OK, noted. Good point on your lack of choice! (Unexplicable - there's another country/kingdom who needs to analyze what's wrong with the way junior are developed).
Greg Rusedski - you're kidding right? To me he doesn't belong in any group that include Henman or Murray, except for his faux Britishness.
We're not exactly spoilt for choice. GS finalist, world #4, he wasn't a total mug, and achieved more over his career than Murray has to date, although Murray will obviously surpass him by far.
Oh, we are analyzing it. We used to say that it's a lack of funding, so then they threw money at it and now the problem is too much funding
Personally, I think it's something to do with the general British attitude to sports (whenever Murray or another Brit loses, it's always a 'brave' or 'plucky' effort
) and also how expensive it can be to start: for an 8-year-old from a poor background:
Decent Racket: £60
Club Membership: £150/year
Tournaments: £15 (entry fee) + transport + time off work for parent.
A player having 2 lessons per week and maybe 10 tournaments per year (minimum at that age for anybody hoping to turn pro later) could have their tennis costing £2500 per year which is unnacceptable for many families, especially for a very low chance of success. Many who show talent at an early age have their coaching paid for, but in many cases, the LTA take over their coaching, and are getting 8-year-olds training twice a day, every day, which is too much. 6 people in my year group from my county qualified for LTA training, 4 of them quit by the age of 12, the other 2 are still playing but nowhere near as seriously as they used to. I missed the cut, as did another who is now at an Academy down South, though I'm not sure how well he's doing, but certainly better than any of those who got help earlier on. So, in a nutshell, the LTA don't often provide financial support for young players, and when they do, they massively overdo it.