There were contrasting emotions for Great Britain’s teams in Madrid last weekend. Whilst the women sealed qualification for November’s FIP World Cup without too much sweat expended, our men had plenty to reflect upon on the journey home.
It was not far off a canter for GB’s women as Poland were swept aside in the decisive semi-final to secure a qualification spot for their first World Championship in five years. For the GB men’s side, the trip to the Spanish capital will leave a bitter taste. Let’s take a look at a few takeaways in detail…
1. Gibson and Rose are untouchable
Aimee Gibson and Catherine Rose are now simply too good for this second-tier level of European competition. With the exception of Germany’s world no.62 Victoria Kurz, no other female player in Madrid was ranked above them.
GB’s top pairing dropped just three games in three matches and will relish taking on some of the world’s best pairs in Doha after their recent experience pushing top-40 duo Alix Collombon and Ksenia Sharifova to a second-set tiebreak at London Premier Padel P1.
2. Chloe de la Mare is the real deal
Making your debut in a World Cup qualifier at 16 is an intimidating prospect. At that age, one might expect a gentle introduction, with perhaps a token appearance in the dead rubber of a group game.
That was most certainly not the case for the left-hander from Guernsey. Trusted to play in all three matches alongside Victoria Nicholas, who’s double her age (sorry Vic!), de la Mare looked confident and happy in wins against Norway and Serbia in the group.
In the decisive semi-final with Poland, she was again entrusted with a key role in the second rubber, and it was the teenager who secured FIP World Cup qualification with a ripping backhand crosscourt winner to seal a gutsy three-set triumph.
3. GB’s women can do some damage in Doha
Qualification was in the end achieved comfortably by GB’s women, and it’s worth remembering they did it without Tia Norton, who pulled out due to an Achilles injury. If she recovers by November, the team will be even stronger.
It’ll be the GB women’s team’s first appearance at a World Championships since 2021 — and will be a first ever for Gibson and Rose.
The two most recent European Championships (FIP Euro Padel Cup) campaigns have been a case of ‘what if?’ — losing narrowly to Netherlands in 2024 and finishing third in their group last year after being handed a ghastly draw. Draw permitting, Doha might be the time for a significant breakthrough.
4. GB’s men should be heading to Doha too
There’s only one conclusion to draw from the men’s campaign in Madrid: they should have won.
FIP rankings are not the only the only measure of a pair’s effectiveness, of course, but the statistics behind the decisive semi-final against Germany do not make for easy reading.
Opening pair Sam Jones and Chris Salisbury were serving for the match at a set and 6-5 up, but lost to Johannes Lindmeyer (#868) and Benjamin Fitzon (#2403).
Louie Harris and Alex Loughlan did not deserve to be on the losing side after an heroic comeback to defeat Germany’s best player Agustin Reca (#172) and Matthias Wunner (#985) in a sweat-soaked 4-6, 7-6 (7), 7-6 (4).
But their chest bumps were in vain as GB no.1 Christian Medina Murphy and Alfonso Patacho lost 4-6, 7-6, 6-4 against Christian Bohnke (who doesn’t have a FIP ranking) and Nick Merten (#1980). The post-mortem into that one will surely be lengthy.
5. Selection re-think required?
It’s difficult not to highlight the fact that GB left their No.4 player Cameron Dollimore at home. Dollimore has played 18 FIP events so far this year.
This is without mentioning GB’s no.1 junior Ben Phillips, who won his third FIP Promises title in Egypt at the weekend.
GB no.3 Theo Garton, who was called up for the first time in Madrid, and no.5 Jamie Lobo Wordsworth, were given only one match, a 6-0, 6-0 win in a group-stage mismatch against Moldova.
With Chloe de la Mare and fellow 16-year-old Rosie Quirk (who travelled with the squad to Madrid and played in last year’s Euros) proving the adage that ‘If you’re good enough, you’re old enough,’ could the men’s team benefit from a similar injection of youthful zest?
This feels far more like a clickbait “selection controversy” angle than a fair analysis of what actually happened. The article literally says GB “should have won”, then immediately pivots to questioning selection despite the tie being decided by incredibly fine margins across all three matches.
Chris and Sam were serving for their match. Louie and Alex won an enormous three-set battle against Germany’s strongest pair. Christian and Alfonso then lost the deciding rubber 4-6, 7-6, 6-4. That is not evidence of a team being wrongly selected or players being out of their depth — it is evidence of an extremely close international tie.
The argument then becomes even weaker by acknowledging that FIP rankings are not the only measure of effectiveness, while simultaneously using number of FIP events played as a reason to question why certain players were selected. Playing more tournaments does not automatically make someone the better player, nor does it account for partnership chemistry, playing style, form, team roles or what coaches have seen throughout the week.
And using the success of two 16-year-old women to suggest the men simply needed an “injection of youthful zest” is a pretty flimsy comparison between two entirely different squads and competitive situations.
There is absolutely room for intelligent discussion about selection, but this isn’t really that. It reads like a provocative post-mortem designed to create a talking point after a painful 2–1 defeat, rather than a balanced assessment of a GB team that came within a handful of points of qualifying.
Hmmm. This feels insensitive and unnecessarily undermining. These players have just represented Great Britain, and the selected team is quite clearly the strongest group of players despite the suggestions. Questioning their selection for the sake of a provocative takeaway doesn’t really help British padel. it just diminishes the people actually competing for it and turn up on the day. The piece offers very little substance to support that conclusion, particularly when the team selected is clearly made up of Britain’s strongest players. The failings stand with the LTA for not putting enough budget and infrastructure into the squad.
Fully agree with the first comment.
Thanks for your comment. Looking at it with a wider lens, it’s a measure of padel’s growing profile that the GB team’s performances are now a topic of interest and debate. That’s a good thing.
Any athlete with the flag on their chest should expect scrutiny, but any criticism is not personal. The England football and cricket teams have thousands of column inches, hours of airtime and social media content devoted to every single selection decision and aspect of their performances. As padel grows, and more people start to care about their results, the GB teams will face the same.
Two of GB’s men’s pairs lost to players whose world rankings were vastly lower than their own. One had no ranking at all. They let winning positions slip. That’s a pretty sound basis to say they ‘should have won’. There’s nothing insensitive in pointing out that fact and again it’s nothing personal.
In that scenario, looking at alternative selections is only natural, but it wasn’t suggested as a facile ‘cure-all’.
Scrutiny is absolutely fair, I agree. That wasn’t really my point. The issue is whether the evidence supports turning a very narrow 2–1 defeat into a selection argument. Saying GB “should have won” because some opponents were lower ranked is one thing; suggesting different selections may have produced a better result is another, and that needs more than rankings or FIP event volume to substantiate it.
Two of the ties went deep into three sets and winning positions were there. That demonstrates how close the contest was, not necessarily that the wrong players were selected. In padel, rankings alone don’t account for pair chemistry, level of opposition faced, style match-ups, experience or actual playing level.
The concern was never that the team should be immune from criticism, although the football/cricket comparison is a little grand 😂. England football gets scrutinised because there is an enormous evidence base, huge professional squads, constant match data and a massive media ecosystem. It was that questioning the selection immediately after such a marginal defeat risks implying the selected players were the problem without enough evidence to support that conclusion. Scrutiny is healthy; it should just be properly evidenced.
I’ve looked at the names being suggested and come on, some of them couldn’t lace the boots of the lads who actually went. Feels like UK padel gets a kicking whatever happens.
I’ve looked at the names being suggested and come on, some of them couldn’t lace the boots of the lads who actually went. Feels like UK padel gets a kicking whatever happens.
Here’s my assessments below. Think the other comments pick up on the suggestion of commitment. Christian has the most established international record of the group and has consistently shown he can compete at a high FIP level, so no doubt he should be selected.
Louie has decent results, a proven partnership with Alex and showed his level again by winning the Germany match under huge pressure.
Alfonso’s ranking undersells his actual level. He and Chris were v competitive in the London P1 main draw against Belluati/Piotto, he’s consistently beaten some of the strongest British pairs domestically and GB clearly trusted his level enough to keep pairing him with Christian. That backhand pop-out is on another level. Playing fewer FIPs explains a lot of the ranking gap but his level when consistent is strong. If coaches thought he was a weak link, they wouldn’t repeatedly attach him to Christian.
Chris has a strong record alongside Patacho and they’ve shown they can compete with the best British pairs as well as much higher-ranked international opposition. His ranking alone seriously undersells the level of that partnership. Chris plays a lot of unforced errors
Sam has substantial experience and was extremely close to winning his Germany match. Losing a three-set match after being in a winning position is hardly evidence that his selection was wrong.
Theo has some decent 2026 results and there’s a reasonable discussion to be had about whether he could have been used more, but there isn’t clear evidence that he was a stronger option than the main pairs GB actually used.
Jamie is a useful squad-level player with some good results, but the available evidence doesn’t show that putting him into one of the key matches would clearly have strengthened the team.
Dollimore has the strongest argument in terms of ranking and number of FIP events played. What’s missing is evidence that this tournament volume translates into a clearly higher playing level than the players selected. London P1 certainly didn’t establish that.
Phillips looks like a promising young player and his junior results are encouraging, but that is very different from showing he was already a stronger option for a senior World Cup qualifying tie than the experienced players selected.
think the better players were selected. Maybe not at full form though. Good talking points though