Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon (grass) - doubles

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

RE: Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon (grass) - doubles

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Not entirely unexpectedly, given their vastly superior doubles pedigree,

R1: Johan Brunström & Frederik Nielsen (SWE/DEN) CR 141 (61+80) defeated (WC) Ed Corrie & Dan Smethurst CR 418 (207+211) by 6-4 7-6(4) 7-6(2)

but it looks as though Ed & Dan put up a pretty decent fight on the big stage.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Another expected outcome, though not without a bit of a fight:

R1: Roberto Bautista & Igor Sijsling (ESP/NED) CR 319 (226+93) defeated (WC) Kyle Edmund & Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) UNR by 4-6 6-4 6-4 6-4

Would've been good for Kyle to have the experience of facing the Bryans...

indiana · Tennis legend

Good to see Jonny through, and looks very decent efforts by Dan & Ed, and indeed Kyle & Stakhovsky, whatever I and some others may think of Kyle's WC here.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Mate Pavic & André Sá (CRO/BRA) CR 119 (48+71) defeated (10) Treat Huey (PHI) & Dom Inglot CR 48 (26+22) by 6-4 7-6(5) 6-3 bleh

What the hell went wrong there? disbelief

steven · Tennis legend

No idea, SC, that result makes no sense at all

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Not good results men's or women's in doubles so far

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

R1: (16) Pablo Cuevas & David Marrero (URU/ESP) CR 70 (59+11) defeated (WC) Colin Fleming & Ross Hutchins CR 206 (36+170) by 6-3 4-6 6-3 7-6(2) cry

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Gutted to see Kyle go out. Why all the bleating about giving a doubles wildcard to a teenage in his first home grand slam when as a junior last year he was the US and French open juniors double champion, is it because he's British? Definitely shouldn't be offered any advantage over similarly ranked older players who in their mid twenties are stalled in the 200's and now taking doubles seriously. Definitely shouldn't have been given the opportunity to pick up wild cards and the understanding of what he needs to do to be a seeded player in slams. I don't think his ranking has been a priority for the LTA and I am sure he will be off around the clay courts of Europe like last year but now aiming at challengers rather than futures and the odd challenger. Who knows by the end of the year we may have a teenager in the top 200. Strongly in favour of trying every legitimate route available to develop him.

indiana · Tennis legend

Err, no it's not because Kyle's British ( although of course, really just about all our WCs at Wimbledon are because of the players being British, but that's another discussion that has been had elsewhere, and I think everyone is aware similar happens at other Slams, so it's not really a nationalistic argument ).

As far as I can see, on this thread, it was generally thoughts on James / Evo and Kyle being amongst these British doubles MD WCs. with such little recent docus on doubles. You make a fair point about Kyle's junior Slam exploits, though I am still rather unconvinced re Kyle's doubles WC and certainly far from convinced about the James / Evo one.

So let's not muddy the waters by implying folk who make arguments against any of Kyle's WCs are somehow anti British. Because I'm NOT and I don't recognise others as being either.

Re Kyle's singles ranking, I certainly agree that in the short term this is not a priority, and am in favour of just more concentrating on developing him. Here again, among folk who do wish to see Kyle develop and be all he can be, there has been quite a lot of discussion about his schedule this year. After a solid and successful futures start to the year, it has jumped round futures, challengers, ATP tour, ATP Masters and Slam with Davis Cup back up thrown in, and on occasions been described as "messy".

I do think that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about whether this very varied first half of the year has been in his best interests. Hopefully some good and useful experiences, but certainly a real lack of matches over the last few months. He most certainly, to my mind, needs now to get back to many more week to week competitive matches and the experience that that gives with many situations. I do seriously not want him anywhere near at most a couple of ATP WCs for the rest of the year ( whatever limits or otherwise there may be ), to have blocks of Challengers and indeed maybe strong 15 Ks.

We can discuss / argue re WCs, but let's not be in doubt that just about everyone here wants to see Kyle and the other British players do well.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

A philosophical question as opposed as opposed to a slur on Britishness. Our conservative attitude predisposes to a queuing mentality as opposed to optimising every opportunity for development. He is our best shot of a top 200 teenager, top 100 under 21 top 50 under 23, grand slam seed 24-30. Realistically there is no alternative not saying that our other elite players don't deserve support ( I would call anyone in the worlds top 500 elite) and every opportunity to reach their peak. I am very sympathetic to Andy Murray's supportive view re increasing challenger prize money so top 250 players can earn a decent living, the likes of James Ward I feel also deserve additional support from the LTA but it needs to be around certain criteria that reflect commitment to continued development, Evo will never fulfil his potential as he's not bothered, more Warren Aspinall than Ian Taylor. Now that would cut him to the quick. The one thing I have no doubt about Indiana is the wish of everyone on here to see the British players do well, I just feel they should be given every opportunity and it in keeping with not only their potential but also their attitude. The task should nor be underestimated compare the millions spent on pro footballers development and the number of British players ranked in the world top 300, the lack of a Murray equivalent is why the English team are back in Britain scanning on holiday deals on last minute dot com.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I have no problem with Kyle's MD WC. I wouldn't have had a problem with Katy Dunne or even Katie Boulter getting one. I don;t mean that it would necessarily have been the right thing to do; I mean that I have no problem with the federation having a reasonable amount of discretion, as long as one's confident that they use it genuinely to further the hopes and achievements of British tennis (as opposed to simply favouring their prefered few).

But I don;t think a MD doubles WC was correct. He did not fit any of the criteria and, from a discretionary point of view, it will make no difference to his future career and so simply stands to alienate him rather from his fellow British competitors, putting more pressure on him and making him the subject of obvious comments when he loses.

In the long-term, it'll probably make no difference but I think the LTA/All England lot were wrong.

I also don't agree that all possible resources should he showered on Kyle, as you suggest Oakland, just because - at the moment - he is our most promising young player. I understand the argument but I can think of many examples within the French system where this did not work and, in fact, quite the opposite happened.

On the main doubles front, good luck to Marray and Smith today.

I saw John-Patrick play at Roehampton - liked his game, although he lost in three in the first round - and he was (as mentioned before) one of a very impressive Australian contingent - excellent attitude, levels, work rate, group support etc.

John-Patrick is also one of the many players whose profile is something I'm hoping some more of our boys will emulate - an ex-college player in the US, with a very good college record, who moved on to pro after graduating, and has calmly worked his way to Challenger level, close to ATP level, now about WR 180, and definitely has plenty of time to improve, although he'll probably never be a real absolute top player.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Friday 27th of June 2014 07:13:08 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Hmm, I get your point about Britishness, sometimes displayed in forums re wimpishness. Maybe you could have worded your initial post better, and I would have taken less umbrage :)

If giving Kyle a Wimbledon doubles WC, in addition to his much less questioned singles one, is considered to be to the benefit of his overall development as the judged to be next big thing, I can see the logic.

But leaving the Wimbledon doubles WC aside for now, I repeat again that so many ATP tour and Masters WCs, being on top of his Davis Cup back ups, have left his season to date, and particularly the last few months, rather messy and certainly lacking in matches.

If earning some extra dosh and spotlight are priorities, then no doubt achieved. But helping really develop his tennis, to help achieve these medium and long tern goals, not for me. Competitive tennis and competitive situations are what Kyle needs. There is a clear argument that he has had an unhelpful few months.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:
R2: Jonny Marray & John-Patrick Smith (AUS) CR 131 (47+84) vs (15) Juan Sebastián Cabal & Marcin Matkowski (COL/POL) CR 61 (27+34)

So far, so good: the boys get an early break & lead by *2-1 in the first set, though it could easily have been *3-0, as they had three break points in that third game. hmm

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

First set in the bag by 6-4. smile