Coup Droit wrote:

---

I 100% agree with Dan

He says that grass papered over the cracks too. And he's right. We've had the wildcard discussion. I support them. But I do know that they distort things, giving our players an unfair advantage (as do the WCs for other major countries, but not the smaller ones)

I wasn't suggesting that Hev and Katie S got unfair draws or anything.

I was pointing out that at least the guys who beat them went on to qualify - it's just to give the full picture, not to make excuses

I have always 100% agreed that the concentration of funds in a few players is utterly ridiculous

And that, if the LTA can't create a tennis industry, that allows a whole pyramid of players to thrive, then they should all resign and let in a team who can

---

 PS - and put Dan in charge when he is ready!

Yes, I agree, Indy.

With Katie Boulter, Katie Swan, Jodie, Harriet, (Heather), Fran, the arrival of Lily, and a few ringers, there was a very solid group of women all about 23-24 or so, where you'd expect at least one or two to move up the echelon into solid 50-75 rankings.

Roll forward a couple of years and none of them are there (it's true Jodie is at a CH, and is younger than the others, so well done to her, and Katie Swan is also a little younger, but there's no real room for slim pickings)

I absolutely expect both Jodie and Katie Swan to make top-100. At some point.

I also think there's a decent chance that Katie B will (health is an issue) and Harriet was there before so why not? (answers on a postcard - not sure quite what is going on with her)

But, as you say, this was actually quite a particulalry good group (for us). Freya, Emily App, Naiktha etc are all in the same group and all pretty good by GB standards. So if we can't hit the top-100 from that sort of group, we're truly stymied for normal times.

The arrival of Sonay, and Marni, and maybe US college players like Millie R?, will boost the younger end.

But I don't see Talia and Isabelle Lacy and Ranah and Ella as being any better than the Katie B, Harriet and Jodie cohort - indeed, if you look at their profiles at age 17, they're not.

So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)

Mimi, and Hep, and Hannah K might be different. But that is getting so young as to be a bit absurd.

Again, I have absolute faith that Katie S and Jodie will be top 100. And Katie B almost certainly.

But they should be there already really.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes, I agree, Indy.

With Katie Boulter, Katie Swan, Jodie, Harriet, (Heather), Fran, the arrival of Lily, and a few ringers, there was a very solid group of women all about 23-24 or so, where you'd expect at least one or two to move up the echelon into solid 50-75 rankings.

Roll forward a couple of years and none of them are there (it's true Jodie is at a CH, and is younger than the others, so well done to her, and Katie Swan is also a little younger, but there's no real room for slim pickings)

I absolutely expect both Jodie and Katie Swan to make top-100. At some point.

I also think there's a decent chance that Katie B will (health is an issue) and Harriet was there before so why not? (answers on a postcard - not sure quite what is going on with her)

But, as you say, this was actually quite a particulalry good group (for us). Freya, Emily App, Naiktha etc are all in the same group and all pretty good by GB standards. So if we can't hit the top-100 from that sort of group, we're truly stymied for normal times.

The arrival of Sonay, and Marni, and maybe US college players like Millie R?, will boost the younger end.

But I don't see Talia and Isabelle Lacy and Ranah and Ella as being any better than the Katie B, Harriet and Jodie cohort - indeed, if you look at their profiles at age 17, they're not.

So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)

Mimi, and Hep, and Hannah K might be different. But that is getting so young as to be a bit absurd.

Again, I have absolute faith that Katie S and Jodie will be top 100. And Katie B almost certainly.

But they should be there already really.

---

Dont forget Ranah. With Mirra Andreeva making MD at RG and just 16, maybe we should be looking to the younger generation? Also if it didnt work out for the current generation what went wrong? Or do we not have enough strength in depth?

Var wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes, I agree, Indy.

With Katie Boulter, Katie Swan, Jodie, Harriet, (Heather), Fran, the arrival of Lily, and a few ringers, there was a very solid group of women all about 23-24 or so, where you'd expect at least one or two to move up the echelon into solid 50-75 rankings.

Roll forward a couple of years and none of them are there (it's true Jodie is at a CH, and is younger than the others, so well done to her, and Katie Swan is also a little younger, but there's no real room for slim pickings)

I absolutely expect both Jodie and Katie Swan to make top-100. At some point.

I also think there's a decent chance that Katie B will (health is an issue) and Harriet was there before so why not? (answers on a postcard - not sure quite what is going on with her)

But, as you say, this was actually quite a particulalry good group (for us). Freya, Emily App, Naiktha etc are all in the same group and all pretty good by GB standards. So if we can't hit the top-100 from that sort of group, we're truly stymied for normal times.

The arrival of Sonay, and Marni, and maybe US college players like Millie R?, will boost the younger end.

But I don't see Talia and Isabelle Lacy and Ranah and Ella as being any better than the Katie B, Harriet and Jodie cohort - indeed, if you look at their profiles at age 17, they're not.

So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)

Mimi, and Hep, and Hannah K might be different. But that is getting so young as to be a bit absurd.

Again, I have absolute faith that Katie S and Jodie will be top 100. And Katie B almost certainly.

But they should be there already really.

---

Dont forget Ranah. With Mirra Andreeva making MD at RG and just 16, maybe we should be looking to the younger generation? Also if it didnt work out for the current generation what went wrong? Or do we not have enough strength in depth?

---

 Yet again, we do actually have pretty decent relative strength in depth. The issue appears more a group of still relatively young top 200 players ( most top 150 at times ) at best generally plateauing and not pushing on into the top 100 and fulfilling earlier expectations

And also re this skip generation stuff again, why should the next lot be better. As CD said:

"... So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)"

GAMEOVER wrote:

---

I made a comment about Sonay losing the match from 6-2, 5-1.  However anybody old enough and who followed Virginia Wade's career might recall her 3rd round match at Wimbledon  in 1983 when she played Andrea Leand .It was the same story line apart from the fact  it was Leand who did a Sonay. Leand  lead 6-3, 5-1 and served for the match twice . She did not get a match point. Wade came back to force a  2nd set tie break which she won and then won the 3rd set 6-2. One is happy when the player one is supporting comes back from the brink. Just glad at the time that Leand lost her nerve.

,

---

Was poor from Sinay but yes  that sort of thing has over the years so often happened to non GB players too. Who knew?

indiana wrote:

---

Var wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes, I agree, Indy.

With Katie Boulter, Katie Swan, Jodie, Harriet, (Heather), Fran, the arrival of Lily, and a few ringers, there was a very solid group of women all about 23-24 or so, where you'd expect at least one or two to move up the echelon into solid 50-75 rankings.

Roll forward a couple of years and none of them are there (it's true Jodie is at a CH, and is younger than the others, so well done to her, and Katie Swan is also a little younger, but there's no real room for slim pickings)

I absolutely expect both Jodie and Katie Swan to make top-100. At some point.

I also think there's a decent chance that Katie B will (health is an issue) and Harriet was there before so why not? (answers on a postcard - not sure quite what is going on with her)

But, as you say, this was actually quite a particulalry good group (for us). Freya, Emily App, Naiktha etc are all in the same group and all pretty good by GB standards. So if we can't hit the top-100 from that sort of group, we're truly stymied for normal times.

The arrival of Sonay, and Marni, and maybe US college players like Millie R?, will boost the younger end.

But I don't see Talia and Isabelle Lacy and Ranah and Ella as being any better than the Katie B, Harriet and Jodie cohort - indeed, if you look at their profiles at age 17, they're not.

So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)

Mimi, and Hep, and Hannah K might be different. But that is getting so young as to be a bit absurd.

Again, I have absolute faith that Katie S and Jodie will be top 100. And Katie B almost certainly.

But they should be there already really.

---

Dont forget Ranah. With Mirra Andreeva making MD at RG and just 16, maybe we should be looking to the younger generation? Also if it didnt work out for the current generation what went wrong? Or do we not have enough strength in depth?

---

 Yet again, we do actually have pretty decent relative strength in depth. The issue appears more a group of still relatively young top 200 players ( most top 150 at times ) at best generally plateauing and not pushing on into the top 100 and fulfilling earlier expectations

And also re this skip generation stuff again, why should the next lot be better. As CD said:

"... So putting all our hopes on that new batch of players risks not facing up to the question as to why the same cohort a little older didn't really quite live up to expectation (so far)"

---

 No I dont think we should skip the current players, but maybe support the juniors more. Also if they dont live up to even modest expectations then isnt something wrong? 

indiana wrote:

---

It's overall been a poor last year in both GB men's and women's tennis, particularly since the last grass season, after quite an encouraging previous year, and that went beyond Emma. Our men were showing more depth, our leading women seemed to be pushing on again.
.
Some folk don't seem to like how I have previously said that we had historically a very decent group of leading women, particularly in number of players. But it is simple fact and they were progressing to the extent that in September last year they had the best average top 10 ranking in at least 30 years of WTA rankings. That was good news.

However they have not progressed further, indeed, even leaving Emma out of the equation, gone backwards as a group since then and, particularly given a relatively still young age distribution in our top 10 or so, that is very disappointing.

There really does need to be a lot of consideration in the LTA as to why this is. Why are what looked an encouraging group of women generally going backwards? Why do we only have 7 men in the top 350? ( albeit yes 19, hopefully 20 soon, in the top 500  )

---

 Harriet's loss of form is the most worrying after her success last year as unlike almost everyone else she has usually has few injury problems.