Yes, but I guess it shows the importance of prioritising different matches and 'peaking'
In France, the top juniors like Mark did their programmes at the start of the year, and they colour-coded the events - sort of gold, silver, bronze
The Nationals would have been a gold. Aldershot would be a bronze.
The idea was that no one can play on an even keel the whole year, you can't 'give 110%' for each and every match. And the differences aren't that great. Rather, what matters is being able to nail the important ones. So identify the important ones in advance, and know that those are the key ones.
Yes, but I guess it shows the importance of prioritising different matches and 'peaking'
In France, the top juniors like Mark did their programmes at the start of the year, and they colour-coded the events - sort of gold, silver, bronze
The Nationals would have been a gold. Aldershot would be a bronze.
The idea was that no one can play on an even keel the whole year, you can't 'give 110%' for each and every match. And the differences aren't that great. Rather, what matters is being able to nail the important ones. So identify the important ones in advance, and know that those are the key ones.
Mark did that really well
Interesting - thanks CD. Does that mean that Mark ( or any player ) wouldnt have tried as hard in the match, effort wise. Or their prep would have been less intense going in? Or in some cases that players might effectively throw a less important match or event?
Taking this to adult Tour level, presumably the same process happens, which I guess we know, so we would see
more upsets in those events of top seeds going out earlier, which I think we do see.
No, it's not at all that he wouldn' have tried as hard
Or would throw a match
It could be something specific as in 'I'm going to try coming to the net in this match' i.e. put into match practice something that you need to work on but is not your best match-winning tactic at the moment
But more usually, it simply reflects that not all 100%s are the same - we're not machines - he will give 100% at Aldershot but it's not your do-or-die event and so it's not the same
No, it's not at all that he wouldn' have tried as hard Or would throw a match It could be something specific as in 'I'm going to try coming to the net in this match' i.e. put into match practice something that you need to work on but is not your best match-winning tactic at the moment But more usually, it simply reflects that not all 100%s are the same - we're not machines - he will give 100% at Aldershot but it's not your do-or-die event and so it's not the same
Got you, nuances we can't - of course - see from the scoreline alone!
Incredibly good result for Megan to beat Brooke 1,2.
It's not a suprise to me.
I think Meg is the most talented player I have seen at juniors.(I've seen Emma, Jodie, Katie, Harriet, Sonay etc) Meg's issue is consistency and maintaining the levels she plays at - most players struggle with this aspect of the game.
Was this not an important event for Mark as he was trying to make it in to the Main Draw of Roland Garros I presume?
-- Edited by Fuey2 on Wednesday 23rd of April 2025 04:50:28 PM
That was my assumption too - reaching the final would probably have lifted him into the 40s and main draw entry. He and Brooke will both now have to play qualis, as the RG entry deadline is next Tuesday.
Boys QF
(6) Benjamin Gusic Wan d. Ferran Redza 6-1 6-2 (USA v USA) (5) Matisse Farzam (USA) d. Louis Hull 3-6 6-4 6-4 (2) Jack Secord (USA) d. Maximilian Carrier 6-1 6-3
SF
(6) Benjamin Gusic Wan v (3) Ronit Karki (USA) (5) Matisse Farzam (USA) v (2) Jack Secord (USA)
Girls QF
Megan Knight d. (1) Brooke Black 6-1 6-2 (Q) Ciara Moore d. Mia Wainwright 6-3 6-1 (8) Ruby Cooling d. Isabella Wong 6-3 6-1 (2) Daniela Piani d. Tegan Bush 6-4 7-6(6)
SF
Megan Knight v (Q) Ciara Moore (8) Ruby Cooling v (2) Daniela Piani