Bob in Spain wrote:

---

I am sure someone can shoot this idea down as I haven't thought it through in any depth, but how about keep the WCs but insist that they have to win a round in order to qualify for any prize money. If they get knocked out in the 1st round, they get nowt.

Don't they do something similar re ranking points ? Players who get in on ranking get 10 points even if they lose but WCs don't get any for a 1st round loss.

If they just want to give £27,000 to some worthy Brits, maybe they should just fund them properly in the first place.

 

---

I've said or at least thought this before (said it, I think, because I seem to remember it being shot down but can't remember why - it was some time ago) - maybe not nothing if they go out in R1, but QR1 or FQR money or something like that. Maybe it's not a suggestion those in line for WCs would want to hear us making, but it might take a lot of the heat out of the issue. As you say, Bob, it would be consistent with the ATP points change a few years ago that stopped WCs getting any points for R1 losses.

It would be interesting to see whether any more Brits given the option of a main draw WC would opt to go through qualies if that happened.

I agree that would be a good solution.  Keep the interest for the spectators, yet not unfairly reward the players.

indiana wrote:

---

Peter, personally I actually object to that 'either or' !

I think I generally give every indication that I want to support British tennis ( that is because I do ).

I and others can do that, while still saying that we think that the ( particularly Slam MD ) WC system is unfair, so would prefer that that is not one way that British tennis is promoted.

---

 Yes, but think through the consequences of withdrawing the WC for British players. Remember for years we had no player who would have received direct entry into the main draw. Occasionally we would have got one or two through qualification. I remember all the criticism of Anne getting wild cards but would she have carried on as long as she did without them or would she have packed up before she broke into the top 100. Without the WCs there would be less incentive for British girls to try their hand at tennis and more chance they would give up early. Remember women don't get the same prize money as men in the lower level tournaments to it is harder to keep financing their foreign travel.

Without WCs there would be less British women playing at club level and less competing internationally. Without the Wimbledon support even more of those they did tour would depend on having rich parents. 

WCs are a low cost way of achieving a number of benefits. It encourages more British people to buy tickets which pays for the cost of the wild cards. It encourages more British girls to play tennis at all levels, it helps to finance our nearly good enough players for a few more years, in the hope that they will eventually make it, and it increases the profits for the tennis business. When tennis was purely amateur there would have been a case for entry to be strictly on merit but now it is an international business and like other businesses is organised to maximise profits. In that context you might view WCs as part of the publicity budget.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Although my brain agrees with a lot of what has been said above about the unfairness of WCs, my heart still goes with BeefyD and ricardo and Jaggy and others - I like them.

However, I can't quite agree with Peter's argument. Practically all other countries in the tennis-playing world manage to get players in the top 100/200 without having to use Grand slam wildcards so why should Britain be any different? Why do our women need that and others don't? Why, in the UK, would less club players play and less pro players tour when all other countries manage it fine? I can't believe that our women are inherently/genetically less motivated.

My argument applies to all the countries and, as said before, is the same argument as to why the host country for the World Cup doesn't have to qualify (no matter what their level). Local WCs give the home fans/media an added boost. Other WCs are given to crowd pleasers and 'famous' players. Nicolas Mahut got a wildcard last year because of his epic, epic match the year before. People wanted to see him play. Journalists wanted to talk up his match.

It seems to me that there's 128 places, 120 get awarded purely on merit and 8 are kept for 'special reason' players. I'm happy with that. I'd made a similar point to steven above, that the wildcard attribution shouldn't get confused with the 27k first round loss argument. You could certainly limit that amount as steven suggested; indeed, you could cut it just for wildcards - there's no reason why a wildcard necessarily should get the same fee as a mainstream player. But, net net, I think all grand slams benefit from them.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 19th of May 2014 08:29:35 AM

---

 Coup - I agree with you regarding Peter comments and there are certainly a few holes in his argument. Having said that he does depend on how you look at the situation and his support for British Tennis is laudable. I'm quite happy to admit I would go and watch a British player if I had time and could get on one of the outside courts at the AELTC.  But I still hold the view they should earn the right to be there and if left to me MD WC's would be scrapped tomorrow. If a grand slam can't survive on having the top 10/20 players in the field then something is wrong somewhere.

Despite his epic match I'm not convinced that people were that bothered about Nicholas Mahut and if his performances over the course were not good enough for him to gain direct entry then why should he get in so that some journalist can talk him up - seems a feeble excuse to accomodate someone. I'm not even convinced that attrendances would suffer that much if there were no British wc's - the grounds would still be full, you will still get 40000 plus through the gate irrespective (i've been there) - added bonus sure (if they are there on merit) - but those who have earned the right to play should play.

As I'm sure you are also aware the vast majority of the British public don't give a toss about tennis for the other 50 weeks of the year so why should those ranked 105 to 112 have to suffer because of what they might want or be encouraged to do. For a sport that promotes a meritocratic system why the need for WC's at all? I know it is not always a fair reflection of form and performance but until someone comes along with something better then I will go along with it.

World Cup - slightly different scenario where a country may have spent millions improving its stadia, infrastructure and promoting the tournament over many years, and, they can only play one team and not drag in their U18 side or B side and it is only held once every 4 years. It does also tend to go to a country where there is a love for football or at least some interest (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Japan) - usually - Qatar aside (we all know why it is going there) and these countries have a half decent side or can hold their own. The tournament does not usually end up in countries like India, Thailand, Bermuda, New Zealand Pakistan where there is not much interest in the game or does not appear to be.