Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon (grass) - doubles

Long time reader · Lower Club Player

RE: Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon (grass) - doubles

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Easy peasy for Jamie & John:

R1: (14) Jamie Murray & John Peers (AUS) CR 65 (32+33) defeated (WC) Dan Evans & James Ward CR 2215 (1280+935) by 2, 4 & 4 in about 1½ hours

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Long time reader wrote:
I presume they've used their combined singles rankings.

Seems bizarre to me when they barely play doubles and there are pairs just outside the 400 cut that would probably be more competitive and it would mean a lot more to. Still it looks reasonable compared to Kyle's doubles wc.

Yes, but even their combined singles ranking is really poor i.e. if Andy fancied a go at doubles, you'd say 'yes', fine, whatever his doubles ranking is.

But two guys ranked about 150 ? It's ridiculous. (And, yes, Kyle is another story).

I agree with you - it seems very unfair to Dave/Sean and Marcus/Lewis. And completely unjustifiable. i.e. you can maybe argue Kyle's MD WC in singles because he's close to the cut-off, and young. But a MD WC in doubles when they are SO far off the criteria in every conceivable way ?

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

Couldn't see the match going much differently, to be honest. I'm presuming that the pair's doubles pedigree is rather low. They both get some more money but arguably at the cost of another doubles pairing outside of the top 400 losing out.

wolf · Tennis legend

BeefyDeedz wrote:
Couldn't see the match going much differently, to be honest. I'm presuming that the pair's doubles pedigree is rather low. They both get some more money but arguably at the cost of another doubles pairing outside of the top 400 losing out.

That's not the case. They were two wild cards which were not used.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

wolf wrote:
BeefyDeedz wrote:
Couldn't see the match going much differently, to be honest. I'm presuming that the pair's doubles pedigree is rather low. They both get some more money but arguably at the cost of another doubles pairing outside of the top 400 losing out.
That's not the case. They were two wild cards which were not used.

That's more acceptable, I suppose. Still, I can't say that I like it. I would've probably preferred just giving it to the next two on the entry list.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Oh dear, oh dear!

R1: Dustin Brown & Jan-Lennard Struff (GER/GER) CR 633 (190+443) defeated Ken Skupski & Neal Skupski CR 141 (68+73) by 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-2 bleh

What went so horribly wrong there, I wonder... disbelief

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
BeefyDeedz wrote:
Couldn't see the match going much differently, to be honest. I'm presuming that the pair's doubles pedigree is rather low. They both get some more money but arguably at the cost of another doubles pairing outside of the top 400 losing out.
That's not the case. They were two wild cards which were not used.

That makes it even worse, as far as I'm concerned.

i.e. there were wild card to spare and the LTA STILL decided to disregard their guidelines and go for some non-pair, in fact, two non-pairs and ignore the guys who were very close.

wolf · Tennis legend

Their guidelines made it perfectly clear that singles rankings counted the same as doubles rankings.

In fact they broke their guidelines in order to give Smethurst/Corrie a wild card.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, absolutely agree that if they felt there that there no other particular candidates for MD WCs then there was a very good case for just putting the next on the entry list into the main draw, presumably a pair that give a toss about doubles and one could argue much more deserving of a place and the money.

As for Kyle Edmund UNR getting a doubles MD WC, I have had my say on that and still think it is ridiculous.

Two places there that should have gone to the next in line or stretched a case for MD WCs for Willis / Burton and Rice / Thornley.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
Their guidelines made it perfectly clear that singles rankings counted the same as doubles rankings.

In fact they broke their guidelines in order to give Smethurst/Corrie a wild card.

OK. If that's in their guidelines then it's clearly laid out.

But how can they say that singles rankings count the same as doubles ? That's like saying the doubles rankings count for nothing.

And so for Kyle they had to go and hunt down the lowest ranked player so that he'd make the cut? Did they do the same for Dan Cox?

indiana · Tennis legend

Well, they are ruddy stupid guidelines that folk with seemingly a bare interest in doubles can get Slam MD doubles WCs with singles rankings that are not even close to giving direct entry to the singles MD. Ludicrous !!

I have some understanding of top singles players being able to use their good singles ranking to get into singles draws ( it ups the profile of the doubles and many of them adapt well ), but this Slam doubles WC stuff on the back of relatively lowly singles rankings, needs to be reconsidered for the future.

Shhh · Challenger level

wolf wrote:
Their guidelines made it perfectly clear that singles rankings counted the same as doubles rankings.

In fact they broke their guidelines in order to give Smethurst/Corrie a wild card.

I am not so sure that they did wolf. They were not on the original WC lists but, when they broke the 400 barrier the week before Wimbledon, they then received one.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Jamie D and Gilles lost the first two sets 6-2 6-2 but won the third in a tie-break, 7-3.

wolf · Tennis legend

Shhh wrote:
wolf wrote:
Their guidelines made it perfectly clear that singles rankings counted the same as doubles rankings.

In fact they broke their guidelines in order to give Smethurst/Corrie a wild card.
I am not so sure that they did wolf. They were not on the original WC lists but, when they broke the 400 barrier the week before Wimbledon, they then received one.

The guidelines stated they had to have a combined ranking of under 400 on 9th June to get the wild card, which they did not.