Wild Cards - Page 7 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 07-17-2012, 03:13 AM   #91
Snowwy
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 21,101
Snowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martijn. View Post
Snowwy, instead of your (implicitly) snide post, please make the case for awarding a WC to Marray/Nielsen over Rice/Thornley without any post-hoc reasoning. I'd be intrigued. Note that I'm not asking why M&N shouldn't have been given one, but why they deserved it more than R&T. I don't think you'll be able to.
Oh you are actually serious. This will be good.

Rice's doubles achievements this year.

1 CH SF
3 CH QF
1 Futures QF
1 Futures SF
3 Futures F (Three losses to Inglot/Eaton)
1 Futures W

Thorney's doubles achievements this year.

1 CH SF
3 CH QF
2 Futures QF
2 Futures SF
3 Futures F (Three losses to Inglot/Eaton)
1 Futures W

_____________________________________

Marray's doubles achievements this year.

3 ATP QF
2 ATP R64
1 ATP R16
2 CH W
5 CH F
2 CH SF
1 CH QF
1 CH R16

Nielson's doubles achievements this year.

1 ATP R64
1 CH W
2 CH F
2 CH QF
1 CH R16
2 Futures W
1 Futures SF

__________________________

I clearly see the following four players in order of achievement as follows:

Marray (by far)
Nielson

BIG GAP

Thorney
Rice

Marray had by far the best results of the four, so lets assume you give the WC to the player that has the best shot at winning (I know right, crazy concept), he gets it. Now he should get some choice in partner and he picks/gets stuck with, a player who he made the final of a challenger on grass the week before.

By the way, that final they achieved together in their only other event together was better than anything Rice/Thorney did all year.

Since this is so clear, I am at a loss for what your reasoning is, could you please explain to me, you know with real reasons, why Rice/Thorney makes any sense at all?
__________________
Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 07-17-2012, 01:36 PM   #92
country flag CooCooCachoo
MONSOON season.
 
CooCooCachoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Upstate New York
Age: 28
Posts: 72,688
CooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

First off, it's Nielsen.

Now to the argument:

1. The obvious statement to make is that Nielsen is not British, and Marray/Nielsen wasn't a long-standing partnership. Rice/Thornley are one of the best all-British teams around.

2. Rice/Thornley improved their doubles ranking quite a bit and were gradually making their way out of the Futures circuit. Both reached a career-high rank in doubles this year.

3. They didn't get a WC last year either, but came through qualies in Roehampton. You'd think that would have earned them some credit.

4. They had reached the SFs on grass in Nottingham the week before the final WCs were announced, having defeated a very strong team in Lipsky/Ram. Other British pairings fared poorly there: Delgado/Skupski and Goodall/Ward lost in the first round.

Yes, Marray/Nielsen reached the final, and I'm convinced that this is what made the AELTC decide in favor of their WC, but I don't see how a long-standing all-British pairing could be bypassed in favor of a novel partnership including two veteran players without much of a pedigree and whose careers were rather stagnant. Read the interview that the Guardian did with Marray after he won the title. It's clear he saw himself as a failure (his term) whose career hadn't been going anywhere for years.

5. Most importantly, Rice and Thornley met the AELTC's requirements. Marray/Nielsen didn't because Nielsen was ineligible. Ergo, them being snubbed is simply a hypocritical and unacceptable move. What is the point of setting criteria that players work towards meeting all year when you don't honor them?

___

As I see it, WCs should be used for a combination of:

a) national players (Nielsen isn't);
b) young players (Marray certainly isn't; Rice and Thornley are relatively young, especially for doubles players);
c) former top players who are coming back from injury or are out of form (none qualify)

Do I think M/N deserved a WC over Goodall/Ward: yes. But not over R/T.

Finally, in case I get accused of being blinded by favoritism: I much prefer Nielsen over Rice and Thornley, and am indifferent towards Marray.
__________________
BEMELMANS | CHARDY | CHIUDINELLI
CIPOLLA| ROGER-VASSELIN | MCGEE




Bachinger|Brands|Broady|Clezar|Crivoi|Crugnola|Cue vas|Eysseric|Giannessi|Granollers
Grigelis|Huta Galung|Ilhan|Korolev|Kudla|Al. Kuznetsov|Lammer|Mannarino
Menendez|Naso|Paire|Peliwo|Polansky|Robert|Smyczek |J. Sousa|Sweeting

CooCooCachoo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 01:44 PM   #93
Snowwy
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 21,101
Snowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martijn. View Post
First off, it's Nielsen.

Now to the argument:

1. The obvious statement to make is that Nielsen is not British, and Marray/Nielsen wasn't a long-standing partnership. Rice/Thornley are one of the best all-British teams around.

2. Rice/Thornley improved their doubles ranking quite a bit and were gradually making their way out of the Futures circuit. Both reached a career-high rank in doubles this year.

3. They didn't get a WC last year either, but came through qualies in Roehampton. You'd think that would have earned them some credit.

4. They had reached the SFs on grass in Nottingham the week before the final WCs were announced, having defeated a very strong team in Lipsky/Ram. Other British pairings fared poorly there: Delgado/Skupski and Goodall/Ward lost in the first round.

Yes, Marray/Nielsen reached the final, and I'm convinced that this is what made the AELTC decide in favor of their WC, but I don't see how a long-standing all-British pairing could be bypassed in favor of a novel partnership including two veteran players without much of a pedigree and whose careers were rather stagnant. Read the interview that the Guardian did with Marray after he won the title. It's clear he saw himself as a failure (his term) whose career hadn't been going anywhere for years.

5. Most importantly, Rice and Thornley met the AELTC's requirements. Marray/Nielsen didn't because Nielsen was ineligible. Ergo, them being snubbed is simply a hypocritical and unacceptable move. What is the point of setting criteria that players work towards meeting all year when you don't honor them?

___

As I see it, WCs should be used for a combination of:

a) national players (Nielsen isn't);
b) young players (Marray certainly isn't; Rice and Thornley are relatively young, especially for doubles players);
c) former top players who are coming back from injury or are out of form (none qualify)

Do I think M/N deserved a WC over Goodall/Ward: yes. But not over R/T.

Finally, in case I get accused of being blinded by favoritism: I much prefer Nielsen over Rice and Thornley, and am indifferent towards Marray.
Why do both players have to be British? This is Wimbledon, not some silly 10K futures event. The BEST player of the lot is British. If Marray was partnered with say Inglot would that be acceptable then, even though they would probably lose R1 cuz Inglot isn't really that great.
__________________
Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 02:41 PM   #94
country flag CooCooCachoo
MONSOON season.
 
CooCooCachoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Upstate New York
Age: 28
Posts: 72,688
CooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwy View Post
Why do both players have to be British? This is Wimbledon, not some silly 10K futures event. The BEST player of the lot is British. If Marray was partnered with say Inglot would that be acceptable then, even though they would probably lose R1 cuz Inglot isn't really that great.
Exactly: it's Wimbledon, not some silly 10K. It's the one tournament that British people tune in to. 95% of the British people there don't know anything about professional tennis. Instead, they peruse the OOP in the newspaper in the queue, spot the British players (there's always a section 'Brits in action') and choose to support them. Of course they adopted Nielsen as one of their own (I guess they probably anglicized it to Nielson as well), but two Brits > one Brit.

Yes, Inglot/Marray would have been acceptable. And they might not have needed a WC. But Inglot actually had more success than Marray this year and got in on his own ranking with Treat Huey.
__________________
BEMELMANS | CHARDY | CHIUDINELLI
CIPOLLA| ROGER-VASSELIN | MCGEE




Bachinger|Brands|Broady|Clezar|Crivoi|Crugnola|Cue vas|Eysseric|Giannessi|Granollers
Grigelis|Huta Galung|Ilhan|Korolev|Kudla|Al. Kuznetsov|Lammer|Mannarino
Menendez|Naso|Paire|Peliwo|Polansky|Robert|Smyczek |J. Sousa|Sweeting

CooCooCachoo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 09:53 PM   #95
Snowwy
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 21,101
Snowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martijn. View Post
Exactly: it's Wimbledon, not some silly 10K. It's the one tournament that British people tune in to. 95% of the British people there don't know anything about professional tennis. Instead, they peruse the OOP in the newspaper in the queue, spot the British players (there's always a section 'Brits in action') and choose to support them. Of course they adopted Nielsen as one of their own (I guess they probably anglicized it to Nielson as well), but two Brits > one Brit.

Yes, Inglot/Marray would have been acceptable. And they might not have needed a WC. But Inglot actually had more success than Marray this year and got in on his own ranking with Treat Huey.
Just to keep tabs of our guys who have graduated from the futures level..

Sean Thornley, new partner is seeded 4th in doubles a futures event in GB. How does this guy deserve a WC to Wimbledon, he is not even the top seed in a futures doubles draw.
__________________
Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 06:40 AM   #96
country flag CooCooCachoo
MONSOON season.
 
CooCooCachoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Upstate New York
Age: 28
Posts: 72,688
CooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond reputeCooCooCachoo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwy View Post
Just to keep tabs of our guys who have graduated from the futures level..

Sean Thornley, new partner is seeded 4th in doubles a futures event in GB. How does this guy deserve a WC to Wimbledon, he is not even the top seed in a futures doubles draw.
The stupidity of this post is baffling. Last time I checked seeding is determined on the basis of the ranking of two players. Are you seriously blaming Thornley for Fitzpatrick's ranking? (Not that I would be entirely surprised with you.)

Edited to add:

For your convenience, I am listing the doubles rankings of the seeded players in the doubles draw of Great Britain F11.

205 Sean Thornley
295 Lewis Burton
343 Edward Corrie
386 Michael Look
396 Jaime Pulgar-Garcia
411 Marvin Barker
489 Marcus Daniell
871 Andrew Fitzpatrick

Just in case it eludes you: Thornley is by far the highest ranked and his partner by far the lowest ranked. The logical result: being the #4 seeds.
__________________
BEMELMANS | CHARDY | CHIUDINELLI
CIPOLLA| ROGER-VASSELIN | MCGEE




Bachinger|Brands|Broady|Clezar|Crivoi|Crugnola|Cue vas|Eysseric|Giannessi|Granollers
Grigelis|Huta Galung|Ilhan|Korolev|Kudla|Al. Kuznetsov|Lammer|Mannarino
Menendez|Naso|Paire|Peliwo|Polansky|Robert|Smyczek |J. Sousa|Sweeting


Last edited by CooCooCachoo : 07-18-2012 at 10:22 AM.
CooCooCachoo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:17 PM   #97
Snowwy
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 21,101
Snowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond reputeSnowwy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Wild Cards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martijn. View Post
The stupidity of this post is baffling. Last time I checked seeding is determined on the basis of the ranking of two players. Are you seriously blaming Thornley for Fitzpatrick's ranking? (Not that I would be entirely surprised with you.)

Edited to add:

For your convenience, I am listing the doubles rankings of the seeded players in the doubles draw of Great Britain F11.

205 Sean Thornley
295 Lewis Burton
343 Edward Corrie
386 Michael Look
396 Jaime Pulgar-Garcia
411 Marvin Barker
489 Marcus Daniell
871 Andrew Fitzpatrick

Just in case it eludes you: Thornley is by far the highest ranked and his partner by far the lowest ranked. The logical result: being the #4 seeds.
Fair point. And you are fine giving a WC to a futures hack over a guy that has had ATP success in the past?
__________________
Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios