Week 42 - Qatar F4 ($10,000) - Doha (Hard)

steven · Tennis legend

RE: Week 42 - Qatar F4 ($10,000) - Doha (Hard)

steven · Tennis legend

James was edged out in an even longer match than Oli's ... so close!

QF: (3) Oliver Golding WR 433 lost to Otakar Lucak (CZE) WR 1030 by 7-6(5) 1-6 6-4 bleh
QF: (7) James Marsalek WR 572 lost to (4) Marek Semjan (SVK) WR 483 by 4-6 7-5 7-6(4)

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Just to complete a miserable day for James:

SF: (4) Marko Danis & Marek Semjan (SVK/SVK) WR 1724 defeated (2) Abdullah Maqdas (KUW) & James Marsalek WR 1251 by 6-2 5-7 [10-8]

korriban · Challenger level

Ollie. I'm very much willing him to do well. If you look at our most recent Junior Grand Slam winners (Murray, Robson, Watson), it's certainly turning out pretty well I think, so it's not surprising that Ollie would get slightly more attention than his other talented Brit junior peers (although I have a sneaky suspicion that Kyle Edmund will be the star of the bunch). Physically he looks the part, there's masses of talent, and his junior results prove a winning mentality. he looked superb at Wimbledon, and there is huge potential and grounds for optimism.

For me, I have a nagging doubt about Ollie, and hope I'm wrong.

* Firstly the comments from Tim Henman a while back, before his Junior US win, questioning his (and other junior Brits) focus and commitment to training and the professional athletes life. In short, Tim thought he wasn't fit or doing the right things. Seemed VERY harsh to say stuff like that in the press at the time, but he did it anyway. Couldn't see a problem at Wimbledon, but.....

* Then the fairly common match reports citing petulance, racket throwing, line call arguments, etc. Is this week in Qatar another case? He certainly complained again on twitter in what was a tight match that he got bad calls. Things are bound to go badly for players at times (calls, net cords, level of play), but the better players find a way on their bad days.

* Then the style/manner of losses he continues to have (and bear in mind these are almost all in £10k futures, not even £15k futures). As I reported a while back he went 6 tournaments in a rowing losing matches when he had actually won the first set. And in one case lost the final 2 sets 0 and 1. How does that happen 6 times in a row? Concentration, focus, fitness, fight, entitlement, form? I had expected Ollie to be beating lower ranked players easily by now, especially at later stages of futures (his seeding now allowing him more leeway to start slowly but still get through in first rounds), but still there are these odd results/performances (like yesterday), where clearly Ollie did expect to win.

* His junior peer group (those at his very high level in juniors) all seem to be doing better at this stage. Vesely (around 265 and will be top 250 within a couple of weeks, 5 futures wins including 4 $15ks), Kubler (top 280 and rising further based on this weeks performance), Saville (in the late 300s based on mostly $15k tournaments), Thiem (late 300s, including a challenger quarter final last week and winning first round ATP this week in Vienna, so will probaly hit 350 or better). This week's tournament in Casablanca is a great example. Vesely seeded 1, Kubler seeded 2. It's a $15k. Both serenely into semi finals without dropping a set. Vesely went many tournaments losing first round earlier this year, was outside 500 in June, then suddenly it all seems to have clicked. So there's hope.

I believe Ollie will take a break after Israel then go off to Miami to train for a week or so with Andy Murray (and Lendl?), and won't be at Loughborough. Wishing him all the best for Israel (finish the year on a high, go on!) and the US.

Anyone have any views on this? Please someone tell me I'm wrong on all of the above, that I should be more patient, etc - just want a real talent to do himself and all of us proud

-- Edited by korriban on Friday 19th of October 2012 07:55:42 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

I'll leave others with maybe more knowledge about Oli and his peers, rather than what I've just heard or say seen at Wimbledon, to comment more.

One thing I wouldn't really be taking huge significance about in itself is Oli losing 6 matches in a row when he had won the first set. There are so many matches going on involving so many players, so many different opponents and circumstances, that you are going to get many runs that will generally be due to a not a lot more than random chance rather than anything more fundamental, although sometimes maybe a little of both.

For instance Heather went on a run last year of losing 8 completed 3 set matches in a row ( 2 then a 3rd set retirement when she was ahead then another 6 ). On the 6th of the 8 ( in Washington heat to Dubois ) the commentators were going on about this being a real issue. I said at that time I thought they were pretty OTT and it more just happened to be a run she was on. As it happens, in the last 3 years, both before that run, after it, and overall including it, Heather has won quite a few more matches that have gone to 3 sets than she has lost. But were we to draw from these 8 matches that she was lacking fight in some way ? Heather ?

Edit : Been having a look For what it's worth that loss yesterday ended a sequence of 5 three set matches in a row that Oli had won after losing the first set, although he has lost 8 of the last 9 threee setters where he has won the first set ( including these 6 in a row that you mentiomed ). He has also, of course, gone on to win plenty in 2 straight sets after winning the first and lost matches in straight sets too.

Matches that have gone to 3 sets this year :

Won first set : W 3 L 9

Lost first set : W 5 L 2

Overall : W 8 L 11

Pretty random noise I'd say really. And actually, thinking about it further, all things being equal I think it would be reasonable to expect the winner of the second set to more likely win the third ( i.e. more momentum going in, the more recent form in the match ), as has happened in 14 out of these 19 matches this year.

Hmm, that went on a bit, lucky for everyone that I didn't comment on the rest... wink

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 19th of October 2012 02:21:10 PM

KK · Club Coach

I always feel ambivalent in my support of Oli. I have got the impression that he is too arrogant. I suppose it comes from that frightful website he used to have, the nature of his tweets, the lack of grace when he beat Fritzy in a final in April when Fritzy was hamperred by that huge blister. I also think he was indulged (or self-indulgent) being able to follow his girlfriend to train in South America when he was only 16.

I woud really like to hear that he is much nicer than I think he is. I can then support him without qualms.

The wonderful thing about supporting Heather and Laura is that they are such thoroughly likeable people!

dorsetman · Social player

I've not seen him play too much but based on seeing him at a Bournemouth futures earlier on in the year I was very impressed and he seemed to have a good, positive attitude on court there. On the days I saw him he had his opponent chucking racquets around. Maybe it's about time our youngesters did start showing a little bit of arrogance rather than being meek and letting opponents walk over them. His tactical awareness in really crappy windy conditions seemed spot on as well, against foreign opposition (not "just" against another Brit). On the evidence there he looked to have some big FH/serve weapons forming that seem to be what you need nowadays to break into that 100/150 elite, coupled with the grizzly matchplay experience that only a few years on tour can give.

DavidC · Tennis legend

Vesely and Kubler stood out from Oli and the other top juniors with their results since 2009, so it's not surprising that they are leading the 1993 rankings. Transitions from boys to the Pro circuit are rarely smooth and often long, except for the superstars (none of the 93s come into that category). At the moment for example there are I think 4 1990s in the top 100, plus one more who has dropped out having made it earlier in the year. That means just 5 have entered the top 100 within 3 years of leaving juniors. It's likely to be a long haul for the likes of Oli with lean periods.

Maza1987 · Challenger level

Usually with talented juniors, things happen in bunches. There are spells when it seems like nothing is happening (in terms of results) but then suddenly it all clicks.

I've been following Andrey Kuznetsov a lot recently, and after winning wimby a few years ago, he seemed to be stuck in a 150-250 range, but then suddenly rocketed up to 75 or so recently. There are no teenagers in the top 100 (when Tomic turns 20) and this trend will never reverse it self. Every once in a while you'll get some late teens breaking in the top 100, but they will be few and far between. For what it's worth, I think this a good thing. I like the idea that these talented juniors have to grind for a while before they get any real recognition.

I hope Olli follows the Kuznetsov path.
Big fan of Olli and would like to see him do well.

I do not know any professional tennis players personally, so prefer not to make judgements about their personality based on social networking accounts.

Spectator · All-time great

A random observation, but one that gives a sense of changing age profiles in tennis (although it's at the extreme end) ... Tommy Haas has had an ATP ranking for about as long as Mr Golding has been alive (going by the ATP stats looked up after Haas got his 500th win).