Unfortunately Buzarnescu can play and as a leftie she can keep hitting her forehand to Naomi's backhand. She also has good variety on her shots and is quick to come to the net. An early break to Buzarnescu but then her play is looser the next game and Naomi manages to break back. *2-2. I'm not going to watch that much, but anyone who does, good luck in listening to the commentator who is full of non-squiturs and pretty irritating.
Another deuce game but Naomi comes through 3-2* It should be a tight match if Naomi can keep her game together.
I've not found it terribly edifying. A lot of very abbreviated points, stop start, and UE.
Both players over-hitting the baseline for no readily apparent reason.
A break each, *5-5
But now *0-40 for Naomi to dig herself out from...
Buzarnescu will serve for the set, 5-6*
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
The first few games were probably the most competitive. Both have got looser since then, but Buzarnescu has more ability to pull the shots out when she needs them. She wrapped up the last two games of the first set without too much opposition from Naomi. Both hold early in the second set.
Buzarnescu hits a magnificent backhand winner from out wide, and then Naomi's forehand goes AWOL on the next point. 5-7 1-2*. Naomi is in trouble now and I'm not sure she has enough in her locker to get back from this.... except if Buzarnescu is going to gift her a whole series of UEs which she promptly does, so back on serve in the second set *2-2.
As in the first set, game 11 is crucial. Also, as in the first set, on BP, Naomi overhits a BH into the corner that should have been a reasonably easy winner, and surrenders the break.
Buzarnescu serves to close it out then, 5-7 5-6*
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Scoreline quite close, but in truth, I felt Buzarnescu had seveeral gears in reserve.
5-7 5-7
6 of our current top 10, including all of numbers 2-6, have seen action this week in events exactly correct for their level, they have won one match between them, and that in an all-GB tie.
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Scoreline quite close, but in truth, I felt Buzarnescu had seveeral gears in reserve. 5-7 5-7
6 of our current top 10, including all of numbers 2-6, have seen action this week in events exactly correct for their level, they have won one match between them, and that in an all-GB tie.
Our 5 ranked 13 to 17 are in action tomorrow. We will certainly have at least one winner, OK in another all-GB tie. C'mon girls, don't let blob extend this stat
Scoreline quite close, but in truth, I felt Buzarnescu had seveeral gears in reserve. 5-7 5-7
6 of our current top 10, including all of numbers 2-6, have seen action this week in events exactly correct for their level, they have won one match between them, and that in an all-GB tie.
Yes, I agree, I never felt that Buzarnescu was ever really threatened by Naomi. She always had more in reserve, and a greater variety of shots. She moved better and was much more inclined to come into the net too when she had the opportunity. Also, though Naomi was serving relatively well, Buzarnescu was also returning well, and Naomi did not have a huge number of free points on her serve. Buzarnescu also quite consistently put Naomi's backhand under pressure (easier as she was left handed), and at deciding moments, this was often Buzarnescu's successful strategy.
For Naomi, this was really unfortunate it was her first round match, especially as she clearly likes this tournament. Naomi was the 9th ranked player in the draw so only just missed out on seeding herself, losing out because Madison Brengle received a late WC.
You wait all day for a Brit to be in a live doubles streram, and then two come along at exactly the same time - Laura's final is 'on the other channel'.
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.