Tennis Forum banner

Is the WC rule at YEC a bit disrespectful to the players trying to qualify?

6K views 63 replies 43 participants last post by  NatP 
#1 ·
It's not in the stone, but if the WTA is going to hand out a WC, it will probably go to Pennetta, since she won a GS this year (and not Bouchard because Stacey is OUT :oh:).

Initially I would say that it is fair, but after some thinking, since we are seeing stiff competition for the WTA Finals this year, I concluded that this rule is NOT fair to the players who are still trying to qualify. Because there is uncertainty if some players that are in reach of attaining #9 in the race (counting only with Serena's withdrawal) that they will get to qualify to Singapore, like Radwanska playing six tournaments in a row which could be in vain if they decide, one week before Finals, to hand out a WC.

I think WTA NEEDS to change the rules to be like ATP's, who is more considerate to the players. Just set it outright that a GS champion will get in the WTA Finals by virtue of winning a GS plus standing in the top16/20 of the race, By doing so, the other players will know that there is one less place to fight for. Or set a date limit for handing out the WC, like, at the end of USO (IMO only a GS champion would deserve it, a PM/P5 winner a la Rezaï/MJMS isn't good enough for it) - but I still believe ATP's rule is better, less discretionary.

Sorry if this was already discussed, but I really believe they need to change this ASAP. Thoughts?
 
See less See more
#4 ·
From 2015 Official WTA Rulebook, p. 165:

A. WTA FINALS
1. Qualification and Attendance
a. Qualified Players - Singles
The Tournament shall consist of a singles draw of eight (8) players
(including one (1) Wild Card, if applicable) in a round robin format.
The top seven (7) players using their 16 best Tour Year singles
results, counting for the WTA rankings, shall qualify for the
Tournament. The qualification method will count all events from
the beginning of the Tour Year and exclude the 2014 WTA Finals
and the 2014 International Tournament of Champions.
At its sole discretion and taking into account extraordinary circumstances, the WTA may select the 8th player for participation in the singles draw. If the WTA does not exercise its option to select the 8th player, the 8th spot in the draw will be awarded to the player who is in the 8th position using the method described above.




And ATP doesn't give a WC. It's a rule that a GS champion is automatically qualified unless he doesn't finish in the top 20, or there is another GS champion that is between #8~#19 (better ranking compared to the second one).
 
#5 ·
It's fair, but its not the point of the thread. I believe that it cannot be given at WTA's will, no one knowing if it will given or not until the tournament starts, because the others that are close to the spot are fighting for it, and this fight may be in vain if WTA decides to strip their spot by giving the WC to a GS champion.
 
#46 ·
Winning GS is more important than whoring up Moscow & Linz in last ditch effort to make YEC :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPH
#8 ·
It's not disrespectful at all. The players know the rules.

They shouldn't celebrate a YEC qualification unless they secure a top 7 spot. But like the rules say, the WC is for extraordinary circumstances that have yet to ever occur so I don't see it being used really.

Edit: I actually recall Kim being offered a WC that she turned down in 2009? If that did happen, then I definitely would have supported that decision and would still say it's not disrespectful to the players.
 
#11 ·
Edit: I actually recall Kim being offered a WC that she turned down in 2009? If that did happen, then I definitely would have supported that decision and would still say it's not disrespectful to the players.
Disagree: Kim skipped the entire Asian swing and didn't even attempt to qualify for the YEC. (She only played Lux which is like 200 yards from her home). If she had tried to qualify and came close, say in 11th position and/or ~200 pts short, then I would have been fine with the WC. But really, she gave no fucks about the YEC that year.

:)
 
#10 ·
If CSN wil be 8th so it will be ok :oh:
 
#14 ·
They've never used it
Even when They could have given a WC to Venus
 
#50 ·
Yep.

In 2004, Venus finished #9 and was excluded.

In 2005, BOTH Venus and Serena finished 10 and 11 and were excluded.

In 2009, Kim was OFFERED the WC (only time WC has been offered) and she declined.

I doubt they use the WC for Pennetta. The rule should be removed. Slam winners should automatically qualify. It is a YEAR-ENDING championship. No one cares who won Katowice. They will remember who won the slams when they recount the year.
 
#16 ·
The players know the rule at the start of the season: ony top 7 seals the deal 100%; 8th on the ranking has to hope that there are no special circumstances that justifies a WC

Ediàt: and this year the #8 already replaces Serena. So whoever ends on #9 should not be in the YEC anyway. So as far as I am concerned, they should give it to Pennetta. And announce it asap.
 
#17 ·
Of course it is. It's saying to the final ranked qualifier that although they may have had better results and won more points to earn their spot, they're still deemed so unworthy that a player with fewer points has to be parachuted over them.

It's not up to the WTA to play favourites with beloved legends or "more marketable" players, it's up to them to be fair. And if a Slam winner does so badly everywhere else that she can't finish in the top 8? Tough luck. I really hope Pennetta qualifies on merit and they don't have to break out the WC rule. I'm glad they haven't so far; the Tournament of Champions farce really showed how unfair it was when every year, there seemed to be a Pretty Girl WC :help:
 
#20 ·
Kim was obvious as she only returned after Wimbledon that year from memory.

But yeah I guess that is why the rule is different to ATP as ATP has a bunch of players who have won majors and were not top 8 by seasons end but the WTA has very rare occurrences.
 
#21 · (Edited)
The rule is there though. I agree with the OP that it should be clarified. Flavia's case is about as exceptional as it can get - she will retire at the end of the year, she won a slam which is a big achievement, and she would only miss out barely. If the rule does not apply this year, it should never apply...

In any case, I am not sure when a WC should be announced if they decided to give it to her. After Beijing? Surely not only after next week? That would be unfair, too.

As of today, after Radwanska's win, she is at #8, and will stay there unless Ivanovic or Timea win the title here.
 
#30 ·
I wouldn't say it's disrespectful exactly but I don't think it's right. The whole point of the YEC is that it pits the top players in the rankings against each other. To me it goes against the whole spirit of the thing. It's a major opportunity to get ranking points and prize money too so that isn't fair on others who might have been picked. Also, how would you feel if you were one place away from qualifying and someone well below you in the rankings was parachuted into the event? If they do have it it should be based on published, objective criteria.
 
#49 ·
Well there were few times when Pironkova was given WC to MM Yec Sofia despite not winning one :p
 
#31 ·
For me is epic scandal case of 2009 when WTA NOT USE WC for USO champion Kim Clijsters which comes back on spectacular way that summer after 2 years of pause and as unranked won USO GS! She of course don't have enough tournaments to qualify on regular basis by rankings, but WTA falls to give hers WC just couple weeks after she become co-best ever used WC in history of tennis (together with Goran Ivanisevic)!? Next year she once again won USO, played enough tournaments to made TOP8 in RACE - and won YEC2010!

This year Flavia Pennetta should be granted with WC for hers GS title.
If rumors that Maria will join Serena in w/o, this tournament should be saved somehow, and only Ana Ivanovic have enough starpower to diminish such damage.
If Venus Williams announce hers retirement next season (for example after Rio) she also should be seriously considered for this year WC.

Last year is perfect example how should to look some YEC field:


But this year if Maria w/o (Serena is already out) it may be nightmare, and there is even chances that MM-YEC in Zhuhai overshadow real YEC in terms of starpower if Ivanovic, Venus, Wozniacki, Azarenka, Jankovic, Pennetta... join Zhuhai and Kvitova will be the only GS champ in Singapore (and without any former #1 there)! And this scenario seems right now very realistic!
 
#32 ·
It isn't disrespectful in any way.

It says 'extraordinary'. Something like a player wins the first two slams, then gets injured saving a hospital full of children from terrorists and misses four months of the tour, so when YEC time comes around, they're back, but they're only ranked #13 or something. Read 'extraordinary' as 'ridiculously unlikely'.

It's not there to get popular players into the YEC over less popular ones.
 
#34 ·
But that's exactly how most people here seem to think it should be used. If, say, CSN qualified last, how many people here would literally opt for long-retired Clijsters to be parachuted in over her?

Any time you open the door for non-objective criteria, there's potential for abuse. Back in the '90s, I remember the US Open opted for discretionary seedings for the men (the ATP was ridiculously surface-divided at the time). Coincidentally this meant a lot of American players getting bumped up, and the players objected so much it never happened again (this is also why Wimbledon had to come up with their mathematical grass formula rather than rearranging seeds as they saw fit).

And seriously, look at the TOC WCs over the past few years. Players like Ivanovic, Hantuchova, Lisicki, Kirilenko who hadn't met the criteria for taking part, but were given a spot because they were pretty. Sorry, "popular" or "marketable" or whatever euphemism they used.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top