Tennis

[ealingfox]

How do you define 'actual nationality'? The country of your birth? The nationality of your parents? A combination of the two? Which one is the true one? It's a nebulous concept for a lot of people.

 

This is why I'm saying the issue is much more complicated than just someone being 'British' or 'non-British'. Perhaps it was a mistake to make citizenship definitions so complex around the world, but now that it is (and the world is a smaller place) as far as I'm concerned if someone meets the reasonably rigorous citizenship requirements that both the Home Office and whatever sporting authority place, then they're British. Evidently you think differently, and that's fair enough.

 

Regarding the economic effect, like most migrants who have come here I would say such sporting stars will give more back to the country in terms of financial and exposure-related success than they will take, though of course that is open to question too.

 

Yes, in a world of my design parentage (no grandparents) and birthplace would be the only factors by which you could decide your nationality, with exceptions decided on a case-by-case basis (ie someone orphaned and displaced as a child by war etc.)

 

Don't know if you've read much government literature recently: https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-british-citizen/check-if-you-can-apply

 

"There are different ways to become a British citizen. The most common is called ‘naturalisation’.

 

You can apply for British citizenship by naturalisation if:

 

you’re 18 or over

you’re of good character, eg you don’t have a serious or recent criminal record, and you haven’t tried to deceive the Home Office or been involved in immigration offences in the last 10 years

you’ll continue to live in the UK - I notice Johanna Konta decided not to comply with this one and fvcked off to Spain before too long.

you’ve met the knowledge of English and life in the UK requirements

you meet the residency requirement

And you must usually have:

 

lived in the UK for at least the 5 years before the date of your application

spent no more than 450 days outside the UK during those 5 years

spent no more than 90 days outside the UK in the last 12 months

been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK (this means there’s no specific date that you have to leave) or permanent residence if you’re an EEA national (and you have a permanent residence card or document that shows you have permanent residence)

had indefinite leave to stay in the UK for the last 12 months (or permanent residence if you’re an EEA national with a permanent residence card or document that shows you have permanent residence)

not broken any immigration laws while in the UK

 

All you have to do is speak workable English, not be a criminal and take a 24 question test based on a £12.99 book. It isn't rigorous at all, particularly for an Australian who wouldn't even have to bother with learning English. Although to be fair to Konta I saw an interview with her on SSN this morning and she's clearly worked hard on her English elocution and concealing her Australian accent.

Edited 27 January 2016 by ealingfox

[Manwell Pablo]

A few reasons you could put forward - island mentality, sporting history and infrastructure etc, it's an essay question really.

 

As Captain says above, it's the shamelessness of people doing it nowadays that grates. I don't actually like tennis all that much so don't know anything about Bedene, but its painfully obvious that Konta has done it strategically, because you get more funding, and it's more lucrative being a British celebrity than an Australian one. She hasn't done it because she identifies as British, otherwise she wouldn't have represented Australia for the years leading up to her gaining our citizenship. I'm not having it that on the 2,554th day of living and being based in the UK she saw herself as Australian, then the next day she suddenly saw herself as British.

 

Just read up on Bedene and its absolutely embarrassing. People like him have no right to expect the British public to warm to them or be proud of them.

 

And Captain, Rusedski had an English mother at least.

She was 14.....i doubt it was even her decision.....and she had to represent someone or should wouldn't be able to compete full stop and wasn't allowed to represent us, simple really.

Well done to her, and if we've ploughed all this extra funding and coaching into getting her to where she is too right we should fell some pride.

[ealingfox]

She was 14.....i doubt it was even her decision.....and she had to represent someone or should wouldn't be able to compete full stop and wasn't allowed to represent us, simple really.

Well done to her, and if we've ploughed all this extra funding and coaching into getting her to where she is too right we should fell some pride.

 

Are you sure about this? I really doubt they would come down that hard in Junior events. Why does it even matter unless you're in Davis Cup contention?

[Manwell Pablo]

Are you sure about this? I really doubt they would come down that hard in Junior events. Why does it even matter unless you're in Davis Cup contention?

you have to have a representing nation playing international tennis. You can't be from nowhere, you have to be ranked by a national tennis federation, yes even in juniors.

Edited 27 January 2016 by Manwell Pablo

[ealingfox]

you have to have a representing nation playing international tennis. You can't be from nowhere, you have to be ranked by a national tennis federation, yes even in juniors.

 

Not really laughable for someone who isn't really into tennis to not know that.

 

National citizenship and registration with a national tennis federation aren't the same thing. Surely the British tennis federation could have ranked her on the understanding that she would become a British citizen on becoming an adult?

[Manwell Pablo]

Not really laughable for someone who isn't really into tennis to not know that.

National citizenship and registration with a national tennis federation aren't the same thing. Surely the British tennis federation could have ranked her on the understanding that she would become a British citizen on becoming an adult?

Well your the one coming In here telling us who should and should not be playing tennis for Great Britain so you should probably have enough knowledge of the sport to have the debate in the first place do you not think?

Yes they are, the LTA and ITF have criteria to meet in order to represent GB. She didn't meet any until she had her citizenship, and she swaped associations as soon as she could. It's like England U18s capping a 17 year old Arteta before he met the criteria it would never ever happen.

To be critical of her basing herself in Spain isn't really on either, plenty of our players have bases abroad predominately places with better weather. For obvious reasons.

Edited 27 January 2016 by Manwell Pablo

[ealingfox]

Well your the one coming In here telling us who should and should not be playing tennis for Great Britain so you should probably have enough knowledge of the sport to have the debate in the first place do you not think?

Yes they are, the LTA and ITF have criteria to meet in order to represent GB. She didn't meet any until she had her citizenship, and she swaped associations as soon as she could. It's like England U18s capping a 17 year old Arteta before he met the criteria it would never ever happen.

To be critical of her basing herself in Spain isn't really on either, plenty of our players have bases abroad predominately places with better weather. For obvious reasons.

 

Tennis isn't the only sport where this is happening. Konta is just the most prominent example at the moment. I made no reference to tennis in my original post.

 

God knows why you've used Arteta as an example, he didn't move to the UK until he was 20 and played for Spain at every youth level...

 

When you're actually British, it's alright. When you aren't British, it's not as alright. It just looks like you're taking advantage.

[Manwell Pablo]

Tennis isn't the only sport where this is happening. Konta is just the most prominent example at the moment. I made no reference to tennis in my original post.

God knows why you've used Arteta as an example, he didn't move to the UK until he was 20 and played for Spain at every youth level...

When you're actually British, it's alright. When you aren't British, it's not as alright. It just looks like you're taking advantage.

Well this the point, I don't think the decision to move here was hers she was a child, clearly identified with the country as her home and decided to represent that country, probably a lot more logistically convenient than playing for a federation on the other side of the world as well.

I doubt our funding is significantly better than tennis Australia either, if at all, they certainly produce a lot more top 100 players than we do with a significantly lower population, your looking for something that really ain't there. As others have said Bedene is a much better example but then as he's not really achieved anything no one gets on his back. Seems we only look for problems when the person in question is doing well which is just down right odd.

Edited 27 January 2016 by Manwell Pablo

[ealingfox]

Well this the point, I don't think the decision to move here was hers she was a child, clearly identified with the country as her home and decided to represent that country, probably a lot more logistically convenient than playing for a federation on the other side of the world as well.

I doubt our funding is significantly better than tennis Australia either, if at all, they certainly produce a lot more top 100 players than we do with a significantly lower population, your looking for something that really ain't there. As others have said Bedene is a much better example but then as he's not really achieved anything no one gets on his back. Seems we only look for problems when the person in question is doing well which is just down right odd.

 

Well it's not just funding that dictates how many top players you'll produce, but the point is taken. And yeah you're right, Bedene is far worse, but he's not as good. It's not really looking for problems, it's just that people don't waste their time talking about players who are shite. If the world-ranked #s 499 and 500 were both doing what Konta and Bedene were doing, nobody would care, not because they think its ok but because nobody cares about what the world-ranked #s 499 and 500 are doing at all.

 

It's telling that there hasn't really been much hype about Konta's sudden rise over here. She's the first 'British' woman to get to a GS semi in donkeys years, but nobody here has batted an eyelid. If she was actually British everyone would be going absolutely mental, but the only people who seem to give two shits at the moment are Sky Sports News. At the end of the day, maybe just not that many people care about tennis, but whats more likely is that she is struggling to capture the hearts and minds of the British people.

[Facecloth]

Well it's not just funding that dictates how many top players you'll produce, but the point is taken. And yeah you're right, Bedene is far worse, but he's not as good. It's not really looking for problems, it's just that people don't waste their time talking about players who are shite. If the world-ranked #s 499 and 500 were both doing what Konta and Bedene were doing, nobody would care, not because they think its ok but because nobody cares about what the world-ranked #s 499 and 500 are doing at all.

 

It's telling that there hasn't really been much hype about Konta's sudden rise over here. She's the first 'British' woman to get to a GS semi in donkeys years, but nobody here has batted an eyelid. If she was actually British everyone would be going absolutely mental, but the only people who seem to give two shits at the moment are Sky Sports News. At the end of the day, maybe just not that many people care about tennis, but whats more likely is that she is struggling to capture the hearts and minds of the British people.

It was second lead story on BBC breakfast this morning, so I don't think you're right that "nobody has batted an eyelid". It's been very well reported.

[ealingfox]

It was second lead story on BBC breakfast this morning, so I don't think you're right that "nobody has batted an eyelid". It's been very well reported.

 

Yeah but there's a difference between the media reporting it and public interest. Just seen this was put on BBC a few hours ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35409884

 

There was more public interest in Heather Watson's match against Williams last year than there has been in Konta's entire past year of work. Imagine if it was Watson or Robson who had made the semis and try to tell me that interest levels would be the same as they are for Konta. No way.

[Facecloth]

Yeah but there's a difference between the media reporting it and public interest. Just seen this was put on BBC a few hours ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35409884

 

There was more public interest in Heather Watson's match against Williams last year than there has been in Konta's entire past year of work. Imagine if it was Watson or Robson who had made the semis and try to tell me that interest levels would be the same as they are for Konta. No way.

There won't be frenzy of excitement outside tennis fans because this country only gives a **** about it during Wimbledon. None tennis fans were hardly dancing in the street waving Union jacks when Murray made his first slam final either. If this was Wimbledon, the country would be going mental, as it's a foreign slam most casual tennis fans couldn't care less.

[ealingfox]

There won't be frenzy of excitement outside tennis fans because this country only gives a **** about it during Wimbledon. None tennis fans were hardly dancing in the street waving Union jacks when Murray made his first slam final either. If this was Wimbledon, the country would be going mental, as it's a foreign slam most casual tennis fans couldn't care less.

 

Yes, you are correct that tennis is shite, but it doesn't change the fact that Konta is not capturing public interest as she should be. That's because she isn't British. Each of Murray's landmark achievements will have garnered more interest than Konta's current purple patch, although tbf that is also down to the fact that he's a man.

 

Not to say she won't become popular, but as the BBC article above suggests, it isn't a guarantee.

Edited 27 January 2016 by ealingfox

[Manwell Pablo]

Yeah but there's a difference between the media reporting it and public interest. Just seen this was put on BBC a few hours ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35409884

 

There was more public interest in Heather Watson's match against Williams last year than there has been in Konta's entire past year of work. Imagine if it was Watson or Robson who had made the semis and try to tell me that interest levels would be the same as they are for Konta. No way.

That was Wimbledon, different kettle the whole country cares a bout Wimbledon. I don't know personally I think it's been adequately covered. given Robson is currently ranked about 700 odd in the world I don't think there is any danger of seeing her in a wta semi top level semi full stop any time soon never mind a grand slam.

[Facecloth]

Yes, you are correct that tennis is shite, but it doesn't change the fact that Konta is not capturing public interest as she should be. That's because she isn't British. Each of Murray's landmark achievements will have garnered more interest than Konta's current purple patch, although tbf that is also down to the fact that he's a man.

 

Not to say she won't become popular, but as the BBC article above suggests, it isn't a guarantee.

I never said tennis is shite, and you've complete ignored everything I've put, so what the point in responding to you.

[ealingfox]

I never said tennis is shite, and you've complete ignored everything I've put, so what the point in responding to you.

 

Yeah I couldn't resist the little wind-up there, but I didn't ignore what you said. You made the valid point that there's significantly more interest here in Wimbledon than the other Majors, although even adjusting for that I still think there'd be far more public interest if it were Robson or Watson in these semis.

 

In response to your point that nobody cared when Murray made his first final, I suggested that actually, I think there was a fair bit of interest in Murray's landmark achievements, although I tapered that by saying that is also because people are generally more interested in men's sport.

 

I think its harsh to suggest that I 'completely ignored everything you put'.

[Facecloth]

Yeah I couldn't resist the little wind-up there, but I didn't ignore what you said. You made the valid point that there's significantly more interest here in Wimbledon than the other Majors, although even adjusting for that I still think there'd be far more public interest if it were Robson or Watson in these semis.

 

In response to your point that nobody cared when Murray made his first final, I suggested that actually, I think there was a fair bit of interest in Murray's landmark achievements, although I tapered that by saying that is also because people are generally more interested in men's sport.

 

I think its harsh to suggest that I 'completely ignored everything you put'.

In you're opinion there'd be more interest in Watson and Robson, but that's just your opinion, you don't know. Plus you've said you don't really like the sport, so I'm amazed you seem so clued up on the exact levels of public interest at certain points in history. I'm amazed someone's who's not a fan can recall exactly how the public reacted back in 2008 for Murray's first final.

[ealingfox]

In you're opinion there'd be more interest in Watson and Robson, but that's just your opinion, you don't know. Plus you've said you don't really like the sport, so I'm amazed you seem so clued up on the exact levels of public interest at certain points in history. I'm amazed someone's who's not a fan can recall exactly how the public reacted back in 2008 for Murray's first final.

 

Given that the BBC have written an article today specifically about how Konta hasn't attracted much public interest over here, it's a little bit more than just my opinion. When Robson or Watson has done well there has been more interest than there has been for Konta. You're deluded if you're completely denying that.

 

 I'm not claiming to be 'clued up' or know the exact levels of anything, I'm not a moron, exact levels of public interest can't be measured. That's why I scaled back your specific example of Murray's first final to his landmark achievements in general, because I don't fvcking know when he made his first final, so why you're trying to call me out on that god knows. But I do remember that the first tourney he won wasn't Wimbledon (US Open?) and there was loads of interest in that.

 

 

Surely as someone who isn't really into tennis, my levels of interest are at least a tenuous indicator of wider trends. I'm part of the sample you would look to analyse.

Edited 27 January 2016 by ealingfox

[ScouseFox]

federer can't have ever lost many sets quicker than that? 20 minutes? He only won 11 points.

[ScouseFox]

this is ridic

[foxes_rule1978]

Djokovic is on another world to everyone else at the moment ... just unbelievable

[Captain...]

When it comes to Konta vs Watson/Robson in terms of interest, there was zero interest in Konta until she became officially British, unlike Robson (won the girls title at Wimbledon/played mixed doubles with Murray at the Olympics) and Watson (won girls US open) her youth/early career completely passed by unnoticed despite winning 11 ITF events, (more than Robson and Watson combined). She was also generally out performed in Slams by other Brits until the US open last.

 

Interest isn't instant, it grows and develops over time, so Konta won't have the interest yet, unlike others who have been around the British Tennis scene for longer, in the French Open she will get a bit more interest, and if she does well there and wins a few more ITF then Wimbledon hype will  probably go into overdrive with odds of a mens and womens British champion.

[purpleronnie]

It is quite sad that despite being one of the richest Tennis nations we struggle to find anyone good enough, murray being the only shining light in the last couple of decades and he had to go to Spain.

 

Is it coaching?  Is it down to facilities in schools or lack of interest?  Or is it as some suggest still classed as a upper class sport therefore a closed door to most?

[ScouseFox]

murray in a bit of bother here. played pretty well too which is odd because usually if he plays well he wins. 

[foxes_rule1978]

murray in a bit of bother here. played pretty well too which is odd because usually if he plays well he wins.

Raonic has served unbelievably well... especially when break point down... it was always going to be tough to break if he hits the serve this well. He is hitting it better than ever.

Gets the break, looking to go 5-3 up here... Murray has been brilliant on serve, and hit the second serve brilliantly

Edited 29 January 2016 by foxes_rule1978