WTA, here is another rule for you dinosaurs

[Si Si Simona]

When a player gets injured after winning and cant play the next round, you dont give a walkover to the other player, BUT should let the loser of previous round play instead.
1) Why give a free ride to a player?
2) Why damage the event by preventing a match from happening?

Just make the loser wait one more day to see if the winner is healthy and then release her from this event.

This is in reply to Mugu not showing against Elina but its correct to any similar event.

WTA dinosaurs!,
Its time to wake up from your decades of a deep sleep !
You are not in touch. Many things need to be updated for this century.

 

[Kieran]

You can't let the loser of a match back in a tournament they've been knocked out of. That would be unfair to other players who lost. The nature of things is, if you lose, you snooze.

Addressing your numbered points:

1. The player doesn't get a free ride with a walkover: they won their previous match to be there and their opponent didn't show. The victory is theirs by right.

2. There is no match to happen, since the player who was drawn to play can't. You're thinking wrongly on this, you're thinking that the draw can be jury-rigged at the drop of a hat, but why should it be? The event would lose credibility, and anyway, once you start that kind of shenanigans with the draw, where do you stop?

If a player is injured, the tournament still moves on. I think the only option is to let the opponent go through with a walkover...

 

[Si Si Simona]

^ I disagree.
1) The event loses a match that can be potentially good and who said that the loser is not capable of beating the free ride? Its the event's and its public lose of not having the match.

2) The walkover is a free ride. The player advances to the next round without playing. Thats the real unfair thing, not a player playing by luck even if she lost.
The LL who make the main draw after losing in qualifiers are playing by luck, its exactly the same thing. The WTA does accept playing after losing in the qualifiers so why not in the main draw?

Its much more important to have a full schedule in the advanced rounds after R1, than in R1, so why not force a full schedule?

The WTA already agreed that its acceptable for losers to play by allowing LL in R1, so lets have it in all rounds and keep the event in full shape.

From sports point of view, if a loser can win the next round against potentially a player just as good then she should play forward. Its fair because the loser proved that she is good enough by beating the player of the next round.

The more I think about it the more I am convinced its correct.

 

[Si Si Simona]

What I suggest is basically to apply the "qualifier LL" rule in all rounds.
What I suggest is already applied but only on R1. I suggest to apply that in all rounds.
The WTA already use my suggestion as the natural option. Lets make it in all rounds when the competition is more important and valuable than the First round.

Its more important for any event to have full schedule in the last stages than in the First round.
Imo, its critical to have a match in the final!
The loser of the semi final should play and make the other side winner earn his title! That for me is a real sports.
If the semi final LL managed to win the final, then she deserves the title. Its fair.

 

[Kieran]

Who's getting the "free ride" in your scenario? That would be the loser who is allowed to stay in the tournament, through no merit of her own.

The concept of the lucky loser is totally alien to this situation, as it's applicable only to the qualies and assists the tournament director in filling the main draw, at their own discretion. But once the main draw is filled, then it's locked. If you lose, you go out. If you're injured and can't play, that's not the fault of your opponent, who deservedly is the one to take her place in the next round.

It's unfortunate for the fans, but it happens seldom and there's only one fair solution...

 

[Si Si Simona]

As I said, a round winner has the right to be only in the next round, not in the second next round. Thats why the free ride should play a match to get to next round. Its more fair to me than enjoying an injury. I think its more fair to give the LL of previous round to play than give a free ride to someone who gets to next round without playing at all.
Imo, giving an LL a chance is more fair than giving a player a free ticket without playing at all. For me it goes more with the sports spirit of competition.

The concept of the lucky loser is totally alien to this situation, as it's applicable only to the qualies and assists the tournament director in filling the main draw, at their own discretion.

Its applicable now only to the qualies because thats the current rule which can be changed if they will listen to me.
Its just a rule. The question is if it should be used in all rounds or not. I say it should.
Imo, givign a free ride because of an injury is worse than giving an LL another chance. The LL still has to win the match, she doesnt get a free ride, she just gets another chance.
In contrast, the free ride gets to next round without playing. Thats going less with the spirit of sport than giving another chance to a loser. The loser makes his own faith by playing. The lucky benefitter from injury is the free ride and thats less fair.

 

[Kieran]

Go to your opening sentence: the round loser has no right to be in the next round. None at all. Sometimes it happens that things aren't perfect. You can't correct one thing which only seems unfair to the fans by creating something that's utterly unfair to the players...

 

[Si Si Simona]

Go to your opening sentence: the round loser has no right to be in the next round. None at all. Sometimes it happens that things aren't perfect. You can't correct one thing which only seems unfair to the fans by creating something that's utterly unfair to the players...

Its unfair to the other players in the event that they have to win their match in the same round while someone gets a free ride to next round.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Go to your opening sentence: the round loser has no right to be in the next round. None at all. Sometimes it happens that things aren't perfect. You can't correct one thing which only seems unfair to the fans by creating something that's utterly unfair to the players...

Its unfair to the other players in the event that they have to win their match in the same round while someone gets a free ride to next round.

Is it a free ride though? It can be just as disruptive to receive a walkover/retirement to the flow of your game.

 

[Si Si Simona]

Go to your opening sentence: the round loser has no right to be in the next round. None at all. Sometimes it happens that things aren't perfect. You can't correct one thing which only seems unfair to the fans by creating something that's utterly unfair to the players...

Its unfair to the other players in the event that they have to win their match in the same round while someone gets a free ride to next round.

Is it a free ride though? It can be just as disruptive to receive a walkover/retirement to the flow of your game.

Its great to have a day off in the middle of an event. Its very helpful and gives the walk over an unfair advantage.