Tennis Forum banner

81 - 100 of 143 Posts

·
La nuit je mens
Joined
·
87,071 Posts
Typical French Bias! Pacquet has gone a whole year and not beaten anyone in the top 100 on any surface. Do you honestly think she is more worthy than Bacinszky or Teichman?
The more I read threads like this the more I think GSWC's should just be scrapped or at worst reduced to say 2 or 3 max (for people like Teichmen for example) and restrict the home nation to no more than 2 and have more stringent criteria as to why they should be in the main draw and then let the ITF decide if they warrant it or not. If only the ITF would step in.
Yes typical French bias.

France is putting money into this, it's only normal to get some back for French players.


Seriously, the amount of people getting bitter over something that is quite simple to understand is hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hablo and Dodge

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Yes typical French bias.

France is putting money into this, it's only normal to get some back for French players.


Seriously, the amount of people getting bitter over something that is quite simple to understand is hilarious.
The only thing that is hilarious is that you think Pacquet and other players with no potential deserve to be there and I doubt France do it for altruistic reasons. Ok perhaps we may have to put up with one or two but they should not be allowed 6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,124 Posts
She's done a lot more than Janicijevic or Paquet. Why do you think players from Slam nations are more important?

Wimbledon's criteria are heavily slanted towards grass form. If Bacsinszky doesn't do anything on grass, she won't get (or deserve) a WC. If she wins a grass ITF, she almost certainly will.
I am using her clay result . Players from Slam nations are not more important but that's the world we live in
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,627 Posts
She's done a lot more than Janicijevic or Paquet. Why do you think players from Slam nations are more important?

Wimbledon's criteria are heavily slanted towards grass form. If Bacsinszky doesn't do anything on grass, she won't get (or deserve) a WC. If she wins a grass ITF, she almost certainly will.
Bacsinszky is directly into Wimbledon MD.

And she is a two time former RG semi-finalist, as well as a French native speaker who has always been very popular in Paris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
For those mentioning patch of land, birth privileges and scrapping slam WCs, surely WCs should just be scrapped across the board, especially PMs and P5s?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
For those mentioning patch of land, birth privileges and scrapping slam WCs, surely WCs should just be scrapped across the board, especially PMs and P5s?
Certainly would have slam wc's drastically reduced to say 3 (with specific and more stringent criteria introduced) but if it was a choice between what we have now and scrapping them completely - then I would scrap them (ie slam wc's). No problem with them being dished out at regular tour events and below - at least there is more of a level playing field and the tournaments may need it more financially - slams can survive it more and for £45k for losing in the first round then I just think essentially players should have to qualify either directly or through qualifying. Never given too much thought to PM's or P5's but just to mention outside of the Rome Masters, Italy has no other significant or regular tour events so don't mind a couple there where as USA, France, have considerably more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
Certainly would have slam wc's drastically reduced to say 3 (with specific and more stringent criteria introduced) but if it was a choice between what we have now and scrapping them completely - then I would scrap them (ie slam wc's). No problem with them being dished out at regular tour events and below - at least there is more of a level playing field and the tournaments may need it more financially - slams can survive it more and for £45k for losing in the first round then I just think essentially players should have to qualify either directly or through qualifying. Never given too much thought to PM's or P5's but just to mention outside of the Rome Masters, Italy has no other significant or regular tour events so don't mind a couple there where as USA, France, have considerably more.
This year, on the women's side, France has RG and Strasbourg international, Italy has Rome and Palermo international. If WCs were scrapped for RG, then the likes of Ponchet wouldn't even be able to play Strasbourg as she'd be in RG qualifying instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
This year, on the women's side, France has RG and Strasbourg international, Italy has Rome and Palermo international. If WCs were scrapped for RG, then the likes of Ponchet wouldn't even be able to play Strasbourg as she'd be in RG qualifying instead.
That's quite true Paullow, fair point - I was taking into account the men's tournaments as well - but yes I didn't realise that on the women's side that there was as few as that but then again the likes of the Czech Republic, Romania have only one regular tour event where as the Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Belarus, Latvia Belgium (unless you count Strasbourg) don't have any at all. Plus Ponchet also had a wc into the aus open in 2018 as well as last year's French, so she has already had good opportunities to prove herself so as harsh as it may sound I would not have too much sympathy for her if she wasn't able to play Strasbourg and have to earn her place at RG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
That's quite true Paullow, fair point - I was taking into account the men's tournaments as well - but yes I didn't realise that on the women's side that there was as few as that but then again the likes of the Czech Republic, Romania have only one regular tour event where as the Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Belarus, Latvia Belgium (unless you count Strasbourg) don't have any at all. Plus Ponchet also had a wc into the aus open in 2018 as well as last year's French, so she has already had good opportunities to prove herself so as harsh as it may sound I would not have too much sympathy for her if she wasn't able to play Strasbourg and have to earn her place at RG.
Some fair points there as well and Ponchet, and other 'leading' players from US, Aus and France (outside of the main draw cut) do benefit from that reciprocal agreement and certainly more than players from those other European countries you mention. This next point isn't necessarily aimed at you, more generally, but what about the advantages for the Chinese players? It doesn't host a slam, but it has a PM, P5, a new P from next year and about 8 internationals, plus the WTA finals, and Elite trophy - much more than France, and in fact more than any other country, including the USA.

Wang Qiang's Chinese run last year was absolutely amazing and you could say it's what WCs are all about, but if she had the South Korea or Thailand flag next to her name instead then she certainly wouldn't be anywhere near 16th in the world right now and getting byes and seeding into the likes of Miami, IW, Rome and Madrid, simply because she wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what she did last Autumn.

She got an expected MDWC into Wuhan P5 last year due to her birth place, fair enough, but for overseas players with her ranking at the time, it would have been qualifying at best. She was playing great until she was worn out by the time she faced Kontaveit in the semi finals and retired - imagine what she would have been like with 2 or 3 extra qualifying matches prior to that... Maria Sakkari also reached the Wuhan SF the year before, but she wasn't allowed to play Beijing PM the following week as the semi final clashed with Beijing quals - where was her Beijing MDWC there (for those referencing Teichmann and Bacsinszky, it was certainly more deserved than Duan who got one simply for being Chinese, despite being 28 years old and ranked 99)? Wang not only used her birth privileges to get another MDWC into Beijing the following week, but to also get a performance bye into the second round. Is Wang more important than Sakkari, or should she be? She's just fortunate that her country is ploughing in all the money it currently is, and hosting all these very big events, just like the slam nations players are fortunate that their country hosts a slam.

Slams are obviously the most prestigious tournaments, but free entry into P5 and PMs and all the points and money that come with that can be just as lucrative. If you scrapped WCs altogether then it would be a far level playing field, not a rule for one, but not the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,820 Posts
For those mentioning patch of land, birth privileges and scrapping slam WCs, surely WCs should just be scrapped across the board, especially PMs and P5s?
They should certainly be more transparent. There have been some very dodgy WCs away from Slams (Alyssa Mayo in Bogota last year, anyone).

I don't begrudge local WCs at non-Slams because smaller tournaments need all the help they can get in selling tickets and breaking even. Slams quite obviously do not have this problem. Roland Garros doesn't need Chloe Paquet in the draw to turn a profit, nor does Wimbledon need Katy Dunne or the AO need Ellen Perez or the USO need Madison Brengle.

I'd definitely like to see more regional opportunities at PMs and P5s - people always go off at the Miami WCs because of the IMG connection, but I'd rather see Miami's annual selection of international young talent than the same parade of Americans who get endless WCs year after year.

Wang Qiang would have been a prime candidate for a Beijing WC regardless of her nationality given her record to that point, years on top 100 etc, so she's a pretty bad example.

IMO there should be a limit on how many WCs a player can receive, not just per year but from year to year. No more than two Slam WCs per year, maybe even one - and no WCs at a Slam for more than two consecutive years. (If you've been given two free passes, by the third year you should have got your ranking up under your own steam - but this leaves open the possibility of getting WCs if you become a top player and then fall due to injury, later in your career.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,820 Posts
I am using her clay result . Players from Slam nations are not more important but that's the world we live in
Why are her clay results relevant to Wimbledon? No one ever said they were?

"That's the world we live in" and nothing can ever change? Pretty pathetic world view imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,124 Posts
Why are her clay results relevant to Wimbledon? No one ever said they were?



"That's the world we live in" and nothing can ever change? Pretty pathetic world view imo.


They are not . I am saying if French Federation decided to give WC to the winner of clay tournaments.

What’s the incentive for them to change ? Really none


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
They should certainly be more transparent. There have been some very dodgy WCs away from Slams (Alyssa Mayo in Bogota last year, anyone).

I don't begrudge local WCs at non-Slams because smaller tournaments need all the help they can get in selling tickets and breaking even. Slams quite obviously do not have this problem. Roland Garros doesn't need Chloe Paquet in the draw to turn a profit, nor does Wimbledon need Katy Dunne or the AO need Ellen Perez or the USO need Madison Brengle.

I'd definitely like to see more regional opportunities at PMs and P5s - people always go off at the Miami WCs because of the IMG connection, but I'd rather see Miami's annual selection of international young talent than the same parade of Americans who get endless WCs year after year.

Wang Qiang would have been a prime candidate for a Beijing WC regardless of her nationality given her record to that point, years on top 100 etc, so she's a pretty bad example.

IMO there should be a limit on how many WCs a player can receive, not just per year but from year to year. No more than two Slam WCs per year, maybe even one - and no WCs at a Slam for more than two consecutive years. (If you've been given two free passes, by the third year you should have got your ranking up under your own steam - but this leaves open the possibility of getting WCs if you become a top player and then fall due to injury, later in your career.)
Hi gold fangs, nice to see you back after your absence.

I agree that the likes of Paquet, Dunne, Perez (and many others) aren't necessarily needed. They may win a round with the right draw (fellow WC, someone who hates grass / clay etc.), but they are very fortunate, and most likely there just to make up the numbers, and yes, Wang's fine Wuhan run should have warranted a WC into Beijing, just like Sakkari's the year before, but my main point was, someone ultimately benefited from place of birth initially (to get into Wuhan) and subsequently (Beijing), whereas the Greek didn't, and thus the whole landscape isn't really a level playing field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,605 Posts
absolutely fantastic to have Gold Fangs back. couldn't care less about the WCs at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,442 Posts
Wild cards for home slams don't bother me at all -- it's a way for these nations to throw some dollars to the development of their players just as some other nations do. I do like the way Wimbledon has some criteria for their home WCs -- don't you have to be at least 250 or above to qualify for main draw WC? Regardless, the level of players are now so competitive that even someone in the 200s or lowers can knock off the higher players .And there's been more than one occasion where a virtually no ranked player won a first round or even made it to the third round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,820 Posts
They are not . I am saying if French Federation decided to give WC to the winner of clay tournaments.

What’s the incentive for them to change ? Really none


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Public and media pressure. That's the reason Wimbledon stopped just handing out all their WCs to British scrubs - the press kept mocking how bad and undeserving the likes of Bogdanovic were. So the AELTC introduced actual minimum standards, and that's why Wimbledon's WCs are the fairest now.

There are plenty of loud voices in the tennis world against the reciprocal WCs and how these opportunities are handed out, it's not an immutable thing we have to accept forever.

You can actually see the effects already even at RG - this year they instituted a French WC race and rewarded last year's junior champion, which they've never done before. Far from perfect but a tiny bit better than just handing everything out without explanation and unconnected to actual results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
I do like the way Wimbledon has some criteria for their home WCs -- don't you have to be at least 250 or above to qualify for main draw WC?
It's not an official rule but it's generally followed except under special circumstances such as Tara Moore being snubbed after a dreadful year, or promising juniors like Katie Swan and Emma Raducanu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Some fair points there as well and Ponchet, and other 'leading' players from US, Aus and France (outside of the main draw cut) do benefit from that reciprocal agreement and certainly more than players from those other European countries you mention. This next point isn't necessarily aimed at you, more generally, but what about the advantages for the Chinese players? It doesn't host a slam, but it has a PM, P5, a new P from next year and about 8 internationals, plus the WTA finals, and Elite trophy - much more than France, and in fact more than any other country, including the USA.

Wang Qiang's Chinese run last year was absolutely amazing and you could say it's what WCs are all about, but if she had the South Korea or Thailand flag next to her name instead then she certainly wouldn't be anywhere near 16th in the world right now and getting byes and seeding into the likes of Miami, IW, Rome and Madrid, simply because she wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what she did last Autumn.

She got an expected MDWC into Wuhan P5 last year due to her birth place, fair enough, but for overseas players with her ranking at the time, it would have been qualifying at best. She was playing great until she was worn out by the time she faced Kontaveit in the semi finals and retired - imagine what she would have been like with 2 or 3 extra qualifying matches prior to that... Maria Sakkari also reached the Wuhan SF the year before, but she wasn't allowed to play Beijing PM the following week as the semi final clashed with Beijing quals - where was her Beijing MDWC there (for those referencing Teichmann and Bacsinszky, it was certainly more deserved than Duan who got one simply for being Chinese, despite being 28 years old and ranked 99)? Wang not only used her birth privileges to get another MDWC into Beijing the following week, but to also get a performance bye into the second round. Is Wang more important than Sakkari, or should she be? She's just fortunate that her country is ploughing in all the money it currently is, and hosting all these very big events, just like the slam nations players are fortunate that their country hosts a slam.

Slams are obviously the most prestigious tournaments, but free entry into P5 and PMs and all the points and money that come with that can be just as lucrative. If you scrapped WCs altogether then it would be a far level playing field, not a rule for one, but not the other.
Take your point totally Paullow re China - and you highlighted why I left them out of my initial thoughts and that their players could come by certain frequent opportunities shall we say. Often get wangs confused so did a bit of research and yes she did beat some good players. The only comment I would add is that when I look at the current top 20 of both genders, then out of 40 there are only 7 players (none of them British by the way as you are probably well aware) that come from the grand slam nations plus China so I just think - and I know this might seem an obvious thing to say - but perhaps that if a player is good enough then they will find a way to reach the top with or without them.
 
81 - 100 of 143 Posts
Top