Week 32 - ITF ($25K) - Landisville, USA Hard

Gbtennisfans · Newbie

Week 32 - ITF ($25K) - Landisville, USA Hard

Gbtennisfans · Newbie

AliBlahBlah wrote:
I still can't agree with this WC.
Yes Laura won a $25K, in fine style, but, somewhat out of the blue.
That is all she's done in a year though.

This smacks of an unfair playing field, and influence being peddled from her high powered representation.
In the last year, she already had WC to a Grand Slam (Wimbledon), Premier Mandatory (Miami), 3 WTA Premiers (New Haven, Charleston, Birmingham), an International (Nottingham) and an ITF $100K (Vancouver). That's more than enough.
And, most importantly, it's completely unprecedented in the history of the WTA, and there have been plenty of players with at least as much talent who could have used a leg up at times.

Just because it's one of ours, I can't help but find this completely unacceptable. There's no argument for Laura had a high ranking, either, because she's had SR benefits, and there are players ahead of her, like Ula Radwanska, or Romina Oprandi, who had a ranking every bit as high as Laura's, but haven't received this extraordinary largesse - they've received nothing at all
What do players like Perrin, Sawayanagi, [everyone ahead of Laura] need to do to get some of this treatment? Well, qualify as of right. It's actually their only option, because it seems as though Laura and her team can hoover up any WC whenever they need to. Perhaps they should work on swelling their Twitter followers?

Not Laura's fault, but it absolutely stinks, and it shouldn't be allowed.

Don't take this personally, as I know everyone's entitled to their opinion, but here's my opinion on your comments. Are you forgetting that Laura reached the 4th round of the main draw of the tournament that has awarded her a wildcard, where she beat Kim Clijsters and Li Na back to back. She'll be known to the home crowd based purely from the performances she did that week! I don't recall Ula Radwanska or Oprandi ever producing performances like that at the US Open. Also, Laura was out for 18 months and is already not far off the rankings of both Radwanska and Oprandi. And as for the Perrin and Sawayangi comment, they haven't ever even been top 150 in their careers. Yeah, you could argue that Sawayangi is only 21, but Laura was ranked 27 in the world at 19 years old so thats not a good enough case. There's no doubt about it that if Laura wasn't injured for 18 months that she would be higher enough to be in the main draw, let alone qualifying so why shouldnt she been given a wildcard? When you have wins over people like Venus, Clijsters, Li Na, Kvitova, Kerber, and Aga Radwanska when you were still a teenager then I think that just proves everything. People can keep using the whole 'she hasn't done anything since injury debate' but she's also beaten top 100 players such as Naomi Osaka and Lepchenko since returning, and just won a 25k singles and doubles title. So how this 'stinks' makes absolutely no sense to me. I also don't see why her personal Twitter account and representation needs to be bought into it, theres a reason that she's gained the following and representation that she deserves. But like I said, this is solely my opinion.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Hello, me again. I am decidedly determined to doe on this here hill

indiana wrote:
Let Laura prove herself in qualifying [...]

I can agree with that... if she's qualified for qualifying. Which, she hasn't.
Why should we let Laura (or any other player in a comparable position) have a shot at that?
She got close (more on how in a minute), but didn't make it. Why should she get in when someone ahead of her does not?

For example, 19 year old Nadia Podoroska, WR231 (WR232 live), her career high. She's only had one (singles) WC in the past four years, to a $50K+H. She has fully 30 points more than Laura, or 15% more points than Laura.
She also won a $25K this year, in July. She came close to qualifying, but didn't make it. She shouldn't get in. But she should be in the queue ahead of Laura. How do we justify to these players? It's the same mechanism for which so many correspondents (rightly) lambaste the LTA - the cronyism, the old boys & girls network, being the 'right' sort of person, who you know.
I would wager that players like Podoroska weren't mentioned, even once by anyone as potential recipients of a WC. And, that is the correct decision! She did not qualify, has no special circumstances, come back next year at the AO, and get in there. The same applies to Laura, who as detailed above has additionally had every chance favoured to her, above and beyond any player from any nation in the history of the WTA.
On that, the argument that Laura 'got close' really galls me. She's perfectly entitled to use her PR, as everyone would. She has 65 'unearned' points in her total - those accrued from turning up to events and winning no matches. Points that no other player who has been fit could have. They have had to earn every one of theirs. Now, Laura is entitled to have them, and played her PR to all the Prem Mandatories and GS, with their free 10 points for turning up (she also got 10 points for a Wimbledon WC, not PR) - again, as any one would - but that's where it has to stop.
Those points, close to a third of her total, have already more than rewarded her for her previous achievements. Without them she would be nowhere near the qualifying cut off. To say that they can now also count towards her getting another free ticket to a competition - a highly lucrative competition; not important to Laura, but very much to others around her in the rankings - for which she has not qualified is having your cake and eating it to a Marie Antoinette scale.

If I were a player ~WR215-240, I'd be livid. Not because I didn't get a WC, I didn't deserve it through the fruits of my own labours, but because we should all be treated equitably, and, with Laura, it's patently not true. There are endless special circumstances for the specially favoured.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

I suspect I'm winning no friends with this

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Laura has been given lots of wild cards, especially since her return from injury, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. But equally there is no point in deliberately overstating it by ignoring the fact that of the 7 WC she has been given this year including the US Open, only 4 have been for main draws (and one of those was an ITF event).

If a tournament offers Laura a WC to play then then it's hard to argue for her turning it down - even in Miami (which stands out as one where the tournament could have found a more worth recipient given how little Laura had played at that time) she was hardly going to turn down a guaranteed $12k and a chance to play in a big tournament.

I have no doubt that Laura's relatively high profile led to her award of a US qualies WC, but equally she would not have got it without the timely tournament victory.

Setting that to one side, the US Open qualifying is an ideal tournament for Laura to play following her Landisville success. She will be playing opponents ranked in the 100-200 range with a big prize of a US Open place if she does well.

Mervatron · Masters Series Champion

AliBlahBlah wrote:
Mervatron wrote:
Most of those weren't a WC but using her protected ranking actually.
No, sorry, that is categorically incorrect.
You'll note in all of the following the designation as "WC". Given because they were wild cards.
New Haven 2015 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2015/602.pdf
Miami 2016 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/902.pdf
Charleston 2016 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/804.pdf
Eastbourne 2016 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/710.pdf
Wimbledon 2016 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/904.pdf
Nottingham 2016 - WC - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/1080.pdf

As opposed to these, which I didn't mention above, where she used her PR privileges. You'll note in these draws, there is no "WC" by her name because she plays as though her ranking was at it was when it was protected, and so is MD as of right:
Indian Wells 2016 - PR - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/609.pdf
Madrid 2016 - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/1038.pdf
Stuttgart 2016 - PR - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/1051.pdf
Rabat 2016 - PR - http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/2016/1005.pdf
etc.

Oh heaven forbid Laura gets WC's to home events. Shock of the highest level. In particular as we didn't have virtually any other contenders. She didn't take them away from anyone, that was British. I know how you like to pluck random girls from all over the place who are more deserving of a WC.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

AliBlahBlah wrote:
Hello, me again. I am decidedly determined to doe on this here hill
indiana wrote:
Let Laura prove herself in qualifying [...]
I can agree with that... if she's qualified for qualifying. Which, she hasn't.
Why should we let Laura (or any other player in a comparable position) have a shot at that?
She got close (more on how in a minute), but didn't make it. Why should she get in when someone ahead of her does not?

For example, 19 year old Nadia Podoroska, WR231 (WR232 live), her career high. She's only had one (singles) WC in the past four years, to a $50K+H. She has fully 30 points more than Laura, or 15% more points than Laura.
She also won a $25K this year, in July. She came close to qualifying, but didn't make it. She shouldn't get in. But she should be in the queue ahead of Laura. How do we justify to these players? It's the same mechanism for which so many correspondents (rightly) lambaste the LTA - the cronyism, the old boys & girls network, being the 'right' sort of person, who you know.
I would wager that players like Podoroska weren't mentioned, even once by anyone as potential recipients of a WC. And, that is the correct decision! She did not qualify, has no special circumstances, come back next year at the AO, and get in there. The same applies to Laura, who as detailed above has additionally had every chance favoured to her, above and beyond any player from any nation in the history of the WTA.
On that, the argument that Laura 'got close' really galls me. She's perfectly entitled to use her PR, as everyone would. She has 65 'unearned' points in her total - those accrued from turning up to events and winning no matches. Points that no other player who has been fit could have. They have had to earn every one of theirs. Now, Laura is entitled to have them, and played her PR to all the Prem Mandatories and GS, with their free 10 points for turning up (she also got 10 points for a Wimbledon WC, not PR) - again, as any one would - but that's where it has to stop.
Those points, close to a third of her total, have already more than rewarded her for her previous achievements. Without them she would be nowhere near the qualifying cut off. To say that they can now also count towards her getting another free ticket to a competition - a highly lucrative competition; not important to Laura, but very much to others around her in the rankings - for which she has not qualified is having your cake and eating it to a Marie Antoinette scale.
If I were a player ~WR215-240, I'd be livid. Not because I didn't get a WC, I didn't deserve it through the fruits of my own labours, but because we should all be treated equitably, and, with Laura, it's patently not true. There are endless special circumstances for the specially favoured.

So what is your main argument here?

Are you arguing the Wildcards shouldn't exist at all in tennis? - if that's the case I'm still on the fence (I can see the benefits of Wildcards in promoting tournaments but they are patently unfair)

Are you arguing that these tournaments shouldn't be giving Laura in particular a Wildcard? Probably fair in some cases but hardly Laura's fault or up to her to point out other players who might be more deserving.

Or are you arguing that Laura shouldn't be accepting the Wildcards? If that's the case then I would definitely disagree, as a professional athlete she should take advantage of whatever is on offer to improve her chances.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

First, welcome to the forum

Gbtennisfans wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
[...]
Don't take this personally, as I know everyone's entitled to their opinion, but here's my opinion on your comments. Are you forgetting that Laura reached the 4th round of the main draw of the tournament that has awarded her a wildcard, where she beat Kim Clijsters and Li Na back to back. She'll be known to the home crowd based purely from the performances she did that week! I don't recall Ula Radwanska or Oprandi ever producing performances like that at the US Open. Also, Laura was out for 18 months and is already not far off the rankings of both Radwanska and Oprandi. And as for the Perrin and Sawayangi comment, they haven't ever even been top 150 in their careers. Yeah, you could argue that Sawayangi is only 21, but Laura was ranked 27 in the world at 19 years old so thats not a good enough case. There's no doubt about it that if Laura wasn't injured for 18 months that she would be higher enough to be in the main draw, let alone qualifying so why shouldnt she been given a wildcard? When you have wins over people like Venus, Clijsters, Li Na, Kvitova, Kerber, and Aga Radwanska when you were still a teenager then I think that just proves everything. People can keep using the whole 'she hasn't done anything since injury debate' but she's also beaten top 100 players such as Naomi Osaka and Lepchenko since returning, and just won a 25k singles and doubles title. So how this 'stinks' makes absolutely no sense to me. I also don't see why her personal Twitter account and representation needs to be bought into it, theres a reason that she's gained the following and representation that she deserves. But like I said, this is solely my opinion.

I certainly don't take it personally, I hope no one else does either
Here follows my counter-argument.

There's no way to forget Laura's great past achievements; in the past.
If you want to argue that people who have had success at a particular tournament, and are thus well known to a crowd should get preferential treatment, then you can get into concerted horse trading over the relative merits of people here. For example, five places behind Laura in the rankings is Ms. Hantuchova, who in 2013 made QF at the US Open - a round better than Laura ever has, and a year more recently than Laura to boot. She's also additionally made another QF - including a run defeating GS champs Majoli & Henin back to back, and R16 3 times. Surely her greater success and even better exposure to the crowds would place her ahead in consideration by your measure. There is also the consideration with Daniela that she deserves the WC for the long service to tennis around the world, and that this may, at 33, be her last chance for a grand send off. Again, I would reject all of that. She's had her chance and didn't make it, great player back when, but when is not now, unless she, and Laura, have earned it. This general line of argument, ironically given Laura's age, generally lends itself to 'wheeling out old favourites for one last hurrah', as players of longevity and quality would naturally have more cards from which to draw in order to form their hand. I don't see how we can seriously take this as any consideration.

Laura being out.
Yes, she was out. Nobody's fault, certainly not the other players. She's earned the privilege of her PR, and has used it (see other comment above, for how she would not be anywhere close to the Q mark without those free points). That is the compensation for being out, not anything additional on top of that. Nobody else returning from injury gets the PR plus infinite WC - they have tended not to need them, Vika, Serena being good enough to replenish their rankings at their foirst or second events back. But, at a more Laura analogous level, Cibulkova, Szavay, Sevastova etc, have got back either during their PR period alone, or slogged it out thereafter; some don't fully return Safina, Kirilenko etc.
It's probable, though not certain of course, that without injury Laura would be MD as of right. But we don't operate on a system that ignores the reality of what did happen as opposed to what could have happened. That's unfortunate to talented players that get injured, but it's only fair.
The PR ameliorates this effect, and gives everybody in those circumstances the chance to work their way in over a long period. Laura used that PR, as everyone does, to maximum advantage. That period has ended now; the debt of tennis to Laura's (or, again, any player in a similar situation) wonderful previous achievements has been paid. You don't just keep adding to it by arbitrary rules. It has to stop at some point; doesn't it?
You assert repeatedly that had Laura not been injured she would be MD as of right. Possible, even (very, very) probable. But not certain. The Poles probably can't understand why Ula isn't still top 32, The Czecs have great trouble understanding why Krystyna doesn't join her sister in Pliskova domination. Serena was certain to beat Angie or Garbine to tie history this year; except, she didn't. There was no way Monica Puig could ever win the Gold Medal; except, she did. Nothing is certain, and that's sort of the reason why we play sport, isn't it?

Not far off the rankings of other players close to the Q cutoff.
Again, please see comments above about PR contributions to points.

Perrin & Sawayanagi
The point here is not that they should get a WC - or the others ahead of Laura but not qualified, but also without a WC - but that the rankings exist for a reason. How do you explain to players like this that their cut off is say 210 (not sure the exact cut off this year), but Laura's cut off is 248. That if she gets close enough to the cut off, all these other considerations kick in that somehow leapfrog her over them despite them & the others having played all year to get where they have? For them, as for Laura, it wasn't enough. To introduce special pleading is an unfair playing field.

Top 27 at 19
If we're arguing strictly on this point about what Laura achieved at what age, then Hantuchova is again relevant, as she was Top 5 aged 19, which would outscore Laura's 27. I'm not suggesting it should be a consideration, it absolutely shouldn't. It strikes me as something people looking to defend a players position and their WC would look for - every achievement in every context from their career given in isolation, and then in sum to make a case - again special pleading. There are near infinite considerations one could arrive at to make a case for various players depending on whatever was the best ****tail for them. None of it should matter at all. On which...

Wins against top players.
Hantuchova again. Or Ula, who has wins over GS winners/finalists, former #1's whilst they were each in the top 20: her sister, Kuznetsova, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Halep, Cibulkova, Pennetta, Bartoli
Or MLD Brito (7 places above Laura) with wins over Sharpova, Ivanovic, Aga, Pennetta - all whilst in the top 20.
etc.
Just because we don't remember the exploits of foreign players as vividly as we do those of our own, doesn't mean that they don't have them. To use this line of argument forces us to have some sort of moral relativism over whose was better, and that's no way to argue for anything.

Top 100 wins since returning
Hantuchova has 4 in the same period, Ula 2, MLDB 2 etc

Twitter & representation
Twitter: me being flippant. I apologise. I regretted it as I posted, but didn't want to edit the post after the fact to make it seem like I had not made an error.
The point about her very very well connected representation (even after the clouding over the affair of his other high profile client) still stands. Most all other players in and around the cut off don't have such string pullers and favour callers wheedling away on their behalf. Even top 20 players don't get this much favouritism when it comes to WC. I bring up the representation as the only possible additional factor in considering (as shown above) how Laura, at this young point in her career, is now the most WC'ed player in WTA history - by a distance (ISF posted a chart about this, but I can't find the thread).

I am not arguing that any of the players mentioned should have been favoured over Laura, they are just examples to deconstruct the special pleading inherent in each of the arguments offered. I am arguing that these players should not get a WC, and neither should Laura. There is, in fact, nothing special about any of them in terms of consideration. They all didn't make it.
Now, you may say, that it's not any of these points in isolation that creates Laura's case, but the sum total of them. Which has some validity, except it's not tied to any benchmark. What is the aggregate threshold one must cross in order to claim that WC? And, not knowing all of the other players claims and stories sufficiently well, how can we be certain that Laura is anywhere close to the most deserving, even by that highly indulgent measure?
As was stated at the time, when I argued against Laura's second consecutive Wimbledon MDWC, the consensus is that she's guaranteed entry to one GS every year for as long as she plays, because she's Laura, and British fans will want to see her every year. And Britain having the privilege of one of the gift of one of the GS, will make it so.
Even disregarding every single other argument and refutation that I have given in all the posts, it seems only fair to ask her, at the very least, to qualify for the other three.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

AliBlahBlah wrote:
I suspect I'm winning no friends with this

Amusing as the posts have been, it does make me wonder whether Laura kicked you in the nads when you were a kid or summat

Your passion against her seems quite inappropriate for a British Tennis forum.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Helen40 wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
I suspect I'm winning no friends with this
Amusing as the posts have been, it does make me wonder whether Laura kicked you in the nads when you were a kid or summat
Your passion against her seems quite inappropriate for a British Tennis forum.

It would be absolutely astonishing to me were she to have performed the action to which you refer. It would be impossible, unless you know something my gynaecologist isn't telling me.

It's not anti-Laura, it never was, it's anti gaming the system when others are more deserving. Or, at least deserve a chance too. Just becasue she's ours I can't condone this favouritism. The playing field should be level. It's not.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

tony_orient wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
[...]
So what is your main argument here?
Are you arguing the Wildcards shouldn't exist at all in tennis? - if that's the case I'm still on the fence (I can see the benefits of Wildcards in promoting tournaments but they are patently unfair)
Are you arguing that these tournaments shouldn't be giving Laura in particular a Wildcard? Probably fair in some cases but hardly Laura's fault or up to her to point out other players who might be more deserving.
Or are you arguing that Laura shouldn't be accepting the Wildcards? If that's the case then I would definitely disagree, as a professional athlete she should take advantage of whatever is on offer to improve her chances.

See all other posts for detail.

But, to address your points overall, and then, in turn: Of your options, mostly the second.

Should WC exist?Like you, I disagree with WC, understand the practical use of them. USOQ though, is not a tournament (at all, but we'll move past that) that gets, or needs any promotion - tickets are free to anyone turning up on the day, and it is always sparsely attended. The NYC crowd aren't going to pour through the doors to watch Laura, or pretty much anyone drafted in as a 'draw', play in qualies.

Should tournaments be giving WC to Laura.
Of your choices, this is, by far, closest to the detail.
Your other post claims I overstate because of the 7 WC Laura has received (as outlined in my first posts) only 4 of them (since April) were MD. Which fails to understand the usual position for WC. Yes there is a maximum number that can be accepted (forgoing the additional complications of Top 20 & Top 10 entitlements to extras), the reality is that this number is never reached. For a player to actually use their maximum WC is almost unheard of, to do so year on year out is un precedented.
Take those 4 WC (since April): that is still more than the WC of all of the players I originally mentioned, In their combined careers.
Here's that list again: {Strycova, Begu, Koukalova, Barthel, Niculescu, Pironkova, Wozniak, Schimedlova, Svitolina}
Mervatron accuses me of picking random players, but there's a mix of age group peers, or those with similar CH, or that have had injury breaks; to cover the bases on why Laura might be getting so many WC.
But, pick your own list. Only Ivanovic comes close in her career, and she's still way behind Laura, despite being much older, and having achieved much more.
You would be surprised I'm sure by the number of top players that have never had more than 4 WC (MD or QWC) in a 12 plus year career.
That is to say nothing of the levels of tournaments to which Laura gets her WC, Premiers and Premier Mandatories, still? Why Indian Wells? The argument goes that at Wimbledon and US Open she has past form, hence the WC. She's done nothing at IW, so why her, this year? Eisenbud, and that whole group, is very close to Larry Ellison, the CEO and owner of the tournament. Can I prove that is why? No. but it smells bad.
I know Heather, because of her representation, and their close ties to that tournament, is virtually guaranteed a MDWC to Miami in any year she is not otherwise qualified (already 5 MDWC to date there!), and that stinks just as bad - just to show that it's not an anti-Laura thing. There's no earthly way Hev merits such favouritism.
And, it is in no way cancelled out by each player having a particular tournament that they can rely on to get the nod and the wink, because as shown by the WC for other players, they get virtually none in their careers, let alone to Premier or Prem Mand's, or repeat prescriptions.
Perhaps there should be a rule that says you can't have repeats at any event in a certain timeframe. Or, that PR should be used, and if initiated, you cannot accept WC in that period. Or a points matrix for the value of the tournaments drawn up, and that, in addition to the current limit on the total number of WC available to any player, that those combined WC could not exceed a certain level of points by aggregate of the level of tournaments.

Should Laura reject WC?No, she'd be mad to. I would admire her even more if she did though.
I've stated repeatedly, this is not about Laura. This is about a player - it happens to be 'our' player but equally applies to any other player - getting, at this point, a frankly obscene amount of WC, as indicated above.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcasting.

Long time reader · Lower Club Player

If Laura had not done well last week then I would agree with you but ultimately after being out 18 months injured and then playing pretty badly for a year she suddenly showed massive potential last week with 3 very good wins , 2 against players who will be in qualifying, that combined with her history is what got her the wc. To me that seems fair enough as if she carries her form into next week she has every chance of doing well.

Forgetting Laura's history, giving a qualifying wc to a player who wins the last local itf before a slam seems a pretty fair way of giving out wc's to me.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

AliBlahBlah wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
I suspect I'm winning no friends with this
Amusing as the posts have been, it does make me wonder whether Laura kicked you in the nads when you were a kid or summat
Your passion against her seems quite inappropriate for a British Tennis forum.
It would be absolutely astonishing to me were she to have performed the action to which you refer. It would be impossible, unless you know something my gynaecologist isn't telling me.
It's not anti-Laura, it never was, it's anti gaming the system when others are more deserving. Or, at least deserve a chance too. Just becasue she's ours I can't condone this favouritism. The playing field should be level. It's not.

Well I'm sure you got my drift

Ah, the whole fairness, WC argument. I'm still not going to get drawn in as it seems to have been revisited adequately on this thread already.

The bottom line is that sport/life isn't fair. When it comes down to it, why has Laura been dealt so much more talent than the rest of us. We are a GS nation - pros and cons 77 years of them at one stage. I'm not going to knock a little of the pro side. I just hope she plays as well or better than last week to justify it.

-- Edited by Helen40 on Wednesday 17th of August 2016 08:12:40 PM

chavkev · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
chavkev wrote:
It must feel good earning the Wild Card this time. Hopefully this will be another stepping stone for her. Laura did qualify at Flushing Meadows before too.
I still think the word here should really be 'getting'.
As said there certainly seems nothing at all set in place for the winner of Landisville, unsurprising given it was just a 25K - essentially a higher futures level event if it was a guys' 25K.
Whatever, I have no huge issues about Q WCs in general for Slams other than best to have a level playing field. Let Laura prove herself in qualifying, and the recent signs are she well might. though to actually qualify will really signal another big step. Will be interesting.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 17th of August 2016 04:02:39 PM

I did mean earning, simply by dint of her results in this tournament. Whether it's justified or not is another matter. The psychology will hopefully be different from her standpoint too.