Now That Andy Murray’s Struggling, He’s Suddenly Not Happy With The London Qualification Rules
by Sean Randall | October 9th, 2014, 10:54 am

After five years of qualifying for the year-end ATP Finals in London, it’s funny that only now does Andy Murray criticize the entry process for the prestigious event.

By ATP rule, the highest ranked Grand Slam champion not in the Top 8 automatically qualifies for London. With Stan Wawrinka firmly embedded in the Top 5, that leaves Marin Cilic as the wildcard guy, and Murray is not happy that he could finish ranked higher than the Croatian yet not get a spot in the final eight.

Speaking to the Guardian, here’s what Murray said before the David Ferrer match:

“If the ATP want their tournaments to be the most important tournaments, which I think they do – it’s the ATP World Tour Finals – you would hope that the players who would get in would be those who accumulate the most points across the whole year on the ATP tour,” Murray said before his match against Ferrer. “But by putting the grand slam champions in then they would be saying the grand slams are the most important events.

“I’m not saying that’s wrong. I’ve put a lot of my time and effort and training into getting prepared for the grand slams and playing the best-of-five-set matches. They mean a lot to all the players. If Marin was to get in placed ninth, he would deserve to be there. Winning the US Open is a great achievement.

“But if you want to protect your own tour, then you need to make sure that the tournaments that we are playing throughout the whole year are seen as being just as important as the other ones.”

This is simple. Andy, why weren’t you complaining about this rule a few years ago? Why now? Let me guess, it’s because you now realize you might not make it to London! And if you want to get there so badly – without the assistance of Rafael Nadal’s failing appendix which might bail you out in the end – you can always win some more matches. And you should have started by beating David Ferrer today. There’s no rule against winning, is there?

You Might Like:
Murray Drops Out Of Top 10, Cilic Clinches London Finals Alternate Spot
ATP London Race (27 Oct 14): Murray Surges, Federer Could Take The No. 1 Lead From Djokovic
Back Surgery Might End Andy Murray’s 2013 Season
London Race: Murray v Ferrer, Dimitrov v Berdych In Sunday Finals
Andy Murray’s New Baby Is Named… Sophia Olivia

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

22 Comments for Now That Andy Murray’s Struggling, He’s Suddenly Not Happy With The London Qualification Rules

Margot Says:

True Sean, but perhaps he was asked a leading question? And bet he’s wishing he kept schum now!
Am resigned to him not being there tbh.

Steve 27 Says:

See Lendl in 1992 or Agassi in 2004. They both finished 8th but Agassi was the champion of Wimbledon in 1992 and Gaudio was the champion of Roland Garros in 2004.
Besides the cases of Ivanisevic in 2001 and Sampras in 2002(altough he didnt play).
Rafa can withdraw and there will be an extra position to grab. Andy should know this and even if he were qualified, I do not know who is in worse shape, if he or Nadal.

Ben Pronin Says:

Roger Federer could end up ranked number 1 without winning a slam and possibly fewer Masters titles than Djokovic. There are more important things to worry about, Murray.

Brando GOAT Poster Says:

Andy is perfectly entitled to his view so him stating it should not lead to him getting blasted for it, but that said:

The rules are absolutely perfect as they are.

Grand Slams- without any shadow of a doubt- are the most important and prestigious events in our sport of affection: Tennis. Now winning them is also-without any doubt- the most prized accomplishment any player could possibly achieve.

The all time record WTF is ROGER FEDERER and he continuously says that had his career ended after winning his first Wimbledon title he would have been a extremely happy individual with his lot.

I wonder why.

The Tennis community- writers, current, ex players- in a highly publicized list a few years ago rated Rafael Nadal the 5 the greatest player of all time. Generally: that was not questioned by many at all. Yet, he has won ZERO WTF in his career.

I wondey why the high placement then.


It’s obvious winning Slams is the most spectacular thing you can achieve and ANY Slam winner in ANY year deserves a entry into the final, showpiece event of the Tour.

The WTF is a event that seeks to end the Tennis season with the finest players of the world on show. They get no finer than being a Slam winner in ANY year.

Grand Slam winners plus best from the rest based on performance: I see nothing wrong with that at all.

Sorry Andy but I think the rules are perfectly fine on this point.

Steve 27 Says:

I have seen many players mourn for losing in a Grand Slam, even more it was a final, I’ve never seen a player who lose mourn in WTF.

Alexandra Says:

I can understand why Andy says that. Usually the last couple of years this rule was never an issue. So the question is what do you rate higher, consistency throughout the year or winning one of the big tournaments. Most players would probably pick the second one. But it’s Andy’s own fault that he is so far behind.

RZ Says:

On a related note, it sounds like Andy has taken a wild card for Valencia. He’s really trying to make it into the Top 8 (as he should if for no other reason than a top 8 seeding for the Australian Open).

Polo Says:

Very interesting posts about Andy. I enjoyed reading them. They are very constructive. If only he’ll get these input.

skeezer Says:

Sorry Andy don’t agree with you at all on this one. Also I am going to assume its purely coincidental that you happen to bring it up now. Like your style of play regardless, good luck in the future hope you get your game back.

calmdownplease Says:

Cilic will be in London (as he should).
Don’t buy that Andy was resentful about that at all.
Its not his style.
Anyway, he’s got nothing to defend for the rest of the year & has every chance of making it.
So why be bothered at this stage?
Sean R never really liked Andy, did he?

Humble Rafa Says:

Andy is afraid of Englishmen.

Wog boy Says:

“Anyway, he’s got nothing to defend for the rest of the year & has every chance of making it.”

That is of no relevance for YEC, he has to win more points than the other oponents (London ones) in the next two tournaments in order to qualify for London, last year points or no points don’t count. I believe he will qualify.

Polo Says:

Andy’s comment was most likely said out of frustration. He has been working so hard to make it and the loss to Ferrer was a huge setback. It must have felt like he was tripped.

jane Says:

if andy is fighting to get there, that’s a good thing. it gives him clear motivation for the rest of the season, and sometimes a spark is all that’s needed.

calmdownplease Says:

`That is of no relevance for YEC, he has to win more points than the other oponents..`

Oh yeah, I always forget that, it doesn’t help that i had few last night.
Murray’s not resentful of Cilic however
I dont know about Nadals appendix poll(?!)but i might need my liver removed at some point, lol.
Anyhoo, pretty intense `Nover` match going on.

calmdownplease Says:

I’ve dissed Ferrer in the past but he has his moments, Jesus they’re both drenched!

Colin Says:

CDP, stop being sarcastic. This is a manufactured controversy cooked up by the Independent (and now Mr Randall). As Margot indicates, they tried to stir him up to say something bad. There is no indication of “surprise” in anything he said, and it’s not a “loophole”. Andy has always been known as something of a tennis geek, and he is certainly familiar with all the rules.

Regarding Federer, there is a point I have raised before: we have often been asked to admire the record number of weeks he held the No 1 ranking, but why was he No1? Because he’d gathered the flaming points, that’s why. Also remember that the weighting of points for slams has increased in recent years, so an appreciable number of those points he accumulated were won in non-slam tournaments. But those tournies don’t matter, so how about retrospectively cancelling the points Fed won at them?

See, I can be sarcastic too.

calmdownplease Says:

`CDP, stop being sarcastic..`

Oh I’ll never stop being that I’m afraid.

roy Says:

equality is a lie. always has been.
it’s a fantasy of infantile minds.

and tournaments are not created equal either.

rogerafa Says:

@ Colin

The weighting for major points has not changed that significantly unless you are going decades back. Even if you canceled the points retrospectively, I doubt Roger’s weeks at the top would be affected much. He was just too dominant in his prime. I do think though that one or two masters events don’t deserve a 1000 status and one or two 500 or 250 events deserve a higher status.

Colin Says:

Roy, can you provide a bit of context for your weighty dictum? Equality in what? Is that a quote?

The Mega Artist Says:

I think Andy has a point. The top 8 qualify on points. Whoever has the most ponts qualifies. If Cilic and Wawrinka have the right to be there why do they still need to qualify?

Top story: Spain Sweeps Canada For Sixth Davis Cup Title