Girls: Nike Junior International Nottingham (week 1), hard - Grade 4 (Week 15)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Girls: Nike Junior International Nottingham (week 1), hard - Grade 4 (Week 15)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Also under the U14 thread but just to note that the Tennis Europe U14 event is also taking place at Nottingham this week and that some of our best young girls are taking part - Kylie Bilchev, Holly Staff, MJ Changwereza....

paulisi · Tennis legend

Sonay won again, but the big shock was Esther's defeat.

paulisi · Tennis legend

partial results

Nell MILLER (GBR) [1] 6-1 7-5 Svenja OCHSNER (SUI) [13]
Jodie Annie LAWRENCE TAYLOR (GBR) 7-5 6-2 Molly HELGESSON (SWE) [7]
Anna LOUGHLAN (GBR) [14] 6-2 1-6 6-4 Karolina WISNIEWSKA (POL)
Sonay KARTAL (GBR) 6-1 6-3 Amarni BANKS (GBR)
Giulia MORLET (FRA) [10] 6-2 1-6 6-2 Stephanie BELOVUKOVIC (AUS)
Alexandra ALMBORG (SWE) 6-2 6-3 Esther ADESHINA (GBR) [2]

paulisi · Tennis legend

Jodie is a new name to me. She is still 15 and hardly plays any ITFs, but has turned over Hannah McColgan and the Swedish seed this week and also took a set off Gemma Heath last year, so must be quite useful.

Edit - A news article suggests she trains at Sutton is from Morden and got to the road to Wimbledon final and lost to Nell Miller.

I wonder what her UTR is and does it reflect her lack of appearances at ITF juniors?

-- Edited by paulisi on Thursday 14th of April 2016 02:56:42 PM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Last saw Jodie just over a year ago. Quite slight, quick movement, no big weapons on display in the match I saw but a really competitive attitude, looked like she enjoyed the fight.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Full results:

3rd Round

Nell MILLER (GBR) [1] 6-1 7-5 Svenja OCHSNER (SUI) [13]
Jodie Annie LAWRENCE TAYLOR (GBR) 7-5 6-2 Molly HELGESSON (SWE) [7]
Anna LOUGHLAN (GBR) [14] 6-2 1-6 6-4 Karolina WISNIEWSKA (POL)
Ellie-Rose GRIFFITHS (GBR) 7-5 6-7(4) 6-2 Nika ZUPANCIC (SLO) [5]
Clara BUREL (FRA) [9] 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2 Kristyna LAVICKOVA (CZE)
Sonay KARTAL (GBR) 6-1 6-3 Amarni BANKS (GBR)
Giulia MORLET (FRA) [10] 6-2 1-6 6-1 Stephanie BELOVUKOVIC (AUS)
Alexandra ALMBORG (SWE) 6-2 6-3 Esther ADESHINA (GBR) [2]

The problem with predictions at this age is that, for foreign mathc-ups, we generally only know one side of the equation i.e. no one really knows the Swedish girl, and the public info that's out there (or easily available) is so scarce. So it's not that surprising that predictions go pear-shaped (in ref. to paulisi's comment re Esther v Nell in the final). Anyway, that's what makes them fun! However, great to see that Nell's recent run is continuing - she's still barely played any ITFs so it's very encouraging.

Also, very pleased for Sonay, and Jodie (I've never seen her but I know someone who rates her quite highly).

Nice result for Ellie-Rose too.

seagull · Hall of fame

My son played against Sonnay in red ball a long time ago!

Lovely family

paulisi · Tennis legend

Ellie G won, Sonay lost and Nell won

BradMarx90 · County player

Some of you enquiring about UTRs.

britennis.com/2016/04/15/nike-junior-international-nottingham-quarter-finals-set/

The article explains in more detail, but briefly:

Of the eight quarter-finalists, the UTR correctly predicted 5: Miller, Loughlan, Griffiths, Kartal, Morlet.

2 of the other 3 were Adeshina and Lavickova, who both made the third round and missed out by one match to players with similar, but lower UTRs.

The only player who didn't get anywhere near was Belgian Victoria Kalaitzis, who was victim to Lawrence-Taylor's majestic run in the first round of the competition.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

UTR is not just about predicting winners and losers though. If the ratings are more than one integer apart, then they really are a win/loss predictor but anything closer than that and all that is predicted is a competitive match, with one player perhaps having the edge. As such I find them pretty accurate - which is not to say 100% so. Losing to a player with a similar but lower UTR is not inaccurate within the terms of their system. What it does tend to show up are those players who have obtained a high ranking in any given system by chasing cheap points.

One of their aims in the States is for players to find others in their area, who may perhaps play in a different league or age group and with whom they could have a competitive game of tennis.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

So, come the semis, we have an all-Brit top half to draw and an all-French bottom half.

Interesting that both Nell and Ellie are two of our youngsters who use the British Tour events the most regularly.

DavidC · Tennis legend

QF

(1) Nell Miller d. (WC) Jodie Annie Lawrence Taylor 6-1 6-2
Ellie-Rose Griffiths d. (14) Anna Loughlan 6-2 6-1
(9) Clara Burel (FRA) d. (WC) Sonay Kartal 3-6 6-2 6-3

SF

(1) Nell Miller v Ellie-Rose Griffiths

BradMarx90 · County player

The Optimist wrote:
UTR is not just about predicting winners and losers though. If the ratings are more than one integer apart, then they really are a win/loss predictor but anything closer than that and all that is predicted is a competitive match, with one player perhaps having the edge. As such I find them pretty accurate - which is not to say 100% so. Losing to a player with a similar but lower UTR is not inaccurate within the terms of their system. What it does tend to show up are those players who have obtained a high ranking in any given system by chasing cheap points.
One of their aims in the States is for players to find others in their area, who may perhaps play in a different league or age group and with whom they could have a competitive game of tennis.

Right, I agree with you, and this is very succinctly put. As you say, players within 1.0 are due a 'competitive match', and I've found players within 0.4 or less of each other, and the result can really go either way.

I do find them very useful to earmark the potential floaters in a draw, especially in junior competitions when a lot of the players in action are less well known.

indiana · Tennis legend

Re having a UTR within 1.00, Jo Konta ( indeed GB #1 woman ) has a UTR of 12.99, and only 29 GB men are more than 1.00 ahead of that, so she is considered due a competitive match ( considered to be winning 7 games in a best of 3 sets match ) against players from #30 on. How realistic it is to put men and women on the same scale is something that I have doubted and interests me further, though I will connect that with finding out much more about how the ratings are determined ie much deeper than essentially their last 30 matches and who they won and lost to.

Comparing at least within the same sex though, my instincts continue that this seems a very worthwhile system, certainly for colleges and helping different age groups compete together and the more that come onboard and provide data, the better it will be.

Anyway, thanks for the Brittennis articles re UTRs, which I have now caught up on.

Re actual draws, as pointed out in some of the Britennis articles, one thing the straight ratings cannot allow for is home advantage, so however good ( or not ) one thinks UTRs are, they are essentially rating players on a neutral basis and home advantage adds an extra ingredient in competition, how generally, and how indeed particular players, will respond to playing in their home town, state, country or whatever.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 15th of April 2016 11:04:01 PM