The Benefits Of Andy Murray Winning A Slam

First topic message reminder :

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.

hawkeye wrote:

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...

When citing how people influence a sport or others to take part is very silly to actually set a benchmark of charitable donations at a cost to the participants. So if Murray founded an academy and going by your terminology that if he didn't fund it 100% would still not be deemed enough to change the sport because he hasn't funded it fully. What your asking is for Murray to be a sports entity similar to a governing or sporting body.

Let's use a sensible rational of thinking. This Murray slam victory for me I hope captivated the British public enough to be interested in the sport or begin an interest. When we speak of influence we should look beyond a lasting legacy in the form of a tennis centre named after him or foundation or whatever you want to call it. I deem getting a 5 year old to pick up a racquet or even a 50 year old picking up a racquet for the first time. That is how I deem influence. Like you did with Googalong. If fans can enjoy the sport and enjoy it because they see a Murray winning a Slam, then he has done something to influence the perception of the sport. It doesn't necessarily have to be a nationalist view to get people interested in a sport. It can be anyone.

For me why does a future winner in the sport who then cites Murray as an influence then validate his influence? Anyone who can find inspiration from an athlete to chase a goal or simply play a sport for leisure purposes from an Andy Murray can rightfully say he is influential.

Good points LK. I was only looking through the LTA website last night at a variety of juniors (18 and under) and as you say young lads like Kyle and Oliver seem to be floundering without the drive behind them to push them on. At least in the US they have the collegiate tennis system which helps nurture the top players...all we have are the odd LTA event around the country where you've got a mix of 1.1s/2.1s/3.1/4.1s and the same guys winning all the time...they need to be stretched. Assigning pros to them isnt a bad idea, although of course we'd have to import a few

Looking at younger ages, I think the LTA feel the coloured ball system is enough in itself to drive kids on. I think alot of complacency goes on behind the coloured system - where the same kids play each other all the time and its up to parents to find events, enter them, drive their development, etc. Plus the really good ones have to join the Talent ID system to try to even get noticed. The coaches themselves arent pushing certain kids forwards...its all up to the kids or parents to make themselves known. This never has to happen in football for example where you have scouts going around the academies looking for talented players...then get them to sign up to regional centres where they are nurtured. We have nothing like this in tennis. We rely on players and parents to bring the kids on...the coaches dont seem to take active roles in making it all work. The whole structure needs looking at because besides Murray who isnt a LTA product who have we been successful with in recent years around the mens tour? Its very sad because we dont lack for talent in a country of 60 million people...but we dont know how to develop or nurture it.

You know what I'll be controversial here. I dont think getting people to pick up the racquet is the issue...there's loads of kids playing the game.
Its keeping the racquet there, making them want to be the best and harnessing talent through infrastructure and facilities.

I am still not convinced on the colour ball system. I don't think it should be used in teenage years. That's what Spain were doing so well. They were having juniors hitting with pro players. I mean who could forget Nadal hitting with Moya when he as no.1 in the world. If the LTA could get Greg and Tim, that would be a massive coup for them.

I think the LTA said once that they were losing most of their youngsters around the ages of 16/17. That is something they need to address.

As you rightfully said it is keeping the racquets in the hands.

I believe Greg is working with a small group of players like Golding but its not enough. And we do progress from the green to yellow ball around 11-12 year old but I think its too late. They need to progress through the coloured ball system quicker...or have a means for the talented ones to do so...the coloured system like our education system (maybe it current British mentality) helps ensure the weakest progress - which is fine - but the top players get stifled...they are held back by the system not nurtured by it. The truly talented ones can probably progress to orange then green really quickly...hardly need to go through red at all. I also completely disagree with using foam balls indoors for the kids up to 9 years old. Its ridiculous. If we cant get the 7-11 year old critical phase right then what follows is completely knackered in my opinion - they simply cant make up the lost ground vs their international counterparts through their early teens.

Greg has been working with Edmund and his progress has certainly shown the impact Greg has had.

I agree with the foam balls. A waste of the time at 7-9.

I just hope the LTA can do something radical to improve their conversion rate on talent as it currently stands at zilch!

Also it has to be pointed out that blatant nationalism isn't the only reason people can garner inspiration from Murray. I say this as a Scot who merely does not just jump on the bandwagon of success but has followed every up and down of his career and not just because he is a Scot. I say this and can truthfully say there are many Scots sportstars out there that haven't captured my imagination and yes a lot of them have been successful such as Colin Montgomerie, Stephen Maguire, Paul Lawrie, Ricky Burns, Scott Harrison etc. So it is more than just nationalism that draw people to Andy Murray. If His success continues to raise the profile of the sport as it has done in Scotland then tennis benefits from that and it is more than the LTA can claim to have done.

Andy will also act as a big motivating force to the up and coming youngsters. You can image Laura Robson saying that she'll get more Slams than him, when they are joking around and meeting it

And as we saw yesterday Laura's recent march must be a motivating factor for Heather who had a significant win against a player who is good on her day

We're not going to get a Borg revolution - but we've seen what, at the time, what even a small win can do for a sport, i.e. Boardman's cycling gold at the 1992 Olympics

Spot on banbro and with that I rest my case. From that gold, Britain has blossomed into the powerhouse nation of track cycling.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on banbro and with that I rest my case. From that gold, Britain has blossomed into the powerhouse nation of track cycling.

So do I.

I talked about benign effects of bad things, and there's one. Still, it does make you regret the brainf*ck that meant loads of people DIDN'T engage in cycling until Chris Boardman did well, doesn't it? What a pity that so much potential was squandered because people were so messed up with this nationaist nonsense that they needed someone from this island to do well for the media to take notice and to "inspire" them.

Calder106 wrote:

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.

Yes, you are. You admit you are motivated by no reason other than geographical accident of birth of a peron you otherwise have no common cause with. Are you blind to the horrendous consequences of that one stupid trait amongst mankind?

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.

You just showcased your opinion as fact.

By your logic my telling you you're wrong isn't wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. So you are disputing your own position by telling me I'm wrong to judge you as wrong.

You see the problem with postmodern thinking? Sometimes something is just wrong, and nationalism is a great example of brainwashing from birth that causes all sorts of trouble. And that's a fact.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

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.

Yes, you are. You admit you are motivated by no reason other than geographical accident of birth of a peron you otherwise have no common cause with. Are you blind to the horrendous consequences of that one stupid trait amongst mankind?

Well I still disagree with you. Were are talking about supporting a sportsperson here without denigrating any other sportsperson. I see no issue with what I'm doing. We are not going to agree on this so lets just leave it.

Cycling has done well for a few of reasons:
1. Massive investment - huge injection of lottery funding in early 90s led by Boardman's success, building world leading facilities from 2002...and now in London.
2. Talent spotting programme - British Cycling proactively went into schools to find new talent
3. Focus on track performance - they recognised more money/funding came from track wins than road so we have majored on that

So for tennis:
1. Will we get massive investment into indoor centres?
2. How do we get into schools to find and nurture tennis talent?
3. How do we improve our performance given our development is skewed towards fast courts but the tour has slowed down?


Is Andy Murray winning going to affect these 3 areas above? How, e.g. where will more money come from? How do we extract the talent?
I dont see Andy winning USO being analogous to British Tennis as Boardman winning gold in Barcelona 92 was for British Cycling. Cycling is quite a narrow pursuit (pardon the cycling pun) compared to tennis - we can focus track performance around a small number of elite centres. Tennis cannot revolve around a small number of elite centres...thats what its already doing and failing.

Our elite performers dont lack motivation (to speak to banbrotam's point)...we just dont have enough of them.
Our elite players are stagnating because we let them stagnate.
We also lack facilities, world class coaches and an infrastructure that nurtures and rewards success.

Sure, but just to be certain I have no issue with anyone supporting anyone. My problem is when people make choices based on nationalistic impulses.

I seriously doubt whether your support of Andy is a great crisis for mankind, but you see what I mean about the inherent dangers of people giving allegience to another for irrational reasons?

Think the thing is lydian for me we could go round the houses all day with this and still end up identifying the fundemental flaws. Look at David Lloyd. People who have that kind of investment could put their child in that program and then run the risk of being broke. Similar to the Bolliteri academy in the US where that produces much better results than say the USTA.

The only advice I could give promising juniors is to go to France, Spain or Germany and learn your craft there.

Like I said earlier I can name a number of Scottish sportsmen and women that have been successful who haven't caught my imagination as Murray has so clearly there is more to my support of him than blind nationalism.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The only advice I could give promising juniors is to go to France, Spain or Germany and learn your craft there.

Exactly...that's our problem.
We cant produce world elite male tennis players...we seem to know how to.
Thats where any comparison with cycling ends - and I dont see how Murray winning USO will change that.

bogbrush wrote:Sure, but just to be certain I have no issue with anyone supporting anyone. My problem is when people make choices based on nationalistic impulses.

I seriously doubt whether your support of Andy is a great crisis for mankind, but you see what I mean about the inherent dangers of people giving allegience to another for irrational reasons?

I still disagree with you on this. Your opinion is different from mine I accept that. I'll just enjoy watching the tennis and supporting whoever I want for the reasons I want without trying to make it into a moral issue.

The point I made with earlier is relevant here though. There is a tennis academy run at Stirling and Andy Murray is calling for a seperate Scottish Tennis Academy to be run seperate from the facilities at Roehampton. Now if he means that it should be run outside the durisdiction of the LTA then I am all for it. The more such places the better in my opinion as we know the incompetence of the LTA.

lydian wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The only advice I could give promising juniors is to go to France, Spain or Germany and learn your craft there.

Exactly...that's our problem.
We cant produce world elite male tennis players...we seem to know how to.
Thats where any comparison with cycling ends - and I dont see how Murray winning USO will change that.

All the time you have Draper at the helm at the LTA, he will come out with crazy strategies and goals that will generate a laugh or 2.

We need to have first class facilities if we are to compete. Draper's failings was thinking the problem laid with coaching. Coaches can only do so much if the facilities are not up to scratch.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said earlier I can name a number of Scottish sportsmen and women that have been successful who haven't caught my imagination as Murray has so clearly there is more to my support of him than blind nationalism.

So maybe your support of Murray has nothing to do with nationalism? You support Murray in the same way as I support Nadal and Federer? There is just something about him as a player that has caught your imagination? If so I can understand completely (well maybe not completely as why would you choose Murray over Nadal and Federer... )

I quite agree we need competition to the LTA but it does have a stranglehold on british tennis. An academy is just another word for an indoor tennis centre...the country needs loads of them north and south of the border. However, this is just an idea presently, may not even get beyond talks.

London is awash with indoor centres, inc. the £40million centre at Roehampton...but 52 million people dont live in London. Also indoor coaching costs alot of money.
Even then, I'm not seeing masses of talent pouring out of London for all the money spent. If you look at the top juniors they're all over the UK.

I'm not certain when it became bad to get behind your fellow countrymen - so BB and Hawkeye, will have to remind us

It is pretty bad to;-

1) To be the extreme form of patriotic, i.e. xenophobic
2) To be the extreme form of the opposite to patriotic, as this often means that innocent people (who just quietly like to believe in their fellow countrymen) get slated for doing so

Picking ones ass in public does no one any favours and blokes wearing hairbands.. ..err no. Just the tip of the iceberg really.

An open question...do you think Shaun Connery and Alex Ferguson were watching Murray at USO final out of a love of tennis or was it purely just affiliation to their fellow Scotsman - and the need to be seen to be patriotically affiliating? Likewise Alex Salmond at Wimbledon for Olympic tennis final.

lydian wrote:You know what I'll be controversial here. I dont think getting people to pick up the racquet is the issue...there's loads of kids playing the game.
Its keeping the racquet there, making them want to be the best and harnessing talent through infrastructure and facilities.

Have to say I disagree. Personally I'm more in favour of improved facilities and getting more to play. Getting more to play even if it's just for fun is a worthy enough goal in itself. It's quite tricky knowing exactly what is needed to produce a multi slam winning all time great so that in many ways is not something that can be cultivated or planned for. The more children who have access to tennis the better. If a champion emerges great for them. If not we will just have to watch great players who haven't been born in this country.

Interesting that football despite practically every child boy and girl gets to play in this country. Britain is not as good as perhaps it would be expected at producing home grown talent (or so I'm told as I have little knowledge of the sport).

lydian wrote:An open question...do you think Shaun Connery and Alex Ferguson were watching Murray at USO final out of a love of tennis or was it purely just affiliation to their fellow Scotsman - and the need to be seen to be patriotically affiliating? Likewise Alex Salmond at Wimbledon for Olympic tennis final.

Well Connery has been to Murray matches when he burst onto the scene. Albeit just Wimbledon or US Open. Fergie I have never seen at a match.

Not so much tennis fans at heart.

Connery's comments further stoke the fire on nationalism. I would be more impressed if he lived in his country of birth instead of giving lousey excuses for tax dodging.

I'm all for more people playing HE...I just dont think thats linked to our issue of a lack of world elite players right now. For 60m people we are woefully underachieving.

Also, its great to see Andy spearheading a campaign for a new academy in his homeland of Scotland...but what about putting forward campaigns for new academies in Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Leicester, Derby, Sheffield, etc, etc...or is it only Scotland that going to benefit from a Murray slam win?

Well Ferguson did say he has followed Murray since he started and Connery I can't be so sure though has been spotted at Wimbledon for his matches. As for Salmond he is a buffoon looking for anything to enhance his party whether they support his views or not.

Yes Connery has stated the weird line that he wont live in Scotland again until its independent. There's nothing like supporting a cause of that nature from afar in the Bahamas.

banbrotam wrote:I'm not certain when it became bad to get behind your fellow countrymen - so BB and Hawkeye, will have to remind us

It is pretty bad to;-

1) To be the extreme form of patriotic, i.e. xenophobic
2) To be the extreme form of the opposite to patriotic, as this often means that innocent people (who just quietly like to believe in their fellow countrymen) get slated for doing so

Nope, I'm not the opposite to patriotic (which I take to be going against a person because of their country). I argue to make country of origin irrelevent.
Patriotism is just a form of suspending your brain from critical thinking. I have a problem with it only because when people stop looking at things based on their true merits, bad things usually follow.

Here's an example.

I hail from Liverpool. I heard a lot of garbage recently about the run up to the United match about how "they" wouldn't behave because "they're" rubbish. I shake my head in disbelief at these dangerous generalisations.
I also recall a few years ago being told that a shared ground (with Everton) was a bad idea as people didn't want to be sitting where one of "them" had sat the last week. My response was to ask whether they had checked that the canteen seats at work were segregated as there was a real risk of that happening there.

Mindless tribal bulls*it. Regionalism, Tribalism, all the same as nationalism. Dangerous, self-harming and stupid. See what I mean?

lydian wrote:Yes Connery has stated the weird line that he wont live in Scotland again until its independent. There's nothing like supporting a cause of that nature from afar in the Bahamas.

Suppose that is as good a reason as any. I bet he's praying there's no referendum with any chance of winning!

No doubt he still pays his full taxes for the Hollyrood Gravy train though.

Alex Salmond will be the death of Scotland. I hope that the people don't get behind his agenda. Will make Greece look a like 'small mistake'

...dont we all BB

Hopefully he's the death of Scottish Independence - for someone who purely and only stands for that it may be the ultimate oxymoron that he's the reason it fails.

lydian wrote:I'm all for more people playing HE...I just dont think thats linked to our issue of a lack of world elite players right now. For 60m people we are woefully underachieving.

Well it might help a bit? Maybe in this country we don't benefit from Murray winning a slam. But it would be nice if all tennis players and potential tennis players could benefit from this country HOLDING a slam.

bogbrush wrote:

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.

You just showcased your opinion as fact.

By your logic my telling you you're wrong isn't wrong, it's just a difference of opinion. So you are disputing your own position by telling me I'm wrong to judge you as wrong.

You see the problem with postmodern thinking? Sometimes something is just wrong, and nationalism is a great example of brainwashing from birth that causes all sorts of trouble. And that's a fact.

Ok. I guess I'm wrong. I guess I'm a nationalist and an example of all that is wrong with the world.

Just taking it to extremes, as seems to be the theme on this discussion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19698077

"The mother of tennis Grand Slam winner Andy Murray will appear before a committee of MSPs later to discuss the issue of grassroots sports.

Judy Murray, who is a tennis coach based in Dunblane, is due to offer her views alongside Olympic silver medallist Liz McColgan.

The health and sport committee has been looking at sport in the community.

Its convener Duncan McNeil said MSPs wanted to know more about "Scotland's relationship with sport".

He added: "This inquiry couldn't have come at a more opportune moment - with the Olympics capturing public imagination and with momentum building in advance of the Commonwealth Games in 2014. "

Too early to judge whether this will count as a benefit of Murray winning the USO but it shows that many efforts like this will take a PR benefit from association with him and his Mum.

lydian wrote:I quite agree we need competition to the LTA but it does have a stranglehold on british tennis. An academy is just another word for an indoor tennis centre...the country needs loads of them north and south of the border. However, this is just an idea presently, may not even get beyond talks.

London is awash with indoor centres, inc. the £40million centre at Roehampton...but 52 million people dont live in London. Also indoor coaching costs alot of money.
Even then, I'm not seeing masses of talent pouring out of London for all the money spent. If you look at the top juniors they're all over the UK.

Yes I'd agree with much of that. However, Murray is talking (just talk I know) of a Scottish Academy on the strength of the perceived popularity now of the academy in Stirling. Now initially Murray started playing tennis on courts in Dunblane (which are also popular now with coaching offered) and everyone has to start somewhere. Therefore, if that set-up helped nurture Murray and get him started then surely there must be hope it could do the same again?