Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,921 Posts
Probably go out in 1st round this time :shrug:
Also only reason I care is because of Pospisil I hate Sock(Was Goating in the final tough)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,800 Posts
lets see if they actually do something or are just one tournament wonders

by the way i find it ridiculous that doubles teams who win a slam get an automatic invitation to the WTF. teams and players need to work to get there. this team could concievably win one tournament together, hardly play anything at all all season and then make the WTF. its contgradictory. an event thats supposed to comprise the top teams all season now doesnt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,116 Posts
I think Vasek's best successes will come in doubles. Maybe this could be the next great team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
lets see if they actually do something or are just one tournament wonders
Really don't see that as applicable. I could see this as an argument if it were three sets or a super in the third. But to go through a whole two weeks of bo5 at Wimbledon and beat the best team of the last decade in such a match? What's there to wonder?

Obviously the team is good, and I could only imagine how they'd be if they took Doubles seriously (not being offensive; they even talked about skipping it). I'd stand by that even if they somehow crash out of the USO in the first round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,800 Posts
Really don't see that as applicable. I could see this as an argument if it were three sets or a super in the third. But to go through a whole two weeks of bo5 at Wimbledon and beat the best team of the last decade in such a match? What's there to wonder?

Obviously the team is good, and I could only imagine how they'd be if they took Doubles seriously (not being offensive; they even talked about skipping it). I'd stand by that even if they somehow crash out of the USO in the first round.
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,421 Posts
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
In that second scenario, Janowicz would play the YEC, because he would finish in the top 20, as a slam champion. If I understand the rules correctly, that would earn him an invite?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing doubles to singles. There's no difference in the rules, I think?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,308 Posts
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
The EXACT same rule is there for singles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Yep, the rule is there for singles and doubles. And it's very difficult to put that rule to work, like what happened with Nielsen and Marray, because both singles and doubles, when winning a slam, will have the points to qualify for the Finals in the end of the year. It's not unfair, simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
Not only, as others have pointed out, is that the rule for Singles too, but that's actually happened in the Singles event before - most recently with Gaston Gaudio. He ended up doing abysmally in the event, and you could make arguments that Agassi should have been there after the way he finished the year, but how could you deny the only Major winner not named Federer a spot in the final 8?

So to answer your question, sure, Jerzy should have been there, let alone if he beat three top tenners en route to the final. At that point, there's nothing left to wonder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,930 Posts
They'll probably be too successful in singles to play a full schedule doubles.
Vasek is playing singles and doubles this week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,930 Posts
Look who Vasek is playing with this week :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
I think if you win a slam, you can be considered one of the best 8 players/teams of the year, not very tough logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
And let's not forget, again, that Wimbledon is one of the few events on the Men's Doubles tour where a sustained level of play is actually required. Not this crap-shoot third set breaker that most of the tour endorses.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,824 Posts
i dont care what they did at wimbledon. thats one tournament. now, if they play more tournaments and do well in those than , yeah they deserve their spot. but the YEC is supposed to reward teams that did the best throughout the year not teams that might possibly have won 1 big tournament and then did nothing else. it makes the whole thing a joke.

what happened if we did that in singles? what happened if..lets say jerzy janowicz had won wimbledon this year and then did nothing else all year. but the exempt for grand slam winners existed and he still got an exempt to the YEC. would that still be right
It could be a moot point anyways, they are currently only 80 points out of 8th for year end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_ATP_World_Tour_Finals#Doubles
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top