Not a serious problem for Josh last week then?

Oops, apologies SC, the (inadvertent) 'mafioso mod' was me.

I noticed there were two threads, tried three times to merge them (since SMC's had the doubles pairings in it and yours had the comment about Josh so bits of both were needed), which usually works fine but just wouldn't work last night for some reason.

I then copied your comment, deleted your thread (simply because SMC's, though slightly later, had the title in the usual format whereas yours was slightly different, and it was easier than doing it the other way round and then amending the title) and added a second post with a note about two threads having been started and you having added that comment.

Clearly that last bit went awry - the phone rang at some point during all that so after the call, I must have assumed I'd added the second post beforehand but in actual fact not have hit send on it or something equally stupid.

Anyway, sorry about that - a mess-up rather than a conspiracy!

I see Dan didn't lose a single point in his first three service games, eventually breaking to 40 in the 9th game (the only break of the match so far) and holding to 40 to take the set.

He is not holding quite so easily early in this set but no breaks, 4-4*

Dan breaks for *5-4 & is serving for the match. 

steven wrote:

---

Oops, apologies SC, the (inadvertent) 'mafioso mod' was me.

I noticed there were two threads, tried three times to merge them (since SMC's had the doubles pairings in it and yours had the comment about Josh so bits of both were needed), which usually works fine but just wouldn't work last night for some reason.

I then copied your comment, deleted your thread (simply because SMC's, though slightly later, had the title in the usual format whereas yours was slightly different, and it was easier than doing it the other way round and then amending the title) and added a second post with a note about two threads having been started and you having added that comment.

Clearly that last bit went awry - the phone rang at some point during all that so after the call, I must have assumed I'd added the second post beforehand but in actual fact not have hit send on it or something equally stupid.

Anyway, sorry about that - a mess-up rather than a conspiracy!

---

Apology accepted,  Steven.   I hadn't overlooked the doubles & had actually prepared a second post with the pairings & rankings, commenting that the boys seemed to have a slightly better draw this week than last, but as the ITF site is useful only in that it seems to manage to be quicker than the ATP in posting the draws (& sometimes has the information days before!), I was forced to waste time pulling up the Tennis Europe site for the PDF version with the information I wanted after the tournament site kept timing out.  When, however, I attempted to submit it, I got a message saying the thread no longer existed, much to my !

I have to say, though, that while I'll admit to having inadvertently omitted the "F5", I deliberately varied the subject line because, for one thing, I see no logical reason to abbreviate "thousand" to the sloppy (& ugly) "K" other than that it spares those who use it the onerous task of typing two extra characters.    Needless to say, I flatly refuse to use it myself.

Stircrazy wrote:

---

I have to say, though, that while I'll admit to having inadvertently omitted the "F5", I deliberately varied the subject line because, for one thing, I see no logical reason to abbreviate "thousand" to the sloppy (& ugly) "K" other than that it spares those who use it the onerous task of typing two extra characters.    Needless to say, I flatly refuse to use it myself.

---

The missing F5 was the only significant difference I noticed - I don't particularly like the "K" either except on the top 25 tables where it allows a column on the top 25 table to be marginally narrower, but that wouldn't have been the reason for 'preferring' one thread over the other.