Tennis Forum banner
21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
66,194 Posts
I really don't see what's the problem with the playoff. :shrug: The US Open holds a qualie WC playoff, it doesn't mean that the finalist can't get the QWC, it just means that the winner has it guaranteed :shrug:

Sacha Jones didn't get a MDWC even though she's one of the higher ranked Aussies currently. I think TA has the playoff so player's can't complain afterwards that they unfairly got denied a WC. They'll just answer that they had their chances in the playoff and failed :shrug:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
It's just an exho for Australians, then, not a proper PLAYOFF. A playoff is a competition, the winner of which is supposedly rewarded - here, with a MDWC.
Barty won, and received it.

--

The discretionary WCs take in account all results from the playoffs and the circuit. Winning the playoff guarantees you one. It's not a frou frou exho where the results have no meaning. Had Sally Peers, Arina Rodionova, or Emelyn Starr or any of the 11 girls who participated did better in this playoff they could've received one as well.

It's just another benchmark, another chance to evaluate and asses the players.

I suppose you'd have no problem with the playoff, if they simply announced beforehand that Dellacqua, Rogowska, Bobusic, and Holland were getting WCs before the event, then had the remaining girls fight it out for the spot.

Then it would be a true playoff, and not desecrate the historic word "playoff."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
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.
I don't think any of these professionals are resting their laurels on this one WC. I don't think any of these girls think their MDWC will be the pinnacle of their career. I think they all think, I wil use this experience, and take it to my future tournaments and build it so I can be a MD direct the next year. They aren't only playing the WC playoff and the Oz Open and waiting a year to play again. They are going out there and giving it a go just like everyone else.

It's also not like Tennis Australia is not taking a deep look at to who to give their WCs too. Take Jessica Moore for example a recipient in 2007-2009. The latter two years she won a round. Her main tour results suffered in 2009 and she had to play in the qualifying tournament in 2010. She hasn't been back. She wasn't even in the playoff tournament for this year. She's 21. So, clearly the hardyards and grinding is an ingredient to who they give these WCs too.

The cost for an Aussie to travel and play successive challengers is a lot higher then a European player who's base is more likely to be close to where she is playing. To leave Australia is a big financial commitment, so I say the WCs are even more paramount due the few chances these girls get to play tennis where they are comfortable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,370 Posts
I don't think any of these professionals are resting their laurels on this one WC. I don't think any of these girls think their MDWC will be the pinnacle of their career. I think they all think, I wil use this experience, and take it to my future tournaments and build it so I can be a MD direct the next year. They aren't only playing the WC playoff and the Oz Open and waiting a year to play again. They are going out there and giving it a go just like everyone else.

It's also not like Tennis Australia is not taking a deep look at to who to give their WCs too. Take Jessica Moore for example a recipient in 2007-2009. The latter two years she won a round. Her main tour results suffered in 2009 and she had to play in the qualifying tournament in 2010. She hasn't been back. She wasn't even in the playoff tournament for this year. She's 21. So, clearly the hardyards and grinding is an ingredient to who they give these WCs too.

The cost for an Aussie to travel and play successive challengers is a lot higher then a European player who's base is more likely to be close to where she is playing. To leave Australia is a big financial commitment, so I say the WCs are even more paramount due the few chances these girls get to play tennis where they are comfortable.
i'm sorry but if you are going to be a good/great player you will make it with or without wildcards (kvitova didn't become wimbledon champion through home wildcards). the experience thing is a myth, if they are going to be playing to the level of grand slam MD matches and big crowds in their careers they will do it with or without wildcards.

i'm sure TA has more money than sense and could more than afford to support promising players to travel. not only that but australia has a run of like 12 25k tournaments that are very weak so upping your ranking as an oz shouldn't be difficult, compared to europe. which as you say is easier to travle to for europeans which inturn makes the entries much much tougher.

as much as i am not a fan of casey, she has at least shown she was willing to grind through those 25k's through the oz summer to build her ranking up to a point where being a MD wildcard was acceptable. casey knew she would get a wildcard whatever she was ranked (hence her getting one despite doing crap in the play off) but she also knows winning pro matches and building a ranking is just as/more important.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
182,233 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
i'm sorry but if you are going to be a good/great player you will make it with or without wildcards (kvitova didn't become wimbledon champion through home wildcards). the experience thing is a myth, if they are going to be playing to the level of grand slam MD matches and big crowds in their careers they will do it with or without wildcards.

i'm sure TA has more money than sense and could more than afford to support promising players to travel. not only that but australia has a run of like 12 25k tournaments that are very weak so upping your ranking as an oz shouldn't be difficult, compared to europe. which as you say is easier to travle to for europeans which inturn makes the entries much much tougher.

as much as i am not a fan of casey, she has at least shown she was willing to grind through those 25k's through the oz summer to build her ranking up to a point where being a MD wildcard was acceptable. casey knew she would get a wildcard whatever she was ranked (hence her getting one despite doing crap in the play off) but she also knows winning pro matches and building a ranking is just as/more important.
I wasn't saying WCs are a make it or break it in terms of being successful. Every experience helps, that's all. Experience is not a myth, but clearly talent and work ethic are more important then that. No one is saying otherwise.

Olivia & Isabella played through the same swing as Casey. Olivia is ranked 168, and Isabella is 181. Both are within 100 points of the arbitrary number you chose as a cutoff. I see no problems with their selection.

Bobusic on the other hand :help:

Bear in Bojana and Isabella were sort of the last two spots to be given out. I can make a case for Holland, but Bojana not so much. In the past few years these two WCs would've been given to Dokic (2006/2009/2011) & Molik(2010/2011). Or perhaps to a comeback player like Henin(2010) or Hingis(2006). I just think this year without any veterans to give a WC to, it put a bright spotlight on Bojana.

My main point is I think you're being way too harsh on TA's MDWC choices. I don't think they are nearly as bad as you make it out to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,263 Posts
The only Aussie wild card that I thought was dodgy was the one given to Shuai Zhang, because Amanmuradova and Doi were higher ranked Asian players than her.

The Aussies have 5 to give out, 1 goes to the play-off winner and 4 others. It was obvious that the 4 others should go to players with overall good form or high rankings - Dellacqua, Holland, Rogowska and Bobusic had been the best Aussie players on the Aussie ITF circuit by a country mile and so it was right that the WCs went to them once it was evident that Anastasia Rodionova would get direct entry; Barty would probably have only got a QWC if she had not won the play-off, given her low ranking and lack of experience. At the end of the day, all countries give wild cards to their own nationals above others; Australia and Britain are the stingiest at giving out wild cards to their own players - the Americans and French give nearly all their wild cards to their own players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,980 Posts
There are two other minor function of the playoff tournament that have been overlooked:

1. Raising public awareness of the players - The Playoff does get a decent amount of mainstream media attention in Australia - more than any of the $25K ITFs - so it's a rare chance for the general public to hear about our 2nd tier players like Holland, Rogowska etc. This means that when the AO starts, there is a bit more awareness among spectators of who these girls are.

2. There is an important aspect to the men's comp - the final is a best-of-5 sets match, which is about the only opportunity these players have of playing in a competitive best-of-5 match. This is an invaluable experience leading into the AO and something they don't get in ITFs. There is no equivalent benefit in the women's comp so it makes it seem that little bit more unnecessary, which is what some of the posts here are touching upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,980 Posts
Of course it should be called the WC playoff. The winner gets a WC :weirdo:

There are examples of players winning the playoff who probably wouldn't have gotten one otherwise. Dokic won it a few years back when she was unpopular and hadn't played much. (Was that the WC the led to her QF?). In the men's, I think Nick Lindahl won it a few years back and Tennis Australia don't like him all that much so probably wouldn't have given him one otherwise.

I really don't see any problem with the structure or name of this tournament. Besides, it's all a domestic issue so maybe it would be nice for international critics to worry about their own affairs rather than ours :ras: :eek:h:
 

·
-
Joined
·
52,958 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
^ Australian typical isolationism :eek:h:

oh, and, The Kaz, I did understand that the Australian Federation would give more than one wildcard to Australian players. Don't make them play against one another - and they visibly fight hard, as far as I've seen of the whole "competition" - for nothing since all of the naturally eligible will receive a wildcard anyway.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,840 Posts
^ Australian typical isolationism :eek:h:

oh, and, The Kaz, I did understand that the Australian Federation would give more than one wildcard to Australian players. Don't make them play against one another - and they visibly fight hard, as far as I've seen of the whole "competition" - for nothing since all of the naturally eligible will receive a wildcard anyway.

Yeah, why have them play competitive matches on plexicushion? It worthless to play competitive matches ever. They will clearly get nothing out of playing matches in a competitive context. If you're not playing for a ranking point, you may as well not play at all right?

How can you say they fight hard for nothing? How are you not understanding how things work? Ash Barty wouldn't have gotten a MDWC this year had she not won the playoff. That's fighting hard for something. Arina Rodionova would've gotten a MDWC if she had won the playoff. She lost in the semis and was out of luck. Perhaps they could sit out Dellacqua and Rogowska who were assured WCs for OZ, but for literally all 14 other players their chances were very much alive.

Not to mention this year they happened to have the full WCs to give away. In the past Alicia Molik or Jelena Dokic (or both) would've needed a WC. In which case Isabella Holland & Bojana Bobusic would not have been granted them, and the finalists Barty & Rogowska would've earned them based on their good finish in the playoff. It just so happened this year there were no Aussie Vets or comeback players (Henin,Serena,Hingis) who needed the WC.

It's very similar to NCAA Basketball Sectional tournaments. Each conference has their tournament and that winner get an automatic bid into the National Championships. The remaining spots are chosen by a selection committee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,754 Posts
and they visibly fight hard, as far as I've seen of the whole "competition" - for nothing since all of the naturally eligible will receive a wildcard anyway.
You still don't get it. :shrug:

You HAVE to participate in the play-offs to be considered for discretionary wildcards. And ONLY the winner is guaranteed a MAIN DRAW wildcard.

Everyone else who did not win the play-offs is at risk. Let's say if Casey, who won 6 ITF titles in a row, feels that she has done enough and abandons competing in the play-offs, she would have sent the wrong message to the selectors. They may decide not to give her the WC because of poor attitude.

For all the players that you saw receiving WCs, there are others who DID NOT. Sally Peers, Victoria Rajicic, Monique Adamczak or Belinda Woolcock COULD HAVE made the main draw if they have won the play-offs. Simple maths - win and you are guaranteed the WC. Lose and you depend on past results, good will, judges' feelings... things outside your control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,098 Posts
The playoff gets the players together, competing against each other at the AO venue, in front of the TA coaches and selection committee, instead of trusting totally in the WTA rankings. As a R/R event, it also gives most players a chance to rebound from just one bad match and judges their abilities to back up, day after day.

In any case, the AO playoff/selections seem to work just as well as whatever system the French use...

2/5 2012 AO wildcards made R2
2/6 2011 French wildcards made R2
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top