Week 5 - Great Britain F3 ($10,000) - Sheffield (Hard)

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

RE: Week 5 - Great Britain F3 ($10,000) - Sheffield (Hard)

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Dave Rice has taken the 2nd 7-5 against Bloomers, so they are into a decider.

steven · Tennis legend

Dave now has his nose in front in the 3rd, 3-1 up.

A good effort by Clay - first to keep fighting after being bagelled in the 1st set and then to push Lestienne so close.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

QF: (3) Ed Corrie & Dan Smethurst CR 660 (373+287) defeated James Marsalek & Myles Orton CR 1688 (736+952) by 4 & 0

*****

SF: (3) Ed Corrie & Dan Smethurst CR 660 (373+287) vs Rémi Boutillier & Enzo Couacaud (FRA/FRA) UNR

-- Edited by Stircrazy on Wednesday 29th of January 2014 03:33:57 PM

steven · Tennis legend

Dave is about to serve for the match 3-6 7-5 *5-3

steven · Tennis legend

All 4 Brits among the top 5 seeds have survived while 2nd seed Mertens is out, plus a few of the lower-ranked Brits have put in some very encouraging performances - all in all, a pretty good week so far!

L16: (1) Dan Cox WR 249 beat (WC) Peter Ashley UNR by 0 & 0
L16: (5) Dan Smethurst WR 377 beat (Q) Myles Orton WR 1147 by 6-4 7-6(2)
L16: (3) Ed Corrie WR 296 beat Tom Farquharson WR 486 by 3 & 2
L16: (WC) Clay Crawford WR 2092 lost to Constant Lestienne (FRA) WR 453 (CH 450 in Nov) by 6-0 6-7(3) 6-4
L16: (4) Dave Rice WR 317 beat (Q) Richard Bloomfield WR 922 by 3-6 7-5 6-3
L16: Neil Pauffley WR 553 lost to (7) Antal van der Duim (NED) WR 426 (CH 290 in 2012) by 6-4 2-6 6-4
L16: (WC) Harry Meehan WR 1242 beat (2) Yannick Mertens (BEL) WR 283 (CH 195 in 2012) by 3 & 3

QF: (1) Dan Cox WR 249 v (5) Dan Smethurst WR 377 (*)
QF: (3) Ed Corrie WR 296 v Rémi Boutillier (FRA) WR 638 (CH 623 in Oct)
QF: (4) Dave Rice WR 317 v Constant Lestienne (FRA) WR 453 (CH 450 in Nov)
QF: (WC) Harry Meehan WR 1242 v (7) Antal van der Duim (NED) WR 426 (CH 290 in 2012)

(*) 2-Dan H2H - 3-1 to DanC, who won their only recent meeting (Nottingham last year) in 3 sets

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L16: (4) Dave Rice WR 317 by 6-3 5-7 defeated (Q) Richard Bloomfield WR 922 by 3-6 7-5 6-3

Bloomers served for the match at 5-4 in the second set... Seems to have fallen away quite badly in the decider. hmm

-- Edited by Stircrazy on Wednesday 29th of January 2014 03:31:59 PM

Shhh · Challenger level

Poor Richard, he always seems to start strongly but if he dosen't close things out in the 2nd set it just gets away from him. Not sure how many of his last 3 set matches he's won afer winning the 1st set but I dont think its many.

For David Rice, pleased for him (a chance of a Wimbledon WC if he keeps getting points???but hope he will be fresh enough for the doubles.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Loved Josh's coaching tweets - blood pressure off the scale sort of stuff. Mega result from Harry. And so close from Clay (lot of respect for that lad). And the 'big boys' did well. Onwards and upwards.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:
QF: (3) Ed Corrie & Dan Smethurst CR 660 (373+287) defeated James Marsalek & Myles Orton CR 1688 (736+952) by 4 & 0
*****
SF: (3) Ed Corrie & Dan Smethurst CR 660 (373+287) vs Rémi Boutillier & Enzo Couacaud (FRA/FRA) UNR

Shhh needn't have worried...

QF: (1) David Rice & Sean Thornley CR 412 (207+205) defeated Riccardo Bonadio & Antonio Mastrelia (ITA/ITA) CR 1836 (881+955) by 5 & 1

*****

SF: (1) David Rice & Sean Thornley CR 412 (207+205) vs (4) Yannick Mertens (BEL) & Antal van der Duim (BEL/NED) CR 828 (637+191)

paulisi · Tennis legend

Could we have an all GB semi?

I think Mr Smethurst, Corrie and Rice will get through. Harry could be a case of after the lord mayor's show. Too many times have players failed to follow up after massive upsets.

Ratty · County player

paulisi wrote:
Harry could be a case of after the lord mayor's show. Too many times have players failed to follow up after massive upsets.

Yep, no matter what our much-respected co-poster Indiana might say, it's called REGRESSION TO THE MEAN ...

smile

RJA · Hall of fame

Ratty wrote:
paulisi wrote:
Harry could be a case of after the lord mayor's show. Too many times have players failed to follow up after massive upsets.
Yep, no matter what our much-respected co-poster Indiana might say, it's called REGRESSION TO THE MEAN ...

I am genuinely curious as to how you think that a guy that has only just turned 19 could have established a meaningful mean.

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

Some good reading this evening, my thanks as always to those who posted updates just for me (and anyone else who missed it) to read up later

Big congratulations to Harry as well, regardless of whether he wins next match or not he will have more than justified the wildcard in my opinion and is definitely heading in the right direction.

Ratty · County player

RJA wrote:
Ratty wrote:
paulisi wrote:
Harry could be a case of after the lord mayor's show. Too many times have players failed to follow up after massive upsets.
Yep, no matter what our much-respected co-poster Indiana might say, it's called REGRESSION TO THE MEAN ...
I am genuinely curious as to how you think that a guy that has only just turned 19 could have established a meaningful mean.

If a guy ranked 1242 beats a guy ranked 283, there are surely only 2-ish explanations: either that 1242 played above his standard, or that 283 played below his standard. Or - more likely - a mixture of both.

The alternative explanation is that 1242 has improved his standard significantly in a very short period of time. To me that doesn't seem very likely.

Hence, if one accepts my hypothesis that Harry played above his standard, then it's pretty likely that he will revert back again fairly soon - maybe tomorrow, maybe next week. Or maybe, like Dan Evans last year, he'll keep it up for 4 weeks. And when he does, then just like with Dan Evans, there'll be people coming up with complicated explanations as to why he hasn't "kicked on" or whatever.

And I really fail to see why this is controversial. Yeah, I'm an ordinary Joe with no particular expertise in human behaviours. But I read books by people who do have this expertise; and "outperformance" followed by "regression to the mean" in sports players is just mainstream stuff.

(And of course, it only bears out paulisi's anecdotal observation.)