Week 18 - WTA Premier Mandatory - Madrid, Spain - Clay

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Week 18 - WTA Premier Mandatory - Madrid, Spain - Clay

wimdledont · Challenger level

Lots of positives to take from this one, despite our four starters not getting beyond R1...

JoKo was obviously ill, but not injured, and can still do well in Rome and Paris. Seven of the players above her in the rankings would drop behind her in the rankings, if they match results with her over the rest of the clay season...

live-tennis.eu/forecast-wta-ranking

Heather picked up points on last year.

Naomi did much better than most people expected, and played 5 good sets on clay, winning 3.

Laura played as well as I've seen since her comeback, and took Vika to 9 break points. There were real glimpses there of the player that knocked 2 former champions out of the US Open. For an added bonus, Martina's comments.

She now has 119 points, and I think it inconceivable that she will get the extra 550 or so to return to the top 100 over the rest of the clay and the grass seasons. Doubling her current points total, and getting into the US open qualifiers would seem a more sensible aim. That would involve getting to a WTA SF, or winning a couple of matches at one of the two upcoming Slams. While she's running out of WTA WCs and SRs, she is also allowed, I believe, some ITF wildcards, and as one of the higher-profile ITF players, should be able to get wildcards to the top 75k+ ITFs.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Well there you go, I'm not overly surprised Laura turned up big time yesterday, the conditions in Madrid seem to suit non clay court players, Naomi another fine example, and of course Laura played her best ever clay court tournament here, also thought the Vika matchup might suit her, just didn't have enough confidence to back her on the betting ( needed to win 4 games to win the bet ). Interesting analysis from Martina about her serve, and looking back at some old matches, she's spot on, her action used to be much more front on, I wonder whether she's done that to gain more consistency but as a result she's lost a few mph on it maybe. Her movement was very disappointing though, something which last year when she first came back, actually looked marginally improved. Personally I believe her poor movement is down 50% to natural lack of speed/ anticipation but I do think it's 50% mental, which is something she can control. JoKo's movement has improved out of recognition in the last 12 months so she can still get alot better. Agreed her ballstriking was very very good yesterday, yes she does need to stay in the rallies for longer, but it looks very promising. So in summary assuming Laura stays injury free it's all up to her, the raw materials are there for her to get back up into the top 50, just depends how much hard work she's prepared to do to get back there. Win matches in those horrible ITF tournaments is the 1st step she has to make. As for Wimby WC, you know she will play her best tennis there, she always has, so it's a no brainer, if we were discussing a WC for a 10k then defo a no.

Hopefully Jo can get over the cold quickly or whatever she has. This was never going to be the best part of the season for her, but she's been unfortunate with the timing of this illness.

Hev could do with a couple of more wins to secure her Olympic spot, so a shame she couldn't take advantage of the LL spot.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

In interest of healthy debate:

philwrig wrote:
As for Wimby WC, you know she will play her best tennis there, she always has, so it's a no brainer, if we were discussing a WC for a 10k then defo a no.

This strikes me as the slightly magical thinking that, to me, always seems to accompany Laura. That's not an attack on philwrig (or his hat) just a starting point for a wider discussion.

It might surprise some people to know that Laura's record in MD at SW19 is 4-6 (40%). Of course, she's never actually played qualies at Wimbledon, I use MD so that we could make useful comparison elsewhere.
At the US Open, her MD record is 6-4 (60%) (If we included qualies there, it would be 13-6 (68%) which would make my point even more forcefully, but not be a very fair comparison)
At Melbourne Park, it's 2-3 (40%) (6-4 (60%) including qualies)
Roland Garros, 0-2 (0%) (2-3 (40%) including qualies.

This performance at the Grand Slams, and under-performance on grass, simply reflects the statistics for Laura's career by surface:
All MD Grass 10-16 (38%)
All MD Hard 77-88 (47%)
All MD Clay 20-22 (48%)

Yes, really.

How do we deduce that she's great on grass, or that she always plays her best tennis at SW19? Because we pay massive attention to those matches, we remember them because of the proximity and the investment of childhoods weaned on those tournaments and that surface. We recall with joy that Junior title and the beaming, charming personality. Because we want to believe it.
Yes, and perhaps, but none of that makes bad facts reality, or serves as any reason for entitlement to a WC.

I understand that you can argue that the figures for grass are perhaps skewed, that because GB holds lots of it's WTA events on grass, and with Laura as a high profile prospect from an early age receiving WC to those events as a home player, that she would have been playing in tournaments that she would not have been getting in to just 'for just the experience'. As a youngster, she was therefore pitted against vastly superior players years older than her that she had no realistic chance of beating, and several years of that would skew the figures.
Point taken. Except, the figures hold true for whichever vertical yearly slice you take through Laura's career, beginning to end.

I have nothing against Laura at all, her immense popularity at large, and the way in which she is perceived, dealt with, favoured or otherwise regarded, are almost entirely factors beyond her control; things that, to my knowledge, she has never done nothing to try and manipulate or use as a bargaining chip, or sought to gain any sort of advantage from whatsoever. Simply our infatuation, obsession with her almost, is not in any way shape or form her fault.

For any player though, when we start having special rulesets that apply only to them, in contrary to evidence; whoever they are - even Andy - I think we get in to very dangerous territory.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Yeah, but the LTA doesn't have any clay or hardcourt tournaments to wildcard her into.

Of the GB women ranked 4-10, (Tara, KD, Laura, Freya, Mandy, KS, Gabi), I would have an easy choice, as I would wildcard all 7, plus the Junior champion of 2015. Slightly more generous then than the French, Australian and US federations.

But if I had to pick one, then, after yesterday, I'd put Laura at number 1.

Wildcards have to have either some chance of beating the women ranked 33-104, on a bad day for the opponent, perhaps on a surface they don't like, or the chance to beat one of the seeded players.

After yesterday, I'd give Laura the best chance of doing either of the above.

philwrig · Hall of fame

AliBlahBlah wrote:
In interest of healthy debate:
philwrig wrote:
As for Wimby WC, you know she will play her best tennis there, she always has, so it's a no brainer, if we were discussing a WC for a 10k then defo a no.
This strikes me as the slightly magical thinking that, to me, always seems to accompany Laura. That's not an attack on philwrig (or his hat) just a starting point for a wider discussion.
It might surprise some people to know that Laura's record in MD at SW19 is 4-6 (40%). Of course, she's never actually played qualies at Wimbledon, I use MD so that we could make useful comparison elsewhere.
At the US Open, her MD record is 6-4 (60%) (If we included qualies there, it would be 13-6 (68%) which would make my point even more forcefully, but not be a very fair comparison)
At Melbourne Park, it's 2-3 (40%) (6-4 (60%) including qualies)
Roland Garros, 0-2 (0%) (2-3 (40%) including qualies.
This performance at the Grand Slams, and under-performance on grass, simply reflects the statistics for Laura's career by surface:
All MD Grass 10-16 (38%)
All MD Hard 77-88 (47%)
All MD Clay 20-22 (48%)
Yes, really.
How do we deduce that she's great on grass, or that she always plays her best tennis at SW19? Because we pay massive attention to those matches, we remember them because of the proximity and the investment of childhoods weaned on those tournaments and that surface. We recall with joy that Junior title and the beaming, charming personality. Because we want to believe it.
Yes, and perhaps, but none of that makes bad facts reality, or serves as any reason for entitlement to a WC.
I understand that you can argue that the figures for grass are perhaps skewed, that because GB holds lots of it's WTA events on grass, and with Laura as a high profile prospect from an early age receiving WC to those events as a home player, that she would have been playing in tournaments that she would not have been getting in to just 'for just the experience'. As a youngster, she was therefore pitted against vastly superior players years older than her that she had no realistic chance of beating, and several years of that would skew the figures.
Point taken. Except, the figures hold true for whichever vertical yearly slice you take through Laura's career, beginning to end.
I have nothing against Laura at all, her immense popularity at large, and the way in which she is perceived, dealt with, favoured or otherwise regarded, are almost entirely factors beyond her control; things that, to my knowledge, she has never done nothing to try and manipulate or use as a bargaining chip, or sought to gain any sort of advantage from whatsoever. Simply our infatuation, obsession with her almost, is not in any way shape or form her fault.
For any player though, when we start having special rulesets that apply only to them, in contrary to evidence; whoever they are - even Andy - I think we get in to very dangerous territory.

That's a fair argument, grass v hard court. Certainly she does excel at the US open. I've watched alot of her grass court matches before Wimby and they haven't been particularly pretty, certainly she tends to play poorly in Nottingham, and then improve through Birmingham and Eastbourne before peaking at Wimby. I can't remember a year where she's diappointed at Wimby though.

2009 R1 Hantuchova- brilliant performance takes 1st set against a proven top 30 player.

2010 R1 Jankovic- not her absolute best but takes JJ to a TB who was a solid top 10 player at the time.

2011 R2 Sharapova - after beating Kerber in R1 takes Maria to a TB before losing in straight sets.

2012 R1 Schiavone- arguably her most disappointing performance but still played brilliantly to start with taking the 1st set 6-2, before losing her way badly in 2nd, nearly fought back deep in the 3rd.

2013 R4 Arguably included one of her best ever performances beating Kirilenko in straight sets in 1st round.

2014 didn't play

2015 R1 Rodina- surprised most pundits by playing a very competitive match in only her 2nd match back from injury.

So I'd say she's either beaten expectations or matched them in every single Wimby match she's played.

-- Edited by philwrig on Monday 2nd of May 2016 05:27:54 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Not getting into the WC debate again, but re where Laura has played her best tennis, I honestly would have instantly said the US Open. Thanks very much AliBB for all the info.

Also re one or two of these Wimbledon wins Laura didn't play anything like her best tennis but still won, for particular instance the Erakovic match in 2013 wasn't great quality, and she came back through sheer will power helped undoubtably by the crowd ( that 2013 Wimbledon L16 run was a bit of a journey that opened up for her but rarely hinted at the quality of her 2012 US Open L16 run ). It's the US Open that has wowed me to what a player she could be, indeed was already at times, and hard courts more generally may be better for her than grass.

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 2nd of May 2016 11:35:07 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

There's no doubting that Laura has played her best tennis at the US open, but she's also risen to the occasion at Wimby, and don't forget the Olympics which were also played at Wimby.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Laura has played well at Wimbledon and I can't see any benefit to Laura, the LTA or Wimbledon from not giving her a Wildcard (and certainly couldn't come up with 8 better candidates).

Her performances at other grass court events have not been great and that is something she will need to change this year - given that her movement has looked poor even when she was playing well against Azarenka she will need the help of a faster surface more than before. Laura could also do with a June heatwave as I think weather conditions are more important to her game than surface.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
Not getting into the WC debate again, but re where Laura has played her best tennis, I honestly would have instantly said the US Open. Thanks very much AliBB for all the info.
Also re one or two of these Wimbledon wins Laura didn't play anything like her best tennis but still won, for particular instance the Erakovic match in 2013 wasn't great quality, and she came back through sheer will power helped undoubtably by the crowd ( that 2013 Wimbledon L16 run was a bit of a journey that opened up for her but rarely hinted at the quality of her 2012 US Open L16 run ). It's the US Open that has wowed me to what a player she could be, indeed was already at times, and hard courts more generally may be better for her than grass.

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 2nd of May 2016 11:35:07 PM

Don't know how the rules stand at the moment but if she can still get in on a protected ranking then she should use it - I personally wouldn't give her a wildcard (no surprise there). I remember Kleybanova (who had previously reached the 4th round and reached the top 20)being refused a wildcard a few years ago and she had cancer FGS - she didn't even get a qualifying wild card. Admittedly there was some fault on Kleybanova's side in that her request or her team were late with some paperwork and she had not long been back playing but even so. Wimbledon made some limp excuse as to why she wasn't given one but you can bet your bottom dollar that if she had been British she would have got one. I think LR had only played one match back when she got a WC last year, which up to a point I can understand, but like ABB wrote once we start having special rulesets that apply only to them, in contrary to evidence; whoever they are - even Andy - I think we get in to very dangerous territory. So I say make LR qualify even if she thinks she's too good for it - at least make her earn the right to be there if you are going to refuse Kleybanova even a qwc, albeit 3 years ago.

indiana · Tennis legend

Carnage in the women's draw.

Just one of the 16 seeds in the QF, (6) Simona Halep. Indeed she's the only player ranked higher than Jo that has got that far.

Azarenka withdrew from R3 with a back problem, apparently originating from her R1 match with Laura, allowing Louisa Chirico to pass into the QFs.

Included in the QFs are (WC) Cirstea WR 127, (Q) Chirico WR 130 and (Q) Tig WR 134.

Sam Stosur will overtake Jo ( WR 22 ) in the rankings if she beats Patricia Tig in the QF.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 4th of May 2016 10:43:35 PM

Jaffa · Challenger level

Can I just say those stats regarding Laura's grass record are somewhat distorted just because she was only playing main tour matches on grass when she was 15/16 when she was always bound to lose those matches and she wasn't playing on any other surfaces. I'd be interested to know her stats from when she first properly started playing the main tour?

wimdledont · Challenger level

indiana wrote:
Carnage in the women's draw.

Just one of the 16 seeds in the QF, (6) Simona Halep. Indeed she's the only player ranked higher than Jo that has got that far.

Azarenka withdrew from R3 with a back problem, apparently originating from her R1 match with Laura, allowing Louisa Chirico to pass into the QFs.
Included in the QFs are (WC) Cirstea WR 127, (Q) Chirico WR 130 and (Q) Tig WR 134.
Sam Stosur will overtake Jo ( WR 22 ) in the rankings if she beats Patricia Tig in the QF.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 4th of May 2016 10:43:35 PM

Also an extraordinary 4 Romanians in the QFs.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

A131 wrote:
Don't know how the rules stand at the moment but if she can still get in on a protected ranking then she should use it - I personally wouldn't give her a wildcard (no surprise there). I remember Kleybanova (who had previously reached the 4th round and reached the top 20)being refused a wildcard a few years ago and she had cancer FGS - she didn't even get a qualifying wild card. Admittedly there was some fault on Kleybanova's side in that her request or her team were late with some paperwork and she had not long been back playing but even so. Wimbledon made some limp excuse as to why she wasn't given one but you can bet your bottom dollar that if she had been British she would have got one. I think LR had only played one match back when she got a WC last year, which up to a point I can understand, but like ABB wrote once we start having special rulesets that apply only to them, in contrary to evidence; whoever they are - even Andy - I think we get in to very dangerous territory. So I say make LR qualify even if she thinks she's too good for it - at least make her earn the right to be there if you are going to refuse Kleybanova even a qwc, albeit 3 years ago.

I don't think has any SR left, her last one being for the French. My impression is that she is virtually guaranteed a Wimby WC otherwise she would have used her last SR for that.

As for the rules being bent to suit the Brits, well that's going to be the case for every country. Take the WTA tournament just last week in Morocco where Laura played against an UNR (with no previous history or calibre) , just because she was Moroccan.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes. As long as there are wildcards (and that can be argued !

), they are always going to be used primarily for the local players.

The Kleybanova affair was upsetting, not because Laura/any local girl got one and Kleyb. didn't.

But because if Kleybanova had had the agency presence/media love/image of some of the other (non-Brit) top 20 players (or even top 50 players), she would have got one, no problem.

Now maybe that's life but it sticks in your throat.....