That's what's also flamin maddening, the impression that so much is about PR and appeasing ( often ignorant ) media outlets, indeed seemingly playing politics with people's careers, instead of just concerning themselves with what's right.

And you know if the LTA more did what was right for the longer term instead of so much what they reckoned was better PR in the shorter term they might ultimately get better overall results, which would be in everyone's interests.

OK, that's enough flamin for now      To bed.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 01:56:43 AM

Player funding, such an emotive issue ...

Forgive me for examining the underlying concept: Why should young tennis players expect SOMEONE ELSE to help pay for their hobby and ambition?

I think there is an analogy with the state funding the training of doctors. Yes, doctors earn a lot of money, and so should in principle pay for their own training - but there is a public good involved. Similarly, successful British tennis players generate a public good, so it follows that they should be helped to achieve their success.

(I would argue that there is a British public good in collective complaining about how useless our sports players can be, but that's another story.)

OK, so we reach an agreement that the LTA should allocate part of its budget to help individuals with the enormous cost of becoming a pro tennis player. But how should that limited amount of cash be allocated?

Let's go back to the doctor analogy again. Say I'm 16 and have always dreamed of being a top oncologist. But I just got a grade D on my GCSE in Biology. Sure I'm going to be mad as hell if my teachers tell me that 16-year olds who aren't very good at Biology are not going to be very good doctors, and so I ain't going to be able to read Medicine at Cambridge University. "What do those fools know? I'm a late developer. I really really want this so bad, etc, etc ..."

Apply this to tennis players. Yes, there are a few women who have not been outstanding at 12, 14, 16, but have later broken into the top 100 - which I suppose is a useful benchmark for a successful "investment" by the LTA.

But the problem is that most top 100 players WERE outstanding from a very young age - I think!!! It may well be that the average age of the top 100 WTA is 24 - but that is completely irrelevant. The relevant statistic for people like Tara Moore and Lisa Whybourn is what proportion of 18/19/20 year olds ranked in the 300s later went on to break the top 100.

I suspect that the answer is a very small proportion - and surely LTA funding policy should be determined by cold logic, not emotional outbursts by players with vested interests.

If someone was able to show that, well actually, in spite of anecdotal beliefs, say (i) 40% of the WTA top 100 were ranked at over 300 on their 18th birthdays, and (ii) say 25% of 20 year-olds ranked 300-500 later went on the crack the top 100 - then those would be powerful arguments towards funding the so-called late developers.

But somehow I doubt that anyone can provide statistics showing that. If in fact, as I would anecdotally suspect, only 10% of the WTA top 100 were ranked at over 300 at 18, and only 5% of 20-year olds ranked 300-500 later cracked the top 100 - then surely this is a powerful argument for the LTA NOT funding the likes of Tara Moore and Lisa Whybourn ...

Back to the reply to Helen's blog:

Is she not just saying (a little presumptively perhaps) that just because you are good at 14 doesn't mean you will be good at 20?

I agree with both Helen and Peter too - let's reduce the amount of big-money tournies the LTA funds; spread more evenly the funding received by very young players; promote Team Tennis or integrate it into the BT so that it can become a true spectator sport worthy of sponsorship; use the money saved from big tournies to increase the number of 10ks (or better still 15ks) and increase BT prize money; allow 25ks etc to take place in school holidays when ppl are more likely to pay to watch...generally, we should promote an environment from an earlyish age where results (undisputable, empirical) determine funding, not the arbitrary whim of a selector. Then, however late you develop, you will get your just deserts eventually.

I really hope Helen isn't considered to be in breach of the Code of Conduct for receiving the Tournament Bonus by writing this (you can't go 'to the media' with any info about LTA policy without clearing it first) :s

-- Edited by jb288 on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 11:36:19 AM

Naughty James       when Helen has made such a point of not being argumentative or personal.

Another very interesting read and Helen's reading us so watch out 

Naa, just say what you think, that's what I am sure she'll prefer    

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 2nd of January 2011 02:11:06 PM

I find Helen's writing to be highly interesting. She writes eloquently and obviously passionately. She obviously loves tennis and that also comes across.

It is also interesting to see the reactions that some people have to her writing and what she says. Sign of a good writer if you can stir up debate rather than simply comments of "good read" or "TL;DR"