Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Quote Originally Posted by wamego relays champ View Post
    This writer correctly points out that she is not cheating, and one has to admire her chasing her dream.

    I'm not sure whether I agree with the concerns that her participation hurts the integrity of the sport. It is similar to the Olympic Games allowing one entry per country, resulting in a sprinter from the Marshall Islands running a 12.81 in the preliminary round of the m100.
    But she is not from a country underrepresented in tennis. And she is participating in more than "preliminary rounds." No, she is not cheating. She is just gaming the system, and the system is flawed.

    Every tournament has a "wait list" for entry, usually to the qualifying draw. But if you have enough ranking points to qualify for the main draw in another tournament, why would you take a chance to put your name on the wait list? If no one withdraws, you won't get the chance to play (and earn points and money). So this list often includes people who have no ranking points, like a tennis instructor in a local club. Those people get double bageled in the opening round, and no one really hears about them.

    People like Ros Small have figured out that you can do the same in multiple tournaments instead of just once a year, and there will be enough withdrawals so that they can play. But it's one thing to take the spot in a qualifying draw, and get a hundred dollars prize money. It's another thing to take a spot in the main draw and get the first round bye. Every one of the first round loser in the tournament could have easily beaten her, and yet she got more prize money and ranking points than all of them. So how was this even allowed to happen?

    First, this New Haven tournament had only four players in the qualifying draw. Only two players were eliminated there. And then there were last minute withdrawals. Apparently, the two players who lost did not stay around long enough, so that the lucky loser spot was given to Small, who did not even play in the qualifying. And because the withdrawal took place after the main draw was determined, she took the place of a seeded player, who had a first round bye. I don't know how the last problem could be prevented, other than redrawing the field, which is impractical. But the former problem could be avoided if the qualifying draw is bigger, and there are more than two players to choose from for the lucky loser.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    north coast USA
    Posts
    3,794
    Were I involved in the administration of professional tennis, and if this question or problem were to be presented to me, I might ask myself about the opportunity cost of going to great or any lengths to regulate the bottom of the barrel, especially as regards an outlier who is apparently odd even amongst whomever might constitute the data set of 'worst players in the sport' at that level.

    Somebody has to be the WOAT of any particular sport, and in this case, now we know. Thank you, Ms. Small.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •