Presumably it will be seeded. As of today top 4 would be Russia, Ukraine, Spain and Canada. Gb, Japan, Paraguay and Latvia would be second group. Presumably we would play one of the top 4?
Great charts (as usual) ! Paraguay would be great, but as JonH says, the seedings probably mean that we can't get Latvia, Paraguay or Japan.
I think from my calculations we get 1000 points for our group 1 wins this week but Canada are 1030 or so ahead of us. Not sure how points from previous years come off, but think we will just miss a seeding and play one of Russia, Ukraine, Spain or Canada. Based on tables above, Canada would appear best option ..
If true, I'll take Italy at home, and on grass (which I wouldn't advocate for most other opponents).
Giorgi is almost guaranteed to still be at war with the Italian Federation, and so it would be led by Errani (who was on the receiving end of Shvedova's 'Golden Set' at Wimbledon). If Errani plays, Vinci is unlikely to play, as they have had a volcanic falling out - worse than Garcia & Kiki have for France - so they're left with players that have hardly even seen a grass court:
WR Top 200 Italians Lifetime record on Grass (assumed Giorgi & Vinci as no-shows):
Errani 15-26
Schiavone 41-43
Paolini 2-3
Chiesa 0-0
Brescia 0-0
Trevisan 0-1
Pieri 0-0
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
If true, I'll take Italy at home, and on grass (which I wouldn't advocate for most other opponents).
Giorgi is almost guaranteed to still be at war with the Italian Federation, and so it would be led by Errani (who was on the receiving end of Shvedova's 'Golden Set' at Wimbledon). If Errani plays, Vinci is unlikely to play, as they have had a volcanic falling out - worse than Garcia & Kiki have for France - so they're left with players that have hardly even seen a grass court:
WR Top 200 Italians Lifetime record on Grass (assumed Giorgi & Vinci as no-shows): Errani 15-26 Schiavone 41-43 Paolini 2-3 Chiesa 0-0 Brescia 0-0 Trevisan 0-1 Pieri 0-0
Hi Blob - two minor problems with your analysis re Italy!. First of all they beat Spain so arent in the draw I am afraid,so we cant play them. that minor issue aside, not sure playing in April in the UK on grass is going to work; a little damp and cold I reckon and most grass courts wont be fit for match play then....indoors is more likely at that time...
-- Edited by JonH on Monday 12th of February 2018 07:30:05 AM
The ITF Fed Cup Nations Ranking measures the success of all nations participating in the competition over a rolling four-year period. After each round the ranking period will adjust and any results outside the adjusted four-year period will drop off.
Recent performance is weighted more heavily: points from the second, third and fourth year of the ranking period will be reduced by 25%, 50% and 75% respectively. Therefore, 100 points would become 75, then 50, then 25 over the four years.
Sounds possible. Yes, was thinking these WG teams would be dropping points as some of their previous years' points got downgraded or indeed finally elminated ( as of course so would we, but their's seemed generally likely to be more ) and I'm not sure what if anything they get for a WG II loss, whereas we would have our points for last week.
Paraguay are very close behind us ( 2237.5 vs 2225 ). No idea how we will come out against them.
I think Wolf and indi are right, it could be close. I think a loss at any level gets zero points and there are also bonus points based on the ranking of the team you beat, the higher the better. So Canada, Gb and Paraguay could be on a knife edge for that seeding, which could also be a very important slot to get
Where C is the RGB value of the colour of the countries kit, R is the quotient of how much the country 'really' wants a good ranking, P is the number of support personnel (we score highly on this front), and E is the expectation factor that no matter how favourable your draw, your country will somehow find a way to contrive to lose.
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.