I did actually think that the USA 25Ks, especially starting from qualifying ( which suggested matches without being seemingly overoptimistic ) seemed a measured and realistic startpoint and the USA also better for the reasons The Optimist gave. So to me, they looked better anyway, and finding form in British 10Ks would I think have inevitably been difficult / awkward.
Clearly she and her team will be the ones that will really know her level and what looked best, but absolutely without hindsight I would have thought that USA 25K qualifying seemed to make the most sense. And I'm not absolutely sure about 10Ks ( British anyway ) with hindsight. Yes, she should be given space, but in practice it seems to me very unlikely that she really would fully be.
That the results are not coming yet must be a concern though there has been, as was mentioned, a certain start stop to Laura's appearances that won't help.
-- Edited by indiana on Monday 15th of February 2016 03:12:04 PM
I fear that time is precisely what she hasn't got. Not sure when, but soonish, her right to a Special Ranking goes, and if she hasn't got some decent wins at major tournaments, like Indian Wells, she will be competing at this level for a very long time to acquire the extra 600 or so points she'd need to get back even into the top 100.
She's still only 22; she's got plenty of time in the long run (if we see Jo and Naomi's breakthroughs as examples); those SRs can help a bit but any wins with them will be an unlikely surprise, I think; it's likely instead to be a long road back to the top echelons after such a long injury break; patience (ours and hers) and graft (hers) is going to be required.
The key thing for me will not be patience or graft but desire.
I'm not questioning Laura's desire at all (no reason to) but that's what will make a big difference.
You have top players like Maria Sharapova who said she never realised how much she loved and needed tennis until she couldn't play it.
And top players like Tatiana Golovin who said (effectively) she never realised how much you could enjoy and get out of non-tennis life until she couldn't play it.
I agree that Laura has tons of time to get back to being a top-class tennis player. SRs, points, 25 v 10ks, are all very short-term factors.
But I hope her willpower doesn't dwindle in the 'down' time, which has been far longer than I expect she imagined when she first had the injury.....
Time is no real problem. A Laura coming back to a semblance of her past form scoots through the lower echelons and back to higher level tournaments simply by being too good at lower levels, PR or not, as do other very good players. If you are really good you don't end stuck at lower levels for a "very long time" and rise relatively quickly.
It's getting back to that form that is the issue, and yes patience, graft and desire especially if it does take rather longer than all would hope
-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 16th of February 2016 03:38:10 PM
It's one of the reasons I was so looking forward to her coming to Eilat, really to see her in practice, have a chat with her, and find out at first hand what the missing ingredient was. Talking to a couple of the Fed Cup team( non playing) the vibe was she'll be back, and they were really expecting her to be available for a playoff tie in April. But the results just aren't there at the moment, it looks like the enforced break she had after the US open, has really impacted her, and we still don't know how much this scar tissue problem in the wrist is complicating/ impacting her ability to train at 100%. I do know that Sam Murray who's had a similar problem is struggling with this scar tissue issue. Anyway I do know 100% that if the desire/ work ethic/ injuries allow, she'll be back inside the top 50 eventually, because you never lose that talent.
I'll only be worried about Laura if Eisenbud walks away.
He's an intense man who, bluntly, won't delay a single second in dropping someone that won't make him money. As long as he's on board it indicates Laura's general outlook must be fine, despite the false starts.
Conversely, if Eisenbud cashes out, then, in all probability, it's as good as over.
Don't know who Eisenbud is; but I suspect that this goes to the heart of it.
Laura Robson could perhaps drag herself up by her bootstraps, playing 9 months of 25ks, for a pittance.
LR plc, with management, PR, coaching support, commercial agents, all deferring commission/salary?
Laura can walk away from the court tomorrow, and spend the next 40 years inflicting her very poor journalism and sleb vlogging on the world, and playing the occasional pro-am golf tournament with Tim Henman in their 50 week annual holiday. Everybody else is playing desperate for fame and fortune. She had it when she was 14.
If she doesn't manage to get a BIG result at a BIG tournament while using her SR, and propel herself back much, much closer to the limelight, all of her professional advisers will either jump ship, or she will have to convince the whole board of Laura plc (our product - the most famous teenager in Britain in the last decade) to keep the faith. Tough ask.
Laura's (super, hyper? mega?) agent; and Sharapova's, amongst others. Of whom I broadly agree with AliBlahBlah. He's a good agent, which, oxymoron aside, means he divests himself of dead weight quickly and without sentiment. If he's still in Laura's corner then that's a definite positive, one which I take to speak for her dedication and application despite, admittedly, some occasional ostensible indications that can be, and very often are, interpreted to the contrary.
Then that will be Laura's time factor. Get 500 or so ranking points before the SRs run out; or Eisenbud will pass her over to a buddy agent on the reality TV circuit.
Laura gets confronted with - earn US$x0,000 p.w. doing vacuous telly, with corporate support, and One Direction cheerleading; or earn US$x00 p.w; playing ITF tournaments, alone and unloved. (Except by us).