And a fine amount of good playing RG (or even winning it) will do to him when he could easily be made to win a round in Surbiton with proper scheduling.

This tournament's sort of win-win for Coxy as far as I'm concerned. Winning matches are always good, and in case he loses, he can't play RG, which is equally good.


It'll be very interesting to see what Robson can do against Mladenovic, who's one of the best 1993 born players out there.

Pauffley won 6-4 6-3.

Results here - http://www.tj.fft.fr/EvMenuJ.asp?CodeEvent=0710252259&NumDraw=4

RAMIALISON, Irina (FRA) bt (Q) WATSON, Heather (GBR) 6/2 6/4

Pauffley lost by 2 and 2.

Cox lost by 2/6 6/2 6/4.




What's the point?

xcw4eva - you are spot on!! There is no hiding place at the level Cox is now at. In order for him to prove he is ready for the lower level of the senior game he needs to show he can win at the highier end of the junior game, he has not shown this often enough, he needs to continue playing top level junior events like the slams & selected G1 but lets be realistic at the moment he is not even securing DA into the slams which shows that he is not winning enough at the top end...again another sign he is not ready to leave the junior game behind. The people that are working with Cox are some of the best in the world, they are experts at what they do...Arka please trust their judgement, junior players as you know use this site & comments such as "Whats the point" are not helpful to the players or coaches.
There is a blueprint in place in which players must follow in order to give themselves the best chance at reaching the top of the senior game - making DA for junior slams is a big priority in that pathway & as I stated above Daniel Cox is not there at present & must continue playing juniors to achieve this before moving on to the senior game full time.

Cox has had the capability of winning matches at Futures level for almost two years now and Evans has had it for around a year. I mean just look at these results (I'm sure that you're quite familiar with them) -


L Harsh MANKAD (IND) 2-6 6-4 4-6
W Andrew COELHO (AUS) 4-6 7-5 6-1
W Pierre-Ludovic DUCLOS (CAN) 6-3 6-3
W Edward SEATOR (GBR) 6-4 6-4
W Rameez JUNAID (AUS) 3-6 6-2 6-0
W Edward SEATOR (GBR) 7-6(4) 6-4
W Marco CRUGNOLA (ITA) 6-4 6-1

These are some of Coxy's greatest performances from the handful of Futures he's been allowed to play. Of them, Mankad is probably one of the 100 best players on grass in the world and went on to win a Challenger the very next week. Coelho was back then ranked around 550 (if I remember correctly) and is now top 300. Duclos, I think was ranked inside the top 500 and since then has gone on to beat Feliciano Lopez (!) and has cracked the top 400. Seator's very familiar with us all, but just to remind, both of those losses came in back to back tournaments after Ed had reached the final in two of his last three Futures. Rameez Junaid is not someone you would see at Futures often - ranked around 350, but Cox managed to bagel him. And last, the most impressive one, the one against Crugnola - who was ranked around 300 then.

Now there is no way you can say someone who can get those wins isn't yet good enough to play Futures. For that matter, you rarely face players that good at Futures level - it's just that we had very strong fields last year and Coxy has the worst luck for draws that I've ever seen in my (not so large) time as a tennis fan.


I have little doubt that by now he would be cutting through Futures fields and reaching quarters and semis every now and then with the odd win at Challengers. Isn't that natural for someone so obviously gifted? Look at his peers abroad - he was far better than Berankis, Eysseric, Elias, Pella, Janowicz, Copil and so many others (the list keeps increasing, unfortunately) till around mid 2006. Now these players (barring Janowicz, who has like come out of nowhere) have one of two extremely effective strategies - either a) forget Juniors and play men's tourneys wholly or else b) start with Juniors very early, play loads of tournaments on your best surface(s) and say goodbye to Juniors barring big tournaments in your 17th year and forget them altogether in your 18th.

We take neither path - our philosophy is that you start with Juniors late, go on playing them ITFs till their 18th year and then begin with Futures. Is it a huge shock that the only top 100 player we've produced in the last few years has come from a system that doesn't follow our philosophy? I think not. Are those impressive rankings and/or accolades achieved by people like Baker, Goodall or Kasiri helping them now? And there's a new idea with the younger players - play them all the time on clay, no matter how good or bad they are on it. I understand that you must be good on clay and toughen up, but everyone has his or her weak points. You must play to your strengths first and then cover your weaknesses. If Coxy had been playing on hard courts all this while, he would be ITF top 10 now and ATP 600. Not being world class on clay isn't a bad thing at all (why, given the way Mr. De Villiers is shaping the Tour, hard courts will be all that counts in a few years time).

And I don't agree even remotely with the fact that you need to be good at Juniors before you are good enough for the men's game. Playing Juniors after 17 will get you nowhere (in fact they may have adverse effects by creating hype for nothing). Look at Spain - they probably are the strongest nation out there - so many of their younger players go straight to Futures and it doesn't affect them at all. So many of the Russians do it, too. It is common knowledge that only those who start early have a good chance of getting to the top. Even guys like Dancevic, who are fringe Tour players, were winning Futures titles when they were 17 or 18.




I'm absolutely aware that the LTA coaches are some of the best in the world if not the best and I don't doubt the credentials of any of them (who the hell am I to do that, for that matter). In fact I have a lot of respect for each and every one of them. But that doesn't make all of their decisions unquestionable and more importantly, it doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes. Indeed, the wiser the heads are, the greater their mistakes (can't remember who said that - probably J.K. Rowling). Although wise heads rarely make mistakes, they are human, too.

I think that the so-called blueprint that has been set by the LTA isn't working. Of course, I may be wrong (for that matter, I should be wrong), but I've never had any proof to the contrary. Not only has there not been any progress, but also our players are actually going behind, which is scary. The plan's not working and the faster it's got rid of, the better it is. Flogging a dead horse won't reincarnate it...



I know that any player or coach reading "What's the point?" wouldn't be extremely happy, but hey! I'm frustrated, too. I care about all our players (especially the younger players) as much as their coaches do, I'm sure. And I can see wrong steps being taken week in and out (at least what my half-educated judgement perceives to be wrong) so what else am I supposed to say? Of course, I could just say "better luck next time, boys" but hiding a wrong doesn't make it right.

And finally, this is a messageboard, not God's voice on British tennis. Whatever I say (or anyone says, including you and the players who post here) is just a point view, not something that's necessarily right.
Surely players and coaches can't possibly be helped or hindered in their work by what fans say, right? You must get on with your work, no matter what anyone says. I'm sure that each and every one of our players is mentally strong enough to not let criticism bother them. I think that the current plan is thrash - big deal, maybe my ideas are thrash, too. Prove me wrong by proving your plan right and getting a few of our younger boys in the top 100. I'll be glad to be proven wrong and I'll be as glad as you are when they're there.