The Optimist wrote:

---

Do the men get any points at this level for matches won in qualifying?

---

Only if they win the FQR and qualify for the MD.  In this case it is 5 points for qualifying.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Sunday 7th of May 2017 07:08:48 AM

QR2: Ed Corrie WR 333 (CH = 215 in October 2014) lost to (q6) Austin Krajicek (USA) WR 313 (CH 94 Oct 2015) 6-2 6-4
QR2: Lloyd Glasspool WR 435 (CH = 282 last July) beat (q2) Juan Pablo Paz (ARG) WR 285 (=CH) 6-3 6-2

-------------------------------------------

FQR : Lloyd Glasspool WR 435 (CH = 282 last July) v (q6) Shuichi Sekiguchi (JAP) WR 319 (CH 259 May 2014)

I do think it's grossly unfair that you only get ranking points (and prize money!) if you qualify. Especially in the bigger challenger events. Surely this needs to be addressed? Anyway, great win for Lloyd.

Samson wrote:

---

I do think it's grossly unfair that you only get ranking points (and prize money!) if you qualify. Especially in the bigger challenger events. Surely this needs to be addressed? Anyway, great win for Lloyd.

---

I don't know, given the ranking system is what it is and only the slams generate a large audience from day one, the only way you can justify the challenger and futures tour is as a developmental process i.e. to facilitate the development of players as such. I am more than happy to pay to watch challenger tennis but am in a minority. 

Players in qualification should only be there if they have performed consistently well at futures winning a string of events and dominating a cohort, indeed they may be able to generate a points total that if they pick their tournament takes them straight into the challenger MD. But bigger challengers with 100K in prize money at stake are not the ones to choose unless the agenda is development. There is a second group of players who haven't quite achieved that consistency at futures and are chancing their arm, giving challengers a go through qualys. 

For young players doing this (dominating futures) in their teens there is a good chance that there is significant potential for further development and growth over the next 18 months to take them onto or close to the ATP tour. Liam was nearly there and it is completely understandable that he should be seeking to develop his game to take him to the next level, similarly Lloyd but their window is time limited as there is pressure from behind with a fine cohort of younger players hard on their heels. 

The challenger level allows the best players to generate a points score consistent with players transitioning to ATP 250's and GS MD, there they will earn well but may not score points so will have to balance choice of events ie. winning v development. Just the same at futures to challenger level. One has to accept that although all players at this level are superb players it takes an extraordinary degree of talent, drive and consistency to make the top 100 in the world which some just don't have and get stuck.

That level of tennis does not generate an audience big enough to sustain a salary at the basic living wage but there are many ways of earning a living that do, without the need to invest in a travelling coach, accommodation and international travel. Some on the cusp are willing to sustain this lifestyle for longer than others. 

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Sunday 7th of May 2017 04:44:28 PM

Brydan and Liam both opening proceedings tomorrow (overnight), good luck to them.

Brydan and Joe also playing doubles against each other later in the day.

L16:  (PR) Matt Ebden (AUS) & Brydan Klein CR 441 (251+190) defeated David O'Hare (IRL) & Joe Salisbury CR 313 (137+176) by 4-6 6-1 [10-7]