Week 40 - ITF ($25K) - Redding CA, USA - Hard

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 40 - ITF ($25K) - Redding CA, USA - Hard

indiana · Tennis legend

Freya lost 6-4 3-6 6-2

steven · Tennis legend

This feels a bit weird, but the comments in red are my post facto comments on what I thought would happen in R1.

steven wrote:
That R1 draw looks very nice but it hides the dangers lurking nearby.
Well it did to me!

The winner of Harriet's R1 match will probably face 2nd seed Abanda in R2.
This bit looks like it's going to come true.

The winner of Laura's R1 match will probably play last week's 2nd seed Vrljic.
By which I meant Laura v Vrljic but neither of them won (fortunately, Vrljic's loss was to a Brit, at least!)

As if that wasn't bad enough, the winner of Freya's R1 match will get the winner of a R1 match between two SEs, which happens to be a repeat of last week's Stillwater 25K final!
Yet Freya didn't get through R1 either - it turns out that her opponent was a top 15 college player last year, though I'm still surprised at the result.

It's a strange (tennis) world!

Peter too · Tennis legend

R1: CHRISTIE, Freya (GBR) 8 307 lost to OLMOS, Guiana (MEX) Q 974 4-6 6-3 2-6
R1: ROBSON, Laura (GBR) 4 215 lost to MCKENZIE, Kylie (USA) Q 1048 2-6 6-1 6-7(2)
R1: BOULTER, Katie (GBR) Q 402 def VRLJIC, Ana (CRO) 377 6-2 6-1
R1: DART, Harriet (GBR) 356 def MCCORD, Jana (USA) WC UNR 7-6(6) 6-2

R2: BOULTER, Katie (GBR) Q 402 v MCKENZIE, Kylie (USA) Q 1048
R2: DART, Harriet (GBR) 356 v ABANDA, Francoise (CAN) 2 187 CH=175 2014

indiana · Tennis legend

I was reading ( from some chap Steven on Twitter ) that Olmos is apparently a top college player.

Given she has a CH 548 from July last year, but has ( presumably related to college for one ) only 6 counters ( from 10 events ) in her last year then to be fair to Freya Olmos is probably quite significantly underranked.

I read of the relative "power" of ATP / WTA rankings for senior events with their more relevance than including junior & college results. But when that ATP / WTA ranking comes from comparatively few events ( in some cases very few ) that supposed "power" seems to me to be largely mitigated in comparison with say looking at fewer, in some ways, truly relevant results, but many more results in total. To me, very far from a straightforward black and white issue.

You cannot say that in general one way is more accurate than another, which is why I never was trying to. But one can consider ( just consider ) if maybe there are instances where some players / groups of players could be more accurately assessed in the senior ranks by bringinging in more information than the ATP / WTA rankings. For older / more experienced players ( indeed the vast majority ) ATP / WTA rankings work just fine. For many events in the USA, in particular, there are fairly large quotas of players that confuse the issue.

I have said before that personally for the foreseeable I would stick with existing ATP / WTA rankings for entry and seeding purposes for all senior events, but I feel there is at least a valid and interesting ( to some ) discussion to be had.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 6th of October 2016 12:45:00 AM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Oh yes strange things happen in Redding. Very few Californians spend much time north of Nappa on the road to Eureka and deepest darkest Oregan.

A real challenge for Harriet regardless of which ranking system you are using to assess the extent.

Producing a more refined and accurate ranking system is dependent on the data you collect and utilise to rank. Ie. What you choose to count, we are all much more sophisticated in our judgements (and often wrong) as our opinions are based on what we see and hear about players in addition to their rank and make a judgement of how any given player will do against another. Most on here are interested in a bit more than just the stats, although fundamentally in a game with binary outcomes that is the bottom line. What we do which rankings don't is scour the internet newspapers and Twitter collect qualitative data with which we, for the most part, confound our predictions!

The fundamentals of the ranking system using ATP points, a surrogate for multiple wins, is statistically quite powerful, so even when there are relatively few counters on the board a relatively large amount of data has been considered. Adjustment for players in transition who have yet to play many senior tournaments by utilising the number of tournaments played over the time that the junior player has been on tour as a denominator may have some value but then you factor out lack of experience (which you could factor in! once analysed and understood as an independent variable... How exciting.... )

It is interesting that bookmakers use surrogates as markers of outcome over the long term, so for example I have sat next to a chap watching preseason Trippeleagan friendlies who was counting chances in order to give early season odds, and that was part of his job for the whole season!!!

Qualitative data is critical to predict the outcomes of any tournament in Redding and Stevens predictions floundered on his lack of utilisation of qualitative data such as the direction of prevailing winds and relative position of the large hash clouds in Northern California.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 6th of October 2016 07:06:57 AM

Etienne · Club Coach

Dart is doing very well so far.

DF · Tennis legend

Oops! One set all 6-4 4-6
All on the final set.

indiana · Tennis legend

Still all to play for for Harriet so we certainly need not abandan hope.

DF · Tennis legend

She lost that final set 4-6

Strongbow · All-time great

Katie B wins the first set 7-6.

Strongbow · All-time great

And 5-0 up in the second. smile

Strongbow · All-time great

6-1 in the second - wel done Katie B - a usefull 9 points smile

DF · Tennis legend

Strongbow wrote:
6-1 in the second - wel done Katie B - a usefull 9 points

plus 1 for qualifying biggrin

indiana · Tennis legend

R2: (Q) Katie Boulter WR 402 beat (Q) Kylie McKenzie WR 1048 (CH 748 in May this year), age 17 JCH 33 7-6(1) 6-1

R2: Harriet Dart WR 356 lost to (2) Francoise Abanda (CAN) WR 187 (CH 175 in October 2014), age 19 JCH 4 4-6 6-4 6-4

QF: (Q) Katie Boulter WR 402 vs (5) Sesil Karatantcheva (BUL) WR 226, age 27 (CH 35 in November 2005 at age 16), JCH 1 at age 14

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 6th of October 2016 11:05:41 PM