Bloomfield won 7-5 in the fifth. Evo a set up. Golding v Burn 2-2 in the third. The two french players are better than their ranks suggest

Evo won 5 and 1. Golding and Burn in third set tie break

Burn won

A few comments on some of today's matches.

As always when watching Marcus Willis I am left with a sense of annoyance that he hasn't transformed his obvious talents into something that could be called a career. I wouldn't exactly say he played well today but he served well and at times his play was delightful. Marsalek didn't play anywhere near as well as he did a couple weeks back at Chiswick but his fighting spirit almost seen him through. The final set was much closer than the 6-2 scoreline suggests. On a positive note I overheard Marcus talking after the match and he does seem pretty determined to make a go of his career and knows that he needs to work harder and make some sacrifices for that to happen.

Golding v Burn was nip and tick throughout with both players have good games and bad games. Oli's poor racket took a lot of abuse throughout the match being flung to ever corner of the court before finally being smashed to pieces at the end.

Didn't see much of it but from what I did see Bambridge was very good money for his win and probably should have done it in 2.

The final set in Gabb's match was bizarre. He led 4-0* before losing both breaks. He led *6-3 in the tie break but was pulled back to 6-6. Had Glancy not double faulted on match point I am not sure Gabb would have found a way over the winning line.

For a long time Evo was involved in a very tough match, partially down to him not being at his best, partially down to an opponent who looked far better than his ranking suggested. Vaisse served for the first set at *5-4 but a remarkable point at 15-15 turned the match. Evo broke back and after that never looked back.

Bloomers probably should have won easier than he did. He looked comfortable on serve in the first set until he played a terrible game at *4-5 and was broken to love. He raced through set 2 and served for the third at *5-4 but was broken. Fortunately his opponent played a poor game a 5-5 and second time round there was no problem.

Pauffley's scoreline of 3 and 0 flattered him a bit but despite not playing well he was never in danger against an opponent who looked out of his depth.

Ollie Golding: he's clearly a fine prospect, all very exciting, but is there a fundamental weakness?

This 10k is the SIXTH tournament in a row where he's lost from a position of 1 set UP, which must be very frustrating for him, and probably baffling to us as proud supporters. Taking the first set must mean he is doing something right - it's certainly better than being rolled over by more experienced pros. Is the problem lack of fitness/strength, lack of focus/concentration, over-confidence, something technical or just down to experience. Or is this just a "bad patch" that all players need to go through and figure out a solution?

I don't compare him to other Brits - I look at his high achieving ITF junior "peers" like Vesely, Saville, Kubler, Thiem - who've also had their setbacks on year 1 on the pro tour, but also seem to have been able to win matches and even tournaments more consistently (and often more easily), hence rising up the ranks faster.

Is he roughly where everyone expected him to be 1 year after the US Open Juniors, ahead or behind? I think I read he'd set himself a target of top 350 by the end of the season. Is that still realistic? I suspect not.

Any thoughts?

 

seen oli play a couple of times yes he won us juniors but he is light yearsaway from being another andy murray. breaking tennis rackets not a good sign.

 

got a lot of press after us juniors but has struggled a bit during the year.  for me personally jury is out can he make top 100 at this point i would say no,

 

losing to tom burn is not a good result