does it not mean 16 college players in top 500 compared to 13 brits?

Yes, I took it just as adz and huntley.

Gawd knows what this shows regards Ed other than the vestiges of some pretty ropey theory, I don't know.

Maybe, lots of good ranked tennis college tennis player, Ed went to college, he's turning out good, more Brits should go to college.

Dearie me ! Anyway, apply via Sarah Borwell at...

Personally I would rather see someone commit to the degree they really want to do or commit completely to their tennis career. I'm not sure what the long-term benefit is of a 50-50 compromise, despite the success of Anderson etc.

steven wrote:

---

adz1983 wrote:

---

I read it as there are 16 college players in the top 500. There are 13 Brits in the top 500.
0 college players in top 100.1 Brit in top 100...

---

Thanks - me being slow.  So I guess she's saying if college tennis is treated as a country, this is how it compares with GB. Or something like that. (I'm ill, hence brain even more confused than usual)

---

 My only issue (actually 2 issues) with this is that she says there are no college players in top 100. Thats not a good advert. Linked to this she is doing herself an injustice because didnt Isner play for University of Georgia? Last time I checked he was well and truly in the top 100

Yes, not only did Isner play at university, but so did Kevin Anderson (29), Brian Baker (56 - though under odd circumstances), Michael Russell (72), Benjamin Becker (85), James Blake (95), Jesse Levine (97) ... and among the doubles players, the Bryans, Scott Lipsky (26), Treat Huey (27), Fleming (28), Inglot (42), Butorac (44), Ram (48 and 104 singles), Brunstrom (53), Farah (57), Skupski (62) ... at which point I stopped counting.

There may be others; I just looked at people whom I seemed to recall had been mentioned at one point or another as having played on university teams. Not all of them, of course, graduated.

I think university is a brilliant option if you're not a "special," like Mr Murray or Mr Djokovic. It worries me hugely that some young players are being encouraged effectively to drop out of education at 16 (though presumably this will change as the legal age for leaving school changes) when the chances of their "making it" as a professional player are so slim. If they don't "make it," what happens? They play on the futures circuit for five or six years ... not a bad thing to do! ... but then what have they been prepared to do? Coaching, possibly ... but what if they're not necessarily of a temperament to coach well? Coaching is itself a gift ...

And from a tennis side, of those in the UK who have "made it," (top 100 singles or doubles, so that you earn enough to keep going), almost half of the current lot are former university players ... many of whom credit the university training with at least part of their success.

Oh, and sorry for saying sorry in the wrong thread ! Should have been after my post in the US Challenger thread ( re Petzschner ).