Girls: 30° Torneo Internazionale U18 Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy - Grade 2 (Week 18)

DavidC · Tennis legend

Girls: 30° Torneo Internazionale U18 Salsomaggiore Terme, Italy - Grade 2 (Week 18)

Spectator · All-time great

That's a nice win.

PockyTastic · Futures level

Lana won her 2nd round match in 3 sets.

DavidC · Tennis legend

Next up is a top 50 ranked player, who recently won a G2 event in France.

R2

(6) Lana Rush (GBR) d. Eva Zagorac (SLO) 6-1 2-6 6-4

QF

(6) Lana Rush (GBR) v (2) Fiona Ferro (FRA)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Fiona Ferro is the absolute little darling of French junior tennis at the moment, ranked number one and having made the quarter finals of the Australian Open (junior).

She's already played 38 matches (including domestic matches) this year - 22 victories for 16 defeats - and says that she's not really moving up to adult tennis until she's got her bac.

It'll be really interesting to see how Lana and her shape up (they're exactly the same age).

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of May 2013 08:49:24 AM

TennisKnowHow · Improver

Couple of points on junior tennis:

1. Ranking is irrelevant. Shouldn't be used as an excuse for Lana's failings.

2. Score of a match has nothing to do with ranking disparity. It's all about true level of a player, style of play, etc.

3. Fiona indeed won a grade 2 tournament but also lost two weeks later in 2nd round of Grade 1 to a player with similar ranking to Lana.

4. In tournament where Fiona lost in 2nd round, another GBR player (ranked over 600) came through qualies and took out player with similar ranking to Lana quite easily 4 & 1. Moreover, the 600+ ranked GBR player almost beat player ranked 17th (ranked higher than Fiona) in very close match (1st set tie-break & 2nd set 7-5). According to assertion in this post (due to ranking disparity) score should have been 6-0, 6-0 to the 17 ranked player against the over 600 ranked GBR player. If 37 against 143 ranking is big, what about 17 against over 600 ranking, ASTRONOMICAL??? Yet score was very tight. Probably only experience gave the 17 ranked player the edge.

Point is this: you have to see a player in action to tell their true standard rather than make jugements on results/ranking/rating, etc.

Ranking shouldn't be taken seriously. All mainly depends on who has money to travel around world to play in at times low standard tournaments to collect points.

Finally, the standard of and in French junior & senior tennis is better in all aspect than in UK. An unranked French junior can beat a top 200 ranked UK player at times with ease. Don't be surprised.

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:16:58 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:18:11 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:20:01 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:25:33 PM

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Thanks for the insight Coup Droit. Same age but big ranking difference - 37 to 143. Good luck to Lana!

DavidC · Tennis legend

The big ranking difference was reflected in the scoreline unfortunately. Lana does have a doubles semi to play this evening

QF

(2) Fiona Ferro (FRA) d. (6) Lana Rush (GBR) 6-2 6-1

Spectator · All-time great

Welcome, TennisKnowHow. And thank you for your post. Just to note that my guess is that DavidC, who is a fount of knowledge on junior players, was using ranking as a shorthand here. He (and many on this board) are aware that junior rankings are a minefield, given the different strategies for junior/senior development.

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 4th of May 2013 05:45:19 AM

korriban · Challenger level

TennisKnowHow wrote:
Couple of points on junior tennis:
1. Ranking is irrelevant. Shouldn't be used as an excuse for Lana's failings.
2. Score of a match has nothing to do with ranking disparity. It's all about true level of a player, style of play, etc.
3. Fiona indeed won a grade 2 tournament but also lost two weeks later in 2nd round of Grade 1 to a player with similar ranking to Lana.
4. In tournament where Fiona lost in 2nd round, another GBR player (ranked over 600) came through qualies and took out player with similar ranking to Lana quite easily 4 & 1. Moreover, the 600+ ranked GBR player almost beat player ranked 17th (ranked higher than Fiona) in very close match (1st set tie-break & 2nd set 7-5). According to assertion in this post (due to ranking disparity) score should have been 6-0, 6-0 to the 17 ranked player against the over 600 ranked GBR player. If 37 against 143 ranking is big, what about 17 against over 600 ranking, ASTRONOMICAL??? Yet score was very tight. Probably only experience gave the 17 ranked player the edge.
Point is this: you have to see a player in action to tell their true standard rather than make jugements on results/ranking/rating, etc.
Ranking shouldn't be taken seriously. All mainly depends on who has money to travel around world to play in at times low standard tournaments to collect points.
Finally, the standard of and in French junior & senior tennis is better in all aspect than in UK. An unranked French junior can beat a top 200 ranked UK player at times with ease. Don't be surprised.

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:16:58 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:18:11 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:20:01 PM

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:25:33 PM

Welcome to the forum! As a Brit with a French wife, French kids and a French family which includes 1 former player who progressed within the French system until injuries (and talent limitations) persuaded him to stop, I know the points you are making, but I think you are being too black and white about it. I certainly accept that different national approaches to junior development, different access to funding, and massive age gaps between young players makes the ITF rankings much more of a lottery, and a less accurate guide to potential and talent than the pro rankings. I'm sure we all agree. But in the absence of more information, they are a reasonable guide to how matches might go. Coup Droit gave some specific background on Lana's opponent which suggested in this case the rankings were about right.

I suspect the French development system is still superior to the British system and have often made this point, but progress is being made. As for unranked French players beating ranked British ones......well yes, and I'm sure it works the other way round as well, depending on the talent of individual players. Unless you are saying that a French unranked player is inherantly superior to a ranked British one (which I'm sure you didnt mean), which of course is preposterous.

Anyway, great to hear some more views from L'Hexagon. Bien Venu.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

TennisKnowHow wrote:
Couple of points on junior tennis:
1. Ranking is irrelevant. Shouldn't be used as an excuse for Lana's failings.
2. Score of a match has nothing to do with ranking disparity. It's all about true level of a player, style of play, etc.
3. Fiona indeed won a grade 2 tournament but also lost two weeks later in 2nd round of Grade 1 to a player with similar ranking to Lana.
4. In tournament where Fiona lost in 2nd round, another GBR player (ranked over 600) came through qualies and took out player with similar ranking to Lana quite easily 4 & 1. Moreover, the 600+ ranked GBR player almost beat player ranked 17th (ranked higher than Fiona) in very close match (1st set tie-break & 2nd set 7-5). According to assertion in this post (due to ranking disparity) score should have been 6-0, 6-0 to the 17 ranked player against the over 600 ranked GBR player. If 37 against 143 ranking is big, what about 17 against over 600 ranking, ASTRONOMICAL??? Yet score was very tight. Probably only experience gave the 17 ranked player the edge.
Point is this: you have to see a player in action to tell their true standard rather than make jugements on results/ranking/rating, etc.
Ranking shouldn't be taken seriously. All mainly depends on who has money to travel around world to play in at times low standard tournaments to collect points.
Finally, the standard of and in French junior & senior tennis is better in all aspect than in UK. An unranked French junior can beat a top 200 ranked UK player at times with ease. Don't be surprised.

-- Edited by TennisKnowHow on Friday 3rd of May 2013 10:25:33 PM

Welcome to the board. Clearly you hold some frustrations about a junior player you know/are someway involved with being unable to obtain the ranking you think they deserve because of funding. I can understand that must be very difficult, but your points are extremely exaggarated. However I disagree with you on the whole, actually, quite strongly.

Firstly getting to the tournament is only part of the problem, you still have to have the talent and skill to win the tournament once you are there. To say the top juniors are all just products of sufficient financial investment is just ludicrous.

Secondly ranking isnt irrelevant at all. Yes, at juniors, it can be far more misleading than in seniors, true, but when two players are almost identical in age, comparing their ranking is relatively fair. It is different comparing a 16 year old to a 17 year old in terms of ranking, yes.

Finally your comparisons about France being superior to GB in all aspects is embarassing. The FFT does a fantastic job of increasing the number of youngsters playing tennis and I very much credit involvement from Yannick Noah (''Fete le mur'') for getting massive numbers of children involved in tennis. However, France has, for many years now, been a massive underachiever in terms of converting junior success, or early senior success, into long term senior success. Cornet, Gasquet, Monfils...even Tsonga to an extent, all failed to live up to their expectations.

Now look at the generation coming up behind them - Gianni Mina for example, former junior #1 in 2010 now ranked outside the top 700. Mladenovic may have crept into the top 50, but will be 20 this month and still has yet to have claimed any real scalps (she played well at the Paris Open, and got some good wins there, but hasnt sustained that level without the home crowd with her).

Australia have Stosur, USA have Serena and we have Murray. France have had surprise GS finalists in Tsonga and Bartoli, yet their major cabinet sits very empty. The fact that the FFT couldnt even find a way for Bartoli to represent them in the Olympics (hello, who wouldnt want a Wimbledon finalist representing their country on grass?!) says more about their tennis system than I ever could.

korriban · Challenger level

Murray. I think you are perhaps being overly harsh the other way. Andy Murray is a once in a generation type player who would have been a superstar wherever he was born (especially with a Mum like he's got!), but in general the French system is generally in good shape as it gets lots of sporty kids playing, as you confirm, and it produces a large number of top 50/100 players, who regularly win tour level tournaments - The Grand Slam cupboard is bare, but that extra "je ne sais quoi" to be a champion at the highest level needs to come from within.

I'd still swap their grass roots approach for ours any day.

The dispute between Bartoli and the FFT is rather, errr, unique.....as is the lady herself and her Dad. I think it's no surprise that as her Dad's reins have loosened a little, there has been a rapprochement with the Federation.

indiana · Tennis legend

Welcome to the forum, TennisKnowHow.

You are right, of course, that much of the junior tennis rankings can be taken with a pinch of salt, although when mentioned on the forum they are generally just additional infomation and those folk followimg the juniors generally know not to base too much on these, especially for comparative purposes.

There is undoubtably the issue of access to funding, also educational issues, and with many of the better and / or older players, how much they any longer even play juniors, eg. Kyle Edmund has moved on and is quite clearly rather better than the 73nd best junior in the world or 3rd Brit behind Luke Bambridge and Jonny O'Mara.

Add to all that the mix of so many difgerent ages, at different development stages and, yes, with different opportunity levels and I don't think anyone here would remotely take the JWRs as any sort of definitive order. I do think you maybe picked up wrongly on how significantly these were taken here. Of some interrst, yes, but subject to all of the above.

Re Andy Murray, you are quite right, Andy Murray is not a product of the British system, he is a product of his parents, more particularly mother, and the genes but more particularly the tennis upbringing he was given in Scotland and then Spain

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 7th of May 2013 12:03:59 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Oops, didnt mean to send that ...anyway continuing..

Basically, I was just going to say that I totally agree with korriban and yourself that comparisons of the absolute top / Grand Slam champions is much less relevant to a system than just how many generally extremely good players does the system produce. The often intangible extra indeed more comes from within.

It is undeniably the case that it is far far more relevant that GB has just one men's tennis player in the top 200 than one player of Andy's level, and that would still be the case even if he was actually a product of the system. There is clearly no comparison to the number of top players the French system, for one, produces.

The whys and wherefores of this are discussed from time to time in various levels of depth on the forum with different emphases on how culpable the LTA is and how much is cultural and / or outwith their control.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 7th of May 2013 12:04:39 PM

TennisKnowHow · Improver

murray_2k9 wrote:
ÃâÃÂ Welcome to the board. Clearly you hold some frustrations about a junior player you know/are someway involved with being unable to obtain the ranking you think they deserve because of funding. I can understand that must be very difficult, but your points are extremely exaggarated. However I disagree with you on the whole, actually, quite strongly.

Firstly getting to the tournament is only part of the problem, you still have to have the talent and skill to win the tournament once you are there. To say the top juniors are all just products of sufficient financial investment is just ludicrous.ÃâÃÂ
Secondly ranking isnt irrelevant at all. Yes, at juniors, it can be far more misleading than in seniors, true, but when two players are almost identical in age, comparing their ranking is relatively fair. It is different comparing a 16 year old to a 17 year old in terms of ranking, yes.ÃâÃÂ
Finally your comparisons about France being superior to GB in all aspects is embarassing. The FFT does a fantastic job of increasing the number of youngsters playing tennis and I very much credit involvement from Yannick Noah (''Fete le mur'') for getting massive numbers of children involved in tennis. However, France has, for many years now, been a massive underachiever in terms of converting junior success, or early senior success, into long term senior success. Cornet, Gasquet, Monfils...even Tsonga to an extent, all failed to live up to their expectations.ÃâÃÂ
Now look at the generation coming up behind them - Gianni Mina for example, former junior #1 in 2010 now ranked outside the top 700. Mladenovic may have crept into the top 50, but will be 20 this month and still has yet to have claimed any real scalps (she played well at the Paris Open, and got some good wins there, but hasnt sustained that level without the home crowd with her).ÃâÃÂ
Australia have Stosur, USA have Serena and we have Murray. France have had surprise GS finalists in Tsonga and Bartoli, yet their major cabinet sits very empty. The fact that the FFT couldnt even find a way for Bartoli to represent them in the Olympics (hello, who wouldnt want a Wimbledon finalist representing their country on grass?!) says more about their tennis system than I ever could.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks all for the points of view. This discussion is very healthy as far as I am concerned. Murray's example about Gianni Mina being former junior #1 but now ranked outside top 700 in Seniors is an excellent example that supports (without him knowing) my assertion that junior ranking is irrelevant and shouldn't be taken seriously. Thanks for that example.

Access to funding has a massive impact on where players stand in junior rankings. I can elaborate on this if you want. The phrase "top junior" is only good for publicity and doesn't mean much. I will borrow your Gianni Mina example as a case in point. The higher echelon of the junior ranking is populated with average players who are there simply because of access to funds. Of course, you do have those who are also there due to talent. We just have to wait for the transition to Senior level to tell who amongst them had the talent.

How can I harbor frustation about some junior player who might not have the ranking they deserve (due to lack of funds) when I have asserted that junior ranking is irrelevant? It doesn't follow. Once again, junior ranking is irrelevant. I am not frustrated about whosoever and/or whatsoever. I am commenting from a neutral standpoint thinking about all those really talented players who are having difficulty making headway due to lack access to funds in all aspects, not just for tournaments.

Your comparision between France and GB is frankly futile. Please do a small exercise and tell me how many French players are in top 100 of WTA/ATP compared to GB players. Furthermore, who amongst them are the product of each system.

Murray is not a product of GB system (he escaped the system for Spain). His borther stayed behind in the GB system - look where he is. Laura Robson is not a product of GB system; Heather Watson similarly. All the French players I know in top 100 (and there are lots of them) are products of the French system.

Bringing Grand Slams into it is pointless. You can't claim Murray (he wasn't made by the GB system) and as Morriban rightly said, champions have that intangible that doesn't come from a system. And I must add that to have any hope of becoming a GS champion, an aggressive game style is an absolute prerequisite. Ask Murray about it. He will tell you. He had to change from his passive counter-punching game style before making the grade. Another person to ask is Wozniaki. Despite all her success, she hasn't been able to make the grade because of her defensive game style.

Finally, I am a Brit like (I presume most in this forum) and want to see us succeed. However, our system, parents and sponsors are so hung up with results, rating, ranking that juniors forget about developing a solid and sustainable foundation of the game that will stand the test of time when it matters, which is the Senior level.

******** Tennis is a Marathon and not a Sprint ***********

Best wishes to all our juniors who are working hard everyday to give themselves a chance to make it in this beautiful sport. As a junior, focus more on developing the fundamentals of the game, especially if you have control over funds (because I am aware this might be difficult with sponsors who look for headline results for publicity).