Academy closure leaves Murray legacy in doubt
THE Lawn Tennis Association yesterday announced that their elite academy in Stirling is to shut down in 2024 and consolidate with its counterpart in Loughborough. Here, HUGH MacDONALD asks what its loss means for the future of the game in Scotland.
THE window marked Murray legacy is closing fast, if not quite shuttered tight. The future path of tennis in Scotland has reached a crossroads. It is a road that stretches back to a white van heading down to Newcastle for a Davis Cup tie in 1995.
Some details have been obscured by the fog of time but it’s believed said van contained two grand slam winners, a further two Davis Cup players and a Fed Cup competitor. They were, of course, just children.
For the undeniable record, Andy Murray, Jamie Murray, Jamie Baker, Colin Fleming and the late Elena Baltacha all owe much to Judy Murray, who organised and led the trip.
Andy went on to win three Grand Slams and two Olympic golds, his brother seven Grand Slams, and Baker and Fleming participated with success and tenacity on the ATP tour. Baltacha became a top 50 player and a personality of some substance. And Dunblane won the tennis world cup.
The crossroads was reached yesterday when the elite academy, funded by the Lawn Tennis Association, was closed at Stirling University and the operation moved to Loughborough.
It prompts the question: what does Tennis Scotland do now? And has the energy sparked by the example of Oor Andy been dissipated?
The first, immediate response is to insist that the chances of producing another Murray are on a par with witnessing an annual Halley’s Comet. Murray was produced by a divine alchemy of talent, determination and familial backing. We will, I believe, never see his like again.
But that doesn’t mean we should not try to give any aspiring talent the best shot of, at least, pursuing a professional career in tennis.
The elite academy is trying to fulfil this role but any grief over the closing of the initiative at Stirling may be assuaged by the realisation that only one Scots youngster was involved in the three years of its existence.
It drained resources without any obvious benefit to the game in Scotland. The question remains, then, of what the Murray legacy can be and how it can be achieved?
It should never be focused on producing a Grand Slam champion. That is an absurd goal. Rather, Murray and his family have always stressed the ambition was to give more people in Scotland the opportunity to play the game. If the numbers participating rose, then the chances of producing good players would increase.
There are problems with this simple proposition. First, the youngsters have to be coached properly. Second, they have to be able to play the game indoors.
The first obstacle has been tackled. There are dedicated and inspirational people coaching youngsters in Scotland. However, the facilities lag far behind.
Tennis Scotland is seeking to address that problem but there are difficulties. The target of doubling indoor courts from 112 to 225 seems unattainable in the short term.
This means tennis will remain inaccessible for most. One can have the best coaches and a genuinely inspirational role model but, if there is no way to play, kids take up other sports. The blame will be ladled on the organising body — and the elite academy had critics from the start — but there is enough culpability to be shared liberally.
The LTA’s strategy over the years has been a shambles and its relations with the game north of the border poor, marked by a patronising attitude and crumbs from a financially groaning table.
Scottish councils, understandably, have found that tennis is not at the top of their agendas in a world mired in financial meltdown, so progress has been slow in interacting with Tennis Scotland.
A miasma of uncertainty has to clear, then, before a bold step can be taken. The Murray academy at Park of Keir should be a boost for the game but is not operational yet. The precise sum the LTA will give to Tennis Scotland in lieu of the academy has not been disclosed.
But the strategy should be simplified. The elite pathway should lead to Loughborough. The participation path should be set in stone with achievable targets, backed by supporting and producing coaches.
The Judy Murray Foundation once took the game to areas that were hardly tennis heartlands. I remember one morning watching a volley of sleet assailing her in Drumchapel where youngsters revelled in being introduced to tennis. Along the road, she played a major part in revitalising the Maryhill courts.
This may be the best route. Existing outdoor courts must be properly maintained and the indoor facilities improved, and quickly. It may not be The Big Idea but it could be the best one. Give kids the chance to play the game, easily and cheaply.
Provide coaches who make the game so much fun that the youngsters want to come back.
It is unlikely to provide another Murray but it could produce people who play tennis throughout their lives and pass that joy on to another generation. That would be a triumph of the highest order.