Fed Cup 2017 World Group II Play-Off - Romania v Great Britain - 22-23 April

indiana · Tennis legend

Fed Cup 2017 World Group II Play-Off - Romania v Great Britain - 22-23 April

wolf · Tennis legend

I'm no apologist for Anne's decision here, I think Amanda should have been chosen for the third singles spot just based on watching her play a couple of times on livestream and just her recent results on clay. Whoever was picked would obviously massively struggle to get close to winning a rubber if called upon but I reckon Amanda had the best low percentage. But I'm not sure I'd expect Anne to travel to Brazil just to watch Amanda play.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

No, I'm not sure I would also, Wolf.

But I do think that, as Anne is part of the LTA, on one of their top Committees whose name I can't remember, and was appointed as Fed Cup captain late last year, she should have taken the time to see Mandy play before now. After all, it's not as though we have zillions of players ! And she will know the vast majority of them - my guess is she knows all the top ones very well and you'd have to go down to Mirabelle or Suzy Larkin (i.e. ranked 15-20 in the GB top list) before you found the next player, after Mandy, that she didn't know. So it's hardly asking too much.

NB This is all premised on the fact that she didn't - which may, of course, be completely wrong.

PaulM · Tennis legend

If i was Mandy I'd have said thanks for the offer but i have a major target of RG Qualies which is in my grasp and for where I am in my career I need to stay on tour these next couple of weeks rather than cross the globe to warm the bench.

In addition, I can see some logic in that the third player is very unlikely to be called upon, but if they are it will be at late notice and under pressure. Laura, for all her woes of late, does have that 'big match experience' to dig into (and I suspect she will raise her game in a bigger event than she can do in front of noone in an ITF). I do think that counts for something in these scenarios, I just can't envisage a scenario where Mandy C steps up to play the must win singles tie after Jo/Hev pick up a niggle or just have a howler on the Friday.

Just playing devil's advocate. I'd have probably dropped Joss and taken Laura and Mandy for a red clay tie, on the basis Hev/Laura is a perfectly acceptable doubles combo if needed (but I'd still go with Jo/Hev for a deciding tie if both fit).

-- Edited by PaulM on Thursday 13th of April 2017 09:04:15 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Oh, I quite agree, PaulM - if Mandy, I'd have said 'no, ta' like a shot !

But this is all premised on the fact that she didn't get asked.

Mind you, as said by others before, not taking Gabi for the experience, and a different, more clay court, look on the ball in practice for the others, is a bit more strange.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I don't think it would help splitting up a winning team either, so you say to Laura who played her part in Estonia, and has big stage experience, we're going to replace you with someone whose never played slam qualies other than a Wimby WC, and has beaten 0 number of top 100 players, that she 's the better proposition, I think that would be a very harsh call.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Leon would do it. (If he thought it were the right call). As he said, and as we saw, it's not about being mean to an individual player, just about getting together the best team.

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:
I don't think it would help splitting up a winning team either, so you say to Laura who played her part in Estonia, and has big stage experience, we're going to replace you with someone whose never played slam qualies other than a Wimby WC, and has beaten 0 number of top 100 players, that she 's the better proposition, I think that would be a very harsh call.

I guess that's what people think should be done or wouldn't be saying it.

Don't put it to Laura in err these terms and hopefully even if very disappointed she would be enough of a professional to understand it would be made on consideration of the team interests in the here and now, however debatable ( and I accept that it is debatable ). I certainly think that Leon has developed that trust and understanding ( and early in his reign replaced Jamie Baker with Evo at a pretty late stage ) and would have left Evo out like a shot vs France if he thought there had been any better alternative.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 13th of April 2017 09:59:57 PM

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

This thread is now two slices of theoretical scenario with a filling of speculation. But to move in and take a bite, I think Laura would be able to handle being replaced no problem. But anyway, I'd drop Joss before Laura as I rate Laura for doubles above her. While we talk about Joss having a Commonwealth gold, Laura has an Olympic silver. Jossanna are endearing but in fairness have not distinguished themselves on the doubles tour. And I don't put more than 50% of responsibility for that on Anna's shoulders.

So being swayed by the case for Amanda Carreras ( who (a) wouldn't want to come anyway (b) if Anne would even ask her (c) If Anne even knows she exists) then the team would be Hev Jo AC and LR. But it's still the same deal, realistically we need the top two firing and to take care of it all.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Totally agree I can't see Amanda having a role in making the team win, yes if she becomes a significant force on clay she may have a role in the future but going to Romania to hit and watch for two days is a waste of her time given her likely priorities at the moment and LTA cash (much better spent on a preseason junior training camp in La Manga... good to see at least one of a couple of very promising 14 year olds (potential future British fed cup players) purring along nicely in a G2.)

Ryan hitting with Jo, pretty good for both of them. Jo gets the practice and plenty Ryan can learn from Jo.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

I think keeping the same team from February is the right call. I don't think Anne needs to worry about protecting Laura's feelings (and she showed that she was happy to replace Laura and Joss for the crucial doubles v Croatia even though they were unbeaten all week). However, I do think there is something to be said for team spirit / chemistry in Fed Cup (and Davis cup), and so it makes sense to keep the team together that worked well before, especially when any changes will almost certainly make no difference to who actually takes to the court.

Individually, on clay, Romania are better that us, so we can only beat them by working better has a team so that the GB players overperform and the Romanians underperform.

steven · Tennis legend

It's all academic now with Mandy probably injured and people have already put most of the 'Laura/Joss or Mandy' arguments very well above but I'd also have taken into account the fact that the order of rubbers in a Fed Cup tie is different from Davis Cup.

Because the doubles rubber is 5th in Fed Cup rather than 3rd, there is no Davis Cup-type dilemma over whether to rest your top players by leaving them out of the doubles so that they are fresh for the reverse singles. So if your singles players are also your best doubles players (and Anne appeared to confirm that they are, in her opinion, by playing JoKo & Hev in the final doubles rubber in Tallinn despite Joss & Laura having been unbeaten up to that point), it's far more important to have singles cover than to pick a specialist doubles team.

I agree with those who think Amanda is currently our 3rd best singles player on clay, so I'd probably have picked her on that basis, though as others have said, even if she is our 3rd best player on clay, beating a player in the top 100 may well be beyond her at the moment. There are arguments for picking Laura anyway, of course (mainly her experience of playing big matches and some evidence that she plays better with a lot of team support behind her and a bigger crowd), so I hope that's why Anne picked her and she didn't keep her in just because she thought she'd be offended or lose confidence if she was left out - after all, the fact that Laura was included in the squad for Tallinn was already a big vote of confidence from Anne given her poor results in the weeks/months leading up to it.

I very much doubt that Anne is unaware of Amanda, btw - she follows me on Twitter, which means very little of course, except that she is an active user (i.e. tweets quite a lot herself) and I can't imagine anyone who checks Twitter regularly letting all the rubbish I tweet litter their timeline for more than a few days if they take no interest in British players outside the top 200

I have no idea whether Anne has seen Mandy play, but if people here have found streams to watch her on, Anne might well have done the same even if she hasn't felt the need to head out to places like Brazil yet.

wimdledont · Challenger level

A good summary from Steven.

Worth noting that not only has Amanda never beaten anyone in the top 100, she has only ever lost 3 matches against top 100 opponents - she rarely gets to face them. The weakness-in-depth of the British team is, in my view, a direct consequence of the LTA/AELTC failing to nominate Brits for Wimbledon wildcards, which means that middle ranking players capable of improvement, such as Naomi Cavaday, Nik Slater, cannot afford to continue playing and take up roles in commentating or coaching.

If Anne wants to have a bigger pool to pick from, her best move woud be to get agitating in committee for Wimbledon to allocate more British wildcards, and/or enter into the same reciprocal arrangements as the other 3 Grand Slams.

Those of you opposed to GS wildcards need not worry about this. It won't happen, because of LTA internal politics. The LTA effectively allows the Daily Mail to restrict their nominations, because if they did nominate 8 Brit wildcards, the press would run the stock story of pampered under-achievers when the vast majority lost in Round 1; and questions are asked about what the LTA does with its money.

If the LTA spends all of its money on Anne K, and six or seven other members of Fed Cup support staff, a bunch of other decision-making bureaucrats who decide to fund themselves, this passes without comment. It does leave us without a team though.

Mervatron2 · Challenger qualifying

I don't think it has anything to do with Wimbledon WC's. If the players are good enough they make it. Simple as. We've had a few players give up for various reasons. Naomi Cavaday being the biggest recent example.

Let's face it Katie O'Brien and Melanie South should really still be playing and in the top 150 and they had plenty of WC's.

We have to remember 6/7 years ago we hadn't had a top 100 player in a decade, then they came like a train and one by one somebody came along and moved things on further be it with GS results or a higher ranking and now we are blessed with Jo Konta. Without an injury where would Laura be now?

The good news is we have plenty of potential coming through. It's a matter of how will it pan out.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I agree, beating up the futures tour is the key, realistically offering main draw wilcards to players outside the top 200 unless it is an outstanding youngster on a rapid rise is not good for anyone, at last a positive role for the Daily mail! Much better if they are able to win their way in, qualifying offers generous fiscal reward for success.