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

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

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

Deano13 · Social player

I'll also be there for the first 4 days, Jaffa! Are you queuing? I'm doing a day of Qualies too (Tuesday 17th) so I'll provide lots of reports :)!

Jaffa · Challenger level

Why of course! No, I have tickets for the Wednesday and Thursday on 2 and Centre respectively. I'm going to be at the NTC playing tennis on the Monday and Tuesday and wandering across at about 5pm for the late ticket for the last few hours.

Never been before, can't tell you how excited I am!

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Jaffa wrote:
Should've scrapped them years ago. Tim would've won Wimbledon then!

In all seriousness, every other country does it so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'll be there for the first 4 days this year and will definitely go and see as many Brits as I can!

Jaffa - For regular tour events wc's to the main draw are more acceptable but myself and a few others feel that for ALL grand slam events - not just Wimbledon - they should be scrapped (injury/illness to former top players being a possible exception but even then there is PR that covers this). It's an insult to those ranked 105-112 and worked hard to get there whether they happen to be British or otherwise.

Jaffa · Challenger level

A131 wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
Should've scrapped them years ago. Tim would've won Wimbledon then!

In all seriousness, every other country does it so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'll be there for the first 4 days this year and will definitely go and see as many Brits as I can!

Jaffa - For regular tour events wc's to the main draw are more acceptable but myself and a few others feel that for ALL grand slam events - not just Wimbledon - they should be scrapped (injury/illness to former top players being a possible exception but even then there is PR that covers this). It's an insult to those ranked 105-112 and worked hard to get there whether they happen to be British or otherwise.

Why is it more acceptable, A131? Because there is less prize money involved? Because there are less of them.

At the end of the day I think they are given out to players who will undoubtedly boost the crowds at the event, which admittedly their nationality has a lot to do with it. I see your point with regards to this but in countries such as Germany or France for example where there are a lot of tour level competitions, if a player is awarded multiple WC's in to events they'd receive the same prize money anyway. Dustin Brown is a good example of this, as with a lot of French players!

philwrig · Hall of fame

A131 wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
Should've scrapped them years ago. Tim would've won Wimbledon then!

In all seriousness, every other country does it so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'll be there for the first 4 days this year and will definitely go and see as many Brits as I can!

Jaffa - For regular tour events wc's to the main draw are more acceptable but myself and a few others feel that for ALL grand slam events - not just Wimbledon - they should be scrapped (injury/illness to former top players being a possible exception but even then there is PR that covers this). It's an insult to those ranked 105-112 and worked hard to get there whether they happen to be British or otherwise.

So would you scrap qualifying as well ? Why does someone ranked 250 who comes through qualifying deserve to be in the MD either.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:
A131 wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
Should've scrapped them years ago. Tim would've won Wimbledon then!

In all seriousness, every other country does it so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'll be there for the first 4 days this year and will definitely go and see as many Brits as I can!

Jaffa - For regular tour events wc's to the main draw are more acceptable but myself and a few others feel that for ALL grand slam events - not just Wimbledon - they should be scrapped (injury/illness to former top players being a possible exception but even then there is PR that covers this). It's an insult to those ranked 105-112 and worked hard to get there whether they happen to be British or otherwise.
So would you scrap qualifying as well ? Why does someone ranked 250 who comes through qualifying deserve to be in the MD either.

Very good point. You could just have the top 128 and be done with it.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Coup Droit wrote:
philwrig wrote:
A131 wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
Should've scrapped them years ago. Tim would've won Wimbledon then!

In all seriousness, every other country does it so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'll be there for the first 4 days this year and will definitely go and see as many Brits as I can!

Jaffa - For regular tour events wc's to the main draw are more acceptable but myself and a few others feel that for ALL grand slam events - not just Wimbledon - they should be scrapped (injury/illness to former top players being a possible exception but even then there is PR that covers this). It's an insult to those ranked 105-112 and worked hard to get there whether they happen to be British or otherwise.
So would you scrap qualifying as well ? Why does someone ranked 250 who comes through qualifying deserve to be in the MD either.

Very good point. You could just have the top 128 and be done with it.

At no point did I suggest do away with qualifying - if someone ranked 250 did come through qualifying then fair enough at least they have earned the right to be there. I'm only suggesting no free ride to the main draw.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

No, I realise that A131, and your points are valid.

But Phil is saying that there's an inconsistency in the argument i.e. why are the players ranked 120-128 being cheated because their places are going to those getting wildcards but the players ranked 104-120 are not being cheated because their places are going to qualifiers? There's an arbitrariness one way or another.

Jon · Junior player

Coup Droit wrote:
No, I realise that A131, and your points are valid.

But Phil is saying that there's an inconsistency in the argument i.e. why are the players ranked 120-128 being cheated because their places are going to those getting wildcards but the players ranked 104-120 are not being cheated because their places are going to qualifiers? There's an arbitrariness one way or another.

I'm not sure it can be seen as arbitrary when there's actual tennis involved in who gets into the MD and as such there's a world of difference between wild cards and qualifiers.

That said, I'm quite comfortable that a small number of places are available for WCs. I think it's inconsistent to suggest that MDWCs should be ok for non-Slams but not for Slams and culling WCs completely would mean that players that do deserve to be in a tournament could be excluded.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I'm a bit surprised this thread is so long when there isn't even an equivalent for the men at all! But then it seems to have developed into a discussion on the ethics of wild cards in general.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Coup Droit wrote:
No, I realise that A131, and your points are valid.

But Phil is saying that there's an inconsistency in the argument i.e. why are the players ranked 120-128 being cheated because their places are going to those getting wildcards but the players ranked 104-120 are not being cheated because their places are going to qualifiers? There's an arbitrariness one way or another.

Exactly my point CD, I am in favour of the WC system as long as the recipients are worthy. Have been injured/ grass court pedigree etc., I also believe that having a small number of Brits competing who are not ranked high enough is fair. One of the perks of being a British tennis player. Top 250 rule is a good one ( good compromise ), and clearly it works as it has lasted quite a while now without too much argument. I suspect 2/3 Brits will get WCs, with maybe 3 more with special cases and then the rest will be the last few who didn't make the cut. All seems pretty fair to me.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Jon wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
No, I realise that A131, and your points are valid.

But Phil is saying that there's an inconsistency in the argument i.e. why are the players ranked 120-128 being cheated because their places are going to those getting wildcards but the players ranked 104-120 are not being cheated because their places are going to qualifiers? There's an arbitrariness one way or another.

I'm not sure it can be seen as arbitrary when there's actual tennis involved in who gets into the MD and as such there's a world of difference between wild cards and qualifiers.
That said, I'm quite comfortable that a small number of places are available for WCs. I think it's inconsistent to suggest that MDWCs should be ok for non-Slams but not for Slams and culling WCs completely would mean that players that do deserve to be in a tournament could be excluded.

Jon - I understand and get your views particularly the inconsistency re allocating WC's for non-slams but I suppose in a normal week there are usually two (sometimes three) regular tour events plus challengers all spread around the world (which I'm sure you are already aware of) so perhaps the financial survival of these events may depend more on wild cards. With there being only 4 slams and only 4 countries getting the benefit and with these tournaments being the pinnacle of the sport then (and the extra prestige, money, ranking points etc) the likes of myself and a few others feel that entry should to the main draw should either be by ranking only (up to 112) or by qualifying - apologies if you have already been following the thread and it seems you have. The only thing I would say that if you need a wc to get into a tournament then by interpretation you don't really deserve to in the tournament or to put it a little more politely have not earned a high enough ranking - at least not at the cut off point - but you know all this.

Now what if there was ever a situation where the cut off point arrived and none of the grand slam hosting nations did not have a single person in the singles main draw, of either sex, that qualified on merit. In one way, that is not the fault of other countries and more the fault of the national federations but in that case I might be prepared to live with a small number (somewhat grudgingly - possibly 2 max) plus any that might come through qualifying as some sort of compromise. But I realise for the moment nothing will change - sadly!

indiana · Tennis legend

Keep up the good work, A131, sorry I've not really been about to support.

Your latest post is again a good summary, and you are dealing well with the various counterpoints, many of which are at best tangental and at worst irrelevant.

A few points to reemphasise for me :

1 Like yourself, I am talking about basically excluding MD WCs at ALL Slams, the pinnacle of tennis ( as discussed injury may be a possible exception if the PR system doesn't deal with it or can't be adapted ).

2) Qualifying into the MD is very different from MD EVa, you are giving folk the chance to EARN a place in the MD, perhaps say up and coming players rising in the rankings, but not yet high enough in the order for DA or say in form players or players more suited to grass. Players working through qualifying are quite different from just being say British and either in the top 250 or very good young players.

Qualification processes are normal in professional sport, free passes are not.

3) While I too would have more interest in Brits compared to many others, that is no argument for the unfair jettisoning in of such players to one of tennis's four pinnacle events. Certainly at Wimbledon, I can't imagine any particular effect on attendances by not having these extra Brits in the MD for normally a few days at best.

Anyway, lots of going round a bit in circles, but I have read through and remain unconvinced by any argument against culling Slam MD WCs.

Jon · Junior player

I do completely understand the other position and there is definitely something that feels not quite right about the wild card system. When you have a situation where the only players that get MDWCs at the French Open are French, American or Australian (due to the reciprocal arrangements) then there's something a bit off. (Can anyone remember the last MDWC at the FO that bucked this trend? I can't).

However, even a number of posters who are anti-WC have said there are good uses of WCs - returning players, including those from injury, for example. I think a similar case can be made for the previous year's junior champion, who probably won't have had time to amass sufficient ranking points.

And if there are good uses of WCs and people think they should be awarded in those circumstances, then there has to be a commitment to having WCs. You can't suggest that some years you might have a WC because there's a specially deserving case and other years not having any - of far more importance is that there's up front visibility of the qualification rules. So, if the view is that WCs are justified in some circumstances then there has to be a commitment to a particular number of them each time.

Maybe the compromise is that WC decisions be made using a set of defined criteria rather than purely subjectively (see the complaints from French tennis fans about how WCs are allocated to their players at the FO). Perhaps two spots for the host country's best players that don't automatically qualify; spots for previous quarter finalists; the junior champion; the player with the highest ranking points in the previous quarter. You get the idea.

Finally - I'm still not convinced that Slams are such a special case that they should be treated differently, especially as the allocation of WCs in other events is the very thing that may help players get the ranking points they need to qualify for the Slams!