C'mon down and take a bow, Miss Hill.

Takes the third set 6-2

Pity that Tiff lost, but four good winners into the semis. 4 points apiece. (Stupid 3-tournament rule !)

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Michael D wrote:

---

Well, congrats to the Irish for putting on a 15k tournament and showing what can happen when you do, both regards their own players, as well as GBs. However... what comes next, and how are these players given an opportunity of actually gaining the other two counters to get their actual ranking? I suppose next year, it will be easier with the transition tour, but whatever the tour arrangements, as a national tennis association you still have to provide players with the opportunity to get onto the ladder, however that ladder is constructed.

Still lovely to see Sasha gain two wins and two points so far, Tiff a couple more wins too, Emily an opportunity to have a little run of wins, which she needs, and Ema the chance to gain her second counter... All from one 15k, and this is just the Brit girls.

---

I don't see it's the job of the federation to provide enough tournaments just to get their players ranked.

There are many small countries, with small budgets, who simply can't afford to put on that amount of events. 

The ranking itself is not worth a huge amount either.

I think the federations have to, within their means, provide opportunities for the players to test themselves, and to experience that level of play. It is that that will help the player decide if they want to pursue that path. The fact that the 15 year-old who beat Alice Gillan is part of the National Tennis Academy there (as opposed to being based in Spain, say, like the Bothwells) sends a great message to other NTA players. US college is obviously a big option (allez, Julie). The play-up wildcard system for the men was great. To me, these events are not a linear path just to a ranking.    

---

I don't think I agree with you CD that the ranking is not worth a huge amount. It's rather like a passport, it provides a greatly enhanced opportunity to get into tournaments than when you don't have one, and the limiting factor in the UK at the moment for players is opportunity rather than ability. At the same time, I would agree that national federations don't have the obligation to provide another tournaments for players to be ranked, but there are different ways of facilitating the opportunity to do so, which for me also overlaps with your point about providing opportunities for players to test themselves. 

When I wrote my original post, I was actually thinking from the perspectives of Ema and Sasha, and the Irish players too, as to what do they do next and how.. As well as people like Emilie Lind Gallagher, and we have others too. If it's prohibitively costly for them to play those first handful of tournaments required a) to test themselves, and b) to get that ranking passport, then they might never know whether they could cut it or not. 

Maybe the new transition tour will sort some of this out, especially as I understand it will make it easier to gain a ranking on it, and if does that will resolve part of this issue. Certainly if the transition tour makes this 'testing' easier, then it could possibly prove its value in the overall process of tennis development.. that is as long as the opportunities to do the testing are not reduced even further.   

Yes, I would agree with that CD.. and I was thinking about ELG too, and what might be considered a 'fair' opportunity/ test of her calibre. If she was able to have a run of 3 tournaments at somewhere like Sharm, and she picks up nothing one would say fair enough. But she has hasn't. SHe played in Israel, I think two tournaments, was knocked out early by one of the higher seeds, then reached a SF... then didn't play again (unfortunately missing the Tiberias tournament which ironically Emma R won to gain her ranking). I don't know whether her funds had run out but missing that was unfortunate, as since then I think she's only played twice, once in Spain, where she qualified but then played a goodish player and lost, and then lastly in the Woking 25k this week, where she was beaten by the WR 518 but with a very competitive first set at least... So the jury is still out, and it's out because of the lack of an appropriate run.

I also acknowledge that comparatively young players from the UK are better off than say those from most African countries, or perhaps many in Asia, but there are other factors at play there. The fact is that the UK hosts a grand slam tournaments and has the resources so its not unreasonable to expect young players to have the opportunity to at least do that testing. I'm not saying the system should allow players to hang around aimlessly with a ranking of around 1000, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the UK to be able to provide say two runs of 2-3 15k tournaments at different points of each year, rather than just to do it for 25k events, which is what is happening now.

Michae: But Emilie has played 14 tournaments in the last 12 months - surely that's a fair opportunity?

NB this is not at all a criticism of Emilie - who I don't know at all - she's very young and, presumably, using the ITFs as part of her development path and so would expect to lose a lot.

However, if you've played 14 tournaments and not managed to get a ranking, to me that means you don't really merit a ranking yet. Fourteen is quite a lot, no?

(PS this is not specific to Emilie either - which would be better on the Woking thread  - but just general about how many events a federation should lay on)

Also, I do agree that some 15ks in the UK would be a good idea !!! 

 

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 3rd of August 2018 03:52:30 PM

Big ranking difference between the 1st and 2nd seeds. Julia Kimmelmann has successfully partnered Soumeya Anane in at least a couple of tournaments of late.

F: Appleton/Ponomar (GBR/GER) [1] 898 vs Bejenaru/ Kimmelmann (ROU/GER) [2] 1556