[Waymninelia]

Thought we could use a place where all Challenger results of interest can be posted.
$50k St Paul Minnesota

Alex Stevenson beat fellow WC Ashley Weinhold in the 1st round 6-4, 7-6(4)

Next up she will play #8 Angela Haynes. I wondered where Angela had gone.

And Foxy, I hope you read this thread. This is a great Venus avatar.

[Tusanoc]

Good call with the challenger thread Ti-Amie. I follow the men's challengers weekly and will now put anything worthwhile in our challenger thread.

[enurneAcourdy]

Watch out for Benedikt Dorsch. He is playing the challenger in Joplin. I wanted him for a contest involving lower ranked players (101 - 300) over at tennis week, but someone chose him first.

[Waymninelia]

Watch out for Benedikt Dorsch. He is playing the challenger in Joplin. I wanted him for a contest involving lower ranked players (101 - 300) over at tennis week, but someone chose him first.

I was just reading up on Joplin and looking for an Order of Play. People really do not like Young huh?

[enurneAcourdy]

Young had to qualify. He did and now beat Sweeting in the first round. Plays Jesse Witten in the second.

[Waymninelia]

I am new to reading about Challengers. I notice on menstennisforums they list singles, wooden spoon and doubles.

What is up with that? What is a wooden spoon?

[fudelholf]

I am new to reading about Challengers. I notice on menstennisforums they list singles, wooden spoon and doubles.

What is up with that? What is a wooden spoon?

It is player who looses in the first round to player who looses in 2nd round to 3rd looser and so on... There is one (and only one) such player in every tournament.

[enurneAcourdy]

[quote author=Ti-Amie link=1171433782/0#5 date=1171469091]I am new to reading about Challengers. I notice on menstennisforums they list singles, wooden spoon and doubles.

What is up with that? What is a wooden spoon?

It is player who looses in the first round to player who looses in 2nd round to 3rd looser and so on... Â*There is one (and only one) such player in every tournament. [/quote]

I knew it had to be bad. I know in other sports, I have heard the term and it is bad. Also, I was checking some of the wooden spoon recipients and they all lost in the first round. Lol! I thought it was simply the first person to lose in the event.

[Waymninelia]

Thanks Suliso.

[enurneAcourdy]

I wonder what the point is though?

[exiceJetLip]

Thought we could use a place where all Challenger results of interest can be posted.
$50k St Paul Minnesota

Alex Stevenson beat fellow WC Ashley Weinhold in the 1st round 6-4, 7-6(4)

Next up she will play #8 Angela Haynes. I wondered where Angela had gone.

And Foxy, I hope you read this thread. This is a great Venus avatar.

Yes it certainly is.

[gardenerextraordinaire]

I am new to reading about Challengers. I notice on menstennisforums they list singles, wooden spoon and doubles.

What is up with that? What is a wooden spoon?

It's the poor woman's version of the Hitachi Magic Wand.

But you've really gotta look out for those splinters.

Dry

[enurneAcourdy]

So, at the Australian Open, the wooden spoon award winners are:

Luis Horna [smiley=bowing.gif]

and

Catalina Castano [smiley=notworthy.gif]

[ElisasAUG]

So, at the Australian Open, the wooden spoon award winners are:

Luis Horna Â* Â*[smiley=bowing.gif]

and

Catalina Castano Â* [smiley=notworthy.gif]

Do I sense a Bonus Star extra for predicting the wooden spoons in the GS's???

[Spalax]

[quote author=Ti-Amie link=1171433782/0#5 date=1171469091]I am new to reading about Challengers. I notice on menstennisforums they list singles, wooden spoon and doubles.

What is up with that? What is a wooden spoon?

It's the poor woman's version of the Hitachi Magic Wand.

But you've really gotta look out for those splinters.

Dry[/quote]

That is just so ... wrong. I knew I liked you.
S

[Waymninelia]

Scotty, have you visited the Dumpster yet? 8-)

Ahem.
Anyway this is a scouting report of the St Paul Challenger. It's long but very interesting.

Scouting Report: Saint Paul $50K Challenger (Tuesday)
A tennis career is not for the faint of heart.

I don't mean it's like, say, American football or boxing, where a certain part of the crowd goes out in hopes of seeing someone seriously hurt (though anyone who saw the doubles final here a few years ago, when Trudi Musgrave destroyed her knee on the court, knows how bad tennis injuries can be). But consider the obvious: Every match results in as many losers as winners. What's more, there are tens of millions of women around the world who play tennis. Only about 1500 of them are ranked. Say one in a thousand. Nearly every one of those ranked women could destroy nearly any of the millions of unranked women.

And yet, the WTA only expects 150-250 women to be able to make a living at tennis. Some of these players -- these very good players! -- will never see the Top 100, or play a WTA match.

It's a frightening gamble, following this career -- the more so since it's almost impossible to go to college if you want to be a tennis pro; with a few honorable exceptions such as Lisa Raymond and Jill Craybas, going to school means losing the years when the best players really make their marks on the game. But they keep trying, year after year. And who knows -- some will become WTA players. Earlier this week, I mentioned Olga Poutchkova, who played here last year and now is Top Forty. Elena Vesnina, who played Saint Paul in 2005, is Top Sixty. Alicia Molik, who played here in its very first year, was Top Ten for a while and seems to be coming back to life after a long illness. Shinobu Asagoe, the doubles finalist in 2002, was Top 25 two years ago. Samantha Stosur, now in the Top Thirty in singles and #1 in doubles, played here a few years back.

But not every player who comes to a Challenger is a bright-eyed youngster starting out, nor indeed someone who has been toiling at this level for years. Some are veterans fallen on hard times, trying to revive careers. Iva Majoli and Daja Bedanova were one-time Top Twenty players who came here and failed. On the other hand, 2002 champion Els Callens used a title here to revive her career for two more years.

Which brings us to... Alexandra Stevenson. Stevenson in 2002 and 2003 did a John Henry impression: Having had a few good events in previous years (notably, of course, Wimbledon 1999), 2002 was the year she turned consistent, with two finals and no fewer than three wins over Jennifer Capriati, plus her only doubles title. She ended the year Top Twenty.

And it broke her back. Not literally, of course, but she has had back problems for much of her career, and lately she has added shoulder problems as well. 2003 was the last time she was healthy enough to play all four Slams. Since then, it's been a long trail of attempted comebacks and injuries. Last week, she was playing Midland qualifying, where she lost to Leanne Baker in the first round. Here, she was in the main draw.

It turned out to be a contest of wildcards: Stevenson versus Ashley Weinhold, another American. Weinhold is ranked #367, based on twelve events; Stevenson is currently #402, with 15 events. The difference in experience is stunning; Stevenson a one-time Wimbledon semifinalist, while Weinhold has never played a WTA match, or been past a $50K or better quarterfinal; most of the results I saw were in Challenger qualifying.

The difference in size is almost as great as the difference in experience. Weinhold is tiny; Stevenson is of course one of the tallest players on the Tour. Her size results in her biggest weakness: She isn't fast. There was every indication that this would be power versus speed. And Laura Granville once said that this is a pretty fast court, and the humidity is extremely low. (I don't own a barometer, or I would have brought it. I did bring a thermometer and humidity meter: 62 degrees Fahrenheit, and relative humidity of 27 percent. No wonder so few people bother with towels around here! Good thing they don't have live music, either; the instruments would be crumbling before our eyes.)

Stevenson gave notice of what was coming on the very first point, hitting a big service winner. Second point, she won at the net. Third point, she hit a fault on her first serve, so Weinhold managed a slightly stronger return, but Stevenson hit a winner past her. And then produced another service winner for a love hold.

Weinhold has a bit of an Amanda Coetzer-ish look: Not big, but very solidly built. But she found herself very quickly on the defensive. Put it this way: During the third game, I was at Weinhold's end of the court. Stevenson was twice as far away from me as Weinhold. Even so, Stevenson's backhand (her weaker side) made a louder, more solid noise than Weinhold's forehand. As for Stevenson's forehand -- it was the difference between a lightning bolt and striking sparks from a cat's fur. Stevenson broke at 15 in game two.

Given Weinhold credit for the Jelena Jankovic "I'll crash into anything" attitude. In the first set, she took out one of the side curtains chasing a ball. Give her this, too: She seemed to adjust. In game four, she started to hit the ball away from Stevenson a little more, and hit more balls at her feet, and it earned her a hold, and even a break point in the next game. But Stevenson managed to hold for 4-1.

Then Stevenson seemed to come apart. Weinhold held for 4-2, and Stevenson produced three double-faults in game seven, and was broken.

There are no ballkids today (it's a school day), and I note that Stevenson moves very slowly to retrieve her balls. Few players hurry, but most walk; Stevenson's pace is more of a slow stroll. Maybe a "mosey." Trying to catch her breath? Not sure. (She was sniffling a bit, though, so it's not unlikely. Her eyes also looked a little red, and she coughed a few times.) She finally broke again after a very long game ten that could have gone either way. 6-4, Stevenson.

Stevenson is not only walking slowly, but rather stiffly. If I were walking like that, it would be a sure sign of a backache. Though Stevenson has had so many back problems that it might just be habitual; I don't see any other signs of back problems.

Weinhold's voice is interesting. Much too deep for her size. Not many women that size have voices with such low overtones. I doubt it means anything, but it's unusual.

The second set was a war which could have gone either way. There were several breaks, but they ended up on serve at 6-5. Weinhold then went down 0-30, and faced a match point in that game, but saved it. In the tiebreak, Stevenson went up 6-2, blew more match points, but finally advanced 6-4 7-6.

That was actually the second match on center court. The first was the qualifying final between Madison Brengle and #3 seed Hannah Nooni. To a certain extent, that was power versus variety. Both were quick, but Brengle hit a little harder, and kept the ball in play a little better. Nooni, by the end, was coming in a lot, probably to try to change things up, but she made a few too many errors. And some of her backhand volleys were pretty wobbly, allowing Brengle to hit some good passing shots. Maybe it was surface shift. I don't know where Nooni had been playing before coming here, but her tan was two shades darker than her hair -- it looked like she'd been on an equatorial beach somewhere. Brengle made the main draw 6-3 6-1. The other qualifiers were #2 seed Olga Govortsova (whom I still haven't seen), Stanislava Hrozenska (whom I talked about on Sunday), and Ipek Senoglu (whom I also saw on Sunday).

I had hoped to see some outside court matches at this point, but they were both so close to finishing that I decided to stay at center court to watch #1 seed and defending champion Milagros Sequera take on Angelika Bachmann. I was pretty sure that would be good, anyway, because Sequera is a lot of fun to watch -- quick, plus she's competent anywhere on the court. If she hadn't messed up her knee a few years ago, she would, I suspect, have stayed on the #50-#60 range (as it is, she came here at #83). But it was one of those injuries that cost her not just in recovery time but in rust. You can still see the scar on her knee, too. Plus he had pressure cuffs on both ankles.

Bachmann is a veteran, 27 years old, but whose last WTA match came over a year ago, at Philadelphia 2005, where she lost in the second round to Dementieva. She has spent most of her career in the #150-#250 range. On the other hand, she did make the semifinal at Waikoloa two weeks ago -- her best result in a while -- so maybe she has been working things out. Too bad these two had to face each other in the first round.

Both are right-handed, with two-handed backhands. Bachmann is taller, but quite fit-looking; she seems pretty quick for her height. (She doesn't look anything like her media guide photo, whatever that says). Still, Sequera broke her in game two. Bachmann was just making too many errors, because Sequera was getting everything back. Sequera served amazingly well, too.

Game four brought a scare. Sequera did something, and started feeling her knee, and Bachmann held. I thought Sequera would call the trainer, but she didn't, and held for 4-1. And broke again with a laser into the backhand corner that was right on both lines; 5-1. Another hold, and Sequera had the first set.

[Waymninelia]

Scouting report continued:

Despite the score, that was pretty definitely the best set I'd seen so far. Bachmann was working hard, and not playing that badly, but Sequera was just too fast and too strong.

The second set began with Sequera breaking again, but then something definitely happened. Bachmann earned a break point in the next game when Sequera didn't play a ball and the chair ruled it good. A nice Bachmann winner made it 1-1. And, suddenly, Bachmann was playing better, and Sequera seemed all mopey. She seemed to be changing her game plan without really having a Plan B in mind. (And why change when she was doing so well?) Bachmann won the next three games also, for 4-1. Sequera should have won the sixth game -- she had two game points, and an open court on one of them, but she tried a drop shot that dropped a little too much. She hit about four drop shots in that game, and only one worked, and Bachmann broke for 5-1. Sequera had a break point in the final game, but more errors let Bachmann hold.

So which Sequera would come out for the final set? It didn't look promising when she started with a double-fault. And so it went. I won't describe the agony; Bachmann by this time was blistering the ball, and they were all and by the end of the third, Sequera was screaming at herself. Bachmann took out the defending champion 1-6 6-1 6-0.

Maybe it explains why Sequera has never really made it back; some mysterious thing goes wrong. But why doesn't Bachmann play like that all the time?

Making it worse for Sequera is the fact that she of course loses her champion's points from last year. They don't come off for a week, but when they do, she will probably fall to around #100.

The final singles match on center court featured Rosanna de los Rios, currently #193 based on a limited schedule, against #5 seed Ivana Abramovic. Last year, de los Rios came through qualifying here but lost in the first round. Since then, she has had only one WTA match,but she did reach the final at the Indian Harbor Beach $50K, and she won the San Diego $50K in December. And who did she beat in the final? None other than Abramovic.

You may remember de los Rios as the mom who once made a big splash at Roland Garros by reaching the fourth round in 2000. She's here with her family; her daughter looks about eight now. It looks like they have her scouting the opposition; she was watching the players on the practice court as her mom was breaking Abramovic to start the match.

Abramovic is a veteran, too, though not as experienced as de los Rios; he played her first WTA match at Bogota 2003. Her big results in the last year are a first round win at Bogota 2006 (one of only two WTA matches she's had in that time), a final at the Saint Gaudens $50K, and the San Diego final she lost to de los Rios. She came in ranked #165.

De los Rios looked to me as if she were tired, somehow. It was just an impression, though. Abramovic is a little bigger and taller, but I don't think she hits harder, particularly on the forehand. Both have two-handed backhands. De los Rios has a rather high toss -- no problem here, but not so good outdoors. And her specialty is clay. It looks as if Abramovic also prefers clay, but it's not as clear from her more limited record.

De los Rios in the first set was overhitting just a little -- she kept just missing the lines. And every drop shot she hit landed in the net. Abramovic was mostly letting her commit suicide. After that initial break, de los Rios lost six straight games to lose the first set.

De los Rios was faster to get upset than Sequera. She started talking to herself in game five. Her camp was pretty clearly telling her to calm down. It looked like the daughter was asking, "What's wrong with Mom?"

Game four of the second set seemed to provide the answer. In the middle of the game, de los Rios ran to the sideline and started putting eye drops in her eyes. With that low humidity, I can understand why. Certainly she seemed to be seeing better; the second set started with five straight holds. And then it was de los Rios who broke for 4-2.

And suddenly it was Abramovic who looked tired. It hadn't been that long a match, and she looks to be in good shape, but she was really sucking air between points. Was she running out of gas? She lot the next two games also, letting de los Rios take the set 6-2.

De los Rios on the changeover pulled a book out of her bag and looked something up. It didn't appear to be a Jim Courier-type thing; she was looking for something specific. Whatever it was, it was the wrong answer -- she was broken in the first game of the third set. Only to immediately break back. Looking at Abramovic, it appears that she looks most winded after a service game. Which probably says something about how she serves, though I didn't notice anything.

That was about the end for Abramovic. De los Rios, after the break-back, won five of the next six games to advance 1-6 6-2 6-2.

Her daughter Ana Paula by that time was on the practice court hitting with one of the club people. Kid has a pretty good forehand already.

The last match I saw was a doubles match, Sofia Arvidsson and Antonella Serra-Zanetti against Angela Haynes and Teodora Mircic. Great match, but I've probably talked enough for today. The two comments I would make are, Angela Haynes remains a player with a great serve and not that much else, and Antonella Serra-Zanetti -- yes, she still has that serve. The one that's 100% elbow and 0% speed. http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.p...67&page=11

[tipoketpu]

Watch out for Benedikt Dorsch. He is playing the challenger in Joplin. I wanted him for a contest involving lower ranked players (101 - 300) over at tennis week, but someone chose him first.

I saw Dorsch at the Dallas Challenger last weekend, where he played in the final against Robert Kendrick. My impression was that he's kind of a grinder who lacks a killer weapon that it would take to make it big on the main tour. Kendrick was pretty much dictating play and forcing Dorsch to counterpunch. Dorsch did hurt his back in the second set and had to call for the trainer, so it's possible that had something to do with him getting pushed around by Kendrick.

[bobibnoxx]

Ernests Gulbis of Latvia, who made some noise making the St. Pete semis last year, won a challenger in France (Bensancon) this week. The kid looks promising. He's 18 still.

[Waymninelia]

There were some pretty decent guys in Besancon. I saw some pics somewhere. If I can find them again I'll post them.