British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

And, just me, but I don't particularly like or respect Anne Keothavong, and so the only reason I (if Emma ) would really put myself out for the event vanishes (I think Leon Smith showed the importance of this element - Andy effectively refusing to play for John Lloyd still makes me giggle)

So, Emma is true to form, and I don't have a problem with it

---

 Would love to know more about why you're not the biggest fan of Anne K, CD? :)

I'm not either really for some reason. I very much supported her as a player, and felt that she maxed out her talent - her and Elena Baltacha reaching the top 50 was the first bit of light for British women's tennis for more than a decade in the doldrums and represented the beginning of the much more successful era we've had since with Heather & Laura, then Jo Konta and more recently Emma, Katie and the rest.

But in her post-playing career, I've found her strangely hard to warm to, especially as a pundit where she seems to regularly carry the slightly bizarre demeanour of an under-fire politician at PMQs, anticipating a difficult interrogation. I don't think TV is a natural gig for her, and while she's got a little better over the years, she seems to struggle to separate her 'Corporate Anne' persona, distrustful of journalists, from her BJK Cup role, into TV punditry which jars a little bit.

From what I've been told, she's very conscious of her brand/image, which makes sense for retired players trying to carve out their second career, but you get the impression a lot that it's quite forefront in her mind.

HarryGem wrote:

---

Emma, like any other player, needs to do what is right for her tennis career. It is likely to be short and if she wants to be remembered as more than a fluke winner of a grand slam (not that that is how I see her but others sure do) she needs to start making some more progress so that she is seeded in bigger competitions. I'm sure readers of the Daily Mail will be affronted and maybe she could have given a bit more notice but the scheduling is crazy and now someone else has a chance to make a name for themselves.

The BJK cup needs to change its format and be played once every 4 years, two years after the Olympics. Brand it as the world cup of women's team tennis, increase the prize money and allow the players to get points to help them towards their season's tally.
Oh and change the name as well.

---

 Agree that Emma should do what's best for career even if that means pulling out at this late stage. But telling the media first is basically sticking two fingers up at the LTA and her teammates, and could have been so easily avoided.

It's clear that Emma is going to have a Sharapova-style approach to representing her country, although unlike Sharapova she has also skipped the Olympics. Obviously she'll need to play a couple of times to be eligible for the LA28.

Disagree that the BJKC should be played every four years. Tennis is an annual calendar, and over 140 nations play each year. For many players, it's an important part of their tennis development, and for many others the only chance to play in front of a home crowd. For nations, it's an opportunity to promote women's tennis at home.The competition is so much more than which big names choose to play the finals or not.

For every country like USA (Gauff) or GB (Raducanu), there are several countries whose top players always turn out, like Italy, Czechia, Switzerland and Kazakhstan.

It's a unique event, and at it's best still creates an amazing atmosphere, like Britain's win in France last year.

Sheddie wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

And, just me, but I don't particularly like or respect Anne Keothavong, and so the only reason I (if Emma ) would really put myself out for the event vanishes (I think Leon Smith showed the importance of this element - Andy effectively refusing to play for John Lloyd still makes me giggle)

So, Emma is true to form, and I don't have a problem with it

---

 Would love to know more about why you're not the biggest fan of Anne K, CD? :)

I'm not either really for some reason. I very much supported her as a player, and felt that she maxed out her talent - her and Elena Baltacha reaching the top 50 was the first bit of light for British women's tennis for more than a decade in the doldrums and represented the beginning of the much more successful era we've had since with Heather & Laura, then Jo Konta and more recently Emma, Katie and the rest.

But in her post-playing career, I've found her strangely hard to warm to, especially as a pundit where she seems to regularly carry the slightly bizarre demeanour of an under-fire politician at PMQs, anticipating a difficult interrogation. I don't think TV is a natural gig for her, and while she's got a little better over the years, she seems to struggle to separate her 'Corporate Anne' persona, distrustful of journalists, from her BJK Cup role, into TV punditry which jars a little bit.

From what I've been told, she's very conscious of her brand/image, which makes sense for retired players trying to carve out their second career, but you get the impression a lot that it's quite forefront in her mind.

 

---

 I agree with everything you say. Zero complaint whatsoever about Anne as a player. 

But, from what I've read, and a couple of things I've seen/been told, she is now very much a corporate bod, for the LTA and Wimbledon, and not a very brave one, at that. 

In a couple of contentious moments, she could have backed the players, but refused absolutely to go against the blazers. As you say, brand is important and she's very focused on climbing the slippery pole, which is fine - up to a point - but you can't expect much respect for it.

The fact that, at the LTA, she effectively works for Jeremy Bates doesn't help (I'm like an old record but what can I say? ). She got promoted, I think, to Senior National Women's Coach this spring, and so is under/with Bates as Head Coach of Women's Tennis.

Frankly, I feel she's a puppet. She's scared of upsetting anyone above her, she toes the line, she has never made a bold move (accepting Cayer's advice re the doubles pair was probably the closest we got and she was never going to say no to him) or suggested anything that might ruffle feathers. She's just climbing that ladder. And is prickly about it. And yet she sells herself as the voice of BAME, the voice of Hackney. 

It might be a little harsh - but you asked 

I was getting confused with the roles of Iain and Jeremy Bates in British womens tennis. Looking back to 2013 I found out that Iain Bates was appointed as Head of British womens tennis and Jeremy Bates was appointed as head coach of British womens tennis. The only change since then was that Judy Murray was Fed Cup captain.

Its never had the profile the DC has. The DC was built on the back of epic 3 day, 5 rubbers, best of 5 sets, home crowd support baying for their team. Ive seen GB men play Finland at Bristol, Zimbabwe at Crystal Palace, France at Queens, Austria at Wimbledon; and enjoyed every minute of those in that format.

And in that format, it easily withstood not having the best team playing on occasion; the tension and crowd stopped that being a big issue. And 5 rubbers gives you a chance of not missing your top player as much.

BJK never really grew the home and away thing , most of its early years , through to not many years ago where played as one week events with 32 teams taking part in one venue - we hosted the event on grass at Eastbourne in the 70s and Nottingham on hardcourts in the 80s or maybe it was 90s. That format never grew that feeling that came from home or away ties; all due respect, Bulgaria v Canada in Eastbourne doesnt cut it. And best of 3 rubbers never lets the tension build, and best of 3 sets ditto.

So its never built the reputation or mystique even that DC had. Sadly, DC has lost a lot of that with the new format.

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Its never had the profile the DC has. The DC was built on the back of epic 3 day, 5 rubbers, best of 5 sets, home crowd support baying for their team. Ive seen GB men play Finland at Bristol, Zimbabwe at Crystal Palace, France at Queens, Austria at Wimbledon; and enjoyed every minute of those in that format.

And in that format, it easily withstood not having the best team playing on occasion; the tension and crowd stopped that being a big issue. And 5 rubbers gives you a chance of not missing your top player as much.

BJK never really grew the home and away thing , most of its early years , through to not many years ago where played as one week events with 32 teams taking part in one venue - we hosted the event on grass at Eastbourne in the 70s and Nottingham on hardcourts in the 80s or maybe it was 90s. That format never grew that feeling that came from home or away ties; all due respect, Bulgaria v Canada in Eastbourne doesnt cut it. And best of 3 runners never lets the tension build, and best of 3 sets ditto.

So its never built the reputation or mystique even that DC had. Sadly, DC has lost a lot of that with the new format.

---

Some of the week-long Federation Cups (63-94) were a great success. In 1991, over 70,000 fans came to Nottingham and Princess Diana was the patron. In a way, it's easier to promote a 32 team event as a festival of tennis.

The reason the Davis Cup format changed was that there was decreasing interest in home and away finals outside the two competing nations. Sure an amazing spectacle for the fans in the stadium, and people watching at home from the two countries involved, but the rest of the world wasn't interested. With eight teams involved, you've lost a lot of the magic, but definitely more international interest.