Good or bad?

[JuliusHMarx]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36367629

Interesting take on both parenthood and the idea that you can 'make' a winner out of anyone.

[Guest82]

I am 100% convinced that you can't 'make' a winner out of anyone. Depending on what you call a winner that is.

I guess with unlimited coaching and practice, maybe like this case, you could make her a professional tennis player. But to be elite level, a champion, you need some elements which can't be taught. So for her to be the 'next Serena' she will need to have these talents as part of her DNA.

[Guest]

History says no.  But 12 hours of sport a week doesn't seem too stressful.  As long as he is prepared to fill their days with different learning experiences then they should carry that advantage into adulthood no matter what they decide to do.  Flexibility is something that needs to "taught" from an early age - when the bones and joints are still supple.

A few years ago there was supposed to be a new female British tennis sensation from the junior ranks (not Laura Robson) but when she was 15/16 she had a succession of injuries and I am not sure what happened to her.  I think her name was Eleanor Dean.  Djlovesyou would know about her.

ps What made the William sisters was a genetics that generated tremendous power unheard of in the woman's game.  Tall powerful Venus Williams, and a shorter, stockier, even more powerful Serena Williams.

[JuliusHMarx]

I'm all for sport, healthy activities for kids - who isn't? But this guy's ambition is for his kids to be world-beaters - I'm not convinced that is healthy.

[temporary21]

That's not a healthy childhood for somebody. The amount of pressure she will feel if she does turn pro would crush her under its weight.

She needs to go to school meet friends and , ultimately, decide when she's older whether to actually turn pro

[dummy_half]

Just commented on the 'where are the clones' thread regarding this.

Basically, nurture (i.e. hothouse coaching) can take you so far, but doesn't put in what God left out. the 10000 hour rule is fine in the sense that to get to the top you need to put in the hours, but it doesn't show how many people who don't make it also put in the hours.

First issue is simple physiology - if you want to 'build' the ideal male tennis player you need to be just over 6', of fairly slim physique and to have a body that doesn't build too much muscle mass by training (i.e. somewhere between Djokovic and Nadal-type physiques). Bigger guys may be effective for a time but tend to struggle with injuries and consistency, while smaller players simply lack the physicality to reach the very top. I also think that while good movement can be coached to some extent, outright speed is somewhat inherent, as is the ability to change direction while balanced.

Then I still think you have to have some natural aptitude and enjoyment of running about and hitting a ball so that when you pick up a racket at 5 years old , there's a will to do it again and again. I suspect this is a filter that favours those with some inherent 'talent' and hand-eye coordination towards the 10000 hours requirement.

Third issue is simply luck - avoiding injuries that curtail development being the big factor, but also financial / family circumstances could have an impact.

[Haddie-nuff]

Obviously living his own dreams and missed opportunities through his daughter. Encouragement is one thing.. children should have choices.
It will be seen how it eventually manifests itself.. teenage girls have a habit of knowing what they want (and indeed what they don't want)
Shame the relationship between father and daughter, should be a special one without outside pressures. I fear he may well regret it

[Sponsored content]