Week 5 - ITF ($100K) - Midland, USA Hard

Spectator · All-time great

RE: Week 5 - ITF ($100K) - Midland, USA Hard

wimdledont · Challenger level

vohor wrote:
steven wrote:
Fantastic to see Naomi make the top 100 with the biggest title of her career - who'd have thought a decade ago that ten years later, we'd have had 8 women in the WTA singles top 100!
Yes it's been quite a golden period relatively speaking; with a bit of luck (especially on the injury front) we'll keep 3 in the WTA top 100 for a while now and, who knows, accumulate some more too...Laura, Katie S, Freya spring to mind...over the next year or so. Here's hoping

Mind the gap.

There's now a difference of 550points between WR100 and GB4. 678 points = WR100; Amanda Carreras = 128 points.

With the LTA scrapping 25ks and above from the domestic calendar, except in June, most of our up-and-comers and returnees, are limited to competing at 10k level, with a maximum of 12 points per week, at odds of 31/1 against. A couple of years ago, Naomi nearly retired. Without her opportunities, and good results in domestic 25k+ competitions, I think she'd most likely be coaching today.

Laura has only a couple of PRs left to play with, or her career falls victim to 'tough love' too. Katie Swan may be able to bypass the elephant trap, by her Junior Exemption entries to 3 tournaments; but she would need to finish in top 10 Juniors 2016 to get the same chance twice. The opportunities which Freya seized at the back end of 2015 in domestic 15k+ tournaments will be offered to nobody in 2016.

vohor · Grand Slam Champion

Chances are LTA will change course again soon so hopefully that may be a temporary problem; we'll see ;)

Just been having a trip down memory lane (albeit my memory isn't what it was so I'm probably wrong!) to 2008 when Mel South cracked the top 100 (albeit only for one week) which was a major moment....apart from brief flourishings from Clare Wood and Sam Smith... it was the first since Jo Durie 15 years previously to make the benchmark; since when we've had Bally, Annie K, Katie O'Brien, Laura, Heather, Jo and now Naomi; sometimes with 3 in the top 100 for brief periods but injury/illness always seeming to thwart the hopes to build beyond or even sustain that level of GBR involvement on the first page of the WTA rankings list.

With a fair wind, we do appear to be ready to see maybe 6 names with GBR attached soon; with Fed Cup promotion thrown in. Hoping for an even more "golden" period (and without "relatively speaking" in brackets) in the near future :)

-- Edited by vohor on Monday 8th of February 2016 11:50:52 AM

Sim · County player

Many congratulations to Naomi for a great win.

Talking of the LTA I hope they notice that Naomi has just broken into the top 100 at the age of 25 (and only a few weeks away from her 26th birthday).

I know she has fallen out with the LTA, but it does show that there is a "slow burner" trajectory that can lead to top 100, but have to do it on your own......

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

wimdledont wrote:
vohor wrote:
steven wrote:
Fantastic to see Naomi make the top 100 with the biggest title of her career - who'd have thought a decade ago that ten years later, we'd have had 8 women in the WTA singles top 100!
Yes it's been quite a golden period relatively speaking; with a bit of luck (especially on the injury front) we'll keep 3 in the WTA top 100 for a while now and, who knows, accumulate some more too...Laura, Katie S, Freya spring to mind...over the next year or so. Here's hoping
Mind the gap.
There's now a difference of 550points between WR100 and GB4. 678 points = WR100; Amanda Carreras = 128 points.
With the LTA scrapping 25ks and above from the domestic calendar, except in June, most of our up-and-comers and returnees, are limited to competing at 10k level, with a maximum of 12 points per week, at odds of 31/1 against. A couple of years ago, Naomi nearly retired. Without her opportunities, and good results in domestic 25k+ competitions, I think she'd most likely be coaching today.
Laura has only a couple of PRs left to play with, or her career falls victim to 'tough love' too. Katie Swan may be able to bypass the elephant trap, by her Junior Exemption entries to 3 tournaments; but she would need to finish in top 10 Juniors 2016 to get the same chance twice. The opportunities which Freya seized at the back end of 2015 in domestic 15k+ tournaments will be offered to nobody in 2016.

The lack of GB $25ks won't have any impact on Laura - she still has 7 PRs left I think, and as she is based in the US it makes sense for her to play the much more frequent $25ks there (even if she has to go through qualifying as it is match practice more than raking points / prize money she is after anyway).

It's probably not a problem for Katie either, but this week she is playing a $10k in Sunderland when she would probably be better off in a $25k if there was one available (certainly this year it would be good to see Katie get a lot more matches against players ranked 100-300, the $10k opposition is probably not strong enough for her to gain much from).

For players coming through with a lower profile / less funding though it could be a major problem. $25k and $50k tournaments offer enough ranking points for a player to get a decent ranking but not enough money to cover the cost of travelling around the would to play them so having them in the UK are vital for players like, as you mentioned, Freya last year and Naomi in previous years.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, but the players only get the points from the 25 ks if they are of that standard.

We've had lots of ones with hardly any points being gained by UK players.

And Freya also got a lot of her points last year from Sharm and, being funded, would not have had any difficulty going abroad again to get further chances.

I agree with the argument about timing the events to have the most impact.

But if we have so few gaining points in the 10ks, why do we thing we'll get more in the 25ks? After all, there are not many missing - Mandy is unlikely to come, Tara might, Emily WS unlikely (certainly not if it's indoors), Katy Dunne would, but we have very few who fit into that ranking group and, although there are sometimes nice surprises, some of those players are already funded (as Freya) and some are unwarranted (as when Sophie Watts and a couple of others got big points for a R1 25k win) so it's difficult to see who it really helps - there's more chance it will just be a point donation bank for foreign players.

NB Not saying that we shouldn't have any - just that we've had some very poor returns on previous ones - it's not easy.....

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

Sim wrote:
I know she has fallen out with the LTA, but it does show that there is a "slow burner" trajectory that can lead to top 100, but have to do it on your own......

Yes, evidence is growing for a patient approach in development, even amongst established, or partially established, names.

Amongst other possible examples:
Johanna was 23 when she first broke the top 100 for those 5 weeks in 2014, and 24¼ when she broke back in, and consolidated her tenure.
Similarly, Angie Kerber just won her first GS at 28, Pennetta was 33½. Aga just won her biggest title, the Year End Finals, at 26½.
Average age of winners of their first tournament on the WTA tour, is steadily climbing, and is now almost 24 - and that's accounting for a year in which the prodigies of Bencic (18) & Konjuh (17) both won their first event.

The counterpoint to which probably begins with the argument that there are equally plenty of prospects funded around the world into late career that never deliver tangible results, and how do you, as a national body, coach or sponsor, evaluate the players.
You clearly can't fund everyone until they retire, in hope, but, perhaps, neither should you have an arbitrary age based cut off.
The equation is a very tricky and imprecise one.

Long time reader · Lower Club Player

Really pleased for Naomi, a great victory for perseverance and hard work. When she fell to about 230 after Wimbledon last year who would have thought 7 months later she would be top 100.

Since Washington in August she has 35 wins and14 losses and only 3 of the losses have been in straight sets, two against top 50 players (Makarova and Stephens) and one against a top 100 player in Ostapenko. It really has been a phenomenal run.

wimdledont · Challenger level

insomniacfolder wrote:
Sim wrote:
I know she has fallen out with the LTA, but it does show that there is a "slow burner" trajectory that can lead to top 100, but have to do it on your own......
Yes, evidence is growing for a patient approach in development, even amongst established, or partially established, names.

Amongst other possible examples:
Johanna was 23 when she first broke the top 100 for those 5 weeks in 2014, and 24¼ when she broke back in, and consolidated her tenure.
Similarly, Angie Kerber just won her first GS at 28, Pennetta was 33½. Aga just won her biggest title, the Year End Finals, at 26½.
Average age of winners of their first tournament on the WTA tour, is steadily climbing, and is now almost 24 - and that's accounting for a year in which the prodigies of Bencic (18) & Konjuh (17) both won their first event.

The counterpoint to which probably begins with the argument that there are equally plenty of prospects funded around the world into late career that never deliver tangible results, and how do you, as a national body, coach or sponsor, evaluate the players.
You clearly can't fund everyone until they retire, in hope, but, perhaps, neither should you have an arbitrary age based cut off.
The equation is a very tricky and imprecise one.

What about holding tennis tournaments, and leaving them to sort it out between themselves?

Here's another 4 possible contenders...

https://www.lta.org.uk/major-events/international-events/fed-cup/fed-cup-news/2016/coaching-blog-from-eilat-aegon-gb-fed-cup-team/

...who retired at ages 23, 23, 26, and I forget. NaomiC has just gone, age 24 or 25, reckoning that her comeback left her £12k out of pocket, in less than a year.

You need to play 16 tournaments to even get a fair ranking comparison with other players.

Have we all decided that only KatieS, Laura and Freya have a chance of making it to the upper echelons; and therefore, because the committee has decided who's going to succeed, no other British women deserve the opportunity to compete with them?

As for the foreign legion taking all the points and the prizes - well, it's not been that bad. Certainly NaomiB had some of her better results here at home; also Freya, Tara, Maia and several others. Wildcards tend to lose. That's not a peculiarly British phenomenon. The Chiswick 10k last year saw us post results (15 Brits out of 16 in R2) that the Chinese would be happy with. Even if the peskies win, they win so little cash at 10k level that, from Q1 through to the QFs, they're effectively providing our lot with a cheap rate on a couple of hours of coaching.

While the LTA may not be able to compete with the USTA, I do think that they should bear comparison with the French Federation, who seem to be able to retain professional players within the game until into their thirties, with a healthy number of domestic tournaments,providing opportunities, and if not guaranteed incomes, guaranteed less crippling expenses. And in one respect, they have a huge advantage over every other federation in Europe, other than Ireland, in that this is an Anglophone country, so they could webcast it, like this, and so many other US tournaments, and get Ieutar insurance to pay for it all.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

My point, which is not new, but hey....

The aging of the player population is well-documented. Given that the average woman player reaches her CH at around her 27th birthday, it is obvious that players like Naomi B are the norm (top 100 at 25, top 50 or 60 by 27, top 100 at 29, then slipping out an down - it'll be the standard curve for someone who makes it to about WR 50, which is very respectable).

We, obviously, have a chronic lack of older players.

But whether we should fund them or put on tournaments targeted at them is another question.

The LTA, in my view, will not succeed until they make tennis a thriving industry in this country.

The French system, mentioned above, does this, as wimbeldont says.

But the Money tournaments that provide the backbone of competition (and prize money) are not funded by the federation - they are funded by the clubs (by club membership dues) and by sponsors (private and public) and by entry fees etc. etc. i.e. it is not the federation that has to directly dip into their funds, as wimbledont is suggesting, as the lTA do for British Tour events (and ITFs).

But the Federation is indeed indirectly responsible because it is the body that has made tennis an attractive competitive sport (by providing the structure i.e. by setting up leagues of money tournaments so each club wants to host one because it feeds through to a higher level and so lots of people sign up) and by getting a critical mass of people playing that funds itself (the supermarket manager will sponsor the event if he likes tennis, or his kids play, or whatever).

The LTA falls down by targeting two ends of the spectrum - (a) the elite 2 or 3 who may make top 20, (b) the masses who play park tennis and (and if numbers go up a bit will justify some Lottery funds). It's no surprise that nothing really changes.

This is 100% wrong, IMHO. The 'good club' level is what needs to be targeted - and then it will take care of itself. The clubs I speak to here say they have no contact with the LTA month in, month out. This is the opposite of France where it's a very associative body - each county has its resident FFT office and staff, with regular meetings, training schemes, talent ID, joint policy making sessions etc. etc. between the club directors/coaches etc and FFT office.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
The clubs I speak to here say they have no contact with the LTA month in, month out. This is the opposite of France where it's a very associative body - each county has its resident FFT office and staff, with regular meetings, training schemes, talent ID, joint policy making sessions etc. etc. between the club directors/coaches etc and FFT office.

I keep hearing this time and time again. We have seen requests on this forum asking how to get funding for their club.

I know Wavertree - the only indoor centre in Merseyside and holds the grade 5, has only recently got a development officer, due to the fact that numbers were declining rapidly.

Mervatron · Masters Series Champion

Annoyingly the clips from the final only cover till 4-4 in the first set

Fitzy · Intermediate Club Player

Hi guys! Just wanted to drop in with a short note.
It's fun to be a part of Naomi's progress. Helping her reach her potential, which is not done by a long shot.
Consistency is really starting to come on the mental side as much as anything.
Always looking to improve on her strengths, while being aware of weakness and she is a fantastic person to coach.
Nice little trip in the us and a great start to the year. Cracking the top 100 is a big goal that should be celebrated with her and her family as they have all put in so much to get there, but it's a goal to really kick on from. that's what we will try to do for the rest of the year.

On a personal note just wanted to say it's nice to see some positive comments about her game improving and hope you enjoy the continued success!! 🏆

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

Thank you, sir, and thank Naomi most of all

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Tx for the post, coach

My own view, as above, is that you've made an amazing difference.

So well done again to Naomi, to you, and the whole team.