Ace Ventura wrote:

---

Lost 6-4 4-6 3-6, kind of fell away a bit at the end.

Shame she lost that from the positions she was in in both sets 2 and 3, and another title would have been nice, especially a first at home, but at this stage it's more important that she's competing with, and often winning, against those ranked 150-250, and the subsequent rise up the rankings will surely follow.

Very good tournament for her. I wonder if she plays before the Shrewsbury W60?

---

Yes I think the occasion got to Emma a bit... she was tighter than in previous matches, a few more DFs at key occasions, and she was ballooning her forehand at times in a way she had not been doing earlier in the week.

Still a great tournament, and also a very interesting question of yours at the end Ace. If she is focusing on schooling and since the Shrewsbury event is in just a month's time, I would be surprised if she plays elsewhere before then. There are not really options in Europe anyway.  

The expected result, but a shame to see the end run away like that.
Useful week.

Sobering to think that L A Fernandez is just 68 days older than Ms. Raducanu, and has already just reached her first WTA International final.
Nottingham International is 99 days away. Ms. Raducanu has a good shout for a WC... I'm just saying...

Ah, I forgot about Boulter, and especially as that is her hometown event, and she'll want to avoid using PR (which could be just about borderline) if she has the chance of a MDWC, so I'd probably go for Dart and Boulter if we had 2, and then Emma if we do get the 3rd. 

For those interested, the february player of the month voting poll is up in the general section

This is just a meaninglessly reductive take. No one is treating them like robots or saying they're all the same.
Rather, the balance of probability shows that those that hit heights sooner are those that tend to hit the heights heights, and/or endure at those heights in the game.
Of course one could spend several grafs illustrating this (I'd use the Stephens, Svitolina, Keys, Tomljanovic, Robson, Bouchard group) and then someone would cherry pick a single contrary counter-example as though that alone somehow derailed the entire general direction of travel.

However good Ms. Raducanu is, or may become, it IS sobering to think that there are direct contemporaries that are already so far advanced and thus pushing the expectations and demands of her generation to such a heightened level.
The comparison to Fernandez is to a direct contemporary (Gauff is not, being the 2 years younger) and thus a useful yardstick, rather than selecting the obvious and distinct (potential) phenom outlier (Gauff) as a basis for your example which obviously skews the interpretation uselessly
The sensible comparison to a good but not absolute standout - Fernandez is just another of the many Junior # 1's. Not all Junior #1's get people terribly keen on their pro prospects, with good reason. Brits with long memories will well remember, for example, the former junior #1 Noppawan Lertcheewakarn for the part she played in a famous match involving a once promising Brit. Yet Lertcheewakarn was never favoured to storm the Senior ranks, and to date has a CH of 149 on the WTA, and indeed seems to have now retired, having not played since 2017

Hopefully MS. Raducanu's representation and team, and the player herself are looking at what Fernandez and others are achieving and very much belieiving that if they can do that, now, then I certainly can to. rather than this attitude of que sera sera.

And bemoan how the LTA holds the players back! Perhaps this endemic laissez faire national attitude to the sport is the bigger part of the problem.

Status Quo wrote:

---

This is just a meaninglessly reductive take. No one is treating them like robots or saying they're all the same.
Rather, the balance of probability shows that those that hit heights sooner are those that tend to hit the heights heights, and/or endure at those heights in the game.
Of course one could spend several grafs illustrating this (I'd use the Stephens, Svitolina, Keys, Tomljanovic, Robson, Bouchard group) and then someone would cherry pick a single contrary counter-example as though that alone somehow derailed the entire general direction of travel.

However good Ms. Raducanu is, or may become, it IS sobering to think that there are direct contemporaries that are already so far advanced and thus pushing the expectations and demands of her generation to such a heightened level.
The comparison to Fernandez is to a direct contemporary (Gauff is not, being the 2 years younger) and thus a useful yardstick, rather than selecting the obvious and distinct (potential) phenom outlier (Gauff) as a basis for your example which obviously skews the interpretation uselessly
The sensible comparison to a good but not absolute standout - Fernandez is just another of the many Junior # 1's. Not all Junior #1's get people terribly keen on their pro prospects, with good reason. Brits with long memories will well remember, for example, the former junior #1 Noppawan Lertcheewakarn for the part she played in a famous match involving a once promising Brit. Yet Lertcheewakarn was never favoured to storm the Senior ranks, and to date has a CH of 149 on the WTA, and indeed seems to have now retired, having not played since 2017

Hopefully MS. Raducanu's representation and team, and the player herself are looking at what Fernandez and others are achieving and very much belieiving that if they can do that, now, then I certainly can to. rather than this attitude of que sera sera.

And bemoan how the LTA holds the players back! Perhaps this endemic laissez faire national attitude to the sport is the bigger part of the problem.

---

You are still largely not gettng what we are saying regarding Individuals and individual circumstances. Trying to apply some "balance of probability" to supposedly "show" a tendency is fraught with danger, particularly when there can be clear outlier initial circumstances. 

Again, apart from young players naturally advancing at different rates to sometimes roughly the same later point, Emma has clearly until now trained and and practiced and particularly competed much less than at least some ( I'd guess nearer most to all ) of the others being mentioned

She is thus very underrranked and it is quite reasonable to think that she will particularly push on once she is very much more focussed on her tennis. She has until now had quite long periods not just not competing but apparently barely practicing, which puts her a bit behind the eightball for comparisons. Now maybe she won't truly catch up and push on so much, as she is an individual and will still have individual circumstances. Many have been like Lertcheewakam, who you yourself point to as an individual top young player who hasn't pushed near to the top as a senior  But things look promising to me regards Emma. Maybe the less tennis intense early tennis years may ultimately be a good thing. 

FWIW Emma still manages to be live ranked the #8 ranked under 18 in the world from her 9 counters. But it is not rankings now but these a year or two down the line that begin to have a lot more relevance and more open to looking at comparative and historical context. 

KK wrote:

---

Taking an academic education seriously and staying at school must have a considerable effect on the amount of practice hours available, therefore resulting in a player making slower progress than one playing tennis full time.

Matthew Syed (sports correspondence for The Times and former table tennis UK no 1)'s book 'Bounce' is fascinating in comparing the importance of good practice to innate talent.   At one time more of the UK table tennis team came from a single street in Reading than the whole of the rest of the UK.  The reason was there was a table tennis club (just one table, but open 24hrs a day) and a brilliant coach, so lots of the children in that street spent hours and hours playing.

---

 Emma  did that when she was younger, she wouldn't be able to compete at the level she currently is if she hadn't put the work in at some point but she now has to split her focus for a couple of years. It may stunt her rankings for a couple of years but it certainly won't damage her career ultimately.  She is a talented player and talent will out eventually, just like it has for the likes of Ash Barty.