indiana wrote:

---

Yes, I think that fair comment, CD. Anne remains very unproven in general captaincy terms.

---

I certainly wouldn't use vitriol against Annie K, as Rosamund states has been expressed elsewhere, but her inexperience as a captain did show badly. As I've argued earlier, once examined in a little more detail, her seeming low risk strategy of using Jo and Heather for every match, was in fact, when you examine it in more detail, actually an extremely high risk strategy. 

As a captain in this circumstance, I would have run a set of scenarios, and worked out different options for them. At the end the scenarios had to come down to a 2-2 situation and the the final doubles being critical. Thus you have to calculate what options would give us the maximum chance of being successful in the doubles. I have no problem in a decision to go with Jo and Heather, but the scenario would need to consider what would be the maximum chance of their combination being successful in the doubles. And you'd have to conclude that it would require a rested, motivated Heather, on a psychological high and feeling confident. That scenario would therefore rule her out playing in the second singles, as simply being too risky. A) It is going to tire her, B) It could easily demoralise her, C) It could certainly drain her confidence. 

Good scenario work would make it clear that you can't have it both ways. You can't say, well maybe Heather will win her singles, but if she doesn't then she can play in the doubles anyway, because that scenario clearly prejudices the chance of her winning either. So the scenarios make it clear that she can only play in one of the two matches, and it would be better that she play in the doubles. Therefore the conclusion is someone else has to play the singles, and that should be Gabi.

There are other benefits too of playing Gabi. First, it makes the GB team more of a team. As widely reported, Gabi was looking like a loose end throughout Sunday, and that is really poor captaincy on Annie's part. Second, it is much more likely really to motivate Heather to win the doubles, because a) she now has to prove something, not being selected for the singles, but b) she is also more motivated to win as part of a larger team.

Heather was quoted on the BBC as making some comments about we all did our best but got outplayed, after the match. The implication was that she and Jo were the sole team members and everything depended on them, and they tried their best, but lost. Well, that's not the case, they were not the sole team members.

So from my perspective, if Annie K had used a technique like thinking through scenarios for the potential different game situations, it would have shown her the value of not just considering, but actually using at least three players in the tie, in order to have a better chance of bringing the best out of Heather and have her contribute to at least one win. 

CD's point about managing Heather's psychology in a match situation, is another issue; but for me, you first of all had to place her in a game situation, where it would be easiest to get the best out of her, and not only did that not happen, but it was eminently predictable that it would not happen.  

What I also do hope is that Annie K learns in a positive way. She needs support, and probably needed better support during the tie too, given her relative inexperience. I think she otherwise has many good attributes as a captain, but I hope this tie has taught her that a strategy needs to be thought through at more than one level, as well as the fact that she has obligations to every member of her team.

And a last note (I know too many already), what a great advert the weekend was for a team competition of this nature! GB does need more Fed Cup opportunities like this - or rather the Fed Cup should think about creating more opportunities like this - and the ATP should rethink its wisdom in how it mucks up the Davis Cup formula. 

 

Reading Anne Keothavong's comments about the match on the BBC website it seemed like the intention was to play Jo and Heather in all the matches unless one of them was injured or ill. However if  you look back to 2013 when we played Argentina  in the play-off Judy Murray must have had a different approach. Jo played  the first singles match which she lost. (It was actually her Fed Cup singles debut). Laura Robson then won the next singles match which she won and then lost her next match which was played the next day to leave Argentina winning 2-1. Although the BBC website initially shows Jo was going to play the critical 4th match, in the actual event Elena Baltacha played instead and Argentina also replaced their singles player as well.It is also interesting to see an interview with Judy Murray in 2015 when we didn't get out of the group stages. The one thing she says that she was pleased with, was that  we had an established doubles pair in Jocelyn Rae and Anna Smith who played in all the ties(which were live rubbers)and won all their matches.   Jo and Heather just played singles. 3 years on we are expecting them to do everything.

ROSAMUND wrote:

---

Reading Anne Keothavong's comments about the match on the BBC website it seemed like the intention was to play Jo and Heather in all the matches unless one of them was injured or ill. However if  you look back to 2013 when we played Argentina  in the play-off Judy Murray must have had a different approach. Jo played  the first singles match which she lost. (It was actually her Fed Cup singles debut). Laura Robson then won the next singles match which she won and then lost her next match which was played the next day to leave Argentina winning 2-1. Although the BBC website initially shows Jo was going to play the critical 4th match, in the actual event Elena Baltacha played instead and Argentina also replaced their singles player as well.It is also interesting to see an interview with Judy Murray in 2015 when we didn't get out of the group stages. The one thing she says that she was pleased with, was that  we had an established doubles pair in Jocelyn Rae and Anna Smith who played in all the ties(which were live rubbers)and won all their matches.   Jo and Heather just played singles. 3 years on we are expecting them to do everything.

---

Judy also changed singles players in the 2012 play-off in Sweden. On day one Anne played OK in losing to Sweden's #1 but Bally was not in form in losing to their #2. Day 2 saw Laura ( I am sure not the original first plan ) coming in to replace Bally against their #1. I thought that a good call, even though Laura lost but then that's the big advantage of having as strong a possible nominal #3 singles player. I liked Judy's captaincy but Laura was then a much stonger go to option than Gabi is yet. Similarly with her having Bally available to come in in 2013 even though I recall Bally was short of matches due to a prior injury.

If Anne bears some responsibility for Heather's loss to Nara then she must also bear responsibility for the other ties in the match.
Jo has been in terrible form and managed to beat the red-hot, and higher-ranked, new Inidan Well champion, Osaka. Anne deserves the credit for pulling that one out too, surely? Except that doesn't seem to be the consensus, it doesn't even get a mention. Only the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic about Heatehr's performance is Anne's doing.
Heather hasn't won a WTA match since January, she's only won a MD match in one week in 2018 (Hobart) . In the last 52 weeks, she's only won a WTA (or Slam) level MD match in 4 weeks. FOUR!
The question at that point is whether good captaincy is averse of this before had and makes the difficult decision no to pick Heather at all? Which is a luxury you'd quite like to have: one stalwart is in a slump, you turn elsewhere.
Except, we have no elsewhere.
Gabi is having a great year (calendar and 52 week span), but she still has never beaten a player close to Nara's even current low ranking. Even if Nara is in poor form, she has a good Fed Cup record (9-6 going in to the tie) and has been a solid top 100 player for half a decade now.
It's an amazing gamble for Anne to then say to Gabi, well, in your Fed Cup debut just go out and get your first top 100 scalp for us in the possibly deciding tie to get us back to the World Group for the first tie in umpteen years, OK?
The Argentina match that has been referenced was much worse than this to my mind, we just completely disintegrated there because we don't like clay. But that was therefore another indication of the very narrow limitations of the GB womens talent pool. If you are drawn to play on clay, then you just pick your clay players. All our other peer nations would edge towards that. But we don't have (or back then, didn'y have) any players with any level of clay competency, let alone proficiency, and so we has to go with the same few players we had - there was precious little available latitude in the selection. What could have Judy done differently, given a super rousing speech, imparted some great clay tactics that depended upon skills our players don't have?
What could Anne do? Throw someone in at the deepend and hope, effectively. If we had Naomi, the doubles would probably have been fine; if Joss had held on an extra year, the doubles would probably have been fine. The doubles should probably have been fine, but the Japanese duo played very well, both of them, and as a team.
I actually think the strongest argument against Anne is that she chose to play the woefully out of form Heather in the doubles. But there are arguments for it: Heather actually has had a WTA title at doubles in the last few months. But even in doubles, her good weeks have just been statistical noise, random blips rather than reliable and predictable quality. You're hoping that something happens ratehr than trusting that it will.
Does a good captain gamble on a gamble? Or do they look elsewhere?
Except, we have no elsewhere.
Anna is the perfect candidate Tangent:The comments earlier about Anna being a failed singles player rather seem unaware of the nature and severity of the injury that she had in 2010, where she was prior to that, the trajectory she was on, and how she transitioned her new reality post injury, after over two years out, into a WTA title winning career.
Anyway, Anna had a good 2017. But the partnership broke up (through Melichar's choice), and she's been left hopping around trying to find a new, stable, partner. That can often be a turbulent time in doubles until the right fit is found. And so it's proven for Anna. Consequently, our best doubles player is in no sort of form either.
What's a captain to do about that?
I would have played Anna & Jo in the doubles, but I think the Japanese duo were good enough in=t wouldn't have made a difference. They managed to break Johanna's serve more often than they did Heather's.
We need strength in depth. We don't have it. We have to rely on the at various times, hopes of the one big star pulling the group through, the Andy/Laura/Jo carrying the team. That's OK up to a certain level. The higher you go, the better the player on the other side, and you're going to be outmatched even with your number one.
And that ties back in to what CD brings up about a 'team' event. I agree in principle, but every team event has lesser players that just do a job, or sit on the bench, or in the reserves, or plays only the Carling (or whatever it is now) cup, etc. Sport is an arena of star performances; for better or worse. Ensuring strength in depth just ensures that the richest nations win everything, probably America. If your superstar is good enough to play three gruelling matches across the tie and best all their opposition, well, that's fine with me.
If we had more good players, we could have filled in the second singles or the doubles and stood more of a chance, utilising all the player from the squad. But we don't. That's not Judy's fault previously, or Anne's now. Could they get more out of what we DO have? That's more relevant, and more arguable.
The real problem is supply and competition for places. Happily, this looks like taking an upswing, with Gabi & Katie Boulter making definite cases for inclusion on merit, and a few others seeming hopeful to also feature in the conversation in the near-to-medium future.
Of course, as they rise, perhaps Jo & Heather will wane, and we'll be left in the same overall position, just with different faces - as it wsa from Argentina to Japan with the disappearance of Laura, and Tara.
Strength in depth - but you need successive generations - or classes - of good juniors to make it the Hev/Laura generation, then the Boulter/Taylor, and one more. Again, all our peer nations manage this with pretty much regularity, but we always find excuses why GB is not, in fact, like, apparaently, any other nation when it comes to tennis, and comparisons are useless. We are so far behind it's laughable. We are getting better, glacially, but only with a supply of players can we expect to compete in these events as a 'team'. Otherwise, our captain could be Kirk and they still wouldn't have the winning strategy for our Kobayashi Maru.
[continues waffling for thousands of hours]

I think you guys have all been missing the point.

With 50% more Karaoke, i think we would have won this.

It's a pity we couldn't combine the singles form of Laura Robson in 2012/2013 with Jo Konta in 2018 because we would have had no problem in beating Japan. Whoever was playing doubles wouldn't have mattered. 

Lee wrote:

---

I went to Miki city to watch the match, I asked the forum for advice on things to take to this kind of event. Didn't get any replies, but we pretty much took all we needed with the exception of cushions. It would have been a nice idea to take cushions. Kato Mayu was the only player I saw from either team in the public area and she signed my ipad cover and we had a little chat. It was disappointing that we lost a close contest, but some consolation that she was playing in the winning doubles rubber.

---

 Good to hear you had a good time Lee; I have been to a couple of British Davis Cup ties over the years; v Finland at Bristol on grass (Bates and Castle playing doubles); v Zimbabwe at Crystal Palace indoors (Broad and Maclagan if I recall correctly); v France at Queens Club on grass (doubles again, Leconte and Forget for France); v Austria at Wimbledon on grass (singles this time, Andy Murray, Boggo, played for GB) . The indoor atmosphere is by far the best as the noise gets held in more and having seen doubles and singles, I tend to prefer the doubles matches in DC as they are often close and full of action. In terms of players mingling, I havent seen much of that at the ties I have been to either, in fact not at all to be honest.

Glad you got to see the Fed Cup doubles tie. Not sure if you are a Brit or Japanese, or a bit of both maybe, but looks like you enjoyed it.