Roland Garros Qualifying plus first round Brit Girl chat

There are three British Men (James Ward, Josh Goodall, Jamie Baker) and three British Women (Heather Watson, Laura Robson, Naomi Broady) in the Roland Garros Qualifying tournament. If they can win three matches they will have made it into the main tournament

To Conclude: Congratulations to Heather Watson for Qualifying (emphatically winning her final match 6-0 6-1).
Commiserations to Laura Robson, who was beaten by a higher ranked opponent in the final round 6-4 5-7 4-6.

British Women
Heather Watson Qualified
Laura Robson lost in final round
Naomi Broady lost in first round
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/draws/us/r3s1.html
British Women Stats and Progress: http://www.britishtennis.net/gbtop25f/2012wk21f.htm


British Men: No qualifiers
Jamie Baker lost in second round
James Ward lost in first round
Josh Goodall lost in first round
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/draws/qs/r2s2.html
[British Men Stats and Progress: http://www.britishtennis.net/gbtop25m/current.htm

Heather Watson is through r1. I really think she is the best prospect of all the British women, she's got great athleticism and a fighter's mentality.

Broady lost easily (as expected) against Sesil Karantancheva.

Robson is currently a set up against an in-form Spanish dirtballer. A match the bookies had her second favourite for.

Robson wins. Excellent points for first round winners in women's slams.

Plays Laura Thorpe (FRA) WR 233 in the second round. Heather Watson plays Ons Jabeur (TUN) WR 482. Sounds easy, but she was the French Open junior champ from last year, so should be a good challenge.

I would fancy them both to come through though.

Does anyone know approximately what kind of RG performance Watson and Robson require to enter the top 100 as they are both relatively close...

Heather is defending Q+R64 Points from last year which is a pretty whopping 160, so she'll almost certainly do it if she qualifies and reaches Round 3. (clearly a tough ask).

Laura is defending nothing, but is a little further behind so I would imagine qualifying alone won't be enough. She'll have to win one match in the main draw.

Tough second set for Laura Robson, but she won on a tie breaker to make it through to the second round. Shame Naomi couldn't have provided a little more resistance in her match, only managing to win one game.

Al Panorak - I have added links to a website that gives all the details regarding points dropped from last year, points awarded in the current week and the expected change in ranking. Qualifiers are good for picking up points (20 points per round), as long as they are not defending the points from last year (in which case they need to get the points to stay where they are).

The ATP and WTA points system seem to be one week out of date from last year.

The ranking points for grand slam qualifiers are 60 for qualifying, but the breakdown is 40 for winning R1 and then an extra 10 for R2 and R3 wins.

Don't really know why, but winning that first round is very valuable.

I couldn't remember from last year, so chose the logical points breakdown which turns out to be wrong.

Watson beats Jabeur 7-6 6-3 and will play Anna Floris for a place in the main draw.

Robson to play later this afternoon.

My view is that Heather and Laura should go through the Wimbledon qualifiers if they don't directly qualify for the tournament.

Unless they could enter another grass tournament, during that week, where it would be likely that they could gain the same nunber of points they could have won at the qualifiers.

I think at this stage in their development it would be unfair to believe they could do anything better than reach the second round of Wimbledon (proper).

I think it's better off having them in the main draw at Wimbledon.

I think for players like them, it's not really necessary to micromanage their ranking points because they have plenty of opportunities to get big chunks (100+) throughout the season given what their ranking will be compared to players around the 180-250 mark in the rankings.

I think Robson will be there by right, and with a couple more good wins this week, Watson too.

They're also the next two biggest draws in terms of British players behind Murray, so they're not going to make them qualify.

Robson wins 7-5 7-6. Tough one against Karolina Pliskova in the FQR, she's the girl who beat her in the 2010 AO Juniors final.

She'll probably have to play better.

Robson!!

Two out of six have made it to the final round of qualifying, and they just happen to be Britains brightest young prospects: Heather Watson and Laura Robson.

All the best to both.

I note that both Baltacha and Keothavong, lost in the first round of the Strasbourg tournament to opponents ranked below them, so not the ideal results for them psychologically wise heading into Roland Garros.

I see that 15year old Brit girl Harriet Dart has got herself a WTA ranking

I also see that 18 year old Oliver Golding (483) has suppassed 24 year old Chris Eaton (521) in terms of ranking.

Chris Eaton caused a stir in 2008 by getting to the second round at Wimbledon and giving Dmitry Tursunov a decent match.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029549/Rise-Britains-man--How-Chris-Eaton-drives-battered-Astra-earned-just-46-prize-money-year-shot-glory-Wimbledon.html

Ps to Djlovesyou and others? What sort of ranking does a player need to be (ATP or WTA) in order to make a "living" out of professional tennis. Travel, accommodation, coaching etc must be quite expensive. Hopefully the tournaments help to supplement accommodation costs(?), and hopefully the LTA also help out.

Anyone know what is happening with Liam Broady's tennis career?
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Br/L/Liam-Broady.aspx?t=rb

Nore Staat wrote:I see that 15year old Brit girl Harriet Dart has got herself a WTA ranking

I also see that 18 year old Oliver Golding (483) has suppassed 24 year old Chris Eaton (521) in terms of ranking.

Chris Eaton caused a stir in 2008 by getting to the second round at Wimbledon and giving Dmitry Tursunov a decent match.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029549/Rise-Britains-man--How-Chris-Eaton-drives-battered-Astra-earned-just-46-prize-money-year-shot-glory-Wimbledon.html

Eaton I thought would be in the Rusedski mould in terms of powerful serve and half a decent BH.

Wonder where it went wrong for him

I would say that you would need to be at least top 100 before you started seeing any return. Perhaps even closer to top 75 for a reasonable amount of time.

Eaton was a funny one, and it shows how fine the margins are between being a top 100 player and being a player that hovers around 300-500 in the rankings.

That Laura Robson seems to have stagnated. It must be the LTA effect!

The reverse Midas touch of the LTA has struck again! Robson, Delgado, Bogdanovich, Lee to name but a few were Golden Juniours only to be turned to scrap metal pros by the touch of the LTA!

As for suck ups like Jamie Baker he was always rubbish. relies very heavily on brown nosing his bosses for funding.

djlovesyou wrote:I would say that you would need to be at least top 100 before you started seeing any return. Perhaps even closer to top 75 for a reasonable amount of time. ...

That's a shame and a bit of a concern - I would have thought there was more money in the sport to sustain more players. Considering the number of people world-wide that make a living out of team sports (football, rugby etc), it suggests that tennis is a minority sport in terms of the number of professionals it is able to support.

It might help to explain why some players retire so early (e.g. Kate O'Brian ranked 84 in early 2010, Naomi Cavaday ranked 174 in 2010 ...), and why some players drift along in the 300-700 ranking band (maybe they are more part-time players than "professional" players, having to pay the bills through other commitments (coaching kids etc)).

Cavaday suffered badly from illness, both physical and certain psychological issues.

She was probably the most talented female player we've had in recent times (Robson and Watson aside nowadays.)

I think you can maintain a ranking of 300-700 by not having to travel too far. Once you want to make that push into the top 250 and beyond, you have to start going further afield and it becomes a constant struggle.

I know Katie couldn't really afford it and once she dropped out of the top 200, realised it would take too much to get herself back to where she was (if ever.) She'd done a business degree whilst she was playing and is now involved in coaching as well as still working at the sports shop in Roehamption.

Granted the LTA do provide some support, but it's not as much as people seem to think. (and as a player gets older, they have to get to a higher ranking or they're dropped.)

Don't know what you're on about regarding Robson Super D Boon. She's consistently been the highest ranked player of her age in the world over the last couple of years, a bit early to start nonsense like that. As for the Baker, brown nosing rubbish, do you have any idea what funding he recieves and what he did to get it? Was that just made up?

Super D Boon wrote:That Laura Robson seems to have stagnated. It must be the LTA effect!

The reverse Midas touch of the LTA has struck again! Robson, Delgado, Bogdanovich, Lee to name but a few were Golden Juniours only to be turned to scrap metal pros by the touch of the LTA!

As for suck ups like Jamie Baker he was always rubbish. relies very heavily on brown nosing his bosses for funding.

Classic bellend comment

Well, Watson is through to the main draw where hopefully she can emulate last years performance.
Lets hope Robson can follow suit later on...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:That Laura Robson seems to have stagnated. It must be the LTA effect!

The reverse Midas touch of the LTA has struck again! Robson, Delgado, Bogdanovich, Lee to name but a few were Golden Juniours only to be turned to scrap metal pros by the touch of the LTA!

As for suck ups like Jamie Baker he was always rubbish. relies very heavily on brown nosing his bosses for funding.

Classic bellend comment

As said by one of the numpties who works in Roehampton behind a desk

I last checked when Robson was serving for the match. Just discovered she lost 6-4, 5-7, 4-6...

Well the stats would indicate she was beaten by the better player.

Laura carved out three break points and won each of them to break her opponent three times.

Her Opponent Karolina Pliskova carved out eleven break points, but only managed to break four times ... but it was enough to win the match.

.................Pliskova ..................Robson
winners......29..........................38
UE.............29...........................46

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/stats/day4/10311ms.html

Nore Staat wrote:Well the stats would indicate she was beaten by the better player.

Laura carved out three break points and won each of them to break her opponent three times.

Her Opponent Karolina Pliskova carved out eleven break points, but only managed to break four times ... but it was enough to win the match.

.................Pliskova ..................Robson
winners......29..........................38
UE.............29...........................46

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/stats/day4/10311ms.html

There are those who say that in Women's tennis, the serve is just a means of putting the balll in play.

Boon does your insider have any views on Roger Draper. Roger Draper has always seemed to me to be a bureaucrat type figure with not a lot going on behind those sunglasses he tends to wear. I am reminded of a Steve Kean or a Venky to find a footballing analogy.

With regard to Heather, perhaps it will be her "small" size, that will ultimately limit her game? I am not sure whether she can really make it against the "big" girls / full grown women.

With regard to Laura, it is said that it is her mobility that may ultimately limit her (of course she could work on this in training etc). I get a sense that she "allows herself" to get frustrated on court (ala Murray), which tends to disrupt her focus, her ball to ball focus. Of course that is something she can work on too (apparently Federer was like this a little in his early days).

The stats in that match were skewed by the final set. Laura actually served for it in the second set and was well on top until that point, so it seems it was a bit of a choke.

I'm not sure what Boon is getting at with his comment. This will be one of the biggest serving women's match-ups you'll see all year.

7 breaks of serve in over 30 games is not a huge amount. It also wouldn't be shocking in a men's match.

Incidentally, she's first in line for a LL and it's just been reported that Soler-Espinosa has gone over on her ankle and is a doubt.

It's official now. She's in against Medina-Garrigues as a lucky loser.

Elena predictably lost 6-4 6-0 in the first round to Samantha Stosur. With both Elena and Anne, progress in the slams is dependent on who they get in the first round as they are simply not top 32 quality. However they are solid top 60-120 players.

However playing on the main court of Roland Garros (the 1928 Phillipe Chatrier court), kicking off the tournament, against a Grand Slam champion, must be one of Baltacha's career highlights / pleasures.

First Round
Elena vs Stosur (Stosur ranked 6, has been ranked 4th)

Anne Keothavong va Melinda Czink (Czink ranked 116, has been ranked 37th)

Heather Watson vs Elena Vesnina (Vesnina ranked 83, has been ranked 22nd)

Laura Robson vs A. Medina Garrigues (Garrigues ranked 31, has been ranked 16th)
Note: Medina Garrigues, 29, is seeded 29th and has won 10 clay titles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18226054

Anne and Heather should at least make it close and hopefully win, however the players they are up against have had a higher world ranking which suggests they can pull out a high quality game from time to time.

Heather Watson loses to Julia Georges in the second round 6-3 6-4. So the British interest in the ladies singles tournament has now ended. Ultimately Julia Georges was too big and strong for Heather. It is not clear whether Heather has more growing room to match that power in future.

All the other British ladies went out in the first round, Elena, Anne and Laura. The most disappointing performance was Anne's. Hopefully she can come back stronger for the grass season.

NS sad to say the verdict could be -

Bally - OK first set but ran out of steam, Not much left in the tank now I'm afraid but let's not forget she's been the most consistent performer over the last few vpars in slams and deserves at least one more Wimbledon run

Keothavong - sorry but bottles it in slams time and again

Robson - big weapons let down by poor movement. When's she going to spend the necessary time in the gym?

Watson - much improved and a good mover on clay. Lacks any real weapons though unless she can find a way of grinding matches out at the slam level

We have a new British tennis player - 21 year old Johanna Konta, who is ranked at 208.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18258600

Nore Staat wrote:We have a new British tennis player - 21 year old Johanna Konta, who is ranked at 208.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18258600

Another Australian playing for Britain! Who is next I wonder? Lleyton Hewitt perhaps?

It reads like it was an overnight switch because she changed her mind or something. For followers of British tennis, she's been essentially a British player a for a long time now. The BT.net guys have been tracking her results in the same way they track all the other British players for ages.

She's been trying to get British citizenship since she was in her early/mid teens, she's been living here since then. It's actually been a remarkably slow process, particularly given her age when the whole issue started.