Week 34 - US Open Qualifying (hard)

LordBrownof · Futures level

RE: Week 34 - US Open Qualifying (hard)

steven · Tennis legend

Kounosuke wrote:
theemptyvessel wrote:
To be fair to Naomi the advances she made under Fitzy came in the first few months together and she really didn't seem to be progressing in the last few months of his tenure. Looking at her career earnings and knowing that she was still living hand to mouth and borrowing money to make it just 2 years ago its hard to condemn her for not wanting to continue to pick up the tab for a full time coach. I don't sense any animosity between the two and all things being equal I think Naomi would love a full time coach, she just can't afford one year round. I would agree that absent any late season surge in form I think she would be wise to work with someone during the winter break and maybe into the beginning of next season to maybe add some impetus back to her career but it's easy for me to say that when I am not the one having to pay someone out of my own pocket.

On another subject, anyone smarter than me like to work out the odds of a LL spot for Naomi? I am assuming Katie would be too far out for a realistic shot unless seeding is not a factor.

-- Edited by theemptyvessel on Friday 25th of August 2017 10:06:19 PM
As Naomi is the 4th highest seeded player to lose in the FQR, she'll be in the LL draw, so a 25% chance if a LL spot opens up as it's the top 4 that make it in the LL draw.

-- Edited by Kounosuke on Friday 25th of August 2017 10:16:38 PM

Unfortunately, Naomi was the last to come out of the LL draw, though at least she's no worse off than if it had been done purely on ranking. Not much chance of the 4th in line getting in these days though. Katie is 15th in line (surprisingly, there was one FQR loser ranked lower than her), which means no chance baring an outbreak of the plague in the players' lounge.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

theemptyvessel wrote:
To be fair to Naomi the advances she made under Fitzy came in the first few months together and she really didn't seem to be progressing in the last few months of his tenure. Looking at her career earnings and knowing that she was still living hand to mouth and borrowing money to make it just 2 years ago its hard to condemn her for not wanting to continue to pick up the tab for a full time coach. I don't sense any animosity between the two and all things being equal I think Naomi would love a full time coach, she just can't afford one year round. I would agree that absent any late season surge in form I think she would be wise to work with someone during the winter break and maybe into the beginning of next season to maybe add some impetus back to her career but it's easy for me to say that when I am not the one having to pay someone out of my own pocket.

On another subject, anyone smarter than me like to work out the odds of a LL spot for Naomi? I am assuming Katie would be too far out for a realistic shot unless seeding is not a factor.

According to the WTA, Naomi has earned $180,000 this year. And that doesn't take into account the World Team tennis she just played which is usually $20-30k (average).

That's ample to pay for a coach, even given other expenses.

And way more than many of the other players around her level (largely thanks to the Wimbly wildcards).

If she doesn't think a coach is worth it, fine, but she's got the funds to invest in herself if she wants.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Thanks for the figures CD. That's higher than I had imagined. And considering she calls out the federation and refuses to play for them, she can consider herself fortunate to still get a lucrative MDWC for the national slam.

Mervatron2 · Challenger qualifying

Shame they couldn't win.

Good fight for Katie. Hopefully this shows where she's at and what she should aim for the rest of the year. Excited to see what she can achieve now. Before this week I thought she'd do well to be top 150. That should be what she aims for in the not too distant future.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

skibbarriz wrote:
Thanks for the figures CD. That's higher than I had imagined. And considering she calls out the federation and refuses to play for them, she can consider herself fortunate to still get a lucrative MDWC for the national slam.

Disagree. Considering how badly she was treated by them,I don't blame her one little bit

indiana · Tennis legend

hoots wrote:
skibbarriz wrote:
Thanks for the figures CD. That's higher than I had imagined. And considering she calls out the federation and refuses to play for them, she can consider herself fortunate to still get a lucrative MDWC for the national slam.
Disagree. Considering how badly she was treated by them,I don't blame her one little bit

Whatever the rights or wrongs and on the face of it the LTA could have dealt with things better she sure has rarely looked close to truly leaving it in the past.

I found it kind of sad that she used much of a PC after her 2014 Wimbledon R1 win ( with a WC ) to still go on about how she was defined by that teenage incident and the later financial troubles it had caused ( though it needn't have done ) so all a struggle that she had had to fight through. She didn't quite stick two fingers up but the sentiment was there. Some people then were probably wondering what she was actually talking about.

I am not querying the WCs she gets. I do wonder about some of her / her family's choices.

Sheddie · administrator

When it comes to press conferences, you have to take what a player appears to 'choose' to talk about, with a pinch of salt.

They're replying to specific questions thrown at them by the media. And when it comes to British players at Wimbledon, the press conference room will be packed full of UK tabloid journalists who will all be angling for the most sensational take on the story, likely to generate the most hits & thus ad revenue in 500-1000 words. It's how the business works. When it comes to Broady, all of those UK journos will be aware of the Bebo-gate story from 2008 or whenever it was, and the subsequent fall-out. After all many of them wrote about it at the time, and for the newer ones, it doesn't take much of a Google to dig up.

Therefore, if Broady wins a Grand Slam match, in the eyes of journalists "the LTA story" is the obvious sub-plot to be highlighted, and therefore virtually every question she will have faced in that press conference room will have been about it. She won't have been asked about much else.

This isn't immediately obvious if you then watch the online videos of the press conference, which tend to mainly show the player's response, and not the original questions. And then if you read the subsequent stories/headlines, they will be along the lines of "Broady takes pot shot at LTA", "Broady rips into disgraceful LTA", which tend to imply that Naomi walked into that press conference room and started blasting the organisation entirely off her own back.

You tend to get a rather more nuanced story from the one-on-one interviews, as there's usually more time then for the player to elaborate, more questions can be asked (in press conferences you have about 10min), they often already know/recognise the interviewer so they open up and explain more, plus most crucially, the journalist will actually ask interesting, different questions which they've had up their sleeve for a while as they know the content will be exclusive.

As a subpoint, the major issue with press conferences nowadays is (a) all broadcasters can film them and stick them online with a few minutes, which kills the already struggling print media as the broadcasters already have a monopoly over exclusive interview access, and now they're also accessing the press conference material (b) There's so many journalists in there - newspapers, magazines, online bloggers from every country - that if you have a really unique interesting question which offers a totally new perspective on something, you're not going to use it, because someone else will take the quotes and have it online faster than you

As a result, most of press conference questions are either totally mundane and dull, 'Talk about the match Andy?' Or merely focused on the obvious storyline, everyone will be covering. Everyone is saving their best questions for when they get an exclusive interview opp.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

Sheddie wrote:
When it comes to press conferences, you have to take what a player appears to 'choose' to talk about, with a pinch of salt.

They're replying to specific questions thrown at them by the media. And when it comes to British players at Wimbledon, the press conference room will be packed full of UK tabloid journalists who will all be angling for the most sensational take on the story, likely to generate the most hits & thus ad revenue in 500-1000 words. It's how the business works. When it comes to Broady, all of those UK journos will be aware of the Bebo-gate story from 2008 or whenever it was, and the subsequent fall-out. After all many of them wrote about it at the time, and for the newer ones, it doesn't take much of a Google to dig up.

Therefore, if Broady wins a Grand Slam match, in the eyes of journalists "the LTA story" is the obvious sub-plot to be highlighted, and therefore virtually every question she will have faced in that press conference room will have been about it. She won't have been asked about much else.

This isn't immediately obvious if you then watch the online videos of the press conference, which tend to mainly show the player's response, and not the original questions. And then if you read the subsequent stories/headlines, they will be along the lines of "Broady takes pot shot at LTA", "Broady rips into disgraceful LTA", which tend to imply that Naomi walked into that press conference room and started blasting the organisation entirely off her own back.

You tend to get a rather more nuanced story from the one-on-one interviews, as there's usually more time then for the player to elaborate, more questions can be asked (in press conferences you have about 10min), they often already know/recognise the interviewer so they open up and explain more, plus most crucially, the journalist will actually ask interesting, different questions which they've had up their sleeve for a while as they know the content will be exclusive.

As a subpoint, the major issue with press conferences nowadays is (a) all broadcasters can film them and stick them online with a few minutes, which kills the already struggling print media as the broadcasters already have a monopoly over exclusive interview access, and now they're also accessing the press conference material (b) There's so many journalists in there - newspapers, magazines, online bloggers from every country - that if you have a really unique interesting question which offers a totally new perspective on something, you're not going to use it, because someone else will take the quotes and have it online faster than you

As a result, most of press conference questions are either totally mundane and dull, 'Talk about the match Andy?' Or merely focused on the obvious storyline, everyone will be covering. Everyone is saving their best questions for when they get an exclusive interview opp.

Agreed.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks Sheddie for giving all that context and information.

My memories are still that Naomi hardly seemed reluctant once she was in full flow but your points are largely taken on board and that it wouldn't have been Naomi that set the agenda but rather responded to questions.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Nice point. But she could easily say, "i'm not looking to talk about that topic". Or that it's over now and she's just looking forward. She's not helpless in directing the topic and tone of her press conferences.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Good post by Sheddie there. The right wing press and the LTA and British Tennis being 'Toryish' will never support Naomi and players like her, the agenda has been set. Good on Naomi by sticking by her principles. I'm not a fan of Davis Cup or Fed Cup, it's not tennis for me. Any 2 fingers up at the establishment wins my support if justified and Naomi's meets my criteria.

-- Edited by Jaggy1876 on Sunday 27th of August 2017 12:56:32 AM

steven · Tennis legend

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Good post by Sheddie there. The right wing press and the LTA and British Tennis being 'Toryish' will never support Naomi and players like her, the agenda has been set. Good on Naomi by sticking by her principles. I'm not a fan of Davis Cup or Fed Cup, it's not tennis for me. Any 2 fingers up at the establishment wins my support if justified and Naomi's meets my criteria.

I agree that it was an excellent post by Sheddie, all made perfect sense. The endless conspiracy theory about Toryness (if that's a word) is becoming a bit of a yawn though disbelief (and I say that as no fan of the current UKIP-lite government)

Oakland2002 · All-time great

It maybe a yawn but it is what it is.

Tennis as an expensive sport generally favours those with money, who generally favour policy that will allow them to keep what they have and or make more with less regard for the rest of society the further right you get. In terms of equity of access it is about as bad as you get, parents generally provide enormous wealth in one or two ways it can either be fiscal, practical acumen in the form of highly skilled training within tennis families or both! It is not a conspiracy it is the status quo there is little or no incentive to change except for the like of Jaggy boringly reminding us of the social injustices that exist, ok the comments are crass generalisations but the generalisations are right, their is no incentive to change for the most part it would be Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Naomi made a few bad choices as a teenager, but she was 17 and primarily they came to light through a certain naevity about the use of social media back in the day when it was relatively new to everyone. They weren't handled well in terms of the LTA understanding the responsibility they have to manage the longer term implications of their punitive "public schoolie" approach. In the greater scheme of things Naomi was guilty of normal teenager behaviour at worst, more about learning to be professional and not crimes against the state.

I accept that families can also be less than straight forward but regardless Naomi has made a pretty good fist of being a professional tennis player from a background that differs from the very focused, very well supported pathway that has and is yielding some of the best male players we have had, now have and may do in the future, Tim Henman, Kyle Edmund and now Jack Draper are all products of the excellent if a trifle expensive Reeds school.

I hope a few lessons have been learnt, it would be a tragedy if tabloid hell was to be let loose on one of our present crop of rising 15/16 year old stars as a result of "being caught/or exposed" as a normal teenager hitting the pizza or posing by a condom machine, the later arguably being an example of responsible behaviour! I have to be honest and I think had I been through Naomi's journey, despite the nonsense around cutting off ones nose for no good reason, I think there would still be a flame of resentment burning brightly within.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Sunday 27th of August 2017 07:11:12 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

My only issue with the 'Toryness' argument of tennis (boring or not) is that it's made out to be a particularly British problem.
Tennis is an expensive sport wherever you go. In that sense it is elite, wherever you go.
Now it's true that it's not QUITE so expensive in certain other countries. And the class side of tennis elitism, as opposed to the financial, is not quite there.
But there's no getting round the basic financials. And direct funding will never be enough to change that. It won't even make much of a dent.
And looking at Oakie's other side, I believe that the "enormous wealth in [terms of] practical acumen in the form of highly skilled training within tennis families" is the one thing that should, in fact, be prioritised and the one that is lacking in the UK and one of the reasons the standard is poor. (Note that having a wealth of excellent tennis parents not only helps those children, but their friends (mushroom effect), other players at the club (parents need hitting partners, members for teams etc. etc.), sponsorship (more publicity, more money, so helps others), etc. etc.)
I have very little time for the LTA but tennis is an elite and expensive sport wherever you go.