all on serve so far with Richard and Freddie 4-3*

Richard retired at 0-4 in the second

L16: (Q) Scott Clayton WR 1183 lost to Daniel Nguyen (USA) WR 480 (CH 418 in 2013) by 3 & 3
L16: Richard Gabb WR 474 lost to Frederik Nielsen (DEN) WR 652 (CH 190 in 2011) by 4-6 4-0 ret.

'Expected' points for the 6 Brits here based on rankings: 20

Actual points: 2

These North American Futures are a minefield.

Decent from Scott though and Richard was very unlucky to pick up an injury when he was ahead.

indiana wrote:

---

Whilst the ( North ) Americans are probably overcatered for in the higher echelons with all their Masters tournaments etc, it is a bit tough for their players who want to make progress in futures on that side of the pond ( and for others that choose to camp out in their futures for a while ).

When you see the so many underrankings and the size of many qualifying draws, I think that there could be a real case made for often two American futures in many weeks, serving to dilute the fields quite a bit.

I am sure I noticed one week earlier on with two USA futures, but it seems to be very rare.

---

There were 2 or 3 weeks recently with two US Futures - the higher-ranked Brits like Liam & co. were playing 10Ks in the north-east while lower-ranked Brits like Danny Manlow were playing 15Ks in the south.

But yes, given the population size of the US is closer to that of the EU than to that of any individual EU country, the USTA could do with putting on more Futures!

steven wrote:

---

L16: Richard Gabb WR 474 lost to Frederik Nielsen (DEN) WR 652 (CH 190 in 2011) by 4-6 4-0 ret.

---

I'm never going to understand the logic of reporting scores that way round.  That makes it look as though Richard lost the first set by 4-6, then retired when he was 4-0 ahead in the second rather than the other way round!  

I agree with philwrig, I think thats because years ago I got the results from stevegtennis and became used to that format.

I recall the way results are reported being discussed a year or two ago, and I recall at that time the various parties clinging to their contradictory ways of putting the scores, particularly when the Brit had lost and is named first ( i.e. winning score first vs British score first ).

My own preference, for what it's worth, is basically how Steven consistently reports scores :

1) British player first win or lose. Not a biggee for one off matches and I can see how putting the winner first eliminates any doubt for that individual match. But when reporting on a number of results together, it looks much better to me to have all the Brits first, i.e. on the left, so I just tend then to do all scores like that : BRIT beat X or BRIT lost to Y....

2) BRIT lost to Z 6-4 7-5, as opposed to BRIT lost to Z 4-6 5-7. This is the most common divergence here and indeed between the ATP and WTA sites, so there really is no recognised way to do it.

As I said we seem to have survived carrying on reporting our different ways reasonably happily, so unless anyone feels really strongly, do we just continue as we each prefer ?