indiana wrote:

---

There is this old favourite of bringing up one or two really achieving foreign players that GB plsyer X seemed better than or on a par with a few years ago and saying how far ahead they are of X now and neglecting other prevously similar players that have achieved much less than X.

Re comparisons between countries though, the most obvious to make is among the 5 big western European nations ( UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain ) and in general in tennis that comparison is poor for us and yes there are historical and cultural reasons involved in that.

That's one reason we need people of real vision and drive at the top of GB tennis to try and challenge and change some of these past reasons.

Otherwise some folk can bemoan all they want about say the lack of GB women in the top 100 and wouldn't it be great if we had 4 or 5 competing in the top 100 to get behind. Yes, but on no grounds that I can see can we have any real expectation of such as that. We haven't had it before except maybe long long ago pre open era.

Carry on as we are, then expect things to pretty much remain as they are apart from the odd individual like Andy.

An aim should be to make tennis more relevant to young people, to develop top level depth. That would say much more for the health of GB tennis than one off champions, which can be very much about the individual and come from any tennis nation, such as the aforementioned Latvia or Andorra. 

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 2nd of February 2020 12:20:24 AM

---

Re: The old favourite argument doesn't just apply just to Swan v.Kenin  but applies just as much to Kenin v. Galfi. Based  on their junior results it could have been Hungary having a Grand Slam winner rather than a player struggling to crack the top 100. 

Re: Making tennis more relevant to young people the problem is that team sports are  much cheaper for young girls to take up than tennis. There's a big take up of girls taking up football and rugby. I'm sure she has justifiable reasons for it but Britains' top female player missing the Fed Cup is not  much encouragement for tennis.

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

There is this old favourite of bringing up one or two really achieving foreign players that GB plsyer X seemed better than or on a par with a few years ago and saying how far ahead they are of X now and neglecting other prevously similar players that have achieved much less than X.

Re comparisons between countries though, the most obvious to make is among the 5 big western European nations ( UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain ) and in general in tennis that comparison is poor for us and yes there are historical and cultural reasons involved in that.

That's one reason we need people of real vision and drive at the top of GB tennis to try and challenge and change some of these past reasons.

Otherwise some folk can bemoan all they want about say the lack of GB women in the top 100 and wouldn't it be great if we had 4 or 5 competing in the top 100 to get behind. Yes, but on no grounds that I can see can we have any real expectation of such as that. We haven't had it before except maybe long long ago pre open era.

Carry on as we are, then expect things to pretty much remain as they are apart from the odd individual like Andy.

An aim should be to make tennis more relevant to young people, to develop top level depth. That would say much more for the health of GB tennis than one off champions, which can be very much about the individual and come from any tennis nation, such as the aforementioned Latvia or Andorra. 

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 2nd of February 2020 12:20:24 AM

---

Re: The old favourite argument doesn't just apply just to Swan v.Kenin  but applies just as much to Kenin v. Galfi. Based  on their junior results it could have been Hungary having a Grand Slam winner rather than a player struggling to crack the top 100. 

Re: Making tennis more relevant to young people the problem is that team sports are  much cheaper for young girls to take up than tennis. There's a big take up of girls taking up football and rugby. I'm sure she has justifiable reasons for it but Britains' top female player missing the Fed Cup is not  much encouragement for tennis.

---

 Re young people and playing tennis versus other sports. Tennis is by nature a lonely and individual sport. The camaraderie and sense of belonging that come with a team sport such as football, rugby, cricket, netball make them all more appealing I would suggest to a younger person, female or male. Plus the BBC seems to be pushing womens competitive sports such as the ones above so much at the moment that this will appeal and make them trendier. Success breeds interest breeds success and I think as much as anything else that can  be the catalyst in tennis - albeit if we dont take advantage of the success to change the participation structure, eg as never happened with Andy M, then we  will probably never get to take advantage. In womens tennis, Jo Konta (to the wider public) really isnt  that big a name or that relevant and her level of success wont get us the breakthrough; I sadly feel it would take either a Slam semi or final, a Davis / Fed Cup win or an Olympic medal to make any difference. Maybe that is why Jo missing Fed Cup would be slightly disappointing, as would missing the Olympics. 

Slams, DC/FC and Olympics are the currency the mainstream would notice - WTA Tour, at whatever level is very unlikely to get much in the way of anything but a passing "well done" 

 

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

There is this old favourite of bringing up one or two really achieving foreign players that GB plsyer X seemed better than or on a par with a few years ago and saying how far ahead they are of X now and neglecting other prevously similar players that have achieved much less than X.

Re comparisons between countries though, the most obvious to make is among the 5 big western European nations ( UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain ) and in general in tennis that comparison is poor for us and yes there are historical and cultural reasons involved in that.

That's one reason we need people of real vision and drive at the top of GB tennis to try and challenge and change some of these past reasons.

Otherwise some folk can bemoan all they want about say the lack of GB women in the top 100 and wouldn't it be great if we had 4 or 5 competing in the top 100 to get behind. Yes, but on no grounds that I can see can we have any real expectation of such as that. We haven't had it before except maybe long long ago pre open era.

Carry on as we are, then expect things to pretty much remain as they are apart from the odd individual like Andy.

An aim should be to make tennis more relevant to young people, to develop top level depth. That would say much more for the health of GB tennis than one off champions, which can be very much about the individual and come from any tennis nation, such as the aforementioned Latvia or Andorra. 

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 2nd of February 2020 12:20:24 AM

---

Re: The old favourite argument doesn't just apply just to Swan v.Kenin  but applies just as much to Kenin v. Galfi. Based  on their junior results it could have been Hungary having a Grand Slam winner rather than a player struggling to crack the top 100. 

Re: Making tennis more relevant to young people the problem is that team sports are  much cheaper for young girls to take up than tennis. There's a big take up of girls taking up football and rugby. I'm sure she has justifiable reasons for it but Britains' top female player missing the Fed Cup is not  much encouragement for tennis.

---

 Re young people and playing tennis versus other sports. Tennis is by nature a lonely and individual sport. The camaraderie and sense of belonging that come with a team sport such as football, rugby, cricket, netball make them all more appealing I would suggest to a younger person, female or male. Plus the BBC seems to be pushing womens competitive sports such as the ones above so much at the moment that this will appeal and make them trendier. Success breeds interest breeds success and I think as much as anything else that can  be the catalyst in tennis - albeit if we dont take advantage of the success to change the participation structure, eg as never happened with Andy M, then we  will probably never get to take advantage. In womens tennis, Jo Konta (to the wider public) really isnt  that big a name or that relevant and her level of success wont get us the breakthrough; I sadly feel it would take either a Slam semi or final, a Davis / Fed Cup win or an Olympic medal to make any difference. Maybe that is why Jo missing Fed Cup would be slightly disappointing, as would missing the Olympics. 

Slams, DC/FC and Olympics are the currency the mainstream would notice - WTA Tour, at whatever level is very unlikely to get much in the way of anything but a passing "well done" 

 

---

 Re Jo Konta I think you've forgotten that she has reached the semi finals of 3 of the Grand Slams. As far as not that  big a name or that relevant my friends who have little interest in tennis have at least heard of her,  a fact which doesn't apply to many current British sports women. I know she's only played 9 matches since Wimbledon and just 2 since the US Open but perhaps this is because the problem with her knee is more serious than she has let on. However I still do find it disappointing that she's not playing Fed Cup but perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye.

---

 I am sure youre correct, at the risk of contradicting myself, i wonder if any genuine poll has ever been done to assess recognition of our top tennis names: 

ie 

Jo Konta

Heather Watson

Laura Robson

Dan Evans

Kyle Edmund (maybe? Perhaps not even Kyle?)

Outside of these 5, and of course, the two Murray brothers, I would be very surprised if there was any name recognition worth its salt by non tennis fans - Katie Boulter, maybe one or two. Any other female? Cant imagine Harriet would have any name recognition worth anything, on the mens side I cant Joe Salisbury having any outside of those interested in tennis. 

Which of course raises the point of where they get their recognition from - the media clearly and in the case of Dan (his ban and redemption) and Laura (her media darling image) it is probably as much to do with things away from tennis, although I am being unfair as they have had high profile events in their careers. Heather for her mixed doubles wins and beating Serena etc. Jamie ticks the same boxes as Heather plus being a Murray is a big tick to why he is known. I wonder how well Gordon Murray is known as an aside?!  

But all those with names will have got them from Slams (Wimbledon in particular), DC/FC, and Olympics (Laura as an example even though it was only mixed, she does have a gold medal. Even DC might not help, how many people know Kyle or Dom who played in those events when we won them?  

      

 

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Monday 3rd of February 2020 02:21:44 PM

IMO to get to the top in Tennis you have to be a natural athlete or 6'6"+ if male with a great save, natural athletes with hand eye coordination will be good at a variety of sports that don't require the level of commitment that tennis does and/or are easier to make a decent living from. Speaking from my own experience with my son he simply didn't love playing enough to put up with the level of behaviour and/or cheating prevalent in junior tennis, its simply not fun playiing at that level and when these kids have so many other pressures from schoolwork etc, they want a bit of joy when they compete not worrying about turning their back to their opponent in case they get a ball in the back of their head or having to argue every point that is within a foot of the line, its wearing and joyless for a lot of them and not much fun as a parent either.

flamingowings wrote:

---

Sorry Jon, Laura has a silver medal in the mixed (with Andy) as they were beaten by Belarus I think.

---

 cool, agreed, same point though. 

foobarbaz wrote:

---

Over the last couple of years, I think there's been significant progress made with the top GB players, in effect bringing them together as a squad, where they work alongside each other in training blocks, and participate in tournament programmes in player groups, more than they might have done in the past. This has many benefits, reducing costs, building camaraderie and support for colleagues, improving training and fitness through friendly competition and theraputic wellbeing, increasing skills through knowledge sharing and group practice, implementing programmes for career progression and shared performance targets, etc. Players aren't isolated nowadays, at least not nearly as much as they perhaps were in the past. This progress was needed, it's worthwhile, and it's bound to bring positive results in the future. It really shows that GB tennis at the top level is a team effort, for even though players compete individually, they are doing so within a collective framework. The DC/FC events really show how much the players have bonded and support each other. I imagine this is being done for all the different age groups too. This is surely going to ensure that the best young players stay with the programme because it's fun, and satisfyingly rewarding.

---

 Its interesting because sports like badminton, or cycling, swimming, athletics, which are all individual sports, appear to have a lot more focus around the concept of team even if individuals sports at heart, and the big events like World Championships and Olympics act as the pinnacle. Tennis and Golf (which have the concept of "Tours" well in grained over many years) have much less of that glue historically, although it is good if that concept of travelling together as teams is starting to become more prevalent.