Always good to get that first point, although as has been laboured, it was not the be all and end all. As Indiana said, perhaps the most rewarding part of winning is the opportunity to play another match with points on the line. Being seeded for junior events is great but I read Kokkinakis say in his interview that having to qualify for ATP events and, prior to that, challengers, made him match-tough. I know that it's not exactly comparable to 10k Futures qualifying for a soon-to-be 16 year old, but I think that the point still stands in that a junior should not progress onto the senior circuit without a good knowledge and experience of how scrappy it can be in some of these Future events compared to their seedings in top junior tournaments.
Agree BeefyD. Over the years several former top juniors have commented on how hard they found the adjustment of moving from top tournaments where they were seeded, well-looked after and looked upon as little stars onto grubby events in the back of beyond where they were a complete nobody. Think quite a few former top juniors have struggled for a while at that point in their careers, so good planning from Katie to build up some experience now.
To be frank junior tennis is almost a waste of time for Katie given that she has the junior pedigree required to give the senior protour a serious crack with a view to being a top player on her early to mid twenties. I am a massive fan of the ITF circuit as the more fertile environment for development opportunities learning how to compete and beat older players particularly when taken to a third set, although does seem to be Katie's area of expertise even in junior GS. There is admittedly something to be said for the experience of winning infront of a big audience at a GS and dealing with the adulation. Particularly if 16 or younger but winning at 17/18 you probably should be playing at a higher level. i am mindful of CDs and tennislovers comments about the French attitude to junior tennis and feel particularly for girls an early transition to the ITF and challengers is exactly the way to go as soon as it looks like you have the junior pedigree to do so. I agree totally with Indi Katie is doing just fine RG, Wimbledon and US Open with the odd futures event and then more of the latter! Great results this week, hoping for more!
As I seem to be in a minority of one, maybe I should give up, but...
I checked on the ITF site. Laura played in 2 10k tournaments, ever. Heather 2. Current JWR 1 Bellis played 2, and will play no more. Kasatkina 3, ditto. Bencic played 4; the best current Junior, Konjuh, 4. None of them acquired enough points to allow them to start playing 15ks or 25ks by virtue of ranking. I really wouldn't be able to suggest who in the current top 100 or so women made their progress primarily through playing through the 10k level. Anybody?
Katie is, IIRC, restricted to playing a maximum of 12 women's tournaments per year. Of which, she has now entered 3.
If she won 12 10ks, she would have 144 points; enough to be WR 287. There was a 25k in Spain this week, and the main draw cut off was WR207. So in terms of advancing her progress up the women's game, 10ks are a waste of time (off school) and energy. I hope she has a nice holiday.
In Juniors, I accept all CD's points about e.g. French exceptionalism; but e.g. the US emerging stars seem mainly to have come up via Juniors. All the players named above, Robson to Konjuh, did not gain the skills needed to start competing well at 25k thru to GS level by playing 2 or 3 10ks. They learnt in Juniors.
I also think Katie has some unfinished business in Juniors. She's currently ranked 13; and there's no advantage in the women's game in having a Junior Ranking anywhere from 11 to 2134, at the end of the year. In terms of her results, her doubles are poor; and she hasn't done as well on clay or grass as on hard courts. She hasn't actually won a junior tournament for over a year; so it's not as if she's not being tested. Considering she's under 16, though, and is already playing up an age-grade...
In a couple of weeks, she's down for the US closed Easter Bowl, as the 1 Seed, versus about 120 Yanks, 1 Canadian and a Kiwi. Proper pressure. If she were to win that, she is making good progress towards the top of the women's game; and I don't think she's doing so in Sharm. If, OTOH, playing here helps her towards the Junior top 10, or to a couple more Junior GS finals, all good.
But I doubt it; and not the route taken by previous multiple Junior GS finalists, as listed above.
Just as interesting as ITF senior 10K participation rates ( perhaps more interesting ) would be how many ITF junior tournaments these top junior players played after certain ages.
I continue to think 10Ks are fine at this stage for Katie ( indeed currently if she is playing seniors at all, the appropriate level ) and the issue is less what 10Ks give you ( likely more matches for one thing ) against 15K, 25K or even higher, but what seniors gives you against juniors.
As I seem to be in a minority of one, maybe I should give up, but...
I checked on the ITF site. Laura played in 2 10k tournaments, ever. Heather 2. Current JWR 1 Bellis played 2, and will play no more. Kasatkina 3, ditto. Bencic played 4; the best current Junior, Konjuh, 4. None of them acquired enough points to allow them to start playing 15ks or 25ks by virtue of ranking. I really wouldn't be able to suggest who in the current top 100 or so women made their progress primarily through playing through the 10k level. Anybody?
Katie is, IIRC, restricted to playing a maximum of 12 women's tournaments per year. Of which, she has now entered 3.
If she won 12 10ks, she would have 144 points; enough to be WR 287. There was a 25k in Spain this week, and the main draw cut off was WR207. So in terms of advancing her progress up the women's game, 10ks are a waste of time (off school) and energy. I hope she has a nice holiday.
In Juniors, I accept all CD's points about e.g. French exceptionalism; but e.g. the US emerging stars seem mainly to have come up via Juniors. All the players named above, Robson to Konjuh, did not gain the skills needed to start competing well at 25k thru to GS level by playing 2 or 3 10ks. They learnt in Juniors.
I also think Katie has some unfinished business in Juniors. She's currently ranked 13; and there's no advantage in the women's game in having a Junior Ranking anywhere from 11 to 2134, at the end of the year. In terms of her results, her doubles are poor; and she hasn't done as well on clay or grass as on hard courts. She hasn't actually won a junior tournament for over a year; so it's not as if she's not being tested. Considering she's under 16, though, and is already playing up an age-grade...
In a couple of weeks, she's down for the US closed Easter Bowl, as the 1 Seed, versus about 120 Yanks, 1 Canadian and a Kiwi. Proper pressure. If she were to win that, she is making good progress towards the top of the women's game; and I don't think she's doing so in Sharm. If, OTOH, playing here helps her towards the Junior top 10, or to a couple more Junior GS finals, all good.
But I doubt it; and not the route taken by previous multiple Junior GS finalists, as listed above.
wimdledont, I suggest you take a look at the record of Ocean Dodin. She is a far better player than the "top juniors" you mentioned. Barely played juniors. Played lots of 10ks learning how to earn points rather than being given cheap points as is typical with the junior game. I saw her last year around May or so ranked in the 700s whilst some of our "top juniors" and those of similar age as her were already top 500. Within 6 months, she was top 200 and played main draw of Australian open making the second round. She is now top 150. If a player of good standard like Katie is looking for bragging rights as the junior number this and that, then fine, she can stick to the juniors. If she wants to develop her game for the long term, then the senior game is better for her development. Nothing wrong with 10ks. You meet the same players you will find in 15, 25, 50, 100Ks and even ex top 100 pros.
-- Edited by TennisLover on Wednesday 18th of March 2015 10:35:41 PM
Ocean has played 14 10ks, and performed spectacularly well. According to my calcs, she has acquired 55 ranking points in them over the last 4 years - sufficient, were they all within one year, to give her WR478 - certainly good to secure direct entry to more 10ks, but well short of what she'd need for DA at almost all higher-prize tournaments.
Should, in some alt universe, Ocean have won all of her 14 10k tourneys - W-L 70-0 (within the last year), she would have 14x12=168 ranking points, WR260. This would not entitle her to seeding in the qualifying in this week's sole European 25k...
The ITF, presumably with the commendable aim of spurring national associations to offer players enough prize money to eat, awards 4x as many points for 25ks, compared to 10ks - so that they can give their own promising players a leg-up, via WCs. Ocean has profited.
As you say, "You meet the same players you will find in 15, 25, 50, 100Ks and even ex top 100 pros." in 10ks. For much, much less rewards.
Katie is currently within 50 points of the Junior Top Ten. Were she in Brazil with Maia, she would be the 1 Seed (for the first time ever in any Junior tournament, AFAIK), and would make the top ten - and could thus hope for JE scheme by 31/12/15 - by making the semi-finals - win 4 matches. That gives her entry to 3 25k tournaments next year, without wildcards. To acquire direct acceptance to any 25ks next year via Sharm 10ks - win her remaining 10 tournaments - 1 match down, 49 to go - and if she gets to a W -L 50 -0 record, 120 ranking points = WR 313. Rarely good enough to get a 25k DA.
10ks seem a good starting point to me, clearly if she's able to win a few then she can move onto 25ks pretty quickly, but its not just about the ranking points, all the experience gained will be valuable going forward, I agree the ranking points are poor for 10ks but it's only going to be a short term problem for Katie.