–
ROLAND GARROS – The final round took place over two days. And after it was done, the qualifiers – and the lucky losers – were placed into the main draw on both the men’s and women’s sides.
On the men’s side, only five of the 32 seeds made it through three rounds – only two of the top 10 seeds.
On the women’s side. nine of the 32 seeds made it, but only three of the top 10 seeds.
So that left some seeds there for all the lucky loser spots that became available with the late withdrawals (not as many as you’d think, as many lost in the first two rounds). Except No. 2 Yannick Hanfmann didn’t make the cut; neither did No. 15 Facundo Bagnis.
Open Court’s take is the qualifiers and lucky losers determined before the draw – and the wild cards, too – should be slotted against the seeds, starting with No. 1 and moving down as many of the qualifiers and lucky losers as there are. In the men’s case three of the top four seeds drew qualifers.
In the women’s case, only six of the 20 qualifiers and lucky losers even drew seeds of any kind. Commiserations to young Brenda Fruhvirtova, who drew … Elena Rybakina.
Notably, so did No. 1 seed Camila Osorio, who had a run of bum luck the whole way.
Erika Andreeva, the older sister of Mirra (who defeated Osorio), was the No. 13 seed in qualifying (higher than all but one of the lucky losers). She, too, got shut out of the main draw – at least for now.
Here’s what it looks like.
Men’s qualifiers
Winners
[8] Radu ALBOT (MDA) ([WC] Patrick Kypson)
Flavio COBELLI (ITA) ([1] Carlos Alcaraz)
[1] Aslan KARATSEV (RUS) (Alexei Popyrin)
[32] Pedro MARTINEZ (ESP) (Tallon Griekspoor)
Hamad MEDJEDOVIC (SRB) (Marcos Giron)
Emilio NAVA (USA) (Roberto Carballes Baena)
[14] Sebastian OFNER (AUT) (Maxime Cressy)
Genaro Albert OLIVIERI (ARG) ([WC] Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard)
Lucas POUILLE (FRA) ([LL] Jurij Rodionov)
Thiago SEYBOTH WILD (BRA) ([2] Daniil Medvedev)
Juncheng SHANG (CHN) (Juan Pablo Varillas)
Timofey SKATOV (KAZ) ([28] Grigor Dimitrov)
Thiago Agustin TIRANTE (ARG) ([25] Botic Van de Zandschulp)
Andrea VAVASSORI (ITA) ([31] Miomir Kecmanovic)
Elias Ymer (SWE) ([4] Casper Ruud)
[12] Giulio ZEPPIERI (ITA) (Alexander Bublik)
Lucky losers
[9] Dominic STRICKER ([16] Tommy Paul)
[22] Jurij Rodionov ([Q] Lucas Pouille)
[24] Facundo DIAZ ACOSTA (Jason Kubler)
Women’s qualifiers
Winners
Mirra ANDREEVA (RUS) (Alison Riske-Amritraj)
Sara BEJLEK(CZE) (Kamilla Rakhimova)
[27] Olga DANILOVIC (SRB) (Kateryna Baindl)
[26] Kayla DAY (USA) (WC] Kristina Mladenovic)
[WC] Fiona FERRO (FRA) (Rebecca Peterson)
[29] Brenda FRUHVIRTOVA (CZE) ([4] Elena Rybakina)
Storm HUNTER (AUS) (Nuria Parrizas Diaz)
[21] Ylena IN-ALBON (SUI) (Claire Liu)
[10] Elizabeth MANDLIK (USA) ([Q] Simona Waltert)
[3] Arantxa RUS (NED) (Julia Grabher)
Iryna SHYMANOVICH (RUS) (Panna Udvardy)
[17] Clara TAUSON (DEN) (Aliaksandra Sasnovich)
Taylor TOWNSEND (USA) ([24] Anastasia Potapova)
[14] Simona WALTERT (SUI) ([Q] Elisabeth Mandlik)
Dayana YASTREMSKA (UKR) ([22] Donna Vekic)
[4] Tamara ZIDANSEK (SLO) ([19] Zheng Qinwen)
Lucky losers
[11] Nao Hibino (Anna-Lena Friedsam)
[15] Elina Avenesyan ([12] Belinda Bencic)
[18] Aliona Bolsova ([PR] Kristina Kucova)
[19] Viktoria Hruncakova ([28] Elise Mertens)
About Post Author
Hi. Who’s next after E. Andreeva on lucky loser list?
Seems like we all rooting for Camila Osorio…
Well, we’ll disagree on this one – it’s a ranking approach that I’ve despised for years on end.
I’m using Osorio only as an example for the present; what’s happened with her thus far here has occurred to many other players over the years, in even worse instances on occasion as you’ve noted. My complaint is that the cut-off date for the draws occur so far in advance that they don’t for all players reflect the true 52-week rolling ranking as well as they potentially could. The cut-off date in this instance was April 24th, a full five weeks prior to the beginning of the tourney; to me, that’s too far in advance; it should be three weeks out at most. At that point in time, Camila was ranked 115th.
I understand having to have at least a week’s advance notice of whether one would need to plan on getting somewhere to play in the Q-ing rounds, which in this instance began this week, on the 22nd; that being the case, what would have been the ranking date of May 15th, only two weeks in advance of the beginning of Main Draw play for RG, would have sufficed… but as that date was in the middle of the two-week period for Rome, the rankings weren’t actually updated then, so they would have needed to go back one week further, to May 8th, at which point Osorio’s ranking was 100th… which would have gotten her into the main draw. Her good result at Madrid for THIS year isn’t taken into account for RG this year… but will be so for NEXT year’s RG, over a year after she achieved it, which is equally ridiculous. If she gets booted in the 1st Round at Madrid next year, or for some reason doesn’t even play there, instead of having only a very small number of points from there for the RG ’24 rankings positioning, she’ll have the larger amount of points from her Madrid result of this year, which I feel shouldn’t be used – next year’s Madrid results should be used.
The true rankings not being reflected can (and often enough does) thus happen for players in two instances, a year apart in time; one too low, and the other too high, and occurs for some players for most tournaments throughout the calendar year (the sole exceptions being the tournaments at the very start of each year, as the break during the final two months of the year negates this problem for that point in the calendar).
If you really think a week is …. adequate, you don’t know much about it all.
Just about every player I’ve spoken to about this who was on the borderline like that said the same thing: they earned their spot in the main draw with their ranking. If they want to pull out late, that’s their right.
If I want to make sure I’m not in that situation, I just have to improve my ranking.
Pretty much says it all, despite your long reply. Your problem with it is generally not their problem with it.
(Your information about when the cutoff date is, also, is inaccurate).
My information about the cutoff date for determining which players needed to take part in Q-ing is correct; that date was April 24th. This can be verified upon the official Qualifying list which was released by Roland Garros (“Classement du 24/04/2023”). This first date differs from the second critical date for qualifiers which is used to determine the seedings within Q-ing; that date occurred two weeks later, on May 8th.
Regarding the week’s advance time of knowing whether or not you’d need to qualify for a tourney, the vast majority would know that they’d be needing to go through Q-ing well before that; it would only be a handful of players who were at the tail-end of making the Main Draw who’d realize that a few other players could potentially surpass them in the rankings by gaining points in that final week or two. They’d be watching the rankings and if needed would be prepared for the necessity of having to get to a tourney within that week’s time.
“Taking part in qualifying” has … nothing to do with Osorio’s situation (she was already IN the qualifying).
And has nothing to do with what you wrote.
It doesn’t even make any sense.
At any rate, while it’s … educational for random, anonymous guy to “explain” these things to someone who literally has done this for a living for many years, I think I’ll pass on any further “education”. But have a great day!
So but why isn’t Hanfmann in the maindraw? He was best loser in qualies finals. Or does it depend on his ranking at a certain date? Like weeks ago?
What happens is that they take the number of lucky losers (from players who withdrew after the qualifying had begun). And if there are more than 1, they add a couple of extras, chosen by the highest rankings among those who lost in the final round.
So in this case (I haven’t re-looked at the rules, so this is best guess), there were three LLs. So they take the top 5 and pick three at random. That is done (I believe) to ensure that the top-ranked players don’t tank in the qualifying).
So Hanfmann didn’t make that first lottery selection.
After that, if someone pulls out even later, I *believe* it goes by ranking. But they haven’t updated the draws yet, so we’ll see.
QQ. Why isn’t Camila Arango as seed number 1 in qualifiers, one of the lucky loosers???
You mean Camila Osorio, I imagine.
What happens is that they take the number of lucky losers (from players who withdrew after the qualifying had begun). And if there are more than 1, they add a couple of extras, chosen by the highest rankings among those who lost in the final round.
So in this case (I haven’t re-looked at the rules, so this is best guess), there were four LL spots. So they take the top 6 and pick four at random. That is done (I believe) to ensure that the top-ranked players don’t tank in the qualifying).
So Osorio didn’t make that first lottery selection.
After that, if someone pulls out even later, I *believe* it goes by ranking. As long as she signs in every morning on the lucky loser list.
Two thoughts:
– Stephanie, you spaced a smidgen with the Fruhvirtova and Andreeva sisters, there.
– It’s going to be a MASSIVE rip-off to Camila is she doesn’t slide into the draw over the next few days… being the #1 Q-ing seed, losing in the final round, and NOT getting a LL slot?!?? And, that despite the fact that she would EASILY be in the Main Draw to begin with, without even needing to have gone through Q-ing, if her current ranking was being used… but is not, due to the absurd VERY early cut-off dates? It’s absolutely ridiculous. There needs to be some change made as far as cut-off dates goes. Setting them more than a month in advance is simply asinine… and it might very well cost Osorio dearly, here.
It’s not a ripoff, massive or otherwise. If you don’t have the required ranking at at the entry deadline, you have to play qualies. She wasn’t even high enough as an alternate to get in even if all those players withdrew before qualifying began.
So you have to win three matches in qualifying to make it. She didn’t do that. End of story.
The cutoffs, which are not asinine, are for many reasons; bad luck to her for not winning the lottery, but that’s also done for many reasons.
It’s nothing new, and we’ve seen worse. I’m not sure how cherry-picking one example that annoys you should lead to a wholesale change in thngs that are the way they are – again, for many reasons.