Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Week 11 - ITF ($15K) - Gonesse, France Clay


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 18097
Date:
Week 11 - ITF ($15K) - Gonesse, France Clay


Q1: ANANE, Soumeya (GBR) UNR v Bye

Q1: POPESCU, Anna (GBR) UNR v Bye

Q1: SONNEKUS-WILLIAMS, Olivia (GBR) UNR v Bye



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 18097
Date:

Q2: ANANE, Soumeya (GBR) UNR v CASTELEYN, Emily (BEL) UNR
Q2: POPESCU, Anna (GBR) UNR v TUTUNARU, Luminita (ROU) UNR 17yo JCH=931
Q2: SONNEKUS-WILLIAMS, Olivia (GBR) UNR v GLAUDE, Laure Line (BEL) UNR 16yo


__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 18097
Date:

Anna lost 1-6 4-6

According to the ITF live centre Olivia has changed her nationality to GER confused.gif



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Peter too wrote:

According to the ITF live centre Olivia has changed her nationality to GER confused.gif


Been like that since at least week 42 of 2017. I sent tham an email back then, but no action/reply - they're usually quite good at replying, too.

She's still listed as GB on any results pages on the ITF, and Olivia's player profile http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100289240

I'm presuming that it's just a translation error in the outsourcing to the people that developed and maintain the livescores app.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 18097
Date:

Q2: ANANE, Soumeya (GBR) UNR lost to CASTELEYN, Emily (BEL) UNR 6-7(6) 4-6
Q2: POPESCU, Anna (GBR) UNR lost to TUTUNARU, Luminita (ROU) UNR 1-6 4-6
Q2: SONNEKUS-WILLIAMS, Olivia (GBR) UNR lost to GLAUDE, Laure Line (BEL) UNR 7-6(4) 1-6 3-6

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 10669
Date:

Soumeya was 6-3 up in the tiebreaker

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

This is shaping up to be our worst week of the year so far.
We have inadvertently been very good so far this year at having a large proportion of even our less storied players winning at least one match in any given week, often against ranking or expectation.
This week, the reverse is true, and the QR1 losses her added to those in Israel and elsewhere mean those players left will have to all have exceptional weeks to balance things out by the end of their collective runs.
Even though we've had good success from the $25K group, they haven't had to achieve that to put us past a 1.000 wins to entries ratio becasue of all the unlikely early wins we've been having.
The little milestones from unfancied players lay the foundation for the more headline grabbing achievements in this respect.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40893
Date:

Well maybe "worst" on one measure but certainly not the first one I'd look to for a good week. Let's see what our MD entrants do once they get going.

Good to get wins per entry and I hope to see all our players progress, but it's mainly MD success that it's about and the higher level the better.



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

I disagree, I think you need both. Sure, it's no good having a dozen players all reach QR2, - ratio = 1.000 whoop-dedoo! - and that be the end of things.
But, if you only have high end achievement, people tend to look on from afar and think, "'that' player is good, good for them", without more actively considering that they could do the same, or even try. But when you see more ordinary, relatable achievement, and an overall groundswell of continued success, people want to be a part of that, you build a critical mass.
That little aggregation of small parts is good for the sport, and ultimately leads to the big MD successes somewhere down (no, up) the pyramid.
It's trickle-up tennis-nomics!

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7055
Date:

You make me nostalgic for the days when we used to have 10/15k tournaments in the UK. Them were the days when whole flocks of players could get to that Q1 starting line... For any trickle up process to work it needs that groundswell of participation - and incentive - at the base!

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40893
Date:

While accepting the importance of all players and a base ( as I said I hope to see all players progress ), my point was really considering ordering good and bad weeks by a straight unweighted* average of wins over entries.

Personally if we in the last couple of weeks had had a similar or even more early losses such that they overrode the 25K girls win vs entry success rate I still couldn't have considered these weeks anything other than good, indeed very good. Any stat that was trying to tell me otherwise would simply not be tieing in with how I look at it and I suspect many others would look at it.

So points taken but not to the extent of turning good MD weeks into overall poor weeks or this week already being declared as shaping up as the worst week of the year without the MD girls hitting a ball yet.

I just personally can't use a basis that weights Gabi's 25K final victory the same as a QR1 15K win in an overall ordering of weeks.

The wins vs entries is what is, that particular measure, not at all uninteresting and some guide to the week but to be used to virtually headline what is a good, bad or worst week, not for me. That is essentially our disagreement or at least different outlook. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. 

The last 2 weeks were to me very good, this week might be too if the MD girls have big successes. Certainly even better with success lower down ( and I take the points as to why we certainly need that base and we have in the forum talked much about the lack of home GB opportunities ) but I just don't agree on degree in the overall look at the week in declaring good and bad weeks.

I would also say that while people in general and potential young players may not be able to connect as much with Gabi as a 15K QR1 player, the inspiration given to many will be much more than some player's QR1 win, even maybe for those who know that player. That is important too and reason why success in MD 15K, 25K level and above, particularly big runs and titles, is very good.

* not that I am asking you or anyone else to come up with some sort of weighted formula. I believe we can often tell a really good week for GB women's tennis anyway without figures, like these last 2 weeks.



__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2442
Date:

I think it's problematic at qR1 level to take the P/W/L stats and conclude that W=good, L=bad; P also = good.

Say in one week you have 20 matches played, and 3 wins = 15%.

Next week, 4 matches played, and 1 win = 25%.

For me, week 1 is far better.

And even if you made the number of wins the same, so say P20/W3/L17 versus P4/W3/L1 (15% v 75%), there's still an argument that week 1 is better for the outlook of the sport over the longer term.

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Not about matches played though. Wins per entry, per active player. An individual player can't play three, lose two in a normal week (Only in non-normal weeks: e.g. as a LL, Zhuhai RR, FED Cup etc.)
The rough guide I like as a facet of overall performance is: how close to 1 win are we for every active player in a given week.
If 1, our players are winning & losing matches ; if far below 1, we are losing matches more often; if far above 1, we are winning matches more often.

It's very hard to get much above 1.000 unless both players at the bottom end are winning some matches AND other players are having deep runs, because many of our players do lose in QR1 at $15K week in, week out.
That deficit needs to be made up by multi-win (QF, SF+) weeks. Depending on the number of entries, you'll need more good runs to cover the greater # of early exits.

That is why we suffer in weeks with a GB event: a lot of players get an outing, but struggle to win any matches, and as most players in a certain range will come to the GB event if there is one, rather than spreading out to other similar level events where they could also win matches, they end up, to some extent, taking each other out at the home event. Yes, we're guaranteed a win from an all-GB tie, but we can't get two. Which we might be capable of if those players (particularly our better players) were in two separate continental events.
So, there aren't enough players left after we whittle ourselves down, for all of them to 'go deep' in the week, and balance out the original losses in QR1, or by R32 WC.

Clearly, the week last year when Johanna won Miami was a good week, even though nobody else did a thing, and our ratio was awful. There are two measures in action there, the good from the individual high-profile fabulousness, these are the easy to see bright shiny bauble achievements.
But there's also the, "You know what, everybody this week outperformed at their own individual level, and actually, this keeps happening" sort of week, that very gets washed out, or dazzled away by the bright shiny baubles.
Last week was a combination of both, alongside the fabulousness of Gabi's title, Harriet, Katy & Laura , there were a lot of performances that exceeded any realistic expectation by those individual players at the bottom end of the scale - where winning a QR1 is a big deal, or gaining your first point and so on.
I like to try to speak to that side of things, because I like the small, almost human-interest, stories, as well as the categorically quality tennis player plays good, better, great, tennis debates.

But, OK. I'll keep my general nonsense to myself - meaning in the nonsense thread - rather than filling out Event threads, like this. Event comments in event threads. Not a hard parmesan rule; definitely not a brie, a semi-hard Edam sort of a rule.
Hungry now.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

R16: Anane/Losciale (GBR/ITA) UNR lost to Kimmelmann/Kommer (GER/GER) 2057 3-6 0-6
R16: Popescu/Yudanov (GBR/SWE) [4] 1742 lost to Mattel/Tutunaru (FRA/ROU) UNR 6-7(9) 3-6

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard