That sounds just the ticket to breed more champions as well as more participants on that journey, as opposed to the LTA who only give assistance to those on their "matrix", as you say CD. That matrix is, as far as I can see, made up of players who come from wealthy families anyway and don't actually need the assistance. Very sensible of the French.
Where are the wealthy players. I wouldn't say any of our players come from wealthy backgrounds.
Well, if you look at our group of 15-16-17 year-olds a few years back, say, then - yes, quite a lot came from wealthy families.
But obviously a lot of those kids have gone the college route or dropped tennis
The ones left who've done well may not be wealthy but that's because they were more talented in the first place, in order to force themselves to the front (and also had 'docile' parents, i.e. ones that didn't rub the bods up the wrong way). I guess the argument here is that if you hadn't skewed the group with those who shouldn't be there in the first place, then there would have been a lot more space for a lot more 'normal' family kids to come through.
Another (heartbreaking) podcast interview with Katy on Abigail Johnson's podcast.
Katy talks about battling an eating disorder since her teens, triggered by going on as diet for her tennis, which may have contributed to all her injuries. A reminder that we never know what people are battling with.
The good news is it sounds like Katy wants to play on the grass (although she is not entered for Surbiton).
-- Edited by jb288 on Sunday 28th of May 2023 07:57:07 AM
That sounds just the ticket to breed more champions as well as more participants on that journey, as opposed to the LTA who only give assistance to those on their "matrix", as you say CD. That matrix is, as far as I can see, made up of players who come from wealthy families anyway and don't actually need the assistance. Very sensible of the French.
Where are the wealthy players. I wouldn't say any of our players come from wealthy backgrounds.
Well, if you look at our group of 15-16-17 year-olds a few years back, say, then - yes, quite a lot came from wealthy families.
But obviously a lot of those kids have gone the college route or dropped tennis
The ones left who've done well may not be wealthy but that's because they were more talented in the first place, in order to force themselves to the front (and also had 'docile' parents, i.e. ones that didn't rub the bods up the wrong way). I guess the argument here is that if you hadn't skewed the group with those who shouldn't be there in the first place, then there would have been a lot more space for a lot more 'normal' family kids to come through.
IMO tennis at higher level is unaffordable for the majority, this has been disc on many threads here. 7% of students attend private school in the UK, I cant find the exact figure for tennis but in my experience of players competing at grade 1 or 2 the vast majority attended private school or tennis academies (non LTA funded). And its not just tennis, there are many posh sports in the UK (rowing, mens rugby, equestrian).
The whole LTA needs a reboot to align somewhere near the French system. Ive always thought the LTA should means test the parents, so only those who need the junior funding get it.
That sounds just the ticket to breed more champions as well as more participants on that journey, as opposed to the LTA who only give assistance to those on their "matrix", as you say CD. That matrix is, as far as I can see, made up of players who come from wealthy families anyway and don't actually need the assistance. Very sensible of the French.
Where are the wealthy players. I wouldn't say any of our players come from wealthy backgrounds.
Well, if you look at our group of 15-16-17 year-olds a few years back, say, then - yes, quite a lot came from wealthy families.
But obviously a lot of those kids have gone the college route or dropped tennis
The ones left who've done well may not be wealthy but that's because they were more talented in the first place, in order to force themselves to the front (and also had 'docile' parents, i.e. ones that didn't rub the bods up the wrong way). I guess the argument here is that if you hadn't skewed the group with those who shouldn't be there in the first place, then there would have been a lot more space for a lot more 'normal' family kids to come through.
IMO tennis at higher level is unaffordable for the majority, this has been disc on many threads here. 7% of students attend private school in the UK, I cant find the exact figure for tennis but in my experience of players competing at grade 1 or 2 the vast majority attended private school or tennis academies (non LTA funded). And its not just tennis, there are many posh sports in the UK (rowing, mens rugby, equestrian).
The whole LTA needs a reboot to align somewhere near the French system. Ive always thought the LTA should means test the parents, so only those who need the junior funding get it.
To be somewhat fair to the LTA, though, a reasonable part of the French system is basically government based.
The main local clubs are subsidised by the city and regional councils. Even small village clubs will be susisdised to some extent by the canton/commune funding system. In return, they all agree to cap tennis lesson fees and membership. So it's accessible to all.
And 'poor' kids getting free tennis/sport lessons is also a government policy. They get vouchers to use at any club of their choosing (clubs have to participate, otherwise they lose their subsidies and licensing rights)
None of this is thanks to the FFT
(Of course, the French have no one to show for it at the moment - utter catasptrophe - but there's certainly a lot of depth)
Based on my experience of France, though, the main thing for the LTA is to make sure you get a lot of decentish adults. There are very few good young players in France who did not learn tennis with their parents to some extent or other. As said before, no one can afford the coaching needed when very young. The FFT is quite generous but not THAT generous. In the same way as being rich gives an unfair advantage, having good playing parents also gives a huge unfair advantage. Both sets of kids come to assessment days at age 8, say, far more advanced than their contemporaries who may be far more naturally gifted. Tackling the second is easier than the first, I reckon.
This is an interesting discussion. The majority of our current top players are from wealthy backgrounds, surely - I dont mean Pegula sized fortunes but privately educated comfortable middle class players are everywhere. In most accessible sports like football wed not class someone like Paul Jubb as a very different player, but in tennis we sit up and take notice.
Katy seems to have withdrawn from all tournaments for the first few weeks at least post Wimbledon, so will drop a bit as she had a good streak this time last year including the Foxhills title Im guessing shes resting an injury (got the impression she may have been carrying one since March but understandably was tempted to come back early and play the grass season for the first time since 2019)?
She's been having a reoccurrence of her shoulder issues this year. Before the grass season she was having injections for bursar and AC joint inflammation.
-- Edited by Lambda on Tuesday 23rd of July 2024 07:12:39 AM
She's been having a reoccurrence of her shoulder issues this year. Before the grass season she was having injections for bursar and AC joint inflammation.
-- Edited by Lambda on Tuesday 23rd of July 2024 07:12:39 AM