British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

It seems a while since this thread was active, with Arthurs amazing success things dont look so bad anymore for British tennis. However with two Czech ladies in the womens final there is an interesting interview with Noskova on the BBC website discussing reasons for the Czech success. The following shouted from the page for me. Not sure what others think?


It breeds this innate belief. The Czech players think it's the norm of what their system is in terms of everyone having the opportunity to pick up a racquet, regardless of their financial background or upbringing.
There are tennis players everywhere, with so many former pros - whether they were top 100 or Grand Slam champions - staying within the sport to pass on their knowledge.
It means the Czechs have this incredible base of coaches, who know what it takes to reach the top.


www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cy5v6439e37o

I am pretty sure most kids today feel they can go kick a football without a second thought, but pick up a tennis racquet?

In the UK the perception is that tennis is for posh/ rich folk. This may or may not be universally true, but everything the BBC shows only reinforces that impression: it shows tennis from Queens and Wimbledon where the whole place reeks of money. Tennis clubs are seen as places where rich people go to get their exercise. I still, after twenty years, wince when I tell an old acquaintance an anecdote that begins "A bloke I know at the tennis club..." as I know that I am about to get ribbed for my social climbing.

It really doesn't help that it does actually cost a lot to participate, buy kit, get coached - even if parents are good enough to coach (in which case they must likely have been through the money thing in their youth, to get good enough to coach). It costs nothing to put to jumpers down on the grass as goal posts and then kick about with your mates.

indiana wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yet again Tim Henman shows he's no idea what he's talking about:

"Players like Billy Harris, Ollie Tarvet and Toby Samuel came through qualifying at Wimbledon," said Henman.

"Others are pushing from the top 250 towards the top 100. That's where I'm optimistic. That pipeline is much stronger than it used to be."

---

His basic message was what I was immediately thinking about re the increasingly healthy state on the men's side below the top 100, with a generally good age profile and upward momentum ( the women's side is another matter ).

Detail as to who actually got WCs may not be his thing ( isn't he on the WC committee?!  ) and mate, don't even mention Billy ( helped the qualifying stats putting him in there, not sure it helped his MD prep ).

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 1st of July 2026 10:15:31 AM

---

 And then came Arthur Fery's SF run plus away from Wimbledon 3 men's Challenger titles on the one day. Check out the updated 13/07 top 10 GB men's 'Strongest Nation' figure when it comes out, even with Jack Draper injured and over 100 ranking places below his capabilities.

GB men's singles average is almost equal to an all time high (1255) despite Jack D being injured and Dan recently retiring.

GB women's singles average has suffered recently due to injuries to 3 out of 4 top players (Emma, Sonay and Jodie) and long standing health problems for Katie S and Fran but is still well above average for recent times.

So can't be all bad.

 

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

A great set of results which confirm that tennis, great game that it is, is a game for posh people whose parents (often very good players themselves indeed some ex pros whats the chance of that!) can afford regular coaching progressing to intensive coaching from childhood.

Congratulations to Arthur (I will keep my eyes open for Lorients results next season) and Henry who undoubtedly have worked very hard to optimise the advantages they had. We are lucky to have Wimbledon and its great that lots of people who arent really interested in tennis as a sport or sport in general tune in for it as an event if purely to keep its profile in the media. 

I was extremely lucky as a kid that one of our PE teachers at my Comp (1600 kids in only 3 yrs) used to chuck 55 kids on a coach at 06:00 in the morning and drive us all down from the midlands in the first week and dump us in the queue! What a fantastic day off school. The school produced 4 pro/high level semi pro footballers while I was there it continues to churn them out BUT no tennis players. One of the four was an outstanding athlete Rugby/Football/Athletics (& superb tennis player hitting with many of the top stars of the time at Wimbledon while at Uni at Roehampton Institute) much to the disappointment of his mum the PE teacher, he chose football

Out success in doubles is in part a reflection of the fact that tennis is so technical that a lack of athleticism that would spell the end of any young footballers career early doors is mitigated and then can be mitigated further by halving the court. The LTA have recognised this & done an excellent job of optimising success in that area.

The LTA cant possibly fund a grassroots comparable with football as in tennis nobody does anything for nothing and even running the equivalent of a Sunday morning junior football club where committed volunteers make it accessible to every kid including those of parents on a cash economy or kids in care. 

I feel even with the cash they have producing elite tennis players is a circle that is very difficult to square given that technique can dominate athleticism up until a relatively high level and athleticism is not something you can buy. 

The very best players in the world have both Sinner was fabulous to watch a multi-sport athlete but partly because of his physique it didnt leave him the option of football, from a purist perspective it was great to see him slalom past the product of a great tennis family.

---

Great summary of the situation.

Judy Murray's article in the Daily Record is on the money https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis/judy-murray-scots-wimbledon-tennis-37389108 and worth a read imho.

foobarbaz seems to have a point in that the bigger picture for tennis in GB is not good due to economic pressures making it even more likely that young people will choose another less expensive sport to take up. Combined with the growth of padel in the UK and competition from pickleball and its variants, the pool of tennis players in the future is likely to diminish, regardless of what the LTA would want us to believe about their participation numbers.

In terms of CD's comments, it would be great to have both grand slam champions raising the profile of the game AND the depth of players to support the likelihood of this happening. This is perhaps the area that the LTA struggles with most ... getting the balance right between grass roots participation and performance funding. The pyramid is way too narrow at the top and reduces the chances of capturing future talent for development.

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the LTA and how it decides to support tennis in the UK. Where the LTA pathway seems to fail is in the level of funding it provides to support a wider, stronger base of very good juniors post 14. So for the vast majority of developing junior players who get to a fairy high level, their options suddenly diminish greatly at just the time when it starts becoming very expensive - international competition at 14+.

Instead, the LTA puts all its eggs in one fairly small basket for a few select players at its National Academy at Loughborough University. This centralised approach is a high risk strategy and inevitably places pressure on all involved - players, parents, coaches and the LTA bureaucrats - to demonstrate a return on the investment for their junior recruits at a cost of circa £100k per year all in. While the Academy has seen some success stories over the years, which should not be underplayed, the vast majority of selected players don't transition to the higher levels of LTA pathway and have either gone to US college or other unspecified destinations, making this a very expensive route to college tennis.

When the LTA originally introduced the national academies significant funding was pulled from its regional development programmes. This saw most junior 14+ players on those programmes lose any funding and weekly coaching support. It would appear that the pool of funding for performance is ring fenced and what was available to a broader range of players is now mostly focussed on the National Academy, a number regional development centres (RPDCs) and on the higher levels of funding of a very few select elite juniors and semi-pro/pro players. Elsewhere, the budget has to cover the ITF/ ATP competition schedule plus the National Tennis Centre (the LTA's performance base for GB's select few elite players and represents a significant cost to maintain what with all the fitness, physio, medical and other performance support staff). While the LTA's pro competition calendar has improved over the years it is not comparable to many European countries and so is still a key limiting factor for players looking to transition to the pro circuits.

It would appear that the LTA's budget for Performance tennis is somewhat limited and over the years gets redirected into various programmes by different CEOs and performance directors but essentially stays the same in scope. It is a political football and subject to the various internal and external forces that act upon senior LTA decision makers and influencial stakeholders. 

So, while the LTA spends a large proportion of its budget on improving participation numbers and funnelling prospective juniors into the LTA's system, it unable to back this up with the necessary level of funding to foster a larger base of players through its system. It could be that it simply doesn't have the budget to do so and certainly even with all the investment it receives via The Championships it is a drop in the ocean compared to the money in football or US colleges. 

LTA funding is not means tested either so funding tends to go to those who have been able to pursue tennis to the higher levels and thereby accumulate the required results and ranking that determine whether a player is accepted for funding in the first place. The harsh reality is that the huge cost of producing a top level junior player is a deterrent to the vast majority of families. Only the top 2 or so per year group are likely to go on to get modest funding from the LTA. A few years back, I was speaking with a top junior who'd been accepted onto the LTA's Pro Scholarship programme. To my surprise, he disclosed that despite being one of the top ITF ranked GB boys in his last year of juniors his family had to fund the entire international competition schedule as the LTA didn't cover those costs. Fortunately they were able to afford to do so and he was successful enough to get the ranking in juniors high enough to qualify for the LTA's next level of funding. But this level of commitment is uncommon and even the majority of families that can afford this level of expense aren't willing to take the risk on a career in tennis when they know the LTA does not have their back. So, they would far rather their child went to a UK university and got a good education or in the worse case scenario head to the US on a tennis scholarship and postpone the inevitable!

The consequence of this is that tennis remains a sport that can only realistically be considered as a career option by those families who can finance it - as LTA funding not sufficient and not guaranteed. This is why we see a predominance of players coming through from wealthy families - Arthur Fery being the epitome of this, but also Jack Draper, whose father was the LTA CEO some years back. The pattern is the same in juniors with many parents running their own businesses or having high flying jobs.

If the LTA were serious about supporting a future renaissance in GB tennis it would require a complete rethink and substantial extra funding, some of which would need to be means tested. As we know, Italy is heralded as a great example of where a radically different approach has worked. As long as the current forces at play in the upper echelons of British tennis continue to believe they have got it right things will never really change. It continues to be a point of embarrassment that the immense success that is Wimbledon The Championships is not reflected more widely in our nation's contribution to the sport of tennis. But, I fear like the phenomenal careers of Andy and Jamie Murray, the global reputation of Wimbledon looks likely to be squandered by decision makers who prefer to maintain the status quo rather than go all in on supporting our talented juniors who dedicate themselves from a very young age in the belief that they could one day become great too.