British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Id argue the US isnt democratic at all right now. Id argue the UK isnt if Labour ban Andy B from standing today as well!

---

 Interesting, JonH, but then how do the events of just the last few days have any bearing on the progression and development of our already established tennis players?

HarryGem wrote:

---

Var wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

the addict wrote:

---

I bow to your analysis CD !  

Although Mika was just 4 points away from a straight-sets win in that tie-break at 3-4

---

Yes, it's a good point 

I was once involved (in the dark ages) with funding decisions for a 'very promising' youngster, who had won a very high-profile international tournament (but done very little else) 

And most people were very excited - but I couldn't help but point out that she was 2 points from losing in her R2 match.

Which, yes, you might say: well done to her for fighting back.

But the point was, if she'd lost those 2 points, no one would have been even mentioning her name, she wouldn't have got a penny - and there we were, thinking of going all out, big guns.

There's a very thin line often - and, yes, Mika could well have won that match (there's no real point taking major positives from the fact, but it's also no point going overboard on the fact she ended up not winning, it's just a bad loss, move on)

PS to finish the story, major funding was given, infrastructure changes put in place - and 12 months later the girl was struggling, her dad was a nightmare - and 24 months later she was back to being a normal top county sort of youngster (which is probably what she was in the first place) 

---

 Maybe we need to look to the Iva J and Victoria M for comparisons as to how our junior/senior girls are progressing? The only factor I can find that may explain their success (other than more talent) is the use of a more permanent coach and advisor in those critical imbetween years. Iva with our own Tom Gutteridge and Victoria with Nathalie Tauziat. Are our kids getting the best coaches at a critical time in their career? I just wonder. 

---

 Jovic is an interesting case as it isn't that long ago that our best juniors were able to beat her. She is about was a year older than them though and I wonder how much difference a year makes at this stage in a player's career.  Possibly quite a bit.

Jovic looks a real player right now and I think your point re coaching could well be relevant. Her interviews are also quite revealing. Without saying what she's done it is obvious that her and her team have identified areas to work on, including physical development, as well as technical areas of her game. When she speaks it is hard to remind yourself that she is only just 18. Her on court interview after defeating Hon was also interesting. When asked about playing Paolini next and being reminded that she had lost to her in the past. Jovic's reply was something akin to yes I know but we've worked hard and made some improvements since then and now I think I have a chance.

The challenge for our youngsters is how close to the likes of Jovic can they get? Right now they are miles away but a year is a long time when you are that age. Of course not every top junior makes like Jovic seems to be doing so better comparisons may be out there. Each will have their own pace of development which is as it should be.

---

 That's the challenge for all youngsters, from every country.

Jovic has done amazingly well. But she's the exception.

The other very good ones in her cohort have done very well (Jones, Kostovic, Sonobe, Grant, whoever). But they haven't done 'amazingly'.

Mimi is the same age and in that 'very good but not amazing' group (which is better than those who are now in the 'was very good but not any longer' group)

Personally, I don't think Iva's answers are any different to most of the young players playing a big match - they all say they've worked hard, they've got a chance etc 

But, yes, I do have serious questions about some of the coaching choices and approaches (mind you, that's not for the British girls either)

However, Var points out the importance of a permanent sort of coach - but Hannah has had Ben as her main coach all her youth. She's got a permanent sort of coach.  

indiana wrote:

---

christ wrote:

---

In this context, what are "Democratic", "Anti-National influence", and "Authoritarian" supposed to mean?

---

 FWIW I assume it's a case of the non so-called "Anti-National Influence" crew being seen as more Nationalist and divided into "Democratic" and "Authoritarian.", since I am sure most people would consider the ANL list to be a list of democratic countries, some considered by serious observers to be among the most democratic on earth.

I'm struggling to see the point, although I haven't given it much thought. Is it that from these %s in this one Slam women players from more nationalist countries have progressed better, and that that is signigicant of something?

---

Let's put it this way Indiana, have you seen a change for the better in the middle group of nations over the last 10 yrs? Do you think the odds are that British tennis will prosper over the next 5 years? It's a many-faceted system, that provides the nurturing environment for our tennis stars to develop and excel. Let's take just one difficulty that tennis players encounter that can affect their development, that of online abuse, and constant criticism or slights in legacy media. Do you think it is totally random, or is there a coordinated effort going on that transcends national boundaries?

the addict wrote:

---

You can do tables in the advanced editor - easiest way to sort out the formatting.

---

 Thanks TA, I'll give it a go

christ wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Id argue the US isnt democratic at all right now. Id argue the UK isnt if Labour ban Andy B from standing today as well!

---

 As I understand it the rules don't allow him to stand, he was asking for the rules to be relaxed as a special case in his favour. The powers that be declined to relax the rules.

-- not quite a "ban".

If he wanted to be available to stand as an MP, then he shouldn't have put himself in position where he couldn't. It does seem that our more colourful politicians do want to have their cake and eat it, and are quite adept at mobilising their social media teams as painting "the other side" as being erroneous, vindictive, and anti-democratic.

---

 Seems a fair point, christ. Whatever, the internal rules and workings of a political party hardly define how democratic the UK is.

indiana wrote:

---

christ wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Id argue the US isnt democratic at all right now. Id argue the UK isnt if Labour ban Andy B from standing today as well!

---

 As I understand it the rules don't allow him to stand, he was asking for the rules to be relaxed as a special case in his favour. The powers that be declined to relax the rules.

-- not quite a "ban".

If he wanted to be available to stand as an MP, then he shouldn't have put himself in position where he couldn't. It does seem that our more colourful politicians do want to have their cake and eat it, and are quite adept at mobilising their social media teams as painting "the other side" as being erroneous, vindictive, and anti-democratic.

---

 Seems a fair point, christ. Whatever, the internal rules and workings of a political party hardly define how democratic the UK is.

---

 The labour party had a choice and could have let him stand. Yes, maybe he got himself in this position. but it was clear he was stopped because Starmer and his cronies see him as a threat - and Starmer had a vote. 

Me saying UK is un democratic was tongue in check but Id argue Starmer clearly stopped him for reasons not to do with the cost of a new mayoral election. 

christ wrote:

---

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.

---

 Works both ways. 

Anyway this is a tennis thread so Ill stop here