The Benefits Of Andy Murray Winning A Slam

I recall, a few months ago, on this forum postulating what it would mean to Britain and Scotland if Andy Murray were to win a slam. I spoke of how it would inspire and encourage the younger generation to take up the game far more so than if Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc etc were to win a slam. Already we are seeing this to be the case as Glasgow (yes that city renowned more for the gritty Old Firm derbies in football) is going to build a number of new tennis courts on derelict land around the city. Andy himself is getting behind ideas for a tennis academy in Scotland and the current academy at Stirling is really thriving. All of those would never ever of happened without Andy Murray inspiring youngsters to take up the game.

Great point Craig, it is wonderful if Murray's victory gives a boost to the grass roots of the game in Scotland. what better legacy could murray hope for than to have kids all over a football mad country give tennis a serious look. I think the UK is an important market for the sport. Murray's victory is a shot in the arm for the sport.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I recall, a few months ago, on this forum postulating what it would mean to Britain and Scotland if Andy Murray were to win a slam. I spoke of how it would inspire and encourage the younger generation to take up the game far more so than if Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc etc were to win a slam. Already we are seeing this to be the case as Glasgow (yes that city renowned more for the gritty Old Firm derbies in football) is going to build a number of new tennis courts on derelict land around the city. Andy himself is getting behind ideas for a tennis academy in Scotland and the current academy at Stirling is really thriving. All of those would never ever of happened without Andy Murray expiring youngsters to take up the game.

There's a pretty harsh prison term for that.

super_realist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I recall, a few months ago, on this forum postulating what it would mean to Britain and Scotland if Andy Murray were to win a slam. I spoke of how it would inspire and encourage the younger generation to take up the game far more so than if Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc etc were to win a slam. Already we are seeing this to be the case as Glasgow (yes that city renowned more for the gritty Old Firm derbies in football) is going to build a number of new tennis courts on derelict land around the city. Andy himself is getting behind ideas for a tennis academy in Scotland and the current academy at Stirling is really thriving. All of those would never ever of happened without Andy Murray expiring youngsters to take up the game.

There's a pretty harsh prison term for that.

Ooops. No worry I will edit.

Andy's press conference afterwards he said:

"I hope this helps to get rid of the notion that British players choke or can't win or that this isn't a good sport for us. With Laura doing well at the Olympics and here, and Broady reaching the junior finals British tennis is in a good place at the moment and long may it continue."

Such mature and positive words. He really is a wonderful role model and has already done more than any player I can remember to push British tennis. He's spoken in the past that British players need to work harder, that British players need an identity and the LTA need to do more to develop players.

Tim and Greg did many good things for tennis in Britain, but Murray seems really keen to push it as hard as he can. He is the identity for British players from now on. Finally the majority of Britain have woken up to what an outstanding ambassador he is.

Well lets look at it another way. Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski were both great players in their own right but just how much could the average Brit relate to them? Tim was brought up in the Home Counties a product of the upper-class and kids couldn't truly relate to him as (rightly or wrongly) it appeared his upper-class upbringing was a big part to getting him the best the game could offer (not my opinion totally but one that was popularly perceived). Greg, however, people took to him was born and bred a Canadian so how much could the British public take from him? On the other hand Andy Murray came up through hardships in his personal life and has had to fight to get where he is now, taking painful defeats (familiar to Brits), is very animated and emotional at times and the nation has seen him cry and seen him succeed - a lot to associate with. He has also came through (despite Hawkeye's perception) tough press from the British media who put the knives in portraying him as anti-English. Now most sensible people in the UK know what a$$ holes run the British newspapers so Andy succeeding is a two-fingered gesture in their direction. Lets hope this is just the start of the success and the benefits that British tennis can get from this.

Agree with that Craig.

My worry is for the men's game in Britain, when is a Brit going to come through the system to the top of the game. Murray went to Spain to develop into the player that he is. Tim learnt his trade in his own back garden I'm led to believe, and Greg wasn't developed here.

Which essentially means that the LTA has NEVER developed a British man into a top ten player. That's quite damning.

But yes, Andy is someone the majority can associate to. Competetive, bit mouthy (as a youngster anyway) from a normal background... A little fortunate to be born into a family where his mother was a pro tennis player admittedly, but also a great role model in that he understood what he had to do to get to the top.

I don't know if you've read his book, but it really is fascinating his decisions as a young man. It was a conversation with Rafa at a junior tournament that led him to go to Spain. He heard that Rafa trained with Moya and was working on his game 4 hours a day. He came home and said "why doesn't that happen here? I've never even met Henman and yet this Spanish lad is training with Moya. He's also training as much a day as I do a week. I want to go to Spain."

Fascinating. His independence led him to become the player that he is. He made the big decisions and didn't just accept what was given to him.

Yes and in a BBC report following his recent visit to Dunblane he earmarks other ways such as a Scottish Tennis Academy to develop players away from the LTA. As can be read here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-19617470

Very valid point that considering how rank rotten the LTA are at developing players. I mean for all we know they may have had some gems there but their methods of bringing players through harms them. It is possible and perhaps probable as surely such a tennis institute couldn't be so incompetent as to not produce one player capable of breaking into the top 100?

Imagine if people don't get brought up as nationalists? Then they could be inspired to participate whenever a super player came long. Far more effective than waiting 70+ years.

I agree with the expected effect (though probably slight, but that remains to be seen) but it's a pity kids aspirations get dictated by such daft brainwashing.

Brainwashing - as you call it comes in all forms and not just nationalism. People take inspiration not just from Andy's nationality you know. As I have pointed out he has gone through the emotional wringer time and again and bounced back to try again - a highly commendable trait and people can and do associate with that regardless of where he is from. Kids in Scotland may have spent their time watching Federer winning slams but there is no association there. They may very well have greatly admired Federer's play as well but the connection wasn't there it was like he was from another world even though it was only Switzerland. Murray though has reached the top winning a slam and came from Dunblane - a small town near Stirling not renowned for wealth and opulence or producing a plethora of stars in any field. Kids latch onto that and it leads as an example of what can be achieved (even if you are from a run-down town) if you work hard enough. Sorry but even for all Federer and Nadal's talents they simply cannot reproduce that kind of feeling.

In Britain, yes.

But not all over the world. In Spain I think more people were inspired to tennis when Nadal won a Grand Slam, than Murray.

But in Britain, Scotland especially, Murrays GS win will have fantastic positive effects for tennis here.

Yes of course It Must Be Love but the state of tennis in Spain has nearly always been healthy so inspiration wasn't really so needed as it is in this country.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Brainwashing - as you call it comes in all forms and not just nationalism. People take inspiration not just from Andy's nationality you know. As I have pointed out he has gone through the emotional wringer time and again and bounced back to try again - a highly commendable trait and people can and do associate with that regardless of where he is from. Kids in Scotland may have spent their time watching Federer winning slams but there is no association there. They may very well have greatly admired Federer's play as well but the connection wasn't there it was like he was from another world even though it was only Switzerland. Murray though has reached the top winning a slam and came from Dunblane - a small town near Stirling not renowned for wealth and opulence or producing a plethora of stars in any field. Kids latch onto that and it leads as an example of what can be achieved (even if you are from a run-down town) if you work hard enough. Sorry but even for all Federer and Nadal's talents they simply cannot reproduce that kind of feeling.

The only reason for all that is nationalism.

There's no reason to be sorry, I recognise the impulses many people have. It's just a pity.

You can call it nationalism or you could call it Dunblanism as it has encouraged people in that town to turn to tennis - is that not a good thing? You could say taking up tennis through watching Federer would be favouritism - as in because he's ones favourite player so nationalism, Dunblanism or favouritism what does it matter as long as it is encouraging Scots and Brits to take up tennis.

I don't think it's a pity that I support fellow Brits in a sporting context. Or that anyone wants their fellow countrymen to do well. Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion.

It's a pity that some people take these things to extremes around the world, but you can't - in my opinion - associate that to the people who support their own sportsmen over others. As long as its respectful to all of course.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You can call it nationalism or you could call it Dunblanism as it has encouraged people in that town to turn to tennis - is that not a good thing? You could say taking up tennis through watching Federer would be favouritism - as in because he's ones favourite player so nationalism, Dunblanism or favouritism what does it matter as long as it is encouraging Scots and Brits to take up tennis.

There are many good by-products of generally destructive things. This is one of them.

Being inspired by a particular display is not favouritism, it's discernment. It's not a destructive 'ism' for sure.

How can kids being inspired to take up tennis be destructive? I can't work that one out - I am sorry. However, repulsed you feel about nationalism or any other sort of ism if it is encouraging kids to get out there and play tennis then that is great especially when it may very well be steering them away from a darker route that their life may take.

CaledonianCraig wrote:How can kids being inspired to take up tennis be destructive? I can't work that one out - I am sorry. However, repulsed you feel about nationalism or any other sort of ism if it is encouraging kids to get out there and play tennis then that is great especially when it may very well be steering them away from a darker route that their life may take.

It isn't a bad thing.

I referred to good by-products of generally destructive things, I think that's fairly clear isn't it?

So it isn't a bad thing then surely nationalism can't be totally bad either. Anyway, like I said we could go further and call it Dunblanism such is the affect his success story has had in that town. The fact is that the town isn't renowned for producing success stories and surely Murray has to be the biggest success story ever from the town. His success (regardless of his nationality) shows to the kids of that town what can be achieved with hard work and dedication to a cause. Akin to Columbus discovering America - it inspired others to venture out there as well to better themselves just as Murray effect is more likely to have a similar effect than if Fed had bagged yet another slam or Nadal won another or Djokovic had retained his title.

bogbrush wrote: but it's a pity kids aspirations get dictated by such daft brainwashing.

Ha ha! Not all kids are daft. Some are far brighter than the adults attempting to "brainwash". Thank goodness!

Just because a kid is inspired to tennis by someone from his country doesn't make him daft HE

In Scotland and Britain the success of Murray will have a fantastic effect for participation of tennis. Over the world Fedal have been far more influential, so far.

The crucial issue Craig hits on is association. Of course kids growing up in scotland are going to have a feeling of association and proximity to Murray that makes his success more likely to inspire them. It is something more than just tribalism or nationalism, human beings learn and gain inspiration by those that are close to them having success. The fact that murray provides this example of world class tennis success is going to provide the youngster a real life example of someone from his part of the world, with some of the same experiences he has had making it to the top. It is human nature or herd mentality when you see someone you know or identify with closely having success it makes you believe you can do the same thing. Picture a herd of wildabeast at a river crossing as soon the first one jumps they all jump. I think this type of identifying with success of someone who is from your group has an evolutionary component, almost a type of herd based mimicking.

Yes socal that is correct and is basically what I was saying.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So it isn't a bad thing then surely nationalism can't be totally bad either.

That's not sound at all. I could come up with hundreds of things that are bad that have good spin offs.

Nationalism is bad, plain and simple. It's constraining thinking, messing up people's heads to think someone with geographic approximation are more valuable to them than someone remote. Much of it is cultivated by others to manipulate behaviour, most obviously by generations of political leaders.

It's just a really bad idea.

Better that kids were inspired by Andy's style or character to want to emulate that. Better still to pick the best from everywhere to use.

I'm with Craig and socal on this. In a sporting context, nothing wrong with supporting your fellow countryman. Of course nationalism causes conflict, but that's a very very long way from wanting British sportsmen to do well.

If you go to enough extremes, you can find negatives for almost anything.

Nationalism is bad when people do not have freedom of choice. However that is not the case in this country. There is so much coverage of sport on television that youngsters can see all the top players playing and decide who they wish support and emulate. The main thing is that they get out and play. If Andy Murray being Scottish/British inspires kids to play tennis lets not deride that.

Due to Murray being near the top the game there is probably more coverage in this country than there would be if no GB player was up there. So that is a benefit for tennis straight away.

People do have a tendency to support 'one of their own' as they can relate to the conditions they have grown up in.

Coming out with statements like 'Nationalism is bad, plain and simple' smacks of Dictatorship. Which is a lot worse than Nationalism.

Exactly Danny and Calder. Besides for what BB is against in nationalism then can we presume that even Roger Federer is patriotic and nationalistic by playing Davis Cup tennis?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly Danny and Calder. Besides for what BB is against in nationalism then can we presume that even Roger Federer is patriotic and nationalistic by playing Davis Cup tennis?

Are you trying to suggest that Federer is always right, or - more likely I think - that someone who admires a player must always see validity in what they say? If so you really don't understand why I admire his tennis. It's to do with his tennis. I'm disinterested in his views outside the sport.

Nationalism is even worse when people have freedom of choice, Calder. I mean, that means they actually believe someone from the same Island is 'one of their own' when he really has no more connection over someone from another one. There is so much bad nonsense that comes from that first irrational belief.

It all comes back to what socal says in association. If people can associate with another person who has had a similar upbringing or set of experiences in life they can be inspired in that way. Just as people with cancer for example say Bob Champion inspired many in their fight against the disease and have openly said so. It needn't just be nationalism that inspires people and isn't just nationalism in Andy's case either.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly Danny and Calder. Besides for what BB is against in nationalism then can we presume that even Roger Federer is patriotic and nationalistic by playing Davis Cup tennis?

Are you trying to suggest that Federer is always right, or - more likely I think - that someone who admires a player must always see validity in what they say? If so you really don't understand why I admire his tennis. It's to do with his tennis. I'm disinterested in his views outside the sport.

Nationalism is even worse when people have freedom of choice, Calder. I mean, that means they actually believe someone from the same Island is 'one of their own' when he really has no more connection over someone from another one. There is so much bad nonsense that comes from that first irrational belief.

You keep on coming up with phrases like 'bad nonsense'. Yes 'bad nonsense' can come from nationalism/patriotism but your view seems to be that this is a given. If it is not taken to extremes and is tolerant to the fact that other people have different stances then there is no issue with it. I like to see British sportsmen/women doing well and in most cases support them. I don't disrespect other competitors because they are not British. So I see no issue with that.

I have seen a lot of 'bad nonsense' on this forum which is nothing to do with Nationalism how do you explain that.

Exactly Calder. Just like we have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fans here and I see no venemous attacks on those people even though their favourite player is non-British. Similarily, we have just had the Olympic Games here and the crowds were fiercely patriotic and nationalistic but also tremendously sporting to athletes of all nations even those just pipping Brits to Gold medals so lets quit all this nonense that nationalism is the devil incarnate.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It all comes back to what socal says in association. If people can associate with another person who has had a similar upbringing or set of experiences in life they can be inspired in that way. Just as people with cancer for example say Bob Champion inspired many in their fight against the disease and have openly said so. It needn't just be nationalism that inspires people and isn't just nationalism in Andy's case either.

Exactly Craig there is a nationalistic component as well. But as you noted people can associate with other human beings based on something like being fellow cancer survivors. Human beings learn from other people and they follow examples of others that is what trends and marketing capitalize on. It is something more instinctive than even nationalism or tribalism as it predates both concepts. You see a guy you know buys a certain kind of pants, you see your friend getting compliments on such and such pair of jeans and all of sudden you end up buying something similar and you don't even think about it.

It is a case really of something as elemental as monkey see and monkey do. If you grow up in a place that has no history or no example of success in a particular field it is going to serve as a dissuading factor in your own decision to pursue an endeavor. Human beings learn and mimick the actions of those closest to them that they view as successful or want to emulate for whatever reason.

When I was very young I saw Evonne Goolagong play. At first I knew nothing of her background... she was just so beautiful to watch. I suppose you could say I was inspired. Of course later I discovered that her upbringing and early life experiences could hardly have been more different than my own. Did that stop me being inspired? Of course not. It was what she could do that provided the inspiration not some imaginary connection.

Anyone who only looks for inspiration from someone who happens to be born in the same country or who may later choose or have their parents choose to live in the same country as themselves is... um... limited.

Sorry Hawkeye but that is just pure tosh. I could list many many sportsmen and women who have gotten to the very top of their sport, or actors, actresses or pop stars who have been inspired by fellow countrymen or cite fellow countrymen as their inspiration. They can't be called limited.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly Calder. Just like we have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fans here and I see no venemous attacks on those people even though their favourite player is non-British. Similarily, we have just had the Olympic Games here and the crowds were fiercely patriotic and nationalistic but also tremendously sporting to athletes of all nations even those just pipping Brits to Gold medals so lets quit all this nonense that nationalism is the devil incarnate.

Support for Andy is no issue to me. Support because of where he is born is a benign facet of a malignant trait.. Another is religion, though I'm sure people could tell me one nice things religion has managed to be associated with.

Hawkeye is right, and you keep trying to misrepresent people; she didn't say those people were limited, she said that form of thinking is limited.

I think you're sensitive over this. Are you just very nationalist and don't like that being attacked? Just to clear it up for you, it's that alone and not Murray which I criticise.

Nadal didn't inspire Spaniards, it was Moya and Corretja who gave Spain the Golden Generation.

Laura will win more GS's than Murray.

hawkeye wrote:When I was very young I saw Evonne Goolagong play. At first I knew nothing of her background... she was just so beautiful to watch. I suppose you could say I was inspired. Of course later I discovered that her upbringing and early life experiences could hardly have been more different than my own. Did that stop me being inspired? Of course not. It was what she could do that provided the inspiration not some imaginary connection.

Anyone who only looks for inspiration from someone who happens to be born in the same country or who may later choose or have their parents choose to live in the same country as themselves is... um... limited.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired by someone from a different country. I think that people like Sachin Tendulkar, Lionel Messi and Phil Mickelson are great a their sports and I'm sure they inspire lots of people to try and emulate them. However like it or not if someone from your own area is performing at a top level in any sport there will be lots of youngsters in that area trying to emulate them.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry Hawkeye but that is just pure tosh. I could list many many sportsmen and women who have gotten to the very top of their sport, or actors, actresses or pop stars who have been inspired by fellow countrymen or cite fellow countrymen as their inspiration. They can't be called limited.

The closer someone is to you psychologically the more their example means to you. If the example is in your own family it is more powerful, as the circle gets more remote and your perceived connection to the example more remote the example loses some of its force. You are more likely to emulate a successful person who for whatever reason you identify with more closely. It could be based on common experiences, geography or because you are blood related or friendly with the individual. This isn't always the case some scots aren't that inspired and wouldn't have the talent anyway to be a top pro, but someone invariably will put this example of success to great use.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly Calder. Just like we have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fans here and I see no venemous attacks on those people even though their favourite player is non-British. Similarily, we have just had the Olympic Games here and the crowds were fiercely patriotic and nationalistic but also tremendously sporting to athletes of all nations even those just pipping Brits to Gold medals so lets quit all this nonense that nationalism is the devil incarnate.

Support for Andy is no issue to me. Support because of where he is born is a benign facet of a malignant trait.. Another is religion, though I'm sure people could tell me one nice things religion has managed to be associated with.

Hawkeye is right, and you keep trying to misrepresent people; she didn't say those people were limited, she said that form of thinking is limited.

I think you're sensitive over this. Are you just very nationalist and don't like that being attacked? Just to clear it up for you, it's that alone and not Murray which I criticise.

Once again you make statement as a fact. It is not a fact it is your personal opinion which I disagree with. So in your opinion I am displaying a malignant trait because I support someone because they are British while admiring the skills of a Swiss, a Spaniard, and a Serbian.

socal1976 wrote:

The closer someone is to you psychologically the more their example means to you. If the example is in your own family it is more powerful, as the circle gets more remote and your perceived connection to the example more remote the example loses some of its force. You are more likely to emulate a successful person who for whatever reason you identify with more closely. It could be based on common experiences, geography or because you are blood related or friendly with the individual. This isn't always the case some scots aren't that inspired and wouldn't have the talent anyway to be a top pro, but someone invariably will put this example of success to great use.

Oh! So only Djokovic's mum can experience the full meaning of Djokovic's backhand down the line? Non Serbians should confine their search for an inspirational backhand down the line to someone who has lived a little closer to home, maybe shopped in the same shops or even ate the same thing for breakfast.

A lot of people showcasing their own opinions as fact.

Choose to support your countrymen or don't, each to their own. Neither is wrong though. Just a difference of opinion.

Danny_1982 wrote:A lot of people showcasing their own opinions as fact.

Choose to support your countrymen or don't, each to their own. Neither is wrong though. Just a difference of opinion.

Interesting debate.

I agree to an extent with both CC & bogbrush.

It's extremely good for any sport to have local interest at the top level. Whether that be Henman, Murray or, perhaps, Robson, it generates coverage, gets people watching and so promotes the sport. Kids these days have a lot of choice of sports to follow, so something has to pique their interest. If Murray gets young people into tennis, watching & playing, all us tennis enthusiasts can benefit from improved TV coverage and new juniors at our clubs. Also just consider, they may start watching because of a local interest, but then start appreciating the graceful style of Federer or the battling style of Nadal!

I'm not convinced that Murray winning a slam was even required for this effect though - just to be in there with the best at the big tournaments.

Where I tend towards bogbrush's view is that for me, there's a difference between enjoying seeing a local athlete do well & thinking that someone's sporting success can prove a nation's standing in the world. I really found a lot of the Olympics uncomfortable with the emphasis on the (media-generated) medal table and I totally cringed whenever I heard "we won a medal...". The individual athletes did, who represented their nation, but it wasn't a competition between nations.

However even without nationalism, there is still a structure in society from your family, your town or city, region and country, and people will feel different levels of association with each. Other people can appreciate Djokovic's backhand down the line, but his title wins surely mean a lot more to his mum than to some random fan. And even given Serbia has some of the worst forms of nationalism, it's not wrong that the people in Belgrade feel happy for a guy from their city that came through adversity to become a slam champion.

Great post by Yvonne, people can associate with a player and have no racial or ethnic affiliation. Craig brought up the good example of fellow cancer survivors or people who went to your high school making it big. I mean of course the impact of someone you played basketball with becoming a billionaire would have a bigger impact and catch your attention more than some guy in china you don't know. Or if a kid down your street became a big movie star it would be more unique and fascinating for you then someone who grew up across the world accomplishing the same thing. I like Djokovic and have no affiliation with his race or religion, but I do after having watched him a couple of hundred times grown to have an affinity for his game and personality so this association is not necessarily a function of nationalism. This emulating or useing the example of the success of some close to you to also succeed. I am sure Mary Shelley was helped in her writing of Frankenstein by having her husbhand be a famous poet and to associate closely with people like Byron.

What exactly did Andy Murray's slam win do for you?

Of course Murray's slam win did a lot for him, his family, his sponsors, his agent, the British media, maybe even his coach? and the many others who will have profited financially from his win. I'm sure his fans enjoyed a wonderful nights tennis. However I'm equally sure that I've enjoyed many tennis matches as much with no British player present.

So what were the benefits for you personally above being entertained for a few hours? Did some of Murray's wealth trickle down and improve your life. Did you experience a feel good factor from a British win. (If so the politicians will be delighted as apparently they had been banking on benefiting from such a factor after the Olympics but it didn't materialize... well not so it spread to them anyway). Will his win inspire you to play more tennis? Or did you benefit in some other way that I may have missed?

If Murray funded the tennis centre in Glasgow from his winnings and intends to run it on a non profit basis.(Not like the hugely profitable David Lloyd chain that does little to widen access and is merely a money spinner for the owners. If that is the case Murray would be benefiting from the British public not the other way round) I will concede that his win has done something for the people of Scotland.

If Murray funded the tennis centre in Glasgow from his winnings and intends to run it on a non profit basis.(Not like the hugely profitable David Lloyd chain that does little to widen access and is merely a money spinner for the owners. If that is the case Murray would be benefiting from the British public not the other way round) I will concede that his win has done something for the people of Scotland.

Show me any sportsman/woman who has ever done such a thing, because I can guarantee you that even if they didn't charge for lessons that they would either generate private investment through the power of sponsorship or even government based schemes which finances such ventures.



How should I put it, you have a limited view on how athletes influence sport and their followers.

One of the reasons that a player from the same nation can be more inspiring to youngsters is simply media coverage. News is often presented through a nationalistic filter - something of the form, 'great disaster kills 100s in somewhere distant, 3 Brits reported missing'.

On that basis, Andy is inevitably going to get more coverage in UK TV news, papers and magazines than the rest of the top 4-5. That's nothing to do with Andy it's the way editors think about and tell the story. Once the youngsters are interested of course then it is easy for them to discover stories about other players and take their inspiration where they wish.

As someone heavily involved in coaching and playing I can tell you there are nowhere near enough facilities in UK as a whole. Our climate is abysmal yet we have a paucity of indoor courts...we have to remember that promising juniors need to be playing 6-10hrs per week...including autumn and winter...where can they do that during the week if they don't happen to live near an indoor court? What you get inside is parents ferrying their kids for 1-2hrs each way twice a week to the nearest academy. It's wasted time and makes a lot of promising kids drop out of elite development because parents don't always have the time or resources to be able to do it because don't forget the strain it puts on the rest of the family, especially where more than one sibling are present.

I played a match yesterday against a young teenager yesterday ranked in national top 50 and he said how he had to travel 4-5 hrs a week to get the coaching and development he needs. Was it any wonder Judy Murray had to take matters into her own hands at one point when we don't have the facilities or investment. Just think how many indoor courts around the country you can build alone with 30million profit coming out of Wimbledon every year...instead it goes into facilities down there all the time.

So my question is...what is really going to change around the whole country with Murray winning? Tennis Scotland is one thing for a population gathered around 2 large cities...what about the England (Wales has more indoor facilities than England...and England has 46 million people)? I'll believe Murray winning was a benefit for the grassroots of tennis when I see it...

I agree lydian. I have seen some promising juniors down here where I coach and had some that travelled down from Birmingham and the complaint was the travelling and lack of facilities. Not just Judy who felt the need to take matters into her own hands surrounding Andy but also the parents of Robson and also Watson's mum.

The LTA had some of their funding cut by the government back in 2010 and as much as they can complain, they haven't sound strategies surrounding development of the current promising juniors. They reach the highest peak in their rankings and age group and yet play the same opponents. They stagnate at the same level and tail off and give up on the game. This is why for me they need to employ ex pro's and have the very talented juniors undergo hitting and practice matches with them. Almost like an apprenticeship. Assign 2-3 juniors to the same pro. I worry for the likes of Edmund, Golding and Broady should they try to continue their development under the LTA.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

If Murray funded the tennis centre in Glasgow from his winnings and intends to run it on a non profit basis.(Not like the hugely profitable David Lloyd chain that does little to widen access and is merely a money spinner for the owners. If that is the case Murray would be benefiting from the British public not the other way round) I will concede that his win has done something for the people of Scotland.

Show me any sportsman/woman who has ever done such a thing, because I can guarantee you that even if they didn't charge for lessons that they would either generate private investment through the power of sponsorship or even government based schemes which finances such ventures.



How should I put it, you have a limited view on how athletes influence sport and their followers.

Ha ha! I'm laughing with you because that's exactly what I'm saying...