Week 17 - ITF $25K - Phuket, Thailand - Hard

steven · Tennis legend

Week 17 - ITF $25K - Phuket, Thailand - Hard

steven · Tennis legend

P.S. I know it's not pronounced the way I just implied it was

paulisi · Tennis legend

Looks like Tara and Lisa will probably be seeded. Feel a bit sorry for Mel and Naomi after all that travelling and then that draw....

steven · Tennis legend

Not only are the Brits all playing each other, they're also all in the same quarter! It won't seem too bad if the winners both make it to the QFs, I suppose.

L32: (7) Lisa Whybourn WR 265 v Melanie South WR 380 - ITF H2H 0-1, 6 & 4, Glasgow 2009
L32: (4) Tara Moore WR 207 v Naomi Broady WR 340 - ITF H2H 0-1, 2 & 5, Sutton 2009

blob · All-time great

As this is Tara's current event, and to avoid reopening the previous discussion....

I noticed with amusement Steven's exchange on Twitter with Tara, congratulating her on breaking in to the top 200 for the first time (she is ranked 200 now - CH well done )

Tara's response rather summed up and put in perspective the criticism of lazy journalism given the common interpretation in this area as discussed at length previously
Tara Moore @TaraMoore92: @GBtennis not yet Steven. But thanks for the premature well done ;)

Oh, and as an incidental, the reason Tara is not inside the top 200 - by her own definition, is because a completely unheard of player rose from 202 to 197 in the same rankings list. That player? Maria Irigoyen... who she then?

-- Edited by blob on Monday 22nd of April 2013 12:01:38 PM

blob · All-time great

R1: Tara MOORE/Melanie SOUTH (GBR/GBR) [4] defeated Tammi PATTERSON/Olivia ROGOWSKA (AUS/AUS) 6-3 6-7(0) [10-5]
A result that prompted Mel to tweet:
Melanie South @melaniesouth: Could have won doubs in 2sets if the umpire had called the ball out on match point that was a foot long in the 2nd set #supertiebreaks

R1: Naomi BROADY/Lisa WHYBOURN (GBR/GBR) lost to Misa EGUCHI/Akiko OMAE (JPN/JPN) [2] 2-6 4-6

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, I have to accept that people do get confused, yet as someone who can usually see both sides of any argument (often to an excruciating extent), I still think saying 200 is not top 200 and 40 is not top 40 is complete and utter ********! Great at tennis, not so good at counting, was my first thought - but can you blame her when half the media seem to suggest the same thing?

Getting away from round numbers (or the no. 1/WR zero example, which is all too easy to see as a special case), would anyone here consider that a player had not "broken into the top 4" if they were no. 4 because they hadn't got to no. 3 yet?

That's supposed to be a rhetorical question which I hope nobody will bother to answer (in order not to unleash another discussion like the one at the link in blob's post!) and anyway, if you think getting to no. 4 is not enough to be considered to have broken into the top 4, then I have no arguments left to try with which to try to convince you.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Steven is right. You're in the top 4 because there are only three players ranked in front of you.

I remember as a child finding the concept of centuries confusing (ie the 21st century is the 2000s, the 20th century is the 1900s etc) but I dont see why there is confusion with this! If there is no player ranked 0 the top 10 is 1-10, not 0-9! Ive never heard anyone say you have to be ranked number 9 to be in the world top 10, why would only 9 players make up the list of the worlds top 10 tennis players!?

Anyways, congrats to Tara for the CH ranking. No arguments on that one, I hope!

korriban · Challenger level

When you've been working you rear end off to get your ranking up, there's no question that the first number in your ranking is a big deal. Mathematically Steven is right - there's absolutely no debate - she's top 200, but I realise what emotion she is feeling!

For Tara having been "in the 200s" for quite some time now, she wants to cement herself "in the 100s", before pushing on. The change in that first digit signifies the, well, change!

Look on the bright side - she'll have a little extra motivation to pick up plenty of points over the next couple of weeks.

On a separate note, having watched the video of where they are staying (lucky so and sos) and having heard that temperatures are mid 30s with almost 100% humidity, and with 4 young girls with a reputation for enjoying themselves together in Phuket, I imagine the motivation to train obsessively rather than enjoy the surroundings might be, err, less than usual! In fact, they probably can't train too much. Furthermore if playing conditions are really that brutal, a lot of very good overseas players could easily be beaten by local journeywomen - it becomes a lottery. So I'm not expecting a lot from this trip - in some ways if it is that hot and humid, the fact they are playing each other at least ensures 2 girls through to round 2 and a chance to get used to the temperature out there.

indiana · Tennis legend

Ah, as I said in the GB women top 25 thread re Tara tweeting about not breaking the top 200 barrier, I got the impression from the tweet quoted there that the disappointment was not having a ranking starting "1", i.e. WR 1xx, and I can actually understand that, i.e. not a question of whether she was top 200 ( as previously, I totally agree with Steven re what constitutes top 5, 40, 200 etc ).

Rather amusingly I see now that she is actually disputing whether she is top 200. You are, Tara !! I still tend to think she does so less from a msthematical and / or philisophical arguement az to what constitutes top 200 ( though yes, possibly a genuine misunderstanding ) and more still in disappointment at not being WR 1xx.

I can understand the desire to be 9x tathet than 100 and 19x rather than 200.

The best way to say it to her is maybe "Congrats on now being one of the top 200 ranked players", which is surely indisputable by anyone LOL ( not that I think ranked in / inside the top 200 should be ).

In fact, I think I might have a go LOL

indiana · Tennis legend

Ah, while I was composing the above in stages, I see that korriban has expressed similar thoughts, that "1' rather than "2" matters !

philwrig · Hall of fame

Agree it is all about being 1** instead of 2** from Tara's point of view.

blob · All-time great

Agree with all of this - Steven is right, the leading 1 is the psychologically important bit.
Hopefully Tara will have removed any need for even semantic gymnastics in, at worst, a couple of weeks or so. I would say this week, but given the draw that seems a bit improper.

Peter too · Tennis legend

I'm still waiting for Andy Murray to break into the top two!

paulisi · Tennis legend

Tara is at 197 in the in running rankings and has nothing to defend for a few weeks so a few decent results in Thailans should consolidate her ranking.