'Issues with integrity': Why should Lucky Losers get so 'lucky'?

Bernard Tomic in action at the Los Cabos Open. (Getty/Matthew Stockman)

For anyone newly exposed to tennis, it can be somewhat confusing to learn the counterintuitive rules and bizarre traditions.

There's the '99 per cent in' rule, where any microscopic part of the ball touching the white line is considered 100 per cent in, losing a point for a hat falling off, the Wimbledon all-white dress code, among others that make the sport unique in its own right.

Even the scoring system has its own quirks.

But perhaps the two most controversial methods in tennis are wildcards and Lucky Losers.

The key similarity between them is that they offer an opportunity or a second chance to qualify for a tournament main draw. Without it, some players would be packing their bags early and catching the next flight.

Listen to The First Serve Live every Monday at 8pm AEST in its 18th year on the SEN Network/App, Australia's only dedicated weekly tennis program on commercial radio running through till the end of November.

Quite the stir has been caused revolving around Lucky Losers in the past couple of weeks, particularly on the ATP Tour.

American Zachary Svajda withdrew injured in the third set of his final round qualifier against Cruz Hewitt in Washington, but was given a spot in the main draw as the top seed in qualifying, benefiting from a late withdrawal in the main draw.

Clearly not at 100 per cent, the 23-year-old only managed to win four games against Aleksandar Vukic.

But a more bizarre scene unfolded in Mexico at the Los Cabos Open, with former world No.17 Bernard Tomic not even taking to the court for his final round qualifier, citing a gastrointestinal illness.

However, because main draw allocations had opened up, unconfirmed reports circulated across social media that Tomic pulled out of qualifying on purpose, knowing that he would enter the main draw regardless.

Although that theory is unconfirmed, it would make total sense for the 33-year-old to skip what would be a meaningless match. Why waste energy in high humidity?

And this isn't a knock on Tomic. He is well within his right to capitalise on a rather ridiculous Lucky Loser rule.

The same can be said for Svajda, who accepted the chance to earn first round prize money and a shot at a potential upset, albeit not in the best condition.

Any form of qualification should be earned on merit, not a free pass because a Grand Slam nation wants to help its own players or because a place in the main draw opens up for a player who had literally just lost 24 hours prior.

Peter Johnston, former Australian tennis player and now Tournament Director of China's ATP Hangzhou 250 event, reciprocates the same view.

"For many years, the Lucky Loser went on last round highest ranked losers orders, which has caused lots of issues with integrity of results, so basically, no worries tanking last round if you knew you were in," Johnston told The First Serve. "So the draw of last round losers got around this to an extent, unless there were four Lucky Loser spots in a 32 draw, for example.

"I don't like that you can default in qualifying and then get a main draw spot, but that's my opinion. And sometimes the last round of qualifying and the day of the first round can be four to five days, so plenty of time to recover. It's tricky."

At the 2025 Australian Open, qualifier Kim Birrell was scheduled to face 13th seed Anna Kalinskaya in the first round of the main draw.

Yet suddenly, five minutes before the match, Birrell was informed that her opponent had changed from Kalinskaya to Eva Lys, with the latter having lost in the last round of qualifying.

Lys would go on to win 6-2, 6-2 in what was a hard pill to swallow for her stunned Aussie opponent.

"I had prepared to play Anna. She's a really amazing player," an emotional Birrell said. 

"I knew that I was in for a battle against her, and I had done my research and spoke a lot with my team. Unfortunately, that isn't who I faced today.

"It did rattle me, unfortunately. But, in saying that, (Lys) was in the same position as me. She didn't know that she was going to be playing, so we were both put in pretty tough situations. I take responsibility for not handling that, and credit to her."

If there is a walkover in the second round of the main draw and beyond, there are no Lucky Losers to fill that empty void.

Yes, of course, any tournament wants to display as many matches as possible to sell tickets, draw crowds and put on a show. Completely understandable.

But what about the "integrity" element that Johnston mentioned? There is something about the whole thing that doesn't sit right.

The scary part? There is no official committee to have the final say and overturn rules of this nature, causing many governing bodies to clash.

"Wildcards, Lucky Loser conditions, Byes, etc are constantly discussed at ATP and WTA meets. And no doubt at upcoming NYC meets they will rear their heads again!" said Johnston.

Just look at the controversy surrounding two-week Masters events. No one wants it to stay, but for the ATP, it can only be viewed as an ego thing. They don't want to admit they are wrong despite evidence of injuries and big-name withdrawals painting an obvious picture.

People observing may argue that Lucky Losers won't win the title anyway, and to be fair, it is a rare occurrence. The last player to do it on the men's side was Kwon Soon-Woo at the 2023 Adelaide International 2, and in the same year, Jan Lennard-Struff became the first-ever Lucky Loser to reach a Masters 1000 final.

Just two months ago, Donna Vekić won the WTA 500 Queen's title as a Lucky Loser.

So many flaws, from the outside looking in at least, have easy solutions.

Unfortunately, common sense is hard to come by in the world of tennis.

Sports turf that meets the moment, every match. Trust GreenLife Group for surfaces that let you play at your best. Elevate your game with expert sports ground management at GLGCorp.com