Steven reporting on Twitter that Alex got in as a LL but Jay has missed out. I have no doubt Steven will drop by shortly and explain the intricacies of how this came about.

Stircrazy wrote:

---

QR1:  (q1) Liam Broady & Jay Clarke CR 932 (647+285) vs BYE

---

 I like this combo, similar levels I reckon at both singles and doubles so they could travel, share expenses and push each  other. Good luck tonight, just started and held opening game

boom! first set in the pan

boys serving first and its 2-1 on serve

breaks and holds to love. the Brits are cruising into the main draw 4-1

serving for the match at 5-3

GSM in straight sets, nice one

-- Edited by Jiwan on Monday 9th of October 2017 10:25:51 PM

-- Edited by Jiwan on Monday 9th of October 2017 10:32:21 PM

-- Edited by Jiwan on Monday 9th of October 2017 10:43:06 PM

-- Edited by Jiwan on Monday 9th of October 2017 10:46:05 PM

-- Edited by Jiwan on Monday 9th of October 2017 10:46:52 PM

Bob in Spain wrote:

---

Steven reporting on Twitter that Alex got in as a LL but Jay has missed out. I have no doubt Steven will drop by shortly and explain the intricacies of how this came about.

---

I had to check the latest rules myself but it turns out that for ATPs and Challengers, the current LL rule when there are multiple withdrawals is that if there are N withdrawals before the end of qualifying, the N+1 highest-ranked FQR losers go into the draw for lucky loser places, i.e. all four of them in this case. It was designed as an anti-tanking measure to ensure that no player knows for sure that they would get a lucky loser place before they finish their FQR match.

The way it has worked out this time seems spectacularly unfortunate for Jay, who would have been first in line under the old rules, but it is the way the rules are supposed to work. Why the lure of extra points for qualifying wasn't enough to prevent tanking, I'm not sure, but there were plenty of examples of players seeming to tank FQR matches despite the points on offer, so they weren't just dealing with a theoretical problem.

The player who misses out is then first in line for any LL places that arise after qualifying has finished, followed by the remaining FQR losers in ranking order (the rankings used to seed qualifying, that is) and then the QR2 losers in ranking order.

As someone asked me on Twitter, does this mean it is all Cam's fault? Tongue in cheek, obviously, and I don't know the order of the 2nd and 3rd withdrawals, but the answer is probably yes. If Cam had withdrawn after qualifying had finished, Jay and Alex (as the 1st and 3rd highest-ranked FQR losers respectively) would have gone into a 3-player draw with Bangoura for the first 2 LL places and if one of the Brits had been the unlucky one in that draw, they would have been the first in line for the 3rd LL place. So if Cam had withdrawn after qualifying finished, both Brits would have got LL places. Much easier to 'blame' Cam with hindsight than to have foreseen the consequences, of course!

If there are one or two more withdrawals, Jay and Liam would get in, in that order ... and would hopefully get kinder draws than Brydan and Alex!

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

L32:  (4) Maximilian Marterer (AUT) WR 108 (= CH) vs Brydan Klein WR 244 (CH = 169 in September 2015

---

All's well that ends well - sort of...

L32:  (LL) Alex Ward WR 408 vs (3) Bjorn Fratangelo (USA) WR 118 (CH = 99 in June last year)

---

Whisper it softly - & far be it from me to put the mockers on Alex's chances - but he's just taken the first set by 6-3!   

....5-3 to Fratangelo

 

Alex breaks back and levels for 5-5

-- Edited by Jiwan on Tuesday 10th of October 2017 08:11:34 PM

Alex now serving to stay in the set at 5-6 down

-- Edited by Jiwan on Tuesday 10th of October 2017 08:14:26 PM