Originally Posted by *Sparkle*:
“I agree it is hard to compare eras, because people do what is normal within those eras. In absolute terms, modern athletes will beat those from fifty years ago for all kinds of reasons, but better and greater are different things. It is fair to say that many of the best in any era are trend-setters. Many scoffed at Murray for using his winnings to employ a team of experts, thinking it was an indulgence and he wanted to be pampered, and the same with his coaches. Some would say he was blaming them for losses, but the reality is he was always trying to find that extra few percent. He's being copied by others, right down to the rise of the 'super-coach'.
What I would say about tennis is that Wimbledon is more competitive now than it was in the early days when it was mainly Brits winning. With modern transport, and all players being on the same tour, and being a professional tour, it means that the sport is more open. Perry played during a transitional time, when the sport was opening up, so a lot more competitive than twenty years previous, but less competitive than now. There is a second argument about Perry fighting against prejudice, but he was still British, and I'd say it was much harder for a talented player from Eastern Europe to get to Wimbledon. Of course, Murray isn't from the country club set either, and you do wonder if that helps to give you a competitive edge. See also the players from Eastern Europe.”
I agree with all of that Sparkle, although I'd ask what you mean when you say 'mainly Brits winning'.
Do you mean in the early rounds or the actual title or titles?
As far as my knowledge goes, the Brits have never had a great record there, although if we did the analysis. we might find a few more Brits in the main draw pre 1960's say.
Having lived through all the Wimbledon's from the mid 60's onwards, the Brits have nearly always done poorly with a few exceptions (e.g. Taylor, a bit of Cox / Mottram / Lloyd, 1993 for the early rounds and then a wait until Henman / Murray in the men and Jones, Wade and a bit of Durie and then not much else in the women - Heather???).
Even Perry was an exception as has been noted above. We did have Bunny Austin too at that time but as you say, the degree of competitiveness was nothing like now.
I haven't looked back as far as the late 1800's and the days of the Renshaw twins and Lotte Dodd etc (when the tournament was played at the end of the garden of my flat in SW19!!!) but that's such a long time ago.
The competitiveness is something Fred Stolle talked about at a few Tennis Fantasy Camps where he explained how the system worked in the 1960's before the sport went open and a ranking system was started (early/mid 1970's).
Back then, the AELTC sent invitations to all National Associations affiliated with the ITF and these bodies could send 2 players to the tournament. This, in turn, meant that the likes of Stolle might face someone who might be called a good 'Country Club' player in the early rounds. Effectively, players like Fred, the top Aussies and Americans would not really have to worry until at least the 3rd, if not the 4th round (into week 2).
By the late 60's and certainly into the 70's, things began to heat up a bit and with the ranking system, it created a working model for determining levels.
I've mentioned before that even a decade ago, a kid I'd been involved with (although not coached personally) won 1 x ATP point after doing well in a series of Satellite (now Futures) events. His point gave him a ranking of +1,500!!!!!.
Whilst so many young people worldwide continue to chase the dream via the competitive junior tennis journey up into the lower levels of the adult pro structure, there are arguments that the sort of prize money reallocation many seek doesn't have to take place. Quite simply, the laws of demand and supply mean that as a few players drop off the grid or give up, their places are taken by others (a good topic for another post / debate).
Again, if we did some quantitative analysis, we would find significant increases in numbers of players from Eastern Europe (started in the mid/late 1990's) and SE Asia from India right up / across to Japan trying to make it.
Nowadays, I think the 'country club set' factor is less important than one of cash. Assuming a certain level of skill / talent and a commitment to work your butt off, if you have the money behind you for all the associated costs of the journey, you stand a chance, although there are absolutely no certainties. Even with absolute commitment and the best mental toughness to stick it out, every player is still just one bad injury away from failure.
At least the ranking system nontheless, once players get on the court, provides a sort of meritocratic pathway to the top; you win the matches, you will rise up and get paid incrementally more and more, especially once you hit the top 50, even though very few will reach such levels.