Murray Complaining

[Bounce It !!]

Murray is complaining about giving inside track to GS winners in WTF tourney.

For those who are unaware, a player who wins a Grandslam, but fails to place in the
top 8, is automatically given berth in WTF tournament provided the said player finishes
in top 20. This is the rule against which Murray is complaining.

For those unaware of history, about 10 years or so ago, there used to be two end of
year tournaments, one run by ATP (the actual name of the tourney was constantly
changing) and the other run by ITF.

The ITF tourney was called Grand Slam Cup and they invite all GS winners of that
year and throw in a few wild cards as well. They pay a lot of money.

The name of the ATP year end event kept changing constantly, but it was basically
strictly as per the ATP rankings and the the top 8 were invited to play. If someone were
not available (say for example due to playing in GS cup), they went down the list
as needed, but no wild card business.

Since they were cutting into each others market, they finally came to senses
and combine their events into one single event. At that time, the rules were formed
as described in the second para. Also, only one GS winner is allowed to use the
inside route, even if multiple are eligible. The highest ranked GS winner who did
not finish in top 8, gets the inside track slot.

I don't see anything wrong with the system.

Thanks for the history lesson. I was aware of the rule, and speculated that it had always been there. The timing of Andy's comments, IMHO, reeks of sour grapes, and makes for a very bad wine!
Has anyone every qualified for WTF through use of this rule? I really hope someone knows the answer, I don't have time today to do the research, tomorrow maybe.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Murray is complaining about giving inside track to GS winners in WTF tourney.

For those who are unaware, a player who wins a Grandslam, but fails to place in the
top 8, is automatically given berth in WTF tournament provided the said player finishes
in top 20. This is the rule against which Murray is complaining.

For those unaware of history, about 10 years or so ago, there used to be two end of
year tournaments, one run by ATP (the actual name of the tourney was constantly
changing) and the other run by ITF.

The ITF tourney was called Grand Slam Cup and they invite all GS winners of that
year and throw in a few wild cards as well. They pay a lot of money.

The name of the ATP year end event kept changing constantly, but it was basically
strictly as per the ATP rankings and the the top 8 were invited to play. If someone were
not available (say for example due to playing in GS cup), they went down the list
as needed, but no wild card business.

Since they were cutting into each others market, they finally came to senses
and combine their events into one single event. At that time, the rules were formed
as described in the second para. Also, only one GS winner is allowed to use the
inside route, even if multiple are eligible. The highest ranked GS winner who did
not finish in top 8, gets the inside track slot.

I don't see anything wrong with the system.

Thanks for the history lesson. I was aware of the rule, and speculated that it had always been there. The timing of Andy's comments, IMHO, reeks of sour grapes, and makes for a very bad wine!
Has anyone every qualified for WTF through use of this rule? I really hope someone knows the answer, I don't have time today to do the research, tomorrow maybe.

See my previous post

 

[Riotbeard]

Yeah it's pretty rich coming from Murray, maybe if he won more than a 250 this year, he wouldn't have to worry about it. He has had his chances, if he can't cut it, I wouldn't want the opportunity denied to new contenders.

 

[Iona16]

I've had more than a brief look but I still can't find the source of these quotes. They're not in transcripts of his PCs.

I find it hard to believe that Andy has just came away with these comments without being specifically asked. The timing isn't surprising as the WTF do start next month. The fact that Andy hasn't mentioned the rule before isn't surprising as 1. He's unlikely to have been asked. 2. The scenario mentioned in the article doesn't appear to be one that has ever arisen in Andy's playing career - either for him or a player in his era.

As I said it does appear an odd rule. Either the ATP WTF are for the top 8 in the race or they aren't. I believe Cilic will qualify without the rule being applied so it's not really an issue.

However, if a player did win a slam but was ranked #20 in the world then I think it really would be an issue. I think that would be unfair to the player finishing 8th in the race. It's a highly unlikely scenario but one that the rule would obviously allow.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am posting an alternate link for the same piece of news.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One more interesting tidbit from the ATP rulebook. If two players ranked outside 7 (but <= 20)
are grand slam winners, the highest ranked grand slam winner gets the invitation, the second highest ranked grand slam winner becomes the first alternate and the player (non Grand slam winner) in position 8 becomes the second alternate. It should be kept in mind that this may play a crucial role in the event one of the seven direct entries (Rafa?) decide not to participate due to injuries etc despite qualifying.

The chances of this being played out this year is extremely less as Stan has already qualified
directly as per live rankings page even though ATP has not officially recognized it. So, we
certainly will not have two Grand Slam winners outside top 7.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK. few more thoughts.

1. Just because Murray is complaining does not mean that his chances of qualifying
are weak. There is still not much separating players ranked 6 through 11 in the
race and anything can happen.

2. Murray's complaints were made before he lost to Ferrer. So, while they are
sour grapes, not extremely sour.

3. Once the big four collapses, I would expect this rule to be invoked more
frequently until the new world order gets established. After all the rulw
was invoked in 2001, 2002 and 2004 and not ever after that.

 

[isabelle]

According to his off website, Murray'll play Valencia so he accepted a WC ???

 

[Kieran]

It would be a very odd season if a player won a major and didn't finish in the top 20. Last year, the 20th ranked player had 1685 points at the end of the year (Kevin Anderson), so the 2000 points for winning a major almost certainly guarantees a top ten finish...

 

[Fiero425]

It would be a very odd season if a player won a major and didn't finish in the top 20. Last year, the 20th ranked player had 1685 points at the end of the year (Kevin Anderson), so the 2000 points for winning a major almost certainly guarantees a top ten finish...

You would think! I can't remember someone winning a major and nothing else so that they weren't in the top 10! I don't know what Andy can possibly be complaining about? He's not part of the BIG 4 anymore, so he needs to move on, work hard, and up his game to get back! Off the top of my head, Manuel Orantes won the '76 USO and a couple other smaller tourneys like The Canadian Open when it was still on clay and he wound up being #4 in the world ranking at the end of the year! I would say it's probably damn near impossible to win a major and not be in the top 10 and make Masters! They purposely give GS tourneys significantly more points to win it to make sure within the last couple decades!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It would be a very odd season if a player won a major and didn't finish in the top 20. Last year, the 20th ranked player had 1685 points at the end of the year (Kevin Anderson), so the 2000 points for winning a major almost certainly guarantees a top ten finish...

I agree with you. If someone wins a Grand Slam in an year, they are virtually guaranteed
of being in top 20 as per the recent trends at least.

So, if at all I want to tweak the rule, I would say the GS winner should be in top 16
or top 12. But, I would certainly want to keep an inside route to a GS winner who
does not make it to top 8 in rankings.

Actually speaking, if it were up to me, I would automatically include all four GS
winners (they may or may not be distinct) in WTF and then pick as many players
as needed from the top of the rankings chart of ATP to create a field of eight for
the WTF. I think that would ensure that we have a lively field for the WTF.

Fortunately, most if not all, of the GS winners will be in top 8 and so there
is probably no need in reality to tweak the rule as I said in the above para.
So, it is good to have one exception, just in case it is needed.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It would be a very odd season if a player won a major and didn't finish in the top 20. Last year, the 20th ranked player had 1685 points at the end of the year (Kevin Anderson), so the 2000 points for winning a major almost certainly guarantees a top ten finish...

I agree with you. If someone wins a Grand Slam in an year, they are virtually guaranteed
of being in top 20 as per the recent trends at least.

So, if at all I want to tweak the rule, I would say the GS winner should be in top 16
or top 12. But, I would certainly want to keep an inside route to a GS winner who
does not make it to top 8 in rankings.

Actually speaking, if it were up to me, I would automatically include all four GS
winners (they may or may not be distinct) in WTF and then pick as many players
as needed from the top of the rankings chart of ATP to create a field of eight for
the WTF. I think that would ensure that we have a lively field for the WTF.

Fortunately, most if not all, of the GS winners will be in top 8 and so there
is probably no need in reality to tweak the rule as I said in the above para.
So, it is good to have one exception, just in case it is needed.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I disagree with Andy here. Like I mentioned in the other thread, why was he claiming not to alter his schedule just to reach the O2 if that wasn't his priority, now he says this about a rule that isn't that much of a game changer....

I also have to agree with the points Iona has made though. The media love to set up big name athletes for these kinds of stories.... especially someone like Andy who they've caught out in the past.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I disagree with Andy here. Like I mentioned in the other thread, why was he claiming not to alter his schedule just to reach the O2 if that wasn't his priority.

That was the funniest statement that Murray has ever made. Murray is playing six weeks
in a row just for fun. If he manages to qualify for WTF that is incidental. If we think it (altering
of the schedule) is due to his quest to reach O2, it is our fault. :laydownlaughing

 

[Front242]

He puts the M in mongo!

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

murray is going to be playing 6 weeks in a row ?..lol, no panic or anything then.

 

[isabelle]

murray is going to be playing 6 weeks in a row ?..lol, no panic or anything then.

He needs some pts to qualify for London, line up is weaker in Vienna and Valencia than in a MS so he can do well. I wish him good luck

 

[nehmeth]

I disagree with Andy here. Like I mentioned in the other thread, why was he claiming not to alter his schedule just to reach the O2 if that wasn't his priority.

That was the funniest statement that Murray has ever made. Murray is playing six weeks
in a row just for fun. If he manages to qualify for WTF that is incidental. If we think it (altering
of the schedule) is due to his quest to reach O2, it is our fault. :laydownlaughing

Well he's getting bounced from the tournaments so early... why not line them up like the lower tier players??

 

[isabelle]

I disagree with Andy here. Like I mentioned in the other thread, why was he claiming not to alter his schedule just to reach the O2 if that wasn't his priority.

That was the funniest statement that Murray has ever made. Murray is playing six weeks
in a row just for fun. If he manages to qualify for WTF that is incidental. If we think it (altering
of the schedule) is due to his quest to reach O2, it is our fault. :laydownlaughing

Well he's getting bounced from the tournaments so early... why not line them up like the lower tier players??

Very good idea

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I disagree with Andy here. Like I mentioned in the other thread, why was he claiming not to alter his schedule just to reach the O2 if that wasn't his priority.

That was the funniest statement that Murray has ever made. Murray is playing six weeks
in a row just for fun. If he manages to qualify for WTF that is incidental. If we think it (altering
of the schedule) is due to his quest to reach O2, it is our fault. :laydownlaughing

Well he's getting bounced from the tournaments so early... why not line them up like the lower tier players??

Nothing wrong with that. But, pretending qualifying is not important to him is hypocrisy.

Murray said: “My schedule was going to be dictated more how I felt and what I wanted from the end of the year rather than just trying to play to get into the Tour Finals, because I don’t think that’s necessarily the right way to go about it." :snigger