I read a recent article on the rise of Canadian tennis and one of the reasons attributed to it was the Federation's decision to bring in French coaches and give them free rein, including constructing new red clay courts.
Apart from the obvious French connection to Canada, the main reason seems to have been the belief that French Federation coaches are technically the best in the world. It is quite telling that the Canadians did not go with US coaches next door, LTA coaches, or even the famed Spanish coaches.
Canada has close cultural ties to France. Cannot read anything into the fact that Canada chose French coaches over U.S. or Spanish coaches.
It is likely just political... Many of those French coaches might even have been trained in and advocate other systems like the Spanish system.
As other posts mentioned, it is not clear what the French system is... French system may be more of an organizational and funding/support structure rather than any meaningful difference in on-court teaching methodology.
And Amelie Mauresmo and Mary Pierce have won many Slams
Canada has close cultural ties to France. Cannot read anything into the fact that Canada chose French coaches over U.S. or Spanish coaches.
It is likely just political... Many of those French coaches might even have been trained in and advocate other systems like the Spanish system.
As other posts mentioned, it is not clear what the French system is... French system may be more of an organizational and funding/support structure rather than any meaningful difference in on-court teaching methodology.
I read an interview with the Spanish coach about Spanish system, so he mentioned that the best students come from France, as they are all well technically prepared and the focus is usually on other aspects of the game rather than technic.
What about LTA coaches?
What about them?
Do you mean coaches who work for the LTA or coaches who have come through the LTA Coach Education programme?
The LTA coach education programme is pretty well revered around the world because it strikes a reasonable balance across all areas of knowledge required to be a coach and it is very well structured. It doesn't particularly specialise on one specific area - it's more broad brush until level 4 and 5 where you can diverge into Club or Performance strands. This has advantages and disadvantages (just like any other approach).
I meant whether coaches who work for LTA were considered by Canada since it is part of the Commonwealth with the cultural ties.
A Canadian girl recently beat an American girl in a grand slam I seem to recall.My understanding is that the French players are taught every shot, which is great. They all can serve, volley, backhand, etc to whatever degree. However of the players just mentioned I can't think of a shot any of them have that scares their opponents. Sure Gasquet has a backhand, but how many majors has he won? Tsonga has a good serve, but he's only been to 1 slam final. Monfils is a great showman, but what does that get him? If these French coaches are going to teach the Canadian players the same things then I'm not going to expect a whole lot from them either. It seems like they all need to be taught a killer instinct or something that would propel them into the upper echelons of the sport.
Why does Europe dominate the Laver Cup, and men's tennis at large? | Tennis.com
Even if The World manages to win their first Laver Cup this weekend, the Europe appears set to keep conquering the world of men’s tennis for the foreseeable future.www.tennis.com
—Talent pool: [...]
—Coaching: [...].
—Surface: [...]
—Mindset: [...].
I get the argument given there are fewer clay tournaments, but if the above is correct then wouldn't that still be reflected in overall rankings?Your list is misleading as it does not show clay performance. The French and Spanish systems emphasize clay. They believe that clay builds a player who is all-round the best.