Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,972 Posts
It is always the best ranked player, but the highest ranked that has signed in and is still on site. A player may leave the tournament and thus not sign-in for LL spots, in order to go elsewhere-perhaps they don't think they have a good chance of getting in, or value an alternative more highly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It is always the best ranked player, but the highest ranked that has signed in and is still on site. A player may leave the tournament and thus not sign-in for LL spots, in order to go elsewhere-perhaps they don't think they have a good chance of getting in, or value an alternative more highly.
Well that's what I thought but given that sadecky was seeded 1 in the qualis and that he is playing double in the main draw (seeded 1 as well), I don't get why he would've not signed in... :confused:

This is not the 1st time I have noticed such a thing and I wonder if it is not up to the tournament directors to choose who they want to be a LL... :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,972 Posts
I think I got put into a ballot actually at an ITF tournament to decide LL. Not sure that it is fair at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,236 Posts
When it's the highest ranked loser,the whole concept of lucky loser doesn't make sense.
Moreover it favours tank,so sometimes the lucky loser is rather a "loser on purpose" :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
When it's the highest ranked loser,the whole concept of lucky loser doesn't make sense.
Moreover it favours tank,so sometimes the lucky loser is rather a "loser on purpose" :eek:

Bu then it should be the same in the atp tournaments as well to be really fair!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,866 Posts
Is the ITF rulebook online? I'm sure the correct answer to this question is easy enough to find.

For slams, the top four lucky losers are randomly drawn to be placed into the main draw if needed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,972 Posts
In fact I think I remember being told that because of tactical tanking, they made LL purely ballot based. #1 seed in quallies for instance bagging last round in the knowledge that they would get in, and consequently getting (probably) a better draw.
 

·
Blown Out On the Trail
Joined
·
62,739 Posts
From Wikipedia, and starring that classy guy, Gimmlestob. :) It explains a rule change that is found in the last paragraph.

Prior to the 2005 Wimbledon Championships, American player Justin Gimelstob faced George Bastl from Switzerland in the final qualification round. Gimelstob, who was the highest-ranked player remaining in the qualifying tournament, aggravated a chronic back complaint during his second qualification match against Vladimir Voltchkov. Gimelstob planned to withdraw before the match with Bastl, and informed his opponent of his intent. However, officials suggested that Gimelstob play at least one game, as it was almost certain someone would withdraw from the main draw before the tournament started, giving Gimelstob a good chance of getting a berth as a lucky loser (as well as giving him time for his back to recover).[1] Gimelstob did indeed enter the main draw as a lucky loser after the withdrawal of Andre Agassi, reaching the third round, where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt.

While Gimelstob's behavior was not generally considered unethical, it was nonetheless clear that any player in his position would have little incentive to play a competitive match. For example, a high-ranking player paired against a lower-ranked friend might deliberately lose the match to help his friend gain entry to the tournament, if the first player had already clinched a lucky loser spot. The possibility of bribery was also a concern.

Shortly thereafter, a new policy was introduced. Since 2006, the four highest ranked players to lose in the last round of qualification in Grand Slam tournaments take part in a four-way random draw, the results of which are used to determine the order in which each player will enter the main draw. Consequently, if only one main draw spot for a lucky loser is available, the highest-ranked loser has just a 25% chance of entering the draw, instead of 100% as in the past. This element of uncertainty helps to ensure that final-round qualifying matches remain competitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,866 Posts
From Wikipedia, and starring that classy guy, Gimmlestob. :) It explains a rule change that is found in the last paragraph.

Prior to the 2005 Wimbledon Championships, American player Justin Gimelstob faced George Bastl from Switzerland in the final qualification round. Gimelstob, who was the highest-ranked player remaining in the qualifying tournament, aggravated a chronic back complaint during his second qualification match against Vladimir Voltchkov. Gimelstob planned to withdraw before the match with Bastl, and informed his opponent of his intent. However, officials suggested that Gimelstob play at least one game, as it was almost certain someone would withdraw from the main draw before the tournament started, giving Gimelstob a good chance of getting a berth as a lucky loser (as well as giving him time for his back to recover).[1] Gimelstob did indeed enter the main draw as a lucky loser after the withdrawal of Andre Agassi, reaching the third round, where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt.

While Gimelstob's behavior was not generally considered unethical, it was nonetheless clear that any player in his position would have little incentive to play a competitive match. For example, a high-ranking player paired against a lower-ranked friend might deliberately lose the match to help his friend gain entry to the tournament, if the first player had already clinched a lucky loser spot. The possibility of bribery was also a concern.

Shortly thereafter, a new policy was introduced. Since 2006, the four highest ranked players to lose in the last round of qualification in Grand Slam tournaments take part in a four-way random draw, the results of which are used to determine the order in which each player will enter the main draw. Consequently, if only one main draw spot for a lucky loser is available, the highest-ranked loser has just a 25% chance of entering the draw, instead of 100% as in the past. This element of uncertainty helps to ensure that final-round qualifying matches remain competitive.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's absolute bullshit and I will see if I can get it deleted. There were 3 tanked matches that day, and it was because of all of those matches that the rule was changed, not because of Justin. Just complete fucking crap.


23)George Bastl (SUI) d. (3)Justin Gimelstob (USA) 1-0 ret.
Jamie Delgado (GBR) d. (4)Paul Goldstein (USA) 2-6 5-7 6-1 7-5 6-2
Adrian Garcia (CHI) d. (11)Daniele Bracciali (ITA) 7-6(8) 3-6 5-7 7-6(7) 1-0 ret.
(27)Noam Okun (ISR) d. (13)Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 6-2 5-4 ret.

(LL)Paul Goldstein (USA)
(LL)Daniele Bracciali (ITA)
(LL)Justin Gimelstob

It was the Goldstein match that was the most questionable (to me), it was late in the day and the information was already out that day that there would be a few withdrawals from the main draw. Paul knew he had a pretty good shot whether he won or lost his match, same with Bracciali. Justin didn't care, he was in so much pain he was considering pulling out of doubles and mixed doubles and catching a flight home over the weekend. Somebody convinced him to try to tough it out and the ATP helped him find a doctor in London to give him a cortisone shot on Sunday. That is the only reason he played. Goldstein losing his match took the last LL spot away from Jan-Mike (not that he would have been able to play anyway, he could barely walk due to the pain in his legs and didn't play for almost a month after that).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
From Wikipedia, and starring that classy guy, Gimmlestob. :) It explains a rule change that is found in the last paragraph.

Prior to the 2005 Wimbledon Championships, American player Justin Gimelstob faced George Bastl from Switzerland in the final qualification round. Gimelstob, who was the highest-ranked player remaining in the qualifying tournament, aggravated a chronic back complaint during his second qualification match against Vladimir Voltchkov. Gimelstob planned to withdraw before the match with Bastl, and informed his opponent of his intent. However, officials suggested that Gimelstob play at least one game, as it was almost certain someone would withdraw from the main draw before the tournament started, giving Gimelstob a good chance of getting a berth as a lucky loser (as well as giving him time for his back to recover).[1] Gimelstob did indeed enter the main draw as a lucky loser after the withdrawal of Andre Agassi, reaching the third round, where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt.

While Gimelstob's behavior was not generally considered unethical, it was nonetheless clear that any player in his position would have little incentive to play a competitive match. For example, a high-ranking player paired against a lower-ranked friend might deliberately lose the match to help his friend gain entry to the tournament, if the first player had already clinched a lucky loser spot. The possibility of bribery was also a concern.

Shortly thereafter, a new policy was introduced. Since 2006, the four highest ranked players to lose in the last round of qualification in Grand Slam tournaments take part in a four-way random draw, the results of which are used to determine the order in which each player will enter the main draw. Consequently, if only one main draw spot for a lucky loser is available, the highest-ranked loser has just a 25% chance of entering the draw, instead of 100% as in the past. This element of uncertainty helps to ensure that final-round qualifying matches remain competitive.
Thank you star, very interesting! :)

It should be the same in every tournament!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,393 Posts
When it's the highest ranked loser,the whole concept of lucky loser doesn't make sense.
Moreover it favours tank,so sometimes the lucky loser is rather a "loser on purpose" :eek:
Agree.
I always thought Stakhovsky did that in Zagreb :shrug: :eek: :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
I agree that Lucky Losers should be randomly drawn from all losers in the last rounds of qualifying. It certainly puts the stress on "lucky" and deters players from tanking.
 

·
Blown Out On the Trail
Joined
·
62,739 Posts
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's absolute bullshit and I will see if I can get it deleted. There were 3 tanked matches that day, and it was because of all of those matches that the rule was changed, not because of Justin. Just complete fucking crap.


23)George Bastl (SUI) d. (3)Justin Gimelstob (USA) 1-0 ret.
Jamie Delgado (GBR) d. (4)Paul Goldstein (USA) 2-6 5-7 6-1 7-5 6-2
Adrian Garcia (CHI) d. (11)Daniele Bracciali (ITA) 7-6(8) 3-6 5-7 7-6(7) 1-0 ret.
(27)Noam Okun (ISR) d. (13)Jan-Michael Gambill (USA) 6-2 5-4 ret.

(LL)Paul Goldstein (USA)
(LL)Daniele Bracciali (ITA)
(LL)Justin Gimelstob

It was the Goldstein match that was the most questionable (to me), it was late in the day and the information was already out that day that there would be a few withdrawals from the main draw. Paul knew he had a pretty good shot whether he won or lost his match, same with Bracciali. Justin didn't care, he was in so much pain he was considering pulling out of doubles and mixed doubles and catching a flight home over the weekend. Somebody convinced him to try to tough it out and the ATP helped him find a doctor in London to give him a cortisone shot on Sunday. That is the only reason he played. Goldstein losing his match took the last LL spot away from Jan-Mike (not that he would have been able to play anyway, he could barely walk due to the pain in his legs and didn't play for almost a month after that).

The Goldstein match doesn't look tanked from the score. The ohers may or may not have been, but they were certainly taking a risk as not being the highest ranked players.

Gimmlestob's match sort of stands out in that bunch, doesn't it?

The article didn't say anything bad about Gimmlestob. In fact, it said there was nothing unethical about it and that it was someone else's idea.

But I understand how you see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,866 Posts
It's only one M. How can you quote an article that spells it right and still spell it wrong?

No, Justin's match doesn't stand out except to the haters who were not watching the events unfold that day. Someone retiring from a match without calling a trainer stands out, and the number four seed with years of experience on tour losing to a Brit with minimal succes at the end of the day. People need to understand that it was the combination of these matches and others that had occurred during the year that made the ITF finally take a look at this issue. Bracciali took the biggest risk, but Goldstein knew he had a good shot at making the main draw. No one cared what happened in the Goldstein match because a Brit got into the draw.
 

·
Blown Out On the Trail
Joined
·
62,739 Posts
It's only one M. How can you quote an article that spells it right and still spell it wrong?

No, Justin's match doesn't stand out except to the haters who were not watching the events unfold that day. Someone retiring from a match without calling a trainer stands out, and the number four seed with years of experience on tour losing to a Brit with minimal succes at the end of the day. People need to understand that it was the combination of these matches and others that had occurred during the year that made the ITF finally take a look at this issue. Bracciali took the biggest risk, but Goldstein knew he had a good shot at making the main draw. No one cared what happened in the Goldstein match because a Brit got into the draw.

I'm a bad speller. I hope that answers your question.

His match stands out as him being the highest ranked qualifier and the only one to have played only one game. That can not be refuted. Goldstein played 5 sets. That doesn't look like a tank to me. But I understand your perspective. Also, you are probably right that it wasn't this one single match that changed the rule, but it does appear to be one that highlighted the problem.

Good luck in having the article revised. :hatoff:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,866 Posts
Yeah, I suppose to the uneducated, untrained eye, it stands out. Fair enough.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top