New Haven, Forest Hills R16 Rankings
Robert B. Waltz
2 (2) Mauresmo 4491
3 (3) Myskina 4247
4 (4) Davenport 4009
5 (5) Clijsters 3565
6 (6) DEMENTIEVA 2847*
7 (7) SHARAPOVA 2462
8 (8) CAPRIATI 2414*
9 (9) Kuznetsova 2090.25
10 (10) Zvonareva 2090
11 (11) SWilliams 1995
12 (12) VWilliams 1991
13 (13) Sugiyama 1930
14 (15) PETROVA 1761
15 (14) Suarez 1738
16 (16) Schnyder 1641
17 (17) Schiavone 1469
18 (18) Molik 1443.5
19 (19) Sprem 1369.75
20 (20) Farina Elia 1260
21 (21) Rubin 1251
22 (22) Frazier 1233
23 (23) MALEEVA 1214
24 (27) BOVINA 1193*
25 (24) Zuluaga 1180.75
26 (25) Smashnova-Pistolesi 1159
27 (26) LIKHOVTSEVA 1131*
28 (28) Pierce 1110
29 (29) DECHY 1017*
30 (31) GOLOVIN 952.5
31 (36) RAYMOND 938.25*
32 (34) HANTUCHOVA 930*
33 (30) Daniilidou 924.75
34 (32) Vento-Kabchi 920.5
35 (33) SHAUGHNESSY 893
36 (35) Martinez 851
37 (39) LOIT 832.5*
38 (37) Dokic 831
39 (38) Dulko 825.75
40 (40) KOSTANIC 821.5
41 (42) JANKOVIC 819.25*
42 (41) SAFINA 778.75
43 (43) Pennetta 755.75
44 (44) SANCHEZ LORENZO 744
45 (45) BRANDI 737*
46 (47) BENESOVA 731*
47 (46) Pratt 731
48 (51) SCHAUL 725.75
49 (48) MEDINA GARRIGUES 720.75*
50 (50) BARTOLI 711*
51 (49) Pisnik 700.25
52 (52) TANASUGARN 686.75
53 (53) BARNA 654
54 (54) CHLADKOVA 647.75
55 (55) Koukalova 639.25
(56) Obata 635.75
(57) PARRA SANTONJA 629.75
(64) MARRERO 620
(58) GARBIN 618.75
(59) Zheng 615.25
(60) Asagoe 584
(84) WASHINGTON 575.25*
SEVENTEENTH TOURNAMENT POINTS:
Barna: 11 I think
Bartoli: 11
Benesova: 9
Brandi: 29 I think
Bovina: 2
Dechy: 1
Dementieva: 1
Garbin: 2
Hantuchova: 2
Jankovic: 11.5 I think
Kostanic: 8
Likhovtseva: 1
Loit: 1
Maleeva: 1
Marrero: 2
Medina Garrigues: 16.5
Parra: 10.75 I think
Petrova: 1
Raymond: 1
Safina: 1
Sanchez Lorenzo: 1
Sharapova: 44 (and she isn't supposed to be able
to play this week under the age rules)
Shaughnessy: 1
Tanasugarn: 1
Washington: 5.5 I think
TIEBREAKS:
QUALIFYING POINTS:
Marrero: 17.75
--
Just because you have moral clarity does not mean that you have
moral authority.
-- Thomas Friedman
Ted of Ted's Tennis
news:waltzmn-3AE0B2...@corp.supernews.com:
> Sharapova: 44 (and she isn't supposed to be able
> to play this week under the age rules)
Didn't they change the AER at the end of last year to allow players with a
high enough ranking to play an extra tournament or two? I don't have a
copy of the 2004 Rulebook, but I distinctly recall changes in the AER
being made to accommodate Sharapova.
Do you think they would have made such changes if an *ugly* 16-year-old
were nearing the Top 20?
--
Ted Schuerzinger
http://tedstennis.tripod.com/index.html
An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be
devoured. -- Konrad Adenauer
Robert B. Waltz
> Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <wal...@skypoint.com> wrote in
> news:waltzmn-3AE0B2...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Sharapova: 44 (and she isn't supposed to be able
> > to play this week under the age rules)
>
> Didn't they change the AER at the end of last year to allow players with a
> high enough ranking to play an extra tournament or two? I don't have a
> copy of the 2004 Rulebook, but I distinctly recall changes in the AER
> being made to accommodate Sharapova.
They did -- but unless I misunderstood the rule (possible),
New Haven puts Sharapova one over her limit.
> Do you think they would have made such changes if an *ugly* 16-year-old
> were nearing the Top 20?
Sure -- if she had the right publicity machine.
The really stupid part is that the age rules are supposed to
protect the new players from overplaying. So which players
are permitted extra events? Why, the ones who are winning
the most matches, of course, and spending the most time on
the court.
big benz
>
> Didn't they change the AER at the end of last year to allow players with a
> high enough ranking to play an extra tournament or two? I don't have a
> copy of the 2004 Rulebook, but I distinctly recall changes in the AER
> being made to accommodate Sharapova.
>
> Do you think they would have made such changes if an *ugly* 16-year-old
> were nearing the Top 20?
>
if you're looking to suggest a conspiracy theory you are invoking the
wrong rule. a player who is gold exempt is allowed to play an
additional tournament. the reason being that gold exempt players have
obligations to play a minimum number of tournaments.
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> "Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedst...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <wal...@skypoint.com>
> > > wrote in news:waltzmn-3AE0B2...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > > Sharapova: 44 (and she isn't supposed to be able
> > > to play this week under the age rules)
> >
> > Didn't they change the AER at the end of last year to allow players
> > with a high enough ranking to play an extra tournament or two? I
> > don't have a copy of the 2004 Rulebook, but I distinctly recall
> > changes in the AER being made to accommodate Sharapova.
>
> They did -- but unless I misunderstood the rule (possible),
> New Haven puts Sharapova one over her limit.
>
The current WTA CEO said when he took the job that he wanted to get rid of
the age rules.
> > Do you think they would have made such changes if an *ugly*
> > 16-year-old were nearing the Top 20?
>
> Sure -- if she had the right publicity machine.
And the right success. The fact is that a 16yo who's playing well and
blitzing through the rankings is hot even if she has a face like the back
of a bus and a body like a tank. Youth and novelty count for a lot to
these guys.
>
> The really stupid part is that the age rules are supposed to
> protect the new players from overplaying. So which players
> are permitted extra events? Why, the ones who are winning
> the most matches, of course, and spending the most time on
> the court.
Yup. Been saying this for years, just like you. Austin and Jaeger got
injured and retired terribly young. So they made rules -- which they
immediately dumped for Capriati. Who burned out so they made more
stringent rules. Which they waived for Hingis and VW. The first of whom
retired terribly young with chronic injuries and the second of whom had
three very good years and now at 24 or whatever she is is struggling
badly. Kournikova complained bitterly about being stuck under the age
rules, and she, too, is gone, injured. So now they want to "help"
Sharapova.
The problem is that what's good for business is bad for the players.
wg
Robert B. Waltz
wrote:
[ ... ]
> > > Do you think they would have made such changes if an *ugly*
> > > 16-year-old were nearing the Top 20?
> >
> > Sure -- if she had the right publicity machine.
>
> And the right success. The fact is that a 16yo who's playing well and
> blitzing through the rankings is hot even if she has a face like the back
> of a bus and a body like a tank. Youth and novelty count for a lot to
> these guys.
Agreed -- but success isn't really required. They waived the rules
for Venus, who had no results even in juniors (though that was a
case of grandfathering in). They also changed them for Capriati,
who had no WTA results. And wasn't pretty. The only reason they
changed the rules for Capriati was her hype.
> > The really stupid part is that the age rules are supposed to
> > protect the new players from overplaying. So which players
> > are permitted extra events? Why, the ones who are winning
> > the most matches, of course, and spending the most time on
> > the court.
>
> Yup. Been saying this for years, just like you. Austin and Jaeger got
> injured and retired terribly young. So they made rules -- which they
> immediately dumped for Capriati. Who burned out so they made more
> stringent rules. Which they waived for Hingis and VW. The first of whom
> retired terribly young with chronic injuries and the second of whom had
> three very good years and now at 24 or whatever she is is struggling
> badly. Kournikova complained bitterly about being stuck under the age
> rules, and she, too, is gone, injured. So now they want to "help"
> Sharapova.
I have to nitpick a little: Kournikova's problem actually probably
was caused, indirectly, by the age rules. She played a restricted
schedule, then when the age restrictions came off, she went nuts
and played way too much -- and *then* went injured. Had she been
allowed to gear up slowly, she might have realized she had limits.
They really need age rules with a gradual ramp: They can't go from
16 events to unlimited events when they turn 18!
> The problem is that what's good for business is bad for the players.
Good for business as the WTA defines business. Maybe they need
to redefine how they do business. This is another facet of the
discussion of how the sport is marketed. Market the sport, instead
of the latest hard-hitting young thing, and it might not matter
so much.
big benz
>
> Yup. Been saying this for years, just like you. Austin and Jaeger got
> injured and retired terribly young. So they made rules -- which they
> immediately dumped for Capriati. Who burned out so they made more
> stringent rules. Which they waived for Hingis and VW. The first of whom
> retired terribly young with chronic injuries and the second of whom had
> three very good years and now at 24 or whatever she is is struggling
> badly.
>
venus played a light schedule until she was 17 so the age restrictions
(or lack thereof) have nothing to do with her current struggles. it is
much more likely that dealing with the issues surrounding her sister's
murder and custody issues with her children have a lot more to do with
it - something completely unrelated to any notion of an age restriction
rule.
> Kournikova complained bitterly about being stuck under the age
> rules, and she, too, is gone, injured. So now they want to "help"
> Sharapova.
>
"ted of ted's tennis" and "robert b. waltz" are mistating the actual
situation. big benz sees no evidence of a specific plan to "help"
sharapova. she is a gold exempt player. as such, she has obligations
to play a certain number of tournaments. given that, it makes sense to
not handicap her by not allowing her to play at least one other
tournament than she would be allowed under age restriction rules. one
might say that sharapova should not be allowed gold exemption but given
her ranking and popularity it would seem fair that she should be allowed
to get a cut of the cash payouts that go to gold exempt players for the
value-added that she brings to the wta. to do otherwise would be unfair
to sharapova.
that's why big benz sees all of this as just another crock "conspiracy
theory" cooked up by the likes of "ted" and "robert".