Ratty wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Let's be frank here, inconsistency doesn't begin to do justice to Evo's career. I fear he will spend a lot of time looking back at what could and indeed should of been and can look in a mirror for who is certainly most to blame.

---

Well, that's an interesting philosophical point. An unwillingness to put in enough grind in the gym and on the practice court - which seems to be the common belief about Dan, not that I have any view - is surely as much a part of one's genetic inheritance as height or athleticism. And it would be a tad unfair to criticise someone for being short, would it not?

Recent advances in gene-mapping have of course struck to the very heart of human beliefs about free-will and responsibility [THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE BRITISH TENNIS PRETENTIOUSNESS POLICE] 

---

I don't buy the "common belief about Dan". I have seen him play several times in the last couple of years and his attitude has been pretty good. Sure his on court behaviour is far from perfect but his anger is mostly directed at himself and nobody seems more frustrated with his mental lapses than he does.

The problems are clear in his head but I don't think they are as simple as many people make out. He seems to be in a real rut and I have become convinced that playing British Futures is doing him no good what so ever. As much as he tries to gee himself up there is clearly a part of him that has little interest in thrashing his average futures oppponent.

Nice selective quoting, Ratty.

My full paragrah was :

"Of couse we are made up very differently. But you are being pretty absurd, possibly just for the sake of it". Plus, I gave examples of why I thought this thinking absurd.

i.e. I recognise all the history and research re genes, but in the context I thought you were absurd to suggest that say lack of application should just be accepted as in the genes and it was out of order to criticise this.

Anyway, I have more to do with my time than enter any more into your games, one upmanship, psuedo intellectialism or whatever combination you sre going for tonight.

Think I'll stick to more normal tennis discussions, so apologies in advance if I ignore any more of your contribtions here, even if directed to myself.

steven wrote:

---

SMC1809 wrote:

---

Josh wrote:

---

RJA wrote:

---

PS: Getting to the final here entitles him to a SE for Bath. Anyone know if he will take it?

---

 Would appear not, he's top seed in QD and on the schedule for tomorrow not before half 6.  Looks like it will be a long day for him!

---

 You need to have entered in the first place to qualify for an SE. Clearly Dan didn't enter originally, otherwise he would've been in the main draw.

---

I made the same mistake (i.e. suggesting Dan was eligible for an SE) without thinking when I was setting up next week's GB top 25 table. SEs are aimed at those who could play qualifying (either by being on the original qualifying entry list or by signing in on-site) were they not still involved in another event. So, in fact, you don't have to have entered originally in order to be eligible for an SE but you can't normally get an SE if, like Dan, you were ranked high enough to have got into the main draw direct had you originally entered.  (source:  ATP rule VII.7.10.A.1)

---

 Actually that isn't quite right in this case because having looked it up myself the ITF rules are different to the ATP rules and you do have to be on the qualifying list to get an SE

Ah, thanks, I should have realised the ATP and ITF rules might be different.  

In fact, I always used to think that you needed to be on the qualifying list in order to get a SE but then though I had proved myself wrong when I noticed someone getting one when they had been on the list for a different tournament and checked the (ATP) rule only to find they didn't need to be on the qualifying list after all, they were just limited to a tournament on the same continent if there was one on that continent.

Now I think about it, that previous case must have been a Challenger because otherwise the same continent thing probably wouldn't have been an issue.

Hmm. A Bath final and a Sunderland QR1 match on the same day would be a challenge ( I don't know what the schedule is ).

I do still womder a) why Evo wasn't entered in the Shrewsbury and Bath futures in the first place and b) what changed. But unless someone has inside info, not much point in speculating.

Dan takes the tie break er 7-3