Week 31 - ITF ($25K) - Woking, GB, Hard

Michael D · All-time great

Week 31 - ITF ($25K) - Woking, GB, Hard

Michael D · All-time great

All Brits involved in the q draw now here.

QR1: VRLJIC, Ana (CRO) (q1) 418 vs MORRIS, Katie (GBR) UNR
QR1:PALADINI JENNINGS, Martina (GBR) UNR 17 yrs vs EKLUND, Mia Nicole (FIN) (q10) 888
QR1: BOLKVADZE, Mariam (GEO) (q2) 459 vs NICHOLLS, Olivia (GBR) 1139
QR1: HUTCHINSON, Holly (GBR) UNR vs BEJENARU, Karola Patricia (ROU) (q13) 1020 CH:746 Aug 16
QR1: KEENS, Taro (GBR) UNR vs GREY, Sarah Beth (GBR) (q9) 859
QR1: SILVA, Eden (GBR) (q4) 582 vs TAYLOR, Ella (GBR) 1202
QR1: FORSTER, Megan (GBR) UNR vs MIYAZAKI, Yuriko Lily (JPN) (q16) 1134 CH:695 Aug 14
QR1: KOLAR, Nastja (SLO) (q5) 593 CH:178 Nov 14 vs GHODRATI, Lily (GBR)
QR1: POPESCU, Anna (GBR) UNR vs JEGIOLKA, Justyna (POL) (q14) 1025 CH:298 Nov 14
QR1: VERDEN ANDERSON, Camille (GBR) UNR vs RODGERS, Amanda (USA) (q11) 968
QR1: MURRAY, Samantha (GBR) (q7) 686 CH:165 Sept 13 vs JAMES, Ines (GBR) UNR WC
QR1: CROUCH, Mollie (GBR) vs DEIGMAN, Laura (GBR) (q12) 997 CH:629 Sept 15
QR1: VANGELOVA, Ani (BUL) (q8) 713 vs SAMWAYS, Chelsea May (GBR) UNR WC
QR1: HEARNSHAW, Isabelle (GBR) UNR vs HURST, Emma (GBR) (q15) 1111 CH:870 Nov 16

-- Edited by Michael D on Sunday 30th of July 2017 08:04:04 AM

the addict · Tennis legend

I'll go for 6 getting through that round, with three or four qualifying.

telstar · Strong Club Player

the addict wrote:
I'll go for 6 getting through that round, with three or four qualifying.

There are 5 all Brit matches. Who do you think will be the additional winner? All look tough to me.

-- Edited by telstar on Saturday 29th of July 2017 09:45:26 PM

Peter too · Tennis legend

QR1: MURRAY, Samantha (GBR) (q7) 686 CH:165 Sept 13 vs JAMES, Ines (GBR) UNR WC

There's a name from the past, We haven't seen Ines for a couple of years. She used to be Ines Janbakhsh.

paulisi · Tennis legend

telstar wrote:
the addict wrote:
I'll go for 6 getting through that round, with three or four qualifying.
There are 5 all Brit matches. Who do you think will be the additional winner? All look tough to me.

-- Edited by telstar on Saturday 29th of July 2017 09:45:26 PM

Holly H must be the best of the rest - still an outsider though.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

paulisi wrote:
telstar wrote:
the addict wrote:
I'll go for 6 getting through that round, with three or four qualifying.
There are 5 all Brit matches. Who do you think will be the additional winner? All look tough to me.

-- Edited by telstar on Saturday 29th of July 2017 09:45:26 PM
Holly H must be the best of the rest - still an outsider though.

Yes. I've never been a fan of Bolkvadze either, though I'm obviously wrong as she's been doing very well, (and it's more her character on court that I don't like rather than her tennis).

But I'd like to think that Olivia also has a chance, although also a definite outsider.

the addict · Tennis legend

Olivia or Camille as outsiders. I suspect Holly may be carrying an injury as she hasn't played that well in recent weeks and has withdrawn from some tournaments.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Taro (Taz) Keens is a private tennis coach, based in Portsmouth, aged 24, ex-decent junior.

She's had some decent wins in British Tour (made the semis last week, and only lost in a third-set tie-break).

As such, although Beth obviously should win, I wish her well as it's not easy to earn a living from tennis, any which way.

But Taro, if by any chance you read this forum, please proofread your site ! (Or get someone else to). The grammar and spelling mistakes give a really bad impression.

Michael D · All-time great

Well, no early surprises in the first set of q results - but does suggest that the extra 6th win is unlikely to be achieved!

QR1: VRLJIC, Ana (CRO) (q1) 418 beat MORRIS, Katie (GBR) UNR 6-1 6-0
QR1:PALADINI JENNINGS, Martina (GBR) UNR 17 yrs lost to EKLUND, Mia Nicole (FIN) (q10) 888 2-6 1-6
QR1: BOLKVADZE, Mariam (GEO) (q2) 459 beat NICHOLLS, Olivia (GBR) 1139 6-4 6-2
QR1: HUTCHINSON, Holly (GBR) UNR lost to BEJENARU, Karola Patricia (ROU) (q13) 1020 CH:746 Aug 16 3-6 1-6
QR1: KOLAR, Nastja (SLO) (q5) 593 CH:178 Nov 14 beat GHODRATI, Lily (GBR) 6-1 6-2

brendan · Strong Club Player

Michael D wrote:
Well, no early surprises in the first set of q results - but does suggest that the extra 6th win is unlikely to be achieved!

QR1: VRLJIC, Ana (CRO) (q1) 418 beat MORRIS, Katie (GBR) UNR 6-1 6-0
QR1:PALADINI JENNINGS, Martina (GBR) UNR 17 yrs lost to EKLUND, Mia Nicole (FIN) (q10) 888 2-6 1-6
QR1: BOLKVADZE, Mariam (GEO) (q2) 459 beat NICHOLLS, Olivia (GBR) 1139 6-4 6-2
QR1: HUTCHINSON, Holly (GBR) UNR lost to BEJENARU, Karola Patricia (ROU) (q13) 1020 CH:746 Aug 16 3-6 1-6
QR1: KOLAR, Nastja (SLO) (q5) 593 CH:178 Nov 14 beat GHODRATI, Lily (GBR) 6-1 6-2

is there a reason why you use a mixture of beat and lost to? - wouldn't it be easier for us all if you just stick to one or the other?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Some people list the draw in the correct order, as it appears on the sheet.

Some people always put the British player first.

Some always put the winner first.

All ways have their own pros and cons.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, I was just going to say that it's the players in draw order as in Michael's earlier post giving the draw ( and if he pasted the names from there to his results post clearly easier to leave the same way round ).

As CD says there are a few variations about and as long as it is clear who won by what score, as Michael's certainly is to me, then that's fine.

The main thing is getting the scores and from previous general discussions we are very unlikely to ever standardise and we don't need to.

brendan · Strong Club Player

I don't see the con in putting the winner first, or second for that matter - but it makes no sense to jumble them up in the same post

Michael D · All-time great

brendan wrote:
I don't see the con in putting the winner first, or second for that matter - but it makes no sense to jumble them up in the same post

As Indy says, I've just put them in the draw order. Since the list of people is long I haven't changed it around. If there were fewer matches, then I would have been more inclined to do so. People often put the Brit players first, and on most occasions I would do that too... but preparing the initial list here took some time, as it involved doing the research on each person's ranking at the same time. That's why on this occasion I didn't do the reorganisation, but for subsequent rounds as there are fewer players involved, I, or anybody else doing it, would more likely put the Brit players first. That means you would still get the use of both beat and lost to... but have at least one common factor involved!!!