Parents are blinded by the dream, and being told their child could be the next big thing?

Or worse, are trying to live their dream through their kids?

Not retiring but just another string to his bow?

Well done to Lewis Burton on (a) his doubles title today, with Marcus, up at Sunderland, and (b) some dead swish model photos now posted on the Select Model Management Agency site. Good luck to him !

Interesting, Oakland, and much that I agree with.

Howver, and I don't really want to take this at a tangent, one part had my eyes popping. I will just say that, of course, Andy has put a heck of a lot of effort in, shown great commitment as the very best do. But with his junior success while a stringy lad and very clear tennis gifts, I would disagee that "he performs above his talent".

Of course, he could never have achieved anything like he has without such time and commitment or if he had gone to college. But many really commit and don't get there. Andy did realise the huge importance for hard work, and that has enabled him to achieve so much with the talent he has - which is a talent very very few possess.

In fact his occasional down spells have looked more due to seeming to temporarily not having put in the normal commitment ( such as seemingly after a couple of Aussie Opens ) or having time out and doubts about his body ( with his back surgery ). Putting in the work made and seems to be making again his huge talent be rewarded, but not to perform above his talents.

For sure agree that Andy has maximised his talent rather than playing above it!!

IMO the reason why so many of our youngsters give up on education so soon is due to the structure of HPCs - soon to be changed I know.  Set up to counter the 'kids 2nd' attitudes of so many clubs at that time, they received around £100K pa to run performance tennis.  Any junior receiving funding (which was a considerable number under the Futurestars scheme even if many of the amounts were low) had that money paid via an HPC to encourage all the best juniors to attend these establishments.  The HPCs run their performance programs during weekday school hours when there is little demand for the courts from other sources, so maximising other income streams.  There has never been a requirement for education to run alongside the tennis at the centres although some have linked up with local schools or employed a couple of tutors to help kids with online studies.  

Some kids attend taking a couple of mornings/afternoons/days off school each week, but obviously those attending full-time see their ratings/rankings move more quickly. The HPCs have had to show they have enough players of certain rating/ranking levels at any given age in order to keep their full grant and so business-wise it has been sensible to get as many of their juniors as possible to go full time. What happens to most of these kids though is that they simply max out their talent a couple of years earlier than they might otherwise have done.

-- Edited by The Optimist on Saturday 31st of January 2015 11:43:27 AM

Thanks, this has evolved into a really interesting thread and a good read.

Talent for tennis as a pure quality is hard to define because of multiple confounding factors

My point specifically relates to utilisation of global capacity to improve. There was no intention to suggest that Andy is not one of the most naturally talented players of his generation. I do however feel that au natural The present world number 1 has more natural tennis talent and with a bit of luck because of Andy's global utilisation of every faculty, dedication to analysis and performance improvement, instinct for stepping out of the box and appointing Amelie, resilience etc.... later today we will see him beat a more naturally talented player.
I realise this is subjective, however back to the original point continuing with a more formal education would have been a distraction and detrimental. There is no perfect curriculum designed to evolve from excellence to mastery, however Andy has instinctively designed and refined a bespoke one that has optimised his natural talent. In that respect he is as gifted, indeed probably more than all his major top 4 rivals. I feel this gift will give him a unique ability as his athleticism wanes to evolve and increase the efficacy of the curriculum presently employed by the LTA. I feel he is exceptionally well educated but unlike Katie O'Brien his education although informal is fit for purpose and that purpose was plan A.

Again, while accepting a subjective element, I'm with you, Eddie, and essentially your criteria.

For sheer tennis talent, I would put Andy above both Djokovic and Nadal.

I did think afterwards it wasn't entirely the best phraseology to basically be saying more talented than Djokovic and Nadal since ultimately tennis is about winning and talant covers most aspects of that winning, so could be open to the achievement comeback that you indeed supplied.

But I do know what I meant, what Eddie means and I think others whether agreeing or disagreeing will know what I meant. I can square that box.

I think that Andy can instinctively react to positions on a court, can come up with imaginative shots, just can instinctively do more things. To me, he is more capable of wow in at least what he comes up with than Nadal or Djokovic. That is sheer talent and what I was considering.

Now Djokovic and Nadal ( particularly Nadal at his best ) have been in general more relentless, more consistent and certainly more consistently focussed. We saw today, and Andy referred to it himself, how he hugely lost his focus. In general, his level is more variable than these two.

Now relentless consistency and focus are part of what makes the best tennis players and could be called talents in as I said many things go into making the best. Maybe at the ultimate level these two are fitter, at times to me they certainly have been, not that Andy has many peers on that front, we know he does put in a huge amount of work generally.

So by more talented, I was referring to sheer tennis ball skill, what Andy can do on a tennis court. Djokovic and Nadal are of course hugely talented that way too, but at this elite level I would put Andy above them.

I hope that I have explained myself well enough, and I stick to it as my opinion. I was not meaning best tennis player, an amalgamation of things, but these ball instincts. Now you may still disagee and that's fine, but I'm not for changing.