Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Weeks 22 & 23 - French Open, Paris - Clay


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5404
Date:
RE: Weeks 22 & 23 - French Open, Paris - Clay


Coup Droit wrote:

Yes. But Katie was one of the 13 PSP players last year who shared in the LTA's funding of £700k, plus access to sports science team, etc. etc. (See 2018 report)
Not saying she doesn't need the money but....


 Katie will also be racking up those sponsorship deals. And has the benefit of WC's by the LTA (at least has done/will do) when not getting into the main draws.



__________________
Nix


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1692
Date:

I hear what you're saying. And I'm sure they all help but remember it can all be taken away, like when Jo Konta had to go to Spain to train because of withdrawal of funding. And I think then she had to ask her coaching team to delay payment for a while.

I'm not saying Katie isn't better off than many other players. Just that I can understand why she wouldn't easily turn down £20k when when probably feels she deserves it by reaching her current rank.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19005
Date:

Just thought I would wade in on Katie B's story here. The regulations, I believe, are equal across the men's and women's game and whilst the current strategy is an improvement on the previous rules, as it stops players limping through a few games in R1 and then defaulting, in my opinion they don't go far enough.

The solution IMO (which is the same as Steven has just posted in Twitter) is to issue the 50% R1 money to anyone who qualifies on ranking, even if they pull out the same day that the rankings on which Direct Acceptance are issued.

My mindset is simple. R1 prize money in ANY slam is NOT paid for playing/losing a match in R1, but is paid as an additional reward for the achievements of the previous 12 months in getting to a ranking level that would give a player DA into the MD. If that player has achieved said ranking, but is injured, give them the 50% automatically and allocate the balance to whoever benefits from that withdrawal. But don't wait until after the draws have been made and force players to travel and withdraw on-site. That is not good for the player, creates LL places that could be given as DA places to whoever is next in the ranking list, allowing them to avoid the necessity of playing qualies. This would also open up additional place(s) in qualies for other players as well.



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

Bob in Spain wrote:

Just thought I would wade in on Katie B's story here. The regulations, I believe, are equal across the men's and women's game and whilst the current strategy is an improvement on the previous rules, as it stops players limping through a few games in R1 and then defaulting, in my opinion they don't go far enough.

The solution IMO (which is the same as Steven has just posted in Twitter) is to issue the 50% R1 money to anyone who qualifies on ranking, even if they pull out the same day that the rankings on which Direct Acceptance are issued.

My mindset is simple. R1 prize money in ANY slam is NOT paid for playing/losing a match in R1, but is paid as an additional reward for the achievements of the previous 12 months in getting to a ranking level that would give a player DA into the MD. If that player has achieved said ranking, but is injured, give them the 50% automatically and allocate the balance to whoever benefits from that withdrawal. But don't wait until after the draws have been made and force players to travel and withdraw on-site. That is not good for the player, creates LL places that could be given as DA places to whoever is next in the ranking list, allowing them to avoid the necessity of playing qualies. This would also open up additional place(s) in qualies for other players as well.


Yes, this is the same solution Indy has also been recommending, and I'm certainly persuaded by it! It would make things much more straightforward certainly, and wouldn't need these kinds of shamquerades  



__________________
Jan


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 7605
Date:

Sounds very sensible to me.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19930
Date:

It's a good solution, and if it should ever come about will hopefully dilute all the criticism that has been spread around against those (like Katie) who have followed the rules.

__________________
Nix


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1692
Date:

I agree Bob. Perfect solution.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 52127
Date:

Brilliant to see Taylor Townsend playing so well - just taken the first set 7-5 against Gabine Mug.

And looking so fit and strong. For a woman who's had to put with so much criticism about body shape etc. (and from the US authorities, not just social media nasties), it's great.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 10074
Date:

Kerber out, not a massive surprise given she hasn't played for 3 weeks and was a bit of a doubt coming in, but a big name nonetheless. I'm pleased the scalp went to a young talent (Potapova). Mainly watching Muguruza, but had that on in the background. Oh and I'll be hoping Garbine can fully turn this around smile



-- Edited by Ace Ventura on Sunday 26th of May 2019 10:33:45 AM

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5404
Date:

Heather might've wished for an easier draw. As she is our sole women's rep in the doubles draw, not sure it's worth making a thread?

R1: (6) Elise Mertens & Aryna Sabalenka (BEL/BLR) CR 29 (6+23) vs Tatjana Maria & Heather Watson (GER/GBR) CR 115 (58+57)

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

No, definitely not worth making a separate thread! We only have Jo to follow in the singles and Heather in the doubles now. Hope at least that we will be able to follow Jo for a few rounds further than her earlier FO exploits...

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5404
Date:

Ace, it's looking good now for Garbi!

When we were all moaning about Jo's coaching set up last year, at least it was only a year. Garbi seems to have gone backwards since Wimbledon 2017.



-- Edited by flamingowings on Sunday 26th of May 2019 10:54:47 AM

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 10074
Date:

flamingowings wrote:

Ace, it's looking good now for Garbi!

When we were all moaning about Jo's coaching set up last year, at least it was only a year. Garbi seems to have gone backwards since Wimbledon 2017.



-- Edited by flamingowings on Sunday 26th of May 2019 10:54:47 AM


Yes FW, was very concerned after the first set, but she has played well since, and hopefully will finish the job soon.

That relationship with Sumyk must be one of the strangest on tour, some of those OCC sessions, ha. I'm still hoping for a peaking out of nowhere here, but yes, she's generally gone right back since 2017, certainly since Cincy anyway where after all the changes in #1, I thought we had a legit, undisputed one at the time (*with Serena out of the picture then).



-- Edited by Ace Ventura on Sunday 26th of May 2019 11:08:21 AM

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5404
Date:

I've been thinking that Garbi is a bit like Ivanovic (although she doesn't have that wonky ball toss!)

__________________


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 590
Date:

Does anybody know when Jo is due to play? I always forget the French starts on a Sunday

__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 624  >  Last»  | Page of 24  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard