2013 Team AEGON announcement

LordBrownof · Futures level

RE: 2013 Team AEGON announcement

indiana · Tennis legend

LordBrownof wrote:
Also - quick question, Liam but not Naomi? Seems a strange decision whether that be the Broady's to the LTA's.

If Neil is in play, surely Fitzy should be too?

Whether Naomi was this year prepared to be included or not I am not surprised that she hasn't been. With the year she has had I imagined she would be well off meeting the relevant targets ( confirmed by RBBOT ), and I don't see any special circumstances.

And Fitzy, although he has made a real move up the rankings this year I wouldn't have thought that he had reached a level to be included here ( and again clearly did not get anywhere near the actual target ). Nor does he generally fit in with what make's Neil one to more excite, just starting again in March after 20 months out and not just moving up the rankings from obviously NR, but also with an increasing rate of improvement, if probably too late for any September rigidity. So again not surprised at all by Fitzy's exclusion. I know he has apparently started some job, do we know if he is turning away from pro tennis anyway, or is this just say to earn some extra much needed dosh ?

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 7th of December 2012 05:53:08 PM

SMC1809 · All-time great

alex03maccy wrote:
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.

I think Evo's tweet was in response to Mike 'Dicko by name...' Dickson who couldn't help himself twist the knife into Evo just a little bit more, making reference to his supposed tweets about nightclubs.

indiana · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
The selection meeting for seniors was mid-November, the September meeting was just for juniors.

Oh dear, don't be telling us that ( thanks really ), just when I'd been relatively molified re Neil and Sam. I guess Sam's 75K + H Japan semi final ( and 58 points ) came after mid November ( and for the pernickety, as distinct to the reasonable, Neil's second future title points might not have been added in then, not that the case for him is based on just his ranking ).

Do you know if the targets were against mid November rankings ?

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 7th of December 2012 11:26:12 PM

wolf · Tennis legend

The selection meeting for seniors was mid-November, the September meeting was just for juniors.

korriban · Challenger level

Indy. However we look at this, the 3 or 4 non- picks previously highlighted are bizarre. And of these, Neil's non-selection remains the most baffling, as his results were known ahead of the selection meeting, he is still young, he won 2 tournaments , his form was continuing to improve, and he fought back bravely from injury. Furthermore, with only 9 months of playing activity, it,s even harder to hit a ranking position which counts 12 months of performance. My question is this. If Neil hits 250 by the selection date in 2013, another 200 positions gained, could the LTA pass him over again? I'm sure they could construct an argument to do so. Neither of the 2 senior player omissions we have highlighted have been challenged in the press, because the press hasn't reported on those 2 particular players much (possibly at all) this year. The press writes about Edmund, Golding, Broady, Bambridge, Morgan plus all the more senior singles and doubles players that COULD make inroads at ATP or WTA events, or play Davis and Fed Cup, even if they dont do that well in those events. Arguably if any of these players had their funding dropped, you might have a journalist challenge it, especially if they tweet to each other all the time! These player/journo relationships create higher risks for the LTA. With the Sams and Neils, who dont tweet to journos, and dont get written up, arguably, theres no PR risk. I honestly think that potential "press reaction" is a factor in some of these border line decisions. Both ways. I strongly suspect that if a Neil Harman or equivalent had by chance picked up on Neil's story (battling back from long term injury and succeeding) or Sam's story (going down the College route and rising up the rankings faster, later) during the year, they would now have funding. Thats the way things often work.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Having done some research whilst I enjoy listening to England clean up the Indian tail, I'm going to take back my point on Jazzi Plews non-inclusion. She is actually the unselected player who met the selection criteria by the widest margin, so has a far better case for being hard done by than some of the older players, and should have been included without any calls of nepotism. Especially if they had made the decisions on Juniors at a sensible time with the adults instead of in September.

Player	Criteria	Met?
Elena Baltacha	Not published but assume top 100	No, but met before injury
Luke Bambridge	Top 50 ITF or 1000 ATP	Yes, WR 789
Liam Broady	Top 700 ATP	No, WR 873, and WR 9 in Juniors
Eleanor Dean	Top 50 ITF or 600 WTA	No, only 7 places short
Katy Dunne	Top 30 ITF or 500 WTA	No, but only 1 place short today
Kyle Edmund	Top 50 ITF or 1000 ATP	Yes, WR 568
Colin Fleming	Top 100 ATP?	Yes, WR 22
Oliver Golding	Top 500 ATP	Yes, WR 429
Evan Hoyt	Top 50 ITF or 1000 ATP	No, was 19 places short in the ITF ranking
Ross Hutchins	Top 100 ATP?	Yes, WR 26
Dominic Inglot	Top 100 ATP?	Yes, WR 40
Anne Keothavong	Not published but assume top 100	No, but 80 before injury
Johanna Konta	Top 200 WTA	Yes, WR 156
Jonny Marray	Top 100 ATP?	Yes, WR 17
James Marsalek	Top 350 ATP	No, a long way short at WR 615
Tara Moore	Top 250 WTA	No, 13 short
George Morgan	Top 500 ATP	No, a long way short at WR 815
Laura Robson	Top 300 WTA	Yes, WR 53
James Ward	Top 100 ATP	No, reached 137 before injury
Josh Ward-Hibbert	Top 700 ATP	No, a long way short at WR 1239, but ITF 15 at review
Heather Watson	Top 200 WTA	Yes, WR 49

And those it has been suggested should have been included, or haven't been mentioned and did make the grade:

Player	Criteria	Met?
Harriet Dart	Top 50 ITF or 600 WTA	No, ITF 113 / WTA 811 today, 231/944 at review
Jazzi Plews	Top 700 ITF	Yes, WR 114 now, WR 281 at review meeting.
Samantha Murray	Top 100 WTA	No, WR 288
Neil Pauffley	Top 150 ATP	No, WR 458
Jamie Baker	Top 100 ATP	No, WR 248
Dan Evans	Top 150 ATP	No, WR 295
Andrew Fitzpatrick	Top 100 ATP	No, WR 505
Naomi Broady	Top 150 WTA	No, WR 293
Katie Boulter	Top 50 ITF or 600 WTA	No, WR 152 now, WR 248 in September
Lana Rush	Top 400 ITF	Yes, WR 188 now, WR 246 in September
Ana Brogan	Top 400 ITF	Yes, WR 253 now, WR 304 in September
Freya Christie	Top 400 ITF	Yes, WR 343 now, WR 353 in September
Peter Ashley	Top 150 ITF	Yes, WR 140 now, WR 114 in September

-- Edited by RBBOT on Saturday 8th of December 2012 10:16:27 AM

korriban · Challenger level

At the end of 2012, both Oli and Neil will have 77 ranking points. That's a 22 year old who achieved this from an unranked starting point, playing qualies and/ or unseeded in futures in just 9 months without full Aegon support or a major third party sponsor. And a 19 year old who did it from a starting point of a 650 ranking in 11 months with full Aegon support and a major sponsor. Both are young men in tennis terms. Both did well and should be applauded and commended. If you use the LTA automatic selection criteria, all Oli would need to do is move up about 80 places in 2013 on his current ranking (about 100 on his year end ranking) and he would be an automatic pick for 2014, even if this would be for him, and for most of us, a rather underwhelming improvement. Because of his age and the rigid formulas. If Neil rises 350 places next year, he would still not qualify automatically. Even if he has risen to just outside the top 100 after less than 2 years on the tour, his age means he wouldn't be an automatic pick. All of this at a time when male players are peaking much later (are there any teenagers in the top 200 at all?), and playing to a peak standard for longer. And in an age where the US college option is attracting more and more players, further blurring the traditional age-ranking progression curve. It would be foolish for the LTA to abandon the age criterion in their protocols altogether. Clearly there would be no point wasting money on players who have toiled away for many years or players in their late 20s who have never previously enjoyed success. But if players have had a long break for whatever reason, I'd argue that they would be better judged on their rate of progress since returning to the tour, not on rigid age-ranking formulas. Clearly the James Marsalek selection and even George Morgan shows thinking outside rigid rules, and I would strongly back both on a long term view (which can always be changed next year). Which is why I find Neils predicament so baffling in the extreme. I'd love to understand what he hasn't got or achieved, which both the other boys have or did!

-- Edited by korriban on Saturday 8th of December 2012 12:35:51 PM

-- Edited by korriban on Saturday 8th of December 2012 12:36:41 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

I presume those are intelligent folk at the LTA who have given the matrices some great thought, and like korriban says you do need an age basis..

BUT to me this is far too dramatic a climb in still early 20s :

Age 19 this year : WR 500, 20 WR 350. 21 WR 250, 22 WR 150 and 23 WR 100

So in their theory at least, a 22 yo outside WR 150 or 23 yo outside WR 100 doesn't qualify. We and they should be so ruddy lucky !. I simply think these still early 20 targets are too low. 22 and 23 are still quite young in world terms, LTA ! I'd have it much flatter after 20 /21, they've done their junior years and introduction to the senior ranks, just lets see how high players can get through their early 20s. I really fear very few players who really pick up at these ages and / or have clearly extenuating circumstances will ever get picked up, because the LTA seem to have this extreme ageist mindset. If they've already identified you and you are sooo much younger at 19 / 20 keep on funding ( and fair enough if they still really believe in such guys ). But it appears 19 / 20 is looked on as still very young and they can make it and 22 / 23 is sooo old furious .

George and James M are miles short and stuck with. So is Neil and although 2 - 3 years older than them, he has lost 20 months so has effectively lost a lot of development time, and after less than 9 months back is already much higher ranked than them and quite clearly had an improving result profile as these months have unfolded.

Neil Pauflley was a guy to have been picked up and gone with, and I have seen nothing here to make me think otherwise. And it would also have sent out all the right messages to these that maybe weren't great juniors but have really found something in their early 20s.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 8th of December 2012 03:30:06 PM

Spectator · All-time great

I would agree that the issue is the linking of targets so clearly with year of birth, which makes no allowance for injury or alternate career plans. (De facto it means that no student graduating from university and starting on the Tour in a given year is likely to get funding for his/her first full year on Tour. Is that sensible?)

Some additional category for people who improved dramatically in a given year because (a) they had returned from injury, (b) they had emerged from a college programme, (c) they just suddenly got it together would be helpful. Sustaining momentum and all that.

Would be really curious to know whether there's any thought given to support for people returning from university. There were some people who had very good careers there: I haven't really followed, but just from the odd scan of Zootennis, the names of Ashley Watling and Vicky Brook come to mind. (Neal Skupski, too, but he doesn't really count, as I would guess he has a support network via family).

steven · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
So in their theory at least, a 22 yo outside WR 150 or 23 yo outside WR 100 doesn't qualify. We and they should be so ruddy lucky !. I simply think these still early 20 targets are too low. 22 and 23 are still quite young in world terms, LTA ! I'd have it much flatter after 20 /21, they've done their junior years and introduction to the senior ranks, just lets see how high players can get through their early 20s. I really fear very few players who really pick up at these ages and / or have clearly extenuating circumstances will ever get picked up, because the LTA seem to have this extreme ageist mindset. If they've already identified you and you are sooo much younger at 19 / 20 keep on funding ( and fair enough if they still really believe in such guys ). But it appears 19 / 20 is looked on as still very young and they can make it and 22 / 23 is sooo old .
George and James M are miles short and stuck with. So is Neil and although 2 - 3 years older than them, he has lost 20 months so has effectively lost a lot of development time, and after less than 9 months back is already much higher ranked than them and quite clearly had an improving result profile as these months have unfolded.
Neil Pauflley was a guy to have been picked up and gone with, and I have seen nothing here to make me think otherwise. And it would also have sent out all the right messages to these that maybe weren't great juniors but have really found something in their early 20s.

Those really are ridiculous targets given the how late players all around the world are developing later these days, but I've always thought the stupidest thing is how reluctant they seem to be to support players who weren't top juniors but have found something later on.

Not least because those players who have had to managed to make progress the hard way (i.e. without being funded) are surely the players who are most likely to make the best use of any funding they get and the least likely to take it for granted.

korriban · Challenger level

Completely agree with Steven and Indiana.

There are a few additional somewhat strange aspects to the principles and selection policy of this funding. I'm not going to double check all the T&Cs, so much of this is from memory, but the spirirt of comments I hope will be accurate.

1. Proposing automatic maximum funding for doubles players in the top 50 ATP. Why? This is the reason why Dom Inglot (well done for a great year) now has full funding - no consideration required, he qualifies by right due to the selection rules. As Steven points out, we all enjoy doubles, but what is the point of funding (coaching, travel and prize money top ups) players who are already very highly ranked in doubles over players who could potentially be highly ranked in singles. Will the general public recall Jonny Marray's name in 2 years time (sorry Jonny - only making a general point). With respect, even at the WTFs half the crowd was missing during the doubles. Surely the LTA should be prioritising scarse funds into supporting high potential "young" singles players, not doubles players, especially those already successes. Why would Jonny need the LTAs money NOW after winning Wimbledon, but not when he was fighting to survive a year ago??? LTA support shouldn't be a reward for ultimate success, it should be awarded on merit to developing talent as a means to ultimate success!!!!

2. Offering BOTH travel AND prize money top-ups to our highest ranking players. Why? I completely agree with making NTC assets and resources available to ALL top/high potential singles and doubles players ("for free"), because this is effectively a sunk cost. But once players automatically qualify for funding because of top 50 or top 100 ranking, eg Laura, Heather, and our 4 doubles awardees, I don't understand why the LTA also subsidises BOTH travel and prize-money. Surely at these highly competitive rankings, the LTA should support travel OR prize money, but not both. I know there is an annual prize money limit, whereupon funding is reduced, but surely players at these high rankings must be able to pay their way somehow!! I'm sure both have passed the prize money cut-off points so won't receive bonuses, but can it be the case that Laura and Heather still have their travel subsidised by the LTA. And if so why?

3. Funding senior players who appear to be on the wane, physically and from a results perspective. Why? The fact that Elena and Annie were formally announced as part of the funding programme implies they are still receiving benefits beyond just NTC and LTA coaching and medical/training support, despite being both 29 and having both been top 50 players. However much I like both of them, with limited LTA resources, I don't understand why they are still so highly funded and not more self sufficient. If THEY believe they can still be winners, at what point should (or "must") the burden of funding switch to the player. It is probable that both players have received 10-15 years worth of maximum available funding - perhaps there should be a limit to the number of years it can be given to a player. From an emotional, loyalty and bad PR avoidance point of view, I understand why it would be hard to remove funding from top players like these, but from a logical point of view they are never at this late age going to be what I would term "top players" (sneaking back into the top 75-100 for a few months doesn't count), and after many years of given them financial and technical backing, I would prefer now to put support funds elsewhere, lower in the food chain.

4. Tieing automatic funding to ranking and age band rigidly, when age-ranking curves are flattening and when injuries/college further blur the tradional "rules". Why? This topic has been discussed at length in the last week, and I think the arguments have been made. Sam Murray and Neil Pauffley are the 2 players who most clearly fall foul of this problem. As Steven and Indy point out, as well as recognising "exceptions", we should also flatten the ranking jumps required to receive auto-funding in the early 20s. They are unrealistic.

5. Membership of "chosen" LTA training and travel groups and GB teams in international team competitions seem to trump actual performance for funding awards. Why? The entire elite boys junior "posse" over the last 2 years have all received full funding (Morgan, Golding, Edmund, Broady, Bambridge, Ward-Hibbert, Hoyt) en masse even though there is a strong divergence in actual performance among them - to say the least! The Fed Cup and Olympic squad are all in, despite age and performance being questions for some. I would imagine Greg Rusedski would have been furious if any of his Junior Davis Cup squad were passed over. At a time when the absolute number of awardees is being continually cut, I believe all of this is doubly unfair. In others words, if you are "outside" its even harder to get on the "inside", especially if those on the "inside" get 1 or 2 extra bites of the cherry.

6. I note with interest that the Daily Mail ran a story about Dan Evans having his funding cut, and linking it to poor attitude (his amazing Davis Cup wins weren't mentioned). Where did that story and view point come from? None of us can really comment on this with real knowledge, however in some ways it is extremely useful for the LTA to have the Dan's and Tara's of this world from a PR point of view - they can spin stories about them positively or negatively to position themselves as hard/brutal forgiving/open-minded realistic/long-termist as required - it seems to me the PR angle may be playing a bigger role in decision-making than we should perhaps be comfortable with.

Never a perfect answer, but with limited funds and unlimited ambitions, my sense is that avoidance of PR concerns (by sticking with journo and celebrity coach friendly "names"), loyalty to the LTA teams and training groups, and undue focus on doubles may be real barriers to maximising singles success. Am I off the mark?

-- Edited by korriban on Monday 10th of December 2012 12:32:31 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

korriban wrote:
......
5. Membership of "chosen" LTA training and travel groups and GB teams in international team competitions seem to trump actual performance for funding awards. Why? The entire elite boys junior "posse" over the last 2 years have all received full funding (Morgan, Golding, Edmund, Broady, Bambridge, Ward-Hibbert, Hoyt) en masse even though there is a strong divergence in actual performance among them - to say the least! The Fed Cup and Olympic squad are all in, despite age and performance being questions for some. I would imagine Greg Rusedski would have been furious if any of his Junior Davis Cup squad were passed over. At a time when the absolute number of awardees is being continually cut, I believe all of this is doubly unfair. In others words, if you are "outside" its even harder to get on the "inside", especially if those on the "inside" get 1 or 2 extra bites of the cherry.
6. I note with interest that the Daily Mail ran a story about Dan Evans having his funding cut, and linking it to poor attitude (his amazing Davis Cup wins weren't mentioned). Where did that story and view point come from? None of us can really comment on this with real knowledge, however in some ways it is extremely useful for the LTA to have the Dan's and Tara's of this world from a PR point of view - they can spin stories about them positively or negatively to position themselves as hard/brutal forgiving/open-minded realistic/long-termist as required - it seems to me the PR angle may be playing a bigger role in decision-making than we should perhaps be comfortable with.
Never a perfect answer, but with limited funds and unlimited ambitions, my sense is that avoidance of PR concerns (by sticking with journo and celebrity coach friendly "names"), loyalty to the LTA teams and training groups, and undue focus on doubles may be real barriers to maximising singles success. Am I off the mark?

No, as you can guess from me, I pretty much agree with most of your post.

In many ways 1 to 4 are process and while some of it is very strange I accept that folk can look at process differently.

But particularly 5 & then 6 though are really in many ways the most worrying and have various potential effects on some of the process decsions re 1 to 4. I have tried hard not to go there in this thread, though I have made observations about the PR side of the LTA before, particularly with regards to Roger Draper and the movement and spin on such as targets

What you are essentially saying is that there appears grounds to believe that they have an "in" crowd they support, essentially those that are already being supported and / or very much part of LTA groups, giving every possible chance for these folk to come through. And then an "out" crowd who are basically treated unfairly against them. And also that they are overconcerned about PR. I would actually find the "in" crowd matter and the PR considerations that may partly bring this about quite nauseating if true. The trouble though that I have is that I see little to dissuade me from thinking that you could be on the right lines here, and as I said I already believe there has been a fair amount of evidence of overconcern with PR in the past.

To anyone who would say it is understandable to be supportive and want to prove these already in the system as against others, I would simply answer that it would be blatantly unfair and that is no position to be in for a major sporting body in this country.

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 10th of December 2012 06:35:01 PM

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Funded players don't get prize money top ups. To quote the LTA site:

The Tournament Bonus Scheme (TBS) aims to reward those players competing in Futures, Challengers and ATP/WTA tours. This scheme is open to any player not already on a player contract.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Just a couple of brief points.
1. I know a little about Dan Evan's situation but I don't think it would be appropriate to comment about it on a public forum.
2. As for Neil's position I make this point. A player that suddenly develops form which suggests he could reach the level of a say a Jamie Baker who doesn't get funding, should he get full funding either ? Remember there are plenty of players around the same age or younger with a similar ranking who don't receive the full funding either.
3. Funding players like Bally and Anne I still feel is right given that by British standards they have had stellar careers. They don't have huge bank balances so this money is vital to extend their careers.
4. Funding younger players who don't appear to be progressing is clearly an area for debate, but we don't have the full information available so again it is difficult to criticise withot this full information to hand.
5. I don't think people will forget Jonny's heriocs as it happened at Wimby and again he now has a bit of cash but certainly not a huge amount.