NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading the BBC Sports pages on line when the following snippet about Wimbledon caught my attention:

The Britometer
A good day two for the Brits as four survive and only six go out

I do not follow tennis particularly, but how can it be described as a good day for the Brits if 60% of them lost.

Is there a link between the expectations of a nation in a sport and the achievements in that sport? This could apply to the World Cup with the final eight teams having six previous world cup winners amongst them (only missing Uruguay who faiuled to qualify), or Golf where the US dominates and expects to do so.

If it is the case that expectations are critical in success and failure, how do you set about changing these expectations. Does it depend on the appearance of an exceptional individual (Don Bradman in cricket for Australia for example),or on coaching staff and the press to change the attitudes of the atheletes and the nation respectively?

Britain in particular will REALLY boost a sport if a Brit team or individual is at the top of the sport or better still dominating it. If no Brit is there they will drop the sport like a hot rock. Wimbledon is different in that it is a BIG DEAL in Britain. A good example of this is Carl Foggarty and Superbike racing.

Britain in particular will REALLY boost a sport if a Brit team or individual is at the top of the sport or better still dominating it. If no Brit is there they will drop the sport like a hot rock. Wimbledon is different in that it is a BIG DEAL in Britain. A good example of this is Carl Foggarty and Superbike racing.

So if Wimbledon is still a big deal in the UK, and it makes sense that it would be, why so proud of only four out of ten players surviving the first round. Shouldn't this be a cause for the press to get on the backs of the tennis community. Compare the attitude with that concerning England's performance in the world cup.

Or is it just that we expect to do badly at tennis - so we do, whereas we expect to do well at the world cup, so even when we win it is not enough?

So if Wimbledon is still a big deal in the UK, and it makes sense that it would be, why so proud of only four out of ten players surviving the first round. Shouldn't this be a cause for the press to get on the backs of the tennis community. Compare the attitude with that concerning England's performance in the world cup.

Or is it just that we expect to do badly at tennis - so we do, whereas we expect to do well at the world cup, so even when we win it is not enough?

No. Considering that most of those 10 are useless, the fact that any got through is shocking. Murray was the only one I saw put in a good performance, and that was against a clay court player. Henmen will go out when he plays Federer, and Britain will yet again not get passed the quaters.

So if Wimbledon is still a big deal in the UK, and it makes sense that it would be, why so proud of only four out of ten players surviving the first round. Shouldn't this be a cause for the press to get on the backs of the tennis community. Compare the attitude with that concerning England's performance in the world cup.

Or is it just that we expect to do badly at tennis - so we do, whereas we expect to do well at the world cup, so even when we win it is not enough?
Well, if you look at where England are in the FIFA rankings (10th), then we have every reason to expect to do well at the World Cup considering the teams we've played. But in tennis, our highest ranked man is at #40, and our highest ranked woman is at #143. So our realistic expectations for the men is to maybe get a couple of men to the second week (past the third round) and for the women it's to hope we get one in the second round. Four of ten players surviving the first round is pretty good for British tennis. If you compare the world rankings of the British players and who they lost to or beat then it's quite impressive we did get four through to the next round.

So yes, it is just that we expect to do badly at tennis. Because we're crap at it.