WTA Moscow, 2nd Round Preview: Carla Suárez Navarro v Dominika Cibulkova

CSNIt was quite clear even during the US Open Series that the Race to Singapore was going to be manic with so many players in the running. While it has been eventful and intriguing to follow, in equal measures it has become an ever-lengthening maze of uncertainty and confusion. There is less than one week to go until Singapore and three of the players are yet to be confirmed! It’s a tough situation for the WTA but they haven’t helped themselves with the scheduling of tournaments and contradictory information being posted on their website and social media accounts. Earlier today, the WTA confirmed that Angelique Kerber had qualified for Singapore only to retract the post. Sooooo… the current situation appears to be this.

In the only second round match from Moscow to be played on Tuesday, Carla Suárez Navarro will play Dominika Cibulkova. Suárez Navarro was originally drawn to play Kristina Mladenovic in the first round but was bumped up in the draw after Agnieszka Radwanska pulled out, therefore earning a first round bye. Cibulkova recovered from a 2-5 first set deficit in her first round match against Elena Vesnina, winning 11 of the last 12 games to prevail, 7-5 6-1 in one hour and 37 minutes. Vesnina had a set point when serving for the first set at 5-4 but Cibulkova broke back in a longgg game on her fifth break point.

Cibulkova leads the head-to-head against Suárez Navarro, 3-0 and has won all three matches in straight sets. The intensity of Cibulkova’s groundstrokes have given her the edge in this match-up and she demonstrated this just last month in Tokyo with a 6-4 6-4 second round victory. This is a huge match for Carla in terms of Singapore but i’m sure Domi will be motivated to end her year on a high and set herself up for 2016. Currently ranked at number 33 in the world, Cibulkova will be eager to grab a seeding for the Australian Open where she will be defending quarter-final points. After that though, Cibulkova will be defending nothing until June…

You can’t argue with the head-to-head in this match-up and add to that, a first round win and an opportunity to adjust to the courts in Moscow… Domi for the win.

Prediction: Cibulkova d. Suárez Navarro in 2 sets

3 thoughts on “WTA Moscow, 2nd Round Preview: Carla Suárez Navarro v Dominika Cibulkova

  1. Sorry in advance 😀

    Just to be clear: the WTA is definitely wrong or at least the ones that are running the social media which makes me kind of mad because it is not that tough to understand. Angie is already qualified since reaching the Hong Kong final. The problem is that a lot of people won’t get it. So if I were Angie and – according to the WTA – would not qualifiy due to CSN having equal points by winning Moskow and beating Safarova and Pennetta, I’d sue the WTA because of breach of contract!!!!. I’ve had a look in the rule book and I’m 100 % sure (as this is what I’ve studied – how to understand rules and the law; currently working in the area of contruction of contrags) how the rules – that have been produced by lawyers – have to be understood:

    – Rule IX.A.1.c. (WTA Finals – Tie Break; p 166 WTA rule book): If two ore more singles players have the same ranking, the tie-break procedure set forth in Section III.A.10 shall apply – that means: have a look in that rule and in ONLY that rule.

    – Rule III,A.10 (p. 29 WTA rule book): If players’ rankings are tied at the time of Tournament acceptances (or tournament seeding), the following tie-break procedures will be used in the following order: a) player with the highest ranking from the previous week – as regards our scenario that Kerber and CSN are tied with 3400 that means: Angie is ranked higher this week ergo she is qualified.

    – clarification: “the same ranking” (in rule IX.A.1.c) has to be understood as “the same ranking points” because otherwise there would never be a case that Section III.A.10. would be applicable.

    (1) In contrast to several people asserting on twitter that p. 234 of the WTA rule book would be applicable (stating that “when two or more players have the same numer of ranking points, the tie for the ranking position will be decided according to the following priorities: i. The player with the most combined total points from Grand Slams, Premier Mandatory Tournaments, Premier 5 Tournaments and the WTA Finals […]) the above-mentioned section (p. 29 in the rule book) does apply. Otherwise this section would never be applicable. You would always look first on p. 234 of the rule book and find a way that players have not the same ranking as there is a 0,00001 % chance that players are tied after calculation GS, PM and P 5 points which is a circular reasoning and cannot be the intention of those who wrote the rule book.

    (2) This is shown by the second phrase in Rule IX. A. 1. c. which states “If two or more teams have the same number of RANKING points, the Tie-break procedure set forth in Seciton III.C.3.c shall apply”. If you have a look in that section, you’ll find the following sentence: “If teams are tied, the tie-preak procedure will be in the following order: (a) Team with the greatest combined total points, (b) Team with the highest combined ranking from the previous week (p. 56/57 of the rule book) Although the two sentences in Rule IX A.1.c. differ (ranking vs. ranking points) they refer basically to the same system when players/teams are tied. Therefore, the reference for singles and doubles players is the same – so why making the detour to p. 234 when the rules itselves show that this was not intended. Why should there be a difference between singles and doubles?

    ..Sorry for that long post. I hope there will be some people understanding it. I know it’s a complicated matter from a “legal” point of view but it is the one and only way how rules in general work and how the rules of the WTA work. It is written by lawyers and it is meant how I explained.

    However, if Cibulkova does win tomorrow, everybody will be fine. At least, I’m sleeping well tonight as I know that Angie is already qualified 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.