PDA

View Full Version : Lilia Osterloh not getting a USO wildcard = absolutely outrageous


CoryAnnAvants#1
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:20 PM
She BARELY missed the main draw cutoff in July, but since then has reached the quarters at Cincinnati and Stanford (including beating Bartoli), and then qualified for/reached the 2nd round of Los Angeles.

In four weeks, her ranking went from #112 to #76 and she STILL didn't get a main draw wildcard. I work with Lilia's best friend at ABC and she said that Lilia flew to New York today to prepare for the qualifying, where she will be the top seed. She was pissed off and rightfully so.

Julie Ditty got screwed as well. The USTA always gives a main draw wildcard to the american woman who racks up the most points on the USTA pro circuit during the year. Now that a 28 year old woman did the best on the circuit, they decide they're not going to give out the wildcard anymore and Julie is stuck playing qualifying.

The USTA really needs to re-evaluate who they give these wildcards too. Lilia had the best summer out of any American woman in singles and got NOTHING.

njnetswill
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:23 PM
World #77 and 78 both playing quals. :lol:

Lilia should have gotten a WC, she has racked up WTA tour level wins recently, something almost none of the other recipients can say.

saki
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Yes. I can see why they want to give most of the WCs to young players but there is a limit and making someone with Osterloh's recent results play qualies at her home GS when she would thrash any one of the players given WCs is ridiculous.

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I like the move. Osterloh will benefit her ranking going through qualifying and doesn't need the leg-up that the youngsters do.

GoDominique
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:37 PM
I like the move. Osterloh will benefit her ranking going through qualifying and doesn't need the leg-up that the youngsters do.
Assuming it's a given that she gets through qualifying.

CrossCourt~Rally
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Theres somthing wrong when you see the #1 seed ( from the USA ) in the US Open Qualifying with a #76 ranking and the #2 seed ( non usa player ) with a ranking almost 20 spots below her. :( Lilia has been a big part of the Ustas player development program over the past 12 years. You just don't THROW AWAY players when they get to a certain age. She has been working her ass off in challengers over the past few years to get her game back to where it was when she reached the 4th rd of both Wimbledon and the US Open. I am still really upset to talk about it in detail any further. Hopefully she can Qualify and then win a rd or 2 in the MD. :wavey:

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Assuming it's a given that she gets through qualifying.
Well even if she doesn't, even winning one match in qualifying (which she usually does) is better for her than just getting knocked out in the 1st round.

Darop.
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Certainly sucks, but maybe it's for the better...

She could have drawn Henin first round and gotten 1 point, maybe this way she'll qualify, get 20 points, and maybe get a cake draw vs. Poutchkova, Rodionova or Pennetta :tape:

Dexter
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:47 PM
I agree... She should've got that WC given her decent results this summer.

GoDominique
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Well even if she doesn't, even winning one match in qualifying (which she usually does) is better for her than just getting knocked out in the 1st round.
Disagree. As long as she doesn't get a top seed she has a decent chance of winning one match in the MD for 60 points and $$$.
1st round win in quali is only worth 15 points, and she gets even less for the next two rounds.
With the current ranking system it is much more valuable to be in the MD directly. Much bigger pay-off if you actually win.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Certainly sucks, but maybe it's for the better...

She could have drawn Henin first round and gotten 1 point, maybe this way she'll qualify, get 20 points, and maybe get a cake draw vs. Poutchkova, Rodionova or Pennetta :tape:

There's no way to put a positive spin on this. Bad draws are simply part of tennis. She could get an amazing junior player in the first round of qualifying and lose. She could get a joke draw to the 4th round in the main draw if all the seeds start falling.

The bottom line is that the wild cards are (or should be) the USTA's way of acknowledging strong results. If an American woman under the age of 22 had the same results that Lilia did this summer, they would've gotten a wildcard with no questions asked.

There's also a money factor that goes with the wild card as well. Players like Lilia aren't exactly raking it in. The $15,000 she would get for simply playing in the main draw would go a long way.

IMPOSSIBLE
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Lilia :(

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:54 PM
1st round win in quali is only worth 15 points, and she gets even less for the next two rounds.
With the current ranking system it is much more valuable to be in the MD directly. Much bigger pay-off if you actually win.
Exactly, but she has a much bigger chance of actually winning in the qualifiers. I thought that was the point of wildcards, to give it to those who wouldn't get in otherwise. Lilia certainly can, given her form probably will get in the main draw anyway and then has the extra points for doing so. She's beaten Craybas, an exhausted Bartoli and a Molik who had won 3 matches since March - that's her record beating people ranked higher than her this summer. She's been exemplary getting rid of lesser opponents, let that continue and don't risk her getting a bad draw (pretty much 1 in 2 chance) when she's almost guaranteed something out of qualifying.

RJWCapriati
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Definitely bad choices on the WCs this year

GoDominique
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Exactly, but she has a much bigger chance of actually winning in the qualifiers. I thought that was the point of wildcards, to give it to those who wouldn't get in otherwise. Lilia certainly can, given her form probably will get in the main draw anyway and then has the extra points for doing so. She's beaten Craybas, an exhausted Bartoli and a Molik who had won 3 matches since March - that's her record beating people ranked higher than her this summer. She's been exemplary getting rid of lesser opponents, let that continue and don't risk her getting a bad draw (pretty much 1 in 2 chance) when she's almost guaranteed something out of qualifying.
I get what you are saying, but I can't imagine that this is what the USTA was thinking when handing out the WC's.
At least it shouldn't be, because it's not objective. So yeah, she's been good at dispatching lower-ranked players so her chance of getting through qualies is better than average. But that's no reason to deny her a MD WC, let alone to believe they're doing her a favour.
They should look strictly at the results and ranking. Of course age plays a role too. But if they decide that's desering a WC then she should get one even if playing quali might have some advantages.

saki
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:08 PM
Certainly sucks, but maybe it's for the better...

She could have drawn Henin first round and gotten 1 point, maybe this way she'll qualify, get 20 points, and maybe get a cake draw vs. Poutchkova, Rodionova or Pennetta :tape:

Or one of the WCs. I really hope she gets to double bagel one of the WCs..

GoDominique
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Also don't underestimate the task of winning three matches in a row.

Even if she was 80% to win each match (which I doubt) she would only be 50% to qualify overall.

If you asked Lilia I'm sure she would choose the WC over quali.

CrossCourt~Rally
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Or one of the WCs. I really hope she gets to double bagel one of the WCs..


:angel:

jonny84
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:14 PM
Maybe they are thinking that she will have no problems to qualify and so havent handed her one.

Helen Lawson
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:40 PM
We can stop with the second guessing. They're too old and not stars, so they got the shaft. It happens in Hollywood, too.

Mana
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:41 PM
Lilia :sad:
Julie :(

Ellery
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:55 PM
Lilia :sad:

alexia1huff
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:00 PM
I like the move. Osterloh will benefit her ranking going through qualifying and doesn't need the leg-up that the youngsters do.
Let the youngsters play qualies then, they'll lose in the first round anyway! It's all about connections with wc, believe me i know.

Pasta-Na
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:03 PM
thats ok, yan zi will play there too :p

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:06 PM
Let the youngsters play qualies then, they'll lose in the first round anyway!
Precisely, *because* they're going to lose anyway you put them in the main draw to a/ give them experience and b/ make it so if they *do* pull out a fluke they get propelled up the rankings for it. Yet I'm from the Roger Federer school of thought that you should *only* do this for 3 years or so when they're younger so to help them from getting trapped down the rankings. Osterloh does not fit into those categories.

Highlandman
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:08 PM
Bad decision, she played a really good summer (Especially her Quarters + Win over Bartoli , also against Molik) :( - I really hope she can qualify and gets a good draw.

Harju.
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:25 PM
I personally will give the WCs over Glatch and Cohen.
But since Lilia and Julie are able to qualify to USO, I think USTA felt right to give more WCs to the young US prospects.

Hantu515
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:27 PM
I think that if they're trying to convince players to play the USOpen series this is a blow to it. If the USOpen series is supposed to be so important to the USO, then the players that do well in it should get to play the USO Main Draw. why would some 100sranked European claycourter ever come play in San Diego LA Rogers Stanford or New Haven if it's not going to help them get into the USOpen main draw anymore than playing Bad Gastein, Palermo and Stockholm.

faboozadoo15
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Disgraceful. The #1 seed in qualies should never be an American.

Hantu515
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:31 PM
and it's not like Osterloh and Ditty are guarenteed to qualify
1.) they could easily draw EACH OTHER
2.) some possible opponents
Andreja Klepac
Tsvetana Pironkova
Sorana Cirstea
Meng Yuan
Nika Ozegovic
Marta Domachowska

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:37 PM
and it's not like Osterloh and Ditty are guarenteed to qualify
1.) they could easily draw EACH OTHER
2.) some possible opponents
Andreja Klepac
Tsvetana Pironkova
Sorana Cirstea
Meng Yuan
Nika Ozegovic
Marta Domachowska
Take your point on the first one (it is a 1 in 12 chance though) but if they're going to lose to those players then frankly they shouldn't be in the main draw.

tennisjt
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:50 PM
I'm an Osterloh fan, but you have to agree with the USTA giving the opportunity to the younger players to gain experience. Here is what the USTA's goal as listed on their website "The USTA High Performance program is designed to actively assist in the development of the next group of top male and female American players."
Obviously, US Open falls under that high performance area. Lilia is 28 and closer to the end of her career. No matter what, you can always second guess the USTA choices, but at least this year they are going with what they say is their goal.

Hantu515
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Take your point on the first one (it is a 1 in 12 chance though) but if they're going to lose to those players then frankly they shouldn't be in the main draw.

Sorana Cirstea has wins over Muller, Daniilidou, Knapp and Kanepi all are playing the Main Draw, and I would probably pick her to beat all of the MDWCs the USTA picked

Morrissey
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Sorry I believe wild cards should be for the YOUNGER PLAYERS Osterloh is 28 and she's a veteran her career is ALMOST OVER. Why should she get the spot over someone only 21 or 22 years old that has NO EXPERIENCE. Sorry Lilia's had her chance. And she has had her day in the sun. And those days are OVER. At this point in Lilia's career she SHOULD of produced SOME results by now and she hasn't. Its not fair to the YOUNGER players that DESERVE a chance. I agree with this decision she had her chance too bad.

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:12 PM
its not like Lilia has been injured and missed a whole part of the year which has caused her to miss out.

if she couldnt get into the top 104 by entry deadline and she's coming towards 30.......... she should take a look at herself and she should have done a bit better earlier in season to get in on her own merit.

U.nwitzig
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:34 PM
What's happening if there are going to be more withdrawals from players inside maindraw? I'm new here and read something about "alternates" being "Main Draw Out" and Qualifiers. Will Osterloh autmatically be inside MD if someone inside MD withdraws?

Thanx in advance for answering. :)

twight6
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:45 PM
What's happening if there are going to be more withdrawals from players inside maindraw? I'm new here and read something about "alternates" being "Main Draw Out" and Qualifiers. Will Osterloh autmatically be inside MD if someone inside MD withdraws?

Thanx in advance for answering. :)

Once the draw is made, if a player withdraws a Lucky Loser is put in. That means that once qualifying is over, the highest ranked player to make the finals of the qualifying draws goes in as a Lucky Loser, a player who lost in qualifying but got into the main draw anyway. So if Lilia makes it to the final, she will be first up for a Lucky Loser bid, being that she is the #1 seed (therefore highest ranked player) that lost in the qualifying final.

If someone withdraws before the main draw is made... I'm not sure what happens. I believe they put players from the alternate list in. I'm not sure what that looks like or if Osterloh is even on it. I think maybe when the list was made (back when entry rankings were, when Osterloh was outside the top 105 or whatever that made the main draw) Lilia wasn't ranked high enough to be near the top of the list.
I'm not sure if this last part is right... someone correct me please... maybe she will be first in if someone withdraws :shrug:

Hantu515
Aug 18th, 2007, 11:11 PM
I don't know where on it, but Lilia is near the top of the next in MD list. she might be able to get in that way, I really hope so.
and as for the younger players "deserving" them.

Audra Cohen: 21 years old, year-best win is over M.E.Pelletier when ranked 226 7-5,0-6,6-3. Career best win is over Lepchenko.
She has losses to 2 other Americans who ARE NOT in the draw; Julie Ditty (who has a legit claim to get a WC) and Story Tweedie-Yates.
Ahsha Rolle: 22 years old, year-best win is officially M.Shaughnessy but at Ind.Wells, Meghann lost to Larcher de Brito next week so after that it's over Anastasiya Yakimova 6-4,2-6,6-0. She is 2-9 vs the top 100 this year including the Meghann win. She just lost to Raquel Kops-Jones (not MDWC recipient) 2-6,2-6 just in Los Angeles.

Natash.
Aug 18th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Sorana Cirstea has wins over Muller, Daniilidou, Knapp and Kanepi all are playing the Main Draw, and I would probably pick her to beat all of the MDWCs the USTA picked

:drool: On her way to the finals of Budapest. :worship:

In The Zone
Aug 18th, 2007, 11:45 PM
I agree with some of the posters.
Although I would have loved to see her get a WC, she can gain 31 pts by qualifying and then with the mess the tour has been as of late, definitely sneak into the 3rd round. But yes, making the QF at Cincinnati and Stanford with a win over the Wimbledon finalist should have given Lilia a WC. She shouldn't make the USTA look wise and lose in qualies. Go qualify Lilia! :D

In The Zone
Aug 18th, 2007, 11:46 PM
In order for Lilia to get into the main draw with her #112 ranking, she would need someone to withdraw BEFORE the first qualifying point is played. Or else it will go to a LL. Has Zvonareva pulled out yet?

Shepster
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Sorana Cirstea has wins over Muller, Daniilidou, Knapp and Kanepi all are playing the Main Draw, and I would probably pick her to beat all of the MDWCs the USTA picked
That's the point though, the main draw wildcards are to help the girls who *can't* get through qualifying and *need* the helping hand, surely...

MakarovaFan
Aug 19th, 2007, 04:43 AM
But how many wildcards are there...8...and sure a couple are "preset" but still you telling me they couldnt give ONE!! wc,i mean can you even list 5 young US girls who could warrant a MAIN draw wc(note main draw,cuz surely most of the younger ones would be better suited for a qualifying wc)......

I see the whole give to younger players,the future,give them their chance and experience,help develop them etc.,but honestly for all this experience and crap,should they really be playing in main draw OR qualifying.You have a player who came up through your system,has worked her ass off,probably has the most wins by ANY US women this summer in main draws(including a win over Wimbledon finalist),has been to 4th before...why cant she get ONE wc,you have eight...(ugh cuz everytime she does "decent-good"leading up to a slam she bombs out in qualies....04/05 summer then as no 4 bombed out 64 61 to Nociarova;then earlier in OZ as no.3 bombs out 62 61 to Sancez!!!!!)but hey if she were to qualify she would get more points.

Shepster
Aug 19th, 2007, 10:04 AM
I see the whole give to younger players,the future,give them their chance and experience,help develop them etc.,but honestly for all this experience and crap,should they really be playing in main draw OR qualifying.
The main draw, unquestionably. When you play against a top player, even if you lose you learn so much more about your game and where you have to improve than you would against top 100 players because the better the opposition the more they will expose and exploit your shortcomings. Also, when you're young you're not likely to consistently knock off three players in a grand slam qualifying anyway, so if you're going to lose, lose and learn OR if you do win then the 1 win in the main draw will benefit you far more rankings wise than 1 win in qualifying would.

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:16 AM
In order for Lilia to get into the main draw with her #112 ranking, she would need someone to withdraw BEFORE the first qualifying point is played. Or else it will go to a LL. Has Zvonareva pulled out yet?

Lilia is 4 out of maindraw
she would need another 4 players to pull out.
just cos she's #1 seed in Q doesnt mean she's next in.

Viktymise
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Take your point on the first one (it is a 1 in 12 chance though) but if they're going to lose to those players then frankly they shouldn't be in the main draw.

Pironkova, Cirstea would beat all of the Wildcards handily.

SvetaPleaseWin.
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:45 AM
it is a bit harsh BUT osterloh is pretty old and probably isnt going to do that much in her career-im guessing shes been given a lot of wildcards in her time. she should get through qualies anyway

Shepster
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:47 AM
Pironkova, Cirstea would beat all of the Wildcards handily.
Which is exactly why they've been given wildcards...

Tenis Srbija
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:49 AM
Well that's shity :o

*JR*
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:59 AM
But wouldn't the young players also benefit from playing Qualifying? Does it really do one of them much good to get waxed in the first round of the MD by a seed, except for the check?

Maybe the USTA's consultant on this year's WC's is Antwerp TD Bob Verbeeck, who rewarded the family of his marquee client Kim by giving Elke (who never won a singles match in a WTA event or a Slam) 3 consecutive maindraw WC's from '02 thru '04. (As did the whores who ran Leipzig in its last 2 years, obviously to get Kim to play there).

Incidentally, I'd like 2C Elke come out of retirement to play an exo against Brie Whitehead. :help:

Uranus
Aug 19th, 2007, 12:26 PM
She was a top choice for a WC. She's not always consistent, so I'm a bit afraid that she's playing the qualies.

Randy H
Aug 19th, 2007, 12:51 PM
It's unfortunate for her given that she's been finding her stride recently, but at the same time, she hasn't won a grand slam main draw match in 6 years and she's had WC's before. Tough decision, but honestly the only player I can think of that got a WC that I feel could even have been considered not getting one is Ahsha Rolle, and even then I still think Rolle has had a decent enough year and not as many WC opportunities in the past to merit it.

Lilia's going to have to prove herself by getting tough and qualifying. Since 2001 she's played qualifying at slams 13 times and gotten through to the main draw once. She just hasn't proven herself in a long time to be able to play well at the slams an at her age she needs to back up these tour runs with some half-decent slam results if she wants to be considered for some WC's at this stage of her career.

*JR*
Aug 19th, 2007, 02:39 PM
It's unfortunate for her given that she's been finding her stride recently, but at the same time, she hasn't won a grand slam main draw match in 6 years and she's had WC's before. Tough decision, but honestly the only player I can think of that got a WC that I feel could even have been considered not getting one is Ahsha Rolle, and even then I still think Rolle has had a decent enough year and not as many WC opportunities in the past to merit it.

Lilia's going to have to prove herself by getting tough and qualifying. Since 2001 she's played qualifying at slams 13 times and gotten through to the main draw once. She just hasn't proven herself in a long time to be able to play well at the slams an at her age she needs to back up these tour runs with some half-decent slam results if she wants to be considered for some WC's at this stage of her career.
Your post ignores one thing, though: that the Slams specifically use WTA and ATP rankings regarding both direct acceptance, and seeding (except the Top 4). So whatever Lilia's shortcomings in past Slams, RU suggesting that they selectively put more emphasis on past Slam results only for WC's?
:confused:

Incidentally, I don't mind a promising young player getting one, though the Lukazsewicz-Henin match a few years ago in Oz (a double bagel in about half an hour) is an example that putting a typical 14 y.o. "in the crosshairs" just because she's from the host country can be ovadone. (Olivia also eating bagels in R1 of the Jr's a week later seems to confirm this).

Randy H
Aug 19th, 2007, 03:06 PM
Your post ignores one thing, though: that the Slams specifically use WTA and ATP rankings regarding both direct acceptance, and seeding (except the Top 4). So whatever Lilia's shortcomings in past Slams, RU suggesting that they selectively put more emphasis on past Slam results only for WC's?
:confused:

Incidentally, I don't mind a promising young player getting one, though the Lukazsewicz-Henin match a few years ago in Oz (a double bagel in about half an hour) is an example that putting a typical 14 y.o. "in the crosshairs" just because she's from the host country can be ovadone. (Olivia also eating bagels in R1 of the Jr's a week later seems to confirm this).

That's the point though - They use ranking for direct acceptance. So if Lilia's ranking was not good enough for that at the time of the lists being made, that's her own fault. Anyone who didn't earn their spot at the time of entry lists being made is fair game for being given, or being denied a wildcard. Therefore, I feel like you have to consider a lot of factors into who should be chosen and who should be overlooked. I think all of the selected WC's have a fair case for being selected, and I provided a pretty reasonable account for why Lilia was likely overlooked. The WC's are generally going to be used to help developing players (juniors making transitions into the pros), people making a comeback who need a bit of a helping hand (Jackson), and then perhaps people who have at least shown in the recent past that they can make something of their WC by winning a round or two. Osterloh hasn't shown that she can do that in the past 6 years, so why give her a WC now? She's had good runs of form before around slam time and still lost first or second round qualies. It's time for her to step up and see this as a challenge to prove she can earn her way through qualifying.

MakarovaFan
Aug 19th, 2007, 05:13 PM
The main draw, unquestionably. When you play against a top player, even if you lose you learn so much more about your game and where you have to improve than you would against top 100 players because the better the opposition the more they will expose and exploit your shortcomings. Also, when you're young you're not likely to consistently knock off three players in a grand slam qualifying anyway, so if you're going to lose, lose and learn OR if you do win then the 1 win in the main draw will benefit you far more rankings wise than 1 win in qualifying would.


The Main Draw!!??? So they can be drubbed 60 60,or 61 62 in 35 minutes...in a match that went so fast that they couldnt pick up pointers???No!! Sure the US always has that one WC who magically reaches the 3rd,causes a lot of buzz and then a year or so later vanishes!!(BradshawBielek,Haynes,Trail)

Seriously tho,we are talking ONE freakin WC,of 8,i mean if they just had 2 i could see it,but 8!!and everyone knows atleast 2 or 3 of those are going to go to girls who never have,or will do anything on tour....Think about it,the US is known as lazy,spoiled players....majority of them wont even travel outside the US;gettin thrashed in the 1rd of the Main draw is going to do nothing but further push them away and discourage them...whereas putting them in qualifying, where they could battle a player and maybe even win a match, could show them that they might have a future in pro tennis

MakarovaFan
Aug 19th, 2007, 05:16 PM
That's the point though - They use ranking for direct acceptance. So if Lilia's ranking was not good enough for that at the time of the lists being made, that's her own fault. Anyone who didn't earn their spot at the time of entry lists being made is fair game for being given, or being denied a wildcard. Therefore, I feel like you have to consider a lot of factors into who should be chosen and who should be overlooked. I think all of the selected WC's have a fair case for being selected, and I provided a pretty reasonable account for why Lilia was likely overlooked. The WC's are generally going to be used to help developing players (juniors making transitions into the pros), people making a comeback who need a bit of a helping hand (Jackson), and then perhaps people who have at least shown in the recent past that they can make something of their WC by winning a round or two. Osterloh hasn't shown that she can do that in the past 6 years, so why give her a WC now? She's had good runs of form before around slam time and still lost first or second round qualies. It's time for her to step up and see this as a challenge to prove she can earn her way through qualifying.


So by your point she should be given a wc....because the consensus on this thread says that a wc should be given to players who cant get out of qualfying...but could win a main draw match....that's Lillia's case....

Randy H
Aug 19th, 2007, 05:40 PM
So by your point she should be given a wc....because the consensus on this thread says that a wc should be given to players who cant get out of qualfying...but could win a main draw match....that's Lillia's case....

Why would the USTA feel Lilia could win a main draw match when she hasn't done so in 6 years, and has only reached the main draw through qualifying 1 time in 13 attempts during that period? She's done nothing at the slams since 2001 to show that she could win a main draw match there. So I disagree, because she hasn't proven herself to be capable of winning a main draw match in a slam for a very long time.

Ahsha Rolle on the other hand has far less experience at this level, but has shown consistent strides forward in her ranking. This year she qualified for the Australian Open main draw, and she's not had nearly the amount of WC's in her career that Osterloh has had.

Jem
Aug 19th, 2007, 11:55 PM
Tough for Osterloh given her summer, but I think it was the right call not to give her a wildcard. She's had plenty of opportunites through the years. Now it's time for someone else to get those chances.

I do feel bad for Julie Ditty, though. She started her career late, after injuries I believe, and she finished as the No. 1 U.S. player on the pro development circuit, which has always been a guarantee for a wildcard. They really should abolish that point system, as it means absolutely nothing.

~Eclipsed~
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:29 AM
It's pretty tough to be agree or disagree with this decision. On one hand, she is handed a lot of WCs and like RandyH has said, she didn't win a match here in 6 years. On the other hand, she has had a decent summer and is now ranked 76 in the world so she should at least be given a WC.

Personally, i think she'll have no trouble qualifying anyway unless she meets a dangerous floater in qualifying or something. No bitching about this decision will do anything now so might as well accept it and wish Lilia the best of luck and qualify for the MD.:cool:

MakarovaFan
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Why would the USTA feel Lilia could win a main draw match when she hasn't done so in 6 years, and has only reached the main draw through qualifying 1 time in 13 attempts during that period? She's done nothing at the slams since 2001 to show that she could win a main draw match there. So I disagree, because she hasn't proven herself to be capable of winning a main draw match in a slam for a very long time.

Ahsha Rolle on the other hand has far less experience at this level, but has shown consistent strides forward in her ranking. This year she qualified for the Australian Open main draw, and she's not had nearly the amount of WC's in her career that Osterloh has had.

What WC's,she hasnt played the main draw since 02,and that was on her OWN merit-so how has she been"given so many chances already",so i dont see how people are saying she has been handed a lot of WC's-hell even in 00,01 and 02 she was in on her OWN merit,so has she really been given THAT many WC's.And if you are saying if she cant win through qualies,then she surely wont in the main draw-well that's stupid reasoning,she won 5 main draw matches this summer,two Tier 2 events and one Tier 3,so that's not valid either.....

thetennisutopian
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Well that's shity :o

yup... it's sad.

Tennis124
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:23 AM
Thank you MakarovaFan for pointing out the facts. RandyH I am very disappointed to read your opinion on the matter.

It is absolutely ridiculous of the USTA to not award Lilia with a maindraw WC. Her ranking jumped to 80 one week after the cutoff which was over a month before the tournament starts. She has improved since then. To be ranked higher than almost 1/4 of the competitors in the main draw, but have to play qualifying is incredibly unfair. Not even to mention that she is American. To say that she wasted WCs in the past is also ridiculous. With her ONLY previous US Open WC, she made the 3rd round beating players like Rittner and Morariu, and losing to Spirlea. She beat the Wimbledon Finalist this summer. Come on. She proved her WC worthiness in Stanford twice over. A former top 50 player that lost her footing when the USTA pulled her coach away from her. The least they could do is give her a WC to one of her last US Open chances. Really disgusting.

I just hope she does not get discouraged during the qualifying. It's incredibly grueling to win 3 matches, with all the pressure. The payday for main draw is major compared to qualifying. The only good thing that I can think of is that her ranking will probably stay high enough to make main draw of the Australian Open.

Tennis124
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:34 AM
One other point I'd like to make is that 3 years ago, she played the summer hardcourt tournaments and again qualified for San Diego and LA and won first round at both. Still had to play qualifying at the US Open because her ranking wasn't high enough. Fine. This year it is and just because the rules pick an arbitrary day for ranking cut off, she get's screwed over. It's not fair.

Randy H
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:14 AM
What WC's,she hasnt played the main draw since 02,and that was on her OWN merit-so how has she been"given so many chances already",so i dont see how people are saying she has been handed a lot of WC's-hell even in 00,01 and 02 she was in on her OWN merit,so has she really been given THAT many WC's.And if you are saying if she cant win through qualies,then she surely wont in the main draw-well that's stupid reasoning,she won 5 main draw matches this summer,two Tier 2 events and one Tier 3,so that's not valid either.....

I never said anywhere that she's been given 'so many chances' - Yes she's had a couple US Open WC's, but she hasn't had a zillion either. When did she get them though? In her 'developing' years, prior to her breakthrough seasons. Similar to the cases of many of the current WC selections for this year.

She hasn't played the main draw since 2002 because she hasn't been able to qualify. This isn't the first year that Osterloh's had a good summer and then lost in qualifying at the Open. Does she have the ability to beat main draw ranked players? Of course, because she's done so recently. The point is, can she beat those players, at the biggest event in the USA? Her results in the past 6 years at slams say that she hasn't shown that capability. I hope for her fans' sake that she proves them wrong this year by getting through qualies and winning a round in the main draw or more, but you can't fault the USTA for overlooking her. She is a veteran player, who isn't performing well at the grand slam level. So why should she be considered for a grand slam level WC? Save them for developing players who are also capable of winning a round against the right opponent.

Randy H
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:22 AM
Thank you MakarovaFan for pointing out the facts. RandyH I am very disappointed to read your opinion on the matter.

It is absolutely ridiculous of the USTA to not award Lilia with a maindraw WC. Her ranking jumped to 80 one week after the cutoff which was over a month before the tournament starts. She has improved since then. To be ranked higher than almost 1/4 of the competitors in the main draw, but have to play qualifying is incredibly unfair. Not even to mention that she is American. To say that she wasted WCs in the past is also ridiculous. With her ONLY previous US Open WC, she made the 3rd round beating players like Rittner and Morariu, and losing to Spirlea. She beat the Wimbledon Finalist this summer. Come on. She proved her WC worthiness in Stanford twice over. A former top 50 player that lost her footing when the USTA pulled her coach away from her. The least they could do is give her a WC to one of her last US Open chances. Really disgusting.

I just hope she does not get discouraged during the qualifying. It's incredibly grueling to win 3 matches, with all the pressure. The payday for main draw is major compared to qualifying. The only good thing that I can think of is that her ranking will probably stay high enough to make main draw of the Australian Open.



I'm not trying to pick on Lilia in any way, I hope that she performs well and proves that she can bring her A-game to the US Open. I am always supportive of veteran players and there are a number of scenarios where I feel players are unfairly treated because of age. But like I said, the other WC recipients are all young, developing players. Lilia got her WC's at that stage in her career too. It's unfortunate that she missed out by one week's ranking, but that's not the USTA's fault, she obviously needed to do a bit better than she did prior to the cut-off, it's not like she didn't know when the deadline was. Hopefully she can continue to play well in order to get into the slam main draws on her own next season.

kittyking
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:32 AM
I have to agree with you, shes ranked in the top 80 and she was very unlucky to miss the cut off. Lilia must be outraged, although I feel think that she will use her anger to easy get through the qualies and maybe double bagel a wildcard in the first round :tape:

Also Julie Ditty was entitled to a maindraw wildcard wasn't she? Did she choose not to take it though???

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Why would the USTA feel Lilia could win a main draw match when she hasn't done so in 6 years, and has only reached the main draw through qualifying 1 time in 13 attempts during that period? She's done nothing at the slams since 2001 to show that she could win a main draw match there. So I disagree, because she hasn't proven herself to be capable of winning a main draw match in a slam for a very long time.

ITA!! :yeah: and i'm a lilia head (she was one of my first autographs). :) i always root for her when i can but you're totally right about giving her a wc. it's not like she hasn't been given the chances.

David Barker
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:49 AM
Well even if she doesn't, even winning one match in qualifying (which she usually does) is better for her than just getting knocked out in the 1st round.


The R1 prize money would no doubt be nice though........

Shepster
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:03 AM
The Main Draw!!??? So they can be drubbed 60 60,or 61 62 in 35 minutes...in a match that went so fast that they couldnt pick up pointers???No!!
Take the British players at the first round of Wimbledon this year -
Keothavong [178], 23, l. Jankovic [3] 6-2, 6-0
O'Brien [154], 21, b. Kloesel [104] 6-3, 7-5
Cavaday [232], 18, l. Hingis [11] 6-7, 7-5, 6-0
South [169], 21, l. Sugiyama [27] 6-3, 6-2
Baltacha [274], 23, l. Srebotnik [22] 7-6, 3-6, 6-2

Note that the only person who got "drubbed" has gone on to successive finals at $50k ITF events, winning one of them. Plus think what confidence even getting a set off a top 30 player does to the others.
gettin thrashed in the 1rd of the Main draw is going to do nothing but further push them away and discourage them...whereas putting them in qualifying, where they could battle a player and maybe even win a match, could show them that they might have a future in pro tennis
This doesn't make sense though, they could get thrashed in qualifying too, if they hang with a good player in the main draw that will "show them that they might have a future in pro tennis" and even if they get thrashed 2&0 that can a/ highlight your weaknesses and b/ show you the standard to which you must strive for more than playing someone outside the top 100 will. Also, if they *do* get a nice draw in the main and win a match it does wonders for their rankings and confidence the way qualifying can't.

azza
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:52 PM
wateva. if there good enough they will qualify. and get more points. stop complaining

azza
Aug 23rd, 2007, 04:26 AM
lol she sux she lost Q1.

Pasta-Na
Aug 23rd, 2007, 05:40 AM
lol she sux she lost Q1.

:o :smash:

disco_rage
Aug 23rd, 2007, 09:59 AM
Shame she lost 1r of qualies after winning first set 6-0!

marycarillosucks
Aug 23rd, 2007, 02:28 PM
over the long haul, the last 5-6 years, Osterloh hasn't been a Top 100 player or a Grand Slam main draw player. The USTA probably thought it was a waste to give away a wildcard to such a player who at the age of 29 is not going to be around that much longer and has no prospects to blossom into a star. So it was a tough call but I have to agree with their position.

darice
Aug 27th, 2007, 10:55 AM
bump for sally todd :wavey:

Renalicious
Aug 27th, 2007, 11:10 AM
over the long haul, the last 5-6 years, Osterloh hasn't been a Top 100 player or a Grand Slam main draw player. The USTA probably thought it was a waste to give away a wildcard to such a player who at the age of 29 is not going to be around that much longer and has no prospects to blossom into a star. So it was a tough call but I have to agree with their position.

I agree....

azza
Aug 27th, 2007, 11:13 AM
sif she deserved it.

darice
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:29 PM
:hatoff:

DA FOREHAND
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:02 PM
Who is this Osterloh kid? :rolleyes: