"Federer and Nadal qualify for Shanghai"

[simi]

From the ITF "This Week" weekly newsletter.

- - - - -

Wimbledon finalists, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, and the top two doubles pairings of Jonas Bjorkman and Max Mirnyi, and Bob and Mike Bryan, have all secured their places in the prestigious circuit finale, the Tennis Masters Cup Shanghai.

The event will be held for the second year at Qi Zhong Stadium on 12-19 November. Federer qualified for the Tennis Masters Cup after his quarterfinal victory at Roland Garros last month, making it the earliest qualification in the history of the tournament. He said: “I am looking forward to playing in Shanghai for the third time. I reached the semifinals the first year and the final last year so I hope to go one step further this time. I love playing in China and the stadium is great.”

Nadal, who has won 33 of his last 34 matches, guaranteed his Shanghai place courtesy of his first-ever Wimbledon semifinal appearance. He said: “I came to Shanghai last year and was really excited about playing, but unfortunately I was injured and couldn’t play. I have always said that my goal was to qualify for the Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai and I am very happy now that I’ve done it.”

The top seven players in the INDESIT ATP 2006 Race and the top seven teams in the Stanford ATP Doubles Race qualify for the circuit finale, with one spot reserved for Grand Slam champions finishing within the Top 20.

 

[kicker75]

What happens if hypotethically all 4 grand slam champions finish outside of the top 7? Or is that even possible with the point system in place?

 

[pound cat]

Keep your ranking up Marcos...we want to see you in Shanghai too

 

[Tchocky]

Nice job, Roger & Rafa...I knew you could do it.

 

[The tennis guy]

What happens if hypotethically all 4 grand slam champions finish outside of the top 7? Or is that even possible with the point system in place?

If you are slam winner, you are in master final if you are ranked in top 20.

 

[kicker75]

If you are slam winner, you are in master final if you are ranked in top 20.

I mean... say at the end of the year, before the Masters, the #9 in the world won the AO, #10 wins French, #11 wins Wimbledon, #12 wins the US Open. Does that mean at the Masters, they let #1-#7 in the tourney and then allow #9-#12 into the tourney as well, or do they take only the grand slam champ who was highest ranked... in this case #9? (too bad for #8 who didn't win a slam)

I know Gaston Gaudio got the "slam entry" to the Masters when he won the French, but he was the only slam winner who was out of the top 8 (and I think Agassi was #8 and not allowed to enter the Masters that year)

 

[Moose Malloy]

mean... say at the end of the year, before the Masters, the #9 in the world won the AO, #10 wins French, #11 wins Wimbledon, #12 wins the US Open. Does that mean at the Masters, they let #1-#7 in the tourney and then allow #9-#12 into the tourney as well, or do they take only the grand slam champ who was highest ranked... in this case #9? (too bad for #8 who didn't win a slam)

It happened in '02. costa, johannson were major winners who didn't finish in top 8. costa got in because he was higher ranked. johannson was alternate.

 

[kicker75]

It happened in '02. costa, johannson were major winners who didn't finish in top 8. costa got in because he was higher ranked. johannson was alternate.

So if my scenario played out, #1-#4 would be in the Masters and then #9-#12 would be as well, with #5 as the alternate?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Only highest ranked slam champ gets in. So in your hypothetical scenario, if all 4 major winners are out of top 8, only one gets in.
The odds of this happening are low. Its very rare that a major winner doesn't finish in top 8('02 was the only time 2, actually 3-sampras withdrew early so it wasn't an issue-major winners didn't finish in top 8)

They only started this rule in 2000, prior to that only top 8 qualified. I think that was more fair system. #8 player should always be there.

 

[The tennis guy]

They only started this rule in 2000, prior to that only top 8 qualified. I think that was more fair system. #8 player should always be there.

It was comprise between ATP and ITF, so ITF wouldn't hold their own Grand Slam Cup anymore, which was a pathetic event most of the time.

 

[Moose Malloy]

so ITF wouldn't hold their own Grand Slam Cup anymore, which was a pathetic event most of the time

really I thought it was a great event(at least for a while)
I remember many great 5 setters(Korda-Sampras in '93-no tiebreaks in 5th, both players cramping, Chang coming from 2 sets to love down to beat Lendl(again) in '91

It definitely felt like an important, prestigious event for the 1st 4-5 years.

 

[The tennis guy]

really I thought it was a great event(at least for a while)
I remember many great 5 setters(Korda-Sampras in '93-no tiebreaks in 5th, both players cramping, Chang coming from 2 sets to love down to beat Lendl(again) in '91

It definitely felt like an important, prestigious event for the 1st 4-5 years.

It didn't count as official tournament, just for the money. It was like exhibition. You had David Wheaton won one year for $2 M, then disappear. You also got Larsson, Ruseski winning. You got a few good matches from time to time, more dull ones.

 

[Moose Malloy]

It didn't count as official tournament, just for the money. It was like exhibition.

I understand, but I doubt Korda & Sampras were thinking of money when they staggered around the court 13-11 in the 5th set. And Korda won a 5 setter vs Stich in the final the next day. I'm sure he considers it one of the highlights of his career. And Stich was in tears when he won it the year before. ESPN had coverage of it every day in the early years of that event, it felt like more than an exhibition, esp with best of 5 semis & final.

The atp does show it in players activity.

 

[The tennis guy]

There were good matches. However, as years went by, more and more lower ranked players get in, more dull matches than exciting ones.