As has been quite often raised un the past, it's a pity that men's challenger winners get no ranking points unless and untill they actually qualify, unlike the women's 100K players do - ie 0/0/5 against the women's 1/4/6.

I know challenger qualifying fields are very variable so on occasions it would arguably be points for old rope. And also in the grand scheme of things actually one or two points wouldn't amount to anything of much significance for most players but at least there would be a feeling of getting something for often great wins.

Topemp wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

As has been quite often raised un the past, it's a pity that men's challenger winners get no ranking points unless and untill they actually qualify, unlike the women's 100K players do - ie 0/0/5 against the women's 1/4/6.

I know challenger qualifying fields are very variable so on occasions it would arguably be points for old rope. And also in the grand scheme of things actually one or two points wouldn't amount to anything of much significance for most players but at least there would be a feeling of getting something for often great wins.

---

 I agree with this, I reckon you should get a point or two for reaching final qualifying round and a few quid too. Would encourage stronger qualifying fields too.

---

 I agree with the first bit but not the the second as stronger fields would mean guys like Jack wouldnt win and therefore not get any points, plus its only really beneficial pointswise to those outside the top 300 anyway.

Topemp wrote:

---

Managed to get a visit to Qualies today.

The highlight for me was Jack Findel-Hawkins, I really liked his approach, he had a very solid game and didn't wait for points to fall in his lap due to opponent errors, always looking to force the issue, and fully deserved his epic win against a former top 50 player. Marchenko has reasonable record on grass and despite having been out a long time, I was dead impressed with the level of this game.
Less so, I'm sad to say with Johnathan Gray, felt on many occasions he was tentative and was relying on keeping the ball in and waiting for mistakes, so many chances to dominate a rally that he passed up. That said, it was a very close tie break and he showed some bottle to keep coming back from lost match points, and did have some points with his back to the wall where he really defended well. And well any 15-13 in the third set breaker against a higher ranked guy is worth something, so not too negative but a little.

Also thought Oscar Weightman only 16 and looks younger, hits a good ball, he looked to have much more to his game than his older opponent, though I fear Kamke may give him a lesson.

Lloyd looked very much second best and beaten from the minute he was broken and Neil P never really got going either. Brydan and Marcus was an entertaining game but BK was always in charge, and Josh Paris impressed albeit against a slightly below par Ed Corrie.

---

 Great update!!!! 

JFH for me is the next big prospect.  

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

QR2:  (q8) Tobias Simon WR 441 defeated Alexis Canter WR 1233 by 1 & 2

---

QR2:  (q1) Christopher Eubanks (USA) WR 194 defeated Jonathan Binding UNR by 2 & 2

---

QR2:  Ed Corrie WR 445 defeated Jonny Gray WR 586 by 2 & 4

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

QR2:  (q8) Tobias Simon WR 441 defeated Alexis Canter WR 1233 by 1 & 2

---

QR2:  (q1) Christopher Eubanks (USA) WR 194 defeated Jonathan Binding UNR by 2 & 2

---

QR2:  Ed Corrie WR 445 defeated Jonny Gray WR 586 by 2 & 4

---

QR2:  (q2) Tobias Kamke (GER) WR 223 defeated (qWC) Oscar Weightman UNR by 2 & 0

****

FQR:  (q2) Tobias Kamke (GER) WR 223 vs Ed Corrie WR 445

---

QR2:  (q3) Dominik Köpfer (GER) WR 237 defeated Mark Whitehouse WR 1325 by 7-6(2) 6-1

QR2:  (q4) Brayden Schnur (CAN) WR 240 defeated Brydan Klein WR 464 by 2-6 6-4 6-4

QR2:  Matt Reid (AUS) WR UNR defeated Jack Findel-Hawkins WR 845 by 6-7(0) 7-6(1) 7-6(6)