Murray Complaining

[jhar26]

I agree with Murray. You get 2000 points for winning a slam. That's enough imo. If you get a headstart of 2000 points and you still struggle to stay in the top 20 you shouldn't be at a YEC. It's a silly rule that devalues regular tour events.

 

[Bounce It !!]

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.

I agree Stan is as good as qualified, although it may be possible for some to pass Marin, if Marin does not have much success in the next couple of weeks.

The 2 GS champion scenario did play out in 2002, Albert Costa #11, (RG) was the 8th seed, and Thomas Johanson, #14 (AUS Open) was the 1st Alternate.

As you previously posted, the GS winner was seeded #8, in 2001, Goran, 2002 Albert Cosa, and 2004, Gaston Gaudio. You have an excellent memory. For me, the ATP archives is a fun place to play!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with Murray. You get 2000 points for winning a slam. That's enough imo. If you get a headstart of 2000 points and you still struggle to stay in the top 20 you shouldn't be at a YEC. It's a silly rule that devalues regular tour events.

Looks like you misunderstood. If he does not end up in top 20, he is not allowed into YEC as per the current rules itself. He is not required to be in top 8 to qualify. That is what Murray is protesting about.

 

[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.

The 2 GS champion scenario did play out in 2002, Albert Costa #11, (RG) was the 8th seed, and Thomas Johanson, #14 (AUS Open) was the 1st Alternate.

ATP has finally announced that Stan Wawrinka has officially qualified for the WTF by virtue
of accumulating enough points needed to finish at the top of the charts. So, we will have at
most one GS Champion outside the top 8.

This means if Cilic finishes outside top 8 and Murray finishes in the 8th spot, then
Murray will get to play the WTF if someone who qualified does not wish to participate
due to injuries etc. Rafa did not play in 2012 despite qualifying and Murray did not
play in 2013 despite qualifying.

 

[jhar26]

I agree with Murray. You get 2000 points for winning a slam. That's enough imo. If you get a headstart of 2000 points and you still struggle to stay in the top 20 you shouldn't be at a YEC. It's a silly rule that devalues regular tour events.

Looks like you misunderstood. If he does not end up in top 20, he is not allowed into YEC as per the current rules itself. He is not required to be in top 8 to qualify. That is what Murray is protesting about.

I didn't misunderstand, I know the rule. I think it's silly that you automatically qualify if you win a slam as long as you end up in the top 20. Worst possible scenario: Someone ends the race at #20 even though he's won a slam. That would mean that his slam win was just a fluke because if you take that slam away from his results he probably wouldn't even be top 50. What can such a player possibly do at a YEC? Just let the top eight play - always.

 

[Federberg]

^This rule has been around for years. In my opinion it's a bit pathetic that a player of Murray's pedigree is moaning about it. He should be qualifying with ease every year. If it was someone like Dimitrov complaining because he's had his best year ever and he's denied because of this rule, I could well understand. But this... it's just so self-serving. Why wasn't he complaining in the past few years when he was nailed on to be at the WTF?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Does anyone know whether the rule applies to doubles also. At the moment, there are
two GS winning pairs outside of top 8.

Sock and Popsicle are at #9 and they won the Wimbledon.

Kubot and Lindstedt are at #10 and they won the Australian Open.

So far, only four teams have officially qualified. They are Bryan Brothers, Nestor & Zimonjic,
Peya & Soures and Roger-Vasselin and Bennettau.

If the rule is valid, Sock and Popsicle will get inside track being the highest ranked
GS winner outside of top 8.

 

[tented]

^ The rules are outlined in the ATP Rulebook, available through their website.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the end Cilic finished at #9 and so, with Rafa withdrawing, he actually got the regular spot.
He was not forced to use the "inside route" despite not playing in Base/Valencia/Bercy. Cilic neither
usurped Murray's spot nor that of any other player who deserves it as per the race ranking chart.
So, the system still works well by and large. Only very rarely folks use this inside route.