So Having British Success At Top Level Doesn't Increase Participation QED

The Lawn Tennis Association is in danger of losing its Sport England funding after a survey of grassroots participation across all sports in England showed that the number of tennis players has continued to decline sharply.

But, in Sport England’s latest Active People Survey, which measures participation levels based on the number of people taking part in an activity for at least 30 minutes a week, the number of tennis players has suffered a nine per cent drop in past 12 months, with just 406,000 active participants compared to 445,100 a year ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/10513277/Tennis-funding-at-risk-as-sports-suffer-big-decreases-in-participation-in-England.html

Trickle Down. Pfft!

Andy Murray may have become Britain's first Wimbledon men's singles champion for 77 years, but it appears he will need a huge helping hand if his triumph is going to get people flocking to their local courts.

The latest figures from Sport England's Active People Survey make for very disappointing reading: 39,000 fewer adults over the age of 16 (in England) played tennis once a week in the year to October 2013 than they did in the previous 12 months.

Despite a much better summer, there was a large drop in the numbers playing tennis in June and July, before a strong increase in August and September and another drop in October. It may take a while for the effects of Murray's victory to rub off, but the Sport England director Phil Smith warns the LTA not to bank on it.

"We've probably finally dispelled the myth that a British guy winning Wimbledon would do something to increase participation figures," he said. "It's not that simple to translate into a weekly habit of ordinary people playing a sport - it takes more than just a Wimbledon winner."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/25358434

It's surprising that Murray's Wimbledon win has not led to a rush for the courts. I always hoped Henman would triumph at SW19 but slightly dreaded it as I thought it would be impossible to get a court at my club in the aftermath.
May be with Olympic success we've got used to sporting triumph, or are youngsters glued to their IT devices and not so interested in sport/tennis?

...or maybe the conversion of Murray's success into tennis pulling power with the British public has been overestimated?

+ What is behind the objective of more participation in tennis? More champions?
+ What are the basis for the participation stats? Juniors or adults? What good is more adults playing?
+ How do you measure the use of park courts...?
+ How does getting more boys/girls down on park courts lead to more world class British players?

Park courts are usually rubbish - worn out Tarmac, located nowhere near a 'proper' club and even if they join one of those the difference between park or club use vs academy junior tennis is huge. You'll never get a junior champion who's been brought up vs park then club tennis. A half decent club coach has no idea how to produce a top performing junior. The problem is a lack of players going into high performance centres...clubs are bristling with juniors but hardly any go to HPCs because its too much of a chore and too expensive.

What you need are more indoor academy facilities in more towns up and down the land, cheaper rates and more emphasis on tennis in primary schools, e.g. introducing mini red tennis - it takes no space.

The LTA hasn't got a ******* clue, led by canapé munching toffs who are far removed from on the ground tennis reality and dont know their arse from their tennis elbow. They create pointless schemes, miss what's needed so end up with their strategic objectives and measurements all muddled up! If it wasn't so desperate it would almost be funny. Almost. The situation is actually quite dire.

Its time the LTA cut a slice of reality and ate it.

Take any budding, enthusiastic youngster, says to Dad, can I try that ?

What does he do, he says, yes of course, go down the local rec and try the courts. Here's a tenner, go enjoy yourself.

Kid ends up finding a rough hard court, strewn with loose gravelly bitumen, a net that sags and is ripped and torn. A derelict shed where the supervisor once sat, hunched over his newspaper day on day handing out hour long tickets to kids that had the gumption to hit rock hard balls with low sprung racquets and no grip.

Kid walks away feeling, this tennis is crap, how'd Murray play tennis in the first place ?

Goes home and gives his Dad the money back, dad asks why the long face, kid replies, because there aint nowhere to play the stupid game, I've had more fun kicking a plastic ball against a wall.

Until the LTA understand just how pointless it is for many budding kids around the country who try quite hard to take up the game, they will never generate consistently growing numbers of new players now or in the years to come. Until they understand Grass Roots and financing introductory membership at either local recs or tennis clubs, then they will always be the white elephant that oozes echoes of elitism and snobbery.

Lets not forget that Andy Murray came from a less than privileged background and was supported by his family for most of his career. Thats a damning insight into the failures of the LTA who havent changed much from the days when they thought of Fred Perry as "The Pleb from up North".

Beats sitting around all day on our elbows.

Andy Murray had a tennis coach mother so he's an unusual case for a start.

To generate the tennis stars of the future you have to get them into tennis between 5-7 years old. Trust me, there is no shortage of kids entering LTA sanctioned events at red (5-8), orange (8-9) and green (9-10) colour bands...there are 100s of kids up and down the land entering good high level tournaments. These events run weekly and are entered online via LTA website...its all very well ran by LTA in that regard. There are so many kids entering regional level tennis events by 8-9 yr old that many are turned away (put on reserve lists).

The problem ISN'T numbers. The competitive system can't cope with the present numbers...so I have no idea what is driving the participation objective.

The PROBLEM...is keeping the kids playing beyond 10 yrs old...when the going gets tough, when it becomes serious...when the travelling all over the UK ramps up (trust me, I know this all too well....). The system spits very able and talented kids OUT. It doesn't incentivise them to stay on when they have the pull of football, cricket, etc, too. The elite ones are selected out by the restricted event entry lists too early...draws are too small and cut out too many other promising juniors who may flourish later on. Promising kids who can't get in tournaments any more because there aren't enough of them simply drop out of the game. Plus there are issues with the LTA junior competitive system and its inner workings...it's too detailed to go into here but the current system can lead to early burn out for the promising ones despite the LTA saying competition isn't important for those < 12 years old.

The funding is negligible...I don't know where the money is all squandered because a matrix funded player at 10-11 years old might get £800 per year funding towards coaching, etc...which again trust me goes nowhere and doesn't make the difference between someone picking up a racquet or staying on.

We CANNOT convert early tennis potential into older junior reality to save our lives. Andy Murray, etc, is so far removed from kids travelling around the country each weekend. Him winning Wimbledon is an irrelevance...we have plenty already playing in centres around the country...sure lets gets more in but as I say the tournaments are already 200% over subscribed. We need more centres...more tournaments...more coaches...more funding...more schemes to keep juniors playing. THAT'S the PROBLEM!!!!!!

For example...look at this Grade 2 (national level) event for 10 year old boys in January (entry already cut off). These are best 10 yr olds in the country.

http://www.lta.org.uk/Competitions/Event/?ctn=1-UWHXOC&evt=1-UWHWVT

Notice the draw size....32....look at how many high standard (Green 1/1* - highest rating for 10 yr olds) boys have entered...83! So 51 can't play...and in those 51 may be tomorrow's Wimbledon winner.

This happens week in, week out...at all levels...too many good kids and not enough avenues for their ability. There are not enough facilities or centres to cope with the high number of great kids we are currently producing. Many drop out because they can't compete enough against peers, they get demotivated and their standard goes down. That's the real issue right now...but no newspaper will write about this because its too detailed, etc.

Creating the next Andy Murray has got naff all to do with participation levels at grass roots...and it's about time someone at the LTA descended from their Ivory Tower and started identifying and focusing on the difficult solutions not the easy to quote irrelevancies.

What is more important? Increasing participation at grass roots in order to "create the next Andy Murray" or having a British slam winner in order to increase participation at grass roots level?

Well clearly having a British slam winner doesn't increase participation. Maybe increasing participation might increase the chances of having a slam winner but why should that be the aim? Increasing participation should be the goal. If a slam winner emerges well good for them but if one doesn't then why should it matter?

Well HE, a British man won Wimbledon in July and there was a huge increase in August and September. Ok, it fell away in October... But then there's not many indoor courts to play on. I have 1 place I can play within a 15 mile radius, and that place is ridiculously expensive.

Summer apart, there isn't the infrastructure to increase year round participation. I can play indoor football or badminton in loads of places for a few quid, and I do several times a week, yet I can't play tennis year round without taking out a mortgage!

We could have a British winner at Wimbledon every year, until there's lots of affordable indoor places to play year round numbers won't rise that much.

Danny_1982. 39,000 fewer played this year than last year. This is despite having a good summer and as you point out it being easier to play outdoors. I presume there hasn't been a dramatic drop in the number of facilities in this period as I'm sure that would have been mentioned. As the head of sport England pointed out this dispels the myth that having a British slam winner will increase participation. You can't argue with that because not only didn't participation increase it didn't even remain steady. It dropped off. QED!

I agree that more affordable and accessible facilities are needed to increase participation. Indoors is great but even good outdoor floodlit courts would be an improvement. Changing rooms and someone around to organize social play could dramatically increase participation. In fact there are lots of things that IMO are obvious that could be done to increase participation but the money is always siphoned off to the elite level. The excuse for this has always been the "myth" that an elite player would magically increase participation. Obviously this has now been shown to be nonsense.

I think schools should be the focus, for more courts and a competetive environment. I was interested in tennis as a kid as were many others and there were a couple of courts at our school but the only real option was to play your mates every now and then. It was fun, but there was no drive to take the sport up.

I would have loved it if schools competed against each other like they do in football and other sports. That would have really got people into it. In the UK it seems that if you want to take it up you have to have tennis parents who are willing to sacrifice a lot.

I would love to see a school structure set up where they compete week in week out. It would get kids interested and that's what it's all about. It might be different elsewhere, but kids round by me don't have the option to take tennis up unless they have parents who are interested and/or wealthy. The LTA should be focussing on bringing the sport into schools.

lydian wrote:The problem ISN'T numbers. The competitive system can't cope with the present numbers...so I have no idea what is driving the participation objective.

Lydian's comments are very interesting but I think his perspective is very different from Sport England - the participation objective is more about the health & wellbeing of the nation, getting regular exercise to be a way of life for our population. Producing professional players of course is also an objective of the LTA and Lydian's points are relevant as to why they aren't acheiving there. I'm with hawkeye that my interest is far more in just getting people playing for fun.

Having places to play, opportunities to pick up the sport (like in schools as Danny says), cost and cultural influences (is tennis still considered as elitist) are likely to bigger influencing factors than whether a Brit wins Wimbledon. However, it feels to me (entirely intuitively) that having Brits playing at the top level does increase interest in a sport (I don't think it matters how popular Murray is - the viewing stats do indicate that he generates interest). So in this regard, Murray, and Robson etc provide an opportunity for tennis (at various levels: national, clubs etc) to capitalise on that interest and convert it into participation. Some clubs are well positioned to do that. The club near me was buzzing with youngsters over the school holidays and had coaching, holiday clubs and fun competitions available to non-members as well as members - it got loads of kids off their sofas and active - but that type of facility is so patchy.

I'd also mention that Sport England does only measure adult participation. I'm not trying to claim that there is a surge of youngsters playing, but if the LTA were to focus from primary school up, it would take a while to see any increase come through in the participation measurements. I'd like to see some measures that include any potential green shoots of recovery.

I'd add...maybe I'm too defeatist, but I'm not sure schools playing each other competitively would help. We do have some competitive school tennis in my area, but guess who are always winning? The private schools with the most affluent public-sector schools closely behind. It'd be quite demoralising for any normal comprehensive in my area to take part.

Interesting views Yvonne. Do you not think that comprehensives playing each other competitively would drive up standards? I appreciate what you're saying about haves vs have nots, but that's the same in any sport.

At the moment, the better players are created by the schools with most money and/or wealthy parents. But just because that's how it is now doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.

If football was the same as tennis we'd never have someone with the background of a Wayne Rooney coming through to be the player he is. If he was talented at tennis he would never have made it. He'd never even have been spotted. He'd never have had the chance to develop those skills. Football is easily accessible to all, and tennis currently isn't.

You'd never get the numbers that are interested in football to be honest, but you'd get a damn site more than you do currently. I think the competetive side is crucial. If it wasn't competetive you would drive up quality and find those with that winning mentality.

What does "drive up standards" mean? What is the goal of better standards in comprehensives? To get more lifelong players...? If so, fair enough but it won't create more world class players.

I agree there are 2 aspects to this discussion:
1. Increasing the sheer number of people swinging a racquet
2. Increasing the number of world class tennis players.

Sport England are focused on Objective 1.
LTA are focused on Objective 2.
Both are inter-related.

I'm more interested in why our tennis calibre at the elite level is abject vs. our neighbouring countries. A lot of my life is dedicated to performance tennis and the system we have in place to develop high level players is appalling. At the other end, if we can get more people enjoying tennis recreationally then great but the cut in funding for that is not related to Objective 2.

Tennis continues to be elitist in this country because of the way the LTA operates, the lack of facilities which drives up supply/demand prices and the woeful subsidy of local clubs by government/councils. Tennis UK needs revising root and branch.

And another thing....the very name LTA...Lawn Tennis...gets my goat. It's an elitist hark-back to the days of long trousers and "tally go boys, anyone for tennis?". It should be dropped and renamed Tennis UK, British Tennis Association, etc. A rename would send a strong signal to the British public that the whole system is being modernised and re-engineered with the emphasis on Tennis, not some snooty, high cost, exclusive to some high end surface associated with Pimms sipping & canapé munching toffs. The public look at the Queens Club event each year and shake their head at all the double-barrelled names that must be sitting in the hospitality suites lording it over the riff-raff in the 'cheap' seats. Hopefully the new Canadian guy will spot a lot of this...

My post, which I thought was fairly clear but obviously not, is about trying to get more kids playing tennis. And getting them playing competitively at school as that's how I fell in love with a number of sports. That's how I improved at the sports I played too. I think competing makes you better.

Does that do anything for how players are developed from kids with potential into good pros? No of course not. But even if we were excellent at turning good kids into good players, there isn't enough kids playing tennis.

I agree with what you say about the LTA, it stinks of elitism. A change of name would be a starting point. Won't happen though.

lydian wrote:The public look at the Queens Club event each year and shake their head at all the double-barrelled names that must be sitting in the hospitality suites lording it over the riff-raff in the 'cheap' seats. Hopefully the new Canadian guy will spot a lot of this...

Ha ha! And Wimbledon too. They both feature as part of "the season" a place to go and be seen by people with little interest in tennis. That is the public face of British tennis. So I suppose tennis in this country has three aspects. The fun social side, the elitist players and the part it plays in (cough) the season. The problem is somehow getting the balance right. For a start I would relegate Queens to the exhibition event it really is (apart from the one genuine match I can remember - the 2008 final between Nadal and Djokovic. sigh!) and bring in a genuine Masters event on grass pre Wimbledon... somewhere "up North". But I think I'm getting off topic here...

Danny - Lydian's earlier post indicates that we have more than enough juniors playing. If the current system can't cope with the numbers we do have what would be the benefit of getting more kids playing?

My whole argument lies on the saying..."if you build it they will come"

School is, in my experience, not a great place to nurture a tennis appetite. It can give a kid a chance to knock a ball with a racquet about, but courts are pretty much non existent and they have to rely on the tarmac playground and hundreds of kids running about doing other stuff in the way, yeah its fun, but does it make them enthusiastic ?....not from what I've seen.

If on the other hand there was a structure of support from clubs to invite kids to play from schools who show an interest and supply a regular coaching session after school in the school grounds then I think the ball will start rolling, but for weekends and holidays, the local rec is the place they normally go and its when they play on a decent court with decent equipment that they begin to foster a growing interest that can be bolstered by interaction in schools and at clubs during term time, if only it was made more accessible to the masses. and in that, the LTA have a vast amount of money that could be invested in clubs to partially subsidise them to accept low rates of subscription to kids under 10 with a rising ladder of subs as they get older.

again...Grass Roots is the magic word.

Born Slippy wrote:Danny - Lydian's earlier post indicates that we have more than enough juniors playing. If the current system can't cope with the numbers we do have what would be the benefit of getting more kids playing?

Apologies for answering on behalf of Danny, but I think it comes back to the different objectives. The "getting more kids playing" is just about them finding an active hobby that they can enjoy into adulthood, not producing players to play beyond decent club standard.

I'd agree with JubbaIsle in that schools' place may be just to provide some very basic coaching and link in with clubs for those who want to continue - but obviously they can't be promoting really expensive clubs.

On the LTA, I agree that the image - particularly Queen's - is offputting, but some of the traditions are what gives the grass season a unique feel in the calendar. It's getting the right balance really.

I for one do advocate small/mini tennis, as Lydian pointed out earlier. It doesnt take up much room, but again you have to get the school to put aside very valuable space to accomodate such an enterprise, and believe it or not, it's the government that stands in the way of allowing any expansion like this, as classroom area is more important to the school and is driven on by Gov's pushing schools into expanding their pupil base, instead of building new schools.

Mini Tennis (MT), apart from dedicating an area to tennis and allowing the kids to play competitively even at a basic level of play, lets them get into the swing of things. Coaches are then better equipped to teach rather than waste time setting up temp nets and marking out court areas with little plastic dome hats, which then has to be put away and stored. The equipment will prob last longer instead of being used as launch pads for stones and other missiles too.

As a tool to teach and further a kids participation in tennis then MT is a great way to introduce the game to them. I've played it myself and its a lot of fun (makes a real size court look vast and the balls like cannon shot until you get used to it again) and far easier to hit the ball between each other. Even though there is no real point in top or back spin, the action can still be used and the ball will still behave in a like manner albeit without the noticeable dip etc.

I've seen a few kids play and there seems to be a much longer spell of returns and they are able to mimic a better action than with a normal tennis racquet, prob due to size and weight. Bournemouth had two courts at the end of their clay courts and whilst playing there we'd see them hit the ball back and forth under the auspices of a coach and they'd get right into the swing of things and look like they were enjoying it.

With solid nets and one piece bats and foam balls, its not expensive and has a long life of use, at recreational parks it would be easy to set up, but as with a normal public HC, it needs supervision and thats where the councils dont want to pay the money imo. Thats where the LTA could step in and help.

I dont agree that we are over subscribed with juniors, only that the LTA were not prepared for the rising numbers of kids taking part from the Henman/Rusedski era and the Murray affect later on. Of those numbers, just how many have been privately financed and how many are LTA backed would be an interesting anecdote.

Jubba, do you actually know about junior tennis? You abbreviate mini-tennis into MT (LTA doesn't use that) and then describe MT as foam ball tennis...which it is partly but mini-tennis is more than just that. Its a whole colour ball system from red to green...foam to 75% pressure balls.
Mini-tennis red (foam) can only work properly in club situations with kids less than 7-8 yrs old.

Then you say "I dont agree that we are over subscribed with juniors"...why, what is your evidence? How would you know?
Did you not look at that green event listing I showed? Out of those 77 x Green 1 entrants probably 90% are financed by bank of mum and dad. So what does that prove? I don't really think you know what you're talking about when it comes to junior tennis to be honest.

Having a bunch of private school kids playing junior tennis, and filling the entry requirements at junior tournaments, does not translate into success....that does not equate to the sport being oversubscribed by juniors. The reason these rich kids don't play beyond 10 years old is because they're rich, and don't need to.

The LTA need to get tennis into the state schools, primary and comprehensive. My kids went through both, and at no stage were they taught how to play tennis. Up to now, they still don't understand the tennis scoring system.

Kids from more modest circumstances are hungrier, and as long as tennis remains a rich man's sport in the UK, then tennis will continue to struggle in the country....

It's not a rich man's sport for a child or adult that just want to join a club and play for fun, or in the local doubles leagues.

On the other hand, if you want your kid to have a fair bit coaching, play in LTA tournaments etc then it does cost a small fortune, or even a large fortune depending how far you take it.

shivfan wrote:Having a bunch of private school kids playing junior tennis, and filling the entry requirements at junior tournaments, does not translate into success....that does not equate to the sport being oversubscribed by juniors.  The reason these rich kids don't play beyond 10 years old is because they're rich, and don't need to.

The LTA need to get tennis into the state schools, primary and comprehensive.  My kids went through both, and at no stage were they taught how to play tennis.  Up to now, they still don't understand the tennis scoring system.

Kids from more modest circumstances are hungrier, and as long as tennis remains a rich man's sport in the UK, then tennis will continue to struggle in the country....

Another one with no idea about junior tennis, throwing sound-bitengeneralities around like confetti.

Most of the kids I know in LTA tournaments don't come from "rich" backgrounds. Sure many come from middle class backgrounds but so what. So does Rafa Nadal - and did he lack hunger for coming from a well to do background? But that's not the point. The point is we have loads of good quality in the system but the system doesn't accommodate them nor nurture them fully. Trust me, I live and breathe it...raw participation isn't the issue. Also, to get to the peak of most sports requires dedication from the junior's family, financial or otherwise.

That said, yes I'm all for increased coverage in schools but it just doesn't happen...tennis is a very poor second to rugby, football, cricket and others. Its overall awareness is not addressed by the LTA who have done a shocking job from root to branch. But then don't get me started on the LTA. It's a nurture problem by and large though...no point increasing participation when we can't "process" what's already in the system!