Week 8 - ITF ($25K) - Surprise, USA - Hard

blob · All-time great

Week 8 - ITF ($25K) - Surprise, USA - Hard

Peter too · Tennis legend

Q1: SOUTH, Melanie (GBR) lost to LOEB, Jamie (USA) 699 2-6 6-7(4)

blob · All-time great

Ouch!

steven · Tennis legend

I wonder if Mel's heart is still in singles or if she's on the way to becoming a doubles specialist. I hope the former, but it must be tough to be struggling at this level when you've fleetingly been top 100.

steven · Tennis legend

blob wrote:
Mr pointless pedant writes... Light year is a measure of distance, not time.

Felgate is Vekic's coach, so he's doing alright!

I don't know what to make of Mel. Whenever I've seen her play in the last year or so, everything good still seems to be there, she just can't access it regularly. Perhaps, as Steven noted, the belief or will have waned.

I do get frustrated that people write off both her and Katie O'Brien's achievements though, as they do a little with Bally & Annie - top 100 is an excellent achievement (somewhat by definition), top 50, a great achievement.

How come in tennis, the general consensus seems trended towards only acknowledging, at most, the top 10 or 20 players in the ATP/WTA at any one time as 'any good'? Where as in football, or American sports and so on, there is a huge number of lauded players. Golf seems slightly midway between the two. It can't just be the difference between singular and team sports, can it?

I think it could be because the way tennis works (e.g. the scoring system) emphasises any difference in class more than in other sports, which is more or less what Indiana said in an earlier reply. Clearly reaching the top 100 in any mass participation sport is a huge achievement - indeed, reaching the top 250, 500 or even top 1000 in tennis is something most of us can only dream of, though I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are a few people on here who are at (or have at some point reached) those kind of levels in our own fields.

Apart from the apparent greater depth in the men's game (arguable, but probably true), another reason why reaching the WTA top 100 isn't always seen as quite as impressive as reaching the ATP top 100 is that WTA rankings appear to be more volatile - i.e. it seems to be easier to get into the WTA top 100 for a short time than it is to get into the ATP top 100, i.e. I would guess that far more players have spent at least one week in the WTA top 100 than have spent at least one week in the ATP top 100.

I am basing this impression on the times I have looked up career highs for opponents of Brits in mid-range events - there seem to be far more players in the WTA 200-400 range with career highs in the top 100 than players in the ATP 200-400 range with career highs in the top 100. That could be a false impression due to the fact that at the moment, there tend to be more Brits playing in 25-100Ks than in ATP Challengers (hence I look up career highs for WTA players in the 200-400 range more often) but I think there is something in it.

I think it is because the disproportionately high number of WTA points available for QR1 wins in slams and R1 wins in slams/WTAs means whether borderline players get into the WTA top 100 or not is more dependent on taking advantage of a couple of decent first round draws in big events (which also makes it easier to drop like a stone when any luck in the draws runs out) than it is under the ATP system, where more consistency seems to be required, thus making it more likely a player will stay in the top 100 for a while once they get there.

I still think top 100 (whether it be ATP or WTA) is a huge achievement though

-- Edited by steven on Monday 18th of February 2013 06:46:11 PM

scottie1 · Futures level

mel beating schavione at wimbledon is light years ago! been on a downward spiral for awhile. She was tipped by david felgate remember him! to be the next big thing in womens tennis in britain. mind you he tipped jade curtis claire pedersen as well so not a great tipster

blob · All-time great

Mr pointless pedant writes... Light year is a measure of distance, not time.

Felgate is Vekic's coach, so he's doing alright!

I don't know what to make of Mel. Whenever I've seen her play in the last year or so, everything good still seems to be there, she just can't access it regularly. Perhaps, as Steven noted, the belief or will have waned.

I do get frustrated that people write off both her and Katie O'Brien's achievements though, as they do a little with Bally & Annie - top 100 is an excellent achievement (somewhat by definition), top 50, a great achievement.

How come in tennis, the general consensus seems trended towards only acknowledging, at most, the top 10 or 20 players in the ATP/WTA at any one time as 'any good'? Where as in football, or American sports and so on, there is a huge number of lauded players. Golf seems slightly midway between the two. It can't just be the difference between singular and team sports, can it?

indiana · Tennis legend

I think women's tennis ( much moreso than men's ) is seen by many as lacking depth of real quality.

I think that there is a degree of truth in this. Heather and Laura have got into the top 50 with clearly much improvement still available to be made. And we routinely see top 10 players with very onesided scorelines against even other top 50 players.

I do think though the scorelines are often very harsh and misleading and more reflect the general lack of serve dominance in women's tennis. So a player a bit superior can end up mopping up almost all games, both serve and return. This was noticeable in some apparent hidings Heather and Laura received when actually looking at the points spread.

Considering all the thrusting dedicated tennis wannabees around the world, striving to make it in the women's game, I agree top 100, let alone top 50, is a hell of an achievement, and something any such player should be proud of and applauded for.

But I do understand to some degree why they maybe do get less recognition. Some of what I said above and that I think tennis is very unforgiving in making you look less than absolute top quality when apparently making quite a lot of UEs and / or being well beaten ( say as opposed to golf which somehow I think folk are more forgiving for the bit offline shot, hey but he / she struck it well, and the totally different competitive and scoring set up makes there appear a real depth of quite similar quality ).

korriban · Challenger level

It is still eminently possible to reach the top 50 in men's or women's tennis without ever winning a single ATP or WTA tournament (Anne and Elena being good examples, Laura currently also in that bracket, although we hope unlikely to remain so), or reaching a grand slam SF. While that remains the case, I think it is fair not to regard these players as particularly notable - perhaps on a national basis, globally certainly not. That's not to say they aren't very good players indeed, and brilliant on their day. The only exception in my mind, would be players who have something special or unique about them - a Fabrice Santoro, perhaps. But this is rare.

I'd think that most, if not all, top 20 players will have won a WTA/ATP tournament, or gone deep in a GS at some point in their careers, so in my mind, that does make a difference in global terms, and on a historic basis. And in general I think there really IS a BIG difference in class between top 20 and top 50 players, certainly over a whole season.

Of course, I'm not referring to players early in their careers, only those towards the end of their careers.

PockyTastic · Futures level

As I have said before, Mel has the groundstrokes to get back into the top 250 region, and reports say she is in shape and so it might be a confidence thing (and has at times been an injury thing)

She's been with Team Bath for a while now which is a set up that has seemingly helped Sam and Lisa, so hopefully she will be well prepared mentally for the spring run of 10/15Ks in Britain. If no positive signs emerge from that series then maybe we will see her focus on doubles, but I guess that kind of decision lies with Mel who is best placed to judge how realistic a return to singles success might be.

In a side note, I'm glad to see this group of girls playing this series of 25Ks rather than "softer" alternatives elsewhere. The USTA pro circuit usually features a nice mix of top 300 players, up and coming juniors and under ranked college players.

blob · All-time great

Interesting and considered points from you all, and I thank you for them.

Peter too · Tennis legend

Money is different in the mens and women's game, particularly at the lower levels. The starter tournament for women is still the $10K as it has been for decades. I am sure this discourages quite a few women from starting out on the international circuit and also encourages quite a few to give up early. I saw an estimate a few years ago that a GB women would need to be in the top 120 to make a living from prize money. Of course once women reach the higher echelons they can really rake it in with modelling and product promotions. They really should increase the $10K to at least $15K.

Peter too · Tennis legend

R1: WHYBOURN, Lisa (GBR) 280 v KHROMACHEVA, Irina (RUS) 5 230
R1: MOORE, Tara (GBR) 242 v MAKAROVA, Christina (USA) 1058
R1: MURRAY, Samantha (GBR) 262 v VRLJIC, Ana (CRO) 6 234

steven · Tennis legend

The two seeds are former top 200 players, while world junior no. 16 Makarova is the player who upset Samantha last week.

blob · All-time great

Sam & Tara's single are both up 2nd after 17:00 UK.

And then, in the doubles...
R1: Samantha MURRAY/Ana VRLJIC (GBR/CRO) [1] vs. Tara MOORE/Melanie SOUTH (GBR/GBR)

Doh! bleh