Peter too wrote:

---

R1: Dart, Harriett (GBR) (8) 100 lost to AVANESYAN, Elina ( ) 170 1-6 2-6

---

 Harriet is now the second highest ranked player never to have reached a WTA semi. FWIW, Katie B is 8th in the same list. 

GAMEOVER wrote:

---

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Peter too wrote:

---

R1: Dart, Harriett (GBR) (8) 100 lost to AVANESYAN, Elina ( ) 170 1-6 2-6

---

 Harriet is now the second highest ranked player never to have reached a WTA semi. FWIW, Katie B is 8th in the same list. 

---

 To be fair the number of British women who have  reached the semi finals of a WTA tournament in the last 30 years is relatively few. After Jo  Durie  at Birmingham in 1992 it was another 15 years in 2007 with Anne Keothavong before another British player made a WTA semi final. Elena Baltacha never managed it. Laura Robson only managed it twice and Emma has only done it once(US Open). It's Jo and Heather who have made the semi finals or better on numerous occasions since 2012. If anyone is going to reach a semi final it will surely be at  Nottingham. 

---

 Agreed but the 100th ranked player should have ambitions to achieve that level I feel; it just highlights what she needs to do to justify the ranking. 

What ? Ive always said Paul should play higher up and never excused his 15 k events . If I did my memory is going. I was with you on Paul and playing challengers all the way.

I never said Harriet wasnt putting herself out there , just commenting Id like to see her go deeper.

Im disappointed in you Emmsie as I thought we got on.

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Friday 8th of April 2022 07:43:16 AM

I'm pretty sure Harriet will be trying to get as far as she can in as many tournaments as she can. Why wouldn't she be targeting that? Unlikely though, that clay would be the surface for it but you never know how the draws will fall...
As well as that, Harriet still is targeting both ITF tournaments at the higher levels - the 60's/80's/100's etc and WTA draws, so not every tournament will will count on what is presumably a tennis abstract website criteria? (or has been doing both ITF and WTA until recently).

Same goes for Katie B, with added (documented) injury issues which makes it harder for her to get a sustainable level going at any level, never mind a WTA one. 

Harriet - and Katie - are decent players. Whilst it would be disappointing in their careers to never get to a WTA SF, it is hardly the end of the world; they've both been in the top 100 in the world and won several tournaments at the ITF level already. 

Also, even a slam QF wouldn't count because they aren't WTA/ATP but ITF (I think). I don't think whatever criteria (if it is tennis abstract) is the be all and end all. It's a lot more inclusive to look at their careers as a whole rather than being fixated on this specific thing (IMO).

 

-- Edited by flamingowings on Friday 8th of April 2022 08:30:30 AM

The invidious thing about tennis is the higher ranked player should generally win, and usually does. And when one is ranked 100+ in the world, one is likely more often than not to meet one or more higher ranked players on the route to a WTA semi final: so not reaching a semi final is actually what is to be expected. How often has Ms Dart been seeded in the top 4 seeds?

JonH comes home wrote:

---

flamingowings wrote:

---

I'm pretty sure Harriet will be trying to get as far as she can in as many tournaments as she can. Why wouldn't she be targeting that? Unlikely though, that clay would be the surface for it but you never know how the draws will fall...
As well as that, Harriet still is targeting both ITF tournaments at the higher levels - the 60's/80's/100's etc and WTA draws, so not every tournament will will count on what is presumably a tennis abstract website criteria? (or has been doing both ITF and WTA until recently).

Same goes for Katie B, with added (documented) injury issues which makes it harder for her to get a sustainable level going at any level, never mind a WTA one. 

Harriet - and Katie - are decent players. Whilst it would be disappointing in their careers to never get to a WTA SF, it is hardly the end of the world; they've both been in the top 100 in the world and won several tournaments at the ITF level already. 

Also, even a slam QF wouldn't count because they aren't WTA/ATP but ITF (I think). I don't think whatever criteria (if it is tennis abstract) is the be all and end all. It's a lot more inclusive to look at their careers as a whole rather than being fixated on this specific thing (IMO).

 

-- Edited by flamingowings on Friday 8th of April 2022 08:30:30 AM

---

 I really wasnt having a go at Harriet, as such, just commenting that it (reaching a WTA semi) makes her stand out and is something I believe she should aspire to.

And Katie for the same reason.

I like them both and think they have done well with their careers, on the whole, so am not having a go, honest, although it looks like Emmsie and folks think I am.

I am not - and want to make that clear. 

On the whole, I like to believe I am a nice and decent guy, so sorry for any upset I have caused here.   

---

 Yes, you are a lovely, kind and interesting poster. 

But I am pretty sure Harriet will be aspiring to get further and further into tournaments as she can; she probably wants to win one! Whilst we cannot know what exactly her goals are - unless one of us/the press ask her - I ask again, why wouldn't she be wanting to reach a QF/SF/F/W of as many events as she can?

Apologies to Jon, I was too harsh. There's been a noticeable difference in the tone of the comments towards Harriet and Dans respective results on clay and the comment about Harriets ambition was the straw.