Week 2 - Australian Open Qualifying (Hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 2 - Australian Open Qualifying (Hard)

the addict · Tennis legend

Play suspended - rain. Naomi showing as 0-0
6:05pm local time, 7:05 am GMT

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Oakland2002 wrote:
Hopefully Katie is OK? Just ran out of steam? Kayla is the benchmark in terms of the type of girl she is going to have to beat to really make some progress this year. The potential to do that is there and merely following the scores it looks like Katie gave it a real go.

I believe Katie B's long break was as much due to illness as injury - although I don't know what sort of illness. She's retired several times since returning and I worry that her health may no longer be up to the rigours of a full time schedule or extreme conditions. Hopefully I'm wrong.

indiana · Tennis legend

I had been wondering about her retiring vs Katie Swan in the Obidos final then pulling the plug on a Far East schedule after one loss and ending her season. Now a retirement again, if late in the match. early in the new season. Otherwise she clearly has made real strides forward in her tennis over the last year and can be very competitive. All the best to her.

the addict · Tennis legend

Qualifying now cancelled for the day.

Frustrating for Naomi -

Naomi Broady

Verified account @NaomiBroady
4 hours ago

So far today I have done my physical match warm up 4 times, my match has been called twice, Ive made it onto court once and still not managed to hit any balls in the match warm up rain rain go away @AustralianOpen

seagull · Hall of fame

Seems a bit daft they start the Womens qualification on the Thursday.

Now Naomi either has to play twice tomorrow or on Sunday a day before main draw

blob · All-time great

The Optimist wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:
Hopefully Katie is OK? Just ran out of steam? Kayla is the benchmark in terms of the type of girl she is going to have to beat to really make some progress this year. The potential to do that is there and merely following the scores it looks like Katie gave it a real go.
I believe Katie B's long break was as much due to illness as injury - although I don't know what sort of illness. She's retired several times since returning and I worry that her health may no longer be up to the rigours of a full time schedule or extreme conditions. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Katie Boulter played 63 matches ini 2017 - tied 3rd amongst Brits for most matches played.
She retired just once, towards the end of that busy season, in week 43 in the SF of Obidos $25K. The next week, she played again in another $25K, and made the final. This suggests a one-time precaution, that cleared up swiftly.

16 GB players gave a RET in 2017. Katie B's one instance seems to give no indication of ongoing physical frailty or concerns.
The only players to retire more than once were Amanda, Freya & Katie S; the last of those retired four times to have the dubious honour of leading this category.

blob · All-time great

seagull wrote:
Seems a bit daft they start the Womens qualification on the Thursday.

Now Naomi either has to play twice tomorrow or on Sunday a day before main draw

More rain forecasted too. Complete washout after 15:00 local time is predicted for Saturday.
Spilling in to the Sunday for some players seems inevitable, if the forecast holds.

indiana · Tennis legend

blob wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Oakland2002 wrote:
Hopefully Katie is OK? Just ran out of steam? Kayla is the benchmark in terms of the type of girl she is going to have to beat to really make some progress this year. The potential to do that is there and merely following the scores it looks like Katie gave it a real go.
I believe Katie B's long break was as much due to illness as injury - although I don't know what sort of illness. She's retired several times since returning and I worry that her health may no longer be up to the rigours of a full time schedule or extreme conditions. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Katie Boulter played 63 matches ini 2017 - tied 3rd amongst Brits for most matches played.
She retired just once, towards the end of that busy season, in week 43 in the SF of Obidos $25K. The next week, she played again in another $25K, and made the final. This suggests a one-time precaution, that cleared up swiftly.

16 GB players gave a RET in 2017. Katie B's one instance seems to give no indication of ongoing physical frailty or concerns.
The only players to retire more than once were Amanda, Freya & Katie S; the last of those retired four times to have the dubious honour of leading this category.

Chronologically :

Week 42: Lost in the Obidos 25K SF.

Week 43: Retired in the Obidos 25K final, 0-5 vs Katie Swan, having seemed in very good form over the 2 weeks to that point.

Week 45: Lost 2-6 3-6 in China 100K R1 against a 400s ranked player ( though CH 166 from 2016 ).

Week 46: Withdrew from this planned Japan 60K+H during the previous week, headed home and announced that was it for her year.

So nothing obviously particularly cleared up after the Obidos retirement.

I had already been a bit concerned before the above posts and much as she may have played last year, there may be some legitimate concerns, especially if she has had illness issues. Hopefully not.

JonH · All-time great

One question I had , and apologies if this is covered elsewhere in this thread - why do womens qualifying draws for grand slams only have 96 players (apart from US Open) whereas mens have 128. The main draws are both 128. It gives 32 fewer players the opportunity to qualify, 4 of whom will get into the main draw. Surely the womens tennis depth is good enough to justify it, and cant see why else they wouldnt have the same fields?

blob · All-time great

JonH wrote:
One question I had , and apologies if this is covered elsewhere in this thread - why do womens qualifying draws for grand slams only have 96 players (apart from US Open) whereas mens have 128. The main draws are both 128. It gives 32 fewer players the opportunity to qualify, 4 of whom will get into the main draw. Surely the womens tennis depth is good enough to justify it, and cant see why else they wouldnt have the same fields?

Don't know exactly. The Official rules for Slams 2018 ( http://www.itftennis.com/media/277864/277864.pdf ) has an awful lot of stuff stipulated that patently doesn't happen regarding qualifying (e.g. pp38-39).

It states the sizes of the draws, and the composition in terms of WC, seeds etc, but nothing about the differences between mens/womens. One of the things it does state is that the Q draw should be at least equal in size of the main draw, which in the womens case is not true.

However, almost every rule is ended with the escape clause, "Unless otherwise approved by the GSB" (Grand Slam Board), so they could presumably be superceded on an ad hoc basis.

JonH · All-time great

blob wrote:
JonH wrote:
One question I had , and apologies if this is covered elsewhere in this thread - why do womens qualifying draws for grand slams only have 96 players (apart from US Open) whereas mens have 128. The main draws are both 128. It gives 32 fewer players the opportunity to qualify, 4 of whom will get into the main draw. Surely the womens tennis depth is good enough to justify it, and cant see why else they wouldnt have the same fields?
Don't know exactly. The Official rules for Slams 2018 ( http://www.itftennis.com/media/277864/277864.pdf ) has an awful lot of stuff stipulated that patently doesn't happen regarding qualifying (e.g. pp38-39).
It states the sizes of the draws, and the composition in terms of WC, seeds etc, but nothing about the differences between mens/womens. One of the things it does state is that the Q draw should be at least equal in size of the main draw, which in the womens case is not true.
However, almost every rule is ended with the escape clause, "Unless otherwise approved by the GSB" (Grand Slam Board), so they could presumably be superceded on an ad hoc basis.

For draw size it says:

SIZE OF DRAWS Each Tournament shall have singles, Main and Qualifying draws of a maximum of one hundred and twenty eight (128) and shall have a doubles Main Draw of a maximum of sixty four (64), unless otherwise authorised by the GSB. Each Grand Slam Tournament shall have the option of providing a doubles Qualifying tournament.

So within their rights to have 96. It just seems unfair and unnecessary not to have the full 128 they obviously can have.

blob · All-time great

JonH wrote:
[...]
For draw size it says:
SIZE OF DRAWS Each Tournament shall have singles, Main and Qualifying draws of a maximum of one hundred and twenty eight (128) and shall have a doubles Main Draw of a maximum of sixty four (64), unless otherwise authorised by the GSB. Each Grand Slam Tournament shall have the option of providing a doubles Qualifying tournament.
So within their rights to have 96. It just seems unfair and unnecessary not to have the full 128 they obviously can have.

That's for MD. The stipulation on Q draw is on pp28-29 (not pp38-39, as I stated above)

the addict · Tennis legend

Naomi now scheduled for third match on Court 22 tomorrow - but the first match is as incomplete one in the third set.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Re Katie B - I hadn't realised she'd played as many as 63 matches. It just seemed (clearly wrongly) that she'd had a number of retirements and sudden unexpected and severe losses to much lower ranked players when seemingly on a good run. Can't argue with Blob's wonderful facts and stats though!!

Re draw size - only the US Open has 128 Q draw for both men and women - the others have 128 men and 96 women. Anne K has taken to the newspapers fairly recently complaining that it patently does not give equal opportunities to both men and women and in this case has kept Laura R out of the draw.