Coup Droit wrote:

Reading yesterday about jack Carpenter and George Morgan's previous childish misdemeanors which they were 'punished' for by being banned also reinforced it - it made me think that the LTA treat their players like a housemaster from an old-fashioned boarding school would. It reminds me of the Chinese authorities who made Li Na wear a big plaster over her tattoo because it wasn't 'suitable' - until she told there where to get off.

---

 I haven't heard anything about Jack and George getting in trouble before. Can you elaborate or do you have a link to an article?

Sorry, I have kind of suggested it before, but I'll say it clearer now, that that Daily Mail article is yet another example of misleading hype coming from the Broady family.

Yes, it seems that the LTA absolutely overreacted to some fairly trivial matters from a teenager. Their people management and understanding has often looked very dubious.

However, I can't recall what the sanctions prescribed were, but I am sure that they were not particularly longterm..

So, while the Broady family may have had a very good case to take exception to all this, there was to be me no way that the LTA should really be blamed for any longterm deprivation of funding or coaching back up ( gee, we know for a fact about Naomi being named in the AEGON funding squad one year, by misunderstanding or whatever, and I am sure she would have been in it for years, if the Broady family had allowed it ).

It's all very well having principles, but when you make the longterm situation worse by foolishly cutting off your nose to spite your face, then that's largely your problem.

So, whatever truth there is to the melodrama about a ruined career and forever more known as a "wild child" ( could have been forgotten many years ago ), the LTA were in my view misguided and unhelpful at a particular time. But longterm the blame lies much closer to home.

How very  sad (if it's true) to hear that Simon Broady is barely talking to Liam because he has accepted LTA funding.   It looks to me as if Simon Broady is behaving like a petulant child.  It is so stupid to have blown the incident up out of all proportion and allowed it to be a cause of a rift with your son.

Yes, I agree with KK and indiana.

I thought it was shocking the way Naomi was hung out to ridicule by the LTA at the time - not how you should deal with players that young even if they have done something wrong and I'm inclined to believe Naomi's version of events anyway (i.e. very silly to put the photo online but no drugs, no excessive alcohol, not in a playing or training block, just letting off some steam) so I can fully understand how the Broadys felt at the time.

But time has passed now, those at the top of the LTA have changed (at least, as far as I know the main people responsible have gone - maybe I'm wrong, obviously there must be plenty of factors we know nothing about) and 7 years down the line, it seems long past time to let bygones be bygones instead of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

That said, I like Naomi a lot (insomuch as any fan who doesn't know a player personally can, I mean) and respect her for trying to go it alone and, now, doing so well (a lot of what she has said in interviews about being self-sufficient is very good indeed) but if Liam has made up his mind that getting help from the LTA is what's best for him, it seems sad (and from what we know, not the fault of either child as far as I can see) that it has created a family rift.

A question to those who are more au fait than I (which is pretty well anyone).

I'm slightly mystified by the Wimbledon scheduling. It's been clear that Saturday and Monday were going to be problematic with rain. Yet they've left key singles matches in later positions on show courts, despite the fact that it was fairly evident that they might not get played ... and played less important (mixed doubles, juniors) matches on some not entirely insignificant courts (eg a junior match second on Courts 3 and 16 on Saturday, a junior match first on Court 18 on Saturday) as well as on minor, untelevised courts. Hence three women's fourth rounds now needing to be played on women's QF day and the horrendous situation facing Wawrinka and Lopez (and slightly less horrendous but not great situation facing the winners of Nadal/Kyrgios and Federer/Robredo).

Is it that the players would object to playing on outside courts? Wawrinka's comments suggest he wouldn't, but he might be unusual. Or is it that they fear problems with crowd control or irate show-court ticket holders if Sharapova suddenly winds up for a 4th round match on Court 18 (say)?

I agree that the scheduling was poor, but the junior (and mixed doubles) matches were not to blame. The junior matches which eventually were played on courts 3 and 16 went on those courts in the evening when it was too late to complete the mens matches. The problem was that the schedule on most courts had womens singles matches before the mens (so Stan for instance was due to follow Serena and Ana on Court 1).

I expect the organisers were keen to try to protect womens QF day (though in the end they failed to even get all the womens matches through). However in my view delaying the men is a more serious problem because of playing best of 5 sets, and had they started all the courts used for third round matches with mens matches followed by womens then they would have completed all the mens 3rd round on time except possibly Bolelli-Nishikori (which was switched early on, but failed to complete) and Lopez-Isner. It is understandable that they would want at least 2 singles matches scheduled on the major show courts, but it needed the mens matches on first and accept that it was likely that it would not be possible to complete all the womens quarter-finals on Tuesday - women playing best of 3 sets 4 days running is a minor problem by comparison

Fair points, David C. And I completely agree (as per an earlier post in another thread) that they should have prioritised those who ran the risk of playing back-to-back five set matches over those who ran the risk of playing back-to-back three set matches. Also get the point that it's hard to win on scheduling. But I do think it's a big deal in some cases: Feliciano Lopez came into this tournament as the finalist at Queens and the winner at Eastbourne -  he should have a legitimate shot at a good run. But his schedule is such as to render that almost impossible. No player should be facing the prospect of four sets against Isner on Monday, however many sets against Wawrinka on Tuesday + a potential five sets of doubles shortly thereafter, and, if successful against Wawrinka, then Federer on Wednesday (and another doubles match?). It's just not fair play.

-- Edited by Spectator on Tuesday 1st of July 2014 06:48:00 AM