Wimbledon wild cards 2011

Salmon · Tennis legend

RE: Wimbledon wild cards 2011

indiana · Tennis legend

scottie1 wrote:
Next thing Indy you will be making a case For Jamie Murray to get a Wc in the singles lol as a former MD winner. After seeing him play Ian Flanagan in Edinburgh a few yeras ago I realised why Jamie gave up singles

confuse as to where on earth that one came from, especially as I'm not making a case for more anyway

Salmon · Tennis legend

This thread needs Ratty!!!

scottie1 · Futures level

just winding up up indy lol

indiana · Tennis legend

Salmon wrote:
All WCs should go to Brits. If not, they should be traded. Someone give me a good reason why the non-Brits should be getting one... go on.

I think it is perfectly resaonable to give WCs to such as noted grass court players, players that have done well in recent tournaments and risen up the rankings since the entry list was made up, previous top players on the comeback trail or players that it is just judged will be an attraction.

As I say I'm pretty happy with the split. The fact that the French or whoever ( with more depth in players anyway ) may give a bigger proportion to home players is no reason we have to follow. I'm more that both they and we should be prepared to be international in outlook.

As I said, one can argue about individuals ( and I have ) but in principle giving 12 out of 34 WCs ( MD + Q ) to foreigners is basically OK by me.

Four countries in the world host a Grand Slam, and we are lucky to be one of them. As a result 22 Brits have got Grand Slam WCs this year. They generally sure weren't going to get them on ability elsewhere.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 12th of June 2011 05:20:14 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

scottie1 wrote:
just winding up up indy lol

Blah smile

steven · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Oli has certainly started a tweet debate re why foreigners get so many WCs. He also makes the point Brits don't get them in foreign tournaments.

I wonder how long it will be before his mate Laura puts him right on that one ...

Btw Sean Thornley says that he and Dave Rice haven't been given a doubles WC and are playing Battistone & Raja in QR1 tomorrow. (I assume he means Wimbledon not Eastbourne, but maybe he means the latter)

-- Edited by steven on Sunday 12th of June 2011 04:35:56 PM

RJA · Hall of fame

steven wrote:
indiana wrote:
Oli has certainly started a tweet debate re why foreigners get so many WCs. He also makes the point Brits don't get them in foreign tournaments.
I wonder how long it will be before his mate Laura puts him right on that one ...
Btw Sean Thornley says that he and Dave Rice haven't been given a doubles WC and are playing Battistone & Raja in QR1 tomorrow. (I assume he means Wimbledon not Eastbourne, but maybe he means the latter)

There are no doubles qualifiers at Eastborurne and Thornley and Rice are not in the main draw so he must be talking at Wimbledon.

indiana · Tennis legend

steven wrote:
Btw Sean Thornley says that he and Dave Rice haven't been given a doubles WC and are playing Battistone & Raja in QR1 tomorrow. (I assume he means Wimbledon not Eastbourne, but maybe he means the latter)

Now there are a couple of Brits that in my should have a Wimbledon WC. Have hugely risen up the rankings ( as a pair ) with a fine set of results. Basically in just points this year they weren't hugely off the LTA's 52 weeks ranking target ( points for WR 500 combined )

PaulM · Tennis legend

LTA set clear criteria for wimbledon wildcards.

If players don't make it they have to blame themselves as they knew what was needed. Was ridiculous they waived them to let the Dans in to avoid embarrassment.

Players shouldn't get wildcards just because they are british if they are not good enough. If u can't win enough matvhes over a year to be ranked top 250 then ur probably not good enough to make the main draw.

They should be happy to be getting ones for qualies. Think u should have gotten a main draw one? Prove it by qualifying

Salmon · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
Think u should have gotten a main draw one? Prove it by qualifying

The same is true for non-Brits, no?

Are you against wild cards in general? That's a separate issue.

-- Edited by Salmon on Sunday 12th of June 2011 05:17:12 PM

The Knight · Challenger qualifying

PaulM wrote:
LTA set clear criteria for wimbledon wildcards.

If players don't make it they have to blame themselves as they knew what was needed. Was ridiculous they waived them to let the Dans in to avoid embarrassment.

Players shouldn't get wildcards just because they are british if they are not good enough. If u can't win enough matvhes over a year to be ranked top 250 then ur probably not good enough to make the main draw.

They should be happy to be getting ones for qualies. Think u should have gotten a main draw one? Prove it by qualifying

As a balanced critic everything you have said is correct, but as a fan...my enjoyment of this tournament is increased tenfold by having many brits to cheer on

PaulM · Tennis legend

Totally agree Knight. Would love more Brits in but the criteria are there.

Sela and Muller won the Notts events so the fairness shouldn't even be qustioned. And I don't hear any foreigners moaning about not getting main draw wildcards for wimbledon. Which is the point here. Some of our guys think they should have got one do they not?

Not against wildcards at all. But you shouldn't ever feel like ur entitled to one.

Salmon · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Salmon wrote:
All WCs should go to Brits. If not, they should be traded. Someone give me a good reason why the non-Brits should be getting one... go on.

I think it is perfectly resaonable to give WCs to such as noted grass court players, players that have done well in recent tournaments and risen up the rankings since the entry list was made up, previous top players on the comeback trail or players that it is just judged will be an attraction.
As I say I'm pretty happy with the split. The fact that the French or whoever ( with more depth in players anyway ) may give a bigger proportion to home players is no reason we have to follow. I'm more that both they and we should be prepared to be international in outlook.
As I said, one can argue about individuals ( and I have ) but in principle giving 12 out of 34 WCs ( MD + Q ) to foreigners is basically OK by me.
Four countries in the world host a Grand Slam, and we are lucky to be one of them. As a result 22 Brits have got Grand Slam WCs this year. They generally sure weren't going to get them on ability elsewhere.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 12th of June 2011 05:20:14 PM

Can't disagree with this but most of the reasons can be used for home grown players, too.

International outlook? A huge portion of players are non-Brits in the first place so let us give it a domestic outlook, hey!

Someone has risen up the rankings after the entry list was announced? Then they should qualify anyway.

Players who will be an attraction? Which non-Brit player outside the top 100 will be a bigger attraction than Bloomers?

Salmon · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
Totally agree Knight. Would love more Brits in but the criteria are there.

Sela and Muller won the Notts events so the fairness shouldn't even be qustioned. And I don't hear any foreigners moaning about not getting main draw wildcards for wimbledon. Which is the point here. Some of our guys think they should have got one do they not?

Not against wildcards at all. But you shouldn't ever feel like ur entitled to one.

And I don't hear any Brits moaning about not getting wild cards to USO.

What is this fairness regarding not meeting the criteria and not getting the wild card? Who said that you need to be top 250 to play Wimbledon? God? ITF?

Strange that people have the opinion that since they haven't reached the top 250, it's fair that they don't get WCs. Please tell me why it shouldn't be top 200 or top 300.

-- Edited by Salmon on Sunday 12th of June 2011 05:40:05 PM