Originally Posted by Asadinator
I was never talking about potential, I am saying now and 2013.
I think you might need to take a closer look at results. Beating top 100 players doesn't mean much if you're losing at challengers and futures. For example Van Uytvanck lost to Alize Lim 1 & 1. There are plenty more where that came from but I won't bother.
Beating top 100 players is also about opportunity, so it is a bit of a lottery who has more success with the limited opportunity. ITF results are conclusive though.
Specifically on Barty, she lost because she played bad and was very nervous. I think every match with 30 unforced errors, double faults and tactical mistakes. But if she played an opponent like Van Uytvanck, she would win in 2 easy sets. Same goes for Vekic. It is a no brainer.
This is why I am puzzled with your choice, of course players like Keys, Bouchard and maybe Svitolina make sense, but not the other two because even now there are far more likelier players who will do better.
This summer Alison was focused on completing high school, not on her tennis. It was inevitable her results would suffer. I am much more interested in how she has done throughout career when she has had a big opportunity. These have been the times she has played her best. For the record Alison's results against top 100 IS RELEVENT and can not be swept under the carpet. In her short, parttime career, which she has hardly devoted herself fully too most of the time, until the Autumn when she completed her education, she has played 9 top 100 players. She has won 5 of those matches. Go on, aside from Laura Robson, find me another 18 year old or younger player who has had results like that against top 100 players.
If you really think beating a bunch of players ranked in the 200s means more than beating 5 out of 9 top 100 players then I have nothing further to say to you.