Week 12 - Futures F1 (10k) - Antalya, Turkey

The Hoose · Satellite level

RE: Week 12 - Futures F1 (10k) - Antalya, Turkey

steven · Tennis legend

All that work in qualifying for no points. cry

Salmon · Tennis legend

Drew wrote:

Arka wrote:

Come on! Quite winnable.

Why are they not letting him play on hard courts in GBR?

Hi Arka long time no speak...........

This could be to do with the LTA's get-out-and-about instruction....maybe they want him to get to grips with the mens game on clay ?

Wotcher, Drew. I have been busy lately and don't like tennis as much as before (I'm sure that that is only a passing phase).

Yes, I guess that's the idea. I was just wondering why they didn't make Evo play here and only Coxy and Smethurst.

What a rubbish decision - playing away from home when there's a hard court tournament. The LTA has totally screwed up all of our 1990 players over the last six months. They have done just the things that I didn't want them to do.

wolf · Tennis legend

R1
SATSCHKO (GER) / VOLANTE (ITA) (3) defeated COX (GBR) / GORANSSON (SWE) 6-4 6-2
GARD (ROU) / SABAU (ROU) defeated MILTON (GBR) / SCHOOREL (NED) 6-0 6-3

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Bit worried about the time Cox, Evans et al are taking to make the top 800.

Other top juniors from their year are making bigger inroads into futures events.

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, I've been thinking that, but it's hard to tell how meaningful it is that they haven't got there yet - there's so much luck of the draw involved at these low points levels, e.g. even someone like Skupski got nearly half of his points (12/27) from reaching the Final of the Sunderland Future last November, when he had some impressive wins but also a relatively benign draw (e.g. the semi was against someone who's still outside the top 750 even now) - without those 12 points he'd be level with Dan Cox.

I realise Ken isn't the best example (he hasn't been playing on tour for nearly a full year yet, most of us do think he's well worth his current ranking and he didn't come through a draw made easier by mass rets/w/ds), but it shows the difference one week's wonder run can make and I think whether you're top 750 or around top 1000 often depends on taking advantage when you get a nice draw or two (e.g. a little section with Q, Q, LL & WC!), and some players don't get those very often in the first place.

More evidence that this is true is the way that some players (e.g. Bammy, who won Frinton in 2005, Flan, etc) hit career highs in the 500s after one really good result, then went right back to where they started a year later when the points came off and haven't come within 200 places of their CH since.

That's why it's so good to see Slabba pushing on and making it clear that he isn't just in the top 500 because of his December safari, he's actually capable of playing like a top 500 player.

-- Edited by steven at 20:58, 2008-03-19

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Yeah but if we have any designs on these top juniors becoming top seniors they have to fly through futures level a la Andy Murray.

Berankis is beating top 200 players at the Sunrise Challenger.

Cox is losing to Mertens in Turkey.

steven · Tennis legend

Oh, I hadn't realised you were talking about top 10/20 potential, but yes if that's what you meant, you're right.

Of course, they always say the Brits develop later than some of those in other countries (maybe because they keep playing in juniors for too long?), but while that was true of Tigger, I'm never sure whether there are any good reasons for it to be true in general rather than just a convenient excuse to put off th day of reckoning by a few years!

-- Edited by steven at 23:42, 2008-03-19

Salmon · Tennis legend

This was always going to happen, given how much time they have been made to waste playing nonsense tournaments like the Nationals (that was a joke), some in South America, all the tournaments in Italy and France and the trip to Australia this year. During most of this time, Elias, Berankis and Eysseric have been playing Futures on surfaces of their choice. So it's not a big shock that they've overtaken our players by quite some distance. Oh, to even think that Cox was the best in the world two years back...

And we never learn, do we? Some of our players were playing a Grade 2 in Luxembourg a few days back.

Anyway, they have a lot of time in their hands. I'm sure that they'll make a comeback very soon. However, as far as cracking the top 100 early (that is, before their 19th birthday) is concerned, I'm afraid that it'll take a miracle to make that happen. But that's not that big a loss - they can always extend their career by two more years.

6K posts.

Malteaser · Junior player

This is a great debate, worthy of something other than the bt.net website!!

Has the LTA Got it Right???

I have to agree in prncipal with the point relating to poor draws. Naturally if you get poor draws then you can't progress up the rankings. it works the other way though - if you get good draws then you can reach a high that you are perhaps not worthy of.

Just wanted to do a quick comparison of Seater and Cox. Last year Cox was able to beat Seater (might have even been twice, can't remember for sure) at futures events in the UK. Great for Cox - but the effect that it seemed to have on Seater was perhaps more interesting. He went back "on tour" and got some points from Futures in Africa. now he's nearly top 500. Is this deserved? Of course it is. Picking tournaments correctly should be encouraged. Now Seater is back in the UK and able to benefit from good draws via being Seeded. In fact now when he has to play a seed in the QF, he has confidence, more ability and every chance of progressing.

There's another strand to this though, which is experience on different courts. I believe that the LTA has the right intentions in asking Brits to travel to gain experience. Playing on the same surface in the UK may not help them push on in the rankings due to the more limited availability of tournaments if you concentrate on hard courts. The problem will arise if we have players who just continue to lose, whatever surface. Do that and they won't get confidence and will either give up or bob up and down in the rankings without going very far.

The final point and possibly most important is the number of players that we have coming through. I hear mention of players like Evans, Milton, Cox, Rice and Smethurst. I'm not sure whether the number we have is suffucuent? Is it enough compared with other Countries? I'm afraid it's may be a case of throw enough sh*t at a wall and some will stick. Which means naturally we will have players that don't make it but we may actually get more coming through to top 100. So the upshot of that is to invest more at "grass-roots" level tpo promote more younger players coming through. Problem is where to properly spend it - I'm afraid I can't answer that one, but I hope the LTA can!!!

One last point - fewer British futures and Challengers - does that mean there's fewer points available in the whole pot and therefore our players can get a higher ranking with fewer points?!!!!! Another good move from the LTA then???

steven · Tennis legend

Malteaser wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great debate, worthy of something other than the bt.net website!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean "could only be worthy of the bt.net website", of course ...

Lot of interesting points on this thread.

Comparing Seator and Cox

I think you picked a good comparison there, and while I feel slightly embarrassed dissecting the stats on a player who actually posts here, well I wouldn't be me if I let that stop me. Hopefully it'll seem fairly balanced!

Interestingly, in Akhenaten's ratings at http://akhenatenratings.blogspot.com/ (which while still not perfect no doubt, they seem generally more accurate than the ATP rankings, and should be because they take into account who players have actually beaten and lost to), Dan (in 973rd) was ahead of Edward (in 1066th) as at the end of February.

Edward's ranking

You could use Akhenaten's rankings to argue that Edward is over-ranked because he's been picking up 'easy' Futures points in Africa. Of course, whether points gained in African events with slightly weaker entry lists are actually 'easier' than points gained in home events is an issue in itself, and experience travelling to places that many players avoid probably prepares you very well for coping with whatever the places you play in might throw at you during the rest of your career.

In addition, Edward could point out that no African events figure in the top four of his best 18 and his top two events were both in Europe - an Italian 15K and a Polish 10K where he reached the Finals.

You can turn that argument around again and point out that his opponents in Italy had ATP rankings of 905, 1099, 1186, 641 and (lost to) 828. Also, he won the QF and SF by retirement, though he was ahead in both matches at the time and I have no idea whether the things that caused their retirements could have significantly affected the score up to then or not.

Conversely, in Poland, he beat Balleret WR 313 by 4 & 3 in R2 (a superb result) and all of his matches finished, yet to turn it around again, he got thrashed 1 & 0 by WR 532 in the Final. However, to turn it around yet again, Poch-Gradin has since got up to WR 332, so was probably a fair bit better than his 532 ranking back then suggested!

As with so many tennis ranking arguments, this one could run and run (I've described it mainly because it's such a good example of the ifs and buts involved!), and he has said himself that the numbers aren't that important to him as long as he keeps improving and moving in the right direction, which makes perfect sense.

What his ranking 'should' be is not the point on this thread anyway - the issue here is whether going to the tournaments where you are likely to get the most points is the best policy or not - the obvious drawback being that you might end up at a level where you can't cope because you've got there too fast.

Is Edward's scheduling working?

I think in Edward's case it definitely has worked, and you have to admire his schedule-setting and willingness to go just about anywhere. As you can see from the above, we could debate ad infinitum whether his c. 500 ranking is fully merited or not, but while he hasn't reached the round he was seeded to reach in recent tournaments, recent results do show that he is more than able to mix it with the guys ranked around that level, and I would say that his playing standard is a lot closer to 500 level than to the 1066 level suggested by Akhenaten's rankings. (even though in most other cases I'd say Akenaten's rankings tend to be more accurate)

That may be because he's got into the good habit of winning at least a round or two in most tournaments he plays in and/or because he has gained confidence and experience through doing that - whatever the reason, his scheduling is paying off.

Is Dan's scheduling working?

Dan Cox, meanwhile, is still having to play Futures qualifying except when he gets WCs in home tournaments. If he is actually a lot better than his ranking suggests, that can't be good - it must be soul-destroying having to win 4 or 5 matches just to get a single ranking point and it means he is getting far less experience than Edward of playing people in the top 1000.

Playing Futures qualifying for longer than absolutely necessary is a mug's game in my view (and in Arka's view, it seems), given the low rewards. So, for someone of Dan's ability, gaining points should be the over-riding priority until he is ranked high enough to get regular DAs into Futures.

Better scheduling?

If I had been scheduling for him over the last year or so, I'd have done the following:

1) If there's an event where he'd have a particularly good chance of picking up points (e.g. home Futures on hard courts in his case), always pick that event.

2) If there's no stand-out 1)-type event on that week (or going to it would mean a long flight for just one week's tournament), then (and only then) think about gaining experience on a different surface.

3) Don't over-play, but (while a junior) cut the more meaningless junior events in order to do a few 2)-type events - don't cut the 1)-type events to do it.

4) Once he has fast-tracked his way to being able to get Futures DAs and is picking up 1 or 2 points per week on a regular basis, then (but only then) think about sacrificing the odd point or two to get more experience playing on different surfaces so that he's ready when he moves up to Challenger level.

Hmm, I got a bit carried away there! I wonder if there's anyone who has read this to the end without dozing off!

-- Edited by steven at 14:10, 2008-03-21

steven · Tennis legend

Malteaser wrote:
One last point - fewer British futures and Challengers - does that mean there's fewer points available in the whole pot and therefore our players can get a higher ranking with fewer points?!!!!! Another good move from the LTA then???

It should do ... but even if it does, it effectively restricts the points available to Brits more than it does to those in other parts of the world, so it's not going to help our players! It also means that Futures and Challengers in nearby countries are likely to be stronger than they were, further reducing the points the Brits are likely to get.

A far more cunning plan would be not to reduce the number of GB events but instead to convince Brazil and Argentina, say, to hold less events in their countries! wink

In any case, I've noticed something weird about the rankings over the past year and a bit. In 2006, players were still getting 1 point for R1 Challenger losses and 5 points for R1 ATP losses (including WC losses), so you would have expected the points needed to reach levels like the top 100 (where players are likely to be losing in R1 of ATPs more often than not), 300 (ditto for Challengers) and even 500 to have gone down a fair bit, and to be going down even more given the GB-induced slight cut in the number of Challengers. If ithat's not obvious, just think about the fact 16 players in every ATP now get 0 main draw points when they used to get 5.

Paradoxically, though, the number of points needed to reach the top 100 has gone up from 424 at the end of 2006 to 438 now, for top 200 it's now 207 cf 194, for top 300 there's been just a small drop from 126 to 123, for top 500 an even smaller drop from 54 to 53 and for top 1000, a rise from 8 to 9. I've no idea why that is!

Salmon · Tennis legend

I think that it's because the number of Challengers has gone up and that's where the points are for most people ranked inside the top 250 and trying to crack the top 100.

I did a very fast count (probably slightly wrong), and we had 161 Challengers in 2006 compared to 172 in 2007. Actually a more accurate measure would be counting the total prize money/points available for the two years - I'd gladly calculate those, but I have an exam on Tuesday.

Also, the ATP has slightly changed the points system. Now you get 55 for winning a 50K, compared to 50 in 2006. And some of the 25K+Hs have been upgraded to 37.5K+Hs, which give 55 points to the winner, compared to 50 for 25K+H winners.

More the number of points available, the more points you need to get to a mark, I guess.

I don't want to count the number of Futures, but maybe the change hasn't been very significant, so it doesn't much affect the players ranked between 300 and 1000? I don't think that the change of the number of tournaments is more than 6 or 7%, which isn't too much (according to me).

This point could be wrong, though.

8 to 9 is 12.5% of change, which is a lot. But points aren't bread of which you can have half, one fourth or full. It must be in whole numbers, so if there's to be any change from 8, it must be 7 or 9. And changes there may be for everything in stats, even if there's no reason for it at all...

Some lovely points by both Malteaser and Steven. Will reply later.

steven · Tennis legend

I hadn't realised that there were more Challengers in 2007 than in 2006 (typical that the one thing I don't take the time to check in detail I get completely wrong LOL), that plus the gradual move from 25K+h to 35K+h must indeed make all the difference.

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Who manages Cox et al then?

Problem for Dan was that when he was"the best player in the world at his age" two years ago his size wasn't a big problem but he's still TINY as far as I can see.

I think Evans and Smethurst have more long term prospects. (And Ashley Watling!)

They should all be following Seator and Fitzy around instead of expecting it all to land in their lap?