Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon men's main draw (grass)

baxi2 · Lower Club Player

RE: Weeks 26 & 27: Wimbledon men's main draw (grass)

denver23 · Social player

bookerman wrote:
Maybe so but if this was 2005 a certain Andy Murray would not have got to the 3rd round if he wasn't handed a wild card since he was ranked in the 300s at the time.

So what! - how do you know that he wouldn't have come through qualifying and then still go on to reach the third round? Still doesn't mean Kyle Edmund should get one.

thegingerlightbulb · Intermediate Club Player

Miles McClagan vs Boris Becker; Goran vs Chris Bailey, Arvind Palmer (though he was probably ranked inside the top 250) on several occasions; Barry Cowan vs Pete Sampras; Jonny Marray in 2005. All were Wildcards (I think) and all gave us great matches and memories. I'm not saying fill the draw with Brits. But 3 or 4 wildcards isn't that unfair surely!

SMC1809 · All-time great

Denver, I'm getting the impression that you're not keen on wildcards. Now sure why I get this feeling, it's just a hunch.

denver23 · Social player

baxi2 wrote:
If the player can compete at the appropriate level then WCs can be very productive in bypassing the lower rankings as quickly as possible . The problem is that wild cards sometimes go to players who really don't have the level. An example of this from a few years ago would be Andy Murray and also Ross Hutchins. They both had many, many wild cards each throughout there careers with Andy definitely having the level but no disrespect to Ross Hutchins I'm not sure why he was given so many. Kyle obviously has the talent and he will benefit hugely through the short cuts offered by the wild cards.

Edmund does have talent (not saying he hasn't) but probably so do a lot of other players, but they have to work their way up rankings and I don't see why he should be any different. Djokovic had talent and I don't remember him being showered with wild cards as he was climbing the rankings. Jiri Veseley, who recently qualified for the French Open, can clearly play at that level - I know he did not get through Wimbledon qualifying but he clearly has talent and is still only 19 and just outside the top 100 and just as deserving as Edmund, but unfortunately for him he does not hail from the UK so is disadvantaged, which imho is totally unfair.

denver23 · Social player

SMC1809 wrote:
Denver, I'm getting the impression that you're not keen on wildcards. Now sure why I get this feeling, it's just a hunch.

HA HA HA - like that SMC - GETTING THINGS OFF MY CHEST - WILDCARDS INTO ROOM 101!!! ONLY GS EVENTS THOUGH - NOT OPPOSED TO NORMAL TOUR EVENTS.

SMC1809 · All-time great

Yes, but surely the crux is that I would go to watch Kyle, but wouldn't go to watch Jiri, and the majority of British tennis fans would feel the same. I don't want to watch someone deserving, I want to watch a British player. Unfair? Yes. Does it bother me? No.

SMC1809 · All-time great

Having said that, I'd be happier if the wildcards weren't getting such a huge financial leg-up. I would agree that their expenses should be covered but the financial reward that goes with a GS wildcard is slightly obscene.

denver23 · Social player

SMC1809 wrote:
If there wasn't any prize money, would you be less opposed to Wildcards?

Hello again SMC - just picked this up.

Not sure if you follow American Football on Channel 4 but as Mike Carlson often says 'That's an interesting Question'. And a good one imho!

It's an idea that has been raised before - not often, but it has been raised. I think as far as the players are concerned it might give encourage them to go through qualifying. Josh Goodall more or less admitted that he needed the money last year if I remember correctly but feel free to correct me. But to answer it directly I would still be opposed, maybe not quite to the same degree admittedly. I don't think there is anything better than getting in on merit or coming through qualifying.

Would really love to see what would happen in practice!

Jeff Stelling · Club Coach

Denver should check out the WCs in the Dubai ATP 500 every year. Think it'd cause the silly sausage to have a coronary.

RJA · Hall of fame

Jeff Stelling wrote:
Denver should check out the WCs in the Dubai ATP 500 every year. Think it'd cause the silly sausage to have a coronary.

Nope, Denver has made clear that he doesn't have a problem with wild cards for ordinary tour events so presumably he is happy for unranked Emiratis to get a wild card there.

In fairness Dubai are pretty good with their wild cards, it is Doha where you get really laughable wild cards.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

A question to the stat hounds re Kyle's "Race to London" ranking.

In one of the other threads, Steven posted a list of those Brits who had scored 50 points of more this year. Kyle was listed as having 55 points, which is correct if you include the 20 from Eastbourne that are not yet on the ATP Rankings table.

Yet in the "Race to London" stats on the ATP site, it says his total is 45 (Eastbourne not included) giving him a "race" ranking of 379 and yet when you add up the "Rankings Breakdown" it clearly comes to 35. This would tally with Steven's figure once the Eastbourne points go on to the system on Monday.

So where does the 45 come from ? My only guess is that it already includes 10 points for a 1st round at Wimbledon. But does a WC still get 10 points for a 1st round loss ? I thought you actually had to win a match to qualify for any points.

steven · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
A question to the stat hounds re Kyle's "Race to London" ranking.

In one of the other threads, Steven posted a list of those Brits who had scored 50 points of more this year. Kyle was listed as having 55 points, which is correct if you include the 20 from Eastbourne that are not yet on the ATP Rankings table.

Yet in the "Race to London" stats on the ATP site, it says his total is 45 (Eastbourne not included) giving him a "race" ranking of 379 and yet when you add up the "Rankings Breakdown" it clearly comes to 35. This would tally with Steven's figure once the Eastbourne points go on to the system on Monday.

So where does the 45 come from ? My only guess is that it already includes 10 points for a 1st round at Wimbledon. But does a WC still get 10 points for a 1st round loss ? I thought you actually had to win a match to qualify for any points.

Taking each of the last 3 paragraphs in turn.

1) Yes, my figure includes the 20 points from Eastbourne.

2) The race rankings go from just before the previous year's WTF, so the 45 includes Kyle's 10 points for reaching the Final in Niceville in November (but not yet the Eastbourne points, obviously) - strangely, his race breakdown page on the ATP site http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ed/K/Kyle-Edmund.aspx?t=rb&ytd=y does not show this (the points there add up to 35 even though it says the total is 45 at the top) but Niceville is definitely where the extra 10 points come from.

Although it's obvious why they do this for the race (though it only affects those likely to be in contention for WTF if they play in the Davis Cup Final just after the previous year's WTF), most players take their main break in December, so I think it is more relevant for our purposes to count from when the new season really starts at the turn of the year.

3) As far as I know, WCs in the men's event at slams who go out in R1 still get no points.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

steven wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
A question to the stat hounds re Kyle's "Race to London" ranking.

In one of the other threads, Steven posted a list of those Brits who had scored 50 points of more this year. Kyle was listed as having 55 points, which is correct if you include the 20 from Eastbourne that are not yet on the ATP Rankings table.

Yet in the "Race to London" stats on the ATP site, it says his total is 45 (Eastbourne not included) giving him a "race" ranking of 379 and yet when you add up the "Rankings Breakdown" it clearly comes to 35. This would tally with Steven's figure once the Eastbourne points go on to the system on Monday.

So where does the 45 come from ? My only guess is that it already includes 10 points for a 1st round at Wimbledon. But does a WC still get 10 points for a 1st round loss ? I thought you actually had to win a match to qualify for any points.
Taking each of the last 3 paragraphs in turn.
1) Yes, my figure includes the 20 points from Eastbourne.

2) The race rankings go from just before the previous year's WTF, so the 45 includes Kyle's 10 points for reaching the Final in Niceville in November (but not yet the Eastbourne points, obviously) - strangely, his race breakdown page on the ATP site http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ed/K/Kyle-Edmund.aspx?t=rb&ytd=y does not show this (the points there add up to 35 even though it says the total is 45 at the top) but Niceville is definitely where the extra 10 points come from.
Although it's obvious why they do this for the race (though it only affects those likely to be in contention for WTF if they play in the Davis Cup Final just after the previous year's WTF), most players take their main break in December, so I think it is more relevant for our purposes to count from when the new season really starts at the turn of the year.
3) As far as I know, WCs in the men's event at slams who go out in R1 still get no points.

Mystery solved. Thanks.

Your point 2 first paragraph explains the mystery but creates another one. Why oh why do the ATP include them in the total but then NOT show them in the breakdown ? That one might be harder to explain wink

LouieG · County player

Life is unfair, deal with it