was focusing on doubles ( two successive ITF wins - well done!) and I firmly believe that this is the way for Marcus to go.

Sadly though I feel that 'tennis' does not want doubles, the most entertaining format of the game and that it will go one day - how I hope I am wrong!

As regards players peaking later, yes, they are but the likes of Ferrer etc were not ranked as low as 600/700 hundred when they were in their mid 20's. It is difficult knowing how long to give it but very few go on to 'make it' after struggling for 3/4 years on tour, most coaches will tell you that the bad habits are entrenched by then.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I also do not think the LTA should be directly funding a pack of 26 year-olds who are ranked 350 in the world, say.

I do not know of any other country that does either.

But the problem with this argument, Mark, is that it fails to take into account other factors in those other countries.

Using France, as I always do (for obvious reasons) but also knowing that Spain and Italy (and others?) are very similar, the problem is that the LTA fails to provide a tennis industry in this country.

And so the GB tennis players are exposed, with no possible alternative supplementary funding system.

If you had a thriving club system, with large numbers of the public playing competitive tennis, so needing coaches, and attracting sponsors, and everything else that goes with it, then tennis becomes just about viable for your 25 year-old ATP 350 guy and he has a choice.

With the LTA doing none of this, the British 25 year-old has basically no choice.

So, in my mind, it is true what you say about the LTA having thrown a huge amount of money at a small groups of players with no return.

But that is the LTA's fault, and a bad business model. It does not mean that the players should not be supported but that it should be done in an indirect way.

And if this is impossible in the near term, then a temporary system as a stop-gap may well make sense.

Vandenburg · Futures level

So correct. If you are still playing futures at mid 20s, you must be operating at a loss, and the lta or daddy should not prop you up. It makes me sick, i think lta handouts make life too nice. Imagine if you were from some balklan hell hole and tennis was the only way you had to get out.
good to see another poster talking sense, the trouble is,you guys want the truth, but cannot handle the truth!

chavkev · Intermediate Club Player

What the LTA should be doing is significantly increasing the number of futures events. People like Josh Goodall do have a role to play in the development of talently GB players and not just as coaches. Remember a few years ago, Kyle Edmund was playing futures and was being tested by the likes of Victor Crivoi, Caio Zampieri and Benjamin Balleret on clay? That is the role that the older GB players need to play. We lose out by having our players drop out early as our young players do not get tested by senior pros at a national level.

indiana · Tennis legend

Mark1968 wrote:
Vandenburg makes a very fair point. All the players he has named, and you can add in Milton, Marsalek, Gabb etc have only played financially loss making tennis through their entire career. Rice was recently seen begging on a funding website for donations ( it was posted on here) and if rumour is to be believed Josh Goodall's parents re-mortgaged their house twice to support him.

The LTA have thrown a fortune at these guys and have had virtually nothing back, they are clearly not good enough yet many of you on here still think they should be funded to play at futures level - amazing!

I can't believe that Spectator thinks these people have done well in there careers, if they had been cleaners or dustmen ( no disrespect intended ) they would be financially far better of. How can playing loss making tennis for years make you a success - logic says it doesn't.

There are a few people on here who think they own the forum and don't like people who have alternative views but I notice there are far less people following / commenting on our guys in their mid 20's now than there were a couple of years ago, because they know it's a waste of time, says a lot really.

I am desperate for all our players to succeed but we need to be realistic, if you have played for 3 or 4 years and are not making money you need to accept it's not for you and pack it in, Ward - Hibbert for example.

Cox might still come good again if he can sort his head out and Marcus could be an interesting one but he has to many personal distractions now, but lets see.

What Spectator pointed to was the ranking positions these players had achieved in GB, indeed the world, in tennis, a sport that is played so widely throughout the world.

You may wish to dismiss this, look at in purely monetary terms and dismiss this as failure. I'd suggest that most people look at how much a success you are based on rather more than how much money you make. To dismiss sports people's achievements ( and indeed success in other fields ) if they have not made money, and there are many sports that it is even more difficult to make a living, is not something I myself comprehend.

And, as chavkev said, from a wider point of view keeping such relatively very good players in the sport longer, both to test younger players and as future coaches ( and it is recognised that the UK is very short of top quality lcoaches ) is in tennis's wider interests in this country..

As CD suggests it is all very well to point to throwing money at players that are not going to reach the very top ranks. And while yes that us not done elsewhere, there is no real back up structure in this country to support what are still very good players and potential coaches. So we are left in the position that lack of direct funding and competitions leaves them without any real safety net of other good tennis alternatives. Much of another generation possibly lost to British tennis doesn't help develop future generations.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 5th of November 2016 02:41:47 PM

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

chavkev wrote:
What the LTA should be doing is significantly increasing the number of futures events. People like Josh Goodall do have a role to play in the development of talently GB players and not just as coaches. Remember a few years ago, Kyle Edmund was playing futures and was being tested by the likes of Victor Crivoi, Caio Zampieri and Benjamin Balleret on clay? That is the role that the older GB players need to play. We lose out by having our players drop out early as our young players do not get tested by senior pros at a national level.

More futures events absolutely, apparently there are problems there which have been discussed by other members on this forum, but that's what is needed.

Josh Goodall coaching, did you ever see him on a tennis court? you must be joking? This is a man who thought Harry Meehan was playing top 100 tennis and yes i've seen him play as well.

-- Edited by Mark1968 on Saturday 5th of November 2016 02:48:52 PM

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

Vandenburg wrote:
So correct. If you are still playing futures at mid 20s, you must be operating at a loss, and the lta or daddy should not prop you up. It makes me sick, i think lta handouts make life too nice. Imagine if you were from some balklan hell hole and tennis was the only way you had to get out.
good to see another poster talking sense, the trouble is,you guys want the truth, but cannot handle the truth!

Yes, a lot don't get it. British youth have it to easily generally in the UK and when you hear players moaning about funding you can't help feeling they should be working harder at their game rather than looking elsewhere for excuses as to why they are not at the level they should be.

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

Coup Droit wrote:
I also do not think the LTA should be directly funding a pack of 26 year-olds who are ranked 350 in the world, say.

I do not know of any other country that does either.

But the problem with this argument, Mark, is that it fails to take into account other factors in those other countries.

Using France, as I always do (for obvious reasons) but also knowing that Spain and Italy (and others?) are very similar, the problem is that the LTA fails to provide a tennis industry in this country.

And so the GB tennis players are exposed, with no possible alternative supplementary funding system.

If you had a thriving club system, with large numbers of the public playing competitive tennis, so needing coaches, and attracting sponsors, and everything else that goes with it, then tennis becomes just about viable for your 25 year-old ATP 350 guy and he has a choice.

With the LTA doing none of this, the British 25 year-old has basically no choice.

So, in my mind, it is true what you say about the LTA having thrown a huge amount of money at a small groups of players with no return.

But that is the LTA's fault, and a bad business model. It does not mean that the players should not be supported but that it should be done in an indirect way.

And if this is impossible in the near term, then a temporary system as a stop-gap may well make sense.

Fair enough but you will not get more people playing tennis for several reasons such as bad weather, the obsession with PC games / mobile phones and the general lazyness of British youth plus the fact that whilst we love tennis, most people only care for 2 weeks of the year.

We need more futures / challengers and a bit more money on the British Tour. Only £200 for winning a Tier 2 event is an insult.