Week 16 - Challenger (€42,500) - Vercelli, Italy - red clay

RJA · Hall of fame

RE: Week 16 - Challenger (€42,500) - Vercelli, Italy - red clay

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

I wouldn't personally consider it an upset. The guy is still hanging around in the rankings, is perpetually on the clay and got a good win a few weeks ago, as RJA pointed out. Considering what has recently been said about the topsy-turvy nature of clay, in Kyle's first week, I'd say it was reasonably foreseeable. Definitely disappointing, but what loss isn't? It's also true that any player who has reached near enough 50 finals in their career (excluding any Futures) will always be a fairweather threat until the day he retires.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks guys, look some decent mitigating factors re Kyle vs RRH.

Must admit that I hadn't checked re RRH recent history for one. Can be dangerous around here :)

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

We can dress these results up how we like but it's still a poor result. I wonder if Kyle and Liam choked both knowing this week they had a great chance of taking the titles.

Jeff Stelling · Club Coach

Think that puts the Edmund v Henman debate to bed once and for all. Henman brutally abused this guy when they played.

RJA · Hall of fame

Jaggy1876 wrote:
We can dress these results up how we like but it's still a poor result. I wonder if Kyle and Liam choked both knowing this week they had a great chance of taking the titles.

I think I have a pretty clear record on this site as someone who does not look for excuses when British players lose. In this though I really don't think it is fair to describe it is a poor result. I am going to repeat that this is Kyle's first tournament on clay for over 11 months so I don't think it is remotely reasonable to have expected him to be at his best this week. Much better players, with far more experience, frequently struggle to make the transition between surfaces.

Spectator · All-time great

Agree wholeheartedly. Notice also that Volandri, another formerly highly-ranked player who's gone down (to 238) but loves clay, has taken advantage of a kind draw and is in the SFs.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

RJA wrote:
Jaggy1876 wrote:
We can dress these results up how we like but it's still a poor result. I wonder if Kyle and Liam choked both knowing this week they had a great chance of taking the titles.
I think I have a pretty clear record on this site as someone who does not look for excuses when British players lose. In this though I really don't think it is fair to describe it is a poor result. I am going to repeat that this is Kyle's first tournament on clay for over 11 months so I don't think it is remotely reasonable to have expected him to be at his best this week. Much better players, with far more experience, frequently struggle to make the transition between surfaces.

That's fair comment RJA - I just think most of us would have had Kyle as the favourite to win that - but I realize the higher ranked player does not always win otherwise the rankings would never change and life would be pretty dull. Could Kyle and Liam have choked as Jaggy asks?

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I think it has been said a few times on this forum that there is very little difference between most players in the 50-200 range other than their level of consistency. On any particular day, any player has the ability to beat any other player. When you add in the unpredictability of clay, along with other comments made above about about the opponent, this is not a shock result. I guess Kyle probably started as slight favourite, but this was not a disastrous performance. He didn't lose 0&1 or anything like that. It was a close match that went 6-4 in the 3rd. Perhaps in the end, the clay court experience was the deciding factor.

Was is disappointing ? Well, you all know how big a fan I am of Kyle so ANY loss is disappointing, but I am not going to lose any sleep over this one.

Spectator · All-time great

I really don't see this one as disappointing at all (except in the sense that BiS notes). I would have been slightly surprised, under the circumstances, if Mr Edmund had won. Rankings can be deceptive: they don't allow for surface changes and surface specialists, injury returns, people that have had a fluke tournament, bad match-ups, etc. These factors can be much more important than a relatively small numerical difference.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Bob in Spain wrote:
I think it has been said a few times on this forum that there is very little difference between most players in the 50-200 range other than their level of consistency. On any particular day, any player has the ability to beat any other player. When you add in the unpredictability of clay, along with other comments made above about about the opponent, this is not a shock result. I guess Kyle probably started as slight favourite, but this was not a disastrous performance. He didn't lose 0&1 or anything like that. It was a close match that went 6-4 in the 3rd. Perhaps in the end, the clay court experience was the deciding factor.

Was is disappointing ? Well, you all know how big a fan I am of Kyle so ANY loss is disappointing, but I am not going to lose any sleep over this one.

And nor should you lose any sleep Bob - I still think kyle will go on to have a very good career. He must have worn RRH out a bit though - wend down in straight sets today 1 and 3.

emma · Strong Club Player

Kyle has actually risen 64 places in the rankings to number 130 since the end of last year - very steady progress

TMH · Futures qualifying

I think that the notion that Kyle or Liam have 'choked' this week is quite frankly laughable. Is the definition of 'choking' changing to mean just losing any odd match now?

Players lose matches all the time. If either had thrown away a commanding final set lead or set/match points on their own serve, or gotten to the final and collapsed, there could be an argument for choking. Merely losing to - in Kyle's case, a wily clay specialist?

No.