Ask Tenez Thread

[legendkillar]

I thought I would start this thread. Given Tenez's proven knowledge on the sport and the enthusiasm shown by others to ask him questions and enhance their learning and understanding that I would start this thread for posters to ask questions. I extend this out to other posters to feel free to also contribute their thoughts on any questions that may be asked. I think it is good to use the pool of knowledge to answer questions past, present or future about the game and other issues associated. I thought I would get the ball rolling.

Tenez, what 1 change would you make to today's game to enhance the sport?

[Tenez]

LOL!. Thanks.

Ideally....go back to natural strings.
Realitically..provide harder rubber balls (typically bouncing less) to compensate for current tech strings.

This would reward much more the shot making ability.

[legendkillar]

No problem. I got the idea from a similar thread on another forum. I think it is good to have a thread where we can pose interesting questions and even touch on things that maybe we don't know and I think it would generate interesting insights and views

Good answer. I would certainly like to see a return to gut strings. However if it was one change what would have the greater impact? A ball change or string change?

[Tenez]

Maybe ball changes. Strings nowadays allow you to do more with the ball and therefore create more shots variation. Unfortunately, it's used to force a physical game but had a guy like Federer learnt to play with it from an earlier age, he would have probably been able to master them better and get the most out pof them.

[noleisthebest]

He,he, fabulous thread LK!!!!

T indeed is so good with his tennis knowledge and very gracious and patient in sharing it.
I have really enjoyed knowing him for a few years now and am still upset about the unfair treatment he was given on v2.

So lovely and generous of him to start this forum and be a great host without telling others what they can and can't think ( basic civility only, please!)

I certainly have learnt tons and as a result enjoy watching and understanding the game even more.
It would be nice if those who asked for Tenez to be banned from v2 to applogise even through a PM some day.

[noleisthebest]

Ok, and a question: when are you going to a acknowledge that Nole is a bit more than a doped road-runner?

[Tenez]

He,he, fabulous thread LK!!!!

T indeed is so good with his tennis knowledge and very gracious and patient in sharing it.
I have really enjoyed knowing him for a few years now and am still upset about the unfair treatment he was given on v2.

So lovely and generous of him to start this forum and be a great host without telling others what they can and can't think ( basic civility only, please!)

I certainly have learnt tons and as a result enjoy watching and understanding the game even more.
It would be nice if those who asked for Tenez to be banned from v2 to applogise even through a PM some day.

Thanks NITB...ACtually you really are the one keeping this forum alive.

[Tenez]

Ok, and a question: when are you going to a acknowledge that Nole is a bit more than a doped road-runner?

Honestly he did nothing today v Delpo to change my mind.

[noleisthebest]

Ok, and a question: when are you going to a acknowledge that Nole is a bit more than a doped road-runner?

Honestly he did nothing today v Delpo to change my mind.

There's always a tomorrow

[Tenez]

I wish as much as yuo. I would be happy to see Djoko
play with risk and flair.

[legendkillar]

He,he, fabulous thread LK!!!!

T indeed is so good with his tennis knowledge and very gracious and patient in sharing it.
I have really enjoyed knowing him for a few years now and am still upset about the unfair treatment he was given on v2.

So lovely and generous of him to start this forum and be a great host without telling others what they can and can't think ( basic civility only, please!)

I certainly have learnt tons and as a result enjoy watching and understanding the game even more.
It would be nice if those who asked for Tenez to be banned from v2 to applogise even through a PM some day.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening NITB. I don't see the harm in opinions and he wasn't the one that brought the subject to the table time and time again. He commented on threads started by others and it seemed his views caused offence to some. Strange as we don't know these players personally to feel offeneded

I do believe in some way that the forum there misses his views and knowledge of the game. I certainly see it he even touched on players posters have no idea about or even heard of that always serves as a good base of knowledge.

It is a shame he is judged by one view he has on certain players instead of the wider scale of his knowledge and views

[noleisthebest]

I think for a baseliner, he's not that bad, he has been building his all-court game a lot in the last 6 months. But he could improve in the risk department from a 30% scenario to say, 60% without suffering much, I do agree there.

[noleisthebest]

Unfortunately I don't see that happening NITB. I don't see the harm in opinions and he wasn't the one that brought the subject to the table time and time again. He commented on threads started by others and it seemed his views caused offence to some. Strange as we don't know these players personally to feel offeneded

I do believe in some way that the forum there misses his views and knowledge of the game. I certainly see it he even touched on players posters have no idea about or even heard of that always serves as a good base of knowledge.

It is a shame he is judged by one view he has on certain players instead of the wider scale of his knowledge and views

There's no such strange thing as folk!
You'd think everyone would love to hear something interesting and informative....what can you do!
But you have to agree that there was no reason to ban someone just because you can't hack what they think about your favourite player. Tennis is far bigger than that.
Anyway, maybe some others will join and ask a thing or two, it's a really good way of opening up various topics of discussion.
At the end of they day, whichever forum you are spending most of your time on, you do it because essentially you love tennis.
In my experience that love is a growing experience and a learning curve and I am enjoying it so much more now then when I look back on my early bbc 606 days. And that's all thanks to hearing what others say and thinking about it, not chucking tantrums and sulking.

[paulcz]

Ten and LK, that is a nice idea to have such a thread, where anyone can ask for a tennis advise or an idea. That could be called also like "Ten help desk thread". I see and consider that as a milestone in the tennis education and possible coaching in the future OTF

[raiders_of_the_lost_ark]

LOL!. Thanks.

Ideally....go back to natural strings.
Realitically..provide harder rubber balls (typically bouncing less) to compensate for current tech strings.

This would reward much more the shot making ability.

Going back to natural gut isn't the positive move. Technological advancements in equipments is necessary and its always a positive thing for sports. If we think about going back, we can argue about 1000s of other things to go back to. Why not go back to wooden small framed racquet, why not ban the hard (artificial ) surface and go back to natural surfaces like only Grass and clay. The diet, the training equipments, the shoes, and what not.. What all we will have to go back to.

The ball becoming fluffy may also have to do with the new strings which impart a greater impact on the ball. Perhaps the easier solution is changing the balls every 5 games instead of 9.

[Tenez]

Going back to natural gut isn't the positive move. Technological advancements in equipments is necessary and its always a positive thing for sports.

Really? Do you think those medical, drugs advance are a good thing?

If we think about going back, we can argue about 1000s of other things to go back to. Why not go back to wooden small framed racquet, why not ban the hard (artificial ) surface and go back to natural surfaces like only Grass and clay. The diet, the training equipments, the shoes, and what not.. What all we will have to go back to.

No my concern is that we currently have a game favouring the fittest too much over the more talented ones.....like in the 70s when Borg came in with a small wooden racquet and was impossible to hit through whatever the surface..even fast grass. So wooden racquet woudl certainly not be the solution to shorten rallies with todays fit players.

And the rules have been changing back and force and evolving over time to adapt too. At some stages longer racquets were allowed, then restricted, double stringing patterns allowed then forbiden, in table tennis a special glue was allowed then forbiden etc...And I woudl not mind going back to nat surfaces only either...though maybe HC brings a nice variation.

Those new strings are simply changing the game beyond recognition and we are only seeing the beginning of what players can do with it.. It's teh biggest impact in tennis since. It's in my view as big a change to the game as larger graphite racquet if not more. At the end this forced the increase of bigger balls. Those new string just make the game much more physical and turn tennis, a skilled eye/hand game into marathons with poor quality but long rallies on all surfaces...even Dubai.

The changing of balls every 5 games instead of 7 or 8 is a good idea...but I simply think making the balls heavier and harder less bouncy would be more efficient as the game as is allows for long rallies right from teh beginning and doesn't invite to hit winners but go for safety more.

[raiders_of_the_lost_ark]

Going back to natural gut isn't the positive move. Technological advancements in equipments is necessary and its always a positive thing for sports.

Really? Do you think those medical, drugs advance are a good thing?

By technological advancements I meant advancements in terms of new advanced equipments, shoes, playing surfaces, better clothing gears etc. I surely can say I enjoy the spectacle that Pete, Becker, Fed, etc. were able to produce with those new racquets that which was simply impossible for the Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver to do. New technology is always built to make life easier. I'm sure some would definitely do better at producing fire by rubbing 2 sticks which is actually quite difficult and time taking. But that doesn't mean a match-box which can do it with a snap shouldn't have been made because it rendered the skill of those stick-rubbing people pretty useless. Now even kids 4-5 year kids can also produce fire with a snap. So its not easy to decide what's a good thing.

If new racquets and string make returning and finding angles easier, then I just have to accept it and see that more players on more occasions are going to make those returns and those impossible-with-wood angles. The players would develop new ways to counter those returns and angles. Is this a good thing? My take would be yes.

Medical advancements in drugs are generally not discovered/built keeping sports in mind. Doping is just a way of cheating which is the primary goal. If there were no medical advancements ( i.e. imagine if EPO or Blood doping was never discovered ), yet those players would have found some other way to cheat. So in my opinion medical advancement are good. But only thing is, it has opened more options for cheats in sports.

[noleisthebest]

If new racquets and string make returning and finding angles easier, then I just have to accept it and see that more players on more occasions are going to make those returns and those impossible-with-wood angles. The players would develop new ways to counter those returns and angles. Is this a good thing? My take would be yes.

Is safer tennis a good thing?
Angles can be attractive to certain point, but as a product of baseline hitting, they really are limited in giving visual pleasure compared to watching all-court tennis and the variety which a good control/creativity of the racquet can produce. I would love to see today's generation of players play with 80s racquets. They'd all look so much more human and less like a computer game. And they wouldn't need medicine that much.

[Tenez]

Going back to natural gut isn't the positive move. Technological advancements in equipments is necessary and its always a positive thing for sports.

Really? Do you think those medical, drugs advance are a good thing?

By technological advancements I meant advancements in terms of new advanced equipments, shoes, playing surfaces, better clothing gears etc. I surely can say I enjoy the spectacle that Pete, Becker, Fed, etc. were able to produce with those new racquets that which was simply impossible for the Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver to do. New technology is always built to make life easier. I'm sure some would definitely do better at producing fire by rubbing 2 sticks which is actually quite difficult and time taking. But that doesn't mean a match-box which can do it with a snap shouldn't have been made because it rendered the skill of those stick-rubbing people pretty useless. Now even kids 4-5 year kids can also produce fire with a snap. So its not easy to decide what's a good thing.

If new racquets and string make returning and finding angles easier, then I just have to accept it and see that more players on more occasions are going to make those returns and those impossible-with-wood angles. The players would develop new ways to counter those returns and angles. Is this a good thing? My take would be yes.

Medical advancements in drugs are generally not discovered/built keeping sports in mind. Doping is just a way of cheating which is the primary goal. If there were no medical advancements ( i.e. imagine if EPO or Blood doping was never discovered ), yet those players would have found some other way to cheat. So in my opinion medical advancement are good. But only thing is, it has opened more options for cheats in sports.

But Bottom line is that it is common for rules and conditions to change in sport to keep the sport interesting and balanced. I gave that example of double strings being introduced and forbiden. And we can see now that they are trying to speed the conds again and apply the 25s rule. What I like in sport is actually comparing athletes. Isn't that what sport is all about? And the more you change conds, rules and material, the less you can compare. I like marathons or 100m cause it's quite simple. Sure you have faster shoes faster track but there are limits to the help they bring and medical science is sadly the main field of real improvement. What's the point of comparing Agassi's career slam with Nadal and Federer's since Nadal was playing on the same surface more or less while Agassi played on 4 different ones.

[legendkillar]

Ah nice to see this thread opening up. Tenbo, Michael Chang. Watching highlights of the final and even amazed at the under-arm serve that Change through in. Clearly Chang had the idea of unsettling Lendl and it worked.

Why do you think that Chang never went on to win more Slams? I do remember he was red hot favourite for the US Open in 1997 when Sampras was knocked out. I just wonder why he never won more Slams. He should've beaten Becker in the AO Final in 1996.

Is there anything more he could've done with his game? He was a great slicer of the ball, maybe if he could've been a more competent volleyer maybe would've resulted in more success?

[luvsports!]

not enough firepower?

[Tenez]

You see I can't answer all the questions. I don't quite now why he did not win more slams. I am just glad he did not and I never forgave him to have beaten Lendl and Edberg in that FO. It was a great chievement and the youngest slam winner ever I believe. But frankly he had been extremely lucky to beat Lendl in that manner and also more lucky to have Edberg miss the easiest volley to lead by a double break and 5/1 in that 4th set while Edberg was leading 2 sets to 1.

He had huge legs and was the fastest player of his time but his shots were not that great. As conds were still fast he could not be fast enough to rerieve everything.

What is interesting is that he beat Pete in his first 5 encounters, bagelling him even, and managed to beat him on HC as well as fast carpet.

I am really surprised he did not do better at the FO after winning it at 16 or 17....not even a final (maybe not SF even). I am sure this was to do to the fact he could not move as well on clay and the FO organisers sped up the conds to give Pete a better chance to win it.

My view is that he should have never won a slam and should probably not be discussed a potential great. He just had one great and amazing tournament....the rest is made of lots of running and hard hitting thanks to the first extended graphite racquet (hence less precision).

[Tenez]

not enough firepower?

Yes though he compensated that with longer racquet. Unfortuantely for him there was no bigbanger strings at his time. He woudl have won a few more slams with it. He woudl have been the Nadal of the 90s.

[legendkillar]

That is an interesting point on FO organisers trying to speed up conds in the 90's. I wonder if that was that they were aiming for in 2011. Surprised that they have never tried to lend such help to Federer given his strong following there.

[Tenez]

I think they tried before 2011 (but not including 2011). And maybe this is why we saw Soderling able to kick Nadal out...thanks to favourable weather conds too (heavy wet slow court but fast balls).

I think in 2011 it was teh introduction of Babolat balls and though the TD asked for same specs as former dunlop they messed it up and it went against Nadal but I am pretty sure that was down to an error from Babolat than a request from the TDs cause the following year Babolat made sure the 2012 were huge, soft and slow.

[legendkillar]

The 2011 was very interesting. Especially how well Isner played in that match against Nadal. Has to be said that maybe more fitness in the tank would've seen him home and dry.

Djokovic last year certainly had him rattled.

I am hoping the organisers do something different. Get the schedule of play sorted out as 3 days for the opening round seems excessive, though the nature of clay is to have longer matches. Faster conds and new balls might help solve this problem for them.

[Tenez]

Yes the thing is that the hard rubber balls of FO11 did not take the bite of his strings and that made his shots unsecure and short...easy for Isner to handle. By the end of the forthnight he probably droped the tension of his strings to allow more biting from the strings. He got more power (length) but less precision....however precision is not such a big deal in his game and that allowed him to win the tournament by the end....but it was certainly tougher for him.

[legendkillar]

Going back to the question I posed earlier about changing something in the game to stimulate the game. How about a restriction on the racquet head size? Say cap it off 98in? It is ludicrous to think sometimes players play with a racquet headsize say of 108in! I think Agassi used a 105in racquet head!

[Tenez]

Going back to the question I posed earlier about changing something in the game to stimulate the game. How about a restriction on the racquet head size? Say cap it off 98in? It is ludicrous to think sometimes players play with a racquet headsize say of 108in! I think Agassi used a 105in racquet head!

Yes, Djoko and Nadal's are at 100 I believe and that already increases the sweat spot, especially for DHBHers. The thing is I use a Yonex 98in and their shape makes it as comfy as a 100in Babolat or Head almost.

To me the change of balls woudl be best. harder rubber, less bouncy.

For someone like Federer who spent all his youth training and learning how to hit shots at waist level must have been a pain suddenly to have to handle shoulder level shots....even on grass!

Nowadays it pays off to moonball (like in the 80s on clay)....that is not in favour of tennis, spectacle wise.

[laverfan]

Leaving specific player references aside, which usually degenerates into the usual.

Instead of a single change, consider what changes would support the evolution of the sport towards an exciting level for both players and spectators.

Court speed variations, instead of similarity that we currently have, perhaps. Easier access to Tennis facilities globally. Reducing the cost of the sport for global reach. Uniformity of testing and laws regarding medical enhancements, etc.

[Tenez]

But I am of the view that courts bring their own specifities ( grass, clay, HD etc..) and that is enough to create variety. There should be no need to change balls or other parameters. Providing very slow balls on grass and faster balls on clay defeats the purpose of having different surfaces....though I agree that players fitness and new racquets can make surfaces play ridiculously different (90s grass/clay ie) and I guess some degree of control on balls must be applied.

[legendkillar]

Leaving specific player references aside, which usually degenerates into the usual.

Instead of a single change, consider what changes would support the evolution of the sport towards an exciting level for both players and spectators.

Court speed variations, instead of similarity that we currently have, perhaps. Easier access to Tennis facilities globally. Reducing the cost of the sport for global reach. Uniformity of testing and laws regarding medical enhancements, etc.

LF

I don't think so much it is trying to handicap one player to open out the field. It is bouncing ideas like would restriction on racquet head size have a greater positive effect on the game say compared with changing ball sizes?

I am in the camp of any poster who agrees that variety needs to come back and the surfaces is the first place to focus on for change to occur. Let grass play like it used to and speed up AA at Flushing Meadows.

I agree with the changes you state eg allowing more access to the sport especially at grass root levels and also look at the laws around medical enhancements and look at generically setting a list by which no one player will have the greater advantage.

It is a shame that evolutionary ideas come from where the game was in the past.

[noleisthebest]

Leaving specific player references aside, which usually degenerates into the usual.

Instead of a single change, consider what changes would support the evolution of the sport towards an exciting level for both players and spectators.

Court speed variations, instead of similarity that we currently have, perhaps. Easier access to Tennis facilities globally. Reducing the cost of the sport for global reach. Uniformity of testing and laws regarding medical enhancements, etc.

LF

I don't think so much it is trying to handicap one player to open out the field. It is bouncing ideas like would restriction on racquet head size have a greater positive effect on the game say compared with changing ball sizes?

I am in the camp of any poster who agrees that variety needs to come back and the surfaces is the first place to focus on for change to occur. Let grass play like it used to and speed up AA at Flushing Meadows.

I agree with the changes you state eg allowing more access to the sport especially at grass root levels and also look at the laws around medical enhancements and look at generically setting a list by which no one player will have the greater advantage.

It is a shame that evolutionary ideas come from where the game was in the past.

Why is it a shame?

[noleisthebest]

Did you all know it was the World Tennis Day today?

www.worldtennisday.com

To tennis! ,

PS
although to some of us it happens every day

[legendkillar]

Leaving specific player references aside, which usually degenerates into the usual.

Instead of a single change, consider what changes would support the evolution of the sport towards an exciting level for both players and spectators.

Court speed variations, instead of similarity that we currently have, perhaps. Easier access to Tennis facilities globally. Reducing the cost of the sport for global reach. Uniformity of testing and laws regarding medical enhancements, etc.

LF

I don't think so much it is trying to handicap one player to open out the field. It is bouncing ideas like would restriction on racquet head size have a greater positive effect on the game say compared with changing ball sizes?

I am in the camp of any poster who agrees that variety needs to come back and the surfaces is the first place to focus on for change to occur. Let grass play like it used to and speed up AA at Flushing Meadows.

I agree with the changes you state eg allowing more access to the sport especially at grass root levels and also look at the laws around medical enhancements and look at generically setting a list by which no one player will have the greater advantage.

It is a shame that evolutionary ideas come from where the game was in the past.

Why is it a shame?

Because the worst thing they could've done was homigenise the surfaces the one factor that could still influence a tournament. Take with golf. Despite the massive shifts technology they have had, they can't change the conds so to speak. They change holes by lengthing the distance, put in more bunkers, narrow the fairways. In general the changes they make are to stretch the difficulty of the game. With tennis I think they took it too far. You had the racquet changes, ball changes, string changes. They made it easier for the modern player. They made it too easy when making the surfaces play the same. Revert them back to their natural way and maybe it will make things slightly more even.

[Tenez]

Did you all know it was the World Tennis Day today?

www.worldtennisday.com

To tennis! ,

PS
although to some of us it happens every day

It's funny, I read that completely by chance while going on the ITF site.

[noleisthebest]

Why is it a shame?
Because the worst thing they could've done was homigenise the surfaces the one factor that could still influence a tournament. Take with golf. Despite the massive shifts technology they have had, they can't change the conds so to speak. They change holes by lengthing the distance, put in more bunkers, narrow the fairways. In general the changes they make are to stretch the difficulty of the game. With tennis I think they took it too far. You had the racquet changes, ball changes, string changes. They made it easier for the modern player. They made it too easy when making the surfaces play the same. Revert them back to their natural way and maybe it will make things slightly more even.

But homogenisation is a new thing, not the thing of the past. Past, i.e. the roots was the exact opposite.

[laverfan]

It is a shame that evolutionary ideas come from where the game was in the past.

History should be used to look at a set of clears dos and do-nots. If the game was considered conducive to better overall participation and competition in the past, there is no need to throw such factors away.

They made it easier for the modern player. They made it too easy when making the surfaces play the same. Revert them back to their natural way and maybe it will make things slightly more even.

A Grass MS would be wonderful, whether Federer or Murray are around to play on it or not.

NITB/T

[noleisthebest]

Did you all know it was the World Tennis Day today?

www.worldtennisday.com

To tennis! ,

PS
although to some of us it happens every day

It's funny, I read that completely by chance while going on the ITF site.

If it was me, I'd have Wimbledon Men's Final as World Tennis Day. The whole world knows about it, loves it and watches it. I bet Wimbledon has inspired more people to play tennis than all these artificial "Days" put together

[sphairistike]

Tenez, do you believe in the clean hitting etc. they qualify Berdych of? (cf. atp website)

[Tenez]

Yes I do believe in clean hitting and that is why I believe it could still be in theory possible to win matches and tournaments without having to dop but that woudl require a huge amount of clean hitting (talent).

I don't think Berdych has that great a talent. Like most guys of his size he can hit flatter due to taking the ball higher and having higher margins over the net. He is a clean hitter but not that clean under pressure. He will have good patches where his FH is quite impressive but within the same match or set even he will throw a lot of UEs.

[noleisthebest]

Berd's still better to watch than Ferrer. I saw him live twice and his ball really fly fast and low over the net, very nice to see.
The thing that lets him down is his movement, it's a bit clunky, but that's him and that will never change.
He'd be so much better if he played Cilic's early game, but players don't seem to be in any hurry to take risk these days much, everyone seems to have worked out a formula and it's quite rife in top 10.
Safe baseline tennis coupled with top fitness and Bob's your uncle !

[sphairistike]

you mean Toni's your uncle!

[luvsports!]

[noleisthebest]

you mean Toni's your uncle!

[Tenez]

No one asked me but will try to respond to the very strange stat that Nadal has the best W/L ratio outdoor career wise (better than any past and present players? AND only ranked 38 intdoors?!?!?!?!

Sure clay being outdoors helps his outdoor record but his HC W/L ratio is not too bad so the main reason in my view for his indoor record is the lower and consistent bounce make it easier for the opposition to time his loopy shots. Nadal's strength comes from the difficulty to time his shots...not his shots per se. Also teh fact that he was not trying too hard in the end season (where indoors are essentially) adds to the strange discrepancy between his indoor/outdoor results.

[noleisthebest]

No one asked me but will try to respond to the very strange stat that Nadal has the best W/L ratio outdoor career wise (better than any past and present players? AND only ranked 38 intdoors?!?!?!?!

Sure clay being outdoors helps his outdoor record but his HC W/L ratio is not too bad so the main reason in my view for his indoor record is the lower and consistent bounce make it easier for the opposition to time his loopy shots. Nadal's strength comes from the difficulty to time his shots...not his shots per se. Also teh fact that he was not trying too hard in the end season (where indoors are essentially) adds to the strange discrepancy between his indoor/outdoor results.

Yes, despite having a career slam, he's failed to win WTF, which I find strange. The closest he got to it was one final which he lost to Fed and looked really average in the process.

[legendkillar]

Tenbo

With Roger Draper finally departing from the LTA, who would you like to see in the role and what do you think the LTA needs to do to start producing the players to compete at the top of the game?

[Tenez]

Hi LK - I know pretty well what is the problem here and as a committee member of my club I also understand the challenges the LTA has been facing.

Did not know Draper was going but at £640k/year salary....I am glad he goes. Ridiculous salaries which cannot be justified.

Here is the main problem: most clubs in the UK are private while in France they are public (belong to the councils). That means essentially that in the UK the LTA has not much say or control of what's happening in most clubs whereas in France the FFT (LTA equivalent) organises coaching, pricing and everything a club needs. The FFT is "in control", the LTA is not.

When a French yougster joins a tennis club in France (he doesn't have to pay much) but included in his yearly subs is coaching (paid by the FFT) which will bring all juniors to a good standard. The coaches are responsible to take the children to tournaments, etc..So the base of the pyramid in France is a few notches higher than the base in the UK. It means the higher you go in that pyramid the better players you have you have and you end up having 10 French players in the top 100 (10%). Even better 5 in the top 30 (17%)…while in the UK we have 1 player in the top 100.

Here for having raised 3 children I know the difficulty and cost to get coaching in those private clubs and nothing is organised to take them to tournaments…all that requires huge determination from parents while in France the parents do nothing besides paying the €60 subs/year!!!

However once a UK player is selected and has potential, all the money the LTA has is going to be channelled through those few top players and that will allow them to project them higher and prepare them better for the tour by really investing on those few.

I explained the difference between a Chardy and a Murray who both won a Junior slam in the other thread explaining Murray;s early success while the French guys struggle in the satellite circuits on their own.

So the LTA is very good to those few top players (but have not much choice of quality except when they get “lucky” and have a Murray while the FFT has plenty of choice having done a great work of maxising the potential of all juniors but then dropping them at the time they need to do the final giants steps to win slams.

Also the problem in France is that anti-doping control are really tough so there is a culture of improving your skills and less your body and a few have to go abroad (Miami) to keep in touch with what’s needed to be able to compete at the top nowadays. Murray knew where to go from the very beginning (Spain first and then Miami training with Gilbert, Johnson etc….). I am not saying that to annoy you as a fan of Murray but just say what I believe is a simple truth.

[legendkillar]

Fantastic piece Ten.

I think it takes an insight such as that to highlight the massive weaknessesin the system. No problem with the belief in juniors selection of country to develop. You would have to say it must be a consideration if parents have that knowledge and are exposed to doping early on.

What is the FFT's view on developing youngsters who are not French?

[Sponsored content]