Grand Slams Need More Qualifications

[davidtennis123]

I touched on this in the Federer thread, but I truly believe that grand slams should expand their qualifications to make more players, say 80 and up now, qualify for the tournament. It should be a huge honor to play in such a big event, and having some of these lower ranked players (around 80-104 I think) show up just for a paycheck, not to give the fans anything of any sort of substance, is disrespectful and unfair to the players who had to qualify or just lost out.

Look, Lacko was certainly not going to beat Federer. But, just watching him go through the motions (I started watching somewhere in the second set) and slap balls into the net is disheartening for the fans and waste of their money. Lacko seemed like he had no intentions of trying to win the match, and he didn't bring anywhere close to the intensity needed. Maybe a player who has won three tour-level, non-Davis Cup matches this entire year, shouldn't get to ride up to this major and collect his check before riding away in the sunset, instantly wealthier.

I don't know, just watching Lacko's lack of effort and intensity really ****ed me off.

 

[TheMusicLover]

^^ Lacko earned his direct entry to the main draw of RG because of his ATP-ranking position, and guess what, that ranking doesn't come with your packet of chewing gum. He's had to work for that, and hard.

Of course his performance against Fed today was disappointing, but in all honesty, what did you expect from Lacko?
I like the guy, but he's an absolute clown on clay - all of his more 'decent' results so far have come on HC.
So this was about the best he's capable of on clay.

Also - it was Fed who he was playing against, you know. A guy who's pretty capable of playing on clay, if not, very good. Perhaps even the absolute #2 of his era.
You might consider giving him a bit of credit.

 

[davidtennis123]

Look, I have no problem with people like Victor Estrella giving Janowicz a big fight, or Herbert pushing Isner, but it just felt like I was watching Federer practice. To be honest, Federer didn't do anything really, Lacko just found the net almost as much as he found the other side of the court. I just think that he took a spot from someone who would have actually wanted to try to challenge Federer, like Stakhovsky did at Wimbledon last year. Instead, he just cashed a pay check.

 

[Beryl]

TheMusicLover has it right. Using Lacko's performance on clay as a barometer for anything is problematic, as Lukas is an absolute mug on this surface. It's like playing Volandri on hard courts or Delbonis on grass. They'll get into tournaments because of their ranking, but they become a virtual bye in reality. And there'll be players like that no matter the cutoff.

Also, there's enough qualifiers and wildcards at slams already. I could see a few more qualifiers being welcome and feasible, but certainly not nearly 25 more.

 

[Steve0904]

But then we wouldn't have the massive Rosol upset at Wimbledon in 2012. Personally, I like it the way it is. :twisted:

 

[Harry_Wild]

More qualifying would hurt the people in the draw to qualify for the main draw. After all; if you play three rounds and then go to the main draw against a fresh opponent; the chances of you winning is not good! And if you do beat that opponent; you have played an entire tournament(4 opponents) going into the 2nd round with out any or one day rest. Not going happen to expand the draw!

 

[davidtennis123]

Y'all are probably right. I just thought of what I was really thinking of: a Wimbledon-esque ranking system. Past results on clay have weight too, so players who historically do well on clay, such as Nadal, Ferrer, Verdasco, and Ungur. While Lacko's rank would go down a bit.

 

[stringertom]

Let's go back a century or so (1922 @Wimby) and do it the original way...the Challenge format where the defending champion played just once vs the survivor of the draw.:twisted: