Harriet back out today with a very solid straight sets win in the doubles. She and Heather made the final last year.

Fran takes the first set 7-6(3) against Caroline Dolehide WR 58.

She saved 10/10 BPs during the set including 5 SPs at *5-6 ( had 2 unconverted BPs herself ).

seagull wrote:

---

Only Fran I would say has little chance.

---

 But she has battled to a set up, so some chance at moment!

Today's results

R1:- Emma Raducanu (GBR) WR209 [WC] def Ena Shibahara (JPN) WR274 [Q] 6-1 6-4
R1:- Francesca Jones (GBR) WR249 [WC] def Caroline Dolehide (USA) WR58 [6] 7-6(3) 6-3

*****

L16:- Heather Watson (GBR) WR158 [WC] v Karolina Pliscova (CZE) WR50 (CH=1 in 2017) [8]

L16:- Katie Boulter (GBR) WR30 [3] v Rebecca Marino (CAN) WR161 [Q]

L16:- Francesca Jones (GBR) WR249 [WC] v Ashlyn Krueger (USA) WR70
L16:- Emma Raducanu (GBR) WR209 [WC] v Daria Snigur WR127

Such a great performance from Fran, delighted for her. Hoping very much for a pain free grass court season.

dodrade wrote:

---

Nix wrote:

---

Shhh wrote:

---

emmsie69 wrote:

---

I don't see an issue with how she spoke to the umpire. She's not swearing or unduly aggressive, just making her point that the ball was not just out but clearly out. I find it very strange (misogynistic) that Dan gets a pass when he does swear but Harriet doesn't.

---

 You are 100% correct imo emmsie, it comes over as a bit of a "Karen" moment though.  The men smashing rackets or swearing is seen as something that needs to be controlled.  In the case of Murray cussing away at anyone in his box, the general thought it is just a detriment to himself and his game.

What Harriet displayed yesterday seems more spoilt, entitled, brattish even.  The ball was miles out, an awful, awful call imo but had she smashed a racket and given the umpire a 10 second death stare I doubt the media would judge her as hard as they are now.

---

 In with Emmsie here. Even the term brattish is something more used for women than men and Karen as a term is horribly misogynistic. its now used every time a woman gets angry even when justified. The umpire was wrong to overrule, it was a terrible mistake. I dont blame her for letting off steam and I dont see how her arguing with the umprie on this occasion is any worse than Ive seen men regularly argue for similar situations, including Dan and Andy and isnt worthy of special articles, otherwise there would be one every day.

Last years outburst at Katie was much worse in my view.

There is a separate argument as to whether it negatively impacts her game to get riled and I guess only her and her coach can decide that between them. 

 

---

 

Wasn't John McEnroe the original "superbrat"?

---

 Ive just watched it for the first time and I loved it.
Not only was Harriet within her rights to question the call but I dont think she overstepped the mark with what she said or how she said it,

I think Tennis would be boring if everyone was too well-behaved and I like her personality ( she shows she cares).

I also watched the discussion with the umpire at the change of ends as well as the discussion with the referee and I dont think she should have been threatened with a code violation.

I have a lot of fun watching a player called Yulia putinsevia who quite frankly is MAD but I dont think Harriet goes anywhere near Yulias craziness,

I do think Harriet could be in a spot of hot water though by saying she would bet £50,000 that the ball was out. ( tennis players are not allowed to bet on tennis).

-- Edited by Deucebag on Tuesday 11th of June 2024 06:20:33 PM

Well done fran