2013 Team AEGON announcement

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: 2013 Team AEGON announcement

indiana · Tennis legend

While I diverge on the men vs women ranking point, I do think you make a number of really excellent points, CD.

philwrig · Hall of fame

It is tougher to achieve a top 500 mens ranking than a top 500 womens ranking, all those inside the game will confirm that.

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

"The total allocation for funding senior players will drop from £770,000 this year to £503,000 next year." - The first time I've been aware of actual figures. No idea of the breakdown. Personally I think it's crazy to fund the likes of Laura and Heather when they are earning serious money, even before sponsorship deals.

Salmon · Tennis legend

I think we need to settle this debate by getting Nadal and Serena to play world numbers 496-505 in ATP and WTA, respetively, and then counting the points that they win.

But seriously, there are far more male tennis players with pro-aspirations than there are female players with the same, so it's safe to assume that there's much greater depth in the men's game. There are countless societies where, given the economic freedom, men can pursue whatever profession they want, but women cannot even think of playing a sport at an amateur level, so let us not assume that it takes equal ability to get to the top 500. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's easy to get into the top 500 in the women's game... and indeed, most of us can only dream of being even the 10000th best at whatever we do in this 7 billion strong world.

Sim · County player

indiana wrote:
Yes, I tend to agree about the age 24 thing. Sue Barker came out with the old bumph "well if you haven't really made it by 24..etc" Some folk need hit over the head with some facts and stats. The existing matrices already began to be far too against older players from I think just about 22 on.

I don't recall all the details about the men v women matrix targets. But I certainly think there is very much greater depth in the men's game so certainly an arguement that women players destined for the top / near the top should be significantly higher ranked to be worthy of funding as opposed to the men.

Not too surprising that Sue Barker would say that - she won 4 titles in her teens and the French open aged 20, but agree that was a different era, and the age players break through is rising

indiana · Tennis legend

Not really following your logic here, Paul.

If men's tennis is deeper globally that surely means a man has to be of a relatively higher standard to get to whatever ranking, i.e. essentially relatively better, and as I have already suggested closer in quality to the top players and probably more likely to "make it".

If the standard "all down the rankings", say for the top 1,000, is higher on the men's side ( and like Phil, I see little doubt about this ) then you are already accepting that the equivalent ranked men's player is of a higher relative standard. You talk it about it being no more "difficult" to get into the top 500 from unranked. But you have to be relatively better to do so, and say to move from WR 500 to 300. How easier it is to be ranked at all in the first place is irrelevant.

I can see the possible unease about making a distinction, but I do think it reasonable if trying to target funding to the most likely to succeed. And with more limited funding, that is more than ever the case. I see much more arguement for equality at the absolute top end of the men's and women's game than much further down the scale where the quality is not nearly as deep ( I believe Wimbledon does not pay equal prize money all the way down to the early rounds, unless there has been a very recent change ). I see an arguement for similarly lower ranked men getting both better prize money and better funding, while recognising the unease that causes some from an "equality" angle. I guess my arguement would be that the equivalent lower ranked players are not of relatively equal ability as against the top players.

Frankly, if a good coach got hold of similar good ability boys and girls and basically coached them as well over many years, the girls would generally end up higher ranked, because it is simply "easier" and less relative ability is needed to achieve a certain ranking in the women's game.

I said earlier I wouldn't go to the wall on this LOL. But hey, nothing like a good arguement when I have confidence in my case.

Salmon · Tennis legend

I'm not suggesting that the LTA decrease the age limit for the girls (two wrongs etc. etc.), but I can't believe that they'll stop funding at the age of 24 for both, because females tend to develop (and retire) at an earlier age.

No. of players who are 24 or less in the WTA top 100 - I could find 50.
No. of players who are 24 or less in the ATP top 100 - I could find 17.

No. of players who are 30 or more in the WTA top 100 - I could find 14.
No. of players who are 30 or more in the ATP top 100 - I could find 22.

confuse

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, I do see a strong arguement for a British man lower ranked on a global scale than a British woman getting more money.

That is essentially because, as Salmon says, there are far more males than females globally with pro-aspirations, "so it's safe to assume that there's much greater depth in the men's game".

If I could greatly exagerrate this to make a point :

If there were say 10,000 men with any sort of pro tennis aspirations and just 500 women, would you say that the 200th best woman deserved the same rewards as the 200th best man ? I suggest that that would be ludicrous. The actual figures diverge from this ( to what I don't know ) but the principle of the actual non equality of a similar ranking remains, therefore the case for non equality of reward.

There are many many careers that have many more men in them than women or also women than men. But we don't expect to generally have the 200th best man in a certain occupation rewarded the same as the 200th best woman !

Salmon · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
If the top two unranked Brits end up 700 on the men's and 400 on the womens, I wouldn't say that was because the men's tour is harder, but because the women was comparatively a better player to start with. Does that make any sense? Probably not lol. I'm confusing myself now...

Assuming that I'm thinking what you're thinking, I agree with this.

PaulM · Tennis legend

It's a good point Salmon. The womens game was shifting to more older players (at a slower rate than in the men's game) but has started to come down again with a few teenagers breaking through over the past year? I think long term the pattern will increase though.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

There's been a fair bit of twittering going on by the GB girls:

Needless to say, most are really not impressed, but it doesn't some across as sour grapes:

Georgia Craven ‏@GeorgiaCraven 8 Nov

There are less than 10 people in the whole world who hit the 1994 criteria for A matrix funding.......

And others pointing out that, for instance, Joko would never have made the requirements etc. etc.

korriban · Challenger level

I'm not going to pretend that any of this is easy, because it clearly isn't. I'm sure we all agree that young players in an expensive sport, where matches are played all over the world DO need a certain amount of funding to help them on their way - even the greats of the game would have needed money to get them through their formative years.

However, even with a drastic cut in elite funding, and therefore less GB players able to benefit (or perhaps the same number receiving less money), it would still leave GB players in a relatively good position compared to most other nations in the world, including many of the leading lights. Sometimes this gets forgotten!

philwrig · Hall of fame

Coup Droit wrote:
There's been a fair bit of twittering going on by the GB girls:

Needless to say, most are really not impressed, but it doesn't some across as sour grapes:

Georgia Craven ‏@GeorgiaCraven 8 Nov

There are less than 10 people in the whole world who hit the 1994 criteria for A matrix funding.......

And others pointing out that, for instance, Joko would never have made the requirements etc. etc.

JoKo was a top 10 junior, or very nearly, so if thats correct maybe it is a bit too tough, but JoKo ticks every single box and then some, so I'm happy that if there ever was any special treatment she 100% deserved it.

PaulM · Tennis legend

God Neil is grumpy these days isn't he? Not that long ago journos were moaning about doubles being so heavily funded, and now they moan it's withdrawn, despite ignoring what the players are saying (mostly they aren't bothered because they still get free access to Cayer and are now making decent money and playing ATP events which have good per diem allowances and/or discounted/free hospitality so the loss of a travel subsidy isn't such a big deal)