Q1: STARLING, Natasha (GBR) UNR v KIMMELMANN, Julia (GER) 1 355
Q1: ASKEW, Sarah Beth (GBR) WC UNR v KERKHOVE, Lesley (NED) 2 387
Q1: DREW, Jazzamay (GBR) WC UNR v BOWTELL, Amy (IRL) 13 562
Q1: SOUTH, Melanie (GBR) 3 390 v SMITH, Anna (GBR) 986
Q1: COVINGTON, Dominique (GBR) WC UNR v MELNIKOVA, Marina (RUS) 4 392
Q1: BROWN, Lucy (GBR) 16 684 v HORN, Pippa (GBR) WC UNR
Q1: WINDLEY, Jade (GBR) 9 442 v PETERSON, Nicole (GBR) UNR
Q1: GIBSON, Aimee (GBR) UNR v GOLUBIC, Viktorija (SUI) 15 610
Q1: WEBLEY-SMITH, Emily (GBR) 8 435 v DEIGMAN, Laura (GBR) WC 1015
Q1: DIXON, Grace (GBR) WC UNR v STEVENSON, Alexandra (USA) 11 508

grace against the former wimbledon semi finalist should be interesting

dont see many brits getting through against the overseas opposition

rooting for Anna against Mel

Did anyone notice that a certain ANA KONJUH is playing in the qualies!!!!!!

Wow! What money on her winning the whole thing? At the old age of 15 and a bit.

I did, sorry

It's a complete and utter load of nonsense Indy.

Once again, the ITF/WTA points allocations seem to reward a "little" success (winning one match or in this case winning 2 matches) disproportionately, and significantly more than the men's ATP/ITF version. My view is that the men's tour is almost too mean at the lower tier events, early rounds (eg 2 points for reaching a 10k QF and no points for winning 2 rounds of Challenger qualies anywhere!), but at least you can't argue they are encouraging "winners" rather than just average players.

I get the impression there is a 2 tier approach for women. If you get a win ($25k) or 2 wins ($10k, $15k) you get a lot of points in relative terms. This even seems to happen in qualies for WTA events or even Slams, so clearly its a policy. After the initial points "bonanza" you almost start again, and you have the almost peverse concept of the step-up for winning an additional round being lower or the same as than the preceding round. Finally the "gap" from finalist to winner is actually quite small. The impression is that they want to reward those players who have a go, and have a certain amount of ability (i.e. get the odd win), perhaps to ensure the absolute numbers on the tour.

I've always found it bizarre that the GS tournaments award the same points for winners in men's and womens, yet the WTA gives 40 points for a Q1 victory, just 10 more for a Q2 win and a further 10 for qualification. You then get another massive 100 points for winning R1!! and in the men's you get 8 points (I think) for Q1 wins, 25 for qualifying and only another 45 for winning round 1. In other words you do much much better from a ranking points perspective in the early rounds of all women's events compared to men's, especially when you go through qualifying.

I summary, I think the WTA rankings approach could encourage mediocracy, the men's could discourage all but the very best. Perhaps a middle ground would be better.

 

 

-- Edited by korriban on Monday 11th of March 2013 03:41:36 PM

-- Edited by korriban on Monday 11th of March 2013 03:41:57 PM

The Women's system is a little because a few years back they just doubled all the points being offered and made other changes to remove 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 points scores.

There was no wider review on points allocation across events at that time, maybe it was felt doing so would be unfair as there would clearly be winners and losers in such a system.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 11th of March 2013 05:15:47 PM

EWS has quite a reasonable draw in the qualifiers and must have a decent chance of getting through. 9 months without a coach must make things very difficult.

Mel should get through, Jade has a reasonable chance - not expecting any of the other girls to get much further.