I'm slightly confused.  

If the target date was yesterday, 27th September, then they have actually rather unfortunately missed all 5 targets since Jamie Murray slipped out of the top 100 in this week's rankings leaving just 4 doubles top 100ers in total.

This seems to tie in with the Telegraph's reading of the situation :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/8028788/Tennis-world-rankings-highlights-Lawn-Tennis-Associations-bankruptcy-of-talent.html

Assuming the relevant date is 27 September then I agree with their very slightly different actual figures of  25, 204, 151, 2 and 4 respectively.

From the Telegraph article I understand the targets were set 2 years ago.

Well, I'd say the 3 top 100 singles players and 5 top 100 doubles players were certainly reasonable, as was probably the 30 within the top 500.

The targets for the average rankings of the top 5 players for both men and women I'd say were quite challenging but certainly not totally unreasonable.  I assume the men's target was made taking account of assuming Andy would be very near the top, and if this is the case  ( as was surely logical ) then no reason why a fair target can't be given. What they have effectively targetted is to have the next 4 men averaging just under WR 200.  I'd say setting that 2 years ago for such as Boggo, Ward, Baker and Evo was challenging but not unreasonable.  Similar with the women's average for the top 5 of 113 for such as Bally, Anne, Cav, Naomi and Mel quite apart from considering the talent that might ( and has ) come through from the juniors.  I'd say both the men's and women's average targets were probably close to best case scenarios ( kind of like our generallly over-optimistic year end ranking predictions ! )  and maybe overall were unlikely to be achieved. 

On the face of it though the targets probably should be stretch targets, targets that would challenge, would seek to improve on recent history ( since things are getting better aren't they ?  )   I don't actually think the targets for the number of top 100 singles and doubles players were very challenging.
But like the Count though, I really do wonder what happens now      What meanings / lessons can be taken from all the targets being missed ?   What changes will be made ?  Will anyone be held to account in any way ?  There surely must be some consequences of the targets being missed or what was the point of them in the first place other than as some wooly wishlist ?

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 28th of September 2010 02:07:28 PM

indiana wrote:

---

... what was the point of them in the first place other than as some wooly wishlist ?

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 28th of September 2010 02:07:28 PM

---

Well, exactly. I think I've already quoted this once before, but it's pretty cool, so here it is again:

-- Edited by Ratty on Tuesday 28th of September 2010 05:43:36 PM