Week 24 - Wimbledon wildcard play-offs - grass

Bob the Ball Boy · Junior player

RE: Week 24 - Wimbledon wildcard play-offs - grass

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Bob the Ball Boy wrote:
cant believe they gave one to katy and not harriet... im of the opinion katy is in better form and a better player at the moment, but still thats really unfair surely?? the whole point of playoffs is to give everyone an equal chance of getting a wildcard so if they have two spare then give it to both of them? and if they were hell bent on giving one to emily then at least have some sort of playoff match?? especially seeing as harriet had just lost a tight three set battle, she must be gutted

I think Harriet's only 16, is not ranked and already playing the Juniors, and that's what she should concentrate on. She'll have plenty of time to try out in the big arena. Sooner isn't necessarily better. Just my opinion, of course . . .

Bob the Ball Boy · Junior player

im not saying she would have a good chance of winning a match im just saying the system is wrong... i like the idea of a playoff but if you have 2 losing semi finalists you can't give one a wc and not the other... either none or both or a 3rd/4th playoff match... i have seen harriet play a lotttttt and she has just a good a chance of winning a match as most of our girls in the qualies so i just think if you are going to make an exception for katy, you should make one for harriet too... playing wimbe qualies makes absolutely no difference to her scheduling of roehampton & wimbledon juniors so she can still concentrate on those tournaments... sooner isnt necessarily better you are right, but the first time you play a grand slam event is a daunting occassion so surely if shes one we want to be winning rounds there in a year or twos time we would want her the exposure that she has arguably earnt? just my opinion of course, and its not so much based on the actual players involved, just dont think the lta have gone about it very fairly

korriban · Challenger level

Harriet certainly seemed to take it badly on the day, based on a very understandable tweet......paraphrasing it was something on the lines of "life is sh*t!"

At the time, I thought it was a case of pure disappointment after losing a very tight 3 set FQR match against a far more experienced player 5-7 in the third.....so near and yet so far....but I hadn't twigged that the other losing FQR player had been offered a QWC, but not her.

That does seem VERY harsh indeed. Either you offer neither (which would have been fine) or both. Age shouldn't come into it.

Bob the Ball Boy · Junior player

korriban wrote:
Harriet certainly seemed to take it badly on the day, based on a very understandable tweet......paraphrasing it was something on the lines of "life is sh*t!"
At the time, I thought it was a case of pure disappointment after losing a very tight 3 set FQR match against a far more experienced player 5-7 in the third.....so near and yet so far....but I hadn't twigged that the other losing FQR player had been offered a QWC, but not her.
That does seem VERY harsh indeed. Either you offer neither (which would have been fine) or both. Age shouldn't come into it.

yes... this is what i meant... really harsh to have just lost in what was an extremely tight match and could have swung either way and then find out the girl who lost on the court next to you still got one and you didn't!!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I agree that the LTA handled it very badly (although the net outcome, in my view, is correct).

My guess is that they wanted to give Katy a WC whatever. And she probably justified it.

But in that case they should have done what they did in the men's i.e. they gave Josh WH a WC, even though he was 900th or so and plenty of men higher than him were having to play the play-offs or not even making the play-offs. Those guys may well have been miffed but it seems reasonable to give one WC to your best, up and coming youngster.

So, yes, I think they should have given Katy a WC beforehand, then she wouldn't have played the play-offs,, leaving two places open for Q places, as promised.

Bob the Ball Boy · Junior player

coup... if you noticed my earlier posts, i was a bit surprised they didn't give katy one straight up before pre qualies, so i agree totally with what you are saying!!

i think she deserved one and so im obviously not unhappy that she got one in the end... but once she was in the pre qualies draw, it's fair game to everyone involved so think what the lta did was wrong.

so yes- in summary, i agree totally

blob · All-time great

Katy's results in Senior events, beyond just last weeks, present a better case than Harriet's currently do .

I think Harriet gets overlooked on this forum quite a bit. Such as a recent discussion on which young girls were up and coming with any chance of progressing. Harriet did not appear until the final posts.

Those mentioned before Harriet were: Katy Dunne (4), Maia Lumsden (4), Katie Boulter(2), Anna Brogan (2), Anastasia Mikheeva, Jo Henderson, Daneika Borthwick, Nat Beazant, Sam Vickers, Mirabelle Njoze, Jazzi Plews, Gabi Taylor, Eleanor Dean

This is maybe because she's quite slight and everyone talks about power and 'weapons'.
I really like her though, and think she has a decent chance, she seems to have a pretty steely determination.
Also I think she has shown more real ability at this level rather than just potential than anyone in that list other than Katy. The Wimbledon play off is just another example.

But, in this case, I think if it came down a straight choice between one or the other I'd have certainly gone for Katy. Ideally a way for both to get favoured would be ideal.

Anyone thinking this is unfair, beyond a brief disappointment, may find the vicissitudes of life on tour a bit trying. I can imagine a Henin, or a Williams in the same situation just thinking - Right, I can only rely on myself. I'll show them. Next year there will be no doubt. I'll be there by right, my results will earn me a place. Hopefully Harriet, and others, take this sort of thinking forward.