Week 42 - WTA International ($220K) - Luxembourg

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 42 - WTA International ($220K) - Luxembourg

alex03maccy · Grand Slam Champion

robbo 1st on central tomorrow starting at 10am local time with sarah last on the same court.

Mervatron · Masters Series Champion

indiana wrote:

Happycynic wrote:

WTA ranking points are surreal. Those matches could have been QR1 and R1 in a GS, where they would have gained 49 and 100 points respectively, rather than 5 and another 4.... I know context is something, but perhaps not that much.
Actually, in my view, in such circumstances, outside Grand Slams, she's better off under WTA points than ATP.

In an ATP 250, with main draw of 32, my understanding is that you would get 12 points for winning the FQR, none for winning any earlier qualifying round and then 20 more for winning 1st round MD.

Here, you are getting 6 for winning through to Q2, 10 in total for winning through to FQR ( as Laura has now ) and can win 16 in total ( actually 17 if you include the point for 1st round MD ) for winning FQR and 30 more if winning 1st round MD.

I haven't really gone through general stats but I reckon you could face some pretty highly ranked players in an ATP 250, especially if not seeded in qualifying, and get zilch unless you actually qualified. For info, this week's Last Direct Acceptances are WR 108 in Moscow and WR 110 in Stockholm.

I too used to think the WTA ranking points were pretty bizarre ( and I maybe would still have some slight quibles peronally ) , but I have come to more understand them, once some of the potential thinking was explained to me.

One thing they do consistently reward relatively more in the women's game as opposed to the men's side is early round qualifying ( and to an extent early round main draw ) victories.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 18th of October 2009 04:49:51 PM

You don't get the extra 1 point for loosing in round 1 if you have qualified, you just get the quallies points.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks, Mervatron for clarifying that. I thought that you did get the extra point, but in truth wasn't really sure, so I maybe should have done another "my understanding is" smile

Anyway, the substance of my post that in these circumstances I don't really think the WTA points position is bad relative to the ATP, and arguably better, stands.

Unless maybe folk point out further nonsense in my points summary... biggrin

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 18th of October 2009 05:29:40 PM

Happycynic · Pro player

I think a defence of WTA points on the argument they are less mad than ATP just says they aren't as mad as ATP. Doesn't mean they aren't mad.

It is good the WTA reward Q wins (which the ATP won't which is total bonkers), but any system that rewards the 2nd win in a competition less than the first (when the point of going through rounds is they get harder) is still stark staring bonkers.

indiana · Tennis legend

Happycynic wrote:

I think a defence of WTA points on the argument they are less mad than ATP just says they aren't as mad as ATP. Doesn't mean they aren't mad.

Happycynic wrote:

It is good the WTA reward Q wins (which the ATP won't which is total bonkers), but any system that rewards the 2nd win in a competition less than the first (when the point of going through rounds is they get harder) is still stark staring bonkers.

Seriously

I think that it's the WTA's preoccupation with getting folk to take a chance at all in qualifying while not in their opinion giving too many points in total that makes them tilt towards seemingly unbalanced qualifying round points.

Like you though, I am bit uncomfortable with the resulting anomalies. The WTA Qualifying Grand Slam points are the most anomalous of all !! I think I understand the why ( please come and take part ! ), but the Grand Slam qualifying points are ultimately in my view bizarre on a sporting level.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 18th of October 2009 09:12:43 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

Great effort by Laura to win. I hope she's fit enough to do herself justice tomorrow. Not being able to eat properly will surely take it's toll eventually.
There is a famous expression beware the injured golfer and certainly I think it has some relevance here. Able to relax and play your best tennis despite not being 100 % fit.
She has admitted to feeling exhausted during her matches so with this mindset what could she do if she was 100%.
I also wonder whether the exploits of her 14 year old travelling companion Putinseva has given her extra motivation.
To be fair I think it was one of Georges poorer performances but still a massive achievement to beat a top 100 player so emphatically.
Her expectations are not overly ambitious as she expects to be back in Paris late Wednesday.

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:

To be fair I think it was one of Georges poorer performances .

Out of interest, what do you base this comment on ?

philwrig · Hall of fame

There was a brief report on the match by an eye witness on the tennis forum website.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks philwrig, hopefully a witness of good eyesight and judgement smile

( actually hopefully not biggrin

since it would have been better if they'ed said that was the best they'ed ever known Goerges play )

I just wondered since it had to be more than the very fact of losing to Laura or clearly it would become a bit of a cyclical discussion in determing how good a performance it was by Laura.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I think it is so difficult to judge whether Laura is playing top 100 tennis at the moment when playing her very best tennis. Most people will have only seen her standard of play at Wimbledon this year and for me I am waiting for a breakout tournament followed by a consistent level of performances to get her up those rankings. All in it's own time and I'm sure it will happen when she is ready.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, many of us accept ( and to an extent expect ) a level of inconsistency from most juniors including these we may have high expectations for.

I am much less concerned at this stage by seemingly poor performances , and much more intrigued as to what level Laura is at "when playing her very best tennis".

It can indeed be rather difficult to really judge that, but I think that if she starts say to achieve a number of victories over top 100 players, and certainly not necessarily consecutively, then that would give real reason for optimism.

As time goes on, one then looks to her playing more often close to that best level, in effect gaining a consistency to her play, at which stage we can then judge her more on overall results and look to a rise up the rankings.

But at the moment, as you say, "all in it's own time", and Laura still has a lot of time on her side.

Tennis36 · Masters Series Champion

robson on court now, 2*-2 facing 2 bp's

Tennis36 · Masters Series Champion

2*-4

Tennis36 · Masters Series Champion

3-4*