Yes, like it, sliced backhand

Mind you, just to be clear, these are grades based on your own expectations? i.e. 'as expected' means as you expected, not what the player's ranking would lead one to expect or the general view of that player?

Ace Ventura wrote:

---

Really good idea SB, this sort of stuff is right up my street, ha.

I agree with many, but I'll probably hold off until Sunday and the end of the month to see if I'd have had anything different, or if a few slipped through who deserved referencing. Alicia Dudeney seems an obvious absentee, although she only had 3 matches.

---

 Sorry I'd forgotten Alice Dudeney!

I guess Jodie and Emily may well be in comparison with my expectation. I have never really rated either and think that both have been very lucky with all the support which they've received. Both have seemed to do pretty well in these events hence my gradings. It's also difficult to think back over five or six weeks rather than concentrating more on the current week.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

sliced backhand wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Yes, like it, sliced backhand

Mind you, just to be clear, these are grades based on your own expectations? i.e. 'as expected' means as you expected, not what the player's ranking would lead one to expect or the general view of that player?

---

 Good question CD. Not sure of the answer though! I guess it's meant to be a general view but, as it's subjective, I guess my expectations certainly creep in!

 

---

 Yes, it's tricky.....

Because I'd put Amelia Stuart, for example, in the 'as expected' group, which makes it sound as though she played quite well whereas she was, in fact, really outclassed but then I'd expected her to be exactly that. As had others too, I'd imagine.

I'll try and come up with some sort of compilation...

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 30th of July 2020 06:27:22 PM

---

 Indeed, yes Amelia's results were as expected, and probably same for Kimberley. i certainly wouldn't put Daley in the E category, more of the D. I do not know anything about CVA (Anderson) or her game so unable to comment 

indiana wrote:

---

Poor souls, not long back and being graded.

---

 Lol, it's all good fun, sitting in our armchairs , grading the players . Experts we are

I'm an odds man, and while by no means conclusive, and you can get certain odds which you think look well out, and sometimes proves to be the case, I do generally think they are a good gauge in determining who should win a match, with them being set by an external source - I do personally kind of swear by them for most sports. So, if someone won a lot of matches where they were the clear pre match betting underdog, then that would have a lot of weight with me, likewise, if someone lost a lot of matches where they were the clear favourite, then I'd be more likely to consider them to have underperformed, even if they had racked up a lot of routine wins (which they were supposed to).

Tennis Explorer is a pretty good site as for a lot of matches they have the average pre match odds, so if we take Freya for example:

https://www.tennisexplorer.com/player/christie-39a3c/

For those not familiar with odds, (unfortunately it's in decimals so CD will be pleased...) 2.00 is evens, and you won't get 2 players in a 2 outcome (win-loss) match more than 2.00 because you could back both and be guaranteed to make a profit, so as a general rule, the player lower than 2.00 will be favourite, and the player above 2.00 will be the underdog, and the bigger that number, the more unlikely they are to win, and on the other side, the nearer the number is to 1.00 will determine how big a favourite they were. If it's generally considered a '50/50' match then both players will be around 1.85. I personally much prefer using fractions, which would be around 10/11.

So anyway, Freya, you can see she lost to Emily Arb twice as a favourite, and also to Sonay, both referenced by TA as being disappointing in the SGH thread, likewise she lost to Emily Ap a few weeks ago, but she has had a couple of good wins as the underdog, so I was thinking she had generally done OK, but this week and finishing 3rd/4th in that fairly favourable group is pretty disappointing, so 2 days ago I would have had at least C for her, but I might switch to D now simply because of this week. That's kind of generally how I'll be doing my 'assessments' come Sunday, ha.