Week 24 - WTA International $235K - Birmingham, UK - Grass

korriban · Challenger level

Week 24 - WTA International $235K - Birmingham, UK - Grass

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I think Tara has played aggressive, good tennis. She had to save lots of BP in the second set, showed lots of character. Nothing like James's match.

5-4 to Kiki and she serves it out. Never mind. Tough.

PS OK, OK, I'll concede one JW point . . . .

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 12:49:27 PM

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 12:50:15 PM

korriban · Challenger level

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Time for Bally Anne and Mel to call it a day I've said it before but by year end they ll all be outside the top 300.

I think it's too harsh to say they should stop - it's their choice after all.

However, if they have poor grasscourt seasons (and it hasn't started well for either), you may well be right about their rankings.

All I would say is that if Bally doesn't perform at Nottingham 2, and neither performs at Eastbourne and Wimbledon (let's be honest both will be given WCs, whether merited or not) - by which I mean winning matches, not just fighting and being competitive, please let this be the end of their WCs, even if they are still around next year. The Fed Cup team is bound to be Robson, Watson, Konta, Moore by then anyway so no loyalty issues should arise.

The irony is that we don't have any girl/women players below them who you could readily cite as been potential top 100/150 players to give "their" WCs to......which is quite extraordinary!

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

Unlike Tara, JoKo gets away with two 2nd serves when two points away from victory, both unreturned, the first so short that it kicked up too high for Nara to get a clean hit.

-- Edited by kundalini on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 02:21:58 PM

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Hev only dropped three points on serve (inc. 1 df) in that set which was more comfortable than a 6-4 score suggests

Well done to JoKo as well, excellent win. She seems to be in good form.

-- Edited by tony_orient on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 02:23:03 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I also think it's too harsh to say they should stop.

People said Federer should have stopped when he was at the top and undeniably number one.

What a shame that would have been.

But I do not think the LTA should be funding 27 year-olds who cannot make a living on their own. To be clear, I'm not talking about making training facilities available - if the centre is actually as empty as some people say it is then, frankly, they should allow anyone with a ranking point (junior or senior) to use it for free, subject to availability.

But I do not think that money should be spent on individual coaches, travel, hotels, 'salary' etc. (Again, group training camps might be a different question). The money could be spent a whole lot better. and the message it sends out is wrong.

In France, the cut off age is 23. This seems about right.

Spectator · All-time great

I would not favour a cut-off age of 23 - it hugely disadvantages players who have gone to university and hence only start on the circuit at 21 or 22. But I do think that players who have had a good career and are now no longer at their peak, once they fall below a certain point, should not receive full funding (as suggested by CD above).

As for giving Ms Keothavong and Ms Konta a WC in place of Ms Slater and Ms Sanchez ... I am a fan of both the former and the latter, but feel that this sends out all the wrong messages. If Ms Slater does not receive a Wimbledon WC, it will seem a further injustice.

korriban · Challenger level

Spectator wrote:
I would not favour a cut-off age of 23 - it hugely disadvantages players who have gone to university and hence only start on the circuit at 21 or 22. But I do think that players who have had a good career and are now no longer at their peak, once they fall below a certain point, should not receive full funding (as suggested by CD above).

As for giving Ms Keothavong and Ms Konta a WC in place of Ms Slater and Ms Sanchez ... I am a fan of both the former and the latter, but feel that this sends out all the wrong messages. If Ms Slater does not receive a Wimbledon WC, it will seem a further injustice.

Based on what I saw at last week's event, and how atrociously they played together, you could make a strong case that neither JoKo nor Anne had ever played doubles in their lives before, and that neither showed any aptitude for it whatsoever. It was the equivalent of watching young kids all chasing after the ball aimlessly in a 5 year olds' football match.

I'll wager they get a Wimbledon WC as a doubles pair.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Spectator wrote:
I would not favour a cut-off age of 23 - it hugely disadvantages players who have gone to university and hence only start on the circuit at 21 or 22. But I do think that players who have had a good career and are now no longer at their peak, once they fall below a certain point, should not receive full funding (as suggested by CD above).

As for giving Ms Keothavong and Ms Konta a WC in place of Ms Slater and Ms Sanchez ... I am a fan of both the former and the latter, but feel that this sends out all the wrong messages. If Ms Slater does not receive a Wimbledon WC, it will seem a further injustice.

Fair point. And I do think that as the sport ages, i.e. the average age of the players become older, then the system should reflect that. You're quite right. And uni is a good system for many, to be encouraged.

So I've put it up to 25. If you argue the case, I'd go up to 26 at a push.

steven · Tennis legend

L56: (WC) Melanie South WR 523 lost to (16) Magdaléna Rybáriková (SVK) WR 47 (CH 40 in 2009) by 4 & 2
L56: (14) Heather Watson WR 54 beat Melinda Czink (HUN) WR 126 (CH 37 in 2009) by 6-4 7-6(0)
L56: (WC) Anne Keothavong WR 211 lost to (Q) Alison Riske (USA) WR 167 (CH 104 in 2011) by 5 & 2
L56: (WC) Johanna Konta WR 140 beat (Q) Kurumi Nara (JPN) WR 134 (CH 101 in 2010) by 2 & 4 biggrin
L56: (WC) Tara Moore WR 194 lost to (12) Kristina Mladenovic (FRA) WR 39 (= CH) by 5-7 7-6(5) 6-4

L32: (14) Heather Watson WR 54 v (Q) Alla Kudryavtseva RUS WR 189 (CH 56 in 2010) - H2H 0-1, 4 & 3, here in 2010
L32: (7) Laura Robson WR 37 v Daniela Hantuchová (SVK) WR 60 (CH 5 in 2003) - H2H 0-2, Wim. 2009 & Doha 2013
L32: (WC) Johanna Konta WR 140 v (12) Kristina Mladenovic (FRA) WR 39 (= CH) - H2H 0-2, both in 2011

Edit: Oops, Peter got in while I was re-checking the CH and H2H details LOL- I'll leave this post in for the sake of those CH/H2H details though.

-- Edited by steven on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 03:28:07 PM

blob · All-time great

Gosh!
The ninja's were 1-3 down, but have just taken the first set 7-5 from Chan/Huber!

Edit: Chan, not Chang

-- Edited by blob on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 03:39:11 PM

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Moore & South lost the MTB 10-3.

Tough day for Tara, two better than expected performances but nothing tangible to show for it

Riske did beat Paszek so Heather only has two players outside the top 150 between her and the quarter finals.

-- Edited by tony_orient on Tuesday 11th of June 2013 05:20:52 PM

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Robmond knocking up now.

The unusual scheduling of doubles up first is ideal for Laura. She can get a grass court match in ahead of her first singles tomorrow, and then have time for an additional practice this afternoon focusing on singles once she knows who her opponent is. Also, with rain around everyone will want to be as early as possible in the schedule.

wales1994 · County player

Tara Moore's playing well early on against Mladenovic! But I think she may be out of her depth

seagull · Hall of fame

Early break for tara *2-1