Week 17 - ITF ($25K) - Karshi, Uzbekistan Hard

tennischamp · Intermediate Club Player

Week 17 - ITF ($25K) - Karshi, Uzbekistan Hard

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Both second serves are under attack, Harriet's slightly the more so, 3-4*

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Harriet couldn't get back on terms in the first, but has a promising start to the second, 4-6 *2-0

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

That promise was a lie. 6 games later it was all done.
It is still Harriet's best week of the year though.

QF: Harriet DART (GBR) [6] 330 lost to Olga IANCHUK (UKR) [4] 323 4-6 2-6

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Harriet is 0-3 when losing the first set in 2017; 8-3 when winning it.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

AliBlahBlah wrote:
Harriet is 0-3 when losing the first set in 2017; 8-3 when winning it.

Do you have her 2016 stats? Interested in comparing.

indiana · Tennis legend

skibbarriz wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
Harriet is 0-3 when losing the first set in 2017; 8-3 when winning it.
Do you have her 2016 stats? Interested in comparing.

Really pretty small 2017 sample, especially the losing first set one, and I'd say nothing out of the ordinary there.

the addict · Tennis legend

I've has a quick look at the stats for 2016 on the ITF site - everything from 10k's up to Wimbledon qualies.
My maths may not be exact, but Harriet's record looks like won 27, lost 23 for the year.
Of those 27 wins, she won 5 after losing the first set.

But you can't read too much into those stats - there was a wide range of tournaments and opposition.

I watched Harriet play almost two years ago, and although she was under a lot of pressure at one point in the match, she held her nerve just fine.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

skibbarriz wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
Harriet is 0-3 when losing the first set in 2017; 8-3 when winning it.
Do you have her 2016 stats? Interested in comparing.

No. I only started keeping detialed results this year.

Tennis Abstract do these figures, but they don't store qualifying results at $10/15/25K level.
As most of our players will have those matches making up part of their season, excluding those matches from the totals seems to skew the results. So I've logged everything for this year.

Here though are the Tennis Abstract results for Harriet for 2016 as comparison. Both to the 2017 data, but also the rigorous 2016 data collection which the addict helpfully undertook, above.

From http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/wplayer.cgi?p=HarrietDart&f=A2016qqF6

2016: overall (ignoring w/o): 23-17 (57.5%)
2016: After winning first set: 19-4 (83%)
2016: After losing first set: 4-13 (24%)

As you can see, there are ten less matches accounted for than the addict found doing it thoroughly. My guess is that those would be qualies at the lower level that prompted me to keep spearate records this year. Those matches will be accounted for by the addict's numbers, and my 2017 numbers.

As for Indiana's contention, that is fair. It is, however, 100% of the 2017 sample. It illustrates, at least to my mind, that as yet, Harriet hasn't been able to turn matches around, but her opponents have managed it with considerably more frequency against her.
There is a rabbit hole one could disappear down here about, well, who was she playing on those occasion, what was the surface, the weather conditions, were there injuries... etc. Infinitie context for every conceivable result. In some respects that's perfectly valid, but for an illustrative stat, ~33% of the way in to the season, I think things will have smoothed themselves out by now by natural variability to allow the data to stand, as is.

the addict · Tennis legend

Yes, there were 10 qualies in the ones I counted - but at all levels, including Wimbledon. But my statistics are not, and never will be, anywhere as good as yours :)

wimdledont · Challenger level

Without having any stats to hand, I have a longstanding, possibly subjective, impression that Freya has more of a problem than Harriet, exemplified here by slumping from 5-1 to 5-7 in her final set this week. Choking reminiscent of JoKo, 2013 vintage?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

wimdledont wrote:
Without having any stats to hand, I have a longstanding, possibly subjective, impression that Freya has more of a problem than Harriet, exemplified here by slumping from 5-1 to 5-7 in her final set this week. Choking reminiscent of JoKo, 2013 vintage?

Yes, I'd agree.

I've seen Harriet more than Freya but I've never thought that Harriet 'chokes'. As said, she's a little afraid to really impose herself, and comes across as shy on court, but that's an overall characteristic and obviously just her. Although I expect it's an age thing too and she will grow more confident, in general. But she's certainly won some tough matches. And will stick to her game plan, and not crumble.

Freya, I agree, is more fragile that way. And less lucid. Back problems, or no back problems, her loss in Wimbly qualis to the Japanese player was heart-breaking - the match was hers ten times over. But obviously not.... Lucidity is a tough thing to teach too. It may always be a problem. But she certainly has the game.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

For the record, and comparison, purely the stats for Freya are:

2017
8-9 (47%) Overall
7-2 (78%) after winning the first set
1-7 (13%) after losing the first set

The 2016 TennisAbstract data (without results from $10-25K qualification)
18-22 (45%) Overall
16-5 (76%) after winning the first set
2-16 (11%) after losing the first set

Harriet seems good at TB
2016 9-1
2017 3-1

Freya, less so
2016 3-8
2017 0-2

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

Thanks, just caught up with this. And comparing the two players gave their stats further context.