British Tour 2017

Rich · Lower Club Player

British Tour 2017

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Your comments reflect what has been said on this board many times. There is a gold mine of ideas and knowledge on this board that the LTA could put to good use. They might not agree with us on everything and when it comes to prize money of the lower ITF events, clearly that is out of the LTA's hand. Having said that, the idea of a "performance bonus" where the LTA tops up winnings in futures has been seen here as one of their best policies. There was a lot of disappointment when it was scrapped and equal delight when it was reintroduced, albeit in a more limited form. At least it rewards achievement as opposed to just throwing money at players. But assistance goes beyond money. Coaching support and facilities to train are equally important.

My personal views on the number of futures and the way they are managed have been well documented on here so I won't go through all the detail again. But to summarize, I believe that if each futures event was incorporated into a week long "festival of tennis", repeated say 20 times per year at different venues around the country, not only would it increase the opportunities for the young pros, it would also be a fantastic marketing tool for the LTA in their own stated goal, which is an increase in participation numbers at grass roots level.

I also like DC's idea that if clubs are not willing to cooperate by allowing use of their facilities, threaten to take away their allocation of Wimbledon tickets. That would soon change their minds.

EddietheEagle · County player

Goodall's posts above chime perfectly with the notion (Otto's) that you create opportunity rather than fund dependency i.e lots of money tournaments where players fight for the "winner's cheque" (or strive to develop their game if they lose).

The LTA boss's salary of £600,000 would cover an awful lot of prizes.

Then of course, you have to get clubs to stand on their feet rather than have their tennis spoon-fed by an over-arching LTA.

Rich · Lower Club Player

Agree there is still too many clubs who don't want to allocate time to younger players. Bob I like your idea about a festival of tennis at futures events. Anything that gets the event buzzing and more kids interested.

Hilda · Social player

CourtCrazy wrote:
Similar to CD, I dont align myself with or against the LTA, but on the subject of them sending a coach to British Tour events, I wouldn't really see the point. The idea of 'scouting' players is an odd one. The LTA performance team will already know about all the players competing at these events, they haven't come from nowhere. I was at Frinton last week and in fairness, though some players have got some ability for sure, I'm not sure any (with maybe one exception) could justifiably say they should be funded above anyone who the LTA are currently funding. Indeed, if any of the male or female 16+ players who are LTA funded ent this event I would expect the female to have won it and the males to have maybe lost to JG in the final.
Where the LTA do need to step up and sort themselves out is not in funding or selecting players, it is in putting in place a proper tournament structure whereby players can earn their money to try and prove them wrong, or keep themselves on the tour. This event's prizemoney was £600 for the winner, but these events are few and far between. The winner of the event in Worthing the week before got £200. The runner up got £100 for 4 days work. This is ludicrous. How is it possible that 3 years ago the winner of a grade 2 BT was getting £450 and now it's less than half that?
If the LTA don't want to fund players then fair enough, but at least give them the opportunity to fund themselves.

Likewise, the LTA don't float my boat all the time but unfortunately they hold the cards and make all the decisions on who gets the funding.
I don't believe the LTA ever "scout" players as their historical choices have always been players that are either already achieving success, linked to known tennis families (if I believe all that I've been told) or the 6 year old prodigy. They may attend the grade 1 and 2 junior events but that's probably more to give support to their existing choices than find a new star or starlet!

Being at Frinton last week I saw some great tennis. Some of the mens matches were amazing to watch and likewise some of the ladies.
I do wonder who the one exception is that should have LTA support and why the LTA supported players they chose not to play?

If any of the LTA supported girls are so good that there was a guaranteed win on the cards then three days tennis for £600 becomes quite appealing - top 6 seeds had 1st round byes so were only at Frinton from Thursday afternoon to Saturday! The eventual winner, being one of the youngest competitors there, no doubt enjoyed the LTA funded players absence.

A bit tougher for the men with there being no 1st round byes, some very useful players and ultimately the challenge of Josh Goodall to beat. A much larger gamble than the ladies situation.

If prize money isn't addressed then the British Tours will become little more than an extension of the junior circuit.
With the Sutton event having a decent pot for the winner (£2,000 I believe) then I would expect the entry to have far more top players involved and a significant reduction in juniors in the ladies event - although they'll probably fill qualifying.

CourtCrazy · Social player

The LTA supported players didn't play last week as they were all competing either in the Roehampton ITF Grade 1, or Junior Wimbledon qualifying.

the addict · Tennis legend

If you want to compare the entry at Felixstowe this week, here is the link to the event

http://lta.tournamentsoftware.com/sport/tournament.aspx?id=BDFD561E-6287-455D-873D-177FF327A936

Hilda · Social player

CourtCrazy wrote:
The LTA supported players didn't play last week as they were all competing either in the Roehampton ITF Grade 1, or Junior Wimbledon qualifying.

Can you list which players are the LTA supported ones?
It would be interesting to see how the landscape of the mens and womens draws would have changed.

CourtCrazy · Social player

I'm not entirely up to date on it, but I believe the players who the LTA support, to different degrees are: Liam Broady, Jay Clarke, Cameron Norrie, Lloyd Glasspool, Brydan Klyne, Barnaby Smith, Jack Draper, Anton Matosevic, Finn Bass, George Loffhagen, Hamish Stewart, Aidan McHugh, Paul Jubb, Katie Swann, Emily Appleton, Francesca Jones, Eliz Maloney, Jodie Burrage, Esther Adeshina, Ali Collins, Harriet Dart, Katy Dunne, Katie Boulter, Laura Robson, Gabbi Taylor, Freya Christie. And maybe some doubles players.

When I say "support", some of these are fully funded on the PSP package, some are supported to a much lesser degree. There are also a few younger juniors supported to different degrees.

Its also hard to argue that these are bad choices of players to support. As said earlier, with one possible exception not included, I would consider these to be the players with the highest potential in the country. Hard to argue anyone above them.

-- Edited by CourtCrazy on Tuesday 11th of July 2017 11:31:08 PM

Hilda · Social player

CourtCrazy wrote:
I'm not entirely up to date on it, but I believe the players who the LTA support, to different degrees are: Liam Broady, Jay Clarke, Cameron Norrie, Lloyd Glasspool, Brydan Klyne, Barnaby Smith, Jack Draper, Anton Matosevic, Finn Bass, George Loffhagen, Hamish Stewart, Aidan McHugh, Paul Jubb, Katie Swann, Emily Appleton, Francesca Jones, Eliz Maloney, Jodie Burrage, Esther Adeshina, Ali Collins, Harriet Dart, Katy Dunne, Katie Boulter, Laura Robson, Gabbi Taylor, Freya Christie. And maybe some doubles players.
When I say "support", some of these are fully funded on the PSP package, some are supported to a much lesser degree. There are also a few younger juniors supported to different degrees.
Its also hard to argue that these are bad choices of players to support. As said earlier, with one possible exception not included, I would consider these to be the players with the highest potential in the country. Hard to argue anyone above them.

-- Edited by CourtCrazy on Tuesday 11th of July 2017 10:41:11 PM
Thanks CC.

So the LTA's stuck with their favourites for some time if your list is up-to-date.
I'm surprised that Gemma Heath and Emma Raducanu are missing from the girls (ladies) list.

Out of curiosity, who's the "possible exception"?

CourtCrazy · Social player

Sorry, totally forgot Heath and Raducanu, but they are both in there as well.

steven · Tennis legend

I almost gave up on this thread when I saw surprise being expressed that the young Brits here hadn't stopped Josh winning the title

(though the discussion after that that turned out to be pretty reasonable even before Josh had his say), but I'm glad I had another look because it has become fascinating - going over a lot of ground that has been discussed here many times before but adding some new info and ideas.

Thanks for posting Josh (and good luck for the future - it's encouraging that you and other very good pros from the past who didn't quite make the top 100 seem to found ways to stay in tennis and make a living, albeit sad that some had to stop before finding out quite how far they could go) and thanks to everyone else who has got involved. I don't know enough to even attempt to make judgements about who should/shouldn't be funded or to what extent but I agree that suddenly writing off players in a demoralising way and focusing too much just on those they think might reach the top 100 and not on building a pyramid below that is bound to be counter-productive.

As for what you might call 'objective' methods of funding, most of us here liked the bonus system since, while not perfect, it was at least a motivational way to help players survive and to have taken that away (for the most part) and reduced the number of Challengers, Futures and women's ITFs so drastically (even more so if you exclude pre-Wimbledon Challengers, which are always artificially strong, thus reducing the scope for earning money and points) must make a lot of players wonder why they bother - though I'm glad many still do!

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Development of tennis players is a doubled edge sword. Tennis is so technical that the ages 8-12 are critical in instilling the basic technical competencies for subsequent development, to do so for better players rapidly becomes very expensive. Coaches expect to get paid so family wealth, indeed equity of access in relation to geography, parental enthusiasm for tennis are all going to produce a massive bias in the top young players coming through. Let's face it in the UK the most athletically gifted children have a choice and those from poorer families who are truely gifted will choose football and increasingly that choice is at 8!

There are so many other variables that can't possibly be quantified in such young children and one must always reflect that they are just that, children, including many of the names on the list above being scrutinised. Any investment is going to be for the most part an educated guess.

We have done this to death but the concept of late developers is very interesting. Few will make it to the top of the game even from that LTA supported list. The list shows some pretty pragmatic choices that we haven't necessarily seen until relatively recently and personally, most encouraging for me is support for Lloyd Glasspool as a late developer through college tennis. Cam is a no brainier having dominated college tennis and this was a deliberate plan that has worked out nicely.

There are late developers in every sport for a variety of reasons. I can't see any players who will come through to make the top 100 from the Frinton list, although they are undoubtedly very fine players. Regular money tournaments at the interface between grass roots and professional tennis should be a strategic objective. With 100 players of either sex in US College tennis there is a pool of fine players who need to be encouraged to continue to play. A semi professional culture is essential for that. Although Ryman have just given up their sponsorship of the Isthmian league, "you what" you cry but without it or its geographical equivalent there would be no Jeremy Vardy, Ian Wright Wright Wright, or Chris Waddle.

The fact that Josh wanted to play is fantastic and part of the environment wants to develop it must have created a bit of a buzz for the other players a bit like Peter Beardsley playing for Hartlepool surely that never happened.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 12th of July 2017 06:39:32 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Just to back up Oakie's point, in a way: the emphasis people place on detection of kids and finding talented athletic youngsters, from all backgrounds etc. etc., seems misplaced, in my view. What happens when you do find one? You can give them a lesson a week, two lessons a week, whatever, but that's all.

The 'problem' is that youngsters are heavily influenced by friends and family. If none of their classmates play and all do a different sport, and the family don't really follow tennis, there is pretty much no chance that that kid will stick with it, however much they like tennis and/or show talent for it. So it's large expense (in lessons) for no net return.

That is why detection is largely bunkum, in my view, and the growth of a pyramid is so essential. It's only by having a large number of normal people involved in tennis (and that has to include proper competitive tennis) that the sport will, organically, produce champions.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Wednesday 12th of July 2017 07:01:00 AM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Next week's event at Tunbridge Wells is an interesting one.....the college kids have come out in force, although they are mainly in qualifying (guess their uk ranking has faded away whilst they have been in the US). Curious to see how they do in relation to their UK based peers. Not so many college players in the women's event, just 3 or 4, but again all in qualifying (apart from Holly Horsfall)