Melbourn won 12-4

First on was Jan Brynjolffssen (3) vs James Barron. Jan won the spin for serve, headed for the right service box and was ready (all very standard)… expect marker Kate was asking “Er… who is serving?” – the confusion was that Jim had positioned himself in the left service box with his back tight to the wall – very unconventional and conveying a clear intent to avoid playing backhand returns. Tactic 1 in response to this was for Jan to serve high on the wall above Jim’s head. Nope, didn’t work – Jim just arched his back to forehand volley those served with deadly accuracy. Cue tactic 2 – try and hit the side wall waist high where Jim had positioned himself. Theory – tuck him up. Practice – his hands were too good for this and Jim was able to kill serves directed here stone dead. Hmm. Unable to win rallies on his own serve, Jan was at least taking most on return as the scored stayed nip-and-tuck through most of the game. As it reached it’s conclusion however Jan got drawn into trying to outhit Jim, the ball pinging around the court crazily as a result. And the game escaping.
The message from teammates after the game was to slow things down, use the drop shot… oh and (tactic 3) – serve down the middle from the right box, keeping it away from Jim (this was an already Jan had already hit upon himself late in game 1). This unusual variation gradually worked in games 2 and 3 Jan getting rallies started on his own serve ay last (somewhat fundamental to winning them!) and as a consequence being able to move Jim around enough for Jim’s foot speed to begin to slow a little. The down-the-middle serves were proving particularly effective as Jim’s stretching returns were trying to go in behind Jan’s forehand… but Jan was already standing there and able to intercept these shots, putting the ball deep into the forehand corner in response, forcing Jim into court sprints. Now thoroughly in charge, Jan built a 2-1 lead.
Game 3 saw a new return idea from Jim (maybe his own, or possibly thought up by a teammate?) – kill into the front backhand corner, with the off-boast as a variation. Both shots took advantage of Jan having to stay wide to keep out of the way of his down-the-middle serves. Hence tactic 4 – still directed down-the-middle, but now intended to bounce square of the service box to leave Jim with the options of a half-volley or letting it bounce and play the off-boast from the back, which would have enough hang time to Jan to reach them. Jim would probably have found yet another counter-move to this latest change up in time. But he didn’t have that, Jan winning 11-15, 15-8, 15-4, 15-11.

Next on was Mike Herd (2) against a very talented teenager Natalie Main… who was out for the evening despite being midway through her GCSEs (exam the following day!). Only ~16 and already playing at the level of string 2 in Division 2 – Natalie is definitely a name to remember as the chances of her popping up on the PSA Tour in a few years are high.
Game 1 of this started pretty evenly, with points exchanged up to 8-all. Natalie was mixing stinging power (indicative of sweet timing given her lightweight frame) with nice touch, holding her short shots to catch Mike out on his movement. This is no mean feat as he is both fast and very stretchy. Mike’s counter-play to this was classic stuff – force Natalie to run the corners, getting her gradually out of position until Mike could close her out and drop to finish off the rally. Natalie also tired as the game progressed, Mike winning 7 straight points from that 8-all position to claim the opener.
Natalie put together a stronger finish to game 2, digging in to take things to 13-all, then producing a good backhand squeeze and a power backhand cross-court kill to win the game. This turned out to be her high point though as Mike settling back in to claim the next two in similar fashion to the first, draining Natalie’s energy and belief as the game progressed to run dominate the late game rallies and  wrap up the match. Mike won 15-8, 13-15, 15-8, 15-11.

The first two strings each going to four games was making it look a long evening, prompting Kate Bradshaw (1) and Anthony Chudleigh to start their match on court 1 in parallel with the ongoing Mike-Nat encounter. That meant Kate and Anthony went on with the match still live (we were only one string up at that point)… but also unfortunately with no spectators. Or a marker! Therefore we only have Kate’s own description of what happened in the opening game “I was up, but then changed away from what was working!” – it turns out Kate had got to 11 first, but ended up 1-0 down.
The crowd had moved across for game 2… and saw a similar pattern unfold, Kate once again to 11 first but losing it 15-12. If she could just reprise the first two-thirds in the key rallies. And what was that exactly? Well, superb movement, good hitting but especially cutting out Anthony’s attempted cross-courts at the service line and when doing so winning the points with wrong-footing volley-drops. This game-plan once again established an 11-5 lead in the third, something that it appeared Kate might allow to slip again as Anthony came back to 11-9. However a refocus to go back to basic and stop striving for the finishing line of the game (a pretty conscious effort it seemed) worked wonders as she was this time able to convert that mid-point advantage into a game.
Now the pressure was on Anthony – could he shift the narrative back? Not in game four, which went the same way as game 3, Kate reaching 11 first, wobbling briefly going for drops early in rallies when deep behind her opponent (but for fewer rallies this time: 10-6 to 10-8), but then steeling herself to work the points and wait for the right attacking opportunity, just as she would with the score 5-5 and consequently levelling matters.
The final game saw Kate in command as all the running and twisting that Anthony was doing had drained his batteries. Not that Kate hadn’t been flying about the court herself, doing her fair share of  pivoting and direction changes, but all that fitness work for the Masters Internationals was there to fall back on and she was clearly the fresher of the two on court. The mind was also completely locked in now, with no let up at all this time as 11-6 was converted into 15-8 and a 12-15, 12-15, 15-11, 15-12, 15-8 victory.

Skipper Jan commented “This was three lung-busting games, and each of us was asked tough questions by the Berko guys and girls. But we all figured out the answers in the end to claim a good win.”