MLRoy
Hall of Fame
Psst... that's what commies do, babe.I dont need somone to tell me whats right and wrong
Psst... that's what commies do, babe.I dont need somone to tell me whats right and wrong
Bravo! But your point about pro sport was wrong and I refuted it, so now you're back to square one as you are the one stuck in 'participation class'.
I dont have to participate in womens tennis. Nor do i have to patronize it.
Serena's case would be very interesting if they did it the right way. Her protected ranking is 183, she auto qualifies for the qualifier. The funny part is if she made it threw, she would be placed as a seed. See how strange that is?
Its obvious she doesnt deserve it because she hasnt played. I have no problem with her being seeded higher based on her 2016 win, but she doesnt qualify for the main draw, even with her protected ranking.
Other girls have been sleeping in strangers houses (hosts) while winning challengers, they earned the spot. They have worked much harder than serena in the past year.
You do not play tennis at a high level, getting a chance in the main draw is something people work for. Its their job, first round loss = half their annual money in some cases
People always invoke the poor when it suits their argument, but forget them immediately afterwards.
who gives a crap about cibulkova?It "would not be fair" for seven-time champion Serena Williams to be seeded for Wimbledon, says world number 32 Dominika Cibulkova. The 29-year-old will not be seeded if the ex-world number one - currently 183rd in the rankings - is seeded.
Williams, 36, has called for players returning from pregnancy to have protected seedings as well as protected rankings. But Slovakia's Cibulkova said: "I don't think it's the right thing to do." She added: "I think it's just not fair. I have tried and I should be seeded. If they put her in front of me then I will lose my spot that I am supposed to have. "I was a former number four, and it's also like why should I not be seeded if I have the right to be?"
The decision on seeding will be announced at 10:00 BST on Wednesday. Williams has played only three tournaments in the past 12 months, having given birth to a baby girl in September. The All England Club usually follows the WTA ranking list, but reserves the right to make a change if it "is necessary to produce a balanced draw". Cibulkova has twice reached the quarter-finals at Wimbledon.
who gives a crap about cibulkova?
I dont have to participate in womens tennis. Nor do i have to patronize it.
Serena's case would be very interesting if they did it the right way. Her protected ranking is 183, she auto qualifies for the qualifier. The funny part is if she made it threw, she would be placed as a seed. See how strange that is?
Its obvious she doesnt deserve it because she hasnt played. I have no problem with her being seeded higher based on her 2016 win, but she doesnt qualify for the main draw, even with her protected ranking.
Other girls have been sleeping in strangers houses (hosts) while winning challengers, they earned the spot. They have worked much harder than serena in the past year.
You do not play tennis at a high level, getting a chance in the main draw is something people work for. Its their job, first round loss = half their annual money in some cases
Well stated.
Wrong. Her current ranking is #181. Her protected ranking is #1 which is what she was when she left the tour.I dont have to participate in womens tennis. Nor do i have to patronize it.
Serena's case would be very interesting if they did it the right way. Her protected ranking is 183, she auto qualifies for the qualifier. The funny part is if she made it threw, she would be placed as a seed. See how strange that is?
Its obvious she doesnt deserve it because she hasnt played. I have no problem with her being seeded higher based on her 2016 win, but she doesnt qualify for the main draw, even with her protected ranking.
Other girls have been sleeping in strangers houses (hosts) while winning challengers, they earned the spot. They have worked much harder than serena in the past year.
You do not play tennis at a high level, getting a chance in the main draw is something people work for. Its their job, first round loss = half their annual money in some cases
Wrong. Her current ranking is #181. Her protected ranking is #1 which is what she was when she left the tour.
That’s why on the Wimbledon entry list it has her second on the list as #1 with SR next to her name as it’s a special protected ranking. Like how Siegemund has SR next to her name at #34 due to her injuries despite that not being her current ranking.
http://www.wimbledon.com/pdf/LS06242018.pdf
Do the basic research, come on..
I don't, honestly can't stand her, I suspect some of her prime play as enhanced... That doesn't make any of this preferential treatment right though.who gives a crap about cibulkova?
It's pointless arguing with a hypocrite that flip flops support of powers that be depending on which agenda they are promoting.Depends which "people" you ask, some people actually respect the sport.
Tiger woods is playing tournaments, doing it the right way. Taking his lumps, wta is giving a free pass at the expense of another
How is golf the same as tennis. In golf you play the field. You're not actively playing against 1 person at a time in 7 rounds. Your ranking doesn't matter in a golf tournament because it has no affect on the other players that you are playing with.Depends which "people" you ask, some people actually respect the sport.
Tiger woods is playing tournaments, doing it the right way. Taking his lumps, wta is giving a free pass at the expense of another
You may agree with the sentiment, but 'well stated' it is not.
You write 7 words and think its ground breaking, look at the crap your posting, it has nothing todo with the topic
Post 109 by Mr Aussie refuted definitively your view. So that summarises in a 'well stated' manner the situation.
Thats where we disagree, seeding at wimbledon has always been up to the tournament. Cibulkova is only pissed off about getting less money if she gets knocked out earlier.I don't, honestly can't stand her, I suspect some of her prime play as enhanced... That doesn't make any of this preferential treatment right though.
I dont see post 109, just two in a row from you.
Honestly, if i dont respond to you, your on ignore. Goes to the others as well. Dont waste your time replying
Totally agree with your last point as seedings and wildcards are subjective.One thing about Cibulkova is she is consistent and I can respect that. She was also outspoken regarding Sharapova receiving wildcards. Which is more than can be said about some of the posters on this board.
If you had no problem with Sharapova getting wildcard, but take issue with Serena being seeded, you might want to check your hypocrisy at the door.
The problem is basis. What is this based off of? The formula makes sense on the men's side, you can make sense of it. This has no basis other than profit/historical significance for Wimbledon. Please don't suggest the French open as basis as that refutes Wimbledon own special seeding formula and makes them look foolish, not to mention she has no grass play due to injury at said tournament. This is just a case of preferential treatment, and money grab with potential historical benefits.Thats where we disagree, seeding at wimbledon has always been up to the tournament. Cibulkova is only pissed off about getting less money if she gets knocked out earlier.
1. She a 7 time Wimbledon champion1. She doesn't deserve it.
2. All the other mothers who had babies didn't complain so why does she get special treatment? She never spoke up when they were coming back.
She seems a little self centred to me. And it's great other players are sharing their thoughts, either for or against. They're the ones on tour.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Lol I watched Vapor dude argue 2-3 pages with someone have no idea who I t was but his replies were great...I dont see post 109, just two in a row from you.
Honestly, if i dont respond to you, your on ignore. Goes to the others as well. Dont waste your time replying
I think it's funny too, their are certain ones on here in favor if this but I feel if it wasn't to benefit their twisted agenda they would be complaining this organization has an open ended means to draw fixing at their discretion. Yet the men have a satisfactory formula... Women being taken advantage of but it's OK this time. FFS the hypocrisy and dbl standards on here are EPIC!
Subjective implies no formula. They can put her wherever they want.The problem is basis. What is this based off of? The formula makes sense on the men's side, you can make sense of it. This has no basis other than profit/historical significance for Wimbledon. Please don't suggest the French open as basis as that refutes Wimbledon own special seeding formula and makes them look foolish, not to mention she has no grass play due to injury at said tournament. This is just a case of preferential treatment, and money grab with potential historical benefits.
If other players find it unfair......well they can win wimbledon.
It has nothing to do with whether she has won it or not. Davenport won it or was a finalist a few times, she got nothing.
Whole point is she gets preferential treatment over everyone else and it isn't fair.
The players you mentioned won other slams, did they get anything in those slams when they returned. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.
It's like nothing has ever changed and then all of a sudden Serena gets pregnant and she complains and gets what she wants. If she was never pregnant OR if it was ANY other player this new rule would never exist.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
And whoa has she PR'd the sh*t out of being a mom and that baby. Jesus, give it a rest. it's too much. Second hand knowledge that she is not a nice person whereas her sister is lovely. (haha i know that shouldn't matter with regard to seedings and rankings, just mentioning it because someone else had mentioned her personality above). I think it's generally silly though of the committee to base seedings on something that was relevant 2 years ago. By that logic, should Marion Bartoli have played 2 years after she won? Of course not, not reflective of how she was playing two years later. same with SW.
Wimbledon have just published their reasoning for seeding Serena on their website. I quote the relevant material:
Black is black, I want my baby back
It's grey, it's grey, since she went away, oh oh
What can I do, 'cause I, I'm feelin' blue
If I had my way, she'd be here today
But she'd go in time, and leave me to cry again, oh no
What can I do, 'cause I, I'm feelin' blue
I can't choose, it's too much to lose when our love's too strong
Maybe if she would come back to me, then I can't go wrong
Bad is bad, that I feel so sad
It's time, it's time, that I felt peace of mind, oh oh
What can I do, 'cause I, I'm feelin' blue
I can't choose, it's too much to lose when our love's too strong
Maybe if she would come back to me, then I can't go wrong
It has nothing to do with whether she has won it or not. Davenport won it or was a finalist a few times, she got nothing.
Whole point is she gets preferential treatment over everyone else and it isn't fair.
The players you mentioned won other slams, did they get anything in those slams when they returned. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.
It's like nothing has ever changed and then all of a sudden Serena gets pregnant and she complains and gets what she wants. If she was never pregnant OR if it was ANY other player this new rule would never exist.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I hope Serena draws Cibulkova in the first round and feeds her a tasty bagel (or two) for breakfast. yum yum, have some humble pie with it on the side little fatso shrimp shrieker.
Have you seen serena lately?
When did serena apply for the protective ranking? After the 2017 AO? Isnt it still 12months of protection?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Serena_Williams_tennis_season
She had to defend a ton of 2016 points and that would force her to defend those points in 2018. She didnt play the events
I'm not an expert in these matters, but you get a SR/PR of 12 months from the time you return, I think, and she returned on the 11th of February 2018 so you do the math!
She had a great spring in 2016. You cannot keep those point in your protected ranking because if you won that event you would be doubling up.
Thanks for the Feb11th was looking for it
The PR system is an average ranking over first three months of injury, so it's a virtual score.
Serena obviously has a PR of 1 which is why she is ranked 1 at Wimbledon.
It "would not be fair" for seven-time champion Serena Williams to be seeded for Wimbledon, says world number 32 Dominika Cibulkova. The 29-year-old will not be seeded if the ex-world number one - currently 183rd in the rankings - is seeded.
Williams, 36, has called for players returning from pregnancy to have protected seedings as well as protected rankings. But Slovakia's Cibulkova said: "I don't think it's the right thing to do." She added: "I think it's just not fair. I have tried and I should be seeded. If they put her in front of me then I will lose my spot that I am supposed to have. "I was a former number four, and it's also like why should I not be seeded if I have the right to be?"
The decision on seeding will be announced at 10:00 BST on Wednesday. Williams has played only three tournaments in the past 12 months, having given birth to a baby girl in September. The All England Club usually follows the WTA ranking list, but reserves the right to make a change if it "is necessary to produce a balanced draw". Cibulkova has twice reached the quarter-finals at Wimbledon.
Psst... that's what commies do, babe.
You can't make everyone happy. While the bottom half of the seeds are pissed the top seeds are relieved especially the top 4, for they would not want to face Serena in the 2nd or 3rd round.
Why isnt she seeded #1 or #3 if its based on that? I could see mugs getting a #2
Why isn't Serena seeded #1 on every tournament she is going to play?
You're confused.May 11th is when she would be officially unprotected (by using your 3month thing, assuming true).
She lost pts from rome and the french, finalist in both tourneys. Thats -1500, no idea how they did their math.
Somehow they worked it to make her and simona have the exact number of pts, lol
She is also defending 1500 at Wimbledon
You're confused.