Eyserric taking Murray to 5 sets, but losing to Dmitrov and Kranjinovic? - possibly can be explained by Eyserric on his best surface playing at his peak against Murray on his worst surface who may have underestimated him, and in the final 2 sets played properly and thrashed him.

Dmitrov is a better player than Eyserric anyway so it's not unexpected that he'd lose to him, while Kranjinovic is ranked 24 in juniors and is just 16, so appears to be a very good prospect to be ranked that high, that young (plus the fact that I don't think Eyserric is going to be a great player anyway)

Winning a junior slam indicates that you have some kind of talent, and although it's not a given that you'll go on a succeed as a senior player, it does indicate that you have a good chance of doing so.

Past 8 years of Junior Slam winner.

Australian Open - Wang, Morel, Baghdatis, Monfils, Young, Sidorenko, Klien, Tomic
French Open - Yang, Igantik, Klizan, Cilic, Monfils, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Cuadrado
Wimbledon - Dmitrov, Young, de Bakker, Chardy, Monfils, Mergea, Reid, Valent
US Open - Berankis, Lojda, Sweeting, Murray, Tsonga, Gasquet, Muller

Of those.... the majority have become top 100 players at the minimum - of those winning before 2006, only 80% have, while injuries are the reason that Reid won't.

It's not a rule, but winning a junior slam generally indicates that you are going to be a success, and winning a junior slam means you will get wild cards into some events because of your success, as well as the name value of being a junior slam winner.

Yeah, we've had Brits who've done well in juniors in the past and not gone on to senior level, like Kasiri... but Kasiri didn't play at all well in that final and never looked like he had a future in the top 100, which most of the junior slam winners seem to do (I'd be surprised if Klizan, de Bakker and Klien don't make the top 100 of recent winners)

The Dan Cox issue?

Should Cox be playing the US Open juniors? Personally, I think he's at the stage where playing juniors should be behind him as he's shown he can succeed at senior level, and has better results there, while at junior level he has a lot of surprising losses to players he should beat (but then, some of the losses have been to top 1000 players anyway)

But I can see why he's playing the US Open as I'd suspect the LTA believes he can win the event, which not only would give them good press, but mean that Cox would get more of a name value, as after Murray won the US Open, he started to get a few WC's around the world.

I've never seen Cox play, so can only go by his results and what others have said, but I'd think he should, on ability, lose to Dmitrov in the QF's of the US Open.

He may have as much chance as making it to the top 100 as Murray did, but Murray won a junior slam and reached the semi's of another, something Cox hasn't looked like doing, although his results at futures *may* be better, but Murray also looked like a top player, and until I see Cox play, I won't be able to judge whether or not he will be.

Spain?

Spain hosts a futures event each week, so there is no incentive to play on the junior tour as you can play senior tennis and make more money easily to begin with, and because they never have to travel abroad, it doesn't cost them much money, so they are able to do so.

Is that the right system? Maybe, but for it to work, you need senior events in the country each week or else it is doomed to fail.

If we adopted that system, then you'd be telling 16/17 year olds to go out and make a living out of tennis and not funding them, but then not having any events in the country, so they'd run out of money almost immediately, and we'd be back to the problem of only the rich being able to play.

Should we adopt the system? Maybe, but the LTA doesn't want players in the comfort zone of never having to travel (not that I agree with that), and until that attitude from them changes, they won't adopt it, so it's pointless to suggest it could happen (and anyway, the Spanish players aren't exactly thrilled with their Tennis Association anyway)

Evans winning titles now?

I'd say that's more down to his attitude than anything the LTA have done - since getting suspended, he's had to work much harder than usual as he isn't getting funding etc, so his only income had to come from winning tennis matches, and the suspension appears to have instilled a winning mentality into him.

Before hand, he probably was content to take the funding and stay in the comfort zone without pushing himself (which is what the LTA are trying to avoid, so they are proven correct)

And the argument about not being able to be as interested in a junior match as they would be in a senior match may be true, but if it is, then it's the wrong attitude for the players to have and it's costing them.

Not quite sure what the overall point of my argument is, but I do think there is value to the junior tour, although if you are doing well at senior level, you shouldn't play juniors outside of the slams and maybe the odd other event to ensure a top 10 ranking spot to get the JE's.

And we'll continue to slate the LTA for everything they do unless they do start to improve!