Fed Cup 2013 part 2

scottie1 · Futures level

RE: Fed Cup 2013 part 2

indiana · Tennis legend

DARN !

Bally runs out of steam in the 3rd set, which was always the worry, and the match and tie is lost.

Now folk, I will put the case as to why I certainly don't see that Bally's selection for today's singles was necessarily the wrong choice.

1) In my view, this was not a match that either Jo or Anne was a strong favourite to win.

2) Bally had shown impressive form last week before her body latterly gave way.

3) I think that Bally looked a good shout for winning in sraight sets. The fact that she won a fairly tight second set, breaking near the end after a long first set, suggests that she could of and that she had not dropped off at that stage.

4) Even if you think Bally would never have had a chance of winning a third set ( an exageration I'd say ), if it was considered Bally was more likely to win in straight sets than Jo or Anne was to win at all, then it had to logically be a reasonable selection. I can see how that was a possible judgement.

5) If it was a very close call between Bally and Anne re the singles, then there is more arguement to play Bally given Anne would be the better shout for the doubles, and would very likely have trouble playing both with her foot problem.

I personally never made any pretence that I wasn't going to be worried if it went to 3 sets, and indeed even with how well Bally had fought, suggested that at 1 set all and level odds, Argentina looked the better bet.

But my case that Bally's selection was at worst not unreasonable is as above.

GB has been unlucky in that with a fit and reasonable firing Hev ( well, a properly fit and firing Bally too ) the singles would have at least been shared 2 - 2.

Bah, World Group would have been nice. Israel again is it ?....

indiana · Tennis legend

More irrelevant reasons for picking someone. My head is hurting the more I bang it with both the Davis Cup and Fed Cup !

If Bally was considered the most likely to help GB win the tie ( and clearly that is a big arguement ! ) then to heck with Jo getting "experience".

While the tie is very much alive, you pick for the here and now, especially in a World Group play-off, not planning for what is anyway a rather uncertain future.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I think Bally was the right choice on the basis you hope to be 2-1 up and have a gutsy fighter going out there with experience, and have a fresh Anne for the doubles.

Unfortunately, Laura didn't do the business today, and put a whole new spin on it. Bally just didn't have enough in the tank. But I do believe if she'd won the first set she would have won the match, just too many opportunities missed, lots of games lost from 30-0 and game/break point. Not match tight, not playing with instinct, thinking to much and trying to hard.

We should have won, and its hard to take that we didn't, but do you know what, I am still massively proud of this team. None of the players are in form, 2 aren't fully fit, but we went there and left it all out there.

Let's get through the zonal group again next year, get a home tie and get behind the girls.

korriban · Challenger level

Indy. Without inside information, none of will know all the factors at play in Judy's selection for the #2 slot today, so my view is that she's the boss and made the best call unless she herself now owns up to an error.

The brutal reality is that WITH a fit Heather we win this match easily no matter. And without a fit Heather, Laura should win both her matches comfortably on whatever surface, given the gulf in class, but we all feared or perhaps even expected that this wouldnt happen because Laura is Laura. Thats the real issue here.

I think she's a phenomenal talent, but I fear this reliable unreliability is here to stay unless something dramatic happens in her approach. Maybe the best thing that could happen is for 2013 to be a big let-down, to be the catalyst for some sort of change in her behind the scenes work that transforms her tennis on the match court.

Bally should be proud that gave everything she had, whereas others might look back with regret.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Ormaechae played to a top 50 level so I don't know what else you could have done to beat her, we needed to win the other 2 matches and then win the doubles.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Laura needs to get rid of Krajan. I dont see what he's adding to her game at all. His former mentors all took about him adding too much pressure - and when the pressure is on (ie third sets and TBs) Laura is crumbling - something isnt right here. Safina was always a headcase on court and spent a lot of time battling herself more than her opponent.

It was also interesting hearing Sam analysing how robotic Laura's serve is, comparing it to how Safinas was - again Krajans input potentially. Safina has been sidelined into virtual retirement by a back injury; something I attribute at least partially to her constantly playing though injuries, which again I feel Laura is doing far too often.

indiana · Tennis legend

korriban, I basically agree with that, and I am not saying that Bally's selection was right, just that I could see how it could have been reasonably arrived at. We are indeed outsiders.

My major problem was in the selection being made out in places ( by murray in particular ! ) as absurd and castigating Judy.

korriban · Challenger level

philwrig wrote:
Ormaechae played to a top 50 level so I don't know what else you could have done to beat her, we needed to win the other 2 matches and then win the doubles.

Laura is WR#38 amd rising. If she aims to be a top #20 player this year, and many tennis pundits were predicting it, she could have raised her game or at the very least played to her ranking, especially in a FedCup match. Thats what we needed for Ormaechea to be beaten. Nothing else.

philwrig · Hall of fame

korriban wrote:
philwrig wrote:
Ormaechae played to a top 50 level so I don't know what else you could have done to beat her, we needed to win the other 2 matches and then win the doubles.
Laura is WR#38 amd rising. If she aims to be a top #20 player this year, and many tennis pundits were predicting it, she could have raised her game or at the very least played to her ranking, especially in a FedCup match. Thats what we needed for Ormaechea to be beaten. Nothing else.

She's playing to that level only in patches, but this is just a blip. Away from home also has to be factored in. It doesn't change the fact though is that we desperately missed Hev.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

korriban wrote:
philwrig wrote:
Ormaechae played to a top 50 level so I don't know what else you could have done to beat her, we needed to win the other 2 matches and then win the doubles.
Laura is WR#38 amd rising. If she aims to be a top #20 player this year, and many tennis pundits were predicting it, she could have raised her game or at the very least played to her ranking, especially in a FedCup match. Thats what we needed for Ormaechea to be beaten. Nothing else.

This is the be all and end all, though the race rankings do paint a much closer picture - Ormaechea has been playing well above her ranking this season and is very much young and on the rise herself.

The nature of Fed Cup means your number one has to do the business, and when you have the stronger number one its essential to avoid handing the advantage away. This is particularly important when your number 2 is unable to represent in the tie.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

I thought Laura probably played about has well today as she has been this season in general - she wasn't great but I didn't think she played particularly badly or threw away a tie she should have won. Ormaechea played well and from what I have seen is at least as good a player on a slow clay court as Laura is (how much she raises her game for Fed Cup I don't know but her recent results have also been good). Before Heather was ruled out, that would have been the rubber we were least likely to win.

indiana · Tennis legend

murray, looks as if we could bounce this back and forward a while yet LOL.

I have given a considered point by point lengthy post as to why I certainly don't think Bally's selection was absurd, and may indeed be perfectly reasonsinable ( though as we all acknowledge, we have no inside track ), so I am not going to repeat all that again.

And I made these points while clearly acknowledging fitness concerns re Bally, in particular if it went 3 sets. My main focus as always re such things is how are we most likely to get the overall win.

You pose the question re selecting Konta for Day One, and why then change.

I would never have picked Bally for day one. To me, it was a match none of Jo, Anne or Bally was at all likely to win. A big issue was though that if you played Bally, in particular if it was a long match, you at worst put her out of contention for the likely much more pivotal 2 v 2 match on Day 2 or at least probably impaired her chances, because of the agreed fitness issues. So, to me, that was an Anne or Jo choice as to who would most likely overcome big odds and get a win.

For today, a pragmatic choice then had to made ( possibly planned already, but at least reconsidered ) as to how at 1-1 GB maximised their chances of finishing with at least 3 wins.

I can certainly see how that choice can then be Bally for the second singles and Laura / Anne for the doubles.

Sorry for going on at such length, but while I accept ( from what limited knowlwdge we have ) differences in opinion as to who should of played today, to my mind you have made no case for it being absurd ( I understand the drag out point, but that was unlikely to work, and indeed wouldn't have, if it had ended in 2 sets as it was reasonable to calculate that it should ) or dented mine that it was possibly the correct choice or at least perfectly reasonable.

It's playing the percentages. Ah, who would be a selector...

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

In case anyone is wondering, both captains agreed to cancel the doubles. The stadium was empty so there really was no point. @5livetennis 2 hours ago

korriban · Challenger level

I agree with Steven. Rubber 3 was the crucial one. From what others have said, the argentinian played her best tennis on the day, and Laura played good tennis only in patches, and below the level of her ranking overall. Clay may be a leveller to some extent, surely the rankings gap more than compensates. Clay doesnt make you serve at only 50% first serves, or commit large numbers of DFs, or fall away badly in a final set, having just won the second.......

Laura had another bad day. With Heather absent, she needed to step up as the dominant p,ayer of the tie, but Paula did instead ans she should be commended.