Week 24 - ITF ($100k) - Manchester, Grass

scottie1 · Futures level

RE: Week 24 - ITF ($100k) - Manchester, Grass

Michael D · All-time great

Completion of the doubles round up. A great win for Beth and Olivia in the last of the first round matches against higher ranked opponents smile

Naomi Broady/ Asia Muhammad (GBR/USA) [1] def Tara Moore/ Conny Perrin (GBR/USA) 6-3 6-3
Emily Webley-Smith/ Maryna Zanevska (GBR/BEL) lost to Sophie Chang/ Alexandra Mueller (USA/USA) 3-6 6-1 9-11
Alicia Barnett/ Laura Sainsbury (GBR/GBR) lost to Jamie Loeb/ An-Sophie Mestach (USA/BEL) [3] 1-6 0-6
Sarah Beth Grey/ Olivia Nicholls (GBR/GBR) beat Naiktha Bains/ Abigail Tere-Apisah (AUS/PNG) 6-1 6-4
Emily Appleton/ Samantha Murray (GBR/GBR) lost to Ingrid Neel/ Ankita Raina (USA/IND) 6-3 4-6 3-10
Harriet Dart/ Katy Dunne (GBR/GBR) def Ysaline Bonaventure/ Sara Sorribes Tormo (BEL/ESP) [2] 6-2 6-4

QF: Naomi Broady/ Asia Muhammad (GBR/USA) [1] vs Sophie Chang/ Alexandra Mueller (USA/USA)

QF: Sarah Beth Grey/ Olivia Nicholls (GBR/GBR) vs Jamie Loeb/ An-Sophie Mestach (USA/BEL) [3]

QF: Harriet Dart/ Katy Dunne (GBR/GBR) vs Ingrid Neel/ Ankita Raina (USA/IND)

-- Edited by Michael D on Wednesday 13th of June 2018 05:18:44 PM

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

I certainly wouldn't be against Katy getting a WC and would obviously rather she got one than sending any back like last year, I just think if anyone was to miss out, should they only award 5 to British players, then she would have to be the obvious choice.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Gabi and Katie B are absolute shoe-ins and they are thoroughly deserved, there's literally not a criteria where either of those would fall short, but I just think Harriet and Katie S have significantly distanced themselves from Katy in recent weeks / months.

Harriet has beaten Rodina, Wickmayer and all 3 young promising Brits recently, has a title and final this year and reached the SF last week (in addition to another 60k semi final) and with that win today (even if it was a decent draw), has now already gained net grass points thus far.
Katie S also has a title in recent weeks, has 2 wins over Rodionova and a solid top 150 win (PBG) on grass and qualified for a main WTA tour tournament. You could even add the scalp of Boulter to her resume.
Katy D in contrast hasn't really done anything since February and has had some right hammerings to unspectacular players in that time. She doesn't really have a stand out win this year either - I think Hozumi ranked around 180 now and at the time is her best win in 2018.
Harriet and Swan are also now above her in the rankings, Harriet by about 30 places and are both younger

Other than compassion that there's a chance that Katy may not be in a position like this again and Swan is significantly younger and should have many more Wimbledon opportunities, I really don't see how Katy could now be prioritised. The only Brit you could argue she could get one ahead of is Naomi, given the age and previous wildcards, but as she is just 12 or so places off getting in direct and would probably have most chance of any of a main draw win, missing out ranked 120 would be extremely harsh.

So it kind of depends on how the non Brit WCs go. I think we have to assume that Bethany has one sealed even if we don't agree with it. If Liu has a good week here, will her minimum QWC get boosted up? I see Jenn Brady has crashed out, so it's literally just Kumkhum or Dart (SBG at a push) that can defend the Manchester WC, so in reality it's pretty likely a pesky will be taking that.

Lisicki and Bouchard seem to have gone quiet and neither have had a match on grass yet so if there are 7 places at stake, then it just depends how they see it - it could be 6 GB + Manchester winner, it could be 5 GB + Liu + Manchester. They may still hold one back and award the Ilkley winner.

Most should be revealed this time next week.

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

Bit of a disappointing day for the Brits overall, max we could have through was 6, minimum was 2 and that's what we got. Obviously a couple were massively against it, but Broady had a decent chance on paper, even if she was a slight underdog and Katy was serving at 4-3 and 5-4 in sets 2 and 3 so will be disappointed not to advance. They would also have had a great chance to make at least the quarters had they won, but not to be. Emily can definitely hold her head high, but again will be disappointed with how that TB went and at least Sam made her scoreline respective as it did look like an absolute hiding was on the cards at one point.

I know some were pleased that Beth advanced, but there was a bit of an unknown quantity with Eden which was intriguing so to be honest, I was actually hoping she would have won. I'm pleased Dart won but also that Emma wasn't over-roared and did herself proud and justified her WC. As long as Dart has no after effects of that fall (which I've not yet seen) then that's all good and an interesting match with Kumkhum next who as mentioned is the only player left in this draw who will definitely be at Wimbledon.

DavidC · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Hopefully Katy D will get a Wimbledon MD WC, given how much she has pushed on this year, been a real part of 'the 5' that have made great progress, and performed again pretty well today against a tough opponent. But yes, she must be the most vulnerable of the 5. And personally I think Naomi will be absolutely fine for a MD WC, even after today, and her elsewhere discussed lack of past success with them.

So Katy's hope must be that they don't come up with 3 non Brits ahead of her. Not sure that Ilkley comes into the equation with the main initial WC announcement on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week and doubt they would hold one back for a possible non direct entrant winning that especially this year. I think it is just the Surbiton and Manchester titles that have the WC available for a title winner that needs it ( and Surbiton winner, Riske, doesn't need one ).

I agree with what you say apart from the reference to Ilkley. Last year Magda Rybarikova won, and didn't require a Wimbledon MDWC, but the previous year's winner Evgeniya Rodina needed and was given one. Similarly last year's men's winner Marton Fucsovics ended up with a Wimby MDWC.

It is unusual though to have more than enough candidates to meet Wimbledon's typical criteria, so perhaps this time the Ilkley winner won't be given an opportunity. However they may be wary because there were complaints I remember in Asian media when 2009 Junior Wimbledon champion Noppawan Lertcheewakarn was originally not offered a MDWC, after a few years of voluntary upgrading of junior winners from the QWC required by the ITF

Jiwan · Club Coach

For me it's Gabi, Harriet, Katie S and Katie B are in. Such a shame that Katy D didn't win today. She needs a few wins and really quickly otherwise she will be in qualies with the rest. Unless Naomi does something spectacular soon, she should be in qualies too

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Helen40 wrote:
hoots wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
Harriet is a game away. In my opinion, Emma is our best prospect since Laura.

There, I said it.
Better - I said that!! Harriet had to work very hard for that win.
I'd say better from a work ethic point of view (from her RG interview), but I have no idea whether she's mentally tough or not.

I cant see mental toughness or work ethic being questioned. She is very different physically from Laura much more reminiscent of Hev ie her success comes from agility and technique not underpowered but not a power game.

She looked very disappointed when she lost to 18 year Barbara matusova as a 14 year old at Roehampton last year (she already has a higher senior rank a year on). A bit similar to Gabis disappointment when she lost in Wimbledon Qualifiers as a 17 year old to Tara (I think) but less demonstrative.

At junior Wimbledon she knocked out a 17yr old (JCH 18) only to loose to the present world number 2 En Shuo Liang. Since then she has gone away worked hard and come back and won 4 back to back championships. That apart she only ever really looses to Tara Clauson

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Why do you say she's very different physically from Laura? Laura is a little taller but not much - Harriet is the tallest, most athletic looking of our new up and coming cohort - very much like Laura in that way. And I think she plays with a lot of power now, it's not really agility in the way that Hev has it, scampering around, very low centre of gravity, great balance (way more Gabi than Harriet).
But the work ethic is certainly great. Harriet is the girl who says she basically treats her body as a temple, goes to bed by 9, never drinks, it's all very puritanical and dedicated - and a huge bravo to her.

the addict · Tennis legend

Some crossed wires there re Harriet / Emma.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, there was even an anagram clue re Emma's nemesis

indiana · Tennis legend

Well done to Beth & Olivia. I believe this is the highest value tournament either has had a doubles MD win in, after being so close against Laura+ in Surbiton last week.

Plenty of titles up to and including 25K of course but beyond that I just see a 2016 Eastbourne 50K R1 win for Beth in partnership with Emily Arbuthnott.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 13th of June 2018 08:27:21 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

Some feedback from today.
The LTA performance director was there today(Timson?) With Jeremy Bates and Jane O'Donoghue(arm in a sling).
Jeremy is working now in a watching/mentoring capacity, he is not coaching elite athletes currently.

Katy's match - first set was one way traffic. Gibbs made error after error and Katy played solid. Second second was a break test as Katy was making unforced errors and Katy should really have won in straight sets. Third set, both players cut out the unforced errors and we got some fantastic rallies.Katy had some issues with serve, but fixed them towards the end of the set, but everyone was disappointed that after going a break up, Gibbs upped her levels and hardly made an error and that was what won her the game. Katy played very well in set 1 and 3. Katy's serve has improved. She has added 5-10 MPH since last year.
Saw the first set of Eden and Beth. Eden really struggled to get any sort of timing and Beth took the set without being at her best.
Not sure what happened with Naomi - I heard back issues. That may be the reason she didn't play Surbiton.
Harriet and Emma was a terrific match. Harriet is much more aggressive in style than I have seen her before, but Emma matched her in both the first and second sets. Emma is very good defensively, has a big serve and can go attacking when she wants to. Given this was the biggest match Emma has played(bar RG juniors), she didn't look out of place. She is going places if she is managed correctly. Harriet went down quite heavily and looked to have physio on her left hip.
As for Emily, she is very much reliant on her huge serve and an attacking return of serve. One serve registered at 117 mph. She should have won the first set tie break and then the first serve and the return went missing and she lost easily.
Beth and Olivia were comfortable winners. Gains and the PNG girl were very inconsistent.

Michael D · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Well done to Sarah & Beth. I believe this is the highest value tournament either has had a doubles MD win in, after being so close against Laura+ in Surbiton last week.

Plenty of titles up to and including 25K of course but beyond that I just see a 2016 Eastbourne 50K R1 win for Beth in partnership with Emily Arbuthnott.

Good to see Beth playing with the mirror image of herself - and winning too! biggrin

indiana · Tennis legend

Oops

Corrected.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Coup Droit wrote:
Why do you say she's very different physically from Laura? Laura is a little taller but not much - Harriet is the tallest, most athletic looking of our new up and coming cohort - very much like Laura in that way. And I think she plays with a lot of power now, it's not really agility in the way that Hev has it, scampering around, very low centre of gravity, great balance (way more Gabi than Harriet).
But the work ethic is certainly great. Harriet is the girl who says she basically treats her body as a temple, goes to bed by 9, never drinks, it's all very puritanical and dedicated - and a huge bravo to her.

Absolutely nothing against Harriet, I honestly think she has done an amazing job. I Liked her game when I first saw her play about 4 years ago, she has obviously done an enormous amount of work to build her physique and athleticism and that level of professionalism is reaping benefits.

I wouldn't compare Emma to Harriet they are very different athletes, one approaching her peak the other with much more development to do. I think one of Emma's strengths is her movement, not just capacity to scamper but over time we might well distinguish a certain innate economy of movement and poise. Hard to see when you first step up because of the relative physical disadvantage means you have to chase hard to compete.

Laura I see as similar to Kyle in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses and why they both did so well as juniors and in transition. I still feel Laura has time but I do think the depth in the ladies game has improved and so much time out at just the wrong time has stolen the opportunity Kyle has had to incrementally improve on his movement from a position of strength. So much harder to work on when trying to battle back from an injury that has significantly Impacted the stronger parts of your game.