Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Wimbledon wildcards 2017 - Women


Futures level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1807
Date:
RE: Wimbledon wildcards 2017


A131 wrote:
philwrig wrote:

Is Tara in peak form at the moment ? No
Is Tara on grass a special player ? Yes
Can Tara do herself justice at Wimby ? Yes

Basically Tara does reach the grade for a MDWC on ranking, and given her ability on a grasscourt eventhough she's not currently playing her best tennis, can be very effective and certainly will not be outclassed so 100% yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! should get a MDWC.


I think that's a bit of an exaggeration - she might have got better results on grass but she is not a special player on grass. Anyway I don't think the surface should have anything to do with it. She should get in on the strength of her ranking or go through qualifying and earn her place like 94% of the field have to do. As should the rest of them with the possible exception of HW. LR and NB must have already had about 10 wc's between them.


The crowd at Wimbledon expect to see British players and Tara won a round last year  



__________________


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 336
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

Your points are true, A131, but ONLY IF you don't agree with wildcards in the first place.

i.e. yes, get rid of wildcards and let everyone get in on merit. It's a valid argument, very fair. Although I don't agree with it, it makes some sense.

But if you accept the wildcard system, then Tara at 145, age 24, easily merits a wildcard.

The French have given one to Myrtille Georges, 2 years older than Tara and only ranked about 200.

And one to Amandine Hesse, aged six months younger than Tara, and only ranked about 220

And one to Alizé Lim, aged 2 years older than Tara, and only ranked about 250 !

So, again, if you don;t think wildcards should be allowed, then obviously Tara shouldn't get one (and nor should the French players above)

But if you accept wildcards, and how they are used by all federations, then Tara's is a slamdunk.


Fair comment CD - and I think it is fairly obvious from my comments that I don't agree with wildcards at GS as I have said many times before or at the very least they should be drastically reduced and formalised across all 4 slams - not just Wimbledon.



__________________


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 336
Date:

scottie1 wrote:
A131 wrote:
philwrig wrote:

Is Tara in peak form at the moment ? No
Is Tara on grass a special player ? Yes
Can Tara do herself justice at Wimby ? Yes

Basically Tara does reach the grade for a MDWC on ranking, and given her ability on a grasscourt eventhough she's not currently playing her best tennis, can be very effective and certainly will not be outclassed so 100% yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! should get a MDWC.


I think that's a bit of an exaggeration - she might have got better results on grass but she is not a special player on grass. Anyway I don't think the surface should have anything to do with it. She should get in on the strength of her ranking or go through qualifying and earn her place like 94% of the field have to do. As should the rest of them with the possible exception of HW. LR and NB must have already had about 10 wc's between them.


The crowd at Wimbledon expect to see British players and Tara won a round last year  


Albeit against a player ranked 128 and had been off the court for about month with injury and the crowd have no right to expect anything. Just my view though, 



__________________


ATP qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 2847
Date:

Agreed with the points above - I would never say Tara (or anyone else) deserves a wildcard, because by their very nature they are unfair, but given the system in place I think she should get one.

__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2442
Date:

Yes, Tara was given a wildcard in 2013, ranked 194. She's now 145ish. For points won on grass in the last 12 months, top 30.

After consideration, I think that the big flaw in the LTA system is the initial announcement of 8. Why 8? It seems to be a totally random self-imposed handicap; which takes no account of the actual strength in depth. Last year, our top ten had an average ranking of around 290, at the start of the year. Now its around 205. This despite having 2 fewer players into the MD by rights. Our 9th candidate 2017 should be much, much stronger than in 2016.

What results is the total messing up of the qWCs play-offs, where the leading contenders suddenly get 12 hours notice that they'd better lose at Ikley/Brum, and get to Roehampton. This ruins their second-biggest opportunity of the year.

At the qWC play-offs, the women ranked in the top 400 get top seeding and win, at the cost of exhaustion and injury, and denying a chance for promising Juniors and returning players in the 600s and below to battle it out among themselves. The draw just becomes a lottery, and for the lower ranked players, its mainly a question of when you run into Christie, say, Dunne or Swan.

Then the LTA changes its mind, and decides to ignore the results, and award a couple of extra qWCs to whomsoever of the top 400 finished as RU to another, anyway.

To my mind, there is a blindingly obvious way to resolve all this. Change the stupid rule, and announce 11 wildcards in the first instance, for the women ranked from Watson through Swan, with a further 2 TBD at the qWC Play-offs. MD; Boulter and above (5); Qs, Swan and above (6).

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39319
Date:

tony_orient wrote:

Agreed with the points above - I would never say Tara (or anyone else) deserves a wildcard, because by their very nature they are unfair, but given the system in place I think she should get one.


 

Some may be aware of my general views on Slam MD WCs,  But given we are where we are I certainly consider that Tara should be one of these selected.

By the way I am just assuming that the maximum 8 initial total WCs holds again this year, I haven't / don't know where to check for sure. Yes, if it is kept to again it is arguably being too inflexible.



__________________


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 336
Date:

''But given we are where we are I certainly consider that Tara should be one of these selected''

Fair enough Indy - and if you want to see British Players in the main draw. But like another poster said she has been a pro for 6 years, not beaten anyone in the top 100 since June or won a match on the main tour, never come through the qualifying draw for any of the other slams and will turn 25 not long after Wimbledon and her ranking at this point some people may view as a bit inflated but like you say it is where it is. Just think she'll never be anything much more than mediocre but if she does then I will just have to eat my words.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39319
Date:

I dont say that I want British MD WCs or that there should be, but we all know that there will be, similar to other Grand Slam nations in selecting MD WCs and I would imagine that there will be 4 to 6. That is "where we are" in which case Tara's ranking and grass court abilities, and simple likelihood to win a round, make the case that she should be one IMO as she will no doubt be.



__________________


Intermediate Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 336
Date:

indiana wrote:

I dont say that I want British MD WCs or that there should be, but we all know that there will be, similar to other Grand Slam nations in selecting MD WCs and I would imagine that there will be 4 to 6. That is "where we are" in which case Tara's ranking and grass court abilities, and simple likelihood to win a round, make the case that she should be one IMO as she will no doubt be.


 That's ok Indy - though I don't think it is a simple likelihood that she will win a round - but yes she will get one. I'm far from convinced she would get through qualifying if she had to play it but I suppose I could say the same for a lot of them.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39319
Date:

A131 wrote:
indiana wrote:

I dont say that I want British MD WCs or that there should be, but we all know that there will be, similar to other Grand Slam nations in selecting MD WCs and I would imagine that there will be 4 to 6. That is "where we are" in which case Tara's ranking and grass court abilities, and simple likelihood to win a round, make the case that she should be one IMO as she will no doubt be.


 That's ok Indy - though I don't think it is a simple likelihood that she will win a round - but yes she will get one. I'm far from convinced she would get through qualifying if she had to play it but I suppose I could say the same for a lot of them.


Sorry, badly worded on my part re "simple likelihood to win a round". I meant I consider that she's simply one of the more likely to win a round relative to most of the other possible British MD WCs, not that I meant that she was likely to win a round. I think the odds are that she won't but I do hope she does.



__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2442
Date:

Pre-Wimbledon, and in doubles, but...

Interesting question brewing over doubles WCs at Brum and Eastbourne.

I think Naomi + Heather would probably still be first pick. But there isn't a singles WC for Naomi at Brum, because Smacky Shaz; so will she opt for Brum qualies or Ilkley MD in singles? They are also down for different tournaments the previous week, HW in Notts, NB in Manchester.

Then there's Anna, (now on 1205 points), versus Joss (732) + Laura (207). There too, Laura is confirmed for Manchester, and Joss is doing publicity for Notts.

__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9477
Date:

A131 wrote:
philwrig wrote:

Is Tara in peak form at the moment ? No
Is Tara on grass a special player ? Yes
Can Tara do herself justice at Wimby ? Yes

Basically Tara does reach the grade for a MDWC on ranking, and given her ability on a grasscourt eventhough she's not currently playing her best tennis, can be very effective and certainly will not be outclassed so 100% yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! should get a MDWC.


I think that's a bit of an exaggeration - she might have got better results on grass but she is not a special player on grass. Anyway I don't think the surface should have anything to do with it. She should get in on the strength of her ranking or go through qualifying and earn her place like 94% of the field have to do. As should the rest of them with the possible exception of HW. LR and NB must have already had about 10 wc's between them.


 I may a bit biased but having witnessed Tara take apart McHale live at Notts last year, for me one of my top 5 best performances by a British player, she is light years a better player on grass than on other surfaces, even when she has been in very poor form, she has been very competitive during this stage of the season.



__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9477
Date:

wimdledont wrote:

Pre-Wimbledon, and in doubles, but...

Interesting question brewing over doubles WCs at Brum and Eastbourne.

I think Naomi + Heather would probably still be first pick. But there isn't a singles WC for Naomi at Brum, because Smacky Shaz; so will she opt for Brum qualies or Ilkley MD in singles? They are also down for different tournaments the previous week, HW in Notts, NB in Manchester.

Then there's Anna, (now on 1205 points), versus Joss (732) + Laura (207). There too, Laura is confirmed for Manchester, and Joss is doing publicity for Notts.


 I must admit I was surprised when I read that the press release confirming Laura's name in the Manchester field. Sometimes tournaments just look at the entry list and assume all the players listed will play, and are just trying to plug the event to increase ticket sales. But knowing Richard Joyner as I do, I doubt he would be so certain of Laura's participation unless he's had the nod from someone. Still though I'd take Laura's confirmation for Manchester with caution, given Joss won't want to miss her home tournament, and Laura would be a dead cert for a MDWC at Notts if she wanted one ( Birmingham/Eastbourne highly unlikely )



__________________
DF


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 10711
Date:

philwrig wrote:

 

 I must admit I was surprised when I read that the press release confirming Laura's name in the Manchester field. Sometimes tournaments just look at the entry list and assume all the players listed will play, and are just trying to plug the event to increase ticket sales. But knowing Richard Joyner as I do, I doubt he would be so certain of Laura's participation unless he's had the nod from someone. Still though I'd take Laura's confirmation for Manchester with caution, given Joss won't want to miss her home tournament, and Laura would be a dead cert for a MDWC at Notts if she wanted one ( Birmingham/Eastbourne highly unlikely )


 Laura has now withdrawn from Manchester



__________________


Hall of fame

Status: Offline
Posts: 9477
Date:

DF wrote:
philwrig wrote:

 

 I must admit I was surprised when I read that the press release confirming Laura's name in the Manchester field. Sometimes tournaments just look at the entry list and assume all the players listed will play, and are just trying to plug the event to increase ticket sales. But knowing Richard Joyner as I do, I doubt he would be so certain of Laura's participation unless he's had the nod from someone. Still though I'd take Laura's confirmation for Manchester with caution, given Joss won't want to miss her home tournament, and Laura would be a dead cert for a MDWC at Notts if she wanted one ( Birmingham/Eastbourne highly unlikely )


 Laura has now withdrawn from Manchester


 Looks like it was just a plug for the tournament then, Notts was always going to be the number 1 choice given the partnership with Joss as well.



__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 612  >  Last»  | Page of 12  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard