I also note an interesting fact in the girls' dates of birth, which in a way makes the general rankings even more impressive.
All of our 1996 (2) and 1997 (5) borns have birthdays in August or later so have only just turned or have still to turn 18 and 17 respectively.
This is not just statistically a bit unusual, but is also particularly notable since for a number of years our top juniors' ages seemed somewhat alarmingly weighted to earlier in the year. While one would expect a bit of weighting that way ( by definition they are older ) the concern was that top juniors were being pinpointed too early in their years by being slightly older and bigger ( more significant at younger ages ). I believe I read a while ago that selection for fast tracking and assistance is less by birth year than it used to be ?
The 4 1998 borns have birth months January, March, September and December ( pretty evenly weighted ) and the 3 1999 borns March, May and May ( rather weighted to earlier in the year ), though all the samples are pretty small.
We're probably not looking at a golden period of British women's tennis with this crop of youngsters ,but instead one with alot of depth and alot of top 200 ranked tennis players. Assuming Hev and Laura continue to be top 50 players for the remainder of their careers ( fingers crossed Laura comes back healthy ) I would predict 4/5 from this group inc. Katy/Eleanor would have a chance at cracking the top 100 at some stage during their careers. Dunne/Dean/Boulter/Swan/Mikheeva being the names I would pick out. Jazzi Plews also could be a contender if recovering full fitness. However things change so quickly and in 12 months time that list could change.
Good call re Plews. Clearly a real talent, I hope that she can be back fit and well fairly soon.
Yes, so difficult to predict how many and who will make it to, say, the top 100 / 200. But when you also look at names such as Wallace / Christie / Taylor / Lumsden / Brogan / Burrage ( all possible at least top 500ers I would suggest, though some won't make it, and such as Mikheeva and Burrage are still so young ) plus others that we haven't really mentioned, but are there about and could suddenly push on, we are potentially attacking with NUMBERS over successive years that is unprecedented in my memory of vaguely watching and then more following GB juniors.
The Dans plus time was good for the boys ( and very pleasing how quite a number have pushed on again recently ), but it was really just a couple of successive years. And one can argue as to whether there are warnings and / or lessons to be learnt from that group.
I think they play school years at LTA tournaments now, don't they?
No, but it's not calendar years either! They review what age a player belongs in twice per year at the end of March and the end of August.
So, for 16&U:
if your 16th birthday is a winter birthday (between 1 Sep and 31 Mar), for a year from the start of the September just before your birthday you will play 16&U events
If your 16th birthday is a summer birthday (between 1 Apr and 31 Aug), for a year from the start of April just before your birthday you will play 16&U events
This keeps true ages much more within the 2 year bands. It's largely irrelevant in the older age groups. but makes a big difference in the younger ones
I'd throw a few other names into the ring of those could well make some sort of mark, if not necessarily top 200. To my mind this lot all have a certain 'something' about their game:
Jasmine Asghar, Mirabelle Njoze, Ema Lazic, Emily Appleton, Georgie Axon, Emily Arbuthnott, Emily Smith, Eden Richardson, Serena Nash, Holly Hutchinson, Harriet Dart, Lauryn John-Baptiste. Think we could have real depth in the rankings for a few years, although as philwrig says, things can change really quickly with youngsters.
-- Edited by The Optimist on Thursday 11th of September 2014 06:15:49 AM
Interesting that Katie Swan at #40 has more singles ranking points than Katie Boulter at #28. A reflection of Swan's lack of success at doubles primarily.
The boys certainly seem to have quantity in that top 500, but not real quality ( the two currently just inside the top 100 depart the junior ranks in January ).
Of the 1997 and younger, as well as none currently junior ranked higher than JWR 174 ( so I assume all will still be outside the top 100 initially in the new year ), none have a senior ranking. Disappointing ( even if as discussed elsewhere there are, or should be, more concerns than rankings ).
Good to see the continuing real promise in the girls.