Certainly looks like we're heading for a wipeout

R2: KONOTOPTSEVA, Danielle (GBR) WC 956 trails LEHNERT, Katharina (PHI) 7 422 by 3-6 *0-1
R2: DEIGMAN, Laura (GBR) WC 1015 lost to MELNIKOVA, Marina (RUS) 392 by 0 & 1
R2: WINDLEY, Jade (GBR) 8 442 lost to PIRAZHENKA, Sviatiana (BLR) 695 by 6-3 3-6 6-3
R2: BROWN, Lucy (GBR) 684 trails MORATELLI, Angelica (ITA) 6 398 by 4-6 *1-4
R2: SMITH, Anna (GBR) Q 986 lost to WITTHOEFT, Carina (GER) 2 227 by 3 & 1

If neither Lucy nor Danielle can manage to turn things around, it will mean 6/8 seeds are in the QFs, with the two seeds not making it being the two Brits. Ouch!  

blob wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

I'm afraid it looks like a British 10K tournament with no Brits in the quarter final - which really shows the lack of depth behind the top 7 or 8 players.

---

So, what would constitute success, or a healthy state of affairs in these terms?

3 QF? 4? More?

---

It depends who enters, but when the only two seeds to go out before the QFs are the only two seeded Brits, it's hard not to consider it a bit of a rotten week. The other issue, of course, is the big gap behind the GB top 13, which probably explains why Brits suffered the big upsets and didn't create any here. (I know Anna beat a player ranked over 500 places above her, but that's not a real shock given her career high)

steven wrote:

---

blob wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

I'm afraid it looks like a British 10K tournament with no Brits in the quarter final - which really shows the lack of depth behind the top 7 or 8 players.

---

So, what would constitute success, or a healthy state of affairs in these terms?

3 QF? 4? More?

---

It depends who enters, but when the only two seeds to go out before the QFs are the only two seeded Brits, it's hard not to consider it a bit of a rotten week. The other issue, of course, is the big gap behind the GB top 13, which probably explains why Brits suffered the big upsets and didn't create any here. (I know Anna beat a player ranked over 500 places above her, but that's not a real shock given her career high)

---

That is the point to as I see it, it depends on the entry list. Being a 10K or 25K and expecting x amount of players to reach round y and so in isn't really useful.

For example, last weeks 10K's in France and Spain - both nations where it would generally be considered their womens tennis programs are in rude health - just 1 QF in each from the host nation.

Depends on who enters.

Furthermore, conflating the issue of the gap between our top players and the rest (and using that as a stick with which to endlessly beat the LTA  - with reason) with criticising the players themselves seems unhelpful to me.

I'm sure the players want to do as well as possible and try as hard as they can. Criticising them, effectively (in a tangent of reductio ad absurdam), for not being world #1, is a bit empty.

Can't the players just be the best theycan be? One issue.

Consistently producinging players for whom that best is world class, and wailing about the bungled infrastructure and adminisatration that at present has failed to produce it - second issue.

It often seems that people are blaming the players for not winning more matches in the intersection between these two arguments, which I find unfair and unhelpful.