2013 Team AEGON announcement

Spectator · All-time great

2013 Team AEGON announcement

indiana · Tennis legend

Hmm, as Steven says, it appears that if you get past 20 and if you are not just about a top 200 singles player forget it for being in the AEGON group.

After some ludicrous statements in the past re certain generations I thought some in the LTA had began to at least acknowledge that ( particulaly male ) players throughout the world were coming through later, but their actions don't much seem to go with this at all.

As always we don't know if there is more to it than meets the eye, but on the face of it :

Neil Pauffley ?? - was out injured for nearly 20 months until the beginning of March, still only 22, has won two futures titles since he came back and risen to WR 453, with not unnaturally improving results as the year went on - does he not fit some fancy age / ranking formula ??

Sam Murray ?? - what a finish to the year, all the help she could get to push on now from just outside the top 250 would I imagine be welcomed, but she's been to college in the USA, is now aged 25 - does she not fit some fancy age / ranking formula ??

Harriet Dart ?? - shown real promise in seniors, which is where it will ultimately matter, plus improving junior form - does she not fit some fancy age / possibly just really junior ranking formula ??

Sorry Pauffley vs Morgan anytime for me. Dart vs Dunne too ( though I'd still probably have Dunne in ) and Sam Murray vs Keothavong too

The worrying thing is that one can quite see in each of these 3 cases why they might not fit some age / ranking profile, which suggests inflexibility. You want to be fair of course, but surely we have some intelligent folk at the LTA, capable of thinking outside boundaries and allow themselves to add in sone folk for good exceptional reasons. Objectivity is good ( if maybe not a bit skewed age objectivity ), unbinding objectivity is not when considering the funding of developing tennis players.

Sorry on the face of it. Harriet's omission is ridiculous, Neil's not much less so, and Sam to me deserves AEGON funding too, and if her run was "too late" then that's just more rigid inflexibility. And if you're our current number 2 men's singles player, commited to trying still to improve himself in Challengers around the world, reaching a CH of WR 186 earlier this year, but of course aged all of 26, Jamie, time you took up doubles mate hmm

Just a few thoughts for now ( and again it assumes there is not more to it in some cases )...

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 5th of December 2012 07:14:35 PM

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

The fancy formula's in question: Girls Boys - you need to be in the 'A' column.

The three you've highlighted don't meet the criteria for their age:

- Neil would need to be top 250

- Harriet would need to be top 50 juniors or top 600 WTA

- Sam would need to be top 100

However, some that got in don't meet these criteria either so there is obviously some flexibility.

What is truly ludicrous is assessing juniors in September for a team that isn't announced until December, so any improvement by a player in the intervening period makes the LTA look like total muppets.

-- Edited by RBBOT on Wednesday 5th of December 2012 08:01:11 PM

korriban · Challenger level

Agree with much of the list, but staggered with respect to Pauffley, Murray and Dart! I 100% agree with everything Indy said, and this seems to be echoed elsewhere in broad terms. Its Harriets first year on the tour and she's really impressed, and in effect its Neil's first year too. Similarly Sam has gone from zero to 400 in year 1 then upto 250 in year 2. What more does she have to do? I also agree about Annie K, and George being surprise inclusions. To say they have both disappointed in 2012, would be a MASSIVE understatement. Glad that James M makes the list, based on gut feel that there's a real spark there, but how can George merit full funding versus Neil, when Neil has got to 450 from zero since March after 20 months out! Always a difficult one, very emotional and subjective, but there must be some very confused athletes out there. Sticking to rigid formulas can lead to crazy outcomes - statistics don't win tennis matches, players do. Which is why the Ryder Cup has captains picks.

-- Edited by korriban on Wednesday 5th of December 2012 09:11:10 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:
George is still living off his Orange Bowl victory and SF of US open juniors, assuming he is still putting in the workload his potential is still far more than Neil's.
As for Sam the brutal truth is that she is a 25 year old who still hasn't cracked the top 250, eventhough she has done remarkably well recently what further upside has she got.

I'm assuming that's how the LTA see it. I have great respect for Leon Smith and Judy Murray who would be involved in the decision making process and so you have to draw the line somewhere when funding. Annie has been GB number 1,a Fed Cup regular for many years and was top 100 only just recently so to cut her funding now for me would be a mad decision. Next year maybe, but if 2013 is as bad as 2012 I suspect she'll retire anyway.

Harriet for me should be included, but again doesn't have the long term potential of Eleanor assuming she can overcome her injuries.

Sorry, Phil. I just can't go along with quite a bit of the above at all, basically your comments on Neil ( and George in comparison ) and Sam. Whatever you think of Leon and Judy ( and I have been generally impressed with both too ) and their possible involvement in the decision making, and drawing the line somewhere, your comments re Neil and Sam to me I don't think stand up to a great deal of scrutiny.

George's potential far more than Neil's ? I don't see more, let alone far more. He's been hiding this potential now for quite some time without any real headway. Neil on the other hand is already up to WR 453 after a 20 month lay off, and his results have been improving through the year, which seems natural after so long out. Let's though just flatline his points from his last 9 counting tournaments since July ( starting starting with a "1" ). Double 61 points and you get 122 points, which would have him currently just inside the top 350. Not a great deal of stretch to say this is already a potential top 300 player in the next year. And he may be age 22 ( as we've said, hardly old anyway ) but with the serious playing time he has lost he has also had much less time to develop. George may still be short of his 20th birthday, but the thing is frankly I don't see him as being near world top 300 in the next couple of years, possibly ever. Of course he could suddenly take off, some players do, with Neil for instance showed nothing close to his latest form in his "first career". But as of now I still say re George having much more potential than Neil, John McEnroe had a phrase for that.. smile

Now let's move on to Sam. Hmm, hasn't cracked the world top 250 ( CH 255 ) at age 25, so what upside has she got ?. Well, in the middle of October she hadn't cracked the world top 350 ( ranked WR 374 with CH 353 ). So what upside did you possibly see at that time ? I am guessing not her rising over 100 places in 6 weeks, improving her CH by 98 places, beating top 300 players for fun, which she hadn't been before, plus a couple of top 200 players and a top 100 player into the bargain. No, I am sure you didn't and nor did I. She's very clearly not at a steady place, but for whatever reason has found real improvement, it is hardly a stretch to see further improvenent. Indeed if she carries on just how she has been of late, she'll be in the top 200 before long, with what further improvemnt we don't know. Will be intriguing to follow anyway. 140 points overall from her last 5 counting tournaments from consistent performances, with WR 200 = 301 points, WR 150 = 463 points. Of course, she has an upside and that upside is possibly rising signifcatly up the rankings with the intrigue of not really knowing where this clear improvemnt has come from and where it might go, though presumably she and the coaches have much more of a hold on why this has happened. But hey, she's 25, so let's not bother really trying to give her every chance to follow this up and more ! Of course it could just be some strange few uplifting weeks, but if it isn't I want her to have every chance to develop it further. What further upside has she got ? Looks to me very possibly plenty !

It's such as not giving as full backing as possible to folk like Neil and Sam due to some inflexibility ( although seeming flexibility with certain players with less clearly something currently going for them ) that I cannot understand, and see no justification for. Neil is less than a year back after 20 months out and still just aged 22, Sam is just 2 years back on tour and more significantly showing huge improvement over a recent six week period, and aged.25, Anyone looking into it will undoubtably see that the age profile of top players has increased over recent years and that many make very significant improvemnts well into their careers. These are two player whose potential needs fully explored. Neil's omission I would actually say seems inexplicable ( or as korriban says, extraordinary ) ...

... as is Harriet Dart's omission for reasons I and others have given.

( all subject to significant reasons that we are unaware of, but not to any result or future potential reasons, because I am happy about my views about these )

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 6th of December 2012 02:03:49 AM

steven · Tennis legend

2013 Team Aegon Players

Elena Baltacha
Luke Bambridge
Liam Broady
Eleanor Dean
Katy Dunne
Kyle Edmund
Colin Fleming
Oliver Golding
Evan Hoyt
Ross Hutchins
Dominic Inglot
Anne Keothavong
Johanna Konta
Jonny Marray
James Marsalek
Tara Moore
George Morgan
Laura Robson
James Ward
Josh Ward-Hibbert
Heather Watson

In: Liam Broady (only sort of new), Dominic Inglot, Johanna Konta, Jonny Marray, Josh Ward-Hibbert

Out: Katie Boulter, Lewis Burton, Dan Cox, Dan Evans, Pippa Horn, Josh Sapwell, Alex Ward

steven · Tennis legend

I've highlighted the ins and outs on the GB top 25 tables to put them into some kind of context.

Given that our biggest problem with the men at the moment is that many of them feel forced to stick to Futures and even British Tours for financial reasons rather than having a proper stab at Challengers, it seems very sad that only 3 of the GB top 20 men's singles players are being funded when no less than 4 doubles players are being funded. It's as if they want to encourage anyone over 21 who hasn't made it in singles yet to switch to doubles! I can't imagine many other countries would see it that way. disbelief

Also, I thought the reason Samantha Murray wasn't being funded must be because of her age or because she had been to a US college ... but they are funding Dom Inglot for doubles. Is top 40 doubles really more worthy of funding than a huge jump into top 300 singles? (that's a pro-Sam comment, not an anti-Dom comment, I hasten to add)

Looking at the younger players, the most startling omission (to me, anyway) is Harriet Dart, presumably because they judge 16-year-olds on junior results rather than senior results. I would have thought a player making a bit of an impression in seniors at 16 would have more relevance to their likely long-term success.

Then again, it's hard to comment fairly without knowing more and I guess it's even possible that one or two players have been offered funding but refused it.

wolf · Tennis legend

Surely anyone top 100 singles or top 50 doubles wouldn't actually need any funding?

philwrig · Hall of fame

I think if both Hev and Laura progress again this year, both will not need it in 2014.

Agreed about the doubles players to some extent, I believe having Louis Cayer as one of the coaches is one the biggest reason why we have so many top doubles players.

Harriet's omission is a surprise definitely but Sam's late season spurt probably came too late to influence their judgement.

Spectator · All-time great

As an aside, isn't it lovely to see that even without any Wimbledon points, Mr Marray would still be top-50?

SMC1809 · All-time great

The list is those who receive the maximum level of funding. Surely, most of the others would still receive a reduced level of funding?

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

From what I can see, the others get £4,000 + the extra prize money from the LTA for winning most rounds in futures/challengers/tour qualifying + some travel expenses for overseas tournaments.

korriban · Challenger level

Phil gets out to see so many of our GB players, and talks to them and the support teams, so his views are always very close to the mark. However On this one I agree with Indy, in general terms - although perhaps theres something Leon and Judy see in those selected that has the X Factor, beyond actual performance in the last 12 months. And I still see a number of selections based on loyalty to those who previously had funding, and who formed part of successful teams, even if they weren't personally successful. Still got a sense of "ins" and "outs" based on those who are part of the system. Evan Hoyt for example. True he won the Junior Davis cup, but if you look at individual performances in that competition, in juniors and futures, would he merit inclusion? He lost at the Orange Bowl 1 and 1 yesterday! In round 2. I hope he has the X Factor, but on performances alone, wouldnt a Jazzi Plews or a Harriet feel more in keeping with the search for stars? And where does Dom Inglot fit in to all of this? Can someone explain how he fits into a master plan? Great progress in 2012, but its not hard to overlook him for more deserving recipients. At least we are all passionate on this subject. Who thinks that Neil can be inside 250 at year end 2013 without full funding? Maybe not quite, but I'll wager if he isn't it will be very close. I say yes he can! If the LTA swings him a WC for the full Wimby draw who knows, but based on these Team Aegon picks, my fear is that they will favour the "insiders" once again. Cant wait for 2013 now!!!!

-- Edited by korriban on Thursday 6th of December 2012 06:47:15 AM

korriban · Challenger level

clearly there are anumber of selected players who didn't meet the automatic criteria, so there must be discretion in the picks. George and Annie went south appreciably in 2012, and at certain points their form was exceptionally poor - a raft of first round exits. Perhaps they have been "lumped in" with other players who are friends or they are in due to past glories. I'm happy for them and hope their form turns around. Clearly all that Team Aegon funding in 2012 didnt really help them much though. But the more I think about this, the more I think the non-selection of Neil Pauffley is an extraordinary decision, on almost any rational or emotional criteria you can think of. George in. Neil out. Unless there's something we don't know - some baggage or history. Based on a full years playing at his momentum of improvement, he'd have got to 350 ranking in 12 months as a 22 year old, from a standig start with 20 months of appaling injury behind him. 2 tournament wins and counting. If that doesn't merit a massive well done and thank you from the LTA what does? What an example to all other players re tenacity and perseverence. My theory is that there's a heap of politics, "in" and " out" coaches or players, and prior promises at play. curious if anyone knows if Neil has been offered or made use of the NTC in the past or not?

philwrig · Hall of fame

George is still living off his Orange Bowl victory and SF of US open juniors, assuming he is still putting in the workload his potential is still far more than Neil's.
As for Sam the brutal truth is that she is a 25 year old who still hasn't cracked the top 250, eventhough she has done remarkably well recently what further upside has she got.

I'm assuming that's how the LTA see it. I have great respect for Leon Smith and Judy Murray who would be involved in the decision making process and so you have to draw the line somewhere when funding. Annie has been GB number 1,a Fed Cup regular for many years and was top 100 only just recently so to cut her funding now for me would be a mad decision. Next year maybe, but if 2013 is as bad as 2012 I suspect she'll retire anyway.

Harriet for me should be included, but again doesn't have the long term potential of Eleanor assuming she can overcome her injuries.