Girls: AEGON Junior International Week 1, Nottingham - Grade 4 (Week 14)

Maza1987 · Challenger level

RE: Girls: AEGON Junior International Week 1, Nottingham - Grade 4 (Week 14)

jb288 · Satellite level

Ratty wrote:

jb288 wrote:

I really don't think for our girls junior ITF ranking has much relevance - they seem to mature a lot later than some other countries do, which is fine in my book.

That good old "British late developers" myth. It really is complete garbage,

Well, if Anna Smith can have a junior CH of 650 and then turn out to be a top 250 singles player, something's happening, isn't it? Mel's JCH was 266, Georgie's 424 etc etc - I don't think that can be put down to just wastage of the other juniors. Our girls are probably more likely than many to pursue A-levels etc which will limit their junior play. I really don't think junior ranking has very much bearing on senior potential. Jane O'Donoghue was a top 30 junior and look where that got her. All I'm saying is junior ranking is no indicator of senior success, and with our girls in particular (principally because they're the only ones I'm interested in!) I wouldn't discount them at such a young age.

We'd need much better evidence to be sure either way of course, but it seems silly to dismiss the idea out of hand when there are perfectly rational reasons why it might be the case.

Ratty · County player

jb288 wrote:

I really don't think junior ranking has very much bearing on senior potential. Jane O'Donoghue was a top 30 junior and look where that got her. All I'm saying is junior ranking is no indicator of senior success, and with our girls in particular (principally because they're the only ones I'm interested in!) I wouldn't discount them at such a young age.

Another bizarre myth. I would hypothesise that being a top-level player at 15/16/17 would seem to be the best predictor of senior level success.

Let's look at something called "EVIDENCE".

The career-high junior rankings of the current WTA top 10 (excluding the Williams sisters, who never played junior tennis but were without a shadow of a doubt top-level players from a very young age) were: Wozniacki - 2; Safina - 9; Kuznetsova - 1; Dementieva - 4; Jankovic - 1; Radwanska - 1; Azarenka - 1; Clijsters - 11.

Case proven, M'lud?

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Surely you can see its ironic that the most successful of all those players, Clijsters, had the lowest CH as a junior? So as for case proven, im not convinced. Of course the exceptionally talented juniors who are leaps and bounds ahead of their age group are likely to progress well at the senior game, but the flipside of that is that a lot of players simply drop of the radar or dont fulfill their hype. Ivanovic was barely a top 20 junior, and yet won a grandslam and made 2 other finals by what, 21ish? Clearly more impressive than Jankovic who was herself a junior #1.

The Knight · Challenger qualifying

Ratty, none of those players you mentioned were British...isn't the argument over whether British players develop later, not whether junior success=pro success?

jb288 · Satellite level

I should've used 'guarantee' rather than 'indicator' perhaps - there's going to be some relationship (perhaps more so at the very top, where they're getting by on pure talent, rather than talent + years of effort and refinement), but I think much less so for our girls (because they're not at the very top maybe?).

I think it's testament to the dedication of many of our girls that even though they don't get the rewards early in their careers, they keep believing in themselves and working incredibly hard to try and make it.

Ratty · County player

jb288 wrote:

I think it's testament to the dedication of many of our girls that even though they don't get the rewards early in their careers, they keep believing in themselves and working incredibly hard to try and make it.

There's probably something in this. If you keep doing something day-in-day-out, it's likely that you are going to get better at it. So if you keep on playing tennis full-time, it's likely that you will slowly rise in the rankings, at least until the age of maybe 30, when the decline in your physique starts to outweigh the benefits of experience.

That is assuming that the average WTA standard does not rise, which it will do if everyone else does the same as you.

But of course many players will drop out, because you can't earn a living until you are top-100-ish, and by the age of 20 or so (a) it's going to be pretty clear whether you will ever do this and (b) most people don't have the large amounts of money needed to follow this particular dream.

So I would accept that (maybe) British players have more stickability than those of many other nations, but this is probably because they just have richer parents.

PS - and by the way, Ivanovic did top out at a CH of 19 in juniors, but she was only 15 at the time, so she really isn't a very good example to disprove my hypothesis. Neither is Clijsters - she pretty well gave up juniors at the age of 15.

Late developers they certainly were not ...

indiana · Tennis legend

I do think Ratty gives an extremely compelling case that to reach near the very top of women's tennis you have to been a very good junior ( and probably very good young junior at that ). That is basically as I would have expected, but his figures really do make a point.

That's why there is reason to have real optimism about the futute of Laura and Heather. Also while it will be great to see many of our late maturers progress up the rankings there is little in the above or what I know of history to suggest that such players are ever likely I'm afraid to reach near the very top.

Of course for various reasons many top juniors, many thought of as huge prospects, have not followed their talent through into the seniors and some have achieved just fairly modest senior rankings.

I'd say a great junior ability ( generally but not always shown by ranking ) is pretty necessary but in no way guarantees senior success.

But no huge junior abilty ( again generally shown by ranking ) pretty near guarantees you will not make the top echelons of the senior game. Such exceptions as there may be I would think more come from some time in the past.

That is not to greatly admire those who develop later and climb up these rankings, and where GB girls we can enjoy following their progress. But to reach near the very top they really would be breaking the mould.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 11th of April 2010 02:14:53 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

Definitely agree with that. Top junior success does not guarantee you senior success but it gives you a much greater probability of it. O'Donaghue might have had a top 30 junior ranking but how old was she when she got it and who did she beat to get it. Both Anne and Bally were decent juniors and have gone onto have very good senior careers. The main reason for GB having late developing talent is that the individuals concerned did not show prodigious talent at an early age, if they had they would have been fast tracked through to senior play as per Heather and Laura. They as a result focus on their academic qualifications knowing that tennis is unlikely to give them a good living income. You have to remember that a top 300 player in this country probably is provided with more financial support for their tennis career per head than any other nation. This makes it possible for a GB player to live out their dream as a tennis player knowing that they will be funded despite not making a living out of it from the prize money earned.