Firstly, I thought it might be interesting to see the happy families of British Tennis. Im sure Ive missed tons, so please add them as posts and Ill put them in.

More importantly, the main reason I am completely against the LTAs elite policy is that it is completely linear and fails to take any account of all the knock-on benefits of creating a broad-based pyramid. (That, and the fact it doesnt work).

By directly funding a small handful you might get a couple of high-level players. However, even with Andy, a spectacular player, nothing really changes because of it. By funding (probably indirectly) a large number of players, you get ripple effects that spread out into family, friends, the community. And that in itself will also produce high level players.

Everyone knows that young kids are very influenced by their parents, and older ones by their peer group. So the more people play, the more others get sucked in. But knocking up at the park is not what its about. It doesnt solve the next problem.

One of the main reasons that tennis is so difficult is because it is so expensive. No getting round it. And the main expense is coaching. Young Draper trains for 25 hours a week, Radacanu 19 hours, even the tiddler in France last week was doing 11 hours a week. If that is not paid for by the LTA, a sponsor or a club scholarship, it is completely unaffordable.

The way round this in Europe is not because of mega funding (or not really). It is because by having a system that produces a HUGE number of players ranked, say, 3.1 to 5.2 LTA ranking, you have a huge pool of parents (or parents-to-be) who play a serious, solid, technically good game of tennis. Theyre not qualified coaches but about the right tennis level to be so.

Im not sure about the absolute truth of these figures but they seem about right: approx. 25% of top French youngsters are officially coached by a parent, about 60% will have been coached previously by one (or jointly) and about 95% will have been indirectly coached by one i.e. a mum or dad who spent many hours hitting with their youngster, directly and indirectly coaching. And properly so. Not patting balls.

So, take Emily Appleton. Her dad was a lowly pro, not sure he even scored a point in singles. Gave up. I expect the LTA had no input, and rightly so. Apart from the fact that, presumably largely thanks to his interest/passion/knowledge, his daughter is now a top ranked junior. So, if the LTA used the money to encourage a whole heap of Mr. Appletons, they would, by default, get an even bigger heap of Emilys. And all those Emilys friends would get sucked in. And the sisters would become coaches. And the brothers would become librarians but also become club presidents in their leisure time and run decent, dynamic clubs. And so on and so forth.

The same goes for siblings. You see it all the time. Provide good, subsidised lessons. Parents send their reasonably able first one. Jonny has fun, plays quite well, does some team tennis etc. etc. Nothing to set the world on fire. But little brother Jimmy now wants to be like big bro, and little Jimmy is lightning. And becomes a champ. Alternatively, have expensive lessons, where you only afford one a week, Jonny doesnt make too much progress, parents are all too happy to drop it, and do ping-pong instead, and Jimmy goes off to ping-pong and doesnt even get taken to the tennis detection day because why bother.

Hence, the list doesnt put friends (would do so if I knew them) but it shows how tennis spreads in families and how this is overlooked in creating a thriving industry of tennis in this country.
And here endeth my rant..

wolf wrote:

---

The Fitzy's are not related. It is just coincidence that they have the same name, were born on the same day and both play tennis.

But your point seems an obvious one. If tennis was more part of our culture, if it was more affordable, if more people played it would encourage more people to play because it would be popular.

I'm not sure there are enough courts or enough coaches around to facilitate a huge growth in the numbers.

---

 Seriously? They even look reasonably alike ! I always just assumed ....

Ta, wolfie - am off to change it...

If you stretch it worldwide, wimbly, you obviously get tons, and not just siblings (who are quite easy to identify) but parent-child too : players such as Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Tessah, Marta Kostyuk, ....... and that's just the first few who come to mind who're top players who've been mentioned on this forum recently.

As to nature/nurture, I think nature has a fair bit to do with sporting prowess. And maybe even ball-skill sports (if you finetune it). Ali Collins would be a good example. But not tennis in particular. That has to basically be nurture.

But it's something they should consider when they plan their policy going forward.

And even if they don't (!), it's nice for some of the lesser-known family members to get some recognition: even if one only likes elite tennis, it takes a whole structure for that to happen.

CD's rant (it's not really a rant as he puts it - far too well argued for that!) makes perfect sense.

Emily Appleton's dad Michael actually made the QFs at junior Wimbledon in 1977 and won Wimbledon QR1 matches in 1978 and 1981 (v David Felgate in that case) - the ATP site shows a singles career high of 662, so he still has the highest CH singles world ranking in the family, albeit by less than 100 places!

He must still play quite seriously too because he also hit a career high 11 in seniors (as in veterans, not seniors as opposed to juniors, obviously!) last year.

Kenneth wrote:

---

Mr Appleton is also pretty wealthy which is one of the main reasons Emily is doing so well and able to do so many events, as good as she is, this takes her to a level above players of similar ability for whom some of her travels are beyond their wildest dreams.

---

 

From all that one reads, Mr Appleton is certainly pretty wealthy which, yes, certainly means that Emily is able to play many more far-flung events than other players of her age. But it does not make her 'better' - there are many junior players in France who barely ever travel outside, and who go one to be top/very good pro players. Playing more junior tournaments adds to ones ITF junior ranking, but that in itself does not make one a better player, just a better ranked player. The switch to adult pro player is a great leveller.

By the way, steven, Mike Appleton's CH ATP ranking says 662, as you say, but they list is as only from playing two matches (well, one win and one loss, to be precise). The ITF site lists him as having no adult ranking, and don't list the Manchester event where he won a match. It's confusing... 

NB Mr. Appleton's financial position makes no difference (obviously) to the argument.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Sunday 4th of September 2016 10:49:07 AM

I've added Katie Boulter and Jodie Burrage (and mothers) to the list.

Thanks, Jon - I've added the Lloyd family bits - and yes, CEO of the LTA is certainly worthy of note !!!