The draw should be out this evening for the Junior Billie Jean King Cup finals. The British team of Megan Knight, Hollie Smart and Edie Griffiths will be hoping to make the top two in their round robin group to progress to the quarter-finals. Top seeds are likely to be the USA with julieta Pareja and the Penickova twins Details of the 16 nations taking part can be found in this ITF article. Live scores/streaming will probably become available via the ITF Juniors page
Canada doesn't have a single player I know, Australia is middling at best, France (with Efremova) and GB must be the two favourites (with France #1 and GB #2, probably)
We've avoided the US, and Czechia, who are two strong teams. Brazil has one very good player. Austria is a strongish team too. And Romania are very solid.
Hollie recovered from 3-5 to 5-5 but ended up losing 6-2 7-5 so the doubles will decide. Given that France won their two singles against Canada for the loss of just 4 games, this doubles looks key to GBR progress to the quarter-finals
I don't really approve of captains only playing two players
Nearly all the other used all three players - to me that's what team tennis is about, win or lose, it's for their development
But at least, I guess, if you play the same two, at least have them win
Which Hollie and Meg did.
So, hopefully, as above, that means that GB will come at least (and probably no better than) second
Which will do fine
If the Junior BJK Cup is for development then OK play all 3. But I had rather thought of it as a prestigious competition that teams very much wanted to win. If so, play whoever you are allowed to play and think will most likely produce the best overall outcome. If that's the same 2 players in this tie, even in all a team's ties, to me absolutely fair dos. Maybe these other teams simply judged that their best chances involved playing 3 based on say doubles abilities and / or spreading the load in the opening tie and overall?
And most of the teams who played three wasn't because it was their best chane of winning, IMO, but because they were already 2-0 up
Which I admit is quite different
But Britain has always seemed particulalry 'bad' in this respect - and they don't seem to win any big titles because of it - so I'm not quite convinced although, if the trainers are getting bonuses/kudos etc based on results, then of course they're going to do all they can to get the win, I see that.
Ha, of course the 2-0 scenario. It was late, I forgot about that. I am pretty sure GB will also have at times played a 3rd player in a team competition purely because it was 2-0.
So you are now questioning it tactically, ie. "they don't seem to win any big titles because of it" rather than what I had just picked up as - oh, they are a team, they should give everyone a go. Now, if non rotation has indeed caused issues to actually winning / qualifying overall in the week, of course fair enough, though presumably importantly they selected in a way that they thought gave the best overall chance for GB.
Anyway I sense that you are clutching with your "always seemed ..."
But just in case you might arguably have something there ( even with full scale analysis it would still require some judgement as to the true cause of any defeat ), I am prepared to give you a generous 5. So 95-5