Week 16 - ITF ($50K) - Dothan, AL, USA - clay

Osomec · Junior player

RE: Week 16 - ITF ($50K) - Dothan, AL, USA - clay

Osomec · Junior player

I think the slams do credit the players with a good senior ranking, doesnt a snr ranking of top 300 guarantee you entry into the junior slams?

I believe so, but it doesn't win you any extra ranking points.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

To win a slam you have to beat the best players in the world, hence it is a feat that is rarely achieved by fluke and therefore winning a slam should reward generously pointswise to reflect what an impressive accomplishment it is.

Heather struggled in juniors since her USO win which is likely to be due to her becoming a far more desirable scalp for other girls, making them play a lot harder and possibly due to a lack of motivation to do well in smaller jr events. Her recent success in senior proves that the struggle is not due to lack of talent and the JE she has earned are not providing her with some sort of unfair advantage or cheap points so begrudging her the opportunity is ridiculous.

PockyTastic · Futures level

According to a poster on TF:

L32: (Q) Laura Robson WR 315 defeated Yuliana Fedak (UKR) WR 192 7-5, 2-6, 6-4

-- Edited by PockyTastic on Wednesday 21st of April 2010 05:59:18 PM

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Awesome, well fought Laura! Both in R2, awesome! Keep it up ladies.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

I don't think the junior slam winner's points are disproportionate to other Grade A tournaments because the slams attract many stronger players who would otherwise only play senior events, and a larger percentage of the top ranked juniors so they are significantly harder to win.

However, they are very disproportionate to the grand slam runner up's points. If to win a slam you have to beat everyone in a much stronger field than normal, then the runner up has probably also done at least as well as the winner of a Grade A.

Where else in any comparable sport does the winner get over two and half times the ranking points of the runner up? They should change things so that the points for all rounds of a grand slam are higher than for a Grade A, rather than just the winner's.

As for only counting 6 tournaments, as I understand it, that is intended to discourage juniors from attempting to enter too many events, so they have time to study and don't burn out. Therefore, although it may make the rankings less accurate, it is a good thing.

p.s. Well done so far, girls.

-- Edited by RBBOT on Wednesday 21st of April 2010 06:22:56 PM

Maza1987 · Challenger level

RBBOT wrote:

I don't think the junior slam winner's points are disproportionate to other Grade A tournaments because the slams attract many stronger players who would otherwise only play senior events, and a larger percentage of the top ranked juniors so they are significantly harder to win.

However, they are very disproportionate to the grand slam runner up's points. If to win a slam you have to beat everyone in a much stronger field than normal, then the runner up has probably also done at least as well as the winner of a Grade A.

Where else in any comparable sport does the winner get over two and half times the ranking points of the runner up? They should change things so that the points for all rounds of a grand slam are higher than for a Grade A, rather than just the winner's.

As for only counting 6 tournaments, as I understand it, that is intended to discourage juniors from attempting to enter too many events, so they have time to study and don't burn out. Therefore, although it may make the rankings less accurate, it is a good thing.

p.s. Well done so far, girls.

-- Edited by RBBOT on Wednesday 21st of April 2010 06:22:56 PM

It also ensures there are no grinders out on the junior tour. Players who enter lots of junior tournys and are consistant at reaching QF's or something, are less rewarded. And this is how it should be. The best players only need to play a few events and it is these that are counted.

There is little wrong with the junior ranking system, imo.

indiana · Tennis legend

Osomec wrote:

Heather did very little other than win that one grand slam. The points awarded for the win are wildly disproportionate. The distribution of points is totally different from that in seniors. If you are saying that the junior system is right, you are also saying that the senior system is wildly wrong? Is that actually your opinion?

Some of the senior points awards actually are arguably a bit wacky.

You made the point that Laurs has a better senior ranking. She does, but let's look at this in a bit more detail.

Laura has currently with this week so far 152 points ( 128 + 8 for last week and 16 so far this week )

Heather has 119 points ( 109 plus 10 for this week )

However 90 of Laura's points come from just 3 Grand Slam qualifying wins, where you get 40 for one win and 50 for two wins ). Good performances, but as has been discussed before arguably the WTA overrewards at grand slam qualifying, particularly for a Q1 win.

Outside these 3 qualifying wins, Laura has accumulated 62 points, Heather 119 points. I've actually made the comparison look better from Laura's angle by including points not yet added to the official rankings

Actually I'd say there are arguably flaws in both junior and senior systems but possible reasons for some of these ( eg. in seniors encouraging and emphasizing Grand Slam participation ).

The rankings ( both junior and senior ) are what they are and it does make sense to me that junior performances and hence junior rankings should be most appropriate for junior seedings and such as JEs Players will make there own choices as to how they wish to develop their game in both the junior and senior ranks. As folk have said, Laura has benefitted from JEs in the past. They have each enjoyed WCs also to high level tournaments.

I prefer just to enjoy watching these two real talents progress in the game and it's great for instance to see them both justifying their presence here, however they came into the main draw, by both winning 1st round main draw matches.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 21st of April 2010 08:47:16 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

Hard fought win by Laura. Unfortunately this probably tells us more about how her opponent was playing rather than a sudden improvement in Laura's play from yesterday. Positives though are that her stamina must have been pretty good which has been a weakness in the past.

Very tough match next probably against Perry. The scoreline in that match will give us a much better indication of where Laura is at, at the moment. Good chance we'll get to see it on the livestream given that Perry is number 1 seed and American.

DavidC · Tennis legend

Just to clarify the rules on entry to junior tournaments with ATP/WTA rankings:

"b) ATP/WTA rankings Players ranked in the professional game ATP 550 or better or
WTA 350 or better will always be accepted at the bottom of the Main Draw Acceptance
List. Players ranked in the professional game ATP 750 or better or WTA 500 or better
will always be accepted and remain at the bottom of the Qualifying Acceptance List."

I agree with RBBOT that the gearing within a Junior Grand Slam of nearly 3x for the winner compared to runner-up is anomalous, especially compared to Mens and Womens Grand Slams, and they should be in a separate Grade A* category with comparable gearing to other tournaments (say 500 300 180 120 70 40)

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:

Unfortunately this probably tells us more about how her opponent was playing rather than a sudden improvement in Laura's play from yesterday.

I'm not sure I would necessarily conclude that probability. Sure Laura played very inconsistently yesterday. I saw most of it with my own eyes excluding the first 5 games, which I presume were even more inconsistent.

But we know from the past that Laura's performance levels can quite quickly change round and that she very often rises to playing higher ranked players.

To me, it does seem a good win on the face of it anyway

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 21st of April 2010 08:04:00 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

indiana wrote:

philwrig wrote:

Unfortunately this probably tells us more about how her opponent was playing rather than a sudden improvement in Laura's play from yesterday.

I'm not sure I would necessarily conclude that probability. Sure Laura played very inconsistently yesterday. I saw most of it with my own eyes excluding the first 5 games, which I presume were even more inconsistent.

But we know from the past that Laura's performance levels can quite quickly change round and that she very often rises to playing higher ranked players.

To me, it looks a very good win on the face of it anyway.

I would love you to be right Indy but given Fedaks recent record I am going to stick to my original thoughts. I just felt after watching Laura yesterday that she needed Fedak to be off her game today to have a great chance. Of course Laura's game can vary day to day and maybe the confidence from qualifying has enabled her to strike the ball with more conviction today. So hopefully you are right.

indiana · Tennis legend

I did kind of compromise a bit by taking "very" out whilst you were posting smile

philwrig · Hall of fame

indiana wrote:

I did kind of compromise a bit by taking "very" out whilst you were posting

Does that mean you are hedging your bets ?

indiana · Tennis legend

No

Just thought on balance "good" was maybe better than "very good", it was no great point, you just caught me whilst changing it smile

Really when it comes to it we only know the result just now so who knows.