No Wildcard for Shap, but yes for Maria..U.S. Open

[Tennis_Hands]

Western-financed protest groups are not going to change anything for the better in Russia.

That is how I know who you are, my little faithful.

You missed the point of who fights for what.

And you are wrong.

Because such acts are actually effective the satraps are sent to shut them down.

They will change Russia for the better. It will just happen slow (as it has numerous times before).

 

[Red Rick]

What are you talking about

#facebreakgate, which is apparently fine, but #sorrymategate apparently deserves far more backlash

 

[Bartelby]

You were and are being cryptic and your link did not work, so how am I supposed to know what you are arguing?

In any event, my facts and interpretation are correct.

That is how I know who you are, my little faithful.

You missed the point of who fights for what.

And you are wrong.

Because such acts are actually effective the satraps are sent to shut them down.

They will change Russia for the better. It will just happen slow (as it has numerous times before).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You were and are being cryptic and your link did not work, so how am I supposed to know what you are arguing?

In any event, my facts and interpretation are correct.

Ah, your reaction speaks more than anything anyone could say about you.

Your previous comment showed pretty clearly that you know what this link is about (not that I was ever in doubt that you know about the Sochi beating).

 

[Bartelby]

You are living in the past, my old friend.

Ah, your reaction speaks more than anything anyone could say about you.

Your previous comment showed pretty clearly that you know what this link is about (not that I was ever in doubt that you know about the Sochi beating).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are living in the past, my old friend.

Knowing that your whole stance is based on the past (how old is the expression Cold War again?) I find your statement highly amusing.

 

[Bartelby]

What's old is new again, old friend.

Knowing that your whole stance is based on the past (how old is the expression Cold War again?) I find your statement highly amusing.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What's old is new again, old friend.

I agree, but it also renders your previous post absolutely useless

 

[Bartelby]

You remain old, unfortunately, so you are an exception.

I agree, but it also renders your previous post absolutely useless

 

[duaneeo]

As for Shapovalov, just because he beat Nadal he shoud get an extra price? I don't think so.

It's not that he beat Nadal, but that he eventually became the youngest (some say ever, some say since 1990) Masters semifinalist. He should get an extra price. And, the ATP needs exciting, young promising players. It's actually strange that the US Open didn't give him a WC--with open arms.

 

[metsman]

I mean he plays college tennis. USTA needs something to convince kids to play college tennis and still give them the chance to compete in the pros. helps their propaganda of producing bad players.

it's so bad how Canada is absolutely destroying the US in tennis. US tennis development is a joke.

 

[boredone3456]

So at the US Open American Players got the majority of the wildcards....we are surprised why? This is what happens at every major all the time.

As for Sharapova, She is a former champion and clearly the US Open felt she has served her sentence, so they made their choice. Don't like it, well, not any of our decisions and we don't run the tournament.

 

[albertobra]

It's not that he beat Nadal, but that he eventually became the youngest (some say ever, some say since 1990) Masters semifinalist. He should get an extra price. And, the ATP needs exciting, young promising players. It's actually strange that the US Open didn't give him a WC--with open arms.

Well I get you and it makes sense. I still think it would have been weird to give Shapolovov a WC.
There are some (basicly unwritten) rules for WC which mainly includes players of the nationality of where the event is played, and older famous players that come back after a long stop for whatever reason and don't have a ranking for main draw.
Personally I like it as it is. A young player will have all the time he needs to be worth the main draw in the following years.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

So at the US Open American Players got the majority of the wildcards....we are surprised why? This is what happens at every major all the time.

As for Sharapova, She is a former champion and clearly the US Open felt she has served her sentence, so they made their choice. Don't like it, well, not any of our decisions and we don't run the tournament.

If we are going to claim that USO is giving WC to Sharapova, because she represents a tennis asset, surely the same argument can be made about Shopovalov, who is the hottest tennis player along with Zverev.

If there is a discussion about that it should be about why the organisers value PR more than tennis interest.

I understand that WTA represents an inferior product, but aren't they doing it even worse by allowing a player that didn't do well at all in the last months to participate just to use her image (let us put aside what that is for the sake of clarity)?

Or are they trying to somewhat bring closer the quality of both tours by denying a hot player a place in the men's competition (with so many injured stars the men's side could use some more interesting developments)?

 

[boredone3456]

If we are going to claim that USO is giving WC to Sharapova, because she represents a tennis asset, surely the same argument can be made about Shopovalov, who is the hottest tennis player along with Zverev.

If there is a discussion about that it should be about why the organisers value PR more than tennis interest.

I understand that WTA represents an inferior product, but aren't they doing it even worse by allowing a player that didn't do well at all in the last months to participate just to use her image (let us put aside what that is for the sake of clarity)?

Or are they trying to somewhat bring closer the quality of both tours by denying a hot player a place in the men's competition (with so many injured stars the men's side could use some more interesting developments)?

Sharapova is a former world #1 5 time major champion who is known even by people who don't know tennis....Shapovolov, who I greatly respect, is no where near in terms of achievement. Sadly, that matters a lot more than what Shapovolov did at 1 tournament even if its better than what Maria has done all year. She's name value, and good for a profit, good for business, and the almighty profit rules all. Look at the French Open, Sara Errani had to play qualifying despite being a former finalist, and a bunch of French girls got wildcards and most of them lost in straight sets, while Errani made what, the 3rd round?....but thats the breaks.

WC's have always been majority preference to locals (and I have said adamantly that I am against this multiple times this year and flat out laughed at how many wildcards lose at their home major), and some are tied directly to winning certain tournaments at junior/college level in the states. Its just what the tournament does. If Shapovolov was American he'd no doubt have a wildcard, but he is not. The wildcard system needs to be changed and not just make it about being from the right country at Major level. Or cap the number of locals who receive it at 3 and the other 3 must go to other countries. Or better yet do what the AO does with their pacific region wildcard playoff or whatever they call it, that would be cool to. But the fact that most of the spots went to Americans, this is nothing new and will always be the case unless enough people complain.

 

[Bartelby]

The two players were not competing against each other for a wildcard, so your whole argument is misconceived,

They made the correct decision on Sharapova and an incorrect one, for whatever reason, on Shapovalov.

With regard to Shapovalov missing, it may just be a case of his run coming too late to be formally considered.

Absent the events of last week, his absence would not have been noted.

Absent the fact that the draw was made, his current ranking would make a wildcard unnecessary.

Shapovalov had bad luck, that's all, and Sharapova didn't steal his matryoshka.

If we are going to claim that USO is giving WC to Sharapova, because she represents a tennis asset, surely the same argument can be made about Shopovalov, who is the hottest tennis player along with Zverev.

If there is a discussion about that it should be about why the organisers value PR more than tennis interest.

I understand that WTA represents an inferior product, but aren't they doing it even worse by allowing a player that didn't do well at all in the last months to participate just to use her image (let us put aside what that is for the sake of clarity)?

Or are they trying to somewhat bring closer the quality of both tours by denying a hot player a place in the men's competition (with so many injured stars the men's side could use some more interesting developments)?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The two players were not competing against each other for a wildcard, so your whole argument is misconceived,

They made the correct decision on Sharapova and an incorrect one, for whatever reason, on Shapovalov.

With regard to Shapovalov missing, it may just be a case of his run coming too late to be formally considered.

Absent the events of last week, his absence would not have been noted.

Absent the fact that the draw was made, his current ranking would make a wildcard unnecessary.

Shapovalov had bad luck, that's all, and Sharapova didn't steal his matryoshka.

I didn't say he didn't receive his WC because of her WC, so really there is no argument to be made about my position, which is that the organisers should have given him a WC, if they were concerned with tennis.

My argument is that they are not, hence the WC for Sharapova and the lack of one for Shopovalov.

No rules (as far as they exist) were broken and the organisers can give WC to whomever they desire, so we are not judging their actions based on some legal/formal responsibility.

We are discussing this matter as tennis fans and as such we have to look after what those players bring to the table tenniswise at present.

The truth is that Sharapova brings very little and Shopovalov a lot at the moment.

 

[Bartelby]

Your argument is, as usual, misconceived. The two cases have to be considered separately and you refuse to do this.

You invent fanciful appeals to higher concerns with tennis when you are running a political line pure and simple.

Shapovalov had bad luck in terms of timing, that's all.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Your argument is, as usual, misconceived. The two cases have to be considered separately and you refuse to do this.

You invent fanciful appeals to higher concerns with tennis when you are running a political line pure and simple.

Shapovalov had bad luck in terms of timing, that's all.

My only concern in this case is whether Shopovalov will be able to perform after the qualies.

I consider Sharapova's WC only tangentially and only to point out that her participation is a political decision (surely you wouldn't mind that after all the screaming about injustice).

After so many failed attempts at playing tennis on a high level it is a charity that she is invited as opposed to a tennis decision.

A morsel for a bit of PR work.

Whether you consider my appeals to higher concerns "fanciful" doesn't concern me one bit.

I just laugh at your inability to get out of your cage and be a normal person even when faced with simple situation like this.

 

[Bartelby]

You are still trying to use Shapovalov as a stick to beat Sharapova with until, of course, you find a new tool in your political campaign.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Maria is an U.S. Open Champion while Sharpovlov is just a player that is up and coming!

 

[orreallyy?]

Let's hope she is tested positive for Polonium just before the tournament started.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are still trying to use Shapovalov as a stick to beat Sharapova with until, of course, you find a new tool in your political campaign.

NO and you repeating this will not change anything.

I am criticising the organisers for abandoning tennis interests for political decisions.

The irony is that in the last months /years you pretended that you care about that and now refuse to be critical of the situation.

It appears that you are concerned with injustice, systemic problems and political influence only if they are related to a particular scenario.

I don't have a history of having political agenda, so really there is no reason to be any more anxious in this case than any other concerning tennis.

I am speaking my mind as a tennis fan.

The same cannot be said about you.

 

[Bartelby]

The Meldonium story is over as far as the USO organisers are concerned and you repeating your endless criticism of Sharapova will not change anything.

They decided to give her a wildcard, so deal with it!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The Meldonium story is over as far as the USO organisers are concerned and you repeating your endless criticism of Sharapova will not change anything.

They decided to give her a wildcard, so deal with it!

Yet another instance of you trying to politicise!

I stated clearly what the reference to Sharapova is and that is not about her being a former banned player, but a player, who has not displayed any tennis quality as of late.

I also use the comparison to address the actions of the organisers. I don't care whether she is in as it is blatantly obvious that she is receiving those WC to do promotion and not to forward her career as such.

If she wins something in the future it will be a collateral occurrence from what effectively has become an active retirement for her.

There is something to be said about giving her chances that put other players on hold, but that is a different discussion.

 

[Bartelby]

And on and on you moan about Sharapova!

She's been injured and as endless people used to state: Wildcards for great players coming back from injury are important.

And that's why she got one.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

And on and on you moan about Sharapova!

She's been injured and as endless people used to state: Wildcards for great players coming back from injury are important.

And that's why she got one.

You can say that another thousand times and it will still not change the facts.

The organisers are not concerned with tennis quality and that is what I am discussing.

You are discussing obviously something else.

 

[Bartelby]

So five grand slams is insufficient quality for you?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

So five grand slams is insufficient quality for you?

Again.

It is about how stark the difference in the treatment is, considering what tennis quality both players are displaying at the moment.

 

[Bartelby]

You are back again comparing two players who aren't even competing for the same wildcards. Do you even get this pivotal point?

If not for two injuries Sharapova would have qualified in her own right so they gave her a wildcard. Shapovalov is irrelevant.

 

[Daniel Johnson]

Disgraceful to give a shameful drug cheat a wild card and deny one of the few rising stars of the game one. The only saving grace is Shap will get through qualifying and play anyway, while Sharp will likely go out in the first 3 rounds given her form this year (and without the huge PED advantage she benefitted so richly from throughout her career).

Ohh please

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are back again comparing two players who aren't even competing for the same wildcards. Do you even get this pivotal point?

If not for two injuries Sharapova would have qualified in her own right so they gave her a wildcard. Shapovalov is irrelevant.

It is a pivotal point for someone who looks to put them in one sentence, despite of accusing others of doing it with political agenda.

Sharapova lost matches not (only) because of injuries, so your statement is a speculation.

 

[Bartelby]

You jump around from argument to argument as you lose one argument after another.

I don't have to speculate.

1. I made no statements regarding her losing matches because of injury. The argument is that they prevented her playing matches.

2. She was given a wildcard. You are speculating as to why that was wrong and doing it in an increasingly erratic manner.

 

[mellowyellow]

Their is no "good" reason the USO, needs 6 weeks to get qualifying figured out. It should all be settled Sunday after the Canada final. That would help include players who are running hot in this years USO series. Every year they fail to include someone playing good that should have been in due to rank but museed the 6 week cutoff. Freakin USO BS!!!!!! What do you expect from a tournament that rigged the draw years back?

 

[canta_Brian]

I see the Bartlebot Sharapova defense algorithm is working overtime today.

Only one point from me. Despite the Bartlebot saying it over and over again, nobody here is saying that Sharapova not getting a wildcard would allow Shapavalov to get one. This idea is simply a deflection from the points being made, and not even a good one at that.

Please utilise Bartlebot techinique 14.2.1(c): Ignore posters who make perfectly reasonable posts.
rather than 3.2.1(a): Flame poster constantly despite the user having logged off and gone to work.

 

[Bartelby]

You have to consider matters on their merits so the constant comparison between two players who are not even in the same competition precludes that.

Many here are decrying Sharapova's wildcard by pointing to Shapovalov's ill fortune and thereby inferring that the whole matter is somehow unfair.

So the argument you invent is not mine, so please don't add to my already low opinion of you by your incessant fictionalising.

I see the ...

 

[DRII]

I'm not knocking Eubanks. But I think it is odd that he has a spot, and Shap doesn't.

he's an American!

sorry you don't see the value in that.

 

[DRII]

Morality applies to everything in life. I'm no Puritan so don't get me wrong, but it says something that RG did not award her a WC but the USO did. To me, the subtle message is that the ideals of good sportmanship (not cheating intentionally or accidentally for that matter) matter more to the organizers at RG than they do at the USO.

the French have had issues with Sharapova before.

 

[DRII]

I say that Sharapova payed with a long exclusion, so the moral argument falls here.
She wasn't able to play for almost a year, so time to get over it with all this moral bla bla bla.
Sharapova is a multi Slam winner, that payed for what she did, and a WC is totally justified.

As for Shapovalov, just because he beat Nadal he shoud get an extra price? I don't think so.
The rules are set. He did not have ranking for main draw at the time, and to get there he needs to go through qualifying.
Don't see any reason why to put an overuled hype on a youngster just because he reached SF on a Master 1000. He must earn that like everyone else.
Beating Nadal does not make for Shapovalov a reason to get an overuled WC.

that's all it takes for Nadal haters...

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You jump around from argument to argument as you lose one argument after another.

I don't have to speculate.

1. I made no statements regarding her losing matches because of injury. The argument is that they prevented her playing matches.

2. She was given a wildcard. You are speculating as to why that was wrong and doing it in an increasingly erratic manner.

1. The argument is that they prevented her of playing matches, but the ones she played and lost would have been enough for her to qualify, so it appears that you are wrong.

2. I am not speculating that that is wrong. I am pointing at the fact that the organisers chose to service their PR instead of their tennis quality. They could have done both, and you are obtusely implying that both things are mutually exclusive.

Here we are talking about Sharapova again.

Oh wait, it is because Mr. Brump insist of making her part of every post and does it yet again here.

I can only laugh at your conclusions about my arguments and who won what.

 

[Bartelby]

You are speculating that 'the organisers chose to service their PR instead of their tennis quality' and yet you accuse me of speculating.

You have spent the last eighteen months ranting about Sharapova so how could you possibly do anything other than speculate about her.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You are speculating that 'the organisers chose to service their PR instead of their tennis quality' and yet you accuse me of speculating.

You have spent the last eighteen months ranting about Sharapova so how could you possibly do anything other than speculate about her.

NO, the "instead" part was to show that the PR was more important to them than tennis quality and I said as much.

Reading selectively is ultimately a sign of your rotten position.

Nice that you dropped your absurd claim that it was not in her own hands to qualify for the USO.

I spend last 18 months addressing the never ending BS from certain Mr. Brump.

If it wasn't for him this forum would have spent maybe a couple of hours and a couple of hundreds of posts and be done with it.

The irony is that the only one feeding from his own frenzy is you yourself. Noone changed his mind and noone ever will.

Ultimately you are using this forum as a vehicle to do political statements 95% of the time.

I would suggest that you abandon this as that is not its purpose.

 

[Bartelby]

In your half-baked, East European resentment at all things Russian, you simply lose sight of the need to stick to the topic.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

In your half-baked, East European resentment at all things Russian, you simply lose sight of the need to stick to the topic.

That is a statement that is so laughably wrong, that it doesn't merit an actual response regarding its contents (it is also easy for everyone who has a functioning brain to see that I have been 100% on topic and 100% consistent in my opinion unless addressing (your) speculative political statements).

I will just say that your post is, sigh, again, 100% political.

 

[BHud]

The guy deliberately hit an umpire, he should have been banned for a year.

Right...and he was aiming specifically at his head...that's how good of control he has! Did he use a flexible racquet with a tight string pattern?

 

[Bartelby]