Fed Cup 2013 part 2

Peter too · Tennis legend

RE: Fed Cup 2013 part 2

PaulM · Tennis legend

Amanda's clay form isn't stunning though, she's had some poor poor results.

Would love to see her around the 250 mark by year end.

steven · Tennis legend

I missed this yesterday, but I think Laura's face in the main pic says it all. She looks absolutely crushed, poor thing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22252871

Bally wasn't afraid to say what many of us thought:

"I think if we had played them at home, indoors, it wouldn't even have been a challenge to be honest."

blob · All-time great

steven wrote:
Bally wasn't afraid to say what many of us thought:
"I think if we had played them at home, indoors, it wouldn't even have been a challenge to be honest."

Yes but we didn't, did we.

We got drawn on clay, and the thinking amongst supporters, and perhaps even then in the back of players minds then, seems to be that it is some form of mitigation that we don't like a surface that might account for approximately, at least, a third of any potential ties? Just bad luck, an unlucky roll of the dice.

They didn't change the rules though, you know beforehand that this outcome is a reasonable possibility for any given tie at this level.

What if they move Group I playoffs to clay next time?

I note that the Canadians - almost as averse to clay as are we - qualified through Group I on clay, in South America, without their #1 player and with hardly a stellar world beating line up, against predominantly week in week out clay court speciallists.

They then went half way around the world (like GB) to Ukraine, and, again on clay, beat the higher ranked team on their own court, again without their best player - Wozniak.

They just seem to have knuckled down and found a way to get the result.

Absolutely no doubt, every single one of the GB team tried their hardest to do the same, but ultimately didn't have the tools for the job. Lamenting the draw or the surface is utterly pointless.

Perhaps people want the away team to pick the surface, to counter the home support advantage? Fine, we're drawn at home to Argentina, and off to Bournemouth we go to play on clay - likely same result.

We will be drawn on clay at some point again, perhaps we should just forfeit when it happens; it's apparently patently unfair.

As a tennis nation, we need to play much more on clay, treat it much more seriously and respectfully, men and women alike. It ain't gonna go away, and no one else is gonna care if you can't deal with it, they'll just keep very happily beating you.

Ratty · County player

I have to say I disagree.

Getting Brits to do better on red clay will mean that our players will need to play on it extensively from an early age. And red clay courts are expensive to construct, and need far more maintenance (ie - cost) than a hard court, especially in a wet climate like we have. You don't get weeds growing through concrete, you don't need to water hard courts every 30 minutes, and you don't need to employ a groundsman to look after them.

And it's perfectly possible to play on hard courts all year round, unless one gets to the top echelons (when there's a few weeks in the spring where you have to play on clay).

So, are you REALLY saying that in order to do better in the Fed Cup, which - frankly - nobody gives a sh*t about apart from a few people on this message board, we turn the entire system upside down?

korriban · Challenger level

Could be worse. There's a surface even harder and more expensive to maintain, impossible to play on in the winter, however little rain there is, and almost unusable after 2-3 weeks of competition. Grass. I often wonder why so many of our players are so called experts on it, when the average GB player has almost no exposure to it ever growing up, and the season only lasts 2 months. Its not like they have "grown up" on grass.

Seriously though, I agree with both of you to some extent. At the highest level, I think its inexcusable for GB players who are the best in our country to have had so little clay court experience that it becomes an excuse against far lower ranked, clay court spacialists. I accept it wont be their best surface, but I think the tournament programmes and training schedules of most of our top juniors now include a lot of clay, partly because of the disciplines, consistency and patience it engenders. Kyle et al spring to mind.

Perhaps all GB accredited tennis academies, the HPCs and IHPCs, should have a requirement to have a minimum percentage of clay courts and clay court experience should be built in to all programmes. Clay is fun too, lots of fun.

On a side note, always wondered why Andy who is one of the best movers in the game, and who spent 2 years training at the Sanchez Casal academy is as average as he is on clay (well compared to to top 10).

steven · Tennis legend

blob has a point - if they went into that tie thinking "poor us, we've got to play on clay, we've got no chance," then that would be unforgiveable. I can't imagine they did though and I think Bally was just stating the obvious, it was the bold (if possibly dangerous) 'if we get them again next year they've got no chance' type of way she put it that made me smile.

I agree too that Brits should be trying to get more clay court experience. However, as Andy's experience shows, the problem is that even a couple of years playing mainly on red clay then the best part of a decade playing on it for 2-3 months of the year isn't enough to make a player as comfortable on it as players of a similar overall standard for whom it has been their main surface since they were 5 or 6. Realistically (i.e. even if we tried to build more clay courts) clay is never going to have been a Brit's main surface since that kind of age unless they were actually brought up in a warmer country like Amanda Carreras was.

That doesn't mean Brits should avoid clay altogether (after all, in Andy's case and indeed Tim's case, a Roland Garros semi is not to be sneezed at!), and clearly most of the top GB juniors are trying to get more exposure to it these days. But however much they try to play on it in their teens, it may always be a surface on which Brits are at a bit of a disadvantage.

> Grass. I often wonder why so many of our players are so called experts on it,
> when the average GB player has almost no exposure to it ever growing up,
> and the season only lasts 2 months. Its not like they have "grown up" on grass.

I think the reason a lot of Brits used to have a relative advantage on grass courts is not so much because they played on grass a lot but because Brits tend to grow up playing indoors a lot. When grass courts were faster than they are now and suited serve-volleyers more, a lot of the things that were effective on fast indoor courts were also effective on grass.

I say "used to have a relative advantage on grass courts" because for whatever reason (slower courts, changes in racket technology or whatever), playing old-style grass court tennis clearly doesn't work nearly as well at the biggest grass court events any more. That must be a significant part of the reason why Brits seem to cause less ranking upsets on grass these days.

korriban · Challenger level

Fair point about fast indoors mirroring grass Steven. Never thought of it like that.

But there are exceptions. How come Sue Barker was so good on clay? Where are the clay courts she grew up on? I genuinely don't know - its not a loaded question. Jo Durie reached a French SF didnt she?

Putting aside the sliding and movement issues, I often find our Brits have much poorer groundstroke consistency, ball control/placement and point construction skills than the Spaniards, for example, and much of this could be attributed to shorter rallies where the point is won with a forcing shot often before it is lost with a UE. on a slowish court, If you can't beat someone either by better consistency with power and/or better ability to move the opponent around, you end up just bunting the ball back up the middle and hoping for a mistake (Josh G goes down this route a lot, even if not by design) or going for high tariff winners from all positions (the Robson approach).

The other benefit of clay is that is forces the player to be fitter, given the premium on good movement and longer rally length. Have you ever seen an unfit, let alone overweight Spanish clay-courter? Alright, I'm sure there are examples which counter this, but even now the GB top 25 lists are sprinkled with a few players who, with respect, are less fit, have poorer movement, less long match endurance and in some cases are overweight compared to the typical Spanish, Italian, Argentinian top level pros. Clay court tennis isn't for the slow mover with limited stamina!

I like the LTAs clay focus with some of the rising elite players, and wish we saw more clay courts available across the country. I love them

steven · Tennis legend

korriban wrote:
But there are exceptions. How come Sue Barker was so good on clay? Where are the clay courts she grew up on? I genuinely don't know - its not a loaded question.

It's a good question, but I think the answer is that she wasn't particularly strong on clay, she was just (a bit like Andy) not too bad on clay by GB standards and:

- women's tennis in particular was a different world back in the 1970s (e.g. over 1/3rd of the players at Roland Garros in 1976 were from the 3 main 'clay-hating' countries, i.e. the US, Australia and GB)

- there has never been quite as much divergence between play on different surfaces among the women as among the men

- Sue had an extremely kind draw (which really opened up) and she did brilliantly to take full advantage

Evidence for the latter assertion?

- of the 6 opponents she faced (it was a 64 draw in those days), only losing finalist Tomanova had ever got past R2 at Roland Garros before, and even Tomanova and Sue herself had only reached R3 before (having said that, Ruzici, whom she beat in the semis, would go on to win a RG title)

- her QF opponent had a career high of 11, so can't have been in the top 10 ... her SF opponent started the year ranked 112 and finished it ranked 26 so can't have been anywhere near the top 10 either ... and her opponent in the Final started and ended the year outside the top 40 and did not make it into the top 20 at any point in her career

- Sue herself only won 3 other singles matches at Roland Garros in her whole career! (yes, my jaw dropped too!), 2 the year before she won the title and 1 (in 3 attempts) over the following eight years

- her own view of her prowess on clay seems to be confirmed by the fact that she played the hard to get to Aus Open more often than she played Roland Garros

korriban · Challenger level

Steven. That's really fascinating. Thank you so much. Given the history of one-off winners at RG, with many (often Spanish, Italian, S American) players getting to RG finals or winning, yet being completely average elsewhere - albeit more on the men's side - one assumed that it would be impossible for any clay "novice", like a Sue Barker, to do well, let alone win!

From what I remember (more from documentaries, I'm not that old!), she was playing superbly at Wimbledon that year, and was shocked and devastated not to beat Betty Stove in the SF, and would probably have been a slight favourite for the final. At least she won the French - even if it does sound like an unreserved fluke (although not her fault - perhaps she would have beaten all the top seeds too).......who said you can't win a Grand Slam by luck?!

steven · Tennis legend

korriban wrote:
Steven. That's really fascinating. Thank you so much. Given the history of one-off winners at RG, with many (often Spanish, Italian, S American) players getting to RG finals or winning, yet being completely average elsewhere - albeit more on the men's side - one assumed that it would be impossible for any clay "novice", like a Sue Barker, to do well, let alone win!
From what I remember (more from documentaries, I'm not that old!), she was playing superbly at Wimbledon that year, and was shocked and devastated not to beat Betty Stove in the SF, and would probably have been a slight favourite for the final. At least she won the French - even if it does sound like an unreserved fluke (although not her fault - perhaps she would have beaten all the top seeds too).......who said you can't win a Grand Slam by luck?!

In a similar vein, can you guess how many seeded players the last two British men to reach a grand slam singles Final before Andy beat on their way to the Final?

The answer - none!

It is only fair to point out that when John Lloyd reached the AO Final in 1977, there were only 8 seeds and he did beat a former world no. 1 (John Newcombe, by then getting on a bit and unseeded) on the way and when Greg reached the US Open Final 20 years later, there were only 16 seeds and he did beat some very decent players. Greg's big stroke of luck came when Petr Korda upset Pete Sampras then retired in the next round.

I don't think you can win a grand slam by luck alone, but a bit of luck with the draw certainly helps and Brits don't always take advantage (e.g. early in the 2nd week, Tim the highest-ranked player left in the AO in the year Thomas Johansson went on to win it) - the difference now is that there are four players who are so good and so consistent, that these kind of opportunities (which, as you can see, weren't that uncommon in the past) don't tend to present themselves these days, particularly not in the men's game.