2011 Team AEGON players announced

LordBrownof · Futures level

2011 Team AEGON players announced

LordBrownof · Futures level

No Katie O'Brien or Mel South either. Was that expected?

steven · Tennis legend

Pleasantly surprised to see the Broadys back in the list and not too surprised to see Katie and Mel not in it - I think the LTA are probably moving older players like them who are not still moving upwards onto this new Tournament Bonus Incentive scheme.

On the face of it (i.e. without other info), omitting Tara (the third highest % riser in the rankings this year after Heather and Laura and still very young) is unforgiveable.

LordBrownof · Futures level

I didn't even notice the omission of Lisa. Another massive mistake.

philwrig · Hall of fame

-- Edited by philwrig on Thursday 9th of December 2010 01:19:35 PM

SMC1809 · All-time great

It would seem the decision has left Phil speechless!

philwrig · Hall of fame

Interesting list, plenty to discuss. Factors such as outside criticism that mediocre British players are being spoon fed with regards to funding has seen are large reduction in the number receiving funding. Eventhough it is tough on the players not making the list I think that is the right way forward. Most players the world over don't receive the size of funding our players get. In Australia a bit like our university system, their junior players are expected to payback a proportion of their initial funding when they sart to earn sufficient prize money. I don't have a problem with a short list of elite players getting this size of funding. Rememeber there will be another list of players who will get full help with their travelling and accomodaton costs.

Onto the players on the list itself players like Farquharson and Gabb must consider themselves very lucky to be on the list when players like Burton aren't. Jamie Murray also a surprising omission if you consider that the other doubles players of a similar standard are.

Shocked that Katie has been omitted but not that Mel has. Can this explain Katie's shocking performance the other day. Being a cynic I wonder whether Cav scraped through due to her very late season form, I really hope not but you do have to wonder. Must have been a borderline decision, and possibly Cav desperate to make the cut found a little bit extra in those last few tournaments. The LTA clearly not still 100% convinced that Tara's off court attitude warrants a return to full funding. Lisa I suspect will still get some support and as she hasn't really made much progress this year that is probably fair enough.

The Broady's I suspect are now on the list not due to the fact of a sudden lovein with the LTA but that they are in desperate need of the cash. Still happy to see this development.

philwrig · Hall of fame

SMC1809 wrote:

It would seem the decision has left Phil speechless!

Like it. Simply just pressed the submit post prematurely, I think those very lucky few had about a minute to read my original post.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Not sure I have seen this before, an exceptionally detailed explanation of how you qualify for elite funding, especially the section on supplementary funding. I wonder whether Laura's potentially expensive new coaching setup qualifies under this category.

http://www.lta.org.uk/Global/Downloads/Performance%20Program/LTA%20Team%20AEGON%20Selection%20Policy.pdf

I like the new bonus system for rewarding tournament success, the link below explains this.

http://www.lta.org.uk/Global/Downloads/Performance%20Program/Tournament%20Bonus%20Scheme%20Funding.pdf

indiana · Tennis legend

The list as a whole seems generally pretty reasonable BUT got to say like others I think particularly Tara's and also Lisa's omission based on their age and progress seem very strange. I don't understand either doubles comparative reasons for Jamie Murray's exclusion.

For Tara well I simply can see no justification whatsoever on tennis terms for her omission so got to stll be some major other problems, I did notice by the way her recent minor twitter moan about the funding decision being delayed effecting har India plans did disappear quite soon afterwards ( edit : Oh I see is there now : "not 100% sure.. They've put back the decision.. So I can't go to India now" ) Hmm, LTA still not 100% convinced about Tara's off court attitude ? It surely must be a hell of a lot more serious than that.

Tara Moore : born 06/08/92 : aged 18 : no of players in the world aged 18 or under ranked higher = 34 : no of players in the world younger than her at all ranked higher = 17 : progress this year = up 263 places to WR 356 : last 8 counting ranking tournaments since August = 90 ranking points : 16 tournaments at that rate = 180 ranking points = current WR 284

So clearly very serious other issues or they're just mad.

Lisa to me is also very unlucky, aged 19, in her first full season on tour has risen 198 places to WR 324 and GB No 10. That actually would be enough for me. But OK, one may think the girls should have to develop quicker and higher compared to the guys to be in with real chance of making it. But I think Lisa herself has developed slower initially and is still learning how to stay composed etc in matches, indeed I think both herself and her coach have made various comments to that effect or do the LTA not really fully consider the individual ?! Surely should have been worth adding for at least this year. Even then and with quicker development expected of the girls, I find it difficult on a tennis level to see the justification for her omission as compared to Dan Smethurst and Alex Ward being on the list ( and I have no real issues with them being on the list, indeed particularly earlier in the season Alex's progress this year is very encouraging , just Lisa's omission ) Indeed she also seems much more worth the funding than one or two of the junior boy 18 yos who as Phil indicates can consider themselves a little lucky.

Very good to see the apparent rapprochement between the LTA and the Broadys. Though Naomi's inclusion ( indeed both Naomis inclusions which again I agree with ) and Tara'a exclusion just highlights yet more the Tara omission. I'd love some rapprochement there !

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 13th of December 2010 04:42:54 AM

steven · Tennis legend

I wonder with the Murrays whether they have agreed to fund themselves, though I don't particularly see why Jamie should be lumped in with Andy (except perhaps that he tends to win big money when Andy plays with him!) and if some players have refused funding for whatever reason - we can never know the exact reasons, though that doesn't mean we can't flag decisions we find very odd.

I mentioned Tara and Lisa on twitter as seeming particularly unlucky, and Lisa has (diplomatically?) tweeted back a "hmmmmm" which could mean anything, but no doubt means she thinks she was unlucky to miss out too.

It's good that they have published the criteria and when I (or someone with a bit more time on their hands at the moment) get the chance to have a proper look, it'll be interesting to work out who got funding automatically, who would have been on the "under consideration" list and who got it on a purely discretionary basis.

I pretty much agree with Indiana's comparisons between certain players who did get funding (none of whom I would begrudge funding to either) and certain players who didn't.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Tara's exclusion I think we all agree on paper seems completely ridiculous. But as we don't have all the facts in front of us I don't think we can completely condemn it. The amount of time put into physical fitness off the court is certainly one issue, comments on twitter such as Indy mentioned above don't help her cause either. There is also maybe a case that if there are issues off the court, that by putting her on the elite list, this would provide a bad example to younger players with aspirations to make the list, that you can be a top professional and not show a 100% professional attitude off the court. This is of course conjecture and I am not trying to defend the LTA decision just trying to provide an explanation for her omission.

As for Lisa yes her ranking has improved dramatically this year, but this is only because she has played a full year on tour and shown that her form from last Autumn was no fluke. I suspect this was a marginal call and seems unfair compared to some of the boys who have been included but are on a lower ranking. But for me she hasn't improved this year just sustained her form from the previous Autumn. Both Lisa and Tara will no doubt be receiving the full travel allowance, if they're not then I would be really really hacked off.

The split between male/female representation on the list is probably due to the fact that the LTA's measure of performance is rightly or wrongly based upon how our male players perform more so than their female counterparts.

indiana · Tennis legend

The twitter moan from Tara about the delay in funding that I referred to was in my view a very minor moan, actually not really much more than comment, and I must admit I haven't myself seen anything that i would judge remotely out of order from Tara on twitter. Maybe however the LTA's twitter tolerance doesn't extend to much more than "hmmmm", which is one of Lisa's less entertaining twitter comments.

I do worry that they are coming down too hard for more minor reasons and yes perhaps as some sort of example just because Tara is maybe a little difficult. And I do worry that that could have a big effect on a perhaps rather fragile temperament just when her tennis is going so well. Remember how badly she seemed to be effected in previous year by losing points for some tournament error, entering one too many or something and losing her biggest points haul.

But ultimately yes, we don't really know at all what's behind it.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 9th of December 2010 10:09:34 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

According to this article Jamie Murray has been awarded a contract but will not be part of Team Aegon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/9272960.stm

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

The omission of Tara is astounding. Lisa surprising but not quite so shocking given they've reduced the number of spots.

The one that is totally flummoxing me is Alice Keddie. I presume that she has achieved something in below-ITF junior level that we don't mention on these forums, because I don't recall her name ever being mentioned. A quick check on the ITF site reveals a Grade 5 QF as her best result and a ranking of 1184. Can someone enlighten me?