Fred Perry and Virginia Wade. He was from a different age, she appears to be from a different age. Their names live on because there has been no one to replace them. As the last British champions at Wimbledon – which so many of us consider to be the only event that matters – they are the measuring stick for every player that has come since.

But perhaps we venerate them too much. Wimbledon is a different place now and it's become a lot harder to win.

When Perry won in 1934, only four countries had produced winners. When he retained his title the following year, he beat Gottfried von Cramm in the final. Von Cramm's appearance in the final meant Germany joined Britain, France, Australia and America in producing men's finalists. Compare that with the fact that, since 1976, men from 14 different nations have appeared in the final.

In 1977, when Virginia Wade won at last, only six countries had produced ladies singles champions since the first championship in 1884. Since 1978 nine different nations have been able to boast a Wimbledon champion.

A British winner now needs to take on a whole lot more of the world than Perry or Wade ever had to - so the explosion of tennis as a world game has made it much harder for Britain to produce a champion. But in the early years of Wimbledon, America, France and Australia joined us in a quartet of dominance. None of those countries have had the same struggle to produce top-class tennis players that we have endured.

In this week of the ludicrous rise and crashing fall of Murray-mania, the lad from Dunblane might hold some of the answers.

The LTA's new player director Steven Martens has this to say about making it to the elite level: “Only the top 100 players are making a good living - the same number as, say, the first-team squads of four football clubs - in the whole world. When you watch the top tennis players you are watching the proficiency of Ronaldo and Ronaldinho; there is no place, for example, for a John Terry.”

The level of training and dedication you require to reach this level is phenomenal – far more than is required of a wannabe footballer. Tim Henman has spoken about his “lost” childhood; Murray, too, was devoted to tennis from an early age, often playing with and against much older players.

Murray was also helped by his mother. Love her or loathe her, she was prepared to give herself up to working towards the dream of making her sons tennis champions. Because, as much as the child prodigy sacrifices a normal life, so the whole family sacrifices time, money and convenience in pursuit of the dream.

Murray's other great advantage was his brother Jamie. Not only did the two siblings keep each other company as they chased tennis perfection Jamie was also around to show Andy how not to do things. Jamie fell under the wing of the LTA. An arrogant and regimented organisation (at least in those days), the LTA set his game back – it's only in the last couple of years that he has recovered his confidence as a doubles player.

Andy decided the LTA route wasn't for him. Instead he travelled to Barcelona as a teenager, determined to make it despite the LTA, not because of them. The route Murray chose is a common one – perhaps more common elsewhere than it is Britain – and it again involves considerable expense as well as the hardship of separation from friends and family at such a young age.

And even this path is not guaranteed. Thousands of youngsters pack their bags and head for these academies. Thousands don't make it. Talent itself won't make you a top 100 player. Can you stay clear of injury? Will you develop physically? Do you have the mental power to cope? Will you regret your lost childhood and give in to the temptations of youth?

When we gather round the BBC to watch our two weeks of tennis and bemoan Britain's failure, how many of us actually realise how tough it is? How many of us actually give Henman, Murray and Greg Rusedski the credit they deserve for managing to become part of an elite band of world-class players?

But even a considered opinion of how tough it is cannot excuse our abysmal record. Britain's failure is not Tim Henman's fault or Andy Murray's fault. It is the fault of the British tennis authorities. This is not some cash-strapped minority sport. This is a country that has the biggest event of the lot. Wimbledon is a money-making machine but that money is mis-invested, the wrong coaches are backed, the junior players don't break through because British tennis is hindering them.

The LTA got lucky with Henman. They got even luckier when Murray was there to follow in his footsteps. There are signs that things are changing. But they need to change fast. There is no excuse for two or three of our top women turning up at Wimbledon and not looking physically fit.

Our current crop of juniors must be given the very best chance: if the LTA is not yet equipped to provide that chance then it must pay to send them somewhere that can.

Of course we can win Wimbledon again. It might even be Murray. But we need to start giving our junior players a level playing field before we can confidently begin to compare ourselves with other nations.