Tennis Related - Off Court Serious Issues

[ti-amie]

THANK YOU ANDY RODDICK!

[ponchi101]

I am so undecided in that issue. We allow LL's in the first round. But I see Andy's point.
I guess we have to accept these things as the nature of the sport.

[JazzNU]

I am so undecided in that issue. We allow LL's in the first round. But I see Andy's point.
I guess we have to accept these things as the nature of the sport.

But qualifying is basically considered to be a different tournament from the main draw, which is why they have their own bracket and it's not tied to the main draw other than winning 3 rounds gets you a spot in it. When LL are placed in the main draw, the main tournament has yet to begin, it's locked once it does. First Round are keywords there imo.

[ponchi101]

Sure. As I tell you, I am completely undecided. On the one hand, I see that tomorrow's line up may be short lived, and Novak can win in a hurry, so it is a bad day for the tournament. So, let the losing quarterfinalist fill in the gap.
But Roddick's point is spot on. You can't lose in the QF's or Semis and still win the tournament. It would be totally odd, and for many, wrong.

[Cuckoo4Coco]

To win a Major tournament you have to win 7 games if you are in the main draw from the beginning and even more matches if you have to qualify and are lucky enough to make it through the draw and win it. There is no losing in a round and then the next round waking up and seeing Oh the player that just beat me has to withdraw so I am getting a 2nd chance. If that would happen and a player that loses would go onto win a Major tournament there would be a major asterisk next to their name for sure.

[ashkor87]

That did happen with Coco last year, not at a major...nobody said it tarnished her trophy! On the contrary, everyone appreciated, rightly, her resilience..

[3mlm]

To win a Major tournament you have to win 7 games if you are in the main draw from the beginning and even more matches if you have to qualify and are lucky enough to make it through the draw and win it. There is no losing in a round and then the next round waking up and seeing Oh the player that just beat me has to withdraw so I am getting a 2nd chance. If that would happen and a player that loses would go onto win a Major tournament there would be a major asterisk next to their name for sure.

That did happen with Coco last year, not at a major...nobody said it tarnished her trophy! On the contrary, everyone appreciated, rightly, her resilience..

What tournament was that? I see nothing in Gauff's 2021 tournaments where she lost a match but got a second chance because the player who beat her withdrew from the next round and then Gauff won the tournament. Barty retired against her at Rome and Brady at Roland Garros (while Brady was ahead) but she didn't win either of those tournaments. Potapova retired against her at Montreal and then she got a walkover from Konta in the next match but she didn't win that tournament either.

[ashkor87]

To win a Major tournament you have to win 7 games if you are in the main draw from the beginning and even more matches if you have to qualify and are lucky enough to make it through the draw and win it. There is no losing in a round and then the next round waking up and seeing Oh the player that just beat me has to withdraw so I am getting a 2nd chance. If that would happen and a player that loses would go onto win a Major tournament there would be a major asterisk next to their name for sure.

That did happen with Coco last year, not at a major...nobody said it tarnished her trophy! On the contrary, everyone appreciated, rightly, her resilience..

What tournament was that? I see nothing in Gauff's 2021 tournaments where she lost a match but got a second chance because the player who beat her withdrew from the next round and then Gauff won the tournament. Barty retired against her at Rome and Brady at Roland Garros (while Brady was ahead) but she didn't win either of those tournaments. Potapova retired against her at Montreal and then she got a walkover from Konta in the next match but she didn't win that tournament either.

Maybe not last year..a small tournament in Europe...

[ashkor87]

Linz 2019

[3mlm]

To win a Major tournament you have to win 7 games if you are in the main draw from the beginning and even more matches if you have to qualify and are lucky enough to make it through the draw and win it. There is no losing in a round and then the next round waking up and seeing Oh the player that just beat me has to withdraw so I am getting a 2nd chance. If that would happen and a player that loses would go onto win a Major tournament there would be a major asterisk next to their name for sure.

That did happen with Coco last year, not at a major...nobody said it tarnished her trophy! On the contrary, everyone appreciated, rightly, her resilience..

What tournament was that? I see nothing in Gauff's 2021 tournaments where she lost a match but got a second chance because the player who beat her withdrew from the next round and then Gauff won the tournament. Barty retired against her at Rome and Brady at Roland Garros (while Brady was ahead) but she didn't win either of those tournaments. Potapova retired against her at Montreal and then she got a walkover from Konta in the next match but she didn't win that tournament either.

Maybe not last year..a small tournament in Europe...

You must be thinking of Linz where she won her first WTA tournament and first win over a top ten player in 2019 when she was 15, the youngest player to win a WTA tournament since 2004. She didn't lose a match in the main draw; she lost in qualifying and entered the main draw as a lucky loser.

[Suliso]

Winning a tournament as a lucky loser and winning a GS by playing less than seven matches is possible and has happened a few times. One of Roger's Wimbledon titles was only six matches because someone withdrew (Tommy Haas?). What is not possible and shouldn't be possible is winning a tournament after losing yourself in the main draw.

[meganfernandez]

I am so undecided in that issue. We allow LL's in the first round. But I see Andy's point.
I guess we have to accept these things as the nature of the sport.

Absolutely, nature of the sport. It doesn’t happen too much. Are we feeling sorry for Centre Court ticketholders or any tennis crowd because one match is cancelled? People who have the luxury of attending a live tennis match on a weekday? Boo freaking hoo. We need some perspective. Even if I had saved money and taken vacation and going to Wimbledon as my dream … so what. Still had a nice time. In this case, people still get to see 3 matches on Centre.

Allowing a loser to return would be overkill to a rare situation. It’s something we care about in the moment, then it passes and it doesn’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fastbackss]

"It doesn't happen too much" is sometimes how we get to rule changes (see 5th set TB's).

I fully understand there are other elements at work with my analogy, but in my brain there are some similarities as well

[ponchi101]

I remember when the TB was introduced in Wimbledon. It was after the K. Anderson/J. isner SF that left Anderson so drained he could do nothing in the final.
Miles pointed out that this was not a WIMBLEDON/GRASS problem. It was a JOHN ISNER problem; a player that could not be broken, and that could not break.
I guess it should be left the way it is, after reading these comments here. Too bad for today.

[ti-amie]