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

Ratty · County player

RE: Wimbledon 2013

indiana · Tennis legend

I am pretty sure re the initial likely 8 Brit WCs ( MD plus Q ), GB's currently ranked 3 to 8 will take up 6 of them ( MD for Sam and Lisa being top 250 dependant ) and Naomi probably the 7th, as a QWC.

The 8th seems open to someone really stepping up to the plate. I had thought EWS, but I think she needs to show more form.

Re Ratty's comments, on balance for Grand Slams, I think direct entry to the main draw should be by ranking only ( including PRs ).

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

£23,500 pales in comparison to a footballers salary. At least tennis players are good role models - they show commitment and hard work from a very young age and have the downside of constant travelling (unsettling, additional costs etc.) that more than justifies a hefty pay packet every so often. By comparison the footballers that the youth tend to idolise are constantly acting above the law (speeding in their flashy sports cars), swear, spit, BITE, dive, get photographed falling out of clubs at all hours, have affairs with their brothers wives and all the rest of it.

Nobody has earned the right to play in the MD unless they are a DA and I've never heard any players moan about the use of WC. Stop begrudging the British players - the UK didnt win a raffle to host a GS, Wimbledon has been built up over many generations and is one of the key events responsible for turning tennis into the global sport that it is. If the Swiss Tennis Association had invested years upon years of time, effort and energy into creating an event on the same level as Wimbledon I would not begrudge them the right to issue WC to majority Swiss players, they do not begrudge us the right to do so and its about time you found a way to come to peace with it.

Peter too · Tennis legend

I saw an assessment some while ago that a British girl needed to get into the top 120 in the world to make a living from tennis prize money. So at present we have only two girls who are good enough to survive without hand out from sponsors, advertisers, parents, LTA, etc.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Ratty wrote:
Holy crap - it's now £23,500 for losing in the first round! That's not far short of the average annual earnings in the UK.
I'm afraid I think - more than ever - that this Wild Card nonsense sucks big time. It's arbitrary, capricious, and grossly unfair - not just to Brits who miss out, but to players ranked 109 - 116 from other countries who've EARNED the right to play.

Wild cards are most often given to players who the organisers think will attract attention.

Have you ever tried getting near any of the Wimbledon outside courts when a Brit is playing, Ratty? You need to be there very early and have very sharp elbows - and often even that is not enough.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

Madeline wrote:
Ratty wrote:
Holy crap - it's now 23,500 for losing in the first round! That's not far short of the average annualearnings in the UK.
I'm afraid I think - more than ever - that this Wild Card nonsense sucks big time. It's arbitrary, capricious, and grossly unfair - not just to Brits who miss out, but to players ranked 109 - 116 from other countries who've EARNED the right to play.
Wild cards are most often given to players who the organisers think will attract attention.
Have you ever tried getting near any of the Wimbledon outside courts when a Brit is playing, Ratty? You need to be there very early and have very sharp elbows - and often even that is not enough.

I was just going to add this. Wimbledon is a business at the end of the day and asking somebody to pay to watch #109 vs #84 isnt going to generate attention. Factor a Brit into that instead and suddenly the court is rammed and its amazing how word spreads throughout the grounds - often with the help of the scoreboards - when a Brit is playing well.

My other argument would be Laura Robson. If WC didnt exist 2012 would have been the first time we would have seen Laura at senior Wimbledon - 4 years after winning the juniors! This would have meant losing memorable matches against Hantuchova, Jankovic and Sharapova, as well as Laura's win over (now #6 in the world) Kerber. The buzz that her matches created brings a lot of encouragement to fans for the future of British tennis and may well have encouraged a whole host of British juniors to go out and give tennis a go. WC may be worth £23k to the player, but when awarded wisely they are worth a whole load more to the event.

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, it does, and Colin puts it all very well, as you would expect.

It also shows (to me, at least - some of you will no doubt disagree) how ridiculous it is that the way things work at the moment (i.e. that you make far more money by being a Tour-level doubles player than by being a good Challenger-level singles player, when the latter probably requires more talent and determination unless we are talking about the very top doubles players), Colin would have had to be mad (in the economic sense) to have continued to follow his singles dream once he was able to play tour-level doubles regularly.

I don't blame Colin for making the decision he did (far from it, in fact), it just seems a bit crazy that the system makes that decision the only sensible one, unless of course you're Freddie Nielsen, whom I did respect for saying what he did after Wimbledon even though he doesn't really seem to have followed up on it.

The real scandal, to my mind, is that the LTA are funding doubles players, many of whom will have made the decision to specialise in doubles for economic reasons in the first place, instead of concentrating funding on those trying to do the much harder job of making it in singles. I'm not saying Josh Goodall should be funded necessarily, but he was spot on earlier this year when he said it felt like a real kick in the teeth to see lots of doubles players getting Team AEGON funding when the GB no. 2 singles player (as I think he was at the time) wasn't getting any. I suppose it all comes down to them wanting to count as many top 100 players as possible and not making the distinction between singles and doubles when they do so ...

indiana · Tennis legend

Well said re LTA funding of doubles vs singles, Steven.

indiana · Tennis legend

Re MD WCs in Grand Slams, I understand all what folk have said re the pluses for British players and spectators ( and similarly for ther countries with Grand Slams ) and it's not that biggee a one for me. Get into the top 100 and a bit and you get into a Slam OK.

Just on balance, at the supreme Grand Slam level of the sport, I just consider that direct entry should be absolutely merit based.

I know I'm very much in the minority !

...and I'll be discussing these WC possibilities and cheering them on as much as anyone, because we are where we are ( and it won't be changing any time soon, or probably ever ) and I want to see British success.

wolf · Tennis legend

My guesses for doubles wild cards would be main draw Baltacha/Keothavong, Moore/South, Slater/Konta and Murrray/EWS and for qualifying Broady/Whybourn and Fitzpatrick/Windley.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Other than at Fed Cup, Wimbledon and the Olympics of course.

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 29th of April 2013 11:18:44 AM

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I'm sure the other slams give wild cards to players ranked as far as 400. Surely the likes of Lisa Sam Naomi in the women's and Ed Josh Evo on the men's should get them as well purely just for financial boost given that a lot of our top 400 players don't seem to be funded. And especially in the men's side given the lack of challengers in the men's in UK.

LordBrownof · Futures level

Bally gave up doubles 2 years ago.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I'd rather see Jade and Anna get the wild card Anne and Bally don't really merit it and Jade and Anna are regular winners even if it is just at futures.

Bob the Ball Boy · Junior player

hi everyone- another new user here! have been reading this site for a while but never contributed till now... but as a massive fan of the wimbe wc debates thought i might join in for once!

interesting year, as ever, and some great points being brought up especially re wimbledon being a business and therefore WCs, rightly or wrongly, going to those who maybe deserve it less than higher ranked foreigners. There are a few things that stand out to me....

1. i agree more spectators would be interested in watching a british player ranked 400 in the world, rather than a foreigner ranked 100... but the reality is that the majority of these spectators will queue overnight/buy these in advance regardless of the order of play. Once they are in the ground they are probably more inclined to watch the british players but i don't think this generates much/any extra revenue for the tournament= not a huge factor. Slightly different if they are on a ticketed court playing against a seed, but again- stadiums usually fill up as tickets go on sales months in advance, before WCs are even announced= not a huge factor.

2. whether you think point 1 is valid or not- is giving all the WCs (minus those reserved for past junior champion etc etc) to british players a good thing for the state of british tennis? throwing players into arguably the biggest tournament in the world can act as a real kickstart to some careers, but can also have the complete opposite effect and really knock your confidence if you aren't ready for a stage so big- and i mean 'ready' both in a physical and emotional sense. i would want to see WCs given to players who can actually win a match, not just those who need the paycheck or who may not get the chance again. imagine 6 british women losing first round- the media would have a field day. (Not that I give very much respect to the media coverage of british tennis, but trust me, the players still read it and it can be very damaging.)

3. following on from that- what would I deem as 'deserving' and showing promise of winning a match or even progressing further?? I think the 250 rule is totally nuts.... for a start it encourages players to choose a schedule which gives them an inflated ranking *cough* webley-smith. This in turn means some players may miss out because they didn't hit that target due to tough draws, a poor spell 9 months ago etc etc. Being 250 in the world doesn't mean you are good enough for wimbledon, and being outside of 250 doesn't mean you're not. Then, the exception for juniors- you can't have a set rule of 'top 250', then add a discretionary element into it for juniors, injuries etc... a rule is a rule and if you aren't going to stick to it then don't have it- i vote DON'T HAVE IT. I'd rather see those on their way up who have proven they can live with the girls at that level being given the opportunity to play a grand slam in preparation of what might be or even as an incentive to work their ass off to get to that level full time, instead of those who have peaked/are on their way down. After all.... if you aren't in the draw by merit then no one owes you anything... WCs shouldn't be used up just because they are there.

Okay, so those aren't exactly brief points, and I could still go on ranting for longer... but don't worry, I won't!! I don't claim to be an expert- this is just what I'd be taking into consideration if it was my job to choose. Since it is most definitely not my job, I can only speculate!!! Based on the above, I'd be giving main draw WCs to Annie K, Konta, Moore, Whybourn, Murray (in that order of preference)

In terms of qualies WCs, I'd be much more lenient- either giving those not quite at that level a chance to prove themselves and work their way to the main draw e.g. Mel South, Broady, Baltacha (obviously dependent on her ranking as she may get in on merit), then potentially some juniors. Having said that- I think the WC playoffs is a great system... OK you can have a shocker in a one off match, but the pressure replicates what you would feel in a real tournament and makes the players fight for their place in the draw- Massive fan of someone like Katy Dunne working her way through the draw and earning a qualies WC last year- think she's a great prospect and getting exposure to the level required without the pressure of potentially playing someone top 20 first round main draw is a perfect stepping stone and learning experience for our younger girls.

Find it difficult to comment on the doubles as you have some pairs teaming up purely for wimbe who may deserve it/be better than other, more established pairings, but then how do you judge this if they haven't played together much before? Tough decision I think... Murray/Webley, Windley/Fitzpatrick have had good, consistent results but is that enough to justify a MD wildcard.... I'm going to refrain from commenting on this one I think!!

Apologies for the long post & feel free to agree, disagree, argue or just ignore any or all of what I just said haha :)