Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
-
Joined
·
52,775 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So the Australian Tennis Federation has organized a playoff to decide who would obtain a WC into the MD of the first Grand Slam of the year. The likes of Dellacqua and Rogowska have been beaten in that competition, Barty winning it if I remember correctly. But the losers have all received a WC anyway, even that Bobusic thing. Same for the men, with Ebden AND Duckworth AND Mitchell receiving WC. What is the point, then?
The US Playoffs makes much more sense with runner-up Gail Brodsky back home playing a 25,000$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,347 Posts
Because it guarantees the winner a wild card and its good match practice. There are still 10+ players in the play off who didn't get one and the rest of the losers are hoping that TA will give them a chance.

Plus its the Aussie Open, ofcourse they are going to give wildcards to Australian players. I believe they should do a playoff for foreign slams like the US does.

Ebden got in direct.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
66,186 Posts
That tournament is there to see if there are any players worth considering who otherwise wouldn't IMO. Had Dellacqua and Rogowska not even played there, they still would have gotten the wildcards. I think they are more interested in the likes of Bobuscic and Holland doing there, the ones they have to decide between MDWC and QWC from. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,021 Posts
AO play-offs are just practice imo.
It's an event in Australia, it's fair that they give WC to their players...
Being French, you shouldnt question AO WC distribution (if you know what i mean...) :eek:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
So the Australian Tennis Federation has organized a playoff to decide who would obtain a WC into the MD of the first Grand Slam of the year. The likes of Dellacqua and Rogowska have been beaten in that competition, Barty winning it if I remember correctly. But the losers have all received a WC anyway, even that Bobusic thing. Same for the men, with Ebden AND Duckworth AND Mitchell receiving WC. What is the point, then?
The US Playoffs makes much more sense with runner-up Gail Brodsky back home playing a 25,000$.
The comparison to the US Playoffs is idiotic. Of course the runner-up of an American playoff wouldn't get a WC into the Australian Open.

Like someone else said the playoff only guarantees the winner a WC, but it's used as a great comparison amongst the best of the rest talent in the country to determine who gets the playoff.

Similar to like how the US picks it's gymnastics team every year. They hold a National Championships, and the winner gets at automatic spot on the team. Then they look at the rest of the results from the championships, and the individual performances from the rest of the year/career and choose the rest of the team.
 

·
-
Joined
·
52,775 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Sorry for being idiotic there. My point is that it's not worth calling that a playoff if all the participants - or near - receive a WC anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,370 Posts
i'm with the thread starter, scrap it and telll the girls and guys to go and rack up points in challengers instead. set a mark (say top 150 in the world get wildcards) and the rest go play qualies as there is huge points on offer for winning a 1st round of qualifying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
Sorry for being idiotic there. My point is that it's not worth calling that a playoff if all the participants - or near - receive a WC anyway.
Players have to contest the play-off in order to be considered for WCs. It's also THE tournament to prove your worth if you haven't had the best results in the period leading up.

Only the playoff winner is guaranteed a wildcard. All other wildcards are discretionary. Usually the runner up will get a wildcard as well. But simply making the semifinals at the tournament may not be enough.

Also, results during the Pro Tour season before the play offs are important in helping organizers make their decisions. Dellacqua, Rogowska and Holland all played well at the 25Ks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
Sorry for being idiotic there. My point is that it's not worth calling that a playoff if all the participants - or near - receive a WC anyway.
I guess they could call it the Aussie Wildcard Trials , but really it's being ridiculous to pick on the name. The playoffs do in fact determine that one playoff, but it does not imply a do or die situation. Like someone else said Dellacqua & Rogowska were to have gotten the WC even if they didn't play. Would you have felt better if they hadn't? Would it preserve the worthiness of the word title?

For the men 3 out of the 24 participants received a MDWC. Which is the same proportion as the US's 1 out of 8 which make much more sense.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
i'm with the thread starter, scrap it and telll the girls and guys to go and rack up points in challengers instead. set a mark (say top 150 in the world get wildcards) and the rest go play qualies as there is huge points on offer for winning a 1st round of qualifying.
I'm not going to start a disagreement with you in this particular thread, but I just wanted to point out how funny I think it is, that you and I seem to disagree about absolutely everything in every thread that's ever been posted. :lol: At least we're consistent. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
i'm with the thread starter, scrap it and telll the girls and guys to go and rack up points in challengers instead. set a mark (say top 150 in the world get wildcards) and the rest go play qualies as there is huge points on offer for winning a 1st round of qualifying.
You obviously forgot the Australian Open is a commercial event which needs to SELL tickets. Having Australian players in the main draw means more Aussie spectators, more ticket sales, and a more successful event. Organizers can't risk homegrown players losing in qualifying. They certainly can't depend on overseas visitors or Brits, for that matter, to fill the stands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,370 Posts
I'm not going to start a disagreement with you in this particular thread, but I just wanted to point out how funny I think it is, that you and I seem to disagree about absolutely everything in every thread that's ever been posted. :lol: At least we're consistent. ;)
we could have good debates then :p

i just think it is soft giving players like holland a wildcard (yes yes i know wimbledon does it to and i don't like that either). if you are top 150 and miss the cut by a few places, then ok you have obviously worked hard and earnt a lot of points throughout the year. the rest obviously would be better off in qualies, were there are winnable matches and 50 (i think it is 50) points for a 1st round qualies win is big to any player outside the top 150.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,370 Posts
You obviously forgot the Australian Open is a commercial event which needs to SELL tickets. Having Australian players in the main draw means more Aussie spectators, more ticket sales, and a more successful event. Organizers can't risk homegrown players losing in qualifying. They certainly can't depend on overseas visitors or Brits, for that matter, to fill the stands.
what a load of tosh, i guess the oz open is doomed now then cus stosur lost 1st round, how on earth will they sell tickets without her.

no one (bar her family) turned upto this oz open to see holland specifically that wouldn't have turned up otherwise.

i go to wimbledon each year, i go to watch tennis, if i see a fave then great (95% of my faves aren't brits anyway) if not i'll enjoy whoever is playing.

slams are big enough to cope without holland getting a wildcard :lol:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
we could have good debates then :p

i just think it is soft giving players like holland a wildcard (yes yes i know wimbledon does it to and i don't like that either). if you are top 150 and miss the cut by a few places, then ok you have obviously worked hard and earnt a lot of points throughout the year. the rest obviously would be better off in qualies, were there are winnable matches and 50 (i think it is 50) points for a 1st round qualies win is big to any player outside the top 150.
Points are great, but I think for any touring professional, and I do mean pros, money is more important. The guaranteed 20K payday can be a bigger prize then the potential of winning 50 points. That payday can allow them to travel abroad and plus they are gaining valuable experience to bring back later on.

Like take Olivia Rogowska for example. She hasn't had a lot of experience playing players in the top 100, the past AOWC no doubt helped her prepare for her match against Ardvidsson, and you know she took her chances and ran with it. Holland, and Bobusic may take this experience, improve, and then when they get on this stage again they won't have the first-time in the MD jitters.

Tennis Australia's goal has to be to give their most promising players the best chances to be the best. To be the best you have to play the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
i just think it is soft giving players like holland a wildcard (yes yes i know wimbledon does it to and i don't like that either). if you are top 150 and miss the cut by a few places, then ok you have obviously worked hard and earnt a lot of points throughout the year. the rest obviously would be better off in qualies, were there are winnable matches and 50 (i think it is 50) points for a 1st round qualies win is big to any player outside the top 150.
Of course it is soft. No one is mistaken thinking this is military school training special ops. But it is also about opportunities. In normal circumstances, someone like Tomic or Barty will never taste a main draw match until they are maybe 19 or 20, even if they are really talented. Having these opportunities when they are in their teens have the potential to motivate and inspire them to work harder. Look at Bernard now. He is unfazed on the big stage, and sure his personality is a factor, but those wildcards he received over the years must have added a lot of experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
Like take Olivia Rogowska for example. She hasn't had a lot of experience playing players in the top 100, the past AOWC no doubt helped her prepare for her match against Ardvidsson, and you know she took her chances and ran with it.
Exactly. It's all about fast tracking and gaining experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,370 Posts
Points are great, but I think for any touring professional, and I do mean pros, money is more important. The guaranteed 20K payday can be a bigger prize then the potential of winning 50 points. That payday can allow them to travel abroad and plus they are gaining valuable experience to bring back later on.

Like take Olivia Rogowska for example. She hasn't had a lot of experience playing players in the top 100, the past AOWC no doubt helped her prepare for her match against Ardvidsson, and you know she took her chances and ran with it. Holland, and Bobusic may take this experience, improve, and then when they get on this stage again they won't have the first-time in the MD jitters.

Tennis Australia's goal has to be to give their most promising players the best chances to be the best. To be the best you have to play the best.

see what good is playing a big match on a big court and losing, then when you have to play a 50k match in the middle of nowhere with 2 men and a dog watching, against a girl whos income and life depends on winning these types of matches.

look at the top of womens tennis, it is full of hard working eastern europeans who tough out careers and then when they get to the big time are hardened to the hardship of tennis.

anne k and bally are such great examples of brit girls who had handouts, wildcards ect, but you know why and what made them finally crack the top 100 - busting their asses off in challengers and finally realising hard work and grinding out wins will get them top 100 not a wimbledon wildcard.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top