Wimbledon 2013 and 2014 - women's WCs & pre-draw discussion

Sim · County player

RE: Wimbledon 2013 - women's WCs & pre-draw discussion

Ratty · County player

WTF - £27,000 for losing in the first round!!! That's the average annual income in the UK.

As I've said ad nauseam before, I think that wild cards are indefensible, but with this amount of money on offer they must surely only be awarded on strictly objective criteria, and absolutely not be in anybody's gift.

indiana · Tennis legend

The WR 250 mark is relevant if the LTA have again made it a target.

I recognise that the WR 250 target is no guarantee of a MD WC, and that neither Sam or Tara are playing to the best of their ability.

But it is almost certain that Sam at least will be top 250 and it's not as if she is in really bad form, so for me MD WC for Sam.

And if Tara can get herself into that top 250 in time, MD WC for her too.

indiana · Tennis legend

By the way, I have made my feelings known lately re Slam MD WCs, i.e. I essentially agree with what A131 has been saying that there should not be such WCs based on youth or nationality, but essentially just on rankings merit ( no problem with previously injured PR entrants ).

So, I really agree with Ratty ( at least for Slams ).

My previous post is just a grudging acceptance of the reality of where we are and how I would apply it.

LordBrownof · Futures level

I have sympathy with indiana and Ratty's view on WC's. I also think indiana is getting to the crux of the issue. Is this really about wildcards or is it about the fact we, unlike Aus, US and France, rarely ever have enough top 250 talent on both sides?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

LordBrownof wrote:
I have sympathy with indiana and Ratty's view on WC's. I also think indiana is getting to the crux of the issue. Is this really about wildcards or is it about the fact we, unlike Aus, US and France, rarely ever have enough top 250 talent on both sides?

Yes.

I see the logic of the argument above and also think the UK stance is very much influenced by our lack of valid candidates.

But I can't help it, I like the WC element, the 'support the underdog' or the young pup idea.

SOmeone else (who doesn't often post) put a post on another thread (can't find it !!!) which made the interesting point that, given how the average age has gone up so markedly so quickly, the wildcards are the only means to see youngsters (under 20s) participate. Now, of course, why should under 20s be participating if they don;t have the level? But, on the other hand, for the spectator, it's good and appealing. Equally, for the older 'crowd favourite' player.

Fiona Ferro is 17, about WR500 (although making a big jump as she's just had a couple of great wins) and has been given a MD WC at the French. On the other hand, three 28+ year-olds have been given them too.

I realise it's not fair, and I can't argue with the logic of the strict interpretation. But I like wildcards.

(NB Is there any truth to the argument that Tara is far more likely to get a WC because she's trained by the LTA at NTC? And that it's therefore in their interest, so to speak, to do so? In which case, they'd have to give one to Sam too, really.)

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

I empathize and agree with all of the arguments against such whimsical wild cards, but I quite enjoy the young aspects of them from a personal, selfish level. It's a nice, if unfair, idea to give some youngies a chance at some big tournaments and it can create quite a buzz if there is an upset. For Grand Slams, I'd say that every federation should be allowed to give a few WC's, whether they be MDWCs or QWCs to their own nation's players. But the majority should surely be for outstanding performances or great promise, whatever the nation, because with the money and possible points on offer, it's a whole different ball game from a 250 or 500.

indiana · Tennis legend

By the way, I don't think I have quite the overall antipathy to WCs in tennis that some do, in that outside Slams I understand the interest etc arguments even if I still have some discomfort on occasion.

But Slams, most particularly re MD WCs to Slams ( but also I personally have some issue with Q WCs in Slams ), no this dishing out to the hosts is simply unfair. In these four pinnacle events, ranking merit should rule.

And for clarity, my 'grudging acceptance' is not that we are so short of top players that it is reasonable to give home WCs. It isn't ! My 'grudging acceptance' is that this unfairness will continue, so if you are going to have a WR 250 guideline ( and at least it's a bit of objectivity ) stick to it. Don't then say oh Sam and Tara are about the same, treat them the same. No, clear target, inside top 250, give the MD WC, outside top 250 don't.

All that is my position whenever I take a logical step back. But yes, I will take an interest in and follow the WC play-offs, and our Q and MD WCs' progress, and what it does or doesn't do for their rankings. I'm a British tennis fan ! But it will be a sort of guilty pleasure.

ricardo89 · Junior player

I kinda agree with Indiana but i still feel as a british tennis fan and if i was at wimbledon and i had an order of play in front of me and there was a brit on court or i could see 2 europeans playing i would defo choose the brit cause i am a british fan and i bet a lot of brits feel like that. The whole point is that you want to support your home player at your home tournament, i know i have said this before but over the years i have seen our brits play better for example Tara Moore vs Kaia Kanepi pushed her in the final set and she had massive support and crowd behind her same with Emily Webley-Smith against Klara zakapolova, fantastic match and again the crowd was behind her. I agree that if their is a 250 ranking rule in place then they should have to reach that, but the LTA are always saying the juniors are our future so why not give the likes of Katy Dunne, Katie Boulter and Elenor Dean one.

I would give MD WCs to:

Naomi Broady
Samantha Murray
Tara Moore
Katie Boulter
Katy Dunne
Elenor Dean

Qualifying

Jade Windley
Emily Webley Smith
Eden Silva
Anna Smith
others by the playoff

i know the main draw ones are just what i wish lol

PaulM · Tennis legend

Lisa didn't get a wildcard at 255 when she had risen up the rankings.

No reason why a player who narrowly misses out on top 250 having gonr backwards should get one this year. Not justifiable.

Criteria must be honoured or its pointless having it. Objectivity for home wildcards is crucial.

Ratty · County player

Exactly.

And how about this for some perspective. In March 2014 Lukas Rosol won the $125k Challenger in Irving, Texas, beating Russell, Brands, Harrison, Stakhovsky and Johnson; three of whom are in the top 100, and the other two just outside.

His prize money was $18,000, or about £11,000. Wimbledon wild card loses in first round: £27,000.

Go figure ...

ricardo89 · Junior player

i think then they should get rid of the 250 rule no other grand slam does it :)

indiana · Tennis legend

If Wimbledon is going to give a number of home WCs, just as the other Slams do, then how should particularly GB MD WCs be arrived at ?

At least with the 250 guideline that the LTA uses ( although hasn't always applied rigorously ) in making its selection for WC recommendations to put to Wimbledon, there is some objectivity.

I don't know how home WCs are generally arrived at in the other Slams ?

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Katie Katy and Eleanor have a better chance of actually winning a match than Tara or Sam in my opinion so really this 250 thing is nonsense.

korriban · Challenger level

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Katie Katy and Eleanor have a better chance of actually winning a match than Tara or Sam in my opinion so really this 250 thing is nonsense.

I agree. Well not about the specific players necessarily, but I certainly think that a player you believe could be top 100 one day even if their current ranking is outside top 500, say, is arguably a better case for a WC than a solid player who sneaks into the top 250, but is unlikely to go too much beyond that ranking.