steven wrote:

---

RainDelay wrote:

---

Seems to be playing Cabaj Awad rather than Jacobsgaard

---

It looks now as if I read it wrong off the ITF drawsheet, yet with the two all-GB matches next to each other, I remember taking down 4 consecutive names in the draw. I doubt it changed though, so probably my mistake.

---

 I for one am glad of the mistake because otherwise I wouldn't have learnt so much about the Beninese. Brightened this post right up imo

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

Danielle's result isn't really a surprise either I'm pretty sure her points total are
along similar lines to Sabrina and Laura Deigmans.

---

Not really - whereas Sabrina got 4 WCs that got her a point without a win, only one of Laura's WCs and none of Danielle's got automatic points.

Danielle's 12 points come from the following 10K main draw wins:

- 1 big win v WR 427 (Stanciute)
- 1 win v WR 654 (Fran)
- 1 win v WR 886 (Baranska)
- 2 wins v ranked players outside the top 1000 (there's the luck, if you like - both were in R2 so worth 3 extra points each)
- 3 wins v unranked players

I doubt this is a very unusual split of scoring results (i.e. even for non-Brits) among those with 12 points.

Priesty wrote:

---

Seems Cabaj and Burgers need to be off the menu for our girls for the time being....

---

R1: Sabrina BAMBURAC/Rebecca POIKAJARVI (GBR/SWE) [4] lost to Matilda HAMLIN/Valeria OSADCHENKO (SWE/SWE) 7-6(2) 6-7(5) [10-12]

That looks a very tough loss.

steven wrote:

---

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

Danielle's result isn't really a surprise either I'm pretty sure her points total are
along similar lines to Sabrina and Laura Deigmans.

---

Not really - whereas Sabrina got 4 WCs that got her a point without a win, only one of Laura's WCs and none of Danielle's got automatic points.

Danielle's 12 points come from the following 10K main draw wins:

- 1 big win v WR 427 (Stanciute)
- 1 win v WR 654 (Fran)
- 1 win v WR 886 (Baranska)
- 2 wins v ranked players outside the top 1000 (there's the luck, if you like - both were in R2 so worth 3 extra points each)
- 3 wins v unranked players

I doubt this is a very unusual split of scoring results (i.e. even for non-Brits) among those with 12 points.

-- Edited by steven on Monday 6th of May 2013 09:48:31 PM

---

 I would take out the win against Fran who is well off just now. So 1 win against anyone above approx 900 mark and several heavy defeats. The win against the top 500 player could be compared to Sabs win against Naomi. 

So my point remains valid I'd say. Happy to take it back if either of these 3 players break the top 750 but I doubt it.

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

My 'general' point as you put it is a lot of these players are trawling round the globe looking for ranking points and more often than not suffering heavy losses, or making little progress in the draws.

I'm also curious as to why people mock Robyn Beddow who does that very thing yet seem to jump down someone's throat for questioning a player being double bagelled at an overseas 10k.

---

Jaggy, seriously, please stop taking it so personally if and when folk question or argue re points you make ( such as your suggestion re EWS not beating top 500 players ). I don't see folk as here to fight or"jump down" folk's throats. But many will wish to discuss further things they don't understand or disagree with.

Again, Danielles' double bagel defeat was not remotely as representative of her general performances as you suggested, which is largely why you got responses. Indeed it was a surprise to me to see such a heavy defeat on this occasion.

Re Robyn Beddow, personally I wouldn't mock her ( though maybe some have and she has certainly suffered more general heavy defeats around the globe, regular bagels and breadsticks ). In general I think folk are more interested in her itinerary, which is very adventurous and has helped win her a ranking above her probable true ability. But for me if she / her family can finance it and she wants to live the dream then it's up to her.

I agree with Blob.

The Beddow mystery is much more about where she pops up (pretty much anywhere is possible, so long as it's obscure, exotic, and several time zones away from the nearest GB player), how she accumulates her points (often via WCs in fairly big events, even WTAs, similarly through playing very young or very old players who seem to invariably gravitate towards her in draws), and who she is (almost nothing is known about her, so where do these WCs come from?) as the fact she is routinely thrashed on most occasions she does play. There's no mocking here, she is a sort of cult figure, because we can't come up with a sensible explanation short of her being from an immensely wealthy family, playing all round the world for fun. Actually the sad part of the story is that she can do this and comfortably make the top 25 in GB! Extraordinary!

Personally, I agree with Indy about Danielle. She seemed to be having a few very decent results this year, so a double bagel loss sort of came from nowhere. Time will tell.    

Jaggy. A lot of the heavy contributors on this forum really do know their stuff, and have seen it all before. I'm definitely NOT in this camp by the way - I do have strong views on stuff, hopefully I'm on the money more often than not, but accept that I'm wrong on many occasions too, primarily when I assume too much without checking (rather like our phantom tweeter, TTT). Some of the contributors can be rather pedantic, challenging any opinion if it's not backed up with multiple sources of data, but IMO that makes this forum far superior to others where players are routinely abused and views can swing from black to white to black again on the back of 1 or 2 matches.

I have been narked by certain contributors in the past, but now understand them a little better and have changed my opinions of them. I'm sure I nark other forum members more than they nark me, so it's fine that I get the odd kicking from time to time.

Chill out.