Week 46 - Challenger ($50,000) - Champaign, IL, USA (indoor hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 46 - Challenger ($50,000) - Champaign, IL, USA (indoor hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

Second set to Opelka who, with his 18th ace to date, wins the first game of the final set on serve.

7-6(3) 3-6 *0-1

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 16th of November 2016 01:43:37 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Ed saves 2 BPs at *3-4 *15-40 against now 21 ace Opelka. No breaks in the final set so far.

7-6(3) 3-6 4-4*

Dan Cox loses the first set to Donaldson 4-6

indiana · Tennis legend

No recovery from 15-40 this time

Looks a good fight by Ed but 22 ace Opelka wins 6-7(3) 6-3 6-4

Dan at 4-6 *1-1

Good night and all the best, Dan.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Having watched that, Ed simply hasn't got the tools to punch his way through Challengers in singles.

wolf · Tennis legend

Cox lost 4+3.

Spectator · All-time great

Actually, I felt that was quite a positive match in that Ed Corrie did better than some other Challenger players have against Opelka recently. They were really rotten draws, though, for the GB men this time around.

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

Spectator wrote:
Actually, I felt that was quite a positive match in that Ed Corrie did better than some other Challenger players have against Opelka recently. They were really rotten draws, though, for the GB men this time around.

This is the problem with many folk on here who yet again think a defeat is actually a success, it clearly isn't. How other people have done against Opelka is immaterial, you either win (success) or loose (failure).

Yet another first round loss for Ed in a challenger as well as for Dan sadly.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I agree but Opelka is destined to be the next Isner, agreed I can't see Ed punching his way into the top 100 but he is playing the highest level he can on merit and the fact that he continues to do so implies he enjoys it, the only coffers he drains are his own.

Everyone's definition of success is different and taking an aspiring super elite servebot to three sets I would not regard as abject failure. A bad draw? or an opportunity to put ones return of serve to the ultimate test in this post Brexit, Presidential Trump era defined by post-truth utterances results are irrelevant it's all to do with how you frame the conversation.

Regardless looking at the evidence If we see Ed in AO qualifying and I were Ed looking back on 2016 I would consider it a success when compared to previous years.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, I can't claim to be an Opelka expert other than he's very big and serves a lot of aces, so certainly Isner possibilties with his success to date showing he clearly has more than that. Hopefully finds more variety than Isner, but if he just does the best he personally can with what he has that's all that can be asked.

Pretty much agree with Oakland here. Not particularly commenting on Ed here though it doesn't seem a bad effort, yes if you lose you are out so in that sense failed but what degree do you take that in tennis or in any sport. Say you unexpectedly run the best or one of the very best players or teams very close with one of your best ever performances. "Failure" ultimately but in general discussion terms that's very stark, indeed far too stark. Often nothing wrong at all in acknowledging performance. Just as long as the player / team continues to strive to get better and win more.

Spectator · All-time great

As the creator of the offending comment, I think Oakland and Indiana have said much that I would have in response - so no need to say much more! The only thing I'd add is that while I would be pleasantly surprised if Ed Corrie were to become a mainstay of the top 50, I wouldn't write off his chances of doing well in Challengers.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Mark1968 wrote:
Spectator wrote:
Actually, I felt that was quite a positive match in that Ed Corrie did better than some other Challenger players have against Opelka recently. They were really rotten draws, though, for the GB men this time around.
This is the problem with many folk on here who yet again think a defeat is actually a success, it clearly isn't. How other people have done against Opelka is immaterial, you either win (success) or loose (failure).
Yet another first round loss for Ed in a challenger as well as for Dan sadly.

I disagree.

If you are a coach, watching a new player who you're thinking of taking on, say, you don't just look at whether they won their match or they lost it.

It's not a binary game, loss or success.

You look at how they played, how the opponent played, what they've got that you think could be improved on etc. etc. etc.

I didn't see Ed's match yesterday but I saw his one (well, most of it) against Groth and he was playing very well. And still with definite things to improve on that seem (to me) definitely feasible.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L16: Brian Baker (USA) WR 260 defeated Liam Broady WR 311 by 4 & 1 cry

Vandenburg · Futures level

Liam really faces a make or break year next year. If by this time next year he is not AT WORST 150 ish, he should pack in.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I don't know, the shift in age of players in the top 100 means there will be a big shift over the next 5 years, Liam is so young, he has plenty of scope for development of both his physical and mental game and tennis is what he knows!