Perth’s Talia Gibson became Australia’s No.1-ranked female tennis player.

Think about that for a moment.

A young woman developed here in WA climbed above every other Australian woman on the international rankings — becoming the first West Australian woman since Casey Dellacqua in 2008 to hold the mantle as Australia’s highest-ranked female player.

That’s a significant achievement for Gibson, but it is also a significant achievement for WA tennis.

And there is another story developing that deserves far more attention.

TWO WEST AUSTRALIAN WOMEN WILL BE IN THE MAIN DRAW OF THE US OPEN WHEN IT BEGINS IN NEW YORK THIS SUNDAY.

Talia Gibson – direct entry
Taylah Preston – wildcard

Two young women from Perth competing on one of the biggest stages in world sport at Flushing Meadows.

Preston has also just broken into the world’s top 100 for the first time, another outstanding milestone for the 20-year-old West Australian.

For all the discussion about the state of Australian tennis, there is clearly something exciting happening with the next generation of WA women’s tennis.

The question is: why aren’t we hearing more about it?

If two young Western Australians were achieving this level of success in many other sports, you would expect considerable local media coverage.

Gibson and Preston deserve recognition.

Their families and coaches deserve recognition.

And young WA tennis players deserve to see that there is a pathway from the courts of Perth to Wimbledon, Roland Garros and now the US Open.

Congratulations Talia Gibson and Taylah Preston.

Court Talk will certainly be watching closely when the US Open gets underway this Sunday.

WA tennis should be enormously proud.

#CourtTalk #TaliaGibson #TaylahPreston #USOpen #WATennis #PerthTennis #AustralianTennis #WesternAustralia

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, adult players could look across the year and identify a genuine tournament circuit—a collection of recognised events carrying history, prestige and an unmistakable Western Australian identity.

Players competed for more than rankings or prize money. They competed to have their names placed alongside previous champions. They travelled with teammates, formed friendships, represented clubs and measured their progress against the best players from metropolitan and regional Western Australia.

The State Hardcourt Championships, State Spring Tournament, Metropolitan Championships, The City of Fremantle Championship and State Closed Championships were not simply dates on a calendar.

They were part of the fabric of tennis in this state.

Tennis West’s own historical records refer to the State Hardcourt Championships, Spring Tournament and Metropolitan Hardcourt Championships as significant events won by some of Western Australia’s finest players.

So, where are those tournaments now?

Who decided they were no longer important?

And why was Western Australian tennis allowed to lose events that had taken generations to build?

A Calendar Without Identity

Today, tournament calendars can appear to be filled with events, yet the deeper question is whether Western Australia still has a coherent and meaningful adult tournament circuit.

A calendar containing scattered competitions is not necessarily a circuit.

A genuine circuit provides continuity. It contains recognisable championships, different surfaces, regional events, meaningful titles and opportunities for players to progress from club competition into state-level tournament tennis.

Western Australia once had tournaments that players immediately recognised.

The State Hardcourts meant something.

The State Spring meant something.

The Metropolitan Championships meant something.

The State Closed identified the best eligible players in Western Australia and gave local competitors a championship belonging specifically to them.

These names carried history. They created stories and produced champions.

Their disappearance represents more than a change in tournament administration. It represents a loss of identity.

Why were these tournaments not protected?

Why were their honour boards, trophies and traditions not promoted?

Why wasn’t the next generation taught that winning a State Hardcourt or State Closed Championship was something worth pursuing?

You cannot manufacture sporting heritage through a marketing campaign. Heritage is created when events are played year after year, when past champions return, when rivalries develop and when younger players understand that they are competing for something bigger than themselves.

Once that continuity is broken, rebuilding it becomes extremely difficult.

What Happened to the WA Open?

The Western Australian Open was once capable of attracting players of international standing.

The 1973 Western Australian Open Championships, played at Kings Park in December 1972, featured Wimbledon champions Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong.

Think about that for a moment.

Western Australia once hosted a tournament featuring two of the greatest women ever to hold a racquet.

The WA Open was not merely another local competition. It connected Western Australian tennis with the wider tennis world. It gave local players, officials, volunteers and spectators an event around which the sport could gather.

What is the modern equivalent?

Where is the tournament that brings together WA’s best professionals, leading State League players, emerging athletes, coaches, clubs and tennis supporters?

How did a state with Western Australia’s tennis history allow its major open championship to diminish?

Was there a genuine long-term strategy to preserve and grow it?

Was commercial support aggressively pursued?

Were clubs, former champions and the broader tennis community invited to help rebuild it?

Or was its decline simply accepted as inevitable?

Tournaments do not normally disappear overnight. They gradually lose attention, promotion, resources and status until administrators can claim there is no longer enough interest to continue them.

But declining interest is often the result of declining investment.

The Geraldton Easter Tournament: A Warning and an Example

Regional tournaments were once central to the WA tennis experience.

The Geraldton Easter Tournament became one of the state’s great annual tennis gatherings. Players travelled from Perth and across regional Western Australia not only to compete, but to participate in a genuine tennis occasion.

In 2015, the tournament celebrated its 80th edition, attracted almost 300 players and offered strong open fields. Tennis West reported that it had been named the state’s best tournament in 2013 and was a finalist again in 2014. The tournament director described its field as stronger than almost every Perth-based tournament at the time.

Geraldton Tennis Centre says the Easter tournament celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2025 and describes it as a longstanding gathering of regional and metropolitan players.

That history should be treasured.

Yet the broader decline of major regional adult tournaments raises serious questions.

Are regional tournaments receiving the strategic support, promotion and player recruitment they deserve?

Is Tennis West actively encouraging Perth’s leading players to travel to regional events?

Are tournament organisers being assisted to secure sponsors, build prize pools and preserve their traditions?

Or are regional clubs largely expected to carry the burden themselves?

The Geraldton Easter Tournament demonstrates that adult players will support tournaments that have history, atmosphere, quality competition and a sense of occasion.

Perhaps the problem is not that adults no longer want to play tournaments.

Perhaps the problem is that too few tournaments are being presented to them as events worth supporting.

A Sport for Life—Managed Like a Junior Pathway

Junior development is essential.

No serious person would argue that Tennis West should stop supporting junior tournaments, emerging players or participation programs.

However, junior development should be one part of a complete tennis ecosystem—not the entire ecosystem.

Tennis is one of the few sports that people can play competitively through their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond. Tennis Australia promotes Masters competition beginning from the age of 30, while Tennis Seniors WA conducts state, regional, national and international opportunities for players over 30.

That longevity is one of tennis’s greatest strengths.

Yet how much of Tennis West’s tournament strategy is genuinely designed around adult players?

Where is the integrated pathway for a 25-year-old State League player who is no longer pursuing professional tennis but still wants high-quality competition?

Where is the circuit for the 35-year-old former pennant player who wants to return to tournament tennis?

Where are the events for open-age competitors who do not necessarily want age-group tennis but still want meaningful singles and doubles competition?

Where is the promotion directed at the adult club member who pays affiliation fees, supports club facilities, volunteers, plays league and remains involved in tennis for decades?

Tennis West currently promotes junior development events and coloured-ball state championships prominently within its tournament calendar. Its July 2026 tournament reporting highlighted hundreds of matches across junior hardcourt and development competitions.

There is nothing wrong with those events.

The question is one of balance.

Why does adult tournament tennis appear to receive a fraction of the attention, identity and strategic energy directed toward junior competition?

Junior tournaments may introduce players to competition, but adult competitions keep people connected to the sport for life.

Without a strong adult circuit, where are juniors expected to play when they grow up?

State League Cannot Survive on Reputation Alone

Tennis West describes State League as the pinnacle team competition in Western Australia.

But calling something the pinnacle does not automatically make it feel like the pinnacle.

State League should be one of the strongest promotional assets available to Western Australian tennis.

It should showcase the state’s best players.

It should have recognisable personalities, meaningful club rivalries, regular media coverage, live scoring, strong crowds and a season-long narrative.

It should connect junior players with senior role models.

It should connect local clubs with elite competition.

It should help promote the players who would then contest the WA Open, State Closed, State Hardcourts and other major tournaments.

Instead, State League has too often appeared disconnected from a broader adult competition strategy.

Where is the sustained marketing campaign?

Where are the player profiles?

Where are the match previews, interviews and weekly storytelling?

Where is the strategy to encourage spectators to attend?

Where is the financial and promotional support for clubs fielding teams?

Where is the connection between State League and a recognised WA adult tournament circuit?

Tennis West reported record overall summer league participation in 2025–26 and has continued publishing State League updates and finals coverage.

But participation across hundreds of league divisions should not disguise the vulnerability of the elite competition sitting at the top.

A sport can have strong social participation while its premier competitive structures quietly weaken.

The governing body must recognise the difference.

Fifteen Years of Direction—Where Is the Adult Strategy?

The decline of Western Australia’s adult tournament circuit did not occur in one season.

It has unfolded over many years.

That is why legitimate questions must be directed toward the competition leadership within Tennis West, including those responsible for shaping and administering the competition calendar over approximately the past 15 years.

What was the strategy for preserving WA’s historic adult championships?

Which tournaments were identified as essential?

Which tournaments were allowed to disappear?

What consultation occurred with adult players, clubs, former champions, tournament directors and regional communities?

What performance measures were used?

Was success measured by the number of events listed, or by the strength, prestige and sustainability of those events?

How many adult tournaments have been created, rebuilt or meaningfully expanded during that period?

How many named championships have disappeared?

How many regional tournaments have weakened?

What has happened to open-age singles and doubles participation?

What has happened to the number and depth of State League teams?

And who has been held accountable for those outcomes?

These are not personal attacks.

They are reasonable questions about organisational responsibility.

A competition manager should not be judged merely on whether fixtures are produced, entries close and results are recorded.

The role should involve vision.

It should involve developing competitions, protecting history, consulting players, strengthening clubs, growing participation and creating events people want to enter.

If the adult circuit has diminished under a long period of largely continuous competition administration, the governing body cannot simply blame changing lifestyles, alternative sports or player apathy.

Leadership must also be examined.

The Lost Culture of WA Tennis

The greatest loss is not any single tournament.

It is the loss of culture.

Tournament tennis once brought together different generations of players. Juniors watched experienced adults. Country players challenged metropolitan players. State League competitors entered regional tournaments. Coaches competed alongside their students. Families travelled together. Clubs hosted visiting players, social functions and finals watched by the local community.

The tournament was not merely the matches.

It was the drive to Geraldton.

It was seeing the same families every Easter.

It was checking the State Closed draw to see who had entered.

It was preparing for the State Hardcourts.

It was club members discussing who might win the WA Open.

It was the stories, rivalries, friendships and shared experiences surrounding the competition.

That was the fabric of Western Australian tennis.

When longstanding tournaments disappear, those connections disappear with them.

A generic tournament number on an online entry platform cannot replace a named championship carrying decades of history.

A junior pathway document cannot replace an intergenerational tennis culture.

And participation statistics cannot measure the traditions that have quietly been lost.

What Does Tennis West Want Adult Tennis to Become?

Perhaps the most important question is also the simplest:

What is Tennis West’s vision for adult competitive tennis?

Not junior tennis.

Not Hot Shots.

Not professional player development.

Not general club participation.

Adult competitive tournament tennis.

Is there a documented plan?

Does Tennis West want Western Australia to have a genuine statewide adult circuit?

Does it want historic championships restored?

Does it want a strong WA Open?

Does it want open-age players travelling between metropolitan and regional events?

Does it want State League to be a visible and celebrated premier competition?

Does it want adults to continue competing beyond their teenage years?

If the answer is yes, where is the evidence?

A Circuit Worth Rebuilding

The solution is not to recreate the 1980s or 1990s exactly as they were.

Times have changed. Player expectations have changed. Families have less available time, travel is more expensive and competition formats may need to become more flexible.

But history and innovation are not opposites.

Western Australia could rebuild an adult circuit around several major named events:

The State Hardcourt Championships.

The State Spring Championships.

The Metropolitan Championships.

The WA State Closed.

A properly supported WA Open.

Major regional championships, including Geraldton Easter.

A State League finals series promoted as a genuine sporting event.

These tournaments could form an annual WA circuit with points, prize money, club representation, media coverage and an end-of-season championship.

Former champions could be invited back.

Historic trophies could be displayed.

Honour rolls could be promoted.

Clubs could host different stages of the circuit.

State League players could be encouraged—and expected—to support major WA tournaments.

Adult, Masters and emerging players could all have clearly defined opportunities.

Sponsors would have a coherent product to support rather than a collection of disconnected events.

Most importantly, Western Australian tennis would once again have a competitive story running throughout the year.

The Final Question

Tennis West will no doubt point to participation numbers, league teams, junior programs and the tournaments that remain on the calendar.

But the existence of activity does not answer the central question.

Is Western Australian tournament tennis stronger, more prestigious and more culturally significant than it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago?

Few longstanding members of the tennis community would confidently say yes.

The disappearance of major championships was not inevitable.

The weakening of adult tournament culture was not unavoidable.

The decline of State League’s profile did not happen without decisions being made—or without decisions failing to be made.

Western Australian tennis deserves an honest review of how it reached this point.

It deserves a competition strategy that values players after they turn 18.

It deserves administrators who understand that tournaments are not merely products to be scheduled. They are institutions to be protected, promoted and passed from one generation to the next.

The question Tennis West must answer is no longer simply:

Where have all the adult tournaments gone?

It is:

Who allowed them to disappear—and who is prepared to bring them back?

But the numbers tell a confronting story.

Back in the 1990s, the State League competition featured eight men’s teams and eight women’s teams, with six players per team. That meant almost 100 of Western Australia’s best players competing at the highest club level every week.

Fast forward to 2026, and the competition has been reduced to just six men’s teams and five women’s teams, with only four players per team. Today, fewer than 45 players compete in what was once the state’s premier club competition.

So what happened?

Many point to talented juniors accepting US college scholarships, and there is no doubt that pathway has taken many of our best young players overseas. Equally significant has been the decline in elite player-coaches based in Western Australia. For decades, these coaches inspired the next generation, attracted crowds, lifted standards, and gave aspiring players someone to measure themselves against. As that depth has diminished, so too has the quality and profile of the competition.

But there is another issue that cannot be ignored.

The governing body has steadily lost their ability to promote, market and elevate elite club tennis. Great competitions don’t survive on history alone. They need storytelling, media coverage, sponsorship, digital engagement, and a clear vision that inspires players, clubs and fans alike.

When a sport stops celebrating its own elite domestic competition, people stop noticing it exists.

State League should be a showcase of Western Australian tennis. It should be something juniors aspire to play, clubs proudly invest in, sponsors want to support, and the wider tennis community follows every weekend.

The decline of State League isn’t just about fewer teams. It’s a reflection of broader challenges facing tennis in WA.

The good news? This isn’t irreversible.

With stronger leadership, genuine engagement with clubs, better promotion, and a commitment to rebuilding pathways from junior tennis through to elite club competition, State League can once again become one of the great sporting competitions in Western Australia.

The question is… does the tennis community have the appetite to demand that revival?

For Tennis West, that question remains relevant.

In September 2024, Tennis West announced the immediate and somewhat surprising resignations of then President Nick Gray, along with directors Paul Hemsley and Karen Vahala.

Gray’s departing words were particularly significant:

“The only way the Board can focus on growing tennis in WA is through Board renewal.”

That statement closely reflected the findings of the independent governance review commissioned by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries following what Tennis West itself described as a “difficult period” for the organisation.

But nearly two years later, an obvious question remains.

Why did Gray, Hemsley and Vahala leave, while two directors who had served through much of the period that prompted the governance review — Pam Cresswell and Jo Quinn — remained?

And perhaps more importantly: what exactly did “board renewal” mean?

Three resignations — but little public explanation

Tennis West’s announcement on 6 September 2024 confirmed that Gray, Hemsley and Vahala had resigned effective immediately following the Board meeting of 3 September.

Beyond Gray’s short statement about renewal, remarkably little was publicly explained about why three directors departed simultaneously.

Were the resignations voluntary?

Were they requested?

Were they connected directly to recommendations contained in the independent governance review?

Did the independent reviewer identify particular board dynamics or individuals that required change?

Were clubs provided with the complete reasoning?

If not, why not?

For an organisation simultaneously talking about rebuilding trust and increasing transparency, surely those are legitimate questions for affiliated clubs and members to ask.

The governance review itself specifically identified increasing transparency of Board and committee discussions, key focus areas and actions as an area requiring attention.

That makes the limited explanation surrounding three simultaneous resignations even more worthy of scrutiny.

Who remained?

Following those resignations, existing director Pam Cresswell was elected President and existing director Jo Quinn became Vice-President, both unopposed and unanimously supported by a depleted Board.

There is nothing inherently improper about either appointment.

But there is an important governance question that Tennis West members are entitled to examine.

Cresswell and Quinn were not newcomers arriving after the turbulent period.

They were members of the Board during it.

Cresswell joined the Tennis West Board in 2019 and subsequently became Vice President. Quinn joined as a Board appointed director in March 2021. Both were therefore directors well before the governance difficulties that ultimately resulted in the DLGSC-commissioned independent review.

Indeed, Cresswell held an especially significant governance position.

Tennis West records show that she chaired its Governance, People and Culture Committee, whose responsibilities included advising the Board on best practice governance, monitoring Board and director performance and effectiveness, dealing with constitutional issues and supporting the organisation’s people and culture systems.

That does not establish personal wrongdoing by Cresswell – nor does the publicly released summary of the governance review identify Cresswell or Quinn as individually having breached governance requirements.

But it makes the question of accountability entirely reasonable.

If governance had deteriorated sufficiently that the State Government commissioned an independent review, and if the review’s first overarching recommendation was “Refreshing the Board”, why did the person who had chaired the Board committee principally responsible for governance emerge as President?

What exactly was being “refreshed”?

The publicly released review summary identified four overarching themes:

1. Refreshing the Board
2. Building respectful relationships
3. Developing sustainable independence
4. Meeting sports governance standards.

Those are not insignificant recommendations.

They arose after a period described as involving a difficult CEO transition, governance challenges, strained relationships and the need for improved Board processes.

Future DLGSC funding releases were also linked to implementing key recommendations of the review.

Against that background, the sequence of events deserves examination.

Gray resigned.

Hemsley resigned.

Vahala resigned.

Cresswell stayed — and became President.

Quinn stayed — and became Vice-President.

So what criteria determined who represented renewal and who represented continuity?

Were individual director assessments undertaken before those decisions?

What did those assessments conclude?

Was every director who had served during the troubled period subjected to the same level of scrutiny?

And were affiliated clubs ever provided with sufficient information to understand the distinction?

The missing piece: transparency

This is ultimately less about personalities than it is about governance.

Good governance cannot simply mean announcing that recommendations have been implemented.

It requires stakeholders being able to see how decisions were reached, why particular directors remained, why others departed and how accountability was applied consistently.

Tennis West said following the review that it wanted to rebuild relationships with stakeholders and improve boardroom culture.

It also committed to an independent Board and 360-degree director evaluation.

That raises another important question:

What did those subsequent evaluations find?

Were the results ever communicated meaningfully to Tennis West’s member clubs?

If the organisation genuinely wants greater transparency, releasing an appropriate summary of those findings would seem entirely consistent with that commitment.

Cresswell’s governance role deserves scrutiny

The significance of Pam Cresswell’s position cannot simply be brushed aside.

She was not merely another director.

She was Vice-President during part of the period in question and chaired the Governance, People and Culture Committee.

Tennis West’s own annual report described that committee as responsible for monitoring Board and director performance and effectiveness and advising around governance best practice.

Yet following a government-commissioned review recommending substantial governance reform, Cresswell ultimately became President.

She was subsequently returned to the Board at the 2025 AGM and then unanimously re-elected President for another three-year term. Tennis West credits her with leading significant governance reforms.

That may be entirely justified.

But members should be entitled to understand why.

What conclusions were reached regarding the performance of the Governance, People and Culture Committee during the earlier period?

What responsibility, if any, did its chair carry for governance shortcomings subsequently identified?

What changed?

And what demonstrated that continuity at the top represented the appropriate solution to a report calling for renewal?

Those questions should not be regarded as attacks.

They are exactly the sort of questions healthy sporting organisations should welcome.

And what about Jo Quinn?

Similar questions arise regarding Jo Quinn.

Quinn joined the Board in March 2021 specifically bringing legal, strategic and governance expertise and later became Vice-President following the September 2024 departures.

Again, there is no basis in Tennis West’s publicly released governance-review summary to state that Quinn personally committed a governance breach.

But she was unquestionably part of the Board throughout much of the relevant period.

If renewal was considered sufficiently important for three directors to leave immediately, members are entitled to ask why Quinn’s continuation — and elevation to Vice-President — was considered consistent with that renewal.

Tennis West clubs deserve the complete story

The question confronting Tennis West is therefore quite simple.

Was September 2024 genuine board renewal — or selective board renewal?

If Gray, Hemsley and Vahala believed stepping away was necessary to allow the organisation to move forward, what distinguished their positions from those of other directors who had governed throughout the same turbulent period?

Why has the fuller story behind three simultaneous resignations never been clearly explained?

Were the member clubs told everything they were entitled to know?

Why did the organisation’s two most senior positions immediately go to existing directors rather than forming part of the refresh?

And most importantly:

If accountability and transparency were central lessons arising from the governance review, shouldn’t Tennis West now demonstrate both by answering those questions openly?

Nobody should be suggesting that serving on a Board during a difficult period automatically makes a director culpable for everything that occurred.

Nor does the publicly available governance review establish personal breaches by Pam Cresswell or Jo Quinn.

But accountability must work both ways.

Those who departed deserve transparency about why they departed.

Those who remained should be able to explain why remaining represented the best interests of Tennis West.

And the clubs — the actual members of Tennis West — deserve enough information to form their own judgement.

The organisation has repeatedly spoken about renewal, transparency, respectful relationships and rebuilding trust.

Those are admirable objectives.

But trust isn’t restored simply by changing three names around a boardroom table.

It is restored when difficult questions receive clear answers.

And almost two years after Tennis West announced one of the most significant Board upheavals in its recent history, there are still some very important questions waiting to be answered.

Rod Van’s time on the Tennis West Board has officially ended, closing a contentious chapter in Western Australian tennis.

Van served as Tennis West President during the controversial termination of former chief executive Brett Patten in August 2023. The decision followed a Tennis Australia Integrity Unit investigation, although Tennis West subsequently acknowledged that Patten’s role in the investigated matter fell short of the evidence threshold required to establish a policy breach.

The dispute triggered legal action, boardroom division and sustained concern about Tennis West’s governance. Van was removed as President in December 2023 and remained a director until November 2024, according to the organisation’s 2024–25 annual report.

An independent governance review later recommended reform across four areas: refreshing the Board, rebuilding respectful relationships, developing sustainable independence and meeting recognised sports-governance standards. Tennis West accepted all 13 recommendations.

Van’s departure should now mark more than a change of personnel. It should create an opportunity for transparency, reconciliation and renewed confidence among WA’s clubs, volunteers, players and government stakeholders.

The lasting question is not who won the boardroom battle. It is whether Tennis West has learned enough to prevent another one.

Have WA tennis clubs regained confidence in Tennis West? Join the Court Talk conversation. ]]> https://courttalk.com.au/rod-vans-tennis-west-tenure-ends-after-period-of-governance-turmoil/feed/ 4 https://courttalk.com.au/more-australians-are-playing-tennis-than-ever-so-why-does-it-feel-like-the-game-is-going-backwards/ https://courttalk.com.au/more-australians-are-playing-tennis-than-ever-so-why-does-it-feel-like-the-game-is-going-backwards/#comments Sun, 26 Jul 2026 11:22:03 +0000 https://courttalk.com.au/?p=795 When Lleyton Hewitt stood atop the world rankings in 2002 as the undisputed World No. 1, Australian tennis was riding a wave of optimism. Hewitt’s relentless competitiveness, passion and fighting spirit inspired a generation of young Australians to pick up a racquet and dream of wearing the green and gold.

Fast forward to today. Alex de Minaur has established himself as one of the world’s elite players, reaching the top five in the ATP rankings and becoming one of Australia’s most consistent performers on the international stage.

Yet despite another Australian competing among the world’s best, many within the tennis community are asking an uncomfortable question:

Why does Australian tennis feel less healthy today than it did two decades ago?

The answer may surprise many.

According to the latest Australian Sports Commission participation data, around 1.3 million Australians now play tennis annually. That’s actually higher than the participation levels recorded around the time Hewitt was World No. 1.

On paper, tennis appears to be thriving.

But statistics rarely tell the whole story.

Participation versus engagement

There is a significant difference between someone picking up a racquet a few times a year and someone becoming an active member of a tennis club, competing every weekend, volunteering, coaching or serving on a committee.

Many long-time administrators, coaches and club volunteers argue that while casual participation has increased, traditional tennis ecosystems have weakened.

Across Australia, numerous clubs report:

• declining competition numbers;
• fewer juniors progressing into senior competition;
• an ageing volunteer base;
• increased financial pressure on clubs;
• fewer qualified coaches working within community club environments; and
• growing difficulty retaining players beyond their teenage years.

These are the foundations upon which Australian tennis built its international success.

Have we confused participation with success?

Over the past twenty years, enormous emphasis has been placed on participation metrics.

Participation numbers are attractive because they are measurable. Governments like them. Funding bodies like them. Annual reports celebrate them.

But participation alone does not build champions.

Nor does it necessarily create stronger clubs.

A person attending a social tennis session twice a year counts exactly the same in participation statistics as a junior who trains four nights a week and competes every weekend.

Those are vastly different levels of engagement.

If the sport focuses only on participation numbers, it risks overlooking the health of the pathway that develops lifelong players, volunteers, coaches and future champions.

Where are the next Rafter, Hewitts and Philippoussis?

Alex de Minaur deserves enormous credit for carrying Australian men’s tennis into the world’s elite.

But beyond him, Australia continues searching for the next genuine Grand Slam contender.

Meanwhile, countries with significantly smaller populations continue producing elite talent through integrated national pathways, stronger club systems and clear player development structures.

Success is no accident.

It begins at local clubs.

Clubs remain the heartbeat of tennis

Australia’s tennis clubs have always been far more than places to play.

• They create communities.
• They introduce children to competition.
• They develop resilience, friendships and lifelong connections.
• They produce volunteers, officials, coaches and future administrators.

When clubs become weaker, the entire sport eventually feels the consequences.

Governance matters

Participation growth should absolutely be celebrated.

However, governing bodies must resist the temptation to measure success solely through headline participation figures.

Good governance requires asking more difficult questions.

• Are clubs stronger than they were ten years ago?
• Are volunteers feeling more supported?
• Are coaches staying in the industry?
• Are more juniors transitioning into lifelong tennis participants?
• Is competitive tennis growing?
• Are members genuinely being listened to?

These indicators often provide a far better picture of the health of the sport than participation figures alone.

A better measure of success

Australian tennis doesn’t necessarily need more people simply trying tennis.

It needs more people staying in tennis.

• It needs stronger clubs.
• Better governance.
• More engaged members.
• More coaches.
• More volunteers.
• More competitions.
• More opportunities for aspiring players.

Most importantly, it needs a national strategy that values community tennis as highly as elite performance.

Lleyton Hewitt’s era demonstrated what Australian tennis could achieve when strong club foundations, passionate volunteers and elite pathways aligned.

Alex de Minaur is proving that Australian players can still compete with the world’s best. The challenge for Australian tennis isn’t attracting people to the sport.

The challenge is building a system that inspires them to stay for life.

Because participation is only the beginning.

The real measure of success is the strength of the game that remains long after someone first picks up a racquet.

Serious questions are being raised about the leadership of Tennis West following the reported decision to dismantle a number of member working groups that were established to provide advice, feedback and practical support to the organisation.

Under the leadership of President Pam Cresswell and the current Tennis West Board, these working groups were promoted as a way for clubs, volunteers and experienced members of the tennis community to contribute to the direction of the sport.

However, when members began asking difficult questions, challenging decisions and demanding greater accountability from Tennis West, the response appears not to have been meaningful engagement—but the removal of the groups themselves.

This raises an obvious question: were these working groups created to provide genuine advice, or were they only expected to endorse decisions already made by the Board and administration?

Working groups should never be treated as public-relations exercises. Their purpose is to bring together people with knowledge, experience and direct connections to clubs and participants. Members should be encouraged to identify problems, question strategy and propose improvements.

Constructive criticism is not disloyalty. It is an essential part of good governance.

When an organisation dismantles advisory groups after receiving feedback it does not like, it risks sending a damaging message across the tennis community: participation is welcome only when it is compliant.

That is not consultation. It is control.

Clubs Deserve a Genuine Voice

Tennis West exists to serve tennis throughout Western Australia. It does not own the sport, and its leadership should not operate as though clubs, coaches, volunteers and members are simply stakeholders to be managed from a distance.

Clubs are the foundation of tennis.

They recruit players, organise competitions, maintain facilities, develop juniors, support coaches and create the communities that keep the sport alive. Without strong and engaged clubs, there is no meaningful pathway for tennis in Western Australia.

Yet many within the tennis community increasingly feel that decisions are being centralised, information is being restricted and consultation is becoming more selective.

The dismantling of working groups will only reinforce those concerns.

Rather than removing these forums, Tennis West should be strengthening them. It should be publishing their terms of reference, acknowledging their recommendations and clearly explaining which proposals have been accepted, rejected or deferred.

If recommendations are rejected, the Board should provide reasons.

That is what transparent leadership looks like.

Leadership Must Welcome Scrutiny

Strong leaders do not fear criticism. They listen to it, assess it and respond with evidence.

They do not remove the forum simply because the conversation has become uncomfortable.

Pam Cresswell and the Tennis West Board must explain why the working groups have reportedly been dismantled, what feedback was received from their members and whether criticism of Tennis West’s leadership or strategic direction influenced the decision.

The tennis community is entitled to know:

Why were the working groups disbanded?

Were members consulted before the decision was made?

What recommendations had the groups submitted?

Which recommendations were considered critical of the Board or administration?

Will the reports, minutes and recommendations of the groups be made available to affiliated clubs?

What replacement structure, if any, will provide clubs with an independent and meaningful voice?

These are reasonable questions that deserve direct answers.

A Pattern of Reduced Engagement

This decision should not be viewed in isolation.

It contributes to a growing perception that the current Tennis West leadership is seeking to control the flow of information, limit scrutiny and reduce opportunities for clubs and members to influence decision-making.

A governing body should not surround itself only with people who agree with it. Healthy organisations deliberately seek out different perspectives because challenge exposes weaknesses before they become larger problems.

Silencing criticism does not remove the underlying issues.

It merely removes the opportunity to address them.

When respected volunteers give their time to participate in a working group, they do so because they care about the future of tennis. Their contribution should be respected—even when their conclusions are inconvenient for those in leadership positions.

Removing these groups risks alienating the very people Tennis West should be working hardest to engage.

It may also discourage others from volunteering in the future. Why would experienced club representatives commit their time and expertise if their input can be disregarded, or the entire group dissolved, when they raise legitimate concerns?

Tennis West Must Belong to the Tennis Community

Tennis West is not the personal domain of its President, directors or senior management.

It is a member-based sporting organisation with responsibilities to clubs and the wider Western Australian tennis community.

Its decision-making must therefore be open, accountable and genuinely consultative.

If the current Board believes the working groups were ineffective, it should explain why and provide evidence. If the structure needed improvement, it should have worked collaboratively with members to reform it.

But dismantling working groups because their members were critical—or because they demanded greater accountability—would represent a serious failure of leadership and governance.

Tennis West needs more engagement, not less.

It needs more transparency, not tighter control.

It needs leaders who are prepared to listen, especially when the feedback is difficult to hear.

The clubs and members of Western Australian tennis deserve a seat at the table. They should not be invited into the room only to discover that their views are welcome when they agree with the Board—and expendable when they do not.

Pam Cresswell and the Tennis West Board should immediately provide a full explanation to all affiliated clubs and publish the feedback and recommendations produced by the working groups.

Until that occurs, the tennis community is entitled to question whether these groups were established to create genuine participation—or merely the appearance of it.

For many within the club community, the answer appears increasingly uncertain.

State League should be Tennis West’s premier local competition—a showcase of WA’s best players, clubs and rivalries. Yet concerns persist that the competition has lost relevance, participating teams and public visibility. The absence of CEO Olivia Birkett from the 2025 State League Final also raised questions about how highly the organisation itself prioritises its flagship league event.

Tennis West has announced marketing initiatives under Kalin, including streaming every State League match and partnerships with Grant’s Car Stereo and Kinetic. These should be acknowledged, however, Grants Car Stereo have subsequentially withdrawn their sponsorship of Tennis West. However, announcements are not the same as measurable results. Tennis West’s website confirms Kalin oversees marketing, partnerships, events and communications—placing sponsorship retention, media exposure and audience development firmly within his portfolio.

Clubs and stakeholders deserve transparent answers about reported sponsorship difficulties, the current status of the Grant’s Car Stereo relationship, any funds allegedly repaid, and why Tennis West’s former visibility through outlets such as 6PR and The West Australian appears to have diminished. These matters should not be presented as established facts without documentation or a response from Tennis West.

Meanwhile, more accessible sports are surging. Australian pickleball participation reportedly reached approximately 155,000 casual players during 2025, supported by energetic promotion, community programs and a compelling social proposition.

This is bigger than one employee. It is ultimately a leadership and board accountability issue. But after six years, Tennis West members are entitled to ask: what measurable growth has Travis Kalin delivered—and is he still the right person to lead the marketing revival WA tennis urgently needs?

  ]]> https://courttalk.com.au/tennis-west-marketing-under-the-microscope-is-travis-kalin-delivering-enough/feed/ 0 https://courttalk.com.au/pam-cresswells-tennis-west-are-clubs-partners-or-revenue-sources/ https://courttalk.com.au/pam-cresswells-tennis-west-are-clubs-partners-or-revenue-sources/#comments Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:33:04 +0000 https://courttalk.com.au/?p=751 Tennis West President Pam Cresswell and her Board face a fundamental question: does the organisation’s affiliation fee structure genuinely encourage clubs to grow tennis?

For 2025–26, Tennis West charges metropolitan clubs $333 plus GST for every court, while country clubs pay lower per-court rates. The model measures a club’s physical footprint, not its membership, participation growth or financial capacity.

That creates a potential imbalance. A club with several courts but a modest or declining membership can face a substantial affiliation bill, while receiving no direct financial reward for attracting new players.

There was another path available.

Tennis West could have developed a shared-growth model under which clubs and the governing body succeeded together. As clubs attracted more members, delivered stronger programs and increased participation, Tennis West’s revenue could also grow. Such a structure would give both parties a common commercial objective: more people playing tennis.

Tennis West says its staff are dedicated to helping clubs increase participation, maximise court use and grow player registrations. Yet its published fee structure remains tied to courts rather than those outcomes.

The issue is bigger than the price of affiliation. It is about whether Tennis West sees clubs as organisations to be charged or partners to be developed.

Under Pam Cresswell’s presidency, Tennis West has spoken about collaboration and rebuilding stakeholder relationships. Clubs are entitled to ask whether the affiliation model reflects those promises.

Is charging clubs according to the number of courts really the best way to grow tennis in Western Australia?