LTA chief sets new top 100 target (BBC interview)

steven · Tennis legend

LTA chief sets new top 100 target (BBC interview)

mjd · Challenger qualifying

Right - name the five

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Brewer, Flanagan, Smith, Blake and Allinson

Salmon · Tennis legend

New strategy is as useless as the old one. Who cares about what Draper says, anyway - he has been saying the same (wrong) things since I've been a kid.

Still, five top 100 players by 2010 is very much possible.

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

mjd wrote:

Right - name the five

I'll start the list with:

Andy Murray

Then... we begin to struggle as to who the other 4 players will be.

Bogdanovic has the talent, but is very mentally fragile and it's getting to the point where he looks as if he won't make it - that said, if he can get a run of results going and some lucky draws I still think he can.

Baker, to me, won't ever make the top 100, no matter how hard he tries. I know he gives his all, but I've not seen the evidence that he is going to get that high up the rankings, as he doesn't have a big enough game to make it, and the fact he's only beaten Peya (99 at the time) in the top 100 suggests he isn't quite going to get there, but 150ish is gettable (I'd love to be proven wrong here though)

Ward is someone who I guess they hope will kick on, and he does look like he has a good enough game to make it (judging by his performances against Safin, Queens qualies, and his win over Klein at Surbiton, who I'm certain will make it), but hasn't got the results to prove it, and not a single futures final doesn't look that great. Think he'll get to 200, but needs to start winning ranking points to prove it.

None of the other men look like they can make it though, as Goodall, Bloomers, Slabba and Eaton are too limited at the moment, unless they make giant strides in their game, so I guess we're looking at the juniors...

...and although this batch of juniors looks better than any we've produced in a long time, I don't immediately see a top 100 player within 2 years - Cox looks the best of the lot on the results side as has the best chance to make it, but I've never seen him play so can't judge his game - none of the others I've seen though do look like top 100 players, or have the potential to make it quickly.

Guess we're looking at the George Morgan age range for when the players start to come through, as that does look to be a very talented junior group (and for all the LTA bashing.... the next level of juniors does look to be very strong, so it does look as if at the under 16 and below level, they are getting things right and so giving players a base to start from, which if they didn't think the players we have at the moment were good enough is the way to go)

5 players in the top 100 by 2010?

Yes.... but only if doubles is included.

Malteaser · Junior player

If you're gonna have a target then you gotta have a stretegy to get that target.

I know it sounds negative, but I can't see that there can be a strategy that will get us five top 100 players by the end of 2010.

Of the top 500 players how many can reach top 100 ever? Maybe Slabba, Maybe Ward? Maybe Baker? But none of them are definites, not by a long way.

Anyone else outside of the Brit top 500 will take 3 years or more to get into the top 100, IMO. I guess there's a possibility that one or two might, maybe, get into the top 100 by 2010. (Cox, Skupski, Evans????)

Basically, what I'm saying is it's a very long shot.

I stand by my previous comments that the LTA should aim to maximise the number of players inside the top 500 before looking at the top 100.

I said 12 by the end of 2008, then maybe 14 by the end of 2009, then 16 by 2010. These are more realistic targets. Once they've achieved those, then they can look at top 100. Saying that, even 12 in the top 500 by year end is looking dodgy now.

That's my two pennies worth.

Salmon · Tennis legend

Also, Draper says that Morgan won the Orange Bowl this year. For that matter, it's not Orange Bowl but a very different tournament (Junior Orange Bowl) and it was played last year.

And FD, the next batch of (male) juniors are far from strong if you go below 1990. Morgan is sort of good, Liam Broady is better, but who else? And in any case, it's idiocy to name prospects before they start winning matches at Futures...

Salmon · Tennis legend

FD, Baker has beaten Calleri, too!

Edit: I think Guccione was top 100 when Baker beat him at Nottingham.

-- Edited by Greenleaf at 18:59, 2008-06-29

Malteaser · Junior player

Do you think he has to set targets to appease the press?

Or is he just deluded?

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Greenleaf wrote:

FD, Baker has beaten Calleri, too!

Edit: I think Guccione was top 100 when Baker beat him at Nottingham.

-- Edited by Greenleaf at 18:59, 2008-06-29

Forgot about the Guccione win, but he would have barely been in the top 100 at the time, given he was in qualifying.

The Calleri loss was impressive, but given that it was a dead rubber, the Argentines had apparantly been 'celebrating' the night before, and a surprisingly large amount of money given who was playing for GB was placed on a Argentina 4-1 win, not so convinced about the legitimacy of the win....

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Malteaser wrote:

Do you think he has to set targets to appease the press?

Or is he just deluded?

Guessing that someone in the press remembered the 2008 target and so planned to ask him about it, so he's said this so he doesn't look like the complete muppet he is.

steven · Tennis legend

Malteaser wrote:
I stand by my previous comments that the LTA should aim to maximise the number of players inside the top 500 before looking at the top 100.

I said 12 by the end of 2008, then maybe 14 by the end of 2009, then 16 by 2010. These are more realistic targets. Once they've achieved those, then they can look at top 100. Saying that, even 12 in the top 500 by year end is looking dodgy now.

I agree, but then they need the help and encouragement to push on - we had 20 in the top 500 towards the end of 2005 (which was a multi-year high) but no less than 15 of them have since disappeared:

5 still there and active - Murray (gone up), Boggo (gone down), Bloomfield (gone down), Baker (gone up), Goodall (gone up)

10 retired - Henman, Rusedski, Parmar, Hilton, Mackin, Sherwood, Childs, Banks, Lee, Hanlin

1 gone to uni - Fleming

2 lost to doubles - Delgado, Aucks,

2 out due to injury and not back in (yet) - Marray, Smith

OK, some of those retirements were bound to happen, but surely not all of them. Could it be constantly being told they weren't good enough and that the LTA were giving up on them that pushed some of them over the edge?

Before they start thinking about the top 100, we have a desperate need to get more players playing singles at Challenger level on a regular basis.

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Just about to listen to the interview on the Iplayer now.... it happened on Sportsweek on 5 live this morning, so I'll see what he actually said

Malteaser · Junior player

Steven, to use one of my favourite movie lines ...

I think you're hitting the nail right between the eyes.

Another reason for all those retirements is probably the annual two-weekly debate about why Brittish players aren't good enough for Wimbledon. You must get fed up with that if you've worked for three or four years and are playing at Challenger level.

I can see one or two players retiring within a year for the same reasons - Boggo, Bloomers? I wouldn't be surprised.

DUSTY DICK · Club Coach

More realistic that we could have 5 girls in the top 100 by 2010 than 5 boys. Does Draper just mean the men or both sexes combined as that means we already have 2 with Andy and Anne and maybe one of the other girls will get there this year and make that total 3 The girls side looks better as they have that group in the top 200 now with others chasing and Anne pushing into double figures. I think more realistic over the next couple of years to get a bunch of guys into the top 200 all pushing each other and then maybe 2 will push on towards the top 100 but ca't see it happening that quick really. The small steps the girls are taking is far more realistic as they are consolidating their positions and then aiming a little higher. Better that than just one flying leap upwards and then can't hack it and fail miserably. Whatever Nigel Sears is doing with the girls is certainly paying off.