64 Emilia Monell d. Vicky Brook 6-3 Ret (inj) 64 Nelly Radeva d. (2) Jocelyn Rae 6-4;6-3 64 Stephanie Cornish d. Sara Lazarevich 6-3;7-5 64 (2) Jade Windley d. Stephanie Ritchey 6-0;6-0 64 Naomi Broady d. Angy Cuellar 6-0;6-0
I think that that was is the case of the 12s draws? Where all the seeds are numbered '1' because there's no ranking in under 12s.
Out here it's nothing but some error in the scoresheet due to which the seeds numbered 1-8 are listed as '1' and the ones numbered 9-16 are listed as '2'.
A guy on GBTG (who's the dad of a good junior) doesnt really rate eddie herr and orange bowl as being particularly worthwhile....just wondered what Arka's thoughts on this are ?
Here's his argument:
"i hesitate to call them championships because they are not really, and those that are lucky enough to go should enjoy the trip and experience.winning there would be nice but no greater than winning here say a grand prix event, in my humble view! looking at those from GB that have gone highlights much for me. of the u12 girls only 1 is worthy of the name top player. the others either are very rich or disalushioned, or both.what happens to school one could ask, because most will stay on for orange bowl! I hope the lta doesn't foot the bill for any of these players,maybe for some of the older ones who have shown ability in lta tournaments and a williness to compete here in the UK, but not the others who,according to their records, have shown no interest in playing LTA events.. I'm all for going your own way, but dont expect help when it suits, you have to play the game you know. for the record my daughter has played in the states, at my cost, although i was there on business and it just worked out that way.to be honest, playing there or here was no different, tennis is the same all over, bad line calls, waiting around for ages etc...."
Hey, don't get me into trouble. It's very rude to counter something posted on a different messageboard.
Anyways, without any intention of answering or offending someone, my views are....
I personally think that it's a great idea for the girls if you are good enough. Most of the top players of the world play there and if you can get into the laffer stages, it means quite a bit. It certainly doesn't mean that you'll be top 100 and there's every chance of you failing, but no one can deny that you have a better chance of getting there than most. Stats agree, I guess. A great percentage of girls who did big things when they were 12 end up making a living out of tennis.
I think that the levels of female tennis overlap each other quite a bit. If you are great at under 12s, there's a very good chance that you'll succeed in 14s. If you are at the top of your age group in 14s, you'll probably laugh your way through G5s and G4s. And ultimately if you are good at ITFs, you'll be able to beat women twice your age from the time you are 14. It's very important that you keep testing yourself against the best of your age group.
With the boys, though, it's very, very different. Only a handful of players who are at the top when they are 12 go on to make the top 200.
This is my view on the general case. Obviously the players themselves and their families/managements know what's best for an individual.
Shame that all the girls went out, but it's not a huge shock since they aren't our best players. Hopefully they learnt something from this and they always have the doubles.