It's still a qualifying competition, and of course luck can sometimes play a part, as it can in the main draw.

But a player has gone through a qualifying process that at the outset is theoretically a level playing field, save seeds, who earn their position by ranking.

Probably, yes, better if the number of qualification places was consistent across the Slams but irrelevant to my principle that entry to the MD should be by ranking plus some by qualification, winning tennis matches.

My personal only exception would be re injury.

Hey, I recognise the lack of any real demand for change and any significant change in the foreseeable future is very unlikely. But it ain't right, it ain't fair ( in my opinion :) )

And I'll be rooting for all the Brits at Wimbledon, including MD WCs.

Jon wrote:

---

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!

---

 Jon - Though I might not necessarily agree with everything you say I do think you make some valid and interesting points.

Totally agree with the reciprocal stuff - the first thing that should get the boot - that would be a good start. Whilst I would still do away with mdwc (there's a surprise!) if we had to have them then they should be made using a set of defined criteria rather than who people think are worthy which of course as you rightly say is a purely subjective argument. (I would also be grateful if you provide a link if at all possible regarding the complaints of the French fans about how they allocate their wc's - would make very interesting reading). Might be prepared if a little grudgingly go along with your suggestion re two spots for the host country's best players providing that none have qualified on merit. Previous quarter finalists - not if their ranking or performance has slumped due to lack of form or commitment or not achieved much since - if it has been due to injury/illness then fair enough if PR does not cover it. As for junior champions - well as everybody knows there is a big difference between juniors, where you are mostly playing against people of your own or around your own age/ experience/strength etc and making the transition to seniors  don't always make it and might struggle initially. Certainly, even allowing for wild card opportunities that he or she may receive during the year, it is probably unlikely he or she would have amassed enough points to qualify on merit - I understand that - but  I also think they to should have to earn their spot and climb the rankings like the vast majority have to do so maybe a qualifying wild card would be a suitable compromise. 

 

CD - You're absolutely right that the comments have all been about which French players receive wild cards rather than any suggestion that non-French players should get them instead.

(For the record, I checked last night - since the reciprocal arrangement came in, there have, without fail, been six French MDWCs for the women's singles and one each for American and Australian players).

This year I've only seen a few mutterings about which players have been given wild cards.  I do remember a couple of years ago though, reading quite a heated thread on a forum (it may have been tennisforum.com but I can't be certain - I'll have a look) where someone listed the French wild cards in the previous ten years to make the case that the federation were systematically playing favourites and that far more deserving (French) players were being excluded.  For me it was evidence that a truly subjective allocation of WCs is unfair. 

In the back of my mind in this debate is the 'Ivanisevic test'.  For me, Ivanisevic in 2001 is exactly the kind of wild card that should be encouraged and therefore any alternative solution (including the nuclear one of scrapping wild cards completely) that would fail to have given that wild card, in my opinion, isn't right.

-- Edited by Jon on Tuesday 20th of May 2014 08:53:33 AM

indiana wrote:

---

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.

---

 No need to apologise Indy - can't spend all your time by a keyboard.

I have got to realise that not everyone will agree with my view (or your view - though I obviously do) and if I can't accept that then I shouldn't post.

Look forward to reading more of your posts.

Yes, Jon, generally a very good, thought provoking discussion / debate.

And indeed, I am not going to add to my c'mons for Evo, James, Naomi etc. 'by the way I don't think you should be here' ! :)

Please note A131 that my post above was not MY views - it was just an answer to your request, namely "I would also be grateful if you provide a link if at all possible regarding the complaints of the French fans about how they allocate their wc's - would make very interesting reading". i.e. a summary of what I'd seen of the French forumites' views.

No prob :)

The interesting thing about this thread is that both sides, seemingly, can see the others' argument - but just don't agree. As Jon says, it's been a good debate !