TW18 wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

.....Now, not only is this fairer in general but in terms of transitioning, it means that we have a far better picture of the true level of our players. As an example, I got 'told off' ages and ages ago by one parent for saying (politely) their child was not up to playing at J1/Junior Slam level and shouldn't be give a wildcard (IMHO). The parent's argument, reasonably enough, was that their child was national champion at age X, and still in the top 3 or whatever at age 17. (Said child lost 1 & 1, or suchlike, and never made any impact on tennis going forward). My point is that many would say that child hadn't transitioned properly - was one of our most promising juniors and never made it. I would say that child was never going to make it in a million years and the only reason they were there was (presumably) because they were part of the elite squad, for whatever reason, and others couldn't break down the door because there were no means to do so. Now I know we're a long way from perfect now but there is far better access and I think that out top players are genuinely ranked as they should be (as opposed to thanks to be schlepped left, right and centre by the LTA, wildcards etc). At least that means we've got the right cohort at the start.

---

 But there are STILL elite squads!  And, look at the National Academies....they've put money and commitment behind players and there is no open access to other players.  The LTA will make sure their backed horses finish the race.  What will they do if a player starts not to perform as well - discharge them?  I've seen players be favoured because of their coach (they may hold sway or have power) whilst others aren't progressed as well because of their lack of coach status, money, etc.  I know of one player who was given every step-up, despite not being the most accomplished or talented player and other players were shoved aside to make way for this player.  They seemed to stay under the radar until they were launched.  How much of that is raw/natural talent or sheer determination, money and time being coached?  Some would say it doesn't matter but to my mind parents out there (including my son and his wife) are wasting their money if it isn't a level playing field from the start.

---

 I agree with you, TW18, there is most definitely some/lots of undeserved favourtism at the LTA

But I was just trying to show that one aspect at least is a lot better. 

Players like Arthur Féry weren't on the LTA's list until pretty recently. It is possible to do it otherwise. 

But - and key thing - Arthur's family have money and expertise in tennis and sport in general so didn't need the LTA .

Other people like Jo Monday wasn't ever on the list either. And did it his way, via college. So, again, it's possible. 

Generally, I think parents either need money or a lot of tennis expertise so they can coach the kids themselves. 

But I do think that the new domestice tournament schedule makes it a lot more open and is a major 'good thing' 

PS they do sometimes discharge underperforming ones (I can think of one boy, say). But I agree, there's a real problem of the coaches' power and self-interest - the pushy ones want to be the big d*ck, want to go with their charges to the jollies in Spain etc etc.  

Coup Droit wrote:

---

TW18 wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

.....Now, not only is this fairer in general but in terms of transitioning, it means that we have a far better picture of the true level of our players. As an example, I got 'told off' ages and ages ago by one parent for saying (politely) their child was not up to playing at J1/Junior Slam level and shouldn't be give a wildcard (IMHO). The parent's argument, reasonably enough, was that their child was national champion at age X, and still in the top 3 or whatever at age 17. (Said child lost 1 & 1, or suchlike, and never made any impact on tennis going forward). My point is that many would say that child hadn't transitioned properly - was one of our most promising juniors and never made it. I would say that child was never going to make it in a million years and the only reason they were there was (presumably) because they were part of the elite squad, for whatever reason, and others couldn't break down the door because there were no means to do so. Now I know we're a long way from perfect now but there is far better access and I think that out top players are genuinely ranked as they should be (as opposed to thanks to be schlepped left, right and centre by the LTA, wildcards etc). At least that means we've got the right cohort at the start.

---

 But there are STILL elite squads!  And, look at the National Academies....they've put money and commitment behind players and there is no open access to other players.  The LTA will make sure their backed horses finish the race.  What will they do if a player starts not to perform as well - discharge them?  I've seen players be favoured because of their coach (they may hold sway or have power) whilst others aren't progressed as well because of their lack of coach status, money, etc.  I know of one player who was given every step-up, despite not being the most accomplished or talented player and other players were shoved aside to make way for this player.  They seemed to stay under the radar until they were launched.  How much of that is raw/natural talent or sheer determination, money and time being coached?  Some would say it doesn't matter but to my mind parents out there (including my son and his wife) are wasting their money if it isn't a level playing field from the start.

---

 I agree with you, TW18, there is most definitely some/lots of undeserved favourtism at the LTA

But I was just trying to show that one aspect at least is a lot better. 

Players like Arthur Féry weren't on the LTA's list until pretty recently. It is possible to do it otherwise. 

But - and key thing - Arthur's family have money and expertise in tennis and sport in general so didn't need the LTA .

Other people like Jo Monday wasn't ever on the list either. And did it his way, via college. So, again, it's possible. 

Generally, I think parents either need money or a lot of tennis expertise so they can coach the kids themselves. 

But I do think that the new domestice tournament schedule makes it a lot more open and is a major 'good thing' 

PS they do sometimes discharge underperforming ones (I can think of one boy, say). But I agree, there's a real problem of the coaches' power and self-interest - the pushy ones want to be the big d*ck, want to go with their charges to the jollies in Spain etc etc.  

 

---

 Thanks, CD et al. Learnt a lot from those last exchanges. Any sport is tough at the highest level. Football, Athletics, Swimming, Cycling. Although some of these sports have made real improvements in performance over the years. I suppose with all of the assets and resources the LTA have, it just makes you wonder if they are the right one to manage performance. Anyway good luck to all the juniors, we are with you on the journey!