Week 16 - Challenger ($50,000) - Savannah, GA, USA (green clay)

stevemcqueen · Futures qualifying

RE: Week 16 - Challenger ($50,000) - Savannah, GA, USA (green clay)

EddietheEagle · County player

Lost the second set 4-6 and lost from a break up up final set, losing four games on the trot, 4-6. A tricky service hold to go 4-2 in that final set seemed to do for Broady physically/emotionally. His level dropped alarmingly at that point, dropping the ball short, missing and simply allowing Krueger to become more aggressive and dominate points. A let down really seeing how well he played at the start.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Sounds like Liam's beginning to get back into form but struggling to sustain it through 3 sets. It was interesting last summer how he for most of it he was getting stuck in the semi finals of futures before it clicked, he won a few and then stepped straight up to clearing the early rounds of challengers before going deep into a few in the Autumn. I don't think he is far off that level now and if he can maintain the way he played the first set continuing to move forward.

stevemcqueen · Futures qualifying

Certainly a disappointing loss, especially after he won the first set. His level and intensity did drop in the 2nd set and he was really hacked off when a drop shot he hit was not called "not up". He had pretty much stopped playing. Kruger's game at this point was considerably better than in the 1st set.

In the decider, Liam played a really good returning game at 3-2, really firing himself up and finding the level he played at in the first set. Then as Eddie has already said, that was the last game he won. I will watch those 4 games again at some point today to try to understand exactly what happened. He was not physically tired, he was still making some great gets and move fluidly. I think it was just the UEs, but like I say, I need to watch again.

This was very much a missed opportunity, it is a shame. Having said that, Krueger played at a level that belied his lowly ranking.

LordBrownof · Futures level

Gutted to have missed the match but it sounds like a tough loss and one he'll take lots of learnings from ahead of RG qualies. After the year he's had, he's got to be incredibly excited to get on the grass in front of a home crowd and show us what he can do.

First of course, there's the little matter of the French.

emma · Strong Club Player

didn't see the match or scores so can't really comment but always good to read the commentaries from others watching - thanks. will try and watch today if the problem has finally been sorted.

Liam and Luke will be playing doubles later today around 20.00 uk time.

EddietheEagle · County player

I think it was the relatively high error count over those last four games that did for him. There'd be a reason for that though; I didn't think Krueger's play, though consistent, was that forcing.

RJA · Hall of fame

A frustrating loss coming after such a good win R1, especially as his draw had opened up nicely.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I always think when 1 player starts very well, but his opponent doesn't you can get into a false sense of dominance. It can then be very difficult to change your mindset when the other player lifts his level, and then the contest becomes tighter. The crowd also got into it a bit.

But as Liam tweeted, lessons learnt, and eventhough he lost this match, his level is pretty good at the moment, and should see him win more than he loses in the next several tournaments.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

philwrig wrote:
I always think when 1 player starts very well, but his opponent doesn't you can get into a false sense of dominance. It can then be very difficult to change your mindset when the other player lifts his level, and then the contest becomes tighter. The crowd also got into it a bit.

But as Liam tweeted, lessons learnt, and eventhough he lost this match, his level is pretty good at the moment, and should see him win more than he loses in the next several tournaments.

I think I would go along with that Phil - especially the first part of your post. I just followed the match on the ATP live scoreboard and I thought after the first set (when I went to bed or shortly after) when Krueger had only won about 12 points that I really couldn't see Liam Broady losing this. Then, Kruegar must have come to life - don't think he could have got much worse!

But it got me thinking about his victory over Bagnis? Any victory against any opponent ranked well above you - especially in straight sets - has got to be considered a good victory. But then the same man loses to a player ranked 124 places below him 24 hours later. Strange that! I'm sure Broady deserved his victory over Bagnis and by all accounts played very well. But was Bagnis a bit below par? Perhaps a little tired from having played in the final of a challenger just two days earlier and his body just didn't have sufficient time to recover from his exertions the week before? I didn't see the match but if Broady was simply the better player then fine - he deserved to win! Or is this just an example of how competitive and tough men's tennis can be?

RJA · Hall of fame

A131 wrote:
But it got me thinking about his victory over Bagnis? Any victory against any opponent ranked well above you - especially in straight sets - has got to be considered a good victory. But then the same man loses to a player ranked 124 places below him 24 hours later. Strange that! I'm sure Broady deserved his victory over Bagnis and by all accounts played very well. But was Bagnis a bit below par? Perhaps a little tired from having played in the final of a challenger just two days earlier and his body just didn't have sufficient time to recover from his exertions the week before? I didn't see the match but if Broady was simply the better player then fine - he deserved to win! Or is this just an example of how competitive and tough men's tennis can be?

It is always hard to judge a match without having seen it and we all tend to forget that tennis matches involve two players. Sometimes we look at a result of a British player and think what a great win when in reality the opponent had a mare. Other times we think a result is a terrible when actually the opponent just had a really good day.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Completely agree, RJA.

Similar comments like 'I expected X to do better; he/she's in real good form at the moment'. But what about the form of the opponent? Often a player one doesn't know, doesn't follow . . . it's as though there's only one variable out there.

And in doubles, it's times four.

However, Luke and Liam made very nice work of their match - available for all to see thanks to good ol' livestream . . . :)

Well done to both.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

To expand on CD's remark above:

QF: Luke Bambridge & Liam Broady CR 592 (290+302) defeated Ryusei Makiguchi & Facundo Mena (JPN/ARG) CR 1045 (502+543) by 3 & 5

*****

SF: (1) Guillermo Durán & Horacio Zeballos (ARG/ARG) CR 171 (80+91) vs Luke Bambridge & Liam Broady CR 592 (290+302)

paulisi · Tennis legend

Watched that doubles match. Best pair won, which is not always the case in doubles.

Liam and Luke very aggressive on return of serve and surprisingly elected to play both back on a regular basis.

I'm not sure, but has Luke changed his serve action?

paulisi · Tennis legend

The boys are first up on court 1, so should be streamed in 15 mins or so