Of course is Isner had played, Murray would still have been favourite for both of his ties and Ward would still have played Querrey, just on day 3 instead of day 1.
Well Ratty, I've certainly found that in the arts the harder you work, and the better you get the luckier you get. I daresay it works for most things including tennis. However, I have also found that an inspirational team captian who believes in you can also do wonders, so GO LEON!
TMH, we just won't know. The pressure of winning a 5th rubber would have affected both guys in ways we can't predict. We know Wardy can do it under pressure (eg Tursunov), and based on this Sam is best when not under pressure, but who know what would have happened???
Well Ratty, I've certainly found that in the arts the harder you work, and the better you get the luckier you get. I daresay it works for most things including tennis. However, I have also found that an inspirational team captian who believes in you can also do wonders, so GO LEON!
TMH, we just won't know. The pressure of winning a 5th rubber would have affected both guys in ways we can't predict. We know Wardy can do it under pressure (eg Tursunov), and based on this Sam is best when not under pressure, but who know what would have happened???
Whenever this topic comes up, the famous Gary Player quote always comes to mind.
When a journalist accused him of being a lucky golfer he simply said, "Yes I am. And the harder I practise, the luckier I get".
Ratty, of course it was 'lucky' for us that Isner got injured.
It was also 'unlucky' for us that, for whatever reason, our number two player was not available for selection.
Was it 'lucky' that Jim Courrier chose the wrong surface? No, his role and decisions are an important part of a team match.
Was it 'lucky' that Sam Q tightened up when serving for the match or 'lucky' that James raised the bar? No, that's part of tennis (seen it a thousand times) and a reflection on training, belief, coaching, crowd support, whatever i.e. tangible things not some abstract notion of 'luck'.
Also, in my opinion, Courier choosing clay because he thought it our least favourite surface even though it was also the least favourite of his own players (yes, I know Isner does pretty well on clay, but I simply do not believe it is his best surface) was bad judgement - luck had no part in that.
I sometimes wonder if Ratty actually even likes tennis. He / she hardly ever seems to comment on actual tennis or to indicate any enjoyment in results.
"World number 147 Evans was disappointed to have been left out of the Davis Cup team which beat USA in San Diego at the weekend, with 175th-ranked James Ward earning the spot ahead of him."
"World number 147 Evans was disappointed to have been left out of the Davis Cup team which beat USA in San Diego at the weekend, with 175th-ranked James Ward earning the spot ahead of him."
Really?
Is there a different article ? I am reading this one.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/26051219
Can't see the paragraph you have clearly copied and pasted (so they must have it somewhere). What I have seen is this.
"He was then left out of Britain's Davis Cup side for their victory in USA after going against coach Leon Smith's wishes by playing a tournament in Hawaii."
Clearly they have got this wrong as well, as he upset Leon by NOT playing in Hawaii - or so the story goes.
What a load of tosh, I'd hope he was disappointed to be left out of the team. An article as short as that basically means that some journo somewhere has knocked it up in 5 minutes... nothing to worry about.
EDIT: Excuse my language
-- Edited by Jaffa on Thursday 6th of February 2014 08:23:50 AM
An increasing problem or perhaps just one I've picked up on more in recent years. When you notice errors in articles you know a fair amount about (for me tennis and the work of community/childrens centres) it makes you wonder just how much nonsense is being reported as fact on bigger issues to to sloppy journalism and sensationalism.
An increasing problem or perhaps just one I've picked up on more in recent years. When you notice errors in articles you know a fair amount about (for me tennis and the work of community/childrens centres) it makes you wonder just how much nonsense is being reported as fact on bigger issues to to sloppy journalism and sensationalism.
Agree completely, and it's so frustrating given the amount of times I see articles I could've written better myself - either grammatically or just accurately. It's clearly evident in many cases - particularly within tennis, a small collection of esteemed journalists excluded - that whoever has written the article actually knows very little about the player/players in question, or even the sport as a whole.
Especially the tabloids, who are inclined to second one of their rugby or soccer specialists to tennis in the grass season when they haven't much else to do.