Re earlier posts, anyone want to add to murray_2k9's and my contrasting thoughts re WC opportunities with particular regard to the juniors ?

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 23rd of April 2011 09:27:47 PM

Oh dear, I forgot again - although fortunately not with the same consequences as for Paul Chambers and his Doncaster Airport joke - that message boards, Twitter, etc are an irony free zone. 

But anyway, I'm sure that you will all be relieved to know that the AELTC is not going to be prosecuted for race discrimination. This is because section 39 of the Race Relations Act exempts sporting events from the provisions of the RRA.

But anyway, back to the issue in hand.

What's the point of Wild Cards?

I can see that they're great for the recipients. You get £11,250 (2010 figures) just for turning up. If you get lucky - and it has to be VERY lucky, given that the players who are ranked high enough to get in on their own merit are usually miles better than the Brit Wild Cards - you get another £7,500 for winning one match. (Total £18,750 - about the same as for winning 10 $15K's!!!!) 

And such is the scale of the Brit Wild Card failure at Wimbledon that the only one I can remember who has won a match in recent years was Chris Eaton - and yes, he got VERY VERY lucky ...  

But does anyone else benefit?

The Press & TV love them, because they guarantee 3-4 days of mocking headlines and "in-depth" discussions about how useless Brit tennis players are. Cue lots of "hard-hitting" articles, full of quotes from the usual rent-a-mouths like Pat Cash, David Lloyd, etc.

Can't think of anyone else who benefits. The paying punters are no more attracted to a Brit Wild Card on Court 9 than, say, Blaz Kavcic on court 9. TV audiences - well, I guess that there is a certain sadistic pleasure in watching our brave lad/lass getting battered, but do we really want to encourage sadistic pleasure?

 

I have always maintained there ought to be a special font for ironic/sarcastic/joking posts

Its difficult with juniors because if you throw them in too early is can be disasterous. Better juniors than we have have been dumped out having won one or two games and it can be extremely embarrassing and disheartening for them.

Dean (if fit) would have been a thought but she has played few pro events and she got destroyed by Mlad, so - don't think she's rready. I'd pick girls like Tara, Fitzy (if fit) and even Joss (if fit) before her at the moment.

Qualies is still great exposure, a great experience and a little less pressure to wet you behind the ears so to speak.

I definately feel that if, even as a top junior, you haven't shown yourself capable of making the latter rounds of 25ks you shouldn't be in the main draw. I mean can you imagine in the past putting the Rens, who can barely break the top 1000 after years and can't qualify for 10ks being put against a top 50 player at wimbledon? It'd be a massacre just because they were our top juniors?

Sorry Ratty, given the rest of ur post was serious I missed the one bit that was ironic.

-- Edited by PaulM on Sunday 24th of April 2011 10:25:30 AM

indiana wrote:

---

I think Ratty likes the straight faced / straight font version just to pull folk in 

---

Surely you are not suggesting that I (the Tennis Pundit of the Year, may I remind you) am a .............. dare I say the word? ............ maybe if I put it in a very small font .............troll.

Anyway, picking up on a couple of more recent posts.

Firstly, it's again one of those myths that it is somehow "good experience" for a promising young player to play at a big event. Why? If they are good enough, they will get to play at big events in the course of time. 

Or that it would be "disastrous" for someone like Eleanor Dean to be given a wild card. i can't see it. What's the worst that can happen? A 40 minute 6-0 6-0 drubbing from Wozniacki on Centre Court. Well I can see that would be mightily embarrassing (*), but I can't really see what lasting damage would be done.  

Of course, I have another reason for not giving Eleanor Dean (or anyone else) a wild card, which is that it is arbitrary and unfair to hand out £11,250 to someone for doing sod all.

 

(*) At least Wozniacki, bless her she seems like a sweet person, would not add to the embarrassment at the post-match interview, unlike "Saint" Roger, who once said after biffing Alan Mackin, that he was not used to playing such bad players!

 

philwrig wrote:

---

Ratty clearly doesn't believe in psychological impacts.

---

Not really, no.

What you are saying has a certain amount of plausibility. There may be some people who are so mentally fragile that life's inevitable setbacks cause them lasting damage.

However, those people are unlikely to be high achievers in any walk of life. I find it hard to believe that anyone with enough mental strength to get to be good enough to be selected for a Wimbledon wild card, would be traumatised by a crunching defeat.