Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Hard

ROSAMUND · Futures level

RE: Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Hard

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Ace Ventura wrote:
I think you generally have to consider it a success. Much like Andy on the men's side (bar that Kyle run 2 years ago), if Jo goes out early, then it's largely just a matter of when singles interest ends, and given she hadn't won since the US Open, and barely played either, I doubt many had high hopes for her going into this. For us to get 4 in the main draw of an external slam is decent, and I think 3 of them did better than they'd be expected to. Harriet came through quals (unseeded) and won a main draw match, which is great for her. Watson won a 50/50 against a higher ranked player, and Katie had *4-5 and *5-6 in her match, and while Svitolina ultimately was generally comfortable and (understandably) the better player, it wasn't as if she got an early break both sets and simply held - I bet she'd be feeling pretty anxious towards the end of both sets, which is a credit to Katie.

It's a shame British singles interest is over after day 4, and while certainly not revolutionary, most can hold their head high, and it's always the danger when you have one legit strong player, because it is a case of eggs in baskets.

I know there are some positives (if you look hard) but - overall - I honestly don't think you can count it as a success when there's only two R1 wins (and then two straightforward R2 losses).

I realise you're looking more on a relative basis, against realistic expectations. Which is a fair point.

But on an absolute basis, it's a disaster.

(And I'm not completely convinced about the relative argument either).

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
I view it as a success, Harriet has now come through qualifying 3 times in a row and her performance is iimproving each time she gets to the big stage, Katie got an unlucky draw but went toe to toe with Svitlona validating her place there on a PR, Heather performed well in the lead up, picking up where she left off at the end of last season and just had a bad day. I think subject to injuries we will have 4 players in top 100 (including KBs PR) for Wimbledon.

Katie will only be able to use a PR for either the French or Wimbledon, but not both, so hopefully she'll be able to have some dialogue with the Wimbledon WC selection comittee regarding the chances of a potential Wimbledon WC, and then choose which event to use her PR accordingly.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Ace Ventura wrote:
I think you generally have to consider it a success. Much like Andy on the men's side (bar that Kyle run 2 years ago), if Jo goes out early, then it's largely just a matter of when singles interest ends, and given she hadn't won since the US Open, and barely played either, I doubt many had high hopes for her going into this. For us to get 4 in the main draw of an external slam is decent, and I think 3 of them did better than they'd be expected to. Harriet came through quals (unseeded) and won a main draw match, which is great for her. Watson won a 50/50 against a higher ranked player, and Katie had *4-5 and *5-6 in her match, and while Svitolina ultimately was generally comfortable and (understandably) the better player, it wasn't as if she got an early break both sets and simply held - I bet she'd be feeling pretty anxious towards the end of both sets, which is a credit to Katie.

It's a shame British singles interest is over after day 4, and while certainly not revolutionary, most can hold their head high, and it's always the danger when you have one legit strong player, because it is a case of eggs in baskets.
I know there are some positives (if you look hard) but - overall - I honestly don't think you can count it as a success when there's only two R1 wins (and then two straightforward R2 losses).
I realise you're looking more on a relative basis, against realistic expectations. Which is a fair point.
But on an absolute basis, it's a disaster.
(And I'm not completely convinced about the relative argument either).

Agreed, we should view these things in terms of success for the state of GB tennis. On that basis, mens and womens singles were very disappointing.

When viewed at a personal level, some players such as Harriet, Heather, Katie can probably be pleased with their week, but I dont think we can judge it on that level, we have to view it in the round at a strategic level, where this is one of our poorest slam performances in recent memory overall

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Ace Ventura wrote:
I think you generally have to consider it a success. Much like Andy on the men's side (bar that Kyle run 2 years ago), if Jo goes out early, then it's largely just a matter of when singles interest ends, and given she hadn't won since the US Open, and barely played either, I doubt many had high hopes for her going into this. For us to get 4 in the main draw of an external slam is decent, and I think 3 of them did better than they'd be expected to. Harriet came through quals (unseeded) and won a main draw match, which is great for her. Watson won a 50/50 against a higher ranked player, and Katie had *4-5 and *5-6 in her match, and while Svitolina ultimately was generally comfortable and (understandably) the better player, it wasn't as if she got an early break both sets and simply held - I bet she'd be feeling pretty anxious towards the end of both sets, which is a credit to Katie.

It's a shame British singles interest is over after day 4, and while certainly not revolutionary, most can hold their head high, and it's always the danger when you have one legit strong player, because it is a case of eggs in baskets.
I know there are some positives (if you look hard) but - overall - I honestly don't think you can count it as a success when there's only two R1 wins (and then two straightforward R2 losses).
I realise you're looking more on a relative basis, against realistic expectations. Which is a fair point.
But on an absolute basis, it's a disaster.
(And I'm not completely convinced about the relative argument either).

I can certainly see where you're coming from, 2 solitary wins in one of the four primary events of the year, where general interest is going to be higher, isn't great, and it's obviously not going to capture the publics imagination and create a buzz, but it kind of is what it is (even though I don't like that term biggrin ). If you look at it this way, Harriet and Heather both made the last 64 of one of the events everyone wants to do well in, which is more than many others will be able to say, including far higher ranked player like Vondrousova, and of course Jo (which does spoil the picture), which is decent when you consider Heather is 28 this year and has never been ranked as high as 64 since Wimbledon 2016, and Harriet was 170 odd coming into this. To be honest, regarding Katie, I was just pleased she competed well, and I had initial fears that she may have been out of her depth in her comeback and received a fine like that Georgian girl using a PR against Sakkari at the FO last year, and that's obviouly not the case, and she did far better than I thought, even if there was nothing concrete to show for it.

I've been banging on about this for ages, and I'd love a thriving British landscape with 4 or 5 legit top 100 players, all clearly going places, and a lot of excitement, and being a sport mad nation with 4 countries, a popn of 66m, and the host of the most famous tennis tournament in the world, you'd like to think that was realistic, but at the moment that's a long way off, and the draw is so so important in these events. A couple of tougher assignments than Doi and the lesser Pliskova (which were both good wins), e.g. if they got Halep and Mertens respectively in R1 not R2, then it could easily have been 0 wins, which would have been totally grim.

indiana · Tennis legend

Ah but if Katie B had got somone other than Svitolina in R1 she might have won. As just might Heather and Harriet vs lower seeds in R2.

The odds are that you will not be due to meet the seed in your section until R2 and Heather and Harriet got perfectly respectable R1 wins. SO 2 wins was fair enough really.

But yes in the grand scheme of things it's not good but it is really just a reflection of where we are with our one solid top 100 player of recent years struggling.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 23rd of January 2020 10:19:55 PM

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Ah but if Katie B had got somone other than Svitolina in R1 she might have won. As just might Heather and Harriet vs lower seeds in R2.

But yes overall it's not good but it is really just a reflection of where we are with our one solid top 100 player of recent years struggling.

Yep, that's why the draw is so important, especially when its not 64 seeds and it really is a free for all in that first round, where 96 unseeded players could have draw a LL / local WC, a top seed, or pretty much anything in between.

indiana · Tennis legend

I edited my previous post, in particular pointing out that the odds were against meeting the seed in R1 ( 2 to 1, and indeed 2 of our 3 non seeds didn't meet their seed in R1 ).

It's generally bad enough without needing to hypothesise draw circumstances where it could have been worse! We got 2 decent wins.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

We're rubbish.
Whenever you ask why though, especially here, people just say we're rubbish and that's that. That weather, culture, resources, infrastructure, participation rates, culture and others are just bad and/or so completely different compared to otherwise analogous countries that we shouldn't really expect to ever compete. Which I find a baffling attitude, especially amongst fans, the supposed vanguard to champion the sport, but there you go.

Still, we're not the only ones with a disappointing AO 2020.
This from Matt Roberts, of The Tennis Podcast: Despite France being Fed Cup champions, there will be no French women in round three at the Australian Open for the first time since 1985.

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Status Quo wrote:
We're rubbish.
Whenever you ask why though, especially here, people just say we're rubbish and that's that. That weather, culture, resources, infrastructure, participation rates, culture and others are just bad and/or so completely different compared to otherwise analogous countries that we shouldn't really expect to ever compete. Which I find a baffling attitude, especially amongst fans, the supposed vanguard to champion the sport, but there you go.

Still, we're not the only ones with a disappointing AO 2020.
This from Matt Roberts, of The Tennis Podcast: Despite France being Fed Cup champions, there will be no French women in round three at the Australian Open for the first time since 1985.

France seems to have been relying on Mladenovic, Cornet and Garcia for the last 10 years and are still waiting for the likes of Parry and Burel to make the grade. The thing that worries me most at the moment is Jo's knee problem and whether it will force her into retirement before she wants to retire. Of course she only decided at the last minute to go to Australia and then finished up meeting 2 players who give her problems. Pity she didn't draw Sloane Stephens.

indiana · Tennis legend

To be fair, SQ, there have been many threads discussing such as the culture and participation rates and thoughts on how to change these. Indeed action from such as Borntowin with organising and putting on tournaments. Others attend such tournaments as the LTA deign to organise and support our players.

Otherwise we have no power to change things and pointing in the forum to the issues you list is simply pounting out how things are and what GB tennis needs to somehow deal with.

And it is going to require some major changes if the many more Brits in the upper echelons that such as Ace dreams of ever comes to pass ( like say the Italians overhauling their tournament structure ). For the foreseeable I am afraid it is many of these historic issues rather than our current players' performances that will prevent this.

Any change suggestions yourself?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

ROSAMUND wrote:
Status Quo wrote:
We're rubbish.
Whenever you ask why though, especially here, people just say we're rubbish and that's that. That weather, culture, resources, infrastructure, participation rates, culture and others are just bad and/or so completely different compared to otherwise analogous countries that we shouldn't really expect to ever compete. Which I find a baffling attitude, especially amongst fans, the supposed vanguard to champion the sport, but there you go.

Still, we're not the only ones with a disappointing AO 2020.
This from Matt Roberts, of The Tennis Podcast: Despite France being Fed Cup champions, there will be no French women in round three at the Australian Open for the first time since 1985.
France seems to have been relying on Mladenovic, Cornet and Garcia for the last 10 years and are still waiting for the likes of Parry and Burel to make the grade. The thing that worries me most at the moment is Jo's knee problem and whether it will force her into retirement before she wants to retire. Of course she only decided at the last minute to go to Australia and then finished up meeting 2 players who give her problems. Pity she didn't draw Sloane Stephens.

France have been having kittens about their women for ages now. Waiting for Parry and Burel is just part of the regular 'shifting the buck' to the next cohort. And they've been moving down the line each time the latest cohort fails to really make the grade. They made a big hoo-hah about Oceane Dodin, and Fiona Ferro, for instance, as the new stars (who are a good 5 years older) but neither has really lived up to expectations (so far).

So they have a nice depth - about 22 female players in the top 500, at last count. But not really any new 'stars' as such.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
To be fair, SQ, there have been many threads discussing such as the culture and participation rates and thoughts on how to change these. Indeed action from such as Borntowin with organising and putting on tournaments. Others attend such tournaments as the LTA deign to organise and support our players.

Otherwise we have no power to change things and pointing in the forum to the issues you list is simply pounting out how things are and what GB tennis needs to somehow deal with.

And it is going to require some major changes if the many more Brits in the upper echelons that such such as Ace dreams of ever comes to pass ( like say the Italians overhauling their tournament structure ). For the foreseeable I am afraid it is many of these historic issues rather than our current players' performances that will prevent this.

Any change suggestions yourself?

You see, I really don't think there have. Such threads tend to follow the format of something like: what is the LTA doing, will it work and what would you do differently

They join the discussion at best part way through. ignoring the entire journey to how we got here. It's interesting idle speculation, and as you point out, we have no power to change anything, but that doesn't prohibit being able to diagnose the situation.

I always come back to, why are we, for decades now, so massively behind our peers and what can we do to improve. German tennis was nothing once upon a time, then came Steffi & Boris, and they've maintained quality ever since, in mens and womens ternis. Similarly the Swiss had a few players, from a very small population, then HIngis, Federer and in their wake they have produced male & female players consistently for a decade and more, well above a pound-for-pound country weighting. Other countries, similar things.

We have had the example of Henman, Rusedski and especially Sir Andy and our needle has largely stayed static. As it has for decades.

The thing is though, we actually have a pretty fantastic group of women at the moment. Hard working, disciplined, focused, driven players with excellent commitment and eager to learn and put in the hard yards. They take care of themselves, are very professional and make sacrifices. That has not always been the case in some of our generations - sure the players took it seriously and wanted to give of their best at all times, but some were not as committed, or as able to be as committed (with life and the requirements to pay the bills etc getting in the way of otherwise promising careers) as our current crop of hopefuls.

And yet, these excellent role-models are still almost uniformly struggling to make their breakthroughs to the sort of level where the British public would pay any sort of attention. They don't work any less hard than their peers from other countries, they sacrifice, and slog as much, are uniformly in excellent shape and eager to practise and learn/ They are also generally pretty smart and well rounded too, as well as constantly showing a genuine hunger and desire to maximise their potential and succeed. They work on everything assiduously, and don't shirk, leave no stone un-turned.

Yet they are still surpassed by players that some of them even easily outshone as juniors. Often bafflingly easily fairly average players saunter in to the top 70-100 for a few years, and I can't see how they always seem to and our good young professionals scarcely ever do.

I am frustrated & baffled by this. These players seem to do enough, and have enough natural talent to be at least able to match those players, but we fall short somehow. What is the missing ingredient(s). These players have applied themselves sufficiently to circumvent the shortcomings of our weather, culture, resources or other factors. I want their professionalism and commitment rewarded.

So I ask the question because I don't have answers.

I can't accept that we're just different though and shouldn't expect more; it's always been thus, and always will be.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

I dont know if it is an answer but isnt the root of the problem that in Britain we dont get the top young athletes of the generation EVER getting into tennis and making it their sport to try and shine in, possibly bar one, Andy.

By top athlete I mean physically and mentally, with the strength and aptitude to really succeed. We have barriers in so many ways that we can all list. Tennis way down the list of sports in the Uk that a young person will take up, football clearly dominates attention and that now goes for women as well as men playing to a high level; but we have a whole list of other sports where they appeal more to a young person for a variety of reasons. Getting into the game is hard, with he way clubs are structured and operate, there are cultural barriers, the cost of playing competitively as a junior, the time it takes, the cost of getting onto the circuit. And so many decent athletes must get put off at so many stages of that process and go to other sports that appeal more, are cheaper, are trendier, are more accommodating. For some reason, I dont think that set of barriers exists in the same way in other countries. Just look at Spain, Germany, Australia and the players seem tougher, harder , stronger, less likely to break down under pressure, fighting for every opportunity along the way.

The guys and girls we have in each of our top 10's I am sure do the best they can, work hard and try hard and deserve plaudits but are they really the ones who should be in the top 10 in our country? Most of the ones who should be in our top 10 are playing football, netball, rugby or some other sport, athletics for example. Surely what we really need is to start with how tennis is structured in the country, accept it is what it is and be happy with that, or determine that the whole system needs to change from the ground up, at the level which we attract players, at the clubs and who should they be for, at the cost of the process for young players and how we manage and nurture them. There is no golden bullet but the answer surely starts at the start and works up from there.

Can it be changed, surely it can - it needs a strong person or people at the top with a real desire to create something new. Paradigm shift or a new paradigm - changing things that are in place is always so much harder, people have interests (rightly so) and wont change - a complete disintegration of the current and building from the bottom up is what is needed, surely. And then maybe in 20 years time we will see the change really happen.

Who that person is (I have just been watching Season 1 of Messiah on Netflix, someone like Al Masih would be a big help!) I suspect we dont have a clue yet as they probably arent even in the game. Whether Andy has the willingness to finish and get into administration, probably not, but guys like him, Dan even (cos he is different and his history could even make him cool) should be brought into the fold at the right time and mercilessly sold to the public. Paul Jubb could be a figurehead for a future generation, players who are different to those who have gone before in some distinctive way (manner, attitude, background, upbringing, colour, whatever). But it needs someone at the top to tear down the current structure and start again and be willing to make enemies along the way. Money will be the thing that talks and money will be the thing that delivers and I suspect the answer will be someone with passion who has never been in tennis before and who has the outside drive and successful history in sport or business, or both, to push through and make a difference. I am 54 now so hope I get to see it happen and come to bear fruit!

Andy Parker · Strong Club Player

Maybe the situation isn't as dire as some on here think. For a start it is worth pointing out that even if our population seems a lot, there are over 7 billion or 7 thousand million people in the world, so the fact is that we are only a medium size nation, and there are lots of other nations are into tennis, want to do well and have lots of players.

The second thing is specifics - as lots of others have pointed out, leaving Jo Ko aside, our players had tough draws - Svitolina, Halep and to a lesser extent Mertens, are three of the strongest players in the world, so the fact that Katie B, Harriet and Heather went out to them does not make them failures, in any sensible analysis of where our players are currently ranked and what you would have expected to have happened.

Everyone is right to say that Katie B got a lot more games than most of us predicted against Svitolina, and that she played well. She is gradually getting back from injury and this looks like a good pointer to me that she will make it back in to the top 100 at some point in the not too distant future; I think that if she can stay injury free (and it is a big if I know) that she could have a massively successful career in the future.

It is also lovely to see Heather playing well, not just here, but having good early season form elsewhere on the circuit, and Heather looks to be fitter and playing better than I have seen her do for years. Harriet also qualified with three wins and had a first round win against Doi, who is no bad player - again, Harriet looks to be picking up her form and hopefully can push on to make the top 100, though like others say, getting her serve improved is vital to her progress.

Then add in Katie Swan, who looks to need to deal with some deep seated psychological issues, but if she can get through those, then she is a fantastic talent who could easily be a top 100 player. It is early days but Emma Raducanu looks a good prospect and Jodie Burrage is progressing reasonably well, so all in all I still believe things will be better in a couple of years.

As for the lengthy debate on Fed Cup selections, Eden Silva looked fantastic in the mixed doubles at Wimbledon this year, and if we are struggling to find any doubles players, both she and Katie Swan would for me be decent choices, though neither are that experienced at doubles.

Maybe I've rose tinted specs, but I take more positives from the Aussie Open than negatives.