Jees, do we always have to speculate that something might be 'up' with the other player just cos someone's doing well?

I trust that when your children get a good grade you tell them it's because the other kids must've had an off day.... :/

Mel, also, has not played since November, incidentally.

On which note: well done Mel, keep it up! 6-2, 4-2

jb288 wrote:

---

Jees, do we always have to speculate that something might be 'up' with the other player just cos someone's doing well?

---

If you're referringto my comment, it was meant (as with Georgia Craven's double bagel in Sunderland) in the sense that even if the scoreline suggests the opponent may not be firing on all cylinders, it's a really impressive performance. No negativity meant at all!

Brilliant !! And NOW for some sleep.

steven wrote:

---

jb288 wrote:

---

Jees, do we always have to speculate that something might be 'up' with the other player just cos someone's doing well?

---

If you're referringto my comment, it was meant (as with Georgia Craven's double bagel in Sunderland) in the sense that even if the scoreline suggests the opponent may not be firing on all cylinders, it's a really impressive performance. No negativity meant at all!

---

But there's no evidence to suggest they're not playing perfect tennis! We don't know either way, and in the absence of evidence, assuming the worst is a bit sad. 

Find it odd how people are always down on Mel whilst praising Sam, given Mel thoroughly trounced her...and beat Naomi last year too :/

Anyway, Mel wins, great start to the year!

jb288 wrote:

---

But there's no evidence to suggest they're not playing perfect tennis! We don't know either way, and in the absence of evidence, assuming the worst is a bit sad. 

Find it odd how people are always down on Mel whilst praising Sam, given Mel thoroughly trounced her...and beat Naomi last year too :/

Anyway, Mel wins, great start to the year!

---

I still maintain you're reading negativity into the comment that really wasn't meant. If I'd written after the 1st set that it proved that Mel was playing at top 100 level again (which it might!), I'd probably have been told not to be so silly as to base extreme optimism on one set of tennis.

As for people being down on Mel while praising Sam, it's not something I have particularly noticed but you may well be right. If so, I'd say that's fairly normal when one player seems to be on their way up and another on their way down (i.e. it's not specific to Mel and Sam) even if it may be unfair.

If people expect more from Mel than from some other players, in a way that's a compliment - a bit like the way Boggo's progress was seen as disappointing even when he was GB no. 2 simply because we knew (or thought we knew) how good he had/has the potential to be. (N.B. I'm not talking about all the uninformed, over-the-top slating of Boggo that goes on elsewhere - that's just bad with no redeeming features!)

I'm sure virtually everyone here would love to see Mel get back to her best, and if this result provides evidence that she has had a great off-season and is full of confidence again, that would be brilliant.

Getting back on the topic of today's match - just 10 points lost on serve v the 5th seed and a former top 50 player is an excellent performance by anyone's standards.

L32: Mel South WR 323 beat (5) Aiko Nakamura (JPN) WR 227 (CH 47 in 2007) by 2 & 2
L32: (8) Emily Webley-Smith WR 266 beat Masa Zec-Peskiric (SLO) WR 294 (CH 93 in 2009) by 3-6 6-3 7-6(5)

L16: Mel South WR 323 v Eugenie Bouchard (CAN) WR 305 (junior WR 4, AO girls semi-finalist)
L16: (8) Emily Webley-Smith WR 266 v (Q) Shuko Aoyama (JPN) WR 391 (CH 308 last May)

-- Edited by steven on Tuesday 31st of January 2012 11:05:35 AM