I don't care about how deserving you think Querrey is
Right, all you care about is that your guy didn't get a wild card, and you were going to complain about it regardless. Problem is, you essentially based your complaint on the premise that Kuerten was more deserving, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
, but I'm sure he wouldn't be in the top 100 now if he haven't gotten 1000000 WCs last year.
Probably, but not necessarily. He likely would have played more Challengers, where he was racking up a lot of points. He might have achieved a similar ranking anyway. But it's beside the point of this discussion (which I think I sufficiently covered earlier).
Tennis Australia does have an agreement with the USTA. I hadn't complained about the others purely because yes, Tennis Australia should support their own players.
This doesn't add up. You didn't complain about the Australian players because Australia was merely supporting their own players? What do you think the USTA was doing?!? And what about the French wild card?
Hadn't they, do you really think he would get anything?
What? Are you saying that Australia was justified in giving WCs to their players because they have fewer tournaments than the U.S.? Do you believe that the USTA should have decided not to support one of their players because they have the opportunity to do so in other tournaments? That would be a strange argument, but even if you believe that, it's hard to argue that Kuerten should have been the first one in line to get the WC
I can complain anyway, as this Querrey guy means nothing to tennis and hasn't accomplished nothing worth of great praise.
Of course you can complain, regardless of how good or bad Querrey is. And I can point out how misguided your complaints are when they don't have merit.
And I used Kuerten just as an example. Any multiple slam winner should be a priority to get WCs instead of foreigners.
It was the USTA's wild card, not Australia's. So it wasn't going to a foreigner from the perspective of the USTA. Was Australia wrong for giving its WC to an Australian at the U.S. Open?
Aging multiple slam winners who have barely played in the last year, who haven't been in the top 200 since the summer of '05, and who have suspect hard court skills these days have no great claim to a WC over a young, up and coming player ranked #130 with a game well suited to hard courts. Not that it matters. Those who possess the WCs are under no obligation to give them to certain type of players.
And about my prediction, yes, Acasuso should have won, but losing to Boredo isn't something to be proud anyway.
Yes, losing to the #7 player in the world in four sets is an embarrassment. Kuerten would have blown him off the court, I'm sure. "Boredo" just happened to give Federer as tough a match as anybody he faced.
And I'm sure the USTA would even give the #1 seed if Connors wanted to come back and play. Don't be fooled.
No they wouldn't, but that wasn't the question. The question was, should he get one?