Wimbledon wild cards

Josh · Challenger level

RE: Wimbledon wild cards

mikeyp · Junior player

after thinking long and hard about this, I am going to go slightly against the majority on here and agree with the LTA.

I think wildcards should be awarded when you are outside but not by much. So for example 250 is a good cut off. If you are inside here then you would get a DA into qualifying so you should recieve a main draw wildcard. In this instance Boggo would have deserved one, but I guess we can see why he didnt get one after 8 previous ones. (well the fact is he does deserve one but has been made a scapegoat by being not as good as Andy/Tim/Gregg but so much better than anyone else) Actually going off on a tangent but what is Boggo's record against Brits? I bet its very impressive/

If you are outside the 250 then a wildcard into qualifying makes sense to me as you would not usually have the chance to qualify.

Now one thing I think the WC is useful for is funding. If you lose in the first round at wimbledon you get nearly 20k. This is a lot of money for the guys trying to hack it around the world. But if the LTA will not hand out the wildcards then I believe they should help funding the players funding to be able to get the chance to get themselves into a position to get a DA or into the top 250 so they get a wildcard for Wimbledon. Maybe they should set up a travel expense system where you can claim back your travel to x amount, then at least the LTA would know the money is going on improving your position rather than getting p1ssed up the wall in a nightclub!!!

Previously the LTA handed out more wildcards but in those days you had the stable 4 between 100 and 200 - Big Arv, Jamie D, Martin Lee and Barry Cowan. Now they might have had their faults but their ranking were far more deserving than the current crop.

And let me leave you on this last point.

10 Brits entered qualifying - NO ONE made it into the final qualifying round. In all honesty can we say players deserve it when they are given a WC into qualifying and no one can even make it into the final round there???

Spectator · All-time great

I'm rather inclined to agree that it's not sensible simply to hand out WCs to people who haven't got much hope of winning a round, and some kind of cut-off seems reasonable . . . as does the 250 level. Handing out main draw WCs to people who are highly unlikely to win doesn't achieve anything (positive) other than funding them, and as others on this board have said, if that is the aim, it is better handled in another way.

In terms of British men's performance in the qualifying, yes, most of the men fell at the first hurdle; the three people (Dan Evans, Josh Goodall and Boggo) whose ranking came close to the criterion for a main draw WC all managed a round in qualifying and had respectable matches in the second round; and the one person who met the criteria for a main draw WC had an extremely competitive match against very strong opposition and acquitted himself in a way which suggested that he could indeed have made a competitive match in the main draw, provided he didn't have his usual luck in said draw. (We could, of course, have some fun speculating whom he would have drawn had he received a main-draw WC. Roddick? Nadal again? Murray?) So, in a sense, the qualie results would justify the LTA's cut-off and suggest it's not an entirely bad policy . . .

The difficulties have resulted from the fact that (a) the LTA did not abide by the cut-off, excluding the one person who fell within it and including another who didn't* and (b) instead of creating an official exemption for people who probably would have reached the criteria barring injury -- something which would have been a right and good thing to do and might have allowed them to approach said situations in a statistically sensitive way -- they have simply bent the rules for the person whose injury timing meant that his ranking was slightly below the cut-off on the given date, while excluding the person whose injury timing was such that his ranking hit an understandable low on the given date.

On (a), it's an odd case, isn't it. I can see the arguments on both sides around the main draw WC for Boggo. On sheer merit, he's clearly qualified. But that's not the sole issue at this point, and were there not the issue of financing, I would be inclined to think that he's actually done better by his heroics in the qualies, performed without the receipt of any "favours," than he might have had he faced another ludicrous main draw match-up, with the LTA being held responsible for the result. On (b) I think it would be wise for the LTA to fix this properly.

But above all, well done to Boggo and Ward for doing exceptionally well this week, establishing the basis for further improvement, and generally behaving with dignity throughout.

*NB: I agree with the inclusion!

-- Edited by Spectator on Thursday 17th of June 2010 06:08:58 AM

clayfan · Lower Club Player

There is a danger giving the same players wild card after wild card, in that they will have their ranking lifted artificially and create a self perpetuating "elite!" over the players who do not get wildcards.

This said the last few arguements have concentrated on the player position. You have also got to see this from the tournament and crowd position as Stuart Frazer said. The tournament has made itself a laughing stock by getting into a position of having no English players at the All England Club men's singles. As a Scotsman I admit to having a rye smile at that but soon there may be no Brits at all. The crowd who queue up for hours to get in want to see some Brits to cheer. So for the tournament sake the Wild Card committee must award more wild cards to Brits. Especially as they cannot fulfill their quota any other way!

Is their not also a case for rewarding Ward and Evans for their Davis cup stint, even though unsuccessful?

-- Edited by clayfan on Thursday 17th of June 2010 07:26:23 AM

mjd · Challenger qualifying

mikeyp wrote:

...................Now one thing I think the WC is useful for is funding. If you lose in the first round at wimbledon you get nearly 20k. This is a lot of money for the guys trying to hack it around the world. ....................

I have to correct this statement before the press start splashing it around - The 2010 first round losers prize money is increased to just over half that at £11,250 - How many trips to USA and other far off places will that finance? Oh and while there it might be a good idea to have somewhere to eat and sleep and launder clothes, buy equipment, etc etc. - Yes I agree WCs is a great way to support GBR players and give them a feel of what is there to achieve, so why finance foreigners instead?

I still believe that instead of handing out lump sums to selected players that the best idea was discarded by a previous regime at the LTA, and that was awarding prize sums on achieving certain goals eg rank 500 = £1,000; rank 400 = £1,500 etc (not sure of actual amounts now). This meant those who achieved targets received encouragement and finance to take the next step and was not dependent on colour of eyes or where they lived.

mikeyp · Junior player

sorry MJD i meant dollars, I thought it was about $18k for a first round loss. Maybe that was when the exchange rate was better

As you say though the ranking is a great idea. between 1000 - 500 ranking you should be able to pick up enough points from the GB futures plus challenger qualifying maybe and then there is the new and improved british tour as well

Then when you get above this and need to go further afield to get more points more funding should come your way.

However I believe some trips are still neccessary and I have had this debate before but I would much rather a junior go abroad and lose in the fqr of a 128 qf field as opposed to getting paid to go and pick up cheap points as this never benefits anyone in the long run

steven · Tennis legend

mikeyp wrote:
Actually going off on a tangent but what is Boggo's record against Brits? I bet its very impressive/

36-14 in the last 10 years, including 15-3 in the last 5 years, during which time the only Brits he has lost to are Evo in Jersey last year, Bloomers in Surbiton in 2007 and Henman in Bangkok in 2006.

The only Brits he has lost to more than once in the last 10 years are Bloomers (0-2, both in straight sets), Lee Childs (0-2, but both in 2003/earlier), Jonny Marray (1-2, all in 2002/earlier) and Big Arv, but he leads their H2H 3-2 and is 2-0 after 2003 and no Brit has beaten him more than once since 2003.

He has a 100% record against all the other Brits in the current GB top 15 he has actually played against, i.e. Baker, Wardy, Smethurst, Milton, Cox & Slabba and + records against other Challenger-level Brits of the last decade like Big Arv (see above), Martin Lee, Jamie Delgado, etc.

Btw I'm all in favour of payments for hitting clearly defined, player-independent targets. An argument against that is that the rankings are a bit of a lottery outside the top 200 or so (perhaps even within the top 200) because the luck of the draw and the strength of tournaments you enter can make a very significant difference to your ranking position, but it couldn't possibly create more intrigue and resentment than the current system does. Or maybe be really radical and link the targets to Akhenaten's rankings, which compensate for at least some of the luck factor in a systematic (instead of purely subjective) way.

thegingerlightbulb · Intermediate Club Player

mikeyp wrote:

Previously the LTA handed out more wildcards but in those days you had the stable 4 between 100 and 200 - Big Arv, Jamie D, Martin Lee and Barry Cowan. Now they might have had their faults but their ranking were far more deserving than the current crop.

It's funny you should mention this, I was going to make the same point. Many people (including me) used to slaughter these guys every year, but now it would appear we were lucky to have them.

It's a real shame that there are so few male Brits to get behind in the early rounds. Anyone remember some of the epic games underdog brits gave over the years? Palmer vs Ramon Dalago, Miles MacClagen vs Boris Becker and Barry Cowan vs Pete Sampras are three matches that spring to mind for me

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

clayfan wrote:

There is a danger giving the same players wild card after wild card, in that they will have their ranking lifted artificially and create a self perpetuating "elite!" over the players who do not get wildcards.

How do you come to this conclusion? Wild cards get no points unless they win a match, so their ranking is unaffected. Unless of course you are supposing that they will all win a match, which is pretty unlikely. What it does give them is some useful cash and experience, but no help in ranking.

MD · Social player

Karlovic is out, does this mean Ward could be in line for a wildcard?

Count Zero · Tennis legend

no that will just make a LL spot for a qualifier. i think its only if one of the people,who have been given WC's:

GABASHVILI, Teimuraz RUS
KIEFER, Nicolas GER
BAKER, Jamie GBR
KUZNETSOV, Andrey RUS
NISHIKORI, Kei JPN

pulls out

i don't know but i would assume the the Next DA's WC's would become LL spots too.

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

They'd have to pull out before the draw is made anyway, so there's only another 24 hours or so for one of those five to pick up an injury so serious that they know they won't be able to play Wimbledon.

Nishikori has already said he expects to be fit for Wimbledon so probably won't pull out until the last minute if he isn't fit, while I think Kiefer played an exhibition yesterday so obviously isn't injured.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

Baker better watch out if Wardy is following him down some stairs.

SMC1809 · All-time great

The three "next direct acceptance" Wild Cards are exactly that - Wild Cards. Therefore, surely, if one of those is now not needed, one becomes free for...

Is that a straw I see just out of my reach?

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

SMC1809 wrote:

The three "next direct acceptance" Wild Cards are exactly that - Wild Cards. Therefore, surely, if one of those is now not needed, one becomes free for...

Is that a straw I see just out of my reach?

Back in 2008 when WC's were not awarded, Kunitsyn, who got in as a result of that lost in the first round and got 10 ranking points added to his ranking.

This suggests that he was not treated as a wild card as the wild card's don't get point for losing in round one, and thus, if one of them was to withdraw, it would go to a lucky loser rather than another wild card.

Canas won his opening match last year when he got in this way, so can't check against last year.