His comments seem to touch on something that I have thought for a long time and is often mentioned here, the lack of structure to the funding system. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, sometimes nothing. A player dosen't know where he is. There isn't a level playing field set of guidelines that lets everyone know where they are and, inspires achievment to obtain it.
We see this a lot in Wild Cards. Over and over again they are handed out to players who could have made the cut had they entered. I feel this is fundamentally wrong. It just dosen't encourage a player to be 100% responsible for their programme......"Hmmmm maybe I should have entered, can I still come in please" They are often allowed but we must remember that this is at the expense of another player where as they could have been told "Yes but you'll have to quailfy".......its not the end of the world for them!
My main issue with WC's being handed out without clear guidelines is that it promotes favouritism. Their should be a clear set of guidlines, for example from the following; 1 x Home tournament choice, 1 x Highest ranked outside cut, 1 x Highest placed player from previous tournament (British Tour etc), 1 x Wild Card play off etc etc There are many other suggestions.
The point is if there was a set procedure, and it had to be adhered to, all players would be on a level playing field and, perhaps most importantly, some of the guidelines could encourage competitiveness as apposed to the old pals act or, the politics Richard refers to.
The LTA are not here trying to screw things up. I know they want to succeed. I feel where people can have their say over things, as opposed to a system put in place that promotes competitiveness, it all breaks down. Matches and ranking points are won and lost on incredibly fine lines in tennis, does by-passing them at home for "In" players actually help them in the real world? Does having a set of players who are "Out" in by personal decision seem right in a sport?
