Wimbledon Qualifying, Roehampton

Etienne · Club Coach

Wimbledon Qualifying, Roehampton

Peter too · Tennis legend

Q1: CHRISTIE, Freya (GBR) WC 588 lost to ZIDANSEK , Tamara (SLO)1 96 3-6 3-6
Q1: FISCHER, Holly (GBR) WC UNR lost to DULGHERU, Alexandra (ROU) 16 126 0-6 1-6
Q1: JONES, Francesca (GBR) WC 547 lost to GIBBS, Nicole (USA) 5 111 4-6 2-6
Q1: LUMSDEN, Maia (GBR) WC 408 lost to RAINA, Ankita (IND) 213 2-6 1-6
Q1: MURRAY, Samantha (GBR) WC 501 lost to DIATCHENKO , Vitalia (RUS) 21 132 1-6 1-6
Q1: MOORE, Tara (GBR) WC 394 lost to BARA, Irina (ROM) 155 4-6 2-6
Q1: RADUCANU, Emma (GBR) WC 873 lost to STEFKOVA, Barbora (CZE) 715 4-6 7-5 2-6

indiana · Tennis legend

Etienne wrote:
Apart from Emma Raducanu, the remaining six women won 24 games between them (4 per match for those without calculators). So it doesn't suggest that anyone would have done any better. Possibly the fact that the players who would normally have been going for the qWC have all done enough to earn MDWC is the main reason for such poor results.

Not great, but yes in general that's much to do with it. There is a big gap after our top 8 ranked. Though clearly ( for most folk ) Holly shouldn't have been anywhere near here.

Etienne · Club Coach

Yeah, I think Holly is of similar talent to Emma and Fran, but she's barely played. If she had been playing, then I wouldn't have minded, given no obvious alternative contender.

cakj1234 · Lower Club Player

What a disappointing day all round the country. Good luck K Boulter. Well done Jo

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Etienne wrote:
Apart from Emma Raducanu, the remaining six women won 24 games between them (4 per match for those without calculators). So it doesn't suggest that anyone would have done any better. Possibly the fact that the players who would normally have been going for the qWC have all done enough to earn MDWC is the main reason for such poor results.

This is very true I was thinking the same. Because of the progress of the 5 women that moved into the top 200 or thereabouts it kind of leaves the ones that are doubtful to get there behind. Freya and Maia both were of equal talent as the 5 but its just not happened for them so far.

jb288 · Satellite level

Emma and Fran both played brilliantly. Tara could have won and was playing ok. The others were struggling to keep the ball in play from what I saw.

Fran's score really flattered Gibbs; almost every rally was long and intense and Fran pushed her hard. She was a break up in the first, and was broken with a double foot fault in the second, which felt harsh.

Both Fran and Emma will doubtless win many more matches here in the future. Unlike the older women, they had no problems sustaining long rallies from the baseline without netting/overhitting. Very promising talents both, and a pleasure to watch.

DavidC · Tennis legend

Etienne wrote:
Apart from Emma Raducanu, the remaining six women won 24 games between them (4 per match for those without calculators). So it doesn't suggest that anyone would have done any better. Possibly the fact that the players who would normally have been going for the qWC have all done enough to earn MDWC is the main reason for such poor results.

I'm sure that is a factor, plus the 96 player draw and ranking gaps being accentuated with serve being less of a weapon than in the men's game. We have often had years with several crushing defeats, though usually someone is able to claim a win. Even last year when we had lots of players with healthier rankings, who were able to compete more closely, only Katy got a win - in case it is of any interest to anyone else, here was the draw/rankings taken from Steven's post

(2017 draws)

QR1: (wc) Gabriella Taylor WR 283 v (q2) Alison van Uytvanck (BEL) WR 98 (CH 41 in 2015)
QR1: (wc) Katy Dunne WR 286 v Ivana Jorovic (SRB) WR 182 (CH 134 last Oct)
QR1: (wc) Eden Silva WR 594 v (q15) Jasmine Paolini (ITA) WR 132 (CH 130 last week)
QR1: (wc) Harriet Dart WR 277 v Cagla Buyukakcay (TUR) WR 175 (CH 60 in 2016)
QR1: Tara Moore WR 216 v Irina Falconi (USA) WR 246 (CH 63 in 2016)
QR1: (wc) Katie Swan WR 358 v Nigina Abduraimova (UZB) WR 225 (CH 144 in 2014)
QR1: (wc) Freya Christie WR 388 v Destanee Aiava (AUS) WR 170 (=CH)
QR1: (wc) Maia Lumsden WR 677 Barbora Krejcikova (CZE) WR 141 (CH 138 last week)

TheTraveller2 · Lower Club Player

DavidC wrote:
Etienne wrote:
Apart from Emma Raducanu, the remaining six women won 24 games between them (4 per match for those without calculators). So it doesn't suggest that anyone would have done any better. Possibly the fact that the players who would normally have been going for the qWC have all done enough to earn MDWC is the main reason for such poor results.
I'm sure that is a factor, plus the 96 player draw and ranking gaps being accentuated with serve being less of a weapon than in the men's game. We have often had years with several crushing defeats, though usually someone is able to claim a win. Even last year when we had lots of players with healthier rankings, who were able to compete more closely, only Katy got a win - in case it is of any interest to anyone else, here was the draw/rankings taken from Steven's post
(2017 draws)
QR1: (wc) Gabriella Taylor WR 283 v (q2) Alison van Uytvanck (BEL) WR 98 (CH 41 in 2015)
QR1: (wc) Katy Dunne WR 286 v Ivana Jorovic (SRB) WR 182 (CH 134 last Oct)
QR1: (wc) Eden Silva WR 594 v (q15) Jasmine Paolini (ITA) WR 132 (CH 130 last week)
QR1: (wc) Harriet Dart WR 277 v Cagla Buyukakcay (TUR) WR 175 (CH 60 in 2016)
QR1: Tara Moore WR 216 v Irina Falconi (USA) WR 246 (CH 63 in 2016)
QR1: (wc) Katie Swan WR 358 v Nigina Abduraimova (UZB) WR 225 (CH 144 in 2014)
QR1: (wc) Freya Christie WR 388 v Destanee Aiava (AUS) WR 170 (=CH)
QR1: (wc) Maia Lumsden WR 677 Barbora Krejcikova (CZE) WR 141 (CH 138 last week)

Interesting looking at the rankings of these players this time last year and who has improved the most and dropped the most in a year.

the addict · Tennis legend

Doubles Qualifying - our sole representatives (should have been at least two more doubles pairs with MDWC or QWC, but that's for disucssion in the Wildcard thread)

QR1 G. Garcia Perez SPA / F. Stollar HUN [4] 196 (115+81) v Sarah Beth Grey GBR / Olivia Nicholls GBR 484 (223+261)
Third match on Wednesday, Court 16,

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

So I went down to Roehampton today and, for those interested, here's my take on things, the good, the bad and the ugly.

I agree basically with Simon and JB.

Fran and Emma both had very good days, really performed and took on both the ball and the occasion.

Fran has spent good time in the gym - seemingly she is known for being the player who pushes herself the most, doing the most intense workouts, and it shows: she's strong, fit and very aggressive. She could well have forced a tb in the first set if it weren't for a couple of ill-advised drop shots (drop shotting Gibbs who is a little nippy player with decent touch is not a good idea). And, as said before, a fair score for set two would be 6-4, it was close. How any linesperson can call a double footfault, on BP, in a really important game, AND when the second one most certainly wasn't - I was watching, right on the line - is beyond me and Fran was shaken - however, that is experience, I guess, and she should be pleased.

Emma too played a super game, right up there. She had cramp in her calf in the third, as well as getting shoulder massages (someone mentioned tendonitis), and was never going to have the strength to get a win in the third, which is not a criticism, she's got a good physique but she's only 15.

Neither girl can volley well - which is something Fran in particular should work on - with her style of game she gets 'easy' net points to finish a point, and has the speed to get there, but it's not part of her schema of play yet.

But, in short, two very good matches and good wildcards.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Both Freya and Tara put out very honest, decent performances, in my opinion.

Freya served well and aggressively, the score was fair, there was some good tennis on that court, and although she wasn't ever going to win, it was a really tough draw and it's the best I've seen her for a while.

Tara also was competitive and not far off the level - as said, a decent performance, she can hold her head up although she would have liked better.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Maia was really disappointing.

Although she's never been a little fave, when she's on song, she's got a bouncy, difficult to beat style of tennis, that mixes things up and causes problems.

But, as David said, she was playing someone who's had a hideous run on grass so far this year, she couldn't have asked for a kinder draw.

I honestly don't know why she was given a wildcard - she's a long way off the 250 mark, is 20 years-old and - importantly - has done zero grass court practice. And it showed - she was flat-footed, shanked a lot of balls, produced very little and was generally miles off.

Didn't really see Sam's match so can't comment.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

The big talking point though is Holly.

For anyone who doesn't know tennis (or maybe for those who do) you'd have though to call the Child Protection Authorities. From an outside view, it wasn't far short of child abuse. What the public saw was a skinny young girl, with her arm heavily bandaged, with a truly miserable look, getting thoroughly trounced, publicly, in front of 150 people.

My feeling was that either she was in pain (in which case don't play), or was fed up with tennis (in which case don't play) or - if she WAS happy and OK - then her level was MILES off (in which case, don't play).

Now, Holly supposedly is very reserved so maybe her 'face' is misleading, so to speak. Indeed, one tennis adult said she is very difficult to talk to, she won't make eye contact, won't talk to you. Now this might be normal for certain teenage lads but for a pretty, sporty, successful teenage girl, that strikes me as odd and worrying. (Added to which, apparently she has nothing to do with any of the GB players, either face to face or on social media, she's cut herself off completely).

And it wasn't just her face but her demeanor. Two old ladies next to me said 'well, you'd think she'd at least try a bit more'. And you knew what they meant - it was like she was going through the motions.

Re her arm, it's very heavily strapped from forearm up to bicep. A European physio person said, while watching her, that she seemed to have hypermobile joints. If that's true, she has a heap of problems ahead But the physio woman only said it as possibility (something about how her shoulders turn inside out a bit when she serves) and may well be wrong.

She has certain technical quirks, though - mainly on her serve and her forehand. And they're not good quirks. Partly because of this, certain bods were critical of her US set-up (although maybe sour grapes?) regarding her coaching, playing plan etc. etc.

And again, it was another player who seemingly had done no grass court prep and it showed.

But, really, the question was why on earth did that girl get a wildcard, why did her parents/coach let her accept it, and why didn't the social services stop the match before the end and put her (and the rest of us) out of our misery.....

Jiwan · Club Coach

I was bouncing around several matches today and generally agree with what has been reported. Emma and Fran were way ahead of the rest of our girls today. I can't believe Emma is 15, she already looks and moves like an athlete beyond her years. A very exciting prospect. Fran reminds me of Louise Latimer /Naomi Cavaday, gutsy and powerful. Agreed with the comment about finishing points at the net.

Tara started badly with a double break down and then had a purple patch where she played INCREDIBLY. She had points to go 5-4 ahead on serve then caved in. Her opponent did scramble to get many shots back but when she did Tara would seem to try and kill the point rather than technically rebuild to win the point. As I often report on Tara, such a waste of talent / opportunity. She would have been playing Connie in the next round

Sam had a match she would want to forget ASAP. She didn't look fit / sharp enough which makes sense. Hopefully in time....