The missing layer in the Australian Tennis Debate

A discussion paper on the foundations of Australian player development.

Sent to The First Serve

Kevin Klose  |  Albury NSW

Australian tennis is rightly asking why too few players appear capable of succeeding at the highest level. You have warned that the foreseeable future could be among the most barren periods in Australia’s rich tennis history, while John Newcombe, Lleyton Hewitt and John Millman have raised their own concerns about player development and the junior pathway.[1-3]

I share that concern. But I believe the discussion is beginning too far up the pathway. Before we ask why more players are not reaching the top, we should ask how many children and adults are no longer finding their way into tennis, or are leaving before their interest and potential can be recognised.

The missing layer in the Australian tennis debate is the local game: the clubs, competitions, volunteers and affordable entry points from which every player-development pathway must begin.

Australia cannot consistently produce champions from a narrowing participation base. Not every child who picks up a racquet will become a champion, but every future champion must first be given the opportunity to pick one up.

In many country towns and suburbs, people do not speak about “community tennis”. They speak about the club, Saturday tennis, the association or the local courts. That language reflects how the game actually grows: through relationships, regular competition and a sense of belonging, not through programs alone.

Junior tennis is the future, but adult tennis sustains the present and helps create that future. Adults pay fees, fill weekly competitions, serve on committees, maintain courts and introduce their children and grandchildren to the sport. When adult competition declines, clubs lose income, volunteers, experience and their natural connection to families.

In Albury, local estimates suggest Saturday tennis once involved at least 400 players and now involves closer to 100. The precise historical comparison should be checked, but nobody familiar with the competition could mistake the scale of the decline.

The Albury Tennis Association has 25 grass courts and four hard courts, while numerous other courts are scattered throughout the city and appear to be underutilised.  The problem is therefore not simply a shortage of facilities. Facilities alone do not create participation; local tennis depends on regular activity, effective communication, committed volunteers and straightforward ways for new and returning players to get a game.

A coaching program can teach a child to play. Only a healthy local game can give that child somewhere to belong, compete and remain involved for life.

Where did Stan and Mavis go?

“Stan and Mavis” are not two particular people. They represent the parents, grandparents, husband-and-wife teams and experienced club members who once opened the gates, found spare racquets, organised games and quietly introduced generations of children and adults to tennis.

They did not present themselves as professional coaches. They simply knew the game, loved their club and were willing to help a beginner take the first few steps. They fed balls, organised Saturday mornings, encouraged the uncertain child and recognised when somebody needed more expert coaching.

Professional coaches develop players. People like Stan and Mavis helped create them.

As tennis has become more professionalised and regulated, the place for this informal but vital contribution has become less clear. Some people may no longer know what they are permitted to do, what qualifications they require or whether they and their club are insured. The result is that willing adults can step back, and beginners may lose the local person who would once have welcomed them onto a court.

Child safety must never be weakened. Working With Children Checks, education and clear standards are important. But paperwork alone does not make an activity safe. Practical safeguards also matter: visible sessions, more than one adult present, parental involvement, clear boundaries around communication and travel, and straightforward reporting when concerns arise.

Tennis Australia has recognised part of the need through its Volunteer Delivered Programs. Eligible affiliated venues without access to a qualified coach can use registered volunteer deliverers for Hot Shots Tennis and Cardio Tennis after screening and online education.[4] This is a worthwhile foundation, but it appears narrower than the need and awareness may be uneven.

A small rural club president with at least 55 years of involvement in tennis told me that his club can obtain occasional assistance from a qualified coach. The coach generally conducts one or two large-group sessions at a more central rural location. That may be practical for the coach, but it does not necessarily meet the needs of surrounding communities.

A competent local player is willing to help regularly, yet the club understands that this activity may not be covered by insurance because he is not a registered coach. The president had not heard of the Volunteer Delivered Programs. This is one example, not a national survey, but it raises legitimate questions about access, awareness, eligibility, insurance and whether current arrangements work for small rural communities.

Coaching, squads, equipment, tournaments, travel and accommodation can cost families many thousands of dollars. The Australian Financial Review has reported that some parents spend up to $40,000 a year attempting to develop a future champion.[5] Regional families often carry additional travel and accommodation costs. Talent is not confined to families able to sustain that expense.

Professional players deserve to share in the value they create and should be properly supported. The question is whether a sport generating hundreds of millions of dollars through the Australian Open can also demonstrate clearly how that success is widening local participation, strengthening clubs and reducing the financial barriers that prevent talent from ever reaching a court.[6]

We have invested heavily in the pathway. We have paid less attention to the doorway.

Questions worth pursuing

Through The First Serve, you are well placed to take the discussion beneath headline participation totals and ask what happens after a person first tries tennis:

·  How many clubs are eligible for the Volunteer Delivered Programs, how many know about them and where are the registered deliverers located?

·  Can a safe and insured volunteer pathway operate alongside a qualified coach, particularly where coaching is only occasionally available?

·  How many introductory participants return, enter social or competitive play, become members or later volunteer?

·  What has happened to adult club competition across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote communities?

·  How much Australian Open-generated funding reaches affordable local participation, and what lasting outcomes does it produce?

·  How are volunteer retention, court use, participant retention and club viability measured and publicly reported?

From consultation to national renewal

Tennis Australia should listen beyond former champions, elite coaches, high-performance administrators and the organisations most often invited to participate. Metropolitan clubs, major and medium regional centres, and small rural and remote communities should be heard separately before their findings are brought together. Clubs should also be able to make individual submissions and speak privately about what is and is not working.

That consultation should lead to a funded National Local Tennis Renewal Program involving at least 50 clubs and associations across Australia. Places should be deliberately allocated across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote tennis, including clubs that have not routinely received funding or participated in national and state initiatives.

This must not become a handful of pilots that quietly disappear. Tennis Australia should publish the principal findings, selection criteria, funding decisions, progress, results and the timetable for the next stage.

Local responses will differ. One club may need a safe and insured volunteer pathway. Another may need flexible pay-for-access arrangements, loan racquets or family caps.

Another may need help rebuilding adult competition or connecting coached juniors with club play.

One national framework is desirable; one local delivery model is not.

The pathway needs a doorway.

Most people who play tennis will never become elite players. That is not failure. They strengthen clubs, sustain competitions, volunteer, introduce their children to the game and benefit from the physical activity, friendship and belonging tennis can provide throughout life.

The broader and healthier the base, the greater the chance that exceptional talent will be found and developed. When tennis becomes more expensive and difficult to enter, Australia narrows the field from which its future champions can emerge.

The national debate should therefore extend beyond coaching structures, rankings and elite pathways. It should ask not only who is coming through the pathway, but also who never found its entrance. That means examining what has happened to adult competition, affordable local play, club volunteers and the simple opportunity for a child or returning adult to be welcomed onto a court.

We have invested heavily in the pathway. We must now rebuild the doorway.

Champions are the visible peak of tennis. Local clubs, competitions and volunteers are the ground beneath them. If Australia wants more players to reach the top, it must first ensure that many more people can find their way into, and remain within, the game.

About the author

I write from a lifelong involvement in tennis as a player, former coach and volunteer administrator. I also bring more than 35 years of experience leading community and not-for-profit organisations and remain strongly interested in strengthening local and regional tennis.

Sources and further background

[1] Brett Phillips, “Why the foreseeable future could be the ‘most barren period’ in Australia’s rich tennis history,” The First Serve, 3 January 2026.

[2] The Australian, “Australian tennis: John Newcombe’s blunt verdict on the rot within,” September 2026.

[3] Daily Telegraph, “We’re struggling: Lleyton Hewitt sounds alarm on Australian tennis development pathway,” September 2026; and The First Serve discussions with John Millman on Australian player development.

[4] Tennis Australia, “Volunteer Delivered Tennis Programs,” accessed September 2026.

[5] Australian Financial Review, “What it costs to try to create a future tennis champ,” 17 January 2025.

[6] Tennis Australia Annual Report 2024-25; and Jack Snape, “Australian Open prize money increased to record high thanks to Tennis Australia boost,” The Guardian, 6 January 2026.

Further information available

Further material is available on practical regional and rural examples, the decline of adult competition, flexible participation models, insurance and volunteer pathways, and a proposed national consultation and local renewal framework. Individuals or clubs would be identified only with their permission.