Interesting. Presumably the logic was that GB had enough women's players who would be able to gain significant points from the 25Ks, whereas they didn't have enough men who would be able to gain points from 15Ks/Challengers ... so they distributed the funds for men to 10Ks and the funds for women were weighted more towards higher-level tournaments to enable those from 150 to 500 to benefit. As you say, it's good for people like Ms Moore or Ms Konta ... but not so great for people starting out or, in Ms Smith's case, coming back from injury.

Raises interesting question about whether if they introduce more Challengers or 15Ks for men next year, it will also come at the expense of the number of 10Ks.

Still don't fully understand the reluctance of some GB players to "travel overseas" though. It is often no more expensive to go "overseas" than to travel in the UK ... and can't think that accommodation is that much more expensive, either. Is it that the places that are cheapest to travel are also, on the whole, oversubscribed with higher-ranked players?

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 16th of November 2013 10:59:30 AM

looking at the tournament schedules for last year, it would be much easier and financially beneficial for a male player to try and get started on the tour than a female player.

Based on the ITF calendar there were only 8 10/15k tournaments for the ladies in GB, whereas the men had significantly more(twice as many). I know the LTA put on a lot of 25k women 's tournaments, but it is difficult for the younger players to get decent points unless they are top players. The WTA makes it even more difficult by making it 3 scorers or 10 pts to get a ranking.

 So in other words, if you are a female lady who has ambitions to have a go on the tour, you either have to have been funded through junior level and can travel and build up points as a junior or you need someone to support you financially, as you will be forced to travel overseas to pick up points and this will be expensive.

If you look at the schedules of some of lower ranked players without funding, they can very rarely afford to travel overseas. If you look at Anna Smith, she has only played 3 tournaments overseas this year. I'm guessing it would be fairly similar for quite a few others. 

This is surely restricting the better 17-24 year olds and you will see more and more go down the US university route if this doesn't change. 

I 'm sure the LTA have targets for female players in the WTA ranking system, but their policy of tournaments will not help.

 

Spectator wrote:

---

Interesting. Presumably the logic was that GB had enough women's players who would be able to gain significant points from the 25Ks, whereas they didn't have enough men who would be able to gain points from 15Ks/Challengers ... so they distributed the funds for men to 10Ks and the funds for women were weighted more towards higher-level tournaments to enable those from 150 to 500 to benefit. As you say, it's good for people like Ms Moore or Ms Konta ... but not so great for people starting out or, in Ms Smith's case, coming back from injury.

Raises interesting question about whether if they introduce more Challengers or 15Ks for men next year, it will also come at the expense of the number of 10Ks.

Still don't fully understand the reluctance of some GB players to "travel overseas" though. It is often no more expensive to go "overseas" than to travel in the UK ... and can't think that accommodation is that much more expensive, either. Is it that the places that are cheapest to travel are also, on the whole, oversubscribed with higher-ranked players?

-- Edited by Spectator on Saturday 16th of November 2013 10:59:30 AM

---

 

Well, Jaggy, and steven too, made the point (that i didn't completely agree with though it's not wrong) that actually it's the other way round i.e. the standard of the players in the tournaments in Egypt, Greece, Morocco etc. is relatively low - and it's those holiday places where flights are often pretty cheap (compared to more northern europe).

So, to me, it makes even less sense not to travel - warm weather (i.e. great for training even if you lose your match), cheapish travel, cheap (although not always very nice) hotels - boys in Cyprus this week aren't happy bunnies - matches, and the chance of 'easy' points.

It's obviously more expensive than staying put in your home town but, as you say, it's not more expensive than doing tournaments traveling round the UK.

 

Yes, there has seemingly been a marked reluctance over recent months for many of the women to travel even just into Europe to many very accessible locations with fields ( at the very least ) which weren't particulatly strong.

This seemed really noticeable around the time of the 25Ks, when it was as if they just hung around at home waiting for their WCs or qualifying spots in these. Certainly loads suddenly came out the woodwork that I had started to think were injured or something ! If there are arguably too few GB appropriate women's tournaments then maybe more proactivity could be shown on their part.

I really do think many could have been getting much more good experience and indeed winnable matches for not exhorbitant expense ( as said there are 2 to 3 wekk stretches at some places ) with some much better thought and planning. And effort ?!

Laura Deighman is one who has shown what can be achieved and as discussed elsewhere, if that has maybe led to her being relatively overranked all the more credit to her. Unlike some, I can see little downside to her strategy ( if that's what it is ).

Maybe it is more difficult than I am imagining, but just maybe some girls need a wake-up call !

I think you're right that the schedule as it is would be limiting for someone like Georgia Craven - but she's in the unusual position of trying to do two things at once in different systems: get a good higher degree and play professional tennis. I do wonder whether someone like her might be better served by a US programme, where it would be possible to play the same level of tennis but within the university context and hence with university support. As it is, I admire her hugely for trying to do both and to negotiate the different systems herself, but it can't be simple. And as you say, paulisi, she's certainly not going to be heading overseas for tournaments during term time!

The question of start-up funds for returners goes back at least in part to this question of only funding 17 to 24s. As Mr Inglot said on Radio 5 Live, it really isn't very helpful for university players, most of whom will start on the tour at 23 and who will take a while to get their rankings up. A "returners fund" sounds like a good idea - recognises the different circumstances in which different players are operating and would help to level the playing field.

A top college singles player (ie one with a top college ranking) should be top 500 pretty quickly after going pro. That's the point in going and Sarah says it should be within a year and did some research to back that up. Those that come out of college and struggle on the pro tour are those that weren't top college singles players, or top college players whose hearts aren't really in it and quickly decide to go and use their education. Top college doubles players tend to fly up the main doubles rankings even quicker if they focus on that route, especially if they keep a partner. The focus/importance of doubles in the college format leaves them streaks ahead of most others in terms of doubles skill/tactics.

I'm quite surprised Craven didn't go the US College route (assuming it was open to her). It would have given her exactly the tennis/education balance she seems to be upset at missing out on at the moment. Certainly Warwick and the level of competition won't bring her game on without continuing outside coaching.

My impression is that making top 500 in a year still isn't going to give you enough funding to keep going. If a reasonable trajectory for a good university singles player would be to make the top 500 in a year and top 250 or 200 in two years, then it would make sense to have a returners fund for that second year.