Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 776 comments are related to the topic:
Tennis Talk vol 33.1 (Tokyo, Seoul, Guangzhou, St. Petersburg, Metz)
Tennis Talk vol 33.1 (Tokyo, Seoul, Guangzhou, St. Petersburg, Metz)
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 776
|
By:
seems muggy to only rely on technology considering how often it fails ("there is no hawk-eye available at this moment")
|
|
By:
It amazes me Cibulkova is even as a high as #19 in the race, the benefit of having a high seed all year I guess, because I can't remember her doing anything.
|
|
By:
no info on cost.
|
|
By:
SF in Doha, F in New Haven. Shouldn't be enough for top 20.
|
|
By:
Can't find anything on Svitolina taking a WC into next week, and no signs on social media of her heading to China yet so Osty should be top 8 seed then which is big when you badly need that bye.
|
|
By:
If you can actually replace linejudges, it could be worth it in the long run (depending on what it costs to implent and maintain it, how many people need to oversee it during matches etc), unlike current hawkeye that's only a complement to the umpires and linejudges and while it improves things it just adds costs without cutting any.
|
|
By:
*implement
|
|
By:
And you'd expect to make runs like that if you play many events and are seeded highly every week.
WTA made this even more stupid when they changed rules a year or 2 ago to mean YEC counts as an extra event for players that play it (so these players count 17 rather than 16). This plays into their hands even more. Not so much in WTA as players have been so inconsistent, but in ATP this rule played a good part in the same players pretty much making it year after year for a while because the big 4 are waiting nearly every event, and losing to them a round or 2 later is huge for your ranking over course of a season. |
|
By:
I imagine we're still a long way from it though Caramba. To me unlike HawkEye it kinda feels like something you'd need on every court at an event too. Cost + the infrastructure sounds like it will make this tough, infrastructure being some of these outside courts likely not set up for it at all, some aren't even set up to handle HawkEye as there's nothing to put the cameras on.
|
|
By:
yeah, it sounds like we're not quite there yet, it's quite a step from current hawk-eye use and you also need a back-up plan for when hawk-eye is malfunctioning. I don't think it needs to be on every court though, at least not to begin with.
|
|
By:
I dunno why people think Venus won't play Singapore, she hasn't qualified for years, I really can't see her not playing it.
She's just withdrawing from these events as she doesn't need to actually play them. She might not be officially qualified, but there's no way 4612 doesn't qualify, it's not even a gamble per se to anyone who can see beyond "she hasn't qualified yet". |
|
By:
That's like 1400 points clear of #9. And #9 is Kiki still lol.
|
|
By:
She played Zhuhai recently, of course she'll play Singapore.
|
|
By:
In fact the race is likely to be bad imo. #13 and below have no shot really.
#9 is Kiki, #10 is Kuznetsova who I guess could make runs?, #11 is CoCo who has withdrawn from Wuhan so seemingly isn't even chasing it, #12 is Stephens, don't think she's withdrawn from Wuhan, but it won't surprise me if she does. |
|
By:
And what will they do when it gets dark and hawk-eye stops working?
|
|
By:
no wildcard for Sloane?
|
|
By:
There's many questions Caramba. Your what happens if it stops working is a key one, because it basically means match suspended which would look stupid.
|
|
By:
She used PR to get in Caramba, but she was still on like talk shows the other day, so I dunno if she's left for China now as I don't follow her on Twitter even, but you'd expect her to already be in Wuhan if she was gonna play really. Latest possible start in Wuhan without a bye is Monday, and many R1's are Sunday. Time difference takes big acclimatisation from USA etc.
|
|
By:
Plus of course notoriously US Open champion never does anything in this event. I think Stephens can be a bit diff potentially though as normally US Open champion is spent physically, Stephens shouldn't be really, she might be spent mentally though after the media blitz.
|
|
By:
I meant for Singapore.
|
|
By:
Doubt it. WTA never use their WC and rule isn't like ATP.
Another issue is right now Ostapenko is #8. |
|
By:
Plus WTA The Ghost Ship never give you any clarity on things like this.
|
|
By:
I think under ATP rules though I believe both Ostapenko and Stephens would be in and Konta would be finished basically.
|
|
By:
You could have a back-up crew of line-judges ready to step in in case hawkeye stops working, but then you'd have to pay them for being on standby, so you wouldn't really save any money. And technology will always fail at some time, no matter how much it's improving.
|
|
By:
Would Maria be given a WC to Singapore if she won USO?
|
|
By:
angie kerber
 |
|
By:
imagine what price kerber was to hold from 0-40
|
|
By:
I don't see WTA giving a WC as there's no precedent. WTA rule is silly really. It literally says the top 7 qualify for Singapore, then an 8th player can be awarded a WC at WTA's discretion for exceptional circumstances, if this isn't used then it goes to world #8.
Vague, undefined rules like this are poor and shouldn't exist for such an event. You could make a very good argument that if Stephens doesn't fit exceptional circumstances then what does. I and others made this point on TF but some people weren't having it, but I didn't find their arguments convincing. Their argument was that rule is designed for ex-top players, to me that's just bias then. So because it's Stephens she doesn't get one, if it was Serena she would, that's bias towards players surely rather than judging the case on its merits. I think their counter to this was about Serena or whoever have history whereas Stephens you don't know she would have made it, but again that's not convincing at all. Stephens has played 5 tournaments and is #12, she made SF or better the last 3 of those, and is only like 800 points off #8 in the live race. |
|
By:
Another problem though under WTA rule is it's not like ATP. There's a reasonable chance #8 is Ostapenko (defo fav, and it's basically between her and Konta), pretty much impossible to give a WC to someone for winning a slam to knock out someone who won a slam.
ATP rule deals with this much better as I say, it's all defined, and I think it would be Konta who would be highly likely to miss out (could imagine the uproar in UK press if this happened though, I remember the garbage written when Murray could have possibly missed out on this to Cilic, but didn't in the end as Murray won a load of smaller events to end the season). |
|
By:
kasatkina ever gonna live up to the hype?
|
|
By:
Not unless she changes her mindset. Her mindset as a player is so passive. The opposite of where you want to be really at the top of the game.
|
|
By:
Better for Osty if both become top 8 as they can't face each other before QF that way.
|
|
By:
The other thing is people criticise Ostapenko and the likes too for having so few points having won a slam, but Ostapenko was massively disadvantaged at the start of the season too having to play qualifying in many events, not only is the extra matches a clear disadvantage, but you flat out miss tournaments because of this. Eg. She missed Madrid because she couldn't play qualifying because she was in SF of Prague. She was playing quite well at that point too.
|
|
By:
WTA is so muggy. Have they fixed the Moscow/Singapore schedule this season or are we in for similar muggery this year? And what about Luxembourg points not counting?
|
|
By:
First point no, second point I think was already fixed last year, but yes anyway.
They will never fix first point imo probs, I think it's reasonably likely YEC is coming back to Europe in 2 years is it, so that will be the "solution". |
|
By:
Hopefully it's all decided before that last week anyway. There is a reasonably good chance it will be. The players behind Ostapenko are going to have to make serious runs no matter how poorly she does. Ostapenko is down to play every single week between now and end of season.
|
|
By:
Kerber also saying it's really late (now 8:02 pm in Tokyo).
|
|
By:
I must not be aware of Japanese bedtime habits.
|
|
By:
Realistically the only way someone is breaking into this top 8 is likely winning Wuhan or Beijing, I mean theoretically someone could go like final, final at both and do it too, but that's less likely than winning one. Think will probably know where we stand and it will probably be all over bar the counting by end of Beijing.
Even a very average end of season is going to see Ostapenko on around 4000 points (assuming the pressure is on to play every week, she could qualify on less and then withdraw from other events). That leaves the contenders needing around 1300 points. Kiki no chance, CoCo without Wuhan pretty much no chance. Kuznetsova and Stephens gonna have to go some to get these sorta points. Everyone else needs close up to 2000 points which is pretty much no chance from the off. |
|
By:
4000 has always been the magic cutoff too of if you get that you're in basically. Often it's lower.
|