Should top 30 doubles players be allowed to play doubles in Challengers? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should top 30 doubles players be allowed to play doubles in Challengers?

Taz Warrior
04-14-2010, 09:53 PM
Should top 30 doubles players (who are not top 30 singles players) be allowed to play doubles in TT Challenger events?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes, but as Late Entries (LEs)

Please note that this applies to playing doubles only - top 30 doubles players who are not in the top 30 in singles are already allowed to play singles in Challengers.

Discuss.

Note: Only votes from TT players will be counted in this poll

Snoo Foo
04-14-2010, 10:16 PM
OK so just to make sure i understand, the options are (1) they can play doubles using their regular doubles entry rank; (2) they can't play doubles at all (but they can still play singles? :scratch:); and (3) they can enter doubles but only as LEs (but still in singles using their regular singles entry rank???)

Taz Warrior
04-14-2010, 10:23 PM
OK so just to make sure i understand, the options are (1) they can play doubles using their regular doubles entry rank; (2) they can't play doubles at all (but they can still play singles? :scratch:); and (3) they can enter doubles but only as LEs (but still in singles using their regular singles entry rank???)

1. Yes, you sign up and are treated in the same way as you would for any other tournament.
2. Yes, this means you could only play singles
3. Yes, you can play but you are treated as a LE and effectively go to the bottom of the Entry List meaning that you're not taking up a spot that could be filled by lower ranked players but can play if there is space (which there usually is in TT doubles challengers). Your singles entry is not affected in any way.

-Evita-
04-14-2010, 10:30 PM
Here's some information for you on the background of this poll. Traditionally in TT rules are reviewed and modified as necessary in the off season once a year. There is a rule that top 30 singles players are not allowed to play singles in challengers and in the last off season this rule was changed to include also doubles. Now it turns out that this rule has some unforeseen effects and maybe it should be changed back to how it was.

Here's an example situation. Let's say your singles ranking is 98 and your doubles ranking is 25. You usually won't be able to get into ATP main draws with this ranking so you may want to play challengers instead. If you play challengers then you are only allowed to play singles because you're top 30 in doubles. So you have to choose - either play ATP qualies in singles or don't play doubles at all. I think that's wrong.

What's more, there's no real reason to have this rule because people don't complain that high ranked players are taking up spots in challenger doubles. In fact, often there are not even 16 teams in challengers. The Late Entries option is a compromise but I don't like it because it would affect players outside the top 30 who would partner up with people inside the top 30. I played TT (lots of challengers) all last year without this rule and I never noticed any problems regarding doubles in challengers so I think we should just go back to the way it was.

I'm voting Yes.

Goldenoldie
04-14-2010, 10:39 PM
No, definitely not, at least for the rest of 2010.

Like everything else this rule can be looked at again in the close season.

I don't believe allowing them to play as LEs is a good compromise, because much of the time there are less than 16 doubles teams in challengers, so it makes no difference whether Player A enters with a ranking of 15 or 15LE he/she is still likely to get a top seeding.

Perhaps the LE rule could be changed so that LEs could not be seeded?

I am fully in favour of everybody having a chance of playing every week, so the rule permitting top players to play challengers in the second week of slams etc is a good one, because they have nowhere else to go, but if there is an ATP tournament available they should go there, even if it means they have to play in the qualifiers.

The higher a player is ranked the more advantages he/she enjoys, seeding, byes, possible wins by ranking, and maybe this is fair enough, but allowing the weaker players their own tournaments where they are not going to be steamrollered by top players may redress the balance a little.

A possible solution which might please everybody (or nobody) is to allow top players into 120 points challengers only, leaving the 90 pointers alone.

One final point before I shut up - there are by definition 30 top 30 players, while there are over 200 non-top 30 players. In theory there should be an overwhelming "no" vote, but I bet there won't be. The top players become top for the very good reason that they are good at it, they take a constant interest, and I am sure all or most of them read this thread.

I wonder how many ranked 200+ read this thread or even know of its existence? This means that however laudable it is to have a poll, it is inevitable that the result will be skewed to a greater or lesser extent. The board should bear this in mind when coming to a decision.

-Evita-
04-14-2010, 11:10 PM
Goldenoldie, you speak of top 30 players like they're all evil and out to get you :lol:

allowing the weaker players their own tournaments where they are not going to be steamrollered by top players may redress the balance a little.

How does this even apply in this case? Top 30 doubles players usually don't play challengers, maybe there's one or at most two such players per tournament and they usually team up with someone ranked around or outside the top 100 so the combined ranking would be, let's say, 130. You can get the same combined ranking by 60+70 or 50+80 or many other ways and that would be with the rule in place. If you think that 130 is too high a combined ranking for doubles challengers then that's a different problem and it won't be solved with the top 30 rule.

ExcaliburII
04-14-2010, 11:14 PM
yes :sad:

Look at my case for example, my doubles ranking is #1, and I am outside the top 100 in singles :eek: What should I really do? :scratch: I will end the year outside the top 200 probably :lol:

Goldenoldie
04-14-2010, 11:57 PM
Goldenoldie, you speak of top 30 players like they're all evil and out to get you :lol:



How does this even apply in this case? Top 30 doubles players usually don't play challengers, maybe there's one or at most two such players per tournament and they usually team up with someone ranked around or outside the top 100 so the combined ranking would be, let's say, 130. You can get the same combined ranking by 60+70 or 50+80 or many other ways and that would be with the rule in place. If you think that 130 is too high a combined ranking for doubles challengers then that's a different problem and it won't be solved with the top 30 rule.

I'm not paranoid - everybody really is out to get me, not just the top 30 players! How can I think they're evil when I hope to become one myself one day?

I have the greatest respect for yourself and others in the top 30, and you are also a first class manager.

However I must take issue with the mathematical example you have chosen. Yes I agree that 30+100 = 50+80, but this is pretty rare. To be specific, in Johannesburg the combined rank of yourself and your partner as #1 seeds was 89. The combined rank of the #2 seeds was 201, and the average of all the doubles entries excluding your pairing was 321.

If you and others in your situation agreed always to partner weaker players (as you did in Monza), I would be more sympathetic to your argument, but as things stand it's UNFAIR :bigcry:

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 12:08 AM
I'm not paranoid - everybody really is out to get me, not just the top 30 players! How can I think they're evil when I hope to become one myself one day?

I have the greatest respect for yourself and others in the top 30, and you are also a first class manager.

However I must take issue with the mathematical example you have chosen. Yes I agree that 30+100 = 50+80, but this is pretty rare. To be specific, in Johannesburg the combined rank of yourself and your partner as #1 seeds was 89. The combined rank of the #2 seeds was 201, and the average of all the doubles entries excluding your pairing was 321.

If you and others in your situation agreed always to partner weaker players (as you did in Monza), I would be more sympathetic to your argument, but as things stand it's UNFAIR :bigcry:

Why is it unfair? :confused: It's our ranking and we have earned it :shrug: But the issue here is players like Pablo (ExcaliburII), see his comment above. If he's outside the top 100 in singles and he wants to play challengers he should also be able to play doubles in challengers. That's what this poll is about.

rodrigol_87
04-15-2010, 06:37 AM
When I played with Gallina in doubles in Cherbourg CH, we was LE because he is top 30 in doubles, and then I was 200+, and actually we had to play qualy and we didn't pass to the MD... so, I thought that this rule have existed since week #9 or before:confused:... I think that players top 30 should be LE...

*Jean*
04-15-2010, 06:54 AM
If their doubles ranking is 29 and their singles ranking 150, they can play singles in the Challenger, yeah.
But playing doubles does not making sense. Winning, even a big challenger, would not even change their total of points, and they would take the place of some lower ranked players.
For players like me not even managing to stay in the top 100 neither in singles nor doubles, it's already a headcase to create a proper schedule because of the fact that we cannot commit with preference orders like in the real tour - it'd be nice to be able to commit in an ATP event as a priority 1 and in a Challenger as a priority 2 - it's gonna be very difficult to find empty spaces everywhere we want if the top 30 come and play on the Challenger tour, whether in singles and/or in doubles.

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 07:30 AM
When I played with Gallina in doubles in Cherbourg CH, we was LE because he is top 30 in doubles, and then I was 200+, and actually we had to play qualy and we didn't pass to the MD... so, I thought that this rule have existed since week #9 or before:confused:... I think that players top 30 should be LE...

Cherbourg was different because there were no ATP tournaments that week.

But playing doubles does not making sense. Winning, even a big challenger, would not even change their total of points, and they would take the place of some lower ranked players.

First of all, that's not true. Second of all, some people play doubles because it's fun, not because there are a lot of points available ;)

rodrigol_87
04-15-2010, 08:08 AM
Cherbourg was different because there were no ATP tournaments that week.

So, I think it's a good reason to let top 30 play without be LE... and each top30 was LE in this tournament... I think it was ridiculous... anyway, I think top 30 would be LE both singles and doubles... because I think it's unfair that I can't play ATP or Challenger without play a Qualy first those weeks

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 09:00 AM
Let me try to write this from a bit different perspective. I see that the main concern among those in favor of this rule is that top 30 doubles players will come to challengers a lot and take away the doubles spots. But think about it. They don't come to challengers because they are top 30 in doubles, they come to challengers because they don't have a good enough singles ranking to play ATP tournaments. Let's assume there are 5 top 100 singles players in a challenger. One might have doubles ranking 30, another one might have 60, others might have 100, 150 and 160. So what? If your and your partner's combined ranking is 400 then it really doesn't matter whether one of these doubles rankings is 30 or 60, they'll be ahead of you on the entry list anyway. And they should be. I don't think I'm arrogant or unfair when I say that a team with the combined ranking of 150 should be ahead of a team with the combined ranking of 400, no matter if the 150 is 50+100 or 1+149. The players with the higher rankings have earned them with hard work and good playing and they shouldn't be put as Late Entries just because one of them happens to be a top 30 player.

Goldenoldie
04-15-2010, 09:44 AM
Let me try to write this from a bit different perspective. I see that the main concern among those in favor of this rule is that top 30 doubles players will come to challengers a lot and take away the doubles spots. But think about it. They don't come to challengers because they are top 30 in doubles, they come to challengers because they don't have a good enough singles ranking to play ATP tournaments. Let's assume there are 5 top 100 singles players in a challenger. One might have doubles ranking 30, another one might have 60, others might have 100, 150 and 160. So what? If your and your partner's combined ranking is 400 then it really doesn't matter whether one of these doubles rankings is 30 or 60, they'll be ahead of you on the entry list anyway. And they should be. I don't think I'm arrogant or unfair when I say that a team with the combined ranking of 150 should be ahead of a team with the combined ranking of 400, no matter if the 150 is 50+100 or 1+149. The players with the higher rankings have earned them with hard work and good playing and they shouldn't be put as Late Entries just because one of them happens to be a top 30 player.

Quotes in bold

1. My concern is not that you take away my spot, my concern is that you are more likely to beat me than a player on my own level.

2. To be fair your singles ranking is good enough to play the ATP tournaments, just not good enough for direct entry into the main draw, so you would have to qualify.

3. I entirely agree, but anything which gives lower players a better chance of moving up the rankings more quickly has my vote.

My partner and I have decided to try our luck at qualifying at ATP level in week 18, so this isn't personal.

I'm going to make this my last post on the subject, and let someone else have a go. :angel:

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 10:10 AM
1. My concern is not that you take away my spot, my concern is that you are more likely to beat me than a player on my own level.

:lol: I don't think it should be a concern at all. For example, I lost in the first round in doubles in the last two challengers I played although I was seeded high. This is not like real tennis where team no.40 will beat team no.140 in 90% cases.

2. To be fair your singles ranking is good enough to play the ATP tournaments, just not good enough for direct entry into the main draw, so you would have to qualify.

We're talking about main draws here. Almost anyone has a good enough ranking to play qualifying so that's not an argument.

3. I entirely agree, but anything which gives lower players a better chance of moving up the rankings more quickly has my vote.

Playing ATP main draws with a high ranked partner would help this goal of yours much more than this rule ;)

I'm going to make this my last post on the subject, and let someone else have a go. :angel:

There's enough place for everyone in this thread :D

*Jean*
04-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Well, you're right Evita, but still we should limit the access of the Challengers. I agree that putting the top 30 as late entry is quite stupid, but then we should limit the access of the challengers to a TEAM and not to one player. For example, if a player is 1st and his partner 150th, so then it's okay. But if a team is composed of two guys in the top 20 then they should not be allowed to play.

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 11:27 AM
Well, you're right Evita, but still we should limit the access of the Challengers.

Yes but that should be done via singles entry, not doubles.

I agree that putting the top 30 as late entry is quite stupid, but then we should limit the access of the challengers to a TEAM and not to one player. For example, if a player is 1st and his partner 150th, so then it's okay. But if a team is composed of two guys in the top 20 then they should not be allowed to play.

Heh. Let me give you an example. Let's say you and your partner have an average doubles ranking 150-160 and your combined ranking is 310. Now let's take two high ranked players that you mentioned - player A is 15 and player B is 20. Let's also take two lower ranked players, let's say player C is ranked 230 and player D is ranked 250. There are two ways these four players could team up - either with the other player close to their ranking or with the different ranked player. In the first case it's A + B = 35 and C + D = 480. In the second case A + C = 245 and B + D = 270.

Now remember that your team's ranking is 310. Which one of these scenarios would be better for you? Obviously the first one because the team ranked 480 would be below you. If you prohibit the first case where high ranked players team up with each other then you are left with the second scenario where both teams are ahead of you (because one is 245 and the other one is 270 and you are 310). See my point?

This is why I don't support any artificial fiddling with doubles entry lists, I think they work fine as they are.

.-Federers_Mate-.
04-15-2010, 11:42 AM
only if because of them, their are alternatives because of them

*Jean*
04-15-2010, 12:55 PM
Yes but that should be done via singles entry, not doubles.



Heh. Let me give you an example. Let's say you and your partner have an average doubles ranking 150-160 and your combined ranking is 310. Now let's take two high ranked players that you mentioned - player A is 15 and player B is 20. Let's also take two lower ranked players, let's say player C is ranked 230 and player D is ranked 250. There are two ways these four players could team up - either with the other player close to their ranking or with the different ranked player. In the first case it's A + B = 35 and C + D = 480. In the second case A + C = 245 and B + D = 270.

Now remember that your team's ranking is 310. Which one of these scenarios would be better for you? Obviously the first one because the team ranked 480 would be below you. If you prohibit the first case where high ranked players team up with each other then you are left with the second scenario where both teams are ahead of you (because one is 245 and the other one is 270 and you are 310). See my point?

This is why I don't support any artificial fiddling with doubles entry lists, I think they work fine as they are.

Yeah you're perfectly right but this is not my point. My point is not about maths but about not allowing the top players to play together in a Challenger. Two doubles top 20 could live without playing doubles but they can play singles if their rankings are low. Why would they take the spot to two lower ranked doubles players ? So what I was saying is that they can play with a lower ranked doubles player to help him - as the top 20 is supposed to have better tactics - and everybody is happy. But the problem, I think, is only when talking about the Grand Slam's second week Challenger where the top 20 who lost don't wanna have a week off, making these Challengers' cut off very high. A top 20 is never gonna come and play a Challenger in a regular week anyway.

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 01:03 PM
Well, I don't know about "helping them with better tactics," in my experience that just doesn't happen especially if the partners don't know each other.

But hey, we are talking about regular weeks here. You say that a top 20 will never play a challenger in a regular week but you're wrong, I'm ranked no.22 and I do that and Excalibur is ranked no.1 and he also does that because of the singles ranking. So all this discussion is about regular weeks. That's why this is so important, it affects certain players (with a high doubles ranking and low singles ranking) every week, not just during Grand Slams. And making them as LEs every week or making them partner with "newbies" every week to teach them about tactics is not a good idea.

It's possible that there should be a separate rule about doubles in GS weeks when challengers are very crowded but this poll isn't about that, this is about regular tournaments.

Ilovetheblues_86
04-15-2010, 01:12 PM
Yes, top 30 doubles players should play challengers, I agree with -Evita-.

First of all, we sign based on our singles ranking.

Secondly, there are not many players that have a doubles ranking inside top 30 that wants to play challengers. They will be basically a big exception. Challengers usually sometimes doesnt has enough 16 spots used. This rule will not make any harm to anyone.

Finito.

Cava
04-15-2010, 01:43 PM
Evita, are you a lawyer IRL? :p

Someone should check how often challengers have qualifying in doubles. I bet it's not very often. Lately, we've barely filled 8 teams.

Let them play if they want. It seems like it's already been happening and nobody complained :shrug:

Action Jackson
04-15-2010, 02:03 PM
The singles one is more of a problem than the doubles when it comes to taking up places in challengers.

ibreak4coffee
04-15-2010, 03:44 PM
Evita, are you a lawyer IRL? :p

Someone should check how often challengers have qualifying in doubles. I bet it's not very often. Lately, we've barely filled 8 teams.

Let them play if they want. It seems like it's already been happening and nobody complained :shrug:

We all commit to tournaments based on our singles ranking - its a fact. Many people simply team up for doubles for the hell of it. So for me I support Evita's argument - and I agree with Cava's perspective - but to ensure there is never a period where regular challenger players cant play, I support top 30 players coming in as LE's.

As was mentioned by Cava, this is probably a moot point right now because we cant fill doubles draws anyways, but there will be weeks - like during the second week of slams - where we will have full draws and qualies. In this case, if we amend the rule that top 30 players can play, they need to be LE's to ensure lower ranked players can play the challengers (lets face it - they need those 90 points far more than a top 30 player does). Flipping the coin on the other side though, its good experience for lower ranked teams to play higher ranked ones, because one day those lower ranked players will be playing those higher ranked teams in main level tournaments :) So I don't necessarily support a policy that excludes them completely from playing.

On that point, as a regular challenger player I will say that I don't share Goldenoldie's concerns about being beaten by top 100 players. Challengers are a different beast, and you can make the theoretical argument too that those who play challengers week in, week out know the players better than those tipping main level events week in, week out. But at the end of the day results can be so unpredictable from the real players themselves that I dont think there is a clear advantage - we're all in the same boat.

One final point though, and I just want to clearly state ahead of time I am not criticizing anyone directly by this or implying any unfair treatment.

I started playing tennis tipping only late last year and near the beginning of this season voiced concerns over a lucky loser rule and people not sending picks, which Goldenoldie seconded. A discussion followed in the rules thread and we were promptly told - by Evita in fact - that all rule changes can only be discussed in the off season because there is only one time for rule changes, which is at the end of the season. I realize both of us are new to tennis tipping and shouldn't expect the same level of respect as others - I certainly cant ever imagine given something so important to tennis tipping as Evita has done with the awesome spreadsheet :) - but if you compare that discussion with this one, it becomes clear that concerns voiced over rules impacting top 30 players are taken more seriously than those voiced by lower ranked players. Again, I want to reiterate that I support Evita's argument here, her right to request a rule change mid-season, and fully endorse changing rules mid-season if there is a reason to do so - its just from where I'm sitting right now one could easily make the argument that different standards are being applied to different people early in 2010 when these discussions come up. I'm not sure that is in the spirit of tennis tipping, but nor do I believe its intentional. But its a fact that a rule impacting top 30 players here has been given far more attention and concern than one raised by lower ranked players earlier in the season, regardless of the merits of each rule that was discussed.

So while we are all discussing this issue, I'd like to make another suggestion since we are considering a rule change in this debate - we do away with the rule that changes can only occur in the off season, and at some point the board considers perhaps including someone who primarily plays challengers and would be aware of the issues there versus main level tournaments. But again, I'll say if there is a valid reason to change a rule due to unforeseen circumstances, then I don't see a reason why we need to wait to rectify it. The large amount of participation in this poll suggests that most people here will have their say and that the democratic process at the heart of TT is alive and well. So why wait if there is a compelling reason not to do so?

Boarder35m
04-15-2010, 04:06 PM
I started playing tennis tipping only late last year and near the beginning of this season voiced concerns over a lucky loser rule and people not sending picks, which Goldenoldie seconded. A discussion followed in the rules thread and we were promptly told - by Evita in fact - that all rule changes can only be discussed in the off season because there is only one time for rule changes, which is at the end of the season. I realize both of us are new to tennis tipping and shouldn't expect the same level of respect as others - I certainly cant ever imagine given something so important to tennis tipping as Evita has done with the awesome spreadsheet :) - but if you compare that discussion with this one, it becomes clear that concerns voiced over rules impacting top 30 players are taken more seriously than those voiced by lower ranked players. Again, I want to reiterate that I support Evita's argument here, her right to request a rule change mid-season, and fully endorse changing rules mid-season if there is a reason to do so - its just from where I'm sitting right now one could easily make the argument that different standards are being applied to different people early in 2010 when these discussions come up. I'm not sure that is in the spirit of tennis tipping, but nor do I believe its intentional. But its a fact that a rule impacting top 30 players here has been given far more attention and concern than one raised by lower ranked players earlier in the season, regardless of the merits of each rule that was discussed.


I fully agree here. :)
I found it a bit strange that a rule change in the middle of the season is proposed.
Allthough I come to the conclusion that it would probably be fair enough to allow top 30 players in doubles to enter as a LE (lets be honest: When was the last time there really was a doubles qualifying in a challenger when in the same week there are ATP tournaments :p), I completely understand Evitas argumentation.
E.g. when I look at the entry list for next week and see that all top 30 singles players (who are not banned) did commit to the ATP tournament but not all doubles players did, on the other hand there are players who put more stress on their doubles ranking than on their singles ranking.

But like ibreak4coffee said I really hope that when someone with a lower ranking suggest a rule change or there is a concern in the direction to make it easier for lower ranked players in TT, the discussion will not be stopped with "Rules changes can only be made in the off-season". :p

-Evita-
04-15-2010, 04:40 PM
We all commit to tournaments based on our singles ranking - its a fact. Many people simply team up for doubles for the hell of it. So for me I support Evita's argument - and I agree with Cava's perspective - but to ensure there is never a period where regular challenger players cant play, I support top 30 players coming in as LE's.

To be honest, I take exception to this goal. Why would challenger players be so special that there should never be a period when they can't play?

As was mentioned by Cava, this is probably a moot point right now because we cant fill doubles draws anyways, but there will be weeks - like during the second week of slams - where we will have full draws and qualies. In this case, if we amend the rule that top 30 players can play, they need to be LE's to ensure lower ranked players can play the challengers (lets face it - they need those 90 points far more than a top 30 player does).

You are probably aware that there are actually two rules for singles. Top 30 singles players are not allowed to play challengers when there are ATP tournaments in that week and they are allowed to play as LEs if there are no ATP tournaments that week. It's easy to see that this rule almost doesn't impact the top 30 singles players at all. None of them want to play challengers on a regular basis anyway so this rule just means that they have to play qualifying if they want to play a challenger in the second week of a Grand Slam. Or they can not play at all in that week, it's their choice. It's only a few weeks a year.

The situation is completely different with doubles. Those players who are ranked low in singles may want to play challengers week after week and it would be unfair to put them as LEs just because of those few weeks during GS. Not to mention the additional work that would cause the managers and the additional stress it would give the high ranked doubles player who wouldn't be sure whether he's in the main draw or not. And for their partners too, of course. I'm saying that the LEs may be a good idea for the GS weeks but it's a bad idea for all the other weeks. I see you also voted for the LE option. Tell me, how would you feel if you played challengers five weeks in a row and every week you'd be at the very bottom of the doubles list and not sure if you'd get in? Is that something a top 30 player deserves to suffer through on a regular basis? Having a doubles ranking higher than other players?

One final point though, and I just want to clearly state ahead of time I am not criticizing anyone directly by this or implying any unfair treatment.

...

Ah, this is a good point. In fact, I have always supported changing the rules as needed and when needed but the board doesn't always agree with me :p

But this is not the first time a rule may be changed in mid-season. There was a rule that doubles teams could be committed only during the second week of commitments, not during the first week, and if a team committed in the first week then they had to confirm their commitment in the second week anyway. I wasn't really aware of this rule and I never paid attention when I committed my doubles team and there were no problems, managers accepted all the first week commitments even if they weren't confirmed in the second week. Then sometime in the summer of last year there was a situation in a tournament and I became aware of this rule and I asked the board what was the point of the rule if it wasn't enforced anyway. I mean, let's say my team missed the main draw by one spot. I would have gone through all the main draw teams, find one that committed during the first week and didn't confirm and I would say to the manager - see, this team didn't commit by the rules, you must disqualify them. And I would get the last main draw spot. Neat, don't you think? :D Of course, this situation was not acceptable so the board decided to remove the rule immediately and accept all commitments. That was during the season.

What I meant to say with this example is that there are rules that can wait and there are rules that can't wait. Your Lucky Loser rule change is not of immediate concern, the rule has been the same for several years (I think) and people never had problems with it. So that can wait till the offseason. Of course, you can start a discussion about it and offer supportive arguments anytime you want but it's not an urgent issue.

However, this rule about top 30 doubles was introduced only this year and it's clear that it's not working and it needs to be changed ASAP. I think I already mentioned that top 30 doubles players were allowed to play challengers last year and nobody was complaining. I have no idea why this new rule was introduced (people voted against it in the off-season) other than the board somehow got the idea that singles and doubles commitments should be under the same rules. I don't know :shrug: I didn't play challengers at the start of the year so I became aware of this new rule only recently. When I did I started asking questions and you know the rest.

rodrigol_87
04-15-2010, 04:53 PM
I fully agree here. :)
I found it a bit strange that a rule change in the middle of the season is proposed.
Allthough I come to the conclusion that it would probably be fair enough to allow top 30 players in doubles to enter as a LE (lets be honest: When was the last time there really was a doubles qualifying in a challenger when in the same week there are ATP tournaments :p), I completely understand Evitas argumentation.
E.g. when I look at the entry list for next week and see that all top 30 singles players (who are not banned) did commit to the ATP tournament but not all doubles players did, on the other hand there are players who put more stress on their doubles ranking than on their singles ranking.

But like ibreak4coffee said I really hope that when someone with a lower ranking suggest a rule change or there is a concern in the direction to make it easier for lower ranked players in TT, the discussion will not be stopped with "Rules changes can only be made in the off-season". :p

I think Alex is right... rule that allows doubles players top30 play doubles in Challengers but like LE just affect them when are ATP tournaments wich last two weeks, like GS... so, that rule protect players with lower ranking in these cases... and like he said, doubles players top30 don't be affect during regular challengers...

Goldenoldie
04-17-2010, 10:17 AM
I know I said I wouldn't post any more in this thread, but I decided to have a look at the doubles ranking list and compare it with the singles list. Out of the top 30 doubles players:-

12 are also ranked top 30 in singles
8 are ranked 31-60 in singles
10 are ranked 61+ in singles.

The first group can't enter challengers.
The second group probably won't want to as their singles rankings are almost certainly high enough for a main draw place (Monte Carlo cut-off was 69 and Barcelona was 71)

So this discussion is really about the impact of the rule on the remaining group of 10 players. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have full debate, but it's something to bear in mind.

AdeyC
04-19-2010, 02:27 PM
Perhaps the LE rule could be changed so that LEs could not be seeded?



There's a lot of common sense in that - which is the most annoying thing of all for me as those teams go to the top of the pile, re: byes in 1R.

Goldenoldie
04-22-2010, 10:10 AM
The poll result is overwhelmingly against me. As I expected very few lower ranked players had anything to say.

I concede, and congratulate -Evita- on her well reasoned arguments.

Taz Warrior
04-22-2010, 10:36 AM
Top 30 players will now be able to play Challengers as per any other tournament.

Thanks to everyone who voted in this poll and who provided their input into this discussion :D

156mphserve
08-23-2010, 05:37 AM
I missed this poll, but I do agree with the result, just because a player is ranked top 30 in doubles doesn't mean they won't want to play challengers. Most people care more about their singles ranking and therefore would want to increase it if it's low via challengers no matter what their doubles ranking is. me for example, I should be ranked top 40 when the new doubles rankings come out, i'll soon be top 30 but i'll still want to play challengers ocassionally to make my singles rank better but if I'm not allowed to play doubles there my doubles rank which I worked hard to achieve will drop because i'm not playing half the time. glad the poll changed that.

also I think rules should be allowed to be voted on and changed mid-season. if there's enough support and reasoning behind changing the rule then why not:shrug: