Week 5 - Challenger (€42,500) - The Scottish Championships, Glasgow (indoor hard)

freerider · Futures level

RE: Week 5 - Challenger (€42,500) - The Scottish Championships, Glasgow (indoor hard)

freerider · Futures level

bossel out so runner up of willis/evo will be first in line if there is a lucky loser place available

-- Edited by freerider on Sunday 1st of February 2015 09:54:40 PM

TMH · Futures qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
And a shame (IMHO) that the bonus pool has been canceled for all Challenger wins unless you make the QFs. . . . (I thought the FQR and MD awards were a good idea - get people out of endless 10ks, and all that . . . but, hey, maybe the powers that be know best . . .)

Is this true?

What a ****ing shambles.

RJA · Hall of fame

TMH wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
And a shame (IMHO) that the bonus pool has been canceled for all Challenger wins unless you make the QFs. . . . (I thought the FQR and MD awards were a good idea - get people out of endless 10ks, and all that . . . but, hey, maybe the powers that be know best . . .)
Is this true?

What a ****ing shambles.

Did you not get the memo?

Michael Downey believes that anyone who has not broken through by the age of 21 will not make it as a top player. Therefore he sees no reason to finance a bunch of players who are never to going to achieve anything significant. So we see a vastly reduced bonus pool and a big reduction in futures tournaments.

Jeff Stelling · Club Coach

Always makes me laugh when people have a pop over things like this. Do they really think the LTA have implemented a new rule on a whim? Do they not think these things undergo significant intellectual rigour? Give me strength.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Mr Downey is probably right, unless you are making challenger QF by the age of 21 you are unlikely to be a major force in competitive tennis. Assuming that is your plan A and you have made the decision to go for it and not go to college, anyone playing QF challenger tennis or better at that point deserves the full backing of the LTA. I think to support players with no realistic chance of progressing into the top 100 doesn't really do anyone any good, UK tennis or the player. The latter is just going to get disgruntled at the relatively poor earnings and lifestyle. There is a case for stepping back and allowing flexibility where a young player gets injured, the equivalent if a grey shirt in college sport.
I do however think investing in developing these players as coaches, but only if they have any aptitude would be a major step forward. It would clarify what you need to do and where you need to be to be a professional player on the ATP tour. We would also stand a chance of developing a high quality infrastructure that would bring young people into the game and where appropriate develop more youngsters to a level where heavy further investment is worthwhile.
There is only a finite amount of funding available, we need to clear define our goals and work to them. if that is lots of 24 year olds and older ranked between 200 and 700 keep the status quo as it's working. That is probably not the LTAs agenda.

TMH · Futures qualifying

Jeff Stelling wrote:
Always makes me laugh when people have a pop over things like this. Do they really think the LTA have implemented a new rule on a whim? Do they not think these things undergo significant intellectual rigour? Give me strength.

Doesn't make it the right decision.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Jeff Stelling wrote:
Always makes me laugh when people have a pop over things like this. Do they really think the LTA have implemented a new rule on a whim? Do they not think these things undergo significant intellectual rigour? Give me strength.

Having been on the inside of a tennis federation at a reasonably high level, I do not have your faith in 'significant intellectual rigour'.

My experience is that it is one person's opinion (maybe good, maybe bad) which, from the top down, gets imposed on everyone. And then the next guy comes in and turns it all around, partly just on the principle of having to be seen to be doing something different.

Now, that first guy may well be smart and on the right track and the results (in all shapes and form) will endorse that. And, as such, he/she may stay for a long time before it's 'all change'. And that's all that matters i.e. the impact of the policies, not how they were decided.

But there's no proof of any intellectual rigour.

And by definition, if you think that Downey shows intellectual rigour then that means that, by definition, Draper didn't (as their policies are pretty stark opposites and nothing much has changed in a couple of years). And if Draper didn't, then that proves the fallacy in the argument that there is always intellectual rigour.

I'm not saying that Draper is right/wrong, or that Downey is right/wrong but that I have no faith that it is a scientific, well-thought out process. (And, taking it one step at a time, we have so few challenger level players, that trying to incentivise players to make the move up and get out of the blasted 10ks seems a good move, for a very low ticket).

Shhh · Challenger level

Does ranking come into a LL spot decision? I ask because whoever loses out of Dan and Marcus will be the highest ranked possibility. 4 qualifiers and 1 luck loser.....now that'd be nice!

freerider · Futures level

Shhh wrote:
Does ranking come into a LL spot decision? I ask because whoever loses out of Dan and Marcus will be the highest ranked possibility. 4 qualifiers and 1 luck loser.....now that'd be nice!

Yes in challengers it goes by highest ranked loser in FQR (unless the ruling has changed).

So you are correct if there is a LL spot available it will go to Evo or Willis assuming they sign in for it.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Quite CD - that was where logic was taking my thinking on Jeff's post too. The Draper regime believed in continuing to fund senior players provided they were meeting their pre-agreed targets and improving (which is why players like South and O'Brien lost pretty much their entire central funding packages when they suffered large ranking drops) [and to a less agreeable end, also believed in heavily funding doubles players, which I've never really been on board with].

Downey, for example, would not based on everything he has said so far have agreed with supporting Anne Keothavong at all after her return from her first torn ACL (after which she went on to break the top 100, reaching various WTA semi finals, break the top 50 and look a real top 30 threat before tearing her other ACL, and let's not kid ourselves that central funding didn't help her out there), and Bally would also have had all her funding pulled, probably also whilst out with one of her long injury breaks, and therefore would almost certainly have quit before breaking the top 100 as she thought about doing a number of times (again, I suspect the monetary assistance available to her made the decision to fight on a little bit easier that it would otherwise have been).

We are side tracking but I thought it was interesting that Swan suggested she is receiving LTA funding despite being in Kansas, given I thought the LTA's new policy was that only people within official LTA UK-based set-ups received central funding. Perhaps her success will show there needs to be flexibility in that otherwise (in my view) strange policy. However that takes us back into the realm of the 'chosen ones' who get the rules bent for them with general lack of transparency, which was historically a quite damaging aspect of how the LTA operated. Swan would be a less contentious example of course because she appears to be quite far ahead of her peers, but there are plenty of historic examples which caused collective head scratching as to why player X seemed to be so in favour.

Not much detail came out on the proposals for those with funding packages to have a commitment to repay some of their prize money but I think that's a very good idea and something I've been wanting to see for a long time.

Anyway, hope the guys have a good event here, have to say I don't think a huge amount of the field strength, but hopefully a few of our guys can take advantage. Hoping to get along later in the week.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

It will be interesting to see the matches that are listed as being streamed, especially Dan v Marcus. I probably won't be back in time but I'm presuming that it will be available as a replay on livestream. I will definitely be back for the Norrie and Broady matches though. I hope that we can get some qualifiers through today and put on a decent front for the main draw; presumably if Brits were to benefit from this tournament in a decent manner then that puts a case forward for continuation of Challengers.

indiana · Tennis legend

Whatever the LTA's arguable aims are in these stark funding and bonus pool changes, I really do think that age 21 is in general an illogically young cut off. Are they aiming to just support possible top 100 or top 10 ?!

More generally, I can't imagine much disagreement at all with Katie Swan being funded and flexibility is needed and to be welcomed, but as Paul says not just 'chosen ones' flexibility.

Oh, and I think many of us have had our eyes opened when getting a chance to enter the inner sanctum of a management meeting in various contexts and at different levels, as to how decisions are arrived at, whether these prove right decisions or not.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

James Ward turns 28 next week. I have just looked back to his rankings history. On his 21st birthday, 9th Feb 2008, James was ranked 570. He broke into the top 200 very briefly about 18 months later before dropping out again a month or so later.

He made his first serious foray into the Top 200 in mid 2011 at the age of 24. Now, 4 years later he is knocking on the door of the Top 100 and I am sure that when he makes it, the LTA will claim some of the credit for that. But James is exactly the kind of player they are looking to cut off at 21. It just doesn't make sense.

When the incentive scheme came in, the consensus here was that it was one of the better ideas that the LTA had come up with. Rewarding the players on results rather than just giving them money seemed logical and appropriate. I am all for young players taking their coaching qualifications early, but this should be their backup plan for a few years down the line and not their main focus.

This whole thing is madness. #20JamesWards

christian · Intermediate Club Player

100% agree Bob, total madness, and will just drive more potential Wardy's from the sport.