Week 23 - Challenger (€64,000) - Nottingham, UK (grass)

paulisi · Tennis legend

RE: Week 23 - Challenger (€64,000) - Nottingham, UK (grass)

spud · Challenger qualifying

Corrie 5-7 5-3* up a break in the 2nd set

Goodall 4-5* Ram to serve for the 1st set

korriban · Challenger level

Ed had 5-3, then served for set 1 at *5-4 and lost it 5-7

Ed had 5-3, and has just served for set 2 at *5-4. Now 5-5.

Ouch.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Ed lost by 5 & 5. cry

korriban · Challenger level

Stircrazy wrote:
Ed lost by 5 & 5.

Wow. If ever a scoreline hides the true picture of what actually happened, its this one. One that really really got away. Most "un-Ed-like" to falter when near the winning line, based on his season to date.

spud · Challenger qualifying

Goodall 4-6 6-5*

Josh was a break up earlier in the second set but got broke back... c'mon Josh

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

RE: Week 23 - Challenger (ï¿½64,000) - Nottingham, UK (grass)

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

RE: Week 23 - Challenger (€64,000) - Nottingham, UK (grass)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well, I doubt Ryan Harrison thinks he's not good enough for Challengers just because he lost in the first round at this one.

KK · Club Coach

Isn't that his first ever Challenger match?

HossTheBoss · Strong Club Player

Went to watch Evo ,deserved to win ,better player on the day.
Harrison seemed to be getting a little upset with the ball boys.

korriban · Challenger level

Madeline wrote:
Too good for Futures - not quite good enough for Challengers. Problem.

I presume this refers to Josh G. Perhaps he WAS too good for GB Futures when the standard was, on average, lower a few years ago. I think he probably was playing better too. He certainly isn't too good for Futures now, and is well short of Challenger level, let alone ATP Tour level. Problem.

Actually the biggest problem is that he probably will still be given a big MDWC for at least one of the 3 big ATP tournaments coming up (although I doubt Wimbledon), when I think there are probably many more deserving cases, focussing on the future not the past. QWC if needed would be fine.

LHarvey89 · Social player

korriban wrote:
Madeline wrote:
Too good for Futures - not quite good enough for Challengers. Problem.
I presume this refers to Josh G. Perhaps he WAS too good for GB Futures when the standard was, on average, lower a few years ago. I think he probably was playing better too. He certainly isn't too good for Futures now, and is well short of Challenger level, let alone ATP Tour level. Problem.
Actually the biggest problem is that he probably will still be given a big MDWC for at least one of the 3 big ATP tournaments coming up (although I doubt Wimbledon), when I think there are probably many more deserving cases, focussing on the future not the past. QWC if needed would be fine.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, Korriban.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Madeline wrote:
Too good for Futures - not quite good enough for Challengers. Problem.

Yes, I thought this applied to Josh as well but what I meant was why should one think he's not good enough for Challengers just because he lost a close match against a high seed in round one of this one (hence my point that Ryan wouldn't think the HE wasn't good enough just because HE lost in the first round).

However, I agree with Korriban, he's certainly not too good for futures now and that would be the perfectly normal approach - to play some futures (and win most matches), play some Challengers qualifiers (and qualify in a couple) and take the wildcards that come along (whether undeserved or not) and acquit himself well.

There doesn't seem to me any problem - unless playing in Futures is a problem for him . . . in which case, get real . . .

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

KK wrote:
Isn't that his first ever Challenger match?

Unless my memory is at fault (quite possible!) he has tried Challengers before with little success.