Tennis In The UK Gets Funding Cut

Disappointing news however you look at it:

Sport England has declared that the Lawn Tennis Association’s four-year plan for increasing the number of people playing tennis is not strong enough, and has put some of its funding on hold.

The LTA recently reported that 445,100 people in England played tennis for at least 30 minutes in 2012, up from 375,000 in 2011 (about a 19 percent increase), but still Sport England was not convinced that the organization has a good grip on how to continually increase the numbers.While 2012 numbers are up, they are still down from 2009, when 530,900 people were playing at least 30 minutes a week.

Tennis’ overall funding will go down from $39.7 million dollars to $28.1 million for the 2013-17 period, although the LTA has a chance to recapture the lost funding in the future.

“Tennis has not performed well in terms of participation and is broadly flat though it got a bit of bounce in the latest figures,” the Daily Telegraph reported Sport England chief executive Jennie Price saying. “Their plan simply wasn’t strong enough to justify the four-year investment. Our hope with tennis is that they do access the full four years. They have only a
one-year award for participation and they have to improve their plan fogrowing participation. The current plan doesn’t have a good delivery plan across the country, there is not a good feedback mechanism, it is not really based on customer insight.”

The LTA responded that it is “working closely with Sport England to ensure that we develop the best tennis offers to increase
participation.”

It's a shame that growing number won't be supported, but I can understand that those who are investing may have more accurate information about how that spending happened.

In that case, I think it is better to change people who are running the show than cut funding.

Tennis in England is definitely getting more popular and, let's not kid ourselves, has never been a cheap sport like football.

I am sure there are people in this country who could put up a better plan and execute it.

The thing I am not sure about is how that funding has been spent, but have the impression it may have ended up in some private pockets or juniors who have not justified the expectations by showing inadequate commitment.

Talking to the head coach f my club who also coaches one of the most promising British juniors at the moment, the juniors all start off well, but when they hit 15 and the years when they need to commit fully and say no to girls and parties, then they all start wavering their dedication.

In short, they are just not hungry enough.

I think it's reasonable actually (to cut fund). If anything I find it mad to spend so much to put people on a court. I was never forced to and no-one shoudl force anybody. If people prefer to play football or snooker, or simply stay home...fair enough.

I spent a fortune giving my son weekly tennis lesson from 5 to 15 and then it gave up cause he had other interests. One thing I learn is that we cannot force people to do things. My parents coudl not care less about sport (not teh case of my grandparents though) and I was tsill desperate to get on a tennis court in the middle of Paris where you had to cue for hours to get the chance to play for 1h.

Yes for some promoting but the best promotion is actually showing the sport on TV,....unfortunately not enough of it on the main free channels.

Yes, they are all valid points, especially the one where tennis needs to be more accesible to watch, how can you get inspired by tennis or someone if you can only see a couple of matches two weeks a year (Wimbledon).

Mind you, that was quite enough for me, except I had zero opportunities to play.

Here, it's all down to parents, and it's usually children of parents who love tennis that get pushed, and very few of them actually want to play properly, mainly trying to probably keep parents happy until they have to show some proper dedication, when their interests drift away.

Where improvements could be made is just to make the game more accessible, offer free lessons and hiring of racquets & balls, just that first step which is non-existent at the moment.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, they are all valid points, especially the one where tennis needs to be more accesible to watch, how can you get inspired by tennis or someone if you can only see a couple of matches two weeks a year (Wimbledon).

Look at F1. Not many people can afford racing or karting, hardly anybody does, nor can we compare our cars with theirs and watching can be a pain as it consists of cars clocking the same circuit 50 times or more. Yet it is very popular cause TV pushes it down our throats. If they were doing that for table tennis or tennis, I am pretty sure tennis could get as popular as football...nearly as much as it's a sport which has its success where football is also susscceful and unlike other sports it's really played worldwide more and more.

I think the price itself is pretty cheap but the main problem is that a club can be intimidating to young players as the playing population gets older. In France it;s really open to all so a youngster can easily find a partner and share a court whereas here you feel adults run the place....though that has changed in teh right direction recently.

Yes, tennis really needs to lose the "snob" badge asap and I would like to believe it's dying out slowly with the older generation.

They really are such a turn off.

Again with tennis &TV, you can see how money has spoilt it there, too. You need SKY to watch it on TV (that's just my guess as I watch it all on my computer)...

Still, the numbers of people playing are growing and that can't be denied. Changes in terms of any quality players may happen but it will take another generation before we see the real difference. From that point of view Murray is very important but it's such a shame he lacks a bit of personality to get more people to like him.

However, one can't deny that he went through that massacre in Dunblane as a 5 year old and survived. The recent shooting in the US puts it into a bit of perspective.
Those traumas and memories run deep, and you don't know how it affected Andy as a young child as he doesn't like to talk about it.

I read an interesting thing somewhere when somebody said how Federer is loved more than Murray in UK because he emobodies British values more than Murray.

Tennis is too good not to take off again.

I was pissed off to see the latest cuts not just in tennis but in other sports too.

Not sure if Sport England have any sense at all. Simple. If you withdraw funding from under performing areas, it will still generate or even worsen future results.

Will the penny drop as to why the top athletes succeed when being developed in other countries.

Poor management and structure in place with Sport England as usual.

Well this suing culture is increasing the financial burden and incurring creating more paper-pushing staff, administration that needs to tick the boxes and make everything legit "just in case", it's everywhere: in the police, NHS, and most likely in sports, so they are those that suck probably at least 30% of those funds: useless and pointless management.

Problem is NITB if you undercut the admin staff in any public body it will lead to front line staff and specialists being exposed to more admin duties than the specialist service they provide.

I don't endorse admin staff as being an NHS worker I have seen some dreadful ones. I think if there is a decent admin function that run in a cost effecttive manner while delivering a support service to the specialists to help them deliver results, it can be a good thing.

Roger Draper unfortunately does not qualify as a decent admin body

legendkillar wrote:I was pissed off to see the latest cuts not just in tennis but in other sports too.

Not sure if Sport England have any sense at all. Simple. If you withdraw funding from under performing areas, it will still generate or even worsen future results.

Will the penny drop as to why the top athletes succeed when being developed in other countries.

Poor management and structure in place with Sport England as usual.

I am actually quite pleased with it. Money spoils almost everything and the less of it the healthier.

legendkillar wrote:Not sure if Sport England have any sense at all. Simple. If you withdraw funding from under performing areas, it will still generate or even worsen future results.

Will the penny drop as to why the top athletes succeed when being developed in other countries.

Poor management and structure in place with Sport England as usual.

So in fact you are saying that the richer a country, the more successful it will be and that sport shoudl actually be directly linked to wealth? Doesn't that in fact completely defeat the purpose of sport?

I want to see the opposite. Natural athletes from anywhere in the world winning thanks to their ability. This is why olympics of sailing or horse jumping will always attract less interest in that track racing but also I woudl be annoyed to see a track racing athlete from a rich country doing better than a poorer country despite less ability thanks to technology and doddgy science available to richer athletes/countries.

That was teh beauty of South American footballs (Brazil, Argentinia, etc...) with all those guys coming from poor surburbs able to show amazing skills to the wealthier civilisations.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I was pissed off to see the latest cuts not just in tennis but in other sports too.

Not sure if Sport England have any sense at all. Simple. If you withdraw funding from under performing areas, it will still generate or even worsen future results.

Will the penny drop as to why the top athletes succeed when being developed in other countries.

Poor management and structure in place with Sport England as usual.

I am actually quite pleased with it. Money spoils almost everything and the less of it the healthier.

I don't agree with that 100%

Take cycling. Why would that require further investment when infact they should look at ways in which they can save money if they are in position to have the right structure?

I don't believe for a second there is a strong enough structure in place in the UK that can develop future tennis stars. It requires a massive shake up and that will require investment. The structure is failing because it can't deliver the results it strived towards. Players are going outisde the UK for their final stages of development. It is outsourcing in a sense and the LTA learn nothing from this.

Invest more in improving instead of cutting out funding when sports are literally at a development stage.

legendkillar wrote:

Roger Draper unfortunately does not qualify as a decent admin body

I wouldn't consider Draper as admin staff, he is running the show, it's all the pointless secretaries, bodies and committees that live on a jolly, travel around the world and do nothing, a bit like United Nations.
For example, Draper has managed to have his son coached under the LTA umbrella, but people don't know about it, you can imagine what goes on with the rest.
Just like when charity money gets sent to Africa and people see 10% of what was originally sent, so it is with all this funding:easy come- easy go.
And tragically, even the talented juniors in the UK treat that funding in the same way, remember the scandal with those player during the Sydney Olympics? All on booze and completely irresponsible....so it's not easy...
I think employing an enthusiast or a team of enthusiasts would make a difference, but we know that's never going to happen, don't we?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Not sure if Sport England have any sense at all. Simple. If you withdraw funding from under performing areas, it will still generate or even worsen future results.

Will the penny drop as to why the top athletes succeed when being developed in other countries.

Poor management and structure in place with Sport England as usual.

So in fact you are saying that the richer a country, the more successful it will be and that sport shoudl actually be directly linked to wealth? Doesn't that in fact completely defeat the purpose of sport?

I want to see the opposite. Natural athletes from anywhere in the world winning thanks to their ability. This is why olympics of sailing or horse jumping will always attract less interest in that track racing but also I woudl be annoyed to see a track racing athlete from a rich country doing better than a poorer country despite less ability thanks to technology and doddgy science available to richer athletes/countries.

That was teh beauty of South American footballs (Brazil, Argentinia, etc...) with all those guys coming from poor surburbs able to show amazing skills to the wealthier civilisations.

No not at all. That is not my point.

Take handball. That was in development prior to the Olympics and then post event they shelve the plan and the funding based on 1 performance? Totally illogical.

Nothing stops the influx of naturally gifted athletes. What I don't like seeing is the end product being finished off in another country as we learn nothing in the way of seeing something through all the way to the end.

You've got the point, poorer countries have produced better results, but that all goes back to proper organisation and a healthy system/grid.

I have always felt it was a bit suffocating in that respect hear, too much namby-pamby, not enough grit.
Football/ rugby/cricket are the exceptions because you just need to be a nutter and run

legendkillar wrote:
Take handball. That was in development prior to the Olympics and then post event they shelve the plan and the funding based on 1 performance? Totally illogical.

Nothing stops the influx of naturally gifted athletes. What I don't like seeing is the end product being finished off in another country as we learn nothing in the way of seeing something through all the way to the end.

But no-one should be paid to take on handball and nothing shoudl prevent people interested in playing it. That shoudl be the source of all sports. We have little need to finance people to play football. Every parks in teh UK is filled with players playing the game at weekend.

Of course we can create a successful team in all sports thanks to money but I do not think it should be the motivating factor.

Cricket and running??????

A day in field is painstakingly boring!!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Take handball. That was in development prior to the Olympics and then post event they shelve the plan and the funding based on 1 performance? Totally illogical.

Nothing stops the influx of naturally gifted athletes. What I don't like seeing is the end product being finished off in another country as we learn nothing in the way of seeing something through all the way to the end.

But no-one should be paid to take on handball and nothing shoudl prevent people interested in playing it. That shoudl be the source of all sports. We have little need to finance people to play football. Every parks in teh UK is filled with players playing the game at weekend.

Of course we can create a successful team in all sports thanks to money but I do not think it should be the motivating factor.

No no. Not saying they should be paid.

I am looking at the structure. I am for free participation for those with the talent to succeed. Just want to see better structures.

I think with less funding, finding that excellence is hard and developing it even harder.
It is no coincidence that the boom in cycling is coinciding with the most successful area in british sport and look how much investment has gone into it!
They know exactly what they are doing and recently someone commented that 'GB's cycling track team are the only professionals in an otherwise amateur sport'.

legendkillar wrote:Cricket and running??????

A day in field is painstakingly boring!!

alright, alright ..... you know what I meant: parks are full of children playing it, but tennis courts are sadly empty. You can only see a desperate parent trying to teach a disinterested child, or older doubles having a hit, I have never seen anyone in the 10-16/7 age bracket play tennis in the park.
Tenez has a very good point with TV rights. If children can't watch their "heroes" on TV and get inspired, then how are they going to want to start loving the game and playing in the first place.
I got into all kinds of sports just by mere watching them on TV and loving them. I tried a lot of them, some I was better at, some not, but that's what got me into them, plus we obviously played a lot at school, but that is the base on which everything else then gets built on.

So, yes, if BBC showed more than just Wimbledon, you may get more interest in the sport and remove the snobbery image it still carries.Today's generation of pros both in ATP and WTA really don't come across as poncy like they may have in the past.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Cricket and running??????

A day in field is painstakingly boring!!

alright, alright ..... you know what I meant: parks are full of children playing it, but tennis courts are sadly empty. You can only see a desperate parent trying to teach a disinterested child, or older doubles having a hit, I have never seen anyone in the 10-16/7 age bracket play tennis in the park.
Tenez has a very good point with TV rights. If children can't watch their "heroes" on TV and get inspired, then how are they going to want to start loving the game and playing in the first place.
I got into all kinds of sports just by mere watching them on TV and loving them. I tried a lot of them, some I was better at, some not, but that's what got me into them, plus we obviously played a lot at school, but that is the base on which everything else then gets built on.

So, yes, if BBC showed more than just Wimbledon, you may get more interest in the sport and remove the snobbery image it still carries.Today's generation of pros both in ATP and WTA really don't come across as poncy like they may have in the past.

There is a tennis court down the road from where I live littered with wannabe chavs on scooters ruining the surface of beautiful court!

Look no further than the SPOTY where Federer's Wimbledon success barely got a mention and nor his record-breaking weeks at top of the rankings.

Playing Cricket myself is nice and there is college down from workplace which plays the game religiously.

Yes TV rights are influential, but in an age where online streaming is the much preferred engine of sporting viewing for me makes it easier for those to access every sporting event.

The whole snobbery thing I think is more myth nowadays. Go into any sports shops and kids marvel at having the best clobber and best boots that can enhance performance and what not. Kids love buying expensive cricket bats and the equipment. I don't think retailers push the correct tennis racquets as they are full of marked down replica's of the pro's. This doesn't educate in terms of racquet weight, head size, string tension and grips. If I said to a kid who bought a Murray Head Radical and asked the weight of the racquet, I would be met with a "huh?"

Football kids know all the named brands boot names. I would like to see more tennis equipment ranges in the shops as I think that is part of winning the battle in enticing kids to play tennis.

legendkillar wrote:

Football kids know all the named brands boot names. I would like to see more tennis equipment ranges in the shops as I think that is part of winning the battle in enticing kids to play tennis.

You're right! I'll need to make a special trip to London to get some nice tennis gear, there is literally nothing in my local sports shop.
But, yes, this is a different generation of children growing up altogether, I keep forgetting that vital thing. And now that I've been reminded of it, the future looks even worse...but you never know. You only need one very talented child to take off and that will be it.
In the meantime.....we can just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Football kids know all the named brands boot names. I would like to see more tennis equipment ranges in the shops as I think that is part of winning the battle in enticing kids to play tennis.

You're right! I'll need to make a special trip to London to get some nice tennis gear, there is literally nothing in my local sports shop.
But, yes, this is a different generation of children growing up altogether, I keep forgetting that vital thing. And now that I've been reminded of it, the future looks even worse...but you never know. You only need one very talented child to take off and that will be it.
In the meantime.....we can just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

I am lucky enough to have a local sports shop run by a tennis nut and he has no football gear in his shop and I often go out there to marvel at the range of racquets he has and he is even kind enough to allow us to play with new racquets he gets in. Being at his local tennis club has benefits.

I am sick of massive sports shops which do very limited ranges of tennis equipment. Nothing is more dis-heartening than going into a Sports Direct and seeing just Dunlop racquets, Dunlop golf clubs, Dunlop everywhere!!