flamingowings wrote:

---

Has anyone thought about what would've happened had we actually won? I mean, what are the chance we wouldn't be demoted at the first opportunity (depending on other teams in the group)?

---

 I find the idea that we don't want do get promoted because we'll only get relegated next season quite bizarre.  Surely anyone who plays sports competitively always wants to win every match and to play at the highest possible level regardless of whether they win or lose when they get there?  I wanted unto win this tie just for the joy of winning - next year can take care of itself when the time comes.

Just catching up...brilliant that Jo won her two singles; great pity Heather's woes continue; sincerely hope Gabi was made to feel part of the group.

Back to the drawing board :(

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

I think we would have struggled if we had got to the next tier up.  Not too many players to choose from when it comes  down to it.However looking at other  websites comments a lot of vitriol is aimed in Anne Keothavong's direction. We have several girls ranked around the 200 mark. But how are they going to get any higher?  The only way I can see this happening is in the grass court season and a wildcard for Wimbledon. They never get through qualifying at Wimbledon. The last female to do so was Karen Cross who managed it twice, back  in 1997 and in the early 2000's. Apart from Jo Konta, Naomi Broady and Heather Watson no British female has won a singles match on the WTA tour since Wimbledon 2016. Katie Boulter qualified for 1 event this year which is a rare occurrence. It might be a case of hope springs eternal!

---

 My view about a two-person team is made.

But I don't  follow  this point.  How are the girls going to get better? By winning matches. Like anyone else. Non grand slam country don't  have wimbly  wcs  to give out. But their players get to be top 100. 

And as Leon  Smith made the point very well , it's  not the job of a Fed cup or Davis cup  captain to focus on long-term  career prospects - their role is to win the tie. 

Ever since Anne started the women's surge into the top 100, I doubt if we have ever had more than three women in the top 100 at any one time. We have had sufficient strength in depth to take us into play-offs but not to win a play-off away from home. Once we get four or five players in the top 100 we will have enough strength in depth to cover for injuries and temporary loss of form within that group. Anne is new to the role of captain and next time round she will hopefully have more players to choose from and will have more experience to help her decide when to rely on tried and tested and when to take a risk.

Peter too wrote:

---

Ever since Anne started the women's surge into the top 100, I doubt if we have ever had more than three women in the top 100 at any one time.

---

As ever, Peter's memory and sense of things is excellent.
Since 1991, there has only been one week when we had more than 3 players inside the top 100 in any given rankings, and then, only just.
16th July, 2012, the only week our faithful four managed to do it


The following week, Bally fell to 102, and the week prior Laura was 113
It never happened again, yet.

In 1991 it happened twice, in 1990 twice also, and quite regularly prior to that.

skibbarriz wrote:

---

The highest rated comments on the BBC website are right. People are spotting it was very poor captaincy.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/43857480


As of writing, a total of 24 votes for the highest comment shows the event failed to capture a big public following.

---

Hmm, I like Leon's captaincy, though personally remain far from convinced about Anne's supposed selection failings. "Right" or "wrong" remains a debate.

Mr Fuller's : "Leon Smith brought Cameron Norrie into his team to spectacular effect ..." is of course largely true. But that was hardly an inspirational choice as Cam err also happened to be our highest ranked available player so the shock there would have been if Leon hadn't brought him in. Most certainly after Kyle was out but for many people ahead of Liam for selection anyway. Bringing in Gabi or Katie B ahead of Heather is clearly totally different territory.

Not that Fuller was actually suggesting that anyway with regards to Gabi : "I do not think she ( Gabi ) was a realistic option to replace Watson in Sunday's singles" and actually if you add "So pairing up Johanna Konta and Watson for the decisive rubber appeared the best bet" the selections all seem to tie in with what he would have gone for from what was available here to Anne. There was very unlikely any alternative "spectacular effect" as against the more logical.

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 23rd of April 2018 09:02:44 PM

People are focusing too much on the selection. That's only a small part.

The whole point about a team match is that the captain should be able to get the best out of the player they have selected.

When people say that Heather was always going to bottle it, that is based on her un-captained matches.

Players who are being actively captained every changeover should not bottle it - that's the role of the captain, the very job, to put your player in confidence, to know what you need to do to get the best out of them.

Without having watched the matches really, that seems to be Anne's failing - she chose the obvious players (fine, or maybe not) BUT then she didn't get Heather firing on all cylinders. Not saying that's all her fault. Hev obviously is to blame too. But that is Anne's role, especially for someone who is known to be a little fragile.