I think CD has hit the nail on the head when he says how fragmented the sport is. ,
Currently most regular tennis clubs welcome juniors with open arms. There are still a few who don't but the membership is changing. Most young single adults who join a sports club have no issue with kids as long as they are well behaved and obey club rules. Most adults with children would not join a club where their children were not welcome, a sports club being a place where families can spend precious time together. Those which maintain a 'kids 2nd if at all' attitude are starting to suffer membership issues as their current membership ages and new blood seeks a more inclusive atmosphere. Most run beginner level squads and junior practice sessions, and welcome the older juniors into general social tennis and adult teams. They usually also welcome non-member juniors into their beginner squads or make junior membership available very cheaply. However, any junior who shows promise or starts to do well competitively is normally encouraged to move to an HPC. This makes it hard for the clubs to run junior teams and obviously prevents the juniors becoming further integrated into the adult club tennis.
The HPCs as I mentioned earlier in this thread, are only about performance tennis. They are a place where juniors turn up, do their squads, fitness or whatever and then go home. They are not somewhere where a young player can spend best part of a weekend socialising, practicing with all and sundry. Most have a completely soulless atmosphere. Some do enter teams in the premier (national) junior club league but they struggle to field teams. Their players are out competing as individuals most weekends and, as there is no club atmosphere, feel insufficient loyalty to the HPC to re-arrange their schedules. When they stop making progress at the HPC, very few juniors return to the club system. As HPCs are about performance tennis and judge their juniors on results and measurable progress, those who aren't making the grade (most at the end of the day) leave in a state of disillusionment and negativity about the sport and generally turn to other sports or activities.
There are too many HPCs as well (soon to be changed) meaning performance players are very thinly spread.
Very few schools have tennis as a meaningful sport (Queenswood, Reeds, Talbot Heath and one or two others aside). Not enough children can play it at the same time, and usually only 4 kids can make the team. A lot of primary schools have adopted the LTA system for introducing kids to racquet sports but it doesn't really develop from there.
I can't help feeling that the solution lies in keeping the kids in club tennis for longer. Matches/hitting against the top mens and womens team members is probably just as challenging as playing other strong juniors, at least up until 14 yo. And those progressing more slowly will stay in the sport. Maybe this is what the LTA are hoping will be the result of their planned drastic reduction in HPC numbers.
The LTA site seems to be focused mainly on listing the Byzantine levels of complexity of the various and competing and contradictary LTA schemes - which it doesn't do well. I personally have absolutely no idea what relation there is between county associations, clubs, HPCs; nor much sense of how a player is supposed to come through that and get to the level in which I take an interest - ITF juniors through ITF to WTA/ATP.
The good old tennis systems and juniors. I have never really taken junior rankings/ratings seriously. Doesn't mean much. Just like running a marathon, the person that sets off fast at the beginning and disappears into the horizon with the others languishing behind is not necessarily the one to finish the race first if at all. Nobody seems to be talking about game style and fundamental development here, particularly at the junior stage. Juniors should be all about fundamental development rather than winning, ranking, etc. I am aware there are pressures of funding/sponsorship, which is heavily reliant on short-term results, but there-in lies the problem. Goals should be development goals rather than who is the highest this and that as a junior. It is meaningless. Results do not last.
As for the French, they IMHO have the right approach. Most of their juniors do not bother with junior events, reasons why you will not find many of them when you search through the rankings of top this and that. I am a newbie and have been interested and have been following juniors transitioning to senior game. Good example showcasing the French system is Oceane Dodin (hope I got the name right CD). Came across her and her team last year in one of my travels with my son when she was ranked lowly 700+ and within 6 months she was top 200 and playing the main draw of Australian open, reaching the second round I think. That did not surprise me at all. When I saw her play, one could tell that she had something well suited to the senior game (not for the juniors). Very aggressive and looking to win points rather than being given points. Obviously, that came with a lot of errors, but it is always a matter of time before the errors reduce due to fine-tuning and keep trying with development goals rather the winning goals. It was not about junior rankings or being top junior this and that. She barely played juniors. Yet at the time I saw them, we had a couple of our promising players already well into top 400 and have not moved on really in comparison.
Also, top 50 junior doesn't guarantee anything. Some get there through a combination of factors and not necessarily with the game that will stand the test of time.
I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think there is much mystery most of it is down to maturity and the unpredictability of physical development which are a bit out of the control of the LTA
There is a big difference between the significance of girls and boys tennis. The girls rankings is seriously confounded by the fact that a significant proportion of 16-18 year old girls are physically mature ie young women. Good players are really looking to transition to seniors at the age of 14-15-16. By their late teens early twenties they are elite players. Elite junior performance in the girls game as a 17/18 year old are going to be a bad marker of progression as are rankings at this age, the really good players have rightly already transitioned. 14-15 year olds with top 50 junior ranks are however a different kettle of fish.
Boys tennis is just that, boys tennis until you are 18, again 6 ft 5 inch guys and taller transition much faster relative to talent as the court us bigger for them. Elite performances in junior GS and rankings are a much better predictor particularly if at 17 again this confounded a bit by that final growth spurt into adulthood. A 5 10 16 yr old is a good size but if you are done at 16 are going to struggle at 24 unless they have some seriously good ground strokes and phenomenal athleticism.
I certainly agree with just about all you say re rankings and concentrating on development. One reason why Laura Robson has always excited is she had the game so early - OK with her, and clearly not helped by her time out, she hasn't developed the consistency at the top level yet quite as her greatest believers had hoped ( though still been into the top 30 ). But in principle, having the shots and ability to play them is so vital.
While I myself said that my real interest in juniors only gets spiked once they enter the top 50, that was more comment on generally taking limited note of the rankings for a variety of reasons, but at least if they reach top 50 they clearly have something at that stage. But absolutely agree, no guarantee going forward.
Not much change on the boys or girls side - Charles Broom is the only climber of note up to 253
On the girls Katie Swan has climbed one place to 12th. The major movers are the 2000 girls outside the top 500
Just on Katie Swan - just the Easter bowl points(APR) to defend until August of any note - so a good chance to climb higher up the rankings. I assume Katie will be allowed to play the Easter Bowl again.