PDA

View Full Version : Should Lilia Osterloh Be Enraged?


Sally Todd
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:26 AM
I don't mean this as a purely rhetorical philosophical question -- though it does have a nice ring to it. :lol:

I'm just wondering...Liliah posted about the best results by a US woman in the US Open series. She made it relatively far in Cincinnati, and then beat Bartoli at Stanford on her way to the quarters there.

Yet lots of other US women got into the main draw at the Open, while Lilia had to play qualies. She lost there.

What do you think? Should Lilia be pissed off?

RJWCapriati
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:29 AM
Yes I do believe so.......I thought Brenda Schultz deserved a WC also.

Savior
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:37 AM
Well, if she lost in the qualies... why should we assume she would have done better in the main draw? Seems like her losing vindicated the organizer's decision not to give her a wildcard in the first place.

Sally Todd
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:45 AM
I just think that every other US player and their mother got into the draw, so I was mystified that Lilia wasn't included. Getting through qualies is something she's often done, but it seemed unfair to make her do it in a year when she's obviously had better results than Craybas, Audra Cohen and Ahsha Rolle to name just three.

And getting through the qualifiers ain't easy sometimes -- the competition is rough.

It's not a life-or-death matter, but I think the powers that be owed Lilia more.

tenn_ace
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:54 AM
Yes I do believe so.......I thought Brenda Schultz deserved a WC also.


why? what exactly makes her more deserving than those girls who actually got wc's?

tenn_ace
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:02 AM
I just think that every other US player and their mother got into the draw, so I was mystified that Lilia wasn't included. Getting through qualies is something she's often done, but it seemed unfair to make her do it in a year when she's obviously had better results than Craybas, Audra Cohen and Ahsha Rolle to name just three.

And getting through the qualifiers ain't easy sometimes -- the competition is rough.

It's not a life-or-death matter, but I think the powers that be owed Lilia more.


Jill got into MD on her own merit (so you need to get your facts straight) and the rest of the wc's are much younger than Osterloh, so USTA is investing in them. What's the point of giving a wc to player who will probably retire within 2-3 years? :scratch:

switz
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:05 AM
there are two streams of thought. Yes Osterloh had quite good results over the summer but she's older and the tendency these days is to give the younger prospects a go - especially in countries like Australia, Britain and the US where there are obvious problems of depth of top players. Lilia has never been a top player either so it's not as if she's ranked a lot lower than she usually would be.

She could feel that she was up a set and late break in R1 of qualifying and lost. She could also feel bad that she drew a player with a hell of a lot more ability than her ranking in Perebyinis (sp?).

But yeah she probably deserved one in theory but i don't know if she's entitled to feel enraged.

RJWCapriati
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:07 AM
why? what exactly makes her more deserving than those girls who actually got wc's?

Brenda has played so many tournaments this year just to get her ranking to where it is and had a very good showing in Cincinnati........we all know her past success..... she could have really put on a serving display and possibly won a few rounds at the open w/ a good draw.

tenn_ace
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Brenda has played so many tournaments this year just to get her ranking to where it is and had a very good showing in Cincinnati........we all know her past success..... she could have really put on a serving display and possibly won a few rounds at the open w/ a good draw.


wc's are usually (esp. at GS's) awarded for 2 reasons: marketing, i.e. if a player can bring in additional fans or to give a chance to a young talented player. she is neither. sorry.

~Eclipsed~
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:42 AM
no, she couldn't win her first round match so why should she be. IF she had lost in the last round of qualifying, then maybe so.

azza
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:58 AM
i neally creamed my pants when she lost in quallis was like i was peaking :bounce:

thetennisutopian
Aug 27th, 2007, 06:00 AM
Well, if she lost in the qualies... why should we assume she would have done better in the main draw? Seems like her losing vindicated the organizer's decision not to give her a wildcard in the first place.

Agreed. I was dismayed at her early exit in Qualies. She would've lost in the MD even easier. Sad. Oh well... if she can keep playing well consistently she wouldn't be in this predicament. Too bad for her though.

Realtennis
Aug 27th, 2007, 07:09 AM
why? what exactly makes her more deserving than those girls who actually got wc's?
Well Ahsha Rolle sucks for one thing, and has no where near the past nor present results of Osterloh!

marycarillosucks
Aug 27th, 2007, 08:14 AM
Osterloh's good results this summer will count toward her next year's USOpen entry ranking. If she doesn't play horrendously over the next 9 months, she'll get into the 2008 main draw on ranking. Of course by that time she'll be 30 years old.

tennisrocks123
Aug 27th, 2007, 02:51 PM
ok?

MLF
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Brenda has played so many tournaments this year just to get her ranking to where it is and had a very good showing in Cincinnati........we all know her past success..... she could have really put on a serving display and possibly won a few rounds at the open w/ a good draw.

Brenda failed to win a round in both Wimbledon and US Open qualies, so I'm certain she'd struggle in the main draw at the moment.

As for Lilia, I'd be annoyed if I were her, but let's face it, if you're good enough you'd qualify.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Will being enraged, buy her a WC?

If you answered NO, you have your answer.