British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

JonH comes home wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

That GB ITF Men's Singles Players nomination was a bit different.

But then they were different this year with their huge title haul and all these rankings rises.

So be different, vote for them just as I have just done.

---

 I knew you would Indy! 

---

 Now that someone else is secure.

indiana wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

That GB ITF Men's Singles Players nomination was a bit different.

But then they were different this year with their huge title haul and all these rankings rises.

So be different, vote for them just as I have just done.

---

 I knew you would Indy! 

---

 Now that someone else is secure.

---

Youre not taking a sneaky incognito look are you!?  

I went for Arthur in this group. I'd noticed his name cropping up in tournament threads again during the year, but it was when I came to put his nomination narrative together that I realised what a great comeback year he's had.

JonH comes home wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Im actually beginning to think i should have gone top 5 going through to the final instead of 6, I feel ill cause too
Many ties at the end of the qualifying places.

Lets see!

---

 Still lots of time to go. The longer it goes and the more votes that are in, the less chance of ties for the final spots.

 

---

Possibly true - youd think it would stretch out a little, I agree.  

---

 Actually true     And as I have just edited, in particular multiple ties will become much less likely

26 votes in; 8 players in qualifying places or tied at the moment!

SuperT wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

SuperT wrote:

---

I don't want you to think I'm criticising you Jon, as you do a brilliant job and put so much work into running these threads. However I hope you don't mind if I say that it would have been nicer for us if there had been more groups with fewer contestants in each so we could have voted for more people. Thanks

---

 Thanks SuperT - and you might be right. And no criticism taken (at least I take it as formative feedback!)

Although the wildcards are supposed to be a bit of a melee. I had originally planned 5 groups with winner of each getting a wildcard and maybe that would have worked better, but I swayed on some earlier advice and went with this. 

Maybe it is a bit too much in one group!

Not to worry and thanks for the kind words!

PS the final will be harder!!! (1 group of a lot of players!!)

PPS the PoS finals will be easier!! (4 groups of 7!)   

One to think about for next year!!

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Tuesday 30th of December 2025 04:40:15 PM

---

 I guess I am partly responsible in that I was unsure about the having as many groups as WCs idea, posting in the WC nominations threads about the potential issue of 'big guns' being drawn in the same group :

"Just a thought I had been having on having as many as groups as WCs  ..

With clearly some good contenders ( as you have said some possibly stronger than others already in the PoS line-up ) there might ultimately be one or two that are collectively seen as much stronger here than the rest of the WCs nominations. 

eg. if one is particularly seen as stronger, the others that land in their group are a bit stuffed, or if two are thought to stand out, they could land in the same group and that is tough on the one that comes second.

Just running past you what you have already probably considered and I am quite happy to stay with the random jeopardy as it is planned, since, -

a) this is an extra chance for all here anyway, having not previously made the PoS line-up through the other means.

b) there easily might not be an even number of WC places available to allow 2 groups with first 2 in each through, and an alternative of an initial R1 and WC final would no doubt muck-up your ovetall schedule a bit

So, as I said, I was just unning it by you, but I'm quite happy to leave it as planned and let's see if we have a group of death."

 

So essentially I raised that issue but was still quite happy to leave it that way if you wanted to.

I guess an in between would be to have a R1 of say 4 groups putting the first 3 into a final, or even 5 or 6 groups putting through the first 2. So both a bit less jeopardy and more groups to start with before a final 10 or 12 ( maybe even 2 finals so more votes again if looking for an even better of WCs ).

Anyway, as you say, for next year.

 

---

 Dont worry, it was my call! It also made sense, just unintended consequences! its like i play around with vote timings, shortening them to a day and a half and then finding it put extra commitment on me to be around for the vote close. Hence the move back to two days recently to give more certainty. 

anyway, it is what it is and the closeness of it all is interesting and the final will be a dogfight! 

---

Oh gosh I had no idea how complicated this was and how much thought you and Indie had already put into the various options for running the poll.  I now regret making my comment after so little consideration of the wider issues.  I was only thinking about wanting to vote for my favourites!  As I said, you're doing a brilliant job Jon so please just carry on and ignore me!! 

---

 Ha, dont worry SuperT. Feedback was good to get and it had crossed my mind, the points you made. 

Getting a balance of fairness (in all that means) in these polls is quite hard. The groups for the PoS finals, Ive worked through several times to ensure all groups have a good balance of men/women, juniors spread evently, wheelchair/disability players spread across the groups, doubles players as well, and then trying to ensure the top 100 players also spread evenly - its quite an art form and takes a fair bit of playing around. I think for PoS Ive actually got it spot on, time will tell!