H2H Dommie v. Huber
> H2H 0-1
> 2016 Nottingham, UK - ITF $10K - Hard - R32 - DC (Q), LMH [3] - Huber by 6-2 6-3

I'll be interested to see how Olivia does. From what little I've seen the stronger half of the pretty successful Olivia & Beth partnership and I get the impression quite a lot to offer in singles, but with to date pretty limited time and opportunity.

I get the feeling that players on the Women's Pro Circuit are still adjusting the ITF level changes in to their schedules, especially at $15K to $25K level.
A lot of players are entering events that seem to low for them, without seeming to realise that, for example, a $15K is now only equivalent to a $10K of previously.
As the year goes on, I expect, and hope, to see things rebalance to a more realistic level, so that, again, for example, WR 736 doesn't need to qualify in the lowest level of tournament available.
However, with half of the ITF Women's Pro Circuit pyramid now comprising '+H' events, that very rarely get held, at any level, there are really only 5 levels for 90+% of all tournaments: $15K, $25K, $60K, $80K, $100K
There may be the odd '+H' held, but these were on offer previously, and less than 10 a year were staged worldwide.
So, things may compress up even worse than previously. And that's without even starting to factor in the uneven distribution of points allocations across the scale, as previously discussed in the 'Other Tennis' section when the new format as announced and implemented.

All of which just leaves us, as paulisi noted above, with a very tough qualifying draw here, at the bottom end of the pyramid, and pretty looking intimidating tasks to fresh up-and-comers.
Perhaps that's the intent, scare some off, reduce the overall number of ranked players and/or those trying their hand. It's all a bit muddled to my mind.

blob wrote:

---

I get the feeling that players on the Women's Pro Circuit are still adjusting the ITF level changes in to their schedules, especially at $15K to $25K level.
A lot of players are entering events that seem to low for them, without seeming to realise that, for example, a $15K is now only equivalent to a $10K of previously.
As the year goes on, I expect, and hope, to see things rebalance to a more realistic level, so that, again, for example, WR 736 doesn't need to qualify in the lowest level of tournament available.
However, with half of the ITF Women's Pro Circuit pyramid now comprising '+H' events, that very rarely get held, at any level, there are really only 5 levels for 90+% of all tournaments: $15K, $25K, $60K, $80K, $100K
There may be the odd '+H' held, but these were on offer previously, and less than 10 a year were staged worldwide.
So, things may compress up even worse than previously. And that's without even starting to factor in the uneven distribution of points allocations across the scale, as previously discussed in the 'Other Tennis' section when the new format as announced and implemented.

All of which just leaves us, as paulisi noted above, with a very tough qualifying draw here, at the bottom end of the pyramid, and pretty looking intimidating tasks to fresh up-and-comers.
Perhaps that's the intent, scare some off, reduce the overall number of ranked players and/or those trying their hand. It's all a bit muddled to my mind.

---

 

Yes, may take a little adapting to for the women. The 25K now looks pretty out of line, prize money vs ranking points since the other non H level have increased their prize money.

The 25Ks now look a level relatively generous for ranking points ( when you compare with 15Ks and 60Ks ) but not so for prize money  So be interesting to see how their fields compare this year. Seems the ITF wanted to have 15Ks and 25Ks for both men & women, but haven't really adapted the women's ranking points appropriately.

Brilliant win for Louise

Q1: HOLTUM, Louise (GBR) UNR def. VANENBURG, Phillis (NED) (q2) 738 =CH 6-3 7-5

Q1: JOHN-BAPTISTE, Lauryn (GBR) (q15) 1074 def. PALMIGIANO, Francesca (ITA) UNR CH=637 2013 6-0 6-0

Q1: TAYLOR, Ella (GBR) 1249 def. HURST, Emma (GBR) (q11) 925 6-1 7-5

Q1: GREY, Sarah Beth (GBR) (q1) 736 def. CIANI, Claudia (POR) 1173 CH=1095 31/10/16 6-0 6-0


But Mollie lost in a close one, and Sofie Woon posted a decent score too. Amelia Stuart also lost out.

Nice easy win for Alicia too, against a decent ranked opponent:

Q1: BARNETT, Alicia (GBR) 1114 def. KRUIJER, Nina (NED) (q6) 802 CH=797 28/11/16 6-4 6-0

Anna P and Chloe lost.

Only one guaranteed qualifier, although a few other reasonable chances. Shame that Beth and Lauryn are together.

Four GB players beat better ranked opposition, though, and you can't ask for much more than that.