I'll try and keep it brief.  Sorry got a bit wordy last might to put it mildly, but I still feel pretty much the same this morning.

I was really just concentrating on the two very curious omissions ( Neil and Harriet ) and the other one who seemed to make a special case ( Samantha ) rather than who maybe shouldn't be on the list.  I restricted myself really to just mentioning others on the list, who on the face of it appeared to have less of a case than each of them.  I don't know at all if there is any set number for funding so that it would be a one in, one out ?  ( edit :  ah, apparently so from korriban's latest post )

One can query such as George Morgan and Evan Hoyt, but I don't know any particular reasons beyond results that these really invoved with them are considering, some "X Factor" as korriban says.  I am happier though in putting the positives of these that have results, these are there to be seen by all, and I remain perplexed by these omissions.

I am also in no position to accuse the LTA of having these that are "in" and these that are "out" and can only really comment on the readily apparent peculiarity of some omissions. Although I can now see that this September cut-off ( if inflexible ) would have certainly really impacted on all three of those that I have brought up. Certainly to me Sam would have had no real case at that time and Neil not really that much of one either. Discussion can certainly help bring more possible light on things, and if September time determined all then I at least much more understand.  Why as early as September is another matter.

Re Jazzi Plews and any others of her age, I wondered if there was some minimum age for the AEGON group and they received separate funding until then ?

Whatever, it would be worrying if Jazzi is eligible and NOT selected because of her father's position at the LTA.  Not saying she should be in, but I don't think it is being overidealist to say it should just be about the player and I would be concerned if they let other things impinge such as who their parents were. To me if you are concerned that it might not look good, you are already too concerned about your image, but it wouldn't be the first time that was thought of the LTA.  The LTA should not concern themselves with who some might think is being treated specially as long as they know themselves that they do things fairly.

Hmm, briefish...

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 6th of December 2012 02:26:41 PM

Phil. Very fair and balanced as always. A few stats for some of the borderline men's players which I think show the dilemma and my confusion. Basically ranking points by quarter - which demonstrates trajectory/momentum, as well as indicating the "run rate" of performance. Ranking can be skewed by 1 great result, but over a quarter or 6 months, it should balance out.

OG age 19: Q1 3; Q2 37; Q3 17; Q4 28 IN

GM age 19: Q1 10; Q2 2; Q3 1; Q4 2 IN

NP age 22: Q1 9*; Q2 5; Q3 31; Q4 32 OUT    * 1 month only, after return from injury

DE age 22: Q1 61; Q2 0**; Q3 81; Q4 11 OUT  ** injured, only 2 tournaments played

JB age 26: Q1 37*; Q2 87; Q3 37; Q4 33 OUT * 1 month only, after return from injury

For all of these players, Q4 is just a 2 month quarter, as December is used for winter break and November tournaments are thinner on the ground.

30 points a quarter is a "run rate" of a 350 ranking, 50 points a quarter would be a 250 ranking. 2 points a quarter is around the 900-1000 ranking.

My view would be that Dan E showed top 250, and later top 150 form for 2 of the 3 quarters he wasn't injured, both before funding cut-off dates. Perhaps unlucky to have been overlooked this time, but I know he may have his supporters/detractors in the LTA. Neil has been consistent at above 350 ranking run rate for 2 straight quarters and improving, and arguably is playing at a similarish level to Jamie already. So I think, with all of his injury dramas, from a standing start, and at the young age of 22 (minus 20 months!) he can consider himself very unlucky. Hardly a dinosaur! George has had some early success, but has been playing at a 900-1000 level for 3 straight quarters. Please don't get me wrong - if the LTA want to send a strong message to George and other "juniors" that they believe in their talent long term, and aren't short-termist, I think that's brilliant - it's more the omission of players who are still young (or late starters) who have performed strongly that troubles me.

All of this is based on actual tournament performance, no X Factor being quantifiable. One thing that Steven pointed out that I suppose might be the case - is it possible that funding has been offered to the likes of Dan E, Jamie B, Neil P, Sam M - but for whatever reason refused? I find it very unlikely, but still worth mentioning.

 

Doesn't matter what we think, decision's been made now, so onwards and upwards

 

 

-- Edited by korriban on Thursday 6th of December 2012 03:59:48 PM

What no Boggo?

There is also a charity Tennis First that offers grants to a number of juniors: http://www.tennisfirst.org.uk/grantees.php

I'll admit I was partially trying to play the role of devils advocate and it certainly seems to have provoked a significant response.
If one was to look into this in more depth, this is how you could look at it.
When George was a junior his record was anything from a very average player to one of the best juniors in the world, I'll even argue that on his day he was unbeatable. Now as a senior if I remember correctly he won a futures title before his 19th birthday, showing again alot of potential for such a young player. This year has clearly been a very difficult year for George and I for one wouldn't have been surprised to have seen him omitted from this list. Now he hasn't so clearly the powers that be still believe in him and feel that he can rediscover his world class junior form. So for me the decision could have gone either way and I am happy that they have made this one because when confident and playing well he looks like a player that could be in the top 100 one day.
As for Neil, he was a decent junior but not world class, I don't know whether he has ever received much funding from the LTA. Now suddenly out of nowhere the guy produces form which suggests given time he could do some damage at Challenger level. As others have said his pick up in form could have come after the deadline date, I don't know whether there is any flexiblity there. Now within the LTA they have to make a funding decision for a whole year based on a 3 month period of improved results, about a player who hasn't shown as much potential before. Again I'm sure it was a tough decision but I don't at the moment see him as a top 100 player in the future,although top 200 is definitely a possiblity.
The argument is similar for Sam. Late season form has suggested that she could be a fixture in the top 200, but we only have a months set of results to verify that, also potentially after the cut off date. If Sam had shown this form for the full year I would have 100% given her the full funding. I'm sure both Neil and Sam will get additional help with coaching costs and travel expenses if not anywhere near the maximum level of funding.

Wondered how long it would take for Evo to comment on his removal. From twitter - "Nice to see my "attitude" is once again in question #politics". Hasn't really been a mention of his admission as everyone has been focused, and rightly so in my opinion, on the three glaring ones who have missed out. Anybody surprised with his removal? I think most if not everyone is in agreement of his talent but also how frustrating he is, have they finally run out of patience with him? I don't necessarily disagree with him being left out but sometimes he is their golden boy, in DC etc., then nothing. Could possibly be sending him mixed messages? Bit of an enigma for me is Dan.

Neil, Fitzy (both of them) & Naomi are all at an age where they would need to be top 100 meet the Matrix A eligibility requirement.

Aegon Future Stars is basically everyone who meets the Matrix A/B/C requirements on those spreadsheets I linked - 477 players last year, who get the amount of funding on the sheet.

-- Edited by RBBOT on Friday 7th of December 2012 09:40:16 AM