British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

foobarbaz · Club Coach

This year's Wimbledon dashed hopes - the latest inquest has already begun

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

foobarbaz wrote:
I've mentioned this before, and there wasn't much take up, but imho in any discussion of the state of British tennis we ought to recognise where this nation is headed. We have a ruling regime pushing society into anarchy, making it hardly possible to afford pay the weekly bills. We have a national broadcaster peddling anti-democratic propaganda and using minimal sport coverage to push the impression for a few weeks of the year that things haven't really changed. I think it's not surprising that we are starting to see the player pool shrink.

I have a lot of sympathy with your points

But I'm not sure the player pool IS shrinking - we've had the biggest number come through qualis, and be direct entrants, in the men's at least, for ages

If you look back 15 years, there was basically Andy Murray and no one else - unless I'm completely going doolally, in 2010, for instance, there were only TWO British men in the draw

So I think one has to be careful about using legitimate arguments to back up a point that isn't actually true because it undermines those arguments - it gives people ammunition to say your arguments are nonsense

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of July 2026 06:59:50 AM

foobarbaz · Club Coach

Thanks for your comment CD. Tbh, I was expecting a response. There's a lag in how changes in society, filter through into certain endeavours undertaken by segments of the population. Seeing as the changes in society here in the UK are happening at such breakneck speed, I fail to see what relevance comparison of tennis in 2010 has with today's situation. I'm not surprised at all that the quibble is all about the choice of a word. The minutiae, rather than the bigger picture. How, I wonder, will women's tennis, or for that matter women's sport in general, manage to thrive in the UK going forward. Let's talk about the legitimate arguments, as you put them.

Var · Challenger qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
According to the Beeb "... in 2010. Only eight British players had earned a spot in round one, but by the time round two began, only Andy Murray remained in the competition."

According to me, 19 Brits in the opening round is a much better showing than eight, and we have four times as many through to round two.
But almost certainly no Andy
It's one of the problems of the sport being so figurehead focused (if that's a phrase)
If we'd had the same 4 go through AND Emma, say, the press would be delighted - they'd all be focused on Emma because she would be a second week contender
A guy at the French federation once said that they would willingly trade all 15 top-100 male players just to have one guy who won a Grand Slam
Personally, I prefer the depth (as you mention) - so much more to follow
But I understand how many look at it

Therein lies the problem. We dont watch football in our house, but we watch the World Cup because we know about Harry Kane!. The conversation in our house is what will England do when he hangs up his boots! We all knew when Andy went there would be a massive void. Everyone knew Andy, rightly so. Perhaps the gap is much deeper than we thought. Emmas success has definitely helped on the womens side and I think despite the vitriol she can attract , she is our most successful womens tennis player for years but we need her fit and healthy again. If you asked the British public what they thought of Arthur Fery, most wouldnt even know he was a tennis player. Lets hope Arthur can win another round or two to get into the British psyche. My argument is you can have all the strength in numbers but without a a star, tennis in GB will suffer. It would be lovely to be an Italy, no doubt enlivened by Sinner or an Argentinian, but you need the star billing to attract youngsters to the sport. I get your point CD about strength in numbers and having a pipeline for new players but without the stars is it worth it?. Look at the French, loads of good players and great facilities but no GS winner sin Bartoli, 13 years ago and on the mens side Yannick Noah 43 years ago. I would trade the depth for another Andy M.

indiana · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
foobarbaz wrote:
I've mentioned this before, and there wasn't much take up, but imho in any discussion of the state of British tennis we ought to recognise where this nation is headed. We have a ruling regime pushing society into anarchy, making it hardly possible to afford pay the weekly bills. We have a national broadcaster peddling anti-democratic propaganda and using minimal sport coverage to push the impression for a few weeks of the year that things haven't really changed. I think it's not surprising that we are starting to see the player pool shrink.
I have a lot of sympathy with your points
But I'm not sure the player pool IS shrinking - we've had the biggest number come through qualis, and be direct entrants, in the men's at least, for ages
If you look back 15 years, there was basically Andy Murray and no one else - unless I'm completely going doolally, in 2010, for instance, there were only TWO British men in the draw
So I think one has to be careful about using legitimate arguments to back up a point that isn't actually true because it undermines those arguments - it gives people ammunition to say your arguments are nonsense

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of July 2026 06:59:50 AM

Yes, whatever one thinks of the general points foobarbaz is making there, I am totally unconvinced about the effect on tennis and the player pool and general success or lack of it. I note, faced with CD's fscts there, that they in later post talks about ah, the speed of society change etc. Still very unconvinced about the linkage even if one goes along with the lead in narrative.

In fact I didn't comment initially brcause I feared that that was going down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

foobarbaz · Club Coach

Var wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
According to the Beeb "... in 2010. Only eight British players had earned a spot in round one, but by the time round two began, only Andy Murray remained in the competition."

According to me, 19 Brits in the opening round is a much better showing than eight, and we have four times as many through to round two.
But almost certainly no Andy
It's one of the problems of the sport being so figurehead focused (if that's a phrase)
If we'd had the same 4 go through AND Emma, say, the press would be delighted - they'd all be focused on Emma because she would be a second week contender
A guy at the French federation once said that they would willingly trade all 15 top-100 male players just to have one guy who won a Grand Slam
Personally, I prefer the depth (as you mention) - so much more to follow
But I understand how many look at it
Therein lies the problem. We dont watch football in our house, but we watch the World Cup because we know about Harry Kane!. The conversation in our house is what will England do when he hangs up his boots! We all knew when Andy went there would be a massive void. Everyone knew Andy, rightly so. Perhaps the gap is much deeper than we thought. Emmas success has definitely helped on the womens side and I think despite the vitriol she can attract , she is our most successful womens tennis player for years but we need her fit and healthy again. If you asked the British public what they thought of Arthur Fery, most wouldnt even know he was a tennis player. Lets hope Arthur can win another round or two to get into the British psyche. My argument is you can have all the strength in numbers but without a a star, tennis in GB will suffer. It would be lovely to be an Italy, no doubt enlivened by Sinner or an Argentinian, but you need the star billing to attract youngsters to the sport. I get your point CD about strength in numbers and having a pipeline for new players but without the stars is it worth it?. Look at the French, loads of good players and great facilities but no GS winner sin Bartoli, 13 years ago and on the mens side Yannick Noah 43 years ago. I would trade the depth for another Andy M.

To me, this is the equivalent of identity politics. Claiming the problem is all about one or two people, or the lack of.

foobarbaz · Club Coach

indiana wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
foobarbaz wrote:
I've mentioned this before, and there wasn't much take up, but imho in any discussion of the state of British tennis we ought to recognise where this nation is headed. We have a ruling regime pushing society into anarchy, making it hardly possible to afford pay the weekly bills. We have a national broadcaster peddling anti-democratic propaganda and using minimal sport coverage to push the impression for a few weeks of the year that things haven't really changed. I think it's not surprising that we are starting to see the player pool shrink.
I have a lot of sympathy with your points
But I'm not sure the player pool IS shrinking - we've had the biggest number come through qualis, and be direct entrants, in the men's at least, for ages
If you look back 15 years, there was basically Andy Murray and no one else - unless I'm completely going doolally, in 2010, for instance, there were only TWO British men in the draw
So I think one has to be careful about using legitimate arguments to back up a point that isn't actually true because it undermines those arguments - it gives people ammunition to say your arguments are nonsense

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of July 2026 06:59:50 AM
Yes, whatever one thinks of the general points foobarbaz is making there, I am totally unconvinced about the effect on tennis and the player pool and general success or lack of it. I note, faced with CD's fscts there, that they in later post talks about ah, the speed of society change etc. Still very unconvinced about the linkage even if one goes along with the lead in narrative.
In fact I didn't comment initially brcause I feared that that was going down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

Aside from you being very unconvinced indiana, what does your comment add to the discussion?

indiana · Tennis legend

Err, it suggests that you are making a major focal point and linkage here that I am very unconvinced about, as apparently is CD ( and I didn't want to waste space repeating some of their thoughts on numbers ). Very reasonable discussion points are simply disagreeing with a strongly made point of view and supporting other opinions.
.
I will try to take time out to think more about what I do think could possibly be factors. Though IMO one Wimbledon to some extent can / is distorting the overall picture.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 3rd of July 2026 10:00:24 AM

Var · Challenger qualifying

foobarbaz wrote:
Var wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
According to the Beeb "... in 2010. Only eight British players had earned a spot in round one, but by the time round two began, only Andy Murray remained in the competition."

According to me, 19 Brits in the opening round is a much better showing than eight, and we have four times as many through to round two.
But almost certainly no Andy
It's one of the problems of the sport being so figurehead focused (if that's a phrase)
If we'd had the same 4 go through AND Emma, say, the press would be delighted - they'd all be focused on Emma because she would be a second week contender
A guy at the French federation once said that they would willingly trade all 15 top-100 male players just to have one guy who won a Grand Slam
Personally, I prefer the depth (as you mention) - so much more to follow
But I understand how many look at it
Therein lies the problem. We dont watch football in our house, but we watch the World Cup because we know about Harry Kane!. The conversation in our house is what will England do when he hangs up his boots! We all knew when Andy went there would be a massive void. Everyone knew Andy, rightly so. Perhaps the gap is much deeper than we thought. Emmas success has definitely helped on the womens side and I think despite the vitriol she can attract , she is our most successful womens tennis player for years but we need her fit and healthy again. If you asked the British public what they thought of Arthur Fery, most wouldnt even know he was a tennis player. Lets hope Arthur can win another round or two to get into the British psyche. My argument is you can have all the strength in numbers but without a a star, tennis in GB will suffer. It would be lovely to be an Italy, no doubt enlivened by Sinner or an Argentinian, but you need the star billing to attract youngsters to the sport. I get your point CD about strength in numbers and having a pipeline for new players but without the stars is it worth it?. Look at the French, loads of good players and great facilities but no GS winner sin Bartoli, 13 years ago and on the mens side Yannick Noah 43 years ago. I would trade the depth for another Andy M.
To me, this is the equivalent of identity politics. Claiming the problem is all about one or two people, or the lack of.

I think it is the same in any sport TBH, and across all walks of life now. Whether we like it or not. Yet dont lets overlook the positives. Although many of us feel Serena should have stayed in retirement , when she burst on to the scene as a young female black American she served as a role model for not only black kids across the world but all youngsters. I recall when I was lecturing, following the US presidential election a black UK student bounded into my office absolutely delighted. Barack Obama had been elected president of the USA. It was great new for all of us but for him he said, now I can do anything, dont knock it too much.

foobarbaz · Club Coach

It's such a shame that so much of the discourse in the UK has been hijacked, don't you think. Anyone?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

foobarbaz wrote:
It's such a shame that so much of the discourse in the UK has been hijacked, don't you think. Anyone?

Sorry, the discourse about tennis? And hijacked by whom?

The 2010 point is relevant, I feel, foobarbaz, simply because it undermines the press's argument (and your argument?) that British tennis is going down the toilet

you talk about the speed of society's decline and how that will lead to a collapse in tennis - you may be right ....

But there's no evidence to back that second bit up if actually tennis is not collapsing (hence the random 2010 figure I gave)

Again, I'm not disputing the first part - there's an awful lot to be very worried about at the moment, both here and abroad

GAMEOVER · Futures qualifying

It's just as well this is not football because for the ladies with only a total of 4 wins in singles qualifying and main draw and none in the ladies doubles the manager would be sacked. The absence of Emma cannot cover for everything. l know Heather has also managed a win in the mixed with Marcus but that is only a small consolation.

seagull · Tennis legend

We are missing 2 of our top 3 woman. Plus the draws were terrible.

GAMEOVER · Futures qualifying

seagull wrote:
We are missing 2 of our top 3 woman. Plus the draws were terrible.

We only had 2 players winning matches in qualifying and they would not have been playing anybody in the top 100.How does that explain the failure to win any ladies doubles ?

the addict · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
seagull wrote:
We are missing 2 of our top 3 woman. Plus the draws were terrible.
We only had 2 players winning matches in qualifying and they would not have been playing anybody in the top 100.How does that explain the failure to win any ladies doubles ?

Four of the seven doubles matches were against much higher-ranked opponents, and it would have been a real upset if GB had won any of them. Heather and Katie did very well, but Katie isn't a doubles player.

Of the rest, Harriet and Maia had a chance in their match, but were edged out by their experienced opponents.

Freya and Eden underperformed - I was disappointed in their play today.

As for Liv and Tereza - they didn't really get going (pressure of expectation ?). The way the draw went they could/should have made the QF, but as last year a bad day in the office from Liv (and in the mixed doubles).