Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Fed Cup 2018 World Group II Play-Off - Japan v Great Britain - 21-22 April
Who wins? [30 vote(s)]

GB 3-0
3.3%
Japan 3-0
3.3%
GB 3-1
3.3%
Japan 3-1
23.3%
GB 3-2
26.7%
Japan 3-2
40.0%


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39466
Date:
Fed Cup 2018 World Group II Play-Off - Japan v Great Britain - 21-22 April


In some ways I see your point, CD, and would quite like the rules to make Davis and Fed Cup more of a team from everyone in the kind of ways you suggest.

BUT the current rules are the rules and I like to see teams play to win within the rules as they are. I certainly wouldn't have wanted Anne widening her selections just to make it a broader team with more players taking to the court. Her job is to do her best to produce a winning team.

And again I didn't see Japan as playing all 4 out of some competition spirit and/or team ethic, but that these were their best options. Jo and Heather have much better doubles credentials than Osaka and Nara.

So to me they have played 4 simply because they thought that their best option.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52449
Date:

I agree. Anne had to do what she thought best to win, within the rules, as did the Japanese captain. Theirs is not to make a stand on a point of principle.

I simply mean that, from a neutral view, the right team won as they were actually a team.

__________________


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 528
Date:

I follow you. The only team there won. And Anne's pair lost.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39466
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

I agree. Anne had to do what she thought best to win, within the rules, as did the Japanese captain. Theirs is not to make a stand on a point of principle.

I simply mean that, from a neutral view, the right team won as they were actually a team.


 I get you 



__________________


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 477
Date:

There seems zero point in taking a doubles specialist if, from the beginning of the week, you have no intention of selecting the doubles specialist on the principle that she won't have experienced the tension of a crucial match. If it's a dead rubber then anyone could play!

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39466
Date:

telstar wrote:

There seems zero point in taking a doubles specialist if, from the beginning of the week, you have no intention of selecting the doubles specialist on the principle that she won't have experienced the tension of a crucial match. If it's a dead rubber then anyone could play!


There seems less point in my view in taking two back up singles players when the main initial choices are clear. One back up singles players and the best alternative doubles player is what I would go with even with very little likelihood of them playing ( as I admit looks to have been the case here ). 

If Joss or Heather had been injured who would I prefer there out of Anna, Gabi or Katie B for a doubles decider? Only one answer for me so for the team after Jo and Heather for me it was Anna plus AN Other. Good coverage in a four player team. If Laura had been fit and in form, possibly Laura in place of Anna, but not picking both Gabi and Katie B.



__________________
Jan


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 7635
Date:

First chance I've had to get on here today.
Sooo close crycry



__________________


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 373
Date:

Very good performances from Jo Konta in the singles sadly let down by Heather Watson who wouldnt even beat a passerby on her current form.

One decent tournament at the start of the year has been followed by some dire results. She seems completely rudderless at the moment.



__________________


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 782
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

Personally, I think it was quite right that Japan won.

I don't think anyone should win a Davis Cup or Fed Cup match-up if they only play two players.

I took little pleasure in Andy basically single-handedly winning the Davis Cup.

Two players is a pair, it's not a team.

Japan played four. I think that's brilliant and shows they're the better team.

(The rules should be changed so that either you have to play different doubles players or to make it more like European team tennis and you need four separate singles players and then whoever you want to do the doubles).


Definitely agree with the sentiment here. Ideally, I'd like each of the four named players to play a singles match each, with doubles selection from those four. Shifts emphasis from exceptional individuals to exceptional teams.

Perhaps unfair on smaller countries with less strength and depth, and essentially punts out doubles specialists altogether, but a more interesting spectacle, IMO.



__________________


Club Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 708
Date:

I would have given Gabi that 4th rubber. She may well have messed up but Heather was beaten before she walked on the court, so it was worth the risk. I'm not sure why Anna doesn't play occasionally with either Jo or Heather. Why have a doubles specialist in the team that has no 'connection' to the rest of the team?

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39466
Date:

Joining GB back in Europe/Africa Group 1 in 2019 will be err Russia ( losers vs Latvia ) and Ukraine ( losers vs Canada ). Spain beat Paraguay so aren't joining in.



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5404
Date:

Has anyone thought about what would've happened had we actually won? I mean, what are the chance we wouldn't be demoted at the first opportunity (depending on other teams in the group)?



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6109
Date:

flamingowings wrote:

Has anyone thought about what would've happened had we actually won? I mean, what are the chance we wouldn't be demoted at the first opportunity (depending on other teams in the group)?


 and probably got an away tie to boot !



__________________
JonH


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7055
Date:

flamingowings wrote:

Has anyone thought about what would've happened had we actually won? I mean, what are the chance we wouldn't be demoted at the first opportunity (depending on other teams in the group)?


Well, if you lose the first round match, then you are back in these same play offs again. I think it now all depends on how long it takes the next generation of players to come through, accepting that we need stronger players in the #2 and 3 slots, and then in the doubles too. If we've strengthened sufficiently by next year, so there is stronger support for Jo, with different players able to fill those slots adequately, then we may have an improved chance. I think this was Heather's last big chance, but whether players like Gabi/ Katie B, Harriet, and even Laura R for doubles at least, may be in a position to provide a succession by Feb 2019, we certainly don't yet know.  



__________________


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1858
Date:

I think we would have struggled if we had got to the next tier up.  Not too many players to choose from when it comes  down to it.However looking at other  websites comments a lot of vitriol is aimed in Anne Keothavong's direction. We have several girls ranked around the 200 mark. But how are they going to get any higher?  The only way I can see this happening is in the grass court season and a wildcard for Wimbledon. They never get through qualifying at Wimbledon. The last female to do so was Karen Cross who managed it twice, back  in 1997 and in the early 2000's. Apart from Jo Konta, Naomi Broady and Heather Watson no British female has won a singles match on the WTA tour since Wimbledon 2016. Katie Boulter qualified for 1 event this year which is a rare occurrence. It might be a case of hope springs eternal!



__________________
«First  <  111 12 13 14 15 16  >  Last»  | Page of 16  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard