Bhuphati vs AITA makes it clear: most of the tennis federations are useless

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Paullaconte1, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Paullaconte1

    Paullaconte1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    309
    OK, saying that "most of the tennis federations are useless" is a bit an exaggeration. But the unfolding of the events in this story makes me think once again.
    http://www.tennistonic.com/view_tennisnews?nid=1265&/Bhupathi-strikes-back-to-attack-AITA

    As far as I know, besides some few exceptions (which ones?) Tennis Federations are often ineffective or even damaging. In this Indiangate they are creating so much confusion to destroy the image of their most representative players (and themselves). Shouldn't do the opposite?

    I have also read lot's of complaints about some other Federation around the world.

    Right or wrong?:confused::confused::confused:

    What's your experience?
     
    #1
  2. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    I don't think most tennis federations have enjoyed much success in consistently turning out quality players.

    The only exceptions that come to mind are the Spanish, French & Chinese (women's side) federations.
     
    #2
  3. Paullaconte1

    Paullaconte1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    309
    Agree it's a pity.
     
    #3
  4. maxpotapov

    maxpotapov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Federations do not spawn tennis communities, they emerge on top of existing communities to provide some valuable services, such as coordination of events, rankings etc. And like any bureaucracy they tend to become self-serving and self-absorbed, as they are run by people connected to other people. So instead of promoting sports and creating level playing field for everyone, they quickly turn to self preservation mode, acting as overarching entity but not just humble service provider to the community. And like any people they pursue their own interests, and those of other people connected to them. Therefore they are unfit for any player or technology development, or this would contradict their self-preservation instinct (anything new, like new players or technologies, can be very disruptive and people can lose jobs, you know)

    As people become more and more connected via social networks and constant online presence and free access to information, there are all necessary conditions in place for random people to function as an organized body without central coordinator/representative organ.
     
    #4
  5. Tcbtennis

    Tcbtennis Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,319
    Although your location states that you are in the Ukraine, it sounds as though you just described the USTA.
     
    #5
  6. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,762
    I think it is different in the AITA case, which seems to be based on personal jealousy of a successful person
     
    #6
  7. maxpotapov

    maxpotapov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    Ukraine
    It's not rocket science, really...
    Rather it is simply organization/social science :)

    Even if organization like USTA is ever run by a visionary and idealist for a while, it would still slow down and collapse under its own gravity at some point. And then it will have to declare bankruptcy in the face of new competition, like USTA did when they finally invited Spaniards to teach them how to train champions after years and years of being totally fruitless despite huge budgets consumed last decade.

    The problem is, even if new methodologies are humbly adopted and organization restructured, it will soon go back to self-preservation mode until the next collapse. Because it is too big not to fail, too vertical not to fall.

    To reiterate, centralized organizations are naturally incapable to systematically produce disruptive innovation, even if they are called Microsoft. Only decentralized, distributed effort can breed new champions and new methodologies.
     
    #7
  8. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,762
    Every private coach in the US is a "decentalized distributed effort." But they have also not produced any outstanding players like Federer.

    These are simplistic arguments. Sometimes centralized funding and facilities are the way to go because replication would be prohibitively costly, and sometimes not.
     
    #8
  9. maxpotapov

    maxpotapov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    Ukraine
    The point is, centralized effort produced none, ever, while private initiatives produced every GOAT that came from US, including "former Federer" of men's tennis and "current Federer" of women's tennis.

    And how costly replication is now, when information on latest methodologies and best practices is available anytime anywhere, for everyone to see and implement?

    Access to the tournaments and sponsorship is another story, and yet the only current TOP10/20 guy from US came from college tennis.
     
    #9
  10. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,762
    Times have changed. Private initiative might have worked in the past, but now there is lot more awareness and money all over the world, private or public.

    Pete and Serena are also exceptionally physically gifted. It would be wrong to assume that coaching was the only reason for their success. Even Federer cannot serve like Sampras.
     
    #10
  11. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,762
    Another thing that is being overlooked is how much money Paes and Bhupathi got from the government. I don't think without that money they would have been able to travel and get coaching in the initial days. I constantly read about athletes from India saying they cannot afford travel or equipment unless government steps in because private sector money is not available for other than some sports like cricket. Even recently, they were receiving the equivalent of $6000 a month for Olympics preparation.

    Also Bhupathi received his initial coaching and success from the Univ of Mississippi where he completed his college degree, so that is also public funding in a sense.
     
    #11
  12. maxpotapov

    maxpotapov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Olympic programs are sponsored and run by government agencies, and government is elected by people and accountable to people (on the next elections).

    What about USTA? Is it publicly or privately owned non-profit organization? Good discussion here:
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=437708

    On their website they introduce themselves "The United States Tennis Association (USTA) is the national governing body for the sport of tennis". National governing body appointed by whom and accountable to whom? People (members)? Government (we the people)? Basically only to TV-viewers who vote with their remote controls whether USTA will get advertising money or not. But being non-profit, why would they care about maximizing profits/public (viewers') interest in tennis? The salaries for USTA top management are already through the roof, no motivation here.

    Anyways, self-perpetuating "governing bodies" that monopolized the market and accountable to no one but themselves are inherently incapable to produce anything new, as they exist to "govern" (to control, preserve status quo), rather than develop (which is risky and often self-destructive).
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2012
    #12
  13. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,614
    Bhupathi deserves whatever he's getting.
     
    #13

Share This Page