RJA wrote:

---

The draw was particularly rough for Jathan as he was the 7th highest ranking of the direct acceptances and so looked like being seeded. Unfortunately 3 players ranked higher than him entered qualifying and got byes through to the main draw.

---

 I don't like seeing comments about rough draws all the time. If a player is good enough they will come through see the two Kates in the girls for evidence. I doubt Jathan could really win these matches at this level. Not at the moment anyway.

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

RJA wrote:

---

The draw was particularly rough for Jathan as he was the 7th highest ranking of the direct acceptances and so looked like being seeded. Unfortunately 3 players ranked higher than him entered qualifying and got byes through to the main draw.

---

 I don't like seeing comments about rough draws all the time. If a player is good enough they will come through see the two Kates in the girls for evidence. I doubt Jathan could really win these matches at this level. Not at the moment anyway.

---

If players are playing at a level below their true level (e.g. when Andy Murray was playing Challengers on his way up), then draws hardly matter - hopefully the same applies to Katy and Katie too, though not to the same extent, else they would already be well into the top 500.

For the vast majority of players though, most with little chance of ever making the top 100, who are trying to see how far they can go in the rankings, they make a very significant difference. Nobody's moaning here that Jathan always gets bad draws, but in a field as weak as this (where he was almost seeded himself), the likelihood was that he'd get an opponent in R1 he had at least a decent chance against and he didn't. That's all RJA and I were trying to say.

steven wrote:

---

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

RJA wrote:

---

The draw was particularly rough for Jathan as he was the 7th highest ranking of the direct acceptances and so looked like being seeded. Unfortunately 3 players ranked higher than him entered qualifying and got byes through to the main draw.

---

 I don't like seeing comments about rough draws all the time. If a player is good enough they will come through see the two Kates in the girls for evidence. I doubt Jathan could really win these matches at this level. Not at the moment anyway.

---

If players are playing at a level below their true level (e.g. when Andy Murray was playing Challengers on his way up), then draws hardly matter - hopefully the same applies to Katy and Katie too, though not to the same extent, else they would already be well into the top 500.

For the vast majority of players though, most with little chance of ever making the top 100, who are trying to see how far they can go in the rankings, they make a very significant difference. Nobody's moaning here that Jathan always gets bad draws, but in a field as weak as this (where he was almost seeded himself), the likelihood was that he'd get an opponent in R1 he had at least a decent chance against and he didn't. That's all RJA and I were trying to say.

---

 A good and fair answer Steven but I share Jaggys view at times as well I think.  I guess its all what we want/expect for progress.  

Sometimes just qualifying can be a result in itself, others (like A Ward or David Rice recently) qualifying and then winning a 1st round main draw seems really good.

As a rule in futures/challengers I'd want most players who got into a draw on merit to make at least quarters, that will mean getting past a seed (or their victor)  ie just getting a WC in the 1st round dosen't make it a good draw for me unless they win the match afterwards as well.  (At the same level I'd always be hoping for a seeded player to make semi's.)

That said, if a player draws a top seed first round it is a downer but, also a great opportunity for a big scalp.  Often better players can be caught cold 1st round, it happens all the time to ours!