Josh Goodall May Retire Because Of Financial Concerns

From the BBC website

Great Britain's number two tennis player Josh Goodall is considering retiring from the sport next summer because of financial concerns.

Goodall, 27, is ranked at 232 in the world, a massive 229 places lower than number one Briton Andy Murray.

His prize money has averaged around £30,000 for the last eight years.

"If I don't see myself getting closer to the top 150 by next summer I will take a look at what I want to get out of this," Goodall said.

"I'm 27 and I've got bills to pay."

Goodall's career earnings are £258,969, which is dwarfed by Murray's career haul of £15.6m. Murray earned £333,000 from his first two tournaments of 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/20398356

I love tennis but tennis as a career is perhaps too big a gamble. Should children be encouraged to take such a big risk with their future. Are parents crazy to contemplate such a career for their children?

Good question Hawkeye, I guess it is the same as any other sporting career or a showbiz career. The rewards for the successful ones are phenomenal but they are few and far between. It always pays to have a back up choice, coaching is always an option and not a bad career overall.

"Just like to point out, im not retiring.... I expect 2013 to be my best year yet. #stilllifeinthe'olddog'"

Tweet from Josh today.

Yep, when you look at the money on offer at Challengers its a pittance. The game, like football, is too top heavy but thats due to the lopsided nature of its entertainment draw. At the end of the day guys like Goodall are not that far away in terms of playing ability with Murray, etc, but their rewards are nowhere near the same. They have to rely on sponsorships and national tennis support. At the "journeyman" level its a very tough career to eek out...my son is a promising junior and even at this stage it makes you wonder. But as carrieg4 mentions, you can go elsewhere with the sport...coaching within tennis academies if you're 3.1 or above - even then the competition is tough and you have to have the personality to be able to coach but at least its an option.

Being the 200th best tennis player is nowhere near as lucrative as being the 200th best footballer in English leagues.

the 200th best footballer in english leagues is probably in the prem, so that comment doesn't mean much.

Ok...500th...1000th...pick any relative number.

In order to generate the most interest what pro tennis needs is a few memorable names at the top. Even better if these top players are from countries rich enough to have enough fans who are wealthy enough to pay hard cash to follow the sport. They don't necessarily even have to be the best players as long as the public believes that they are. Paying them enough to enable to live the lives and look like like they are a cut above the rest. It makes the top players and hence the sport look more important. It pays to do anything possible to arrive with this situation.

Who cares about lower ranked players? They can fight it out somewhere else (because nobody wants to watch) for the right to join the tennis elite

Good grief! I can hardly believe how cynical I've become.

That's a little short-sighted HE.

If lower ranked players cant afford to even compete at the lower levels and drop out altogether then you're killing off the grass-roots of the game. OK, people dont queue up around the corner to watch a Future's or Challenger event but that doesnt stop them offering better prize money subsidised by ATP/national tennis associations. Have you seen the prize money offered to guys ranked around 100 in Challenger events if they get to say QF stage...? They get around $1,000. How do they survive of this...?

Far too much money (like football) is going to a handful of players...sure, to the victor goes the spoils, but the current balance is spoiling the game and talented players - even potential greats of the future - may be dropping out because they cant eek out a living at it early on. Its sad when the British #2 says he has bills to pay so may have to consider other ways of making a living.

@HE... You did manage to bring in Murray into the discussion, even though he has no influence over what Goodall makes.

"If I don't see myself getting closer to the top 150 by next summer I will take a look at what I want to get out of this," Goodall said.

His highest ranking was #184, about 50+ places than where he is now. He has never made it in to 150 or 100.

Lundgren's coaching is not helping him either.

Can he be inspired by a Haas or Stepanek and try to push? Does he need to leave UK and go elsewhere?

@HE... BTW, I thought Jason Goodall was retiring... which would have been sad.

Sad as it may be but if you don't have some natural talent, then no amount of Money can make you a top player.

sportslover wrote:Sad as it may be but if you don't have some natural talent, then no amount of Money can make you a top player.

LTA, please take note.

sportslover wrote:Sad as it may be but if you don't have some natural talent, then no amount of Money can make you a top player.

Anyone who makes it inside the top 500 has 'some natural talent'.

People who only really pay attention to the very top end of the sport often seem to lack perspective when it comes to just how good these lower ranked players are compared to say a county player or such.

Exactly djlovesyou! Why is LF applauding sportslover's comment????

People on this board seem to think "natural talent" is something only the top 4 players have. That's so myopic. Any pro player has oodles of talent...but some have better national support, better coaching support, more luck...etc, etc. Success isnt always directly linked to talent. The game is poorly rewarded lower down the chain, the guys below 100 arent feted like the top guys with people to carry their towels, mop their brows, have people to rub their back after a match, people to focus on physical development, personal stringers, etc. All these things make life just that little bit easier for the top guys...and the prize money they get for QFs in ATP vs QFs in Future's is clearly very different. Yes the top guys had to get there through own ability, etc...but many of them have been better supported by their countries too to take away some of the worries about making ends meet on tour.

I'm not saying Goodall is AS talented as guys in the top 4 but the difference between him and them in the scheme of things is really very small...certainly smaller than the difference in rewards. We have often seen in the past what British players can do at home spun events like Wimbledon where they get better support and backing. Anyone see 18 yr old Golding play at Wimb this year, or how deep James Ward has gone at Queen's before? They can cut it given these chances...and show that the differences in ability between #250 and #20 are small.

However, for the rest of the year they are just left to flounder and fend for themselves off measly prize money sums.
I'd rather they (e.g. top 10 UK players) had some type of central funding contract like cricketers, with subsidies for travel, etc..to take those worries away so they can just focus on tennis.
Otherwise, is every promising player relied on to have their parents remortage their house 5 times to fund them to get established in the pro ranks.
The cost to do this vs the £30 million Wimbledon makes every year would be negligible.

Otherwise, there would be no ATP tour without guys like the Goodall's, Ward's, Baker's, etc....we ignore them at the game's peril.

LF - so how is Goodall going to set up abroad when he's struggling to pay a mortgage in this country?
You think the LTA will fund that when they've got back-slapping dinner parties for the old cronies to run every night of the week?

Josh Goodall is 232 or something. That makes him one he'll of a player. Just because most posters follow one of the top 10 don't let that blind you to the fact that getting to 232 in the world is one hell of an achievement.

Lydian is 100% right when he says there isn't that much separating Goodall and the top 4. It comes down NOT to TALENT but some small things like circumstances, parents, support systems, etc.

There is NO such thing as natural talent. All there is is a blend of circumstances support systems blind luck and then hard work.

Goodall and all those like him missed out on one of those ingredients that's all. He still remains one heck of a player.

Hawkeye your post is pure unadulterated crap

Lydian you should read Matthew syed's bounce. One hell of a book that ha changed my perspective on TALENT

lydian wrote:Exactly djlovesyou! Why is LF applauding sportslover's comment????

Money may assist, but is not primary factor. In Goodall's case, Tennis at least has visibility via LTA, no matter how good or bad LTA is. I personally think Goodall is in a much better place then say, Yuki B, who belongs to a country like India, which lives/dies by Cricket.

lydian wrote:People on this board seem to think "natural talent" is something only the top 4 players have. That's so myopic. Any pro player has oodles of talent...but some have better national support, better coaching support, more luck...etc, etc. Success isnt always directly linked to talent. The game is poorly rewarded lower down the chain, the guys below 100 arent feted like the top guys with people to carry their towels, mop their brows, have people to rub their back after a match, people to focus on physical development, personal stringers, etc. All these things make life just that little bit easier for the top guys...and the prize money they get for QFs in ATP vs QFs in Future's is clearly very different. Yes the top guys had to get there through own ability, etc...but many of them have been better supported by their countries too to take away some of the worries about making ends meet on tour.

If Goodall has chosen Tennis as a profession, he does have talent and love for the game. By definition, Top players do get Top rewards.

lydian wrote: I'm not saying Goodall is AS talented as guys in the top 4 but the difference between him and them in the scheme of things is really very small...certainly smaller than the difference in rewards. We have often seen in the past what British players can do at home spun events like Wimbledon where they get better support and backing. Anyone see 18 yr old Golding play at Wimb this year, or how deep James Ward has gone at Queen's before? They can cut it given these chances...and show that the differences in ability between #250 and #20 are small.

Such small differences can create a very substantial difference in earning ability and hence the financial aspects of the equation tend towards the break-even model, rather than being very successful at the sport of your choice.

lydian wrote:However, for the rest of the year they are just left to flounder and fend for themselves off measly prize money sums.
I'd rather they (e.g. top 10 UK players) had some type of central funding contract like cricketers, with subsidies for travel, etc..to take those worries away so they can just focus on tennis. Otherwise, is every promising player relied on to have their parents remortage their house 5 times to fund them to get established in the pro ranks.
The cost to do this vs the £30 million Wimbledon makes every year would be negligible.

The disenfranchised lower ranks will probably benefit from further investment, but the current system may be happy with just one Murray, unlike the Spanish establishment.

lydian wrote:Otherwise, there would be no ATP tour without guys like the Goodall's, Ward's, Baker's, etc....we ignore them at the game's peril.

Taking Goodall's example (his playing activity), it is a Catch22, whether additional financial assistance would help. His sphere of travel is primarily Europe, unlike some of the South American players with similar rankings.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/J/Josh-Goodall.aspx?t=pa

BTW, Ward played very well at the Newport Grass tourney. Golding and Broady have shown their ability very well.

lydian wrote:LF - so how is Goodall going to set up abroad when he's struggling to pay a mortgage in this country?

Perhaps he would be better off on the Asian tour or the Middle-east with a base outside UK (perhaps the US or Latin America).

lydian wrote:You think the LTA will fund that when they've got back-slapping dinner parties for the old cronies to run every night of the week?

That, indeed, is very sad. That too because LTA has some ex-players who should be able to look at their own past experiences and how to help the next generation be more successful.

lydian wrote:Exactly djlovesyou! Why is LF applauding sportslover's comment????

People on this board seem to think "natural talent" is something only the top 4 players have. That's so myopic. Any pro player has oodles of talent...but some have better national support, better coaching support, more luck...etc, etc. Success isnt always directly linked to talent. The game is poorly rewarded lower down the chain, the guys below 100 arent feted like the top guys with people to carry their towels, mop their brows, have people to rub their back after a match, people to focus on physical development, personal stringers, etc. All these things make life just that little bit easier for the top guys...and the prize money they get for QFs in ATP vs QFs in Future's is clearly very different. Yes the top guys had to get there through own ability, etc...but many of them have been better supported by their countries too to take away some of the worries about making ends meet on tour.

I'm not saying Goodall is AS talented as guys in the top 4 but the difference between him and them in the scheme of things is really very small...certainly smaller than the difference in rewards. We have often seen in the past what British players can do at home spun events like Wimbledon where they get better support and backing. Anyone see 18 yr old Golding play at Wimb this year, or how deep James Ward has gone at Queen's before? They can cut it given these chances...and show that the differences in ability between #250 and #20 are small.

However, for the rest of the year they are just left to flounder and fend for themselves off measly prize money sums.
I'd rather they (e.g. top 10 UK players) had some type of central funding contract like cricketers, with subsidies for travel, etc..to take those worries away so they can just focus on tennis.
Otherwise, is every promising player relied on to have their parents remortage their house 5 times to fund them to get established in the pro ranks.
The cost to do this vs the £30 million Wimbledon makes every year would be negligible.

Otherwise, there would be no ATP tour without guys like the Goodall's, Ward's, Baker's, etc....we ignore them at the game's peril.

LF - so how is Goodall going to set up abroad when he's struggling to pay a mortgage in this country?
You think the LTA will fund that when they've got back-slapping dinner parties for the old cronies to run every night of the week?

Exactly!

Just to be clear my earlier comment was not what I thought but sadly the way things are.

Don't worry Hawky, I, the emancipator, noted the note of sarcasm in your original post, and hence understood it's not so cryptic meaning.

Unfortunately, minions such as Lydian, do not have such emancipator powers of perception.

Alas, 'tis the way it is.



emancipator

Thanks Coolpixel, haven't read that book but have seen various reviews of it and there are a couple of other similar US books. Ability to perform a certain task must be practiced over an over, but at a competitive level a strong mindset is needed too. I do believe that people vary in innate talent levels but the difference isn't massive...it's their approach to practicing, their support network and access to resources that really helps players develop and stand out. When we saw Cowan take Sampras to 5 sets, and Bailey take Ivanisevic to 5 sets at Wimbledon with match point then we know these players weren't far off ability-wise...however they didn't have great support from LTA, funding was an issue and we've seen many promising British players slip away into obscurity. Not all players are lucky enough to come from rich parents like Gulbis. So talent aside, the players lower down really struggle when not funded. The other issue is the way talent is spotted and nurtured in the UK.

This article is typical... http://www.timeandleisure.co.uk/articles/local/1825-rising-tennis-stars.html

"British players need access to locally-based competition, with active support and backing from locally-based clubs. In France, where they put money into the game, the younger players compete against retired professionals in club team competitions and locally-based tournaments. This supports the grass roots of the game, which we fail to do here... so we don’t have strength in the lower levels. We leave those players who are exceptional, but still developing, to find their own way and support themselves."

This is a YouTube video of the young female 16 year old player mentioned in the article...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaVWUYqAeM
Her game looks good, very good, indeed she looks like any other promising WTA player but she's crying out for support and funding as the article suggests to help bring her on to the next level. We excel at wasting talent in this country...it's why we have the most successful slam/event in the game that returned a 35 million profit this year and yet only have 1 male player in the top200. Where does all the money go? How much out of that would be needed to support 25 male and 25 female players? To create a stronger national competition network? Not that much...it's a scandal and we continue to reap what we sow.

lydian wrote:When we saw Cowan take Sampras to 5 sets, and Bailey take Ivanisevic to 5 sets at Wimbledon with match point then we know these players weren't far off ability-wise...however they didn't have great support from LTA, funding was an issue and we've seen many promising British players slip away into obscurity. Not all players are lucky enough to come from rich parents like Gulbis. So talent aside, the players lower down really struggle when not funded. The other issue is the way talent is spotted and nurtured in the UK.

I disagree respectfully Lydian. Michael Russell had MPs against Kuerten, Monfils beat Federer, so what. Where is the consistency? The financial aspect is important, but what is the RoI on investing. Handouts do not make better players.

lydian wrote:This article is typical... http://www.timeandleisure.co.uk/articles/local/1825-rising-tennis-stars.html

"British players need access to locally-based competition, with active support and backing from locally-based clubs. In France, where they put money into the game, the younger players compete against retired professionals in club team competitions and locally-based tournaments. This supports the grass roots of the game, which we fail to do here... so we don’t have strength in the lower levels. We leave those players who are exceptional, but still developing, to find their own way and support themselves."

I think the players who need support should collectively push to change the bureaucracy. Someone like Judy Murray has the visibility to that.

lydian wrote:This is a YouTube video of the young female 16 year old player mentioned in the article...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaVWUYqAeM
Her game looks good, very good, indeed she looks like any other promising WTA player but she's crying out for support and funding as the article suggests to help bring her on to the next level. We excel at wasting talent in this country...it's why we have the most successful slam/event in the game that returned a 35 million profit this year and yet only have 1 male player in the top200. Where does all the money go? How much out of that would be needed to support 25 male and 25 female players? To create a stronger national competition network? Not that much...it's a scandal and we continue to reap what we sow.

I am very impressed with Kelly. The match play and some DTL FH and the net approach are very good. Shades of Robson and Kvitova. Glad to see, despite LTA bungling, young players' desire to play Tennis. Thanks for sharing the link.

If she's so desperate for funding and support, why doesn't she play some of the British ITF junior events and get herself a junior ranking (supposing she is good enough, which seems fairly unlikely).

She only has a 5.1 LTA rating and barely plays outside of county and club level tournaments.

If she manages to get recruited by the NCAA (which seems to be the aim of that video) she would have done very well.

laverfan wrote:@HE... You did manage to bring in Murray into the discussion, even though he has no influence over what Goodall makes.

LF thats an unique talent HE posses, to be frank I am becoming a fan of HE now

lydian wrote:Exactly djlovesyou! Why is LF applauding sportslover's comment????

People on this board seem to think "natural talent" is something only the top 4 players have. That's so myopic. Any pro player has oodles of talent...but some have better national support, better coaching support, more luck...etc, etc. Success isnt always directly linked to talent. The game is poorly rewarded lower down the chain, the guys below 100 arent feted like the top guys with people to carry their towels, mop their brows, have people to rub their back after a match, people to focus on physical development, personal stringers, etc. All these things make life just that little bit easier for the top guys...and the prize money they get for QFs in ATP vs QFs in Future's is clearly very different. Yes the top guys had to get there through own ability, etc...but many of them have been better supported by their countries too to take away some of the worries about making ends meet on tour.

I'm not saying Goodall is AS talented as guys in the top 4 but the difference between him and them in the scheme of things is really very small...certainly smaller than the difference in rewards. We have often seen in the past what British players can do at home spun events like Wimbledon where they get better support and backing. Anyone see 18 yr old Golding play at Wimb this year, or how deep James Ward has gone at Queen's before? They can cut it given these chances...and show that the differences in ability between #250 and #20 are small.

However, for the rest of the year they are just left to flounder and fend for themselves off measly prize money sums.
I'd rather they (e.g. top 10 UK players) had some type of central funding contract like cricketers, with subsidies for travel, etc..to take those worries away so they can just focus on tennis.
Otherwise, is every promising player relied on to have their parents remortage their house 5 times to fund them to get established in the pro ranks.
The cost to do this vs the £30 million Wimbledon makes every year would be negligible.

Otherwise, there would be no ATP tour without guys like the Goodall's, Ward's, Baker's, etc....we ignore them at the game's peril.

LF - so how is Goodall going to set up abroad when he's struggling to pay a mortgage in this country?
You think the LTA will fund that when they've got back-slapping dinner parties for the old cronies to run every night of the week?

I'm a bit lost on this post to be honest. My understanding is that the LTA does have centrally contracted players. They focus on younger players like Dan Evans; Oli Golding etc. I presume Goodall was at some point part of that funded structure but is now too old.

The LTA does also provide support and funding to a wide range of juniors, including funding trips to international tennis tournaments. I have no idea why the one mentioned does not have any funding. It seems bizarre to me that she wouldn't have at least been part of a County set-up (and therefore on the radar of the LTA). The LTA doesn't send scouts out as far as I am aware. They rely on coaches at clubs drawing promising players to the county squads' attention. As a 5.1 she clearly is a good player (there are only around 40 girls born in 1995 at that rating or higher) so I find it very hard to believe she is not on the LTA's radar at all.

Yes they rely on coaches as part of the County/Regional/National Talent ID approach.
http://www.lta.org.uk/players-parents/Performance-players/Talent-ID/
My son is currently going through this. I don't have details of said central contracts and would be interested to read more on that if you have the info? My point was more that they could get paid almost a salary and hand prize money back, everything over the contract they keep, and get certain bonuses for achievements of breaking each 100 ranking barrier, or for example staying at a certain level above 300-400. Clearly the number of people supported in this way would have to be restricted though.

Yep 5.1 is good, very good, but the article suggests she's struggling to get noticed and funded. I played against a 15 yr old young lad the other day who was of a similar ranking...he was scarily good and in top 50 UK juniors....but no LTA support in sight to subsidise the travel up and down the country to grade 1 or 2 events. Many drop out at this stage as their parents cant afford all the costs involved in supporting their kids. As we heard Goodall's parents remortgaged 5 times. I believe other major countries support their young talents much better than we do but happy to stand corrected on that. Given we have an abysmal record at producing top players (Murray isnt LTA product) for UK size and money LTA generates something clearly isn't working...

The LTA funding for 15+ year olds isn't subjective at all though, it's completely based on rankings and results.

http://www.lta.org.uk/NewWebsite/LTA/Documents/Players%20and%20Parents/Performance%20Players/Matrix%20Targets%20for%202011-2012.pdf

How far down the rankings should the LTA go when it comes to direct funding? Simply making top 50 juniors seems to be a bit of a stretch as at 15 any potential pro player would be winning ITF Grade 4/5 events or at least having a good run into them.

Thanks DJ, my son is at an age where ID funding isn't based on rankings/results.
A 15 year old can get up to £6000 per year...funding which can continue until they're 24. No limit on numbers but as you say making top 50 ITF juniors is a stretch by 18. The 16 yo in question needs to be top 400 ITF to be eligible for £5000...maybe as discussed she just isn't good enough.