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

Miriambee · Futures level

RE: Wimbledon 2013

johnnylad · Tennis legend

They are suppositions

jake270392 · Intermediate Club Player

denver23 wrote:
jake270392 wrote:
Mens Wildcards

1) James Ward (Top 250 and having a decent year)
2) Kyle Edmund (Top Junior and top 500 seniors, also having a good year)
3) Boggo (Needs 16 points in next two weeks to be in Top 250 so eligible for wildcard by right)
4) Dan Evans (Davis Cup heroics!!)

Womens

1) Elena Baltacha (Coming back from injury, veteran)
2) Anne Keothavong (Veteran)
3) Jo Konta (Still young and playing well of late)
4) Tara Moore (Top 200 and playing the best she has done)
5) Sam Murray/ Lisa Whybourn (Top 250ish)

I really don't think any WC's should be awarded at grand slam events - 3 max per event - if we really have to have them. Simply increase the number of direct acceptances and make the rest qualify and earn the right to be there including the lot named above. Too much bias and favouratism.
Tara Moore - (Top 200 and playing the best she has done) - You could say the same for An-Sophie Mestach of Belgium who is only 19 and climbed from a ranking of 408 at the end of last year to 192. And guess who she beat a few months back at Bath - yes Tara Moore. The same case could be made for Alja Tomljanovic who has climbed from 453 at the end of 2012 to a career high of 143 (higher than any of the six mentioned above) and beaten a few good players in the top 100. If she was British I bet she would be on the above list to.

J

And your point exactly is what??? Tara's British and An-Sophie is Belgium so your comment is pointless as you can give many other examples of other players in the same situation. These are my predictions based on the 250 rule (or special cases) and this is a British event where I like most of the fellow forum members want to see as many Brits get Wild cards as those are the matches I'll be watching and supporting.

We should follow other countries and give wild cards to players who you say deserve it more but oh wait they all do the same and give to their own players . But you should be happy as Wimbledon does award wild cards to overseas players who have performed well during the grass lead ups!!

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

jake270392 wrote:
denver23 wrote:
I really don't think any WC's should be awarded at grand slam events - 3 max per event - if we really have to have them. Simply increase the number of direct acceptances and make the rest qualify and earn the right to be there including the lot named above. Too much bias and favouratism.
Tara Moore - (Top 200 and playing the best she has done) - You could say the same for An-Sophie Mestach of Belgium who is only 19 and climbed from a ranking of 408 at the end of last year to 192. And guess who she beat a few months back at Bath - yes Tara Moore. The same case could be made for Alja Tomljanovic who has climbed from 453 at the end of 2012 to a career high of 143 (higher than any of the six mentioned above) and beaten a few good players in the top 100. If she was British I bet she would be on the above list to.
And your point exactly is what??? Tara's British and An-Sophie is Belgium so your comment is pointless as you can give many other examples of other players in the same situation. These are my predictions based on the 250 rule (or special cases) and this is a British event where I like most of the fellow forum members want to see as many Brits get Wild cards as those are the matches I'll be watching and supporting.
We should follow other countries and give wild cards to players who you say deserve it more but oh wait they all do the same and give to their own players . But you should be happy as Wimbledon does award wild cards to overseas players who have performed well during the grass lead ups!!

I always find this a difficult issue. Of course we're British and we want the Brits to do well BUT:-

a) If more of them had to earn it so as denver suggests mayby less per GS it would make them work harder and not think (as the culture in this country is going IMHO) that the world owes them.

b) How about the nations that haven't got a slam (or for that matter non or fewer higher ranked tournaments)? Aren't they being disadvantaged if we just give all our WCs or the vast majority of them to our players(This of course goes for the US, Aus, France too). Of course some of our players are very deserving - but some are certainly not as deserving as some foreign players e.g. Busta who a few of us have been following.

c) I think most of us have a sense of fairness, and would like to see more competition. This could only be determined by giving wildcards (if at all) to the players globally who deserve them most throughout the year.

jake270392 · Intermediate Club Player

Helen I am going to answer your points.... here I go;

A) to be able to be rewarded a wild card you have to be ranked inside the top 250 so I don't understand this constant bashing of who's more deserving as you have had to have some success to get that point in the first place.

B) every country regardless if its a Grand Slam country rewards their own players wild cards and secondly we are the only grand slam where we actually reward other seas players wild cards on recent success, so we should actually be applauding our self for doing this.

C) Again, we are fair and I don't want to repeat myself but we have the 250 rule and as we have seen especially on the women's side , the competition to get to that ranking has been credible.

PaulM · Tennis legend

korriban wrote:
I know, but her case probably needed to be more compelling to dislodge the status quo......personally I would prefer to see Sam and Lisa take the places of Bally and Anne (future focus, not past/loyalty focus), but the LTA won't go down this route, as it would create a bit of a storm.

Sorry Korriban, I'm really struggling to follow what you are saying here. Sam is top 250, so there isn't a status quo to be dislodged or any compelling case that needs to be made by or for her? Whether or not she gets a wildcard is nothing to do with replacing someone else or widening the scope of the exiting criteria to include her. Are you trying to suggest that being top 250 is not enough for Sam and there needs to be some other justification when the LTA meet to decide their nominations to go to the AELTC for them to decide to put her on the MDWC list?

In the past the 250 Rule has been applied without question (in that if you are in it, you get nominated by the LTA, and the AELTC are pretty much guaranteed to follow that and award the wild card), so I would take the opposite view and say not putting her forward for a wildcard would upset the status quo and need a compelling argument.

If she was out the top 250 then my view, and it is the same with Lisa, is that she shouldn't get one as there are no mitigating factors.

Bally and Anne, along with Tara and JoKo are top 250 and so meet the requisite criteria to be put forward.

The only time things start getting cloudy is if players outside the top 250 are nominated by the LTA, which I can't see happening on the women's side as there are enough players at that level to give good representation.

As Steven has said, the criteria seems to have been (deliberately?) widened this year to give additional flexibility to include non-top 250 people. On the men's, they will, if they want to get the numbers up, need to come up with some vague justification for each person (and for not including others) based on that new flexibility.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 10th of June 2013 08:28:24 AM

PaulM · Tennis legend

You are right on Boggo, but I was talking about the women in relation to Sam's case specifically. Appreciate that wasn't clear.

On Boggo, the interesting thing about that one is that I don't believe it has ever come to light whether the LTA in fact nominated Boggo as per their criteria, but the AELTC didn't grant him one, or whether the LTA went against their own criteria and didn't put his name forward.

Both are plausible, but I would like to think the LTA did the right thing.

The Wimbledon situation is confusing because its the only grand slam were the National Association don't select the wildcards, so there is always potential for a disconnect in the names the LTA put forward and who actually gets one.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 10th of June 2013 09:10:02 AM

Spectator · All-time great

Well, the timing of the release may not be transparent - and the criteria are certainly open to allegations of increased subjectivity - but I'm glad of the changes. The old system was way too biased towards youth at a time when that's really not helpful. Far better to allow for "middle-aged" (23? 24? 25? 26?) year olds, ex-university players or whatever, who start to make a move up the rankings.

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, I wasn't clear about it in the post above, but I agree that if it has changed in the way I think it has, then the changes make sense. Perhaps if they have loosened the criteria somewhat, the players won't mind the details being released late, even if the media might object. I certainly think that both the players' interests and good sense should be put ahead of any considerations about what the media might think.

korriban · Challenger level

So the above 250 plus exceptional circumstances would suggest. Ward, Evans, Corrie and Edmund once again......similar to Queen's. And Konta, Moore and Baltacha, Keothavong for the women.

For both men and women, hope we might see some more imaginative WCs for Eastbourne, not just the above 4. Ward-Hibbert wouldnt surprise me now.

I wish that there were 2 worthy causes on either mens' or womens' who might stake a strong claim beyond this, but there aren't any. Klein can't be picked without a storm, and Sam/Lisa have had a good few tournaments to push on and get their ranking up where it needs to be, but haven't done so.

But the new criteria gives the selection committee almost complete freedom, should they need it.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Murray is top 250 also so shouldn't be overlooked on the womens side.

korriban · Challenger level

PaulM wrote:
Murray is top 250 also so shouldn't be overlooked on the womens side.

I know, but her case probably needed to be more compelling to dislodge the status quo......personally I would prefer to see Sam and Lisa take the places of Bally and Anne (future focus, not past/loyalty focus), but the LTA won't go down this route, as it would create a bit of a storm.

Peter too · Tennis legend

When it comes to wild cards in big tournaments like GS you have to remember that tennis is a business and the organisers want to maximise revenue. If local players encourage more spectators, more advertisers and more sponsors then local players will get most/all of the wild cards.

korriban · Challenger level

PaulM wrote:
korriban wrote:
I know, but her case probably needed to be more compelling to dislodge the status quo......personally I would prefer to see Sam and Lisa take the places of Bally and Anne (future focus, not past/loyalty focus), but the LTA won't go down this route, as it would create a bit of a storm.
Sorry Korriban, I'm really struggling to follow what you are saying here. Sam is top 250, so there isn't a status quo to be dislodged or any compelling case that needs to be made by or for her? Whether or not she gets a wildcard is nothing to do with replacing someone else or widening the scope of the criteria to include her. Are you trying to suggest that being top 250 is not enough for Sam and there needs to be some other justification when the LTA meet to decide their nominations to go to the AELTC for them to decide to put her on the MDWC list?
In the past the 250 Rule has been applied without question (in that if you are in it, you get the wild card).
If she was out the top 250 then my view, and it is the same with Lisa, is that she shouldn't get one as there are no mitigating factors.
Bally and Anne, along with Tara and JoKo are top 250 and so meet the requisite criteria to be put forward.
The only time things start getting cloudy is if players outside the top 250 are nominated by the LTA, which I can't see happening on the women's side as there are enough players at that level to give good representation.
On the men's, they will, if they want to get the numbers up, need to relax the criteria and come up with some vague justification for each person (and for not including others).
As Steven has said, the criteria seems to have been (deliberately?) widened this year to give additional flexibility to include non-top 250 people.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 10th of June 2013 08:23:41 AM

If you are right, then Sam Murray automatically gets a WC. Hope so.

However, you are completely incorrect that anyone inside 250 automatically gets a WC (even though I agree that one could, and should, draw that conclusion from reading the LTA's own criteria for recommendation). Just ask Alex Bogdanovic.

indiana · Tennis legend

Although I personally think top 250 should be enough in itself, I don't think the LTA has ever said that top 250 players WILL get MD WC recommendations.

"players need to be ranked within the top 250....to be recommended..." sets a necessary minimum condition ( other than the exceptions ) for a recommendation, but I think they have been careful to never say that it will in itself bring a recommendation.

As Steven suggests I am pretty sure that the "exceptional rankings rise" is new and "the exceptional circumstances may involve..." I think a new catch all wording to include other possible circumstances such as say Evo's Davis Cup exploits. I think they previously said something like "the only exceptions will be..".( which they then broke on occasion ! )

i