Tennis vs Golf: Producing World Class Talent in the UK (and Ireland!!)

First topic message reminder :

It's the time of year where I have to listen to my mother rant and rave about the terrible state of British tennis and how the LTA should be ashamed of itself for the lack of genuine talent produced in the UK with all the money they have. Andy Murray (who didn't actually come through the LTA) is the only player in the mens top 100 and I believe there are 2 ladies in the ladies top 100.

By stark contrast the top 2 in the world of golf are English, McDowell and Mcilroy are both in the top ten and (without being too pedantic about birthplace, for all you 'Justin Rose isn't English' haters) there are currently 13 UK & I players in the world's top 100.

I'm very curious why golf seems to have such relative success in producing genuine talent. Admittedly we're in the middle of a pretty golden period but it doesn't really explain the huge difference. The LTA often use the excuse of tennis being too costly and middle class but these criticisms could easily be levelled at golf. I know that the US college system often adds the final touches to UK&I golfers but this same college system is available to UK&I tennis players too but none seem to pop out the other end as world class performers.

I was pretty shocked to discover that the top british tennis pros are subsidised to the tune of around 18k per year by the LTA, they also often receive a wild card to wimbledon where 1st round losers receive 15k! that's a total of 32k without winning a match. Golf doesn't seem to have this comfort blanket for underacheivment at the professional level and I wonder if this is the key factor. There must be hundreds of aspiring young golf pros playing on the Jamega Tour and Europro Tour that would snatch your hand off for 15k a year and a starting spot at the Open but they don't get it without earning it and therein seems to lie the difference.

This may have been better posted on the tennis board but i've had a look and it can get pretty brutal over there so I'll let the golfers have their say first....

Another difference with football is that most fans would rather enjoy watching their club teams with foreign players play exciting football every week than the national team once every couple of months and then for a couple of weeks every two years.

Hey s_r, I still remember the days when Scotland (almost routinely) qualified for the World Cup and England didn't!

I certainly don't want to see a UK team set up. The only way I would sanction such a move is to make it compulsory for equal numbers from each of the four home countries to be selected otherwise you might as well call it England!

I think it's an exaggeration to say that Scotland routinely qualified and England didn't, I think it only actually happened twice.

I've no objection to a UK team as we are unlikely to ever qualify again for any major tournament, much like our laughable teams in the champions league, plus we've seen enough from a lamentable England team that their players aren't good enough. There are easily sufficient numbers of players from the other home nations who could improve the team, not to mention numerous Scottish managers who actually understand how to manage.

Are there still more Prem managers from Glasgow than from England? Probably so now McLeish has slunk back.
Not sure where Paul Lambert is from . . . . ?

I think so, Ferguson, Moyes, McLeish, Lambert, Steve Kean and Owen Coyle are all soap dodging Weedgies I think.

I cant think of to many players from the home nations who make a UK squad to be honest, and only Bale would be a shoo in for a place in a UK side. Ramsey will hopefully come back strong as well.
It would have been a different story 10-20 years ago but Id say that the decline of the other home nations teams has been a lot worse than any decline of the English team.
I have no objection to a UK team for the Olympics though but would not be happy about it for anything other than that.

Bale and Ramsey for a start, David Healey has a better international scoring record than any current England player.
Darren Fletcher performs better internationally than the English midfield, and Craig Gordon is a better keeper than Joe Hart. I would also argue that Charlie Adam could be better than some of the England midfield in an international context.

However, the main difference is that non English players actually care about international football, so could hardly do any worse.

I can only assume you are joking about Healy. Im a Sunderland fan and no way is Gordon a better keeper than Hart, and he hasnt really played that much in the past two seasons because of injury and form. Shame though, he does have potential. Fletcher fair enough would make the squad but he isnt all that.
If they care so much Super how come they do so much worse than they used to ? As I said the other nations have declined way more than England, in fact in terms of ranking in the past 10 years England have probably been higher than ever on a consistent basis.
If you are going to knock England then at least be consistent and admit that the other home nations have performed woefully in the past 10 years.
Quick look at the FIFA rankings..
England 6 (4th in Europe)
Northern Ireland 65th (34th in Europe)
Scotland 66 (35th in Europe)
Wales 114 (45th in Europe)
So...please explain to me how much caring makes a difference as it doesnt seem to be helping them much.

I don't think they have necessarily gone backwards, I think they have probably stood still while almost all other countries have rapidly improved, the facilities, tactics, coaching and skill of many other countries have surpassed all the home nations (including England). Just look at countries like Croatia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey have improved hugely.

I don't think therefore that they care any more than they used to, they probably care just as much as they ever used to, but caring for international football, just as having good individual players a la England is no guarantee of success.

Football rankings are also not a good guide, can you honestly say that England are the 6th best team in the world? Not even close, top 15 perhaps, I mean, Spain, Brazil, Germany, Holland, Italy, Argentina, Portugal and Possibly France are probably all better and more likely to do anything on the stage than England are, plus is it realisitic to suggest that Jamaica or Libya are better than Scotland?

But we are all meant to agree that the rankings work fine to make Westwood the best golfer in the world ? Of coures any system is flawed but England have been consistently in the top 10 for a long time. That doesnt happen by being as utterly uselss as you keep saying they are.
Argentina have probably been the biggest underachievers in recent years but you'd probably still rate Messi as the best player in the world despite the fact he has been dissapointing playing for his country. Yet you hammer all the English players who have played great for their club but not as well for England. You say other home nations players would perform better and yet they clearly are not performing at all and as far as Im concerned have declined to a far greater degree than England.
Sorry but just dont really see any consistency to your argument other than hating English footballers...which is fine, many deserve it.........if you'd just admit that was the case.

Messi, is not a great international player, but a world class club player.
Many England players are the same, well perhaps not World class, but probably European class.
Like it or not, England, given their potential and resources are useless internationally borne out by not having performed at any chamionship since 1996.
I do like some English footballers, but the majority of all footballers are ridiculously over-rated, particularly ones from this country.

I've a feeling that you may all be arguing about a hypothetical GB team - I'm sure that the Olympic team has an age limit for something like all but two players.

And England's ranking may not be as far off as you think. Remember that apart from Spain, most international teams are in turmoil and this has been reflected in the pretty poor showings at the last few big tournaments. France all went on strike (and probably still are!) Portugal scraped in to the '10 WC and did no better than England, Brazil have been living on past reputation for a few years now, Italy are terrible/old/still taking bungs and Argentina were awful even with the best player in the world. Holland kicked their way to the'10 finals, Germany look to have a WC team of the future and Spain is, well, Spain. I would sadly say that a top 2 or 3 leave everyone else's seeding irrelevant.

They have performed in plenty. Unbeaten in 82 and stuffed an excellent French side. Out on penalties in semis in 90 and 96 to the eventual winners after being the better side in both matches. And I was at Wembley when we hammered Holland that night and that was a good side including Anderton and Redknapp who were actually excellent players in that side. Id also have backed us to win the Europeans in 2004 if Rooney hadnt picked up his injury whilst looking like easily the best player in the tournament.
And sometimes we have just been woeful. But you are completely OTT IMO about how bad a side they are and have been.

We were actually the best side at Italia 90

Diggers, If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle.
I actually said they haven't performed since 1996 so no need to bring up anything before hand. They were actually excellent in that tournament, but I can't agree that they were looking good for Euro 2004, when they capitualted from a winning position against France and again bottled a penalty shoot out against Portugal (again).

They may not have been as bad as I have made out, but they've certainly not looked any nearer to winning anything.

"Diggers, If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. "

Or to rephrase if they didnt lose to someone else they'd have won. Just like Lee. But that of course is somehow different.

The difference is that Westwood cannot do anything about how other people play/perform or score, however England's "world class players" should be able to stamo their authority and "superior" skill, tactics and training on a game but routinely fail to get past teams where they should be able to dictate the game, nullify the opposition and therefore get a result.

SR, is the flipside to that - if Westwood genuinely was the best then no-one could do anything to stop him performing?

MustPuttBetter wrote:We were actually the best side at Italia 90

There I am, swimming around enjoying this beautiful stretch of river. The sun is shining, the water is flowing and what's this - it looks just like a small injured fish. Maybe a bit plastic-looking but it's not looking too bright. I'm tempted - do I take a bite?

Yet so many other players who have been world number one to win majors. You do have the chance to do something about it, its called raising your game. Was England losing in penalties in 96 and worse than Westwood not winning the Open in 2009 or at the very least being part of a playoff. He didnt step up to the plate when he had the chance. Its exactly the same thing.

sharrison01 wrote: There I am, swimming around enjoying this beautiful stretch of river. The sun is shining, the water is flowing and what's this - it looks just like a small injured fish. Maybe a bit plastic-looking but it's not looking too bright. I'm tempted - do I take a bite?

Hee hee

The difference between the top golfers these days is so close that it only takes one golfer to play 1-2% better than the rest and they'll win.
It wasn't like Woods day when he was so far ahead he only had to play to 90% to win.

If Donald, Westwood, Kaymer, McIlroy or any of the other top 10 play to their true potential, they are all going to be incredibly difficult to beat, but just as a handicap horse race doesn't end up in ten horses crossing the line in unison the fact that the number one golfer (whoever it is) doesn't always win doesn't mean that the rankings are wrong or misguided.
It's very hard to pick the worlds best player at the moment, sometimes from week to week even,
No golfer plays to their true potential all of the time, form moves in waves.
No one knows what the best a golfer can be is, even on your best rounds I bet you can say you left a few shots out there. We've probably all birdied every hole on our courses, so potentially we could go round in 54, if we did that, it's unlikely we'd get beat, but it doesn't happen so there is always the opportunity for someone else to win.

sr... is your argument that the Scotland team is so rubbish, that it should be disbanded and merged into a UK side... which would then have a load of Scottish players in it because the English players are useless. Seems to be a bit of flaw there...

Sorry, you seem to have totally avoided my question. Do you not think Westwood had the Open there for the taking in 2009, he should have been a strong favourite and he didnt close the deal. Those are the opportunities winners...who you were saying were the people you admire.......take.

No, I'm not saying that at all, However there seems to be a belief that no other player could get in the EUk team because no other players are as good as their English counterparts.
There probably aren't too many Scottish players out there who would improve it, but I doubt it would be any weaker if a few were swapped from Wales, NI and Scotland.
The overall standard of non english players from UK and NI is not great and so consequently such nations struggle to put together great teams, but there are a few players who could bring value should there ever be a UK team, i.e It wouldn't necessarily be made up purely of English players. Clearly the more players you have to choose from, the higher the chances you have of creating a stronger team?

Gael I was involved in the early stages of the amalgamation of the four Scottish bowling groups into one association
First meeting was brilliant, everyone agreeing to what was proposed.
That was in 1998 and they are still miles apart.

This is Scotland and I have found out that folk enjoy parking tanks on lawns.
I believe that the SGU and SLGA will never merge.

Diggers, the 2009 Open was an interesting situation. Westwood looking at the scoreboard was face with the reality that he needed birdie at the last to force his way into a play off, he went for it, and it didn't come off, he wasn't to know that Watson would bogey and all he had actually needed was a par to get into a playoff. What did you expect him to do? Eagle it?
If I was him, I probably would have done the same as the tournament rested on it. He went for the shot, and it didn't come off. At least he tried.

SR

I am sure we have had this arguement before - but if Westwood thought he needed a birdie, then he wouldn't have gone anywhere near a bunker off the tee - the one way to guarentee he wasn't going to make 3, was to hit it in a trap -(which is a hazard after all ).

He has a history of coming second when it MATTERS, and in that sense is quite simply a sterotypical Brit

To be fair Digs, i'm not sure 2009 is a great case of Westwood not being able to up his game in that he went for a birdie which wasn't needed before he knew it wasn't needed.
A better example would be 2010 Masters. Yes Mickelson shot 67 on the Sunday but the fact remains that Westwood didn't shoot 67.

However you look at it he got it wrong. He knows he should have won that one and he didnt, he was a haunted man in the interview afterwards.
He had a chance and when the pressure was on he didnt take it, exactly the same as with England.

JD, you must have stood on the tee and thought to yourself I need a par here to make buffer, then pulled it into the rough.
He's a human being, they make mistakes and poor shots.
I'm sure when Woods tee'd it up at Carnoustie on the 1st he was thinking of hitting the middle of the fairway with his 5 iron, except he pulled it into the burn. It's sport, it happens.

Yes Westwood didn't shoot 67 that weekend in 2010 Masters, but no one has ever shot four rounds in the 60's in the masters, Westwood had done in the first three rounds so was it really that much of crime that he didn't win it? After all he would have had to do what no one else had ever done to win the tournemant, so on that occasion you have to say that Mickelson won because he was better, not because Westwood didn't raise his game.

"He's a human being, they make mistakes and poor shots. "

Unless of course the human in question is in an England shirt and taking a penalty in which case he's just a bottle job if he misses ?

Diggers, come on, Westwood hasn't yet closed it out at the very zenith of the sport's ultimate stage, England are barely getting out of the group these days, Quarter final at best, you can't call that pressure, that is sheer ineptitude.
Westwood, and I know we are comparing Apples and Oranges here is a better golfer, than the England football team are a football team.
Westwood, like England (or any other failing football nation) make mistakes, but at least he's in with a chance, other than lamely limping out.

SR

There is a difference in pulling it into the hay, and hitting it too far, which is what he did, it wasn't a miss hit or anything, he hit the wrong club.

He needed to and should have given himself the best opportunity of making a three, if that is what he thought he needed and the one place he wasnt going to make 3 was out of a trap

the english football team aren't performing due to dietary reasons in all probability.

They need to eat some goats placenta or something. It'll bring them together as a group if they learn to vomit in unison.

Trap? They're called bunkers over here.

SR, of course he was beaten by Mickleson because he was better. But if you're looknig for an example of when a sportman who has the ability to dig in and raise his game did so - the stuff of all time greats, that was an opportunity no?

super_realist wrote:Trap? They're called bunkers over here.

So in order to win the Masters, Westwood is expected to do what no other person in the history of the event has ever done and shoot four rounds in the 60's, something the all time greats of Woods, Nicklaus, Palmer or Player have never been able to raise their games enough to do.
Surely on that occasion, he can be excused and accept he was beaten by the better man rather than be castigated for not "raising his game"

How did a tennis v golf thread get onto football? I was going to point some of the tennis forum over here but I'm glad I didn't now!

SR, that is entirely true. Westwood is a better golfer than an England are a football team. But I made the comparison originally re Westwood because of your insistance he was just unlucky not to have won a major and I think that is completely wrong, he wasnt unlucky in 2009..he got it wrong or he simply wasnt good enough in the big event.
For all he is good...no WGC's...no majors.......should have won the Players......big big holes in a CV and you are the guy who claims to like winners in sport. He does not...thus far...win big tournaments.

JD
Westwoods tee shot at 18 was not in the correct place to make a birdie. From where he was he had no real option but to play the shot he did if he wanted to make a three.
Chances were he would run through the green.

Twenty yards to the right and he would have the perfect line in and better shot options with perhaps half a club more.

So yea, he did go for it with a great shot, but it was not through choice.

I think this thread's a bit harsh on the England football team. Being consistent quarter-finalists puts you in the top ten in the world, and that's not bad for a sport that's played pretty much everywhere.

The score is subjective.
In order to win the Masters he needed to raise his game and he didn't. In fact he started with 2 bogies in the first 4 holes. Mickleson raised his game. No Majors v 4 Majors

I'm not sure castigated is what i did

I do actually think Westwood will win a Major, i'm just playing devil's advocate a little

Doon the Water wrote:Gael I was involved in the early stages of the amalgamation of the four Scottish bowling groups into one association
First meeting was brilliant, everyone agreeing to what was proposed.
That was in 1998 and they are still miles apart.

This is Scotland and I have found out that folk enjoy parking tanks on lawns.
I believe that the SGU and SLGA will never merge.

Doon ... I think the Areas are right to dig their toes in on this. Let's face it, how many clubs give a toss about what happens at national level particularly in these times when they've got more important things to think about, like survival! I don't believe the Areas are against amalgamation in principle. What they are against is the fear of the lack of accountability, knowing full well that clubs will in all probability just rubber-stamp everything put to them.

I particularly don't like the threatening tone from Sportscotland that unless amalgamation takes place then funding will be cut or perhaps even withdrawn altogether. Amalgamation isn't end all and be all method for providing successful golfers. Indeed, there seems to be evidence from some other 'joined-up' countries that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

As I recall it, Watson birdied 17 after Lee had teed off on 18 and gone in the bunker. Couldn't it therefore be the case that he hit an iron believing it to be a safe play, and thinking he could make 4 even if it did go into the bunker, but then saw that Tom had picked up another shot so decided he needed a 3?

Lee always said that it was meant to be a lay-up, but that his tee-shot went further than he expected, said he hit it perfectly!
Given the way the ball was rolling, and his adrenaline (both of which could obviously have been taken into more conservative consideration), I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Gael
It's an agenda driven by Sporstscotland to achieve Lottery funding, same as bowls.
It is a good idea though. The bowls thing unravelled when the paid officials started pulling the strings when they realised they wre going to lose thier jobs. There was also problems with office geography.

I fear golf will follow the same line.

"Scotland's football team was always going to struggle on the international stage"

Why exactly Gael??

Admittedly it is struggling both at club and international level at the moment but I wouldn't say that has anything whatsoever to do with foreign players, infact quite the opposite. In recent years it's been experienced foreign players in dressing rooms that upcoming Scottish talent has looked up to.
The ONLY way to reverse the decline is to have an extensive coaching network at grass roots level. The SFA should be studying the Dutch System and bring through a wave of talent that makes the purchase of foreign talent unneccessary rather than trying to enforce a ban.

In the book Better than Life (I believe) the authors explore the subject of genetic engineering in sportsmen.

The quote is that in a certain world cup the scottish football team fielded a keeper who was the exact size of the goalmouth... and they still didn't make the knockout stages.

I think that's about the size of things.