ROSAMUND wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

A big issue given the initial marketing though is at the top end with the big names. All due respect to Harriet, she isnt a name outside tennis circles. There are 4 big mens names in reality, in terms of the casual observer.

In this order: Andy, Jamie, Dan and possibly Kyle. 2 very big names, 2 not as big but known.

In womens we probably have Jo, heather (that way round?), Laura and maybe katie b but I am pushing it to say katie b is that well known outside of tennis.

All 3 or let's say 4 of the mens played. And played well.

None of the top 3 womens names are here, all for valid reasons, ( and laura is still one of the known current tennis names) and the 4th, KB, is here.

But that stark reality shows the difference in the events as they have turned out.

Firstly Kyle did reach a Grand Slam singles semi final you know.

Secondly (that way round?) regarding Jo and Heather. Friends who don't know much about tennis at least know Jo through Wimbledon 2017 and mention her name in connection with the Grand Slams.  They never mention Heather. Simply not fair to Jo that comment.She is our top player you know. It's not another favourites issue you know.    

 

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Tuesday 14th of July 2020 01:43:07 PM

---

 

---

 Hi Rosamund - the point I was trying to make was that we dont have many players in the public eye from a Joe Public perspective, not slight anyone. I do know Kyle made a slam semi - but I dont know if I went down the local pub now and chatted to a selection of people that many will know him. Some will but not loads. That is not a slight on Kyle; I dont know how many  will know Dan either, frankly, but think his troubles will have raised his profile - any news is often good news as they say. 

Re Heather and Jo - again, Heather through her match with Serena, being on TV a fair bit, having grown up and been in the public eye longer, I suspect will have a bigger "I know her name" profile than Jo. Jo has clearly achieved more, of course she has, I like Jo a lot also, but I dont know if she has a bigger public profile than Heather. That is also why I put Laura in the list, she has a big name, despite not recently having achieved...much.   

Judging by all the injuries it's just as well the Fed Cup's not on at the moment. Otherwise I think Anne Keothavong, Annabel Croft and Sam Smith wold have to come out of retirement..

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

To be honest, I wouldn't be sure which way round Jo and Heather would be in the general public consciousness. Clearly Jo is our top player but I don't think Jon was being unfair, and I am certain that he didn't mean to be.

---

 I really  think that  Jo is more in the public conscience than Heather. Nobody does that to the Murray family and says Dan Evans is more in the public consciousness. Don't forget that Jo got the biggest TV audience in her match against Simona Halep  at Wimbledon 2017. It's not the favourites vote when our best female in the last 30 years was less popular than people who had never won a match on the WTA tour. In case you missed it Jo is our only female who has done anything in the Grand Slam singles in the last 30 years. Jon's comment doesn't stack up. Absolute rubbish. 

---

 But Rosamund, public consciousness and TV appeal isnt related to who is best...you have a much better knowledge of tennis history than me, although I know a reasonable amount, and the players who often attract publicity over the years are the ones who appeal for reasons which are outside of being the better player. Nastase never won the most but attracted the dollars. McEnroe more than Lendl, players like Leconte. Money, press, public consciousness on the mens side attracted to players who have a persona that gets them noticed. It is the way it is - I bet Kyrgios is more well known than Thiem to the general public, in the UK at least. Or Berretini, or someone like that. 

Jo is the best female in 30 years, I agree, and the favourites vote was a different thing - I am not saying Heather is my favourite, she isnt - I prefer Jo - but I dont think it is a slam dunk that Jo is more well known than Heather and certainly I bet she isnt more well known than Laura despite winning loads more than Laura ever will. 

As for the Murrays, well that is different. The fact you have a family, with one a Wimbledon Champ (twice, a slam winner also, a junior who broke through at 18 or whatever) , a brother who has won slams in doubles , and a Mum where the press love to look at the family intrigue and is she a pushy mum and all that - they are a story and by far and away the biggest story in tennis. That is why I listed Jamie ahead of Dan in my list,and ahead of Kyle.

But the real point here was - all 4 of those big mens names played Battle of the Brits and gave it the impression of a big deal and it was a massive success. 

None of the big womens names, whatever order you list them in, is playing in the Progress event that started out to have ambitions of being the same thing as battle of the brits - and that is a big shame.