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

SMC1809 · All-time great

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

the addict · Tennis legend

Results are mixed in with running commentary, finishing on around page 19.
Full resultson IF site at www.itftennis.com/procircuit/tournaments/women's-tournament/info.aspx

But in brief, Laura Robson won the tournament, and won the doubles as well with Freya

-- Edited by the addict on Wednesday 17th of August 2016 10:53:51 PM

Miriambee · Futures level

SMC1809 wrote:
I've been away for a week, and read this thread to see how the tournament went. I've found posts about kicking eunuchs but can anyone shed any light on where the tournament results are?

I've got pages in a format with a lot of posts, so the total thread is only 6 pages long. The final is on page 5, and page 1 starts with qualifying.

To change the number of posts per page, go to user details, then settings. Max is 60 posts per page, which I use now.

-- Edited by Miriambee on Wednesday 17th of August 2016 10:59:47 PM

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Laura has had Wildcards to 6 tournaments this year and gained 36 ranking points from those tournaments (12 of which were for winning a match the others as 'appearance points')
Last week Laura gained 50 points from one tournament as a result of winning Landisville

What this shows is that while the Wildcards have given Laura a nice cash investment, because her tennis was not good enough to win matches in those tournaments they have only given her ranking a small boost. How many Wildcards Laura gets in future will not in any way determine if she makes it back to the top 100 or top 50, the only thing they could do is help her get there faster if she is already playing at that level anyway.

indiana · Tennis legend

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

Don't worry ( not as you said that you take you take take tennis arguments here personally and nor surely should anyone else ), you say what you think if you honestly feel strongly about it and I see that you do. The fact that this is a British tennis forum is pretty irrelevant to the tennis fairness points in your fundamental arguments and just more interesting because Laura is one of our own. Effectively resorting to "but she's British" doesn't counter a principled argument and I fail to share seeming amazement that this should be so strongly held when a British player is benefitting. Rational tennis argument, which happens to be contra a British player, not allowed? Surely not.

I, as you may be aware, have had fairly long discussions / debate re my views on Slam MD WCs. I am clearly in a minority of those who have expressed a view, although there had been one consistent poster of similar mind. And I have moved a little in being somewhat understanding of what may be called earned WCs through winning certain tournaments or series of tournaments with that criteria set out in advance ( not set out for Laura's Q WC if it was Landisville that got her her Q WC ).

The big thing to me is that Slams are the pinnacle of tennis, they are the elite annual tournaments and players should not be unfairly / unevenly parachuted in This to me overcomes the arguments re home interest, past achievements, personalities etc.

That then is some of the context I come to with Q WCs. The main thing for me, and why I don't take such issue against them, is that players still have to qualify to join the elite main draw players so will at least have proved themselves in those 3 matches on the surface immediately prior to the tournament. It is quite good for home players to get the chance of many of their dreams without being catapulted too far and too unfairly beyond their abilities and the same to an extent with young progidees ( maybe that new 16 yo still ranked in the 300s or lower could be a real star, should we deny them even this year a chance purely on ranking? ), past performers, even even to a limited extent personalties wirh some of the other points, currently lower ranked. I can see why the Slam would like them there, but at least make them qualify. Laura has for me less of a case than the young up and comer, but in different ways she is coming back.

Am I compromising my views? A bit, but life is full of compromises ( some better than others ). I am happy with mine here in the extent to which I want to retain the main draw Slam elite, but give certain players ( most particularly the up and comers ) an opportunity. If you are ranked outside the qualifying cut-off sure you may feel unfairness at times re your treatment against some others, but ultimately you are ranked outside the qualifying cut-off.

But be sure, I do see where you are coming from in almost all your arguments, which are much more convincing than many of the responses, particularly your points vis a vis named other players. You seem less against Q WCs per se, but how Laura has essentially 'jumped the queue' or been jumped since it's not her fault. Just a bit of me does want to see the new prodigees, the ex stars, and yes Laura in there. But make them qualify!

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 18th of August 2016 02:40:39 AM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I don't think Laura is an ex-star, she is an injured teenage phenomena who was in the process of developing into one of the stars of the game and her performances as both a junior and senior compared favourably with some of the best all time British performances for a player her age.

She has struggled to rehabilitate from a potential career ending wrist injury (small joint injury) which are difficult to fix. I along with a number of others are excited to see her play at the U.S. open qualifiers, indeed it will add excitement and interest to those attending the tournament, she is very close to being ranked high enough for direct entry, but not, and therefore was not awarded direct entry through rank.

There are a finite number of wild cards, the merits of which have been discussed ad naseum, Laura is clearly capable of winning through if completely rehabilitated and indeed of making progress in the tournament itself, generally in my experience of qualifying tournaments there is clear stratification of playing levels and generally the quality (thin) and likelihood of progression of players outside 300 gets pretty slim

Obviously there are exceptions that prove the rule, but this is a qualifying tournament designed to feed quality players into the main event who either show great promise but are under ranked due to age or rehabilitation from injury and the occasional journeyman on an exceptional run of form. Wild cards are by definition unfair, so fairness doesn't come into it, it is about choice.

I would argue that Laura given her past track record and that she is British was a good choice for Wimbledon MD from the tournaments perspective (maybe not Laura's, I think she would have gained more by playing in qualifying, indeed she spent plenty of time watching qualifying which suggests to me that she may have in her heart of hearts felt the same) .......and is also a good choice for US Open qualifying and an excellent opportunity for Laura.

If she had been selected for the MD, that would be ridiculous a worthy of a diatribe.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 18th of August 2016 02:44:54 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Who needs friends, Ali B ?

But, ok, just to add my tuppence-worth:

1. I like wildcards
2. Laura has had a HUGE number of them (way too many, in my view, and they haven't helped)
3. But is that because of
(a) the power of IMG (or whoever she uses now) - i.e. a bit unfair but that's life
(b) favourtism from the LTA/AELTC - again unfair but also life (Katie Swan's MD wildcard looks more and more unjustifiable, given her well talked about injury problems at the time, as backed up by her junior withdrawal and subsequent absence)
(c) Laura's own reputation as an ex-top 30 player i.e. completely fair and of her own doing
4. Laura should obviously ignore all the above and just do what she thinks favours her comeback (not sure she has)
5. It's all largely irrelevant now. PRs have finished. Last week's form may be a flash in the pan (she could easily have lost that first match). If she doesn't manage to carry on that form, she's going to drop all those free points and find herself top 600 or so and then there will effectively be no wildcards. If she carries one where she left off, the wins/points will carry on and she won't be needing all those wildcards.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

tony_orient wrote:
Laura has had Wildcards to 6 tournaments this year and gained 36 ranking points from those tournaments (12 of which were for winning a match the others as 'appearance points')
Last week Laura gained 50 points from one tournament as a result of winning Landisville

What this shows is that while the Wildcards have given Laura a nice cash investment, because her tennis was not good enough to win matches in those tournaments they have only given her ranking a small boost. How many Wildcards Laura gets in future will not in any way determine if she makes it back to the top 100 or top 50, the only thing they could do is help her get there faster if she is already playing at that level anyway.

Thanks tony, that's interesting information. So she's only had a net gain of 24 from her WCs for losing. That's alot less than I had initially thought. So her PRs have got her back to around WR 270, and it's up to her to do the rest with the help of maybe her PR company and the odd earned WC. I can live with that.

Jaffa · Challenger level

I hope she qualifies now! Haha

indiana · Tennis legend

Jaffa wrote:
I hope she qualifies now! Haha

I was rather imagining that we all did already.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 18th of August 2016 08:49:02 AM

FKA insomniacfolder · Newbie

Hello, yes it's me. Well, it's not, it's someone typing for me, but that doesn't matter.

For what it's worth Ali, I agree almost completely with almost everything you've said, and the patient, methodical way you've deconstructed counter arguments.

Even if you egregiously reduce the advantage to only WC where she hasn't won a match, 24 points is 12% of Laura's total. What right does any player have to such a premium?

I also understand this is not an anti-Laura stance, though most do not see it that way. I thought your point about Heather's WC arrangement at Miami made that distinction well. It's about undue favour to players, and the authorities needing to keep an eye on these actions to make sure that individuals aren't overly favoured - through no fault of their own - your suggestions for additional rules about WC, and the WC/PR overlap were interesting.

Anyway, now Laura has the WC, which I disagree with, I, of course, hope desperately, that she wins through, and optimistically, that we ultimately have Tara, Laura, Naomi, Heather & Johanna all in the main draw, and even more optimistically, that we get an all GB semi-final line up. OK, too far, maybe. But, I still hope fervently for it. As Indiana suggested, I presume we all do.

To prove it's me. My other account having been deleted. Here is a link to the visualisation on GB Women's tennis rankings that I was working on before I became unable to continue. It's not finished, and never will be, but you can probably see what I was trying to do. In the URL, you'll see my name, same as it was with all the other visualisations I ever provided.

Best Wishes All players, and all forumites, forever.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

It's wonderful to hear from you, Insomniacfolder

And, if life and health is not treating you kindly, all the very best wishes, from a big fan of your posts !

And to your typist too

wimdledont · Challenger level

Welcome back fka isf. That new visualisation looks like another classic in the making.

Welcome also to GBtennis fans, above on this thread.

Congratulations to Laura again for winning this tournament, which I hope will be the first of many at the ITF level; which would in my view give her the best chance of making a really successful return to the highest level. I shan't therefore be really cheering for her to make an instant and dramatic meteoric ascent through a miraculous run through her thoroughly undeserved US Open Qs wildcard.

Half sporting competition; half celebrity circus.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes great to hear from you, ISF, with very fair but pointed comment and graphs.

Take care, all the very best to you.

christ · Futures level

On the plus side, WCs have to earn all of their points out on the field: there are innumerable subjectively judged sports where reputation is worth several points with the judges before the pitch is even disturbed: ice dancing/ gymnastics/ diving/ boxing etc. Fame has its benefits in most sports, but at least tennis makes you earn victories.

Also, it isn't just WCs, sponsorship deals are hardly balanced, they are negotiated by agents based on tons of factors, few of which are on-field performance related.

Life isn't fair.