Wild Cards

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Wild Cards

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

No one should be getting into the main draw of a tournament on the back of agents power - it should be banned! It won't be - but it should be! So what if it would take Kyle Edmunds another 18 months to experience the top level of tennis without wild cards? The vast majority of players on the tour - some of them just as talented as Edmunds is, or his agent thinks he is - have to slog their guts out to climb the rankings and earn their way into the main tour events. Or is Edmunds and his agent so arrogant that they should be excluded from that process? As for Sock - would he made the top 100 without wild cards? If he wasn't American where so many tournaments are played, where would he be now?

Having said that, I am not against wild cards into regular tournaments in situations where you need to try and boost local interest where it needs all the potential revenue it can get or is in more need of potential revenue than say the grand slams/TMS events where I really do think the system needs some serious overhaul. Sometimes I find myself in complete agreement with Jose Higueras in that there should be no wild cards at all as I think it is such an affront to the meritocratic system that tennis is supposed to promote and at times quite frankly, stinks. However, where grand slams are concerned, I'm not sure I could be quite hard line enough to ban them completely but if it was a choice between that and what we have now, then a complete ban would win hands down. Handing out 8 wild cards to such important events is ridiculous and getting in because of a deal between two different national federations is totally unfair against other countries - particularly those who do not host a grand slam and/or host so few regular tour events. Think about it for a minute - you've slogged your guts out to reach a ranking of 105, maybe for the first time, and eager for a chance to play in a grand slam main draw, earn grand slam prize money, earn grand slam points, and yet you are packed off to qualifying whilst mainly a pack of other players, mostly ranked well below you receive favorable treatment just because they happen to reside in the country that is hosting that slam - it stinks! This really ****es me off, and I hope the other players go after the Slam runners for this.

If it was left to me I would increase the cut off to say 110 and allow 2 wild cards per singles event (max) and restrict those to say former top 10/20 (maybe top 50 if their homegrown) whose ranking has slipped due to time out of the game through injury/illness etc and are on the comeback trial. Or if he or she might be the defending champion. Everyone else would just have to play qualifying and earn their way in including juniors (promising or not). If they are that good - in the eyes of some - then they will prove it like Kyle Edmund should have done last year - really don't see what the problem is with this. If this means that we might see even less homegrown players in the main draw of grand slam events then tough. As for top 250 rule that Wimbledon impose - well I agree with John Lloyd in that it just a joke. Players can easily manipulate their ranking by playing softer events and once there could easily continue to play the softer tournaments to protect their ranking and not risk playing higher quality events - jockeying for position and all that. My proposal would go some way to eliminate all that. There is far too much scope for bias and favoritism in the current system and anyone defending it is not someone I'd like to share breakfast with - or vice versa!

At least in the Football World Cup we are spared wild cards unless you count the defending champions and host nation but then again that's a slightly different situation where the host nation could potentially spend millions over many years to build new stadia, promoting the tournament, new infrastructure and need to recoup some of that investment by having their own national team participate - and at least it is only one team. None of this well our U18 side played very well in the junior world cup recently and deserve a spot in the tournament or this team played very well the last time the tournament was held in this continent or played a very good game in a friendly against the European Champions a couple of months back (which is often the sentiment that drives wild cards). You either win through the qualifying event or forget it - there would be uproar if wc's were introduced and quite rightly to - and I really think we should adopt more of that approach when discussing getting into the main draw of a grand slam. Fair and simple.

Rant over!

indiana · Tennis legend

I agree with much of what you say, A131.

But if anything does stink, it is the system. It is not really the agents for doing their best for their clients ( and themselves ), and even moreso I would not criticise players for taking advantage of this, nor suggest that Kyle may be arrogant ( I don't know if that is on the strength of a non direct quote in the article re supposedly thinking he belongs ).

That said, a few of us have previously suggested that Kyle's various WCs have made for a 'messy' less structured season in his ongoing development.

EddietheEagle · County player

You can buy a wild card into a challenger if you have the right contacts. And Wimbledon itself hasn't exactly set a good example with its practice of dishing out wildcards to perennial losers.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

There's been lots of wildcard discussion on other threads (and I'm a supporter, as a spectator) but this article gives one guy's analysis of why they are such a bad idea, with good examples:

tennisnerds.com/2014/02/16/wild-cards-coveted-and-appealing-but-are-they-beneficial/

(It's a follow-up on Spectator's Cox/Jared link)

Makes a good argument for A131 and the others who are, maybe quite rightly, anti-wildcards.

Ratty · County player

Coup Droit wrote:
There's been lots of wildcard discussion on other threads (and I'm a supporter, as a spectator) but this article gives one guy's analysis of why they are such a bad idea, with good examples:

tennisnerds.com/2014/02/16/wild-cards-coveted-and-appealing-but-are-they-beneficial/

Makes a good argument for A131 and the others who are, maybe quite rightly, anti-wildcards.

Well, I completely agree with the conclusions that wildcards are a Bad Thing, but the article suffers from the human tendency to draw conclusions from too little information. As any scientist would say: "The plural of anecdote is not data".

indiana · Tennis legend

But these are interesting and relevant examples, probably ones that many people here would have in mind, indeed some have quite often been mentioned, particularly Donald Young.

The article is making no claims to be some sort of scientific study, although making in my mind many fair and interesting points. And it doesn't need many extreme counter examples of American and also to an extent other Slam nations' players as against very similarly ranked players from other countries. This is a case of quality examples arguably proving a case ( certainly pointing out real issues ) as against the need for quantity of data.

Indeed, I am not quite sure what sort of data would be really interesting / relevant here, and add a great deal to these high profile examples. Suggestions, Ratty ?

I like statistics and data generally, but there are often situations that can be put into a very clear context with a few examples. I think this is one.

I actually think that already many ( most ? ) supporters of WCs recognise that if you start comparing players and countries there is a very clear argument for unfairness ( you really don't need loads of data to show this ). What supporters of WCs bring to the discussion is often such as what they consider many WCs bring to a tournament and spectators. And on some points it is just differences in outlook rather than any argument over data.

indiana · Tennis legend

PS : I accept that apart from unfairness, there is a theme to the article about often receiving many WCs not been helpful to players' development, and indeed mentions research on this.

Perhaps some might be interested in any such research data, but to me the article did not need this, though my personal interest / emphasis is more on the unfairness element, most particularly in the awarding of MD WCs in Slams, the pinnacle of tennis.

paulisi · Tennis legend

I'd be tempted to tighten the Wimbledon WC ruling.

GB players 150 ranked or better - fine
GB players 150-250 - must have won main draw match in grass challenger/tour event against non-GB player in last 24 months

Doubles
Must have played 3 doubles matches from Jan onwards and at least one with the partner for Wimbledon.

indiana · Tennis legend

While I don't think anyone should be getting a Slam WC based on nationality, yes WR 150 rather than WR 250 ( a level that is struggling to merit entry into qualifying for others ) would be significantly more acceptable to me.

Ratty · County player

indiana wrote:
But these are interesting and relevant examples, probably ones that many people here would have in mind, indeed some have quite often been mentioned, particularly Donald Young.

The article is making no claims to be some sort of scientific study, although making in my mind many fair and interesting points. And it doesn't need many extreme counter examples of American and also to an extent other Slam nations' players as against very similarly ranked players from other countries. This is a case of quality examples arguably proving a case ( certainly pointing out real issues ) as against the need for quantity of data.

Indeed, I am not quite sure what sort of data would be really interesting / relevant here, and add a great deal to these high profile examples. Suggestions, Ratty ?

The problem with the article is that the author starts with the hypothesis that "wildcards are bad for a player", and then data-mines for examples to support the hypothesis. There may be examples of players who have received wildcards and have gone to to great things, but he does not tell us about them because this would invalidate the hypothesis.

There is also a sort of circularity in the hypothesis, because receiving lots of wildcards would normally mean that the player is not doing as well as expected. if they were doing well, they would not need them. However, this does not mean that the wildcards have caused the lack of success - and to say so would be confusing correlation and causation.

The author also "supports" his data with some ludicrous speculations: "Ryan wants to be great, you can see it in his eyes every time he plays"; "Harrison has it engrained in his mind that he should be playing at tour level"; "being handed everything certainly contributed to that attitude and persona". There is no evidence whatever to support these statements.

Anyway, my apologies for being an anorak (again smile ).

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

paulisi wrote:
I'd be tempted to tighten the Wimbledon WC ruling.

GB players 150 ranked or better - fine
GB players 150-250 - must have won main draw match in grass challenger/tour event against non-GB player in last 24 months

Doubles
Must have played 3 doubles matches from Jan onwards and at least one with the partner for Wimbledon.

I agree with Indy on this one is that I can perhaps accept the first suggestion (not perfect - but I could accept it - only just though) but certainly not the second because:-

a) 24 months is far too long a period and

b) no one should get in on the strength of winning one match (irrespective of who might have been against and even if it was only 12 months ago). If that really did come into practice GB players could/would potentially get WC's based on a victory against any overseas ranked 200 plus/150 plus in the world - complete farce.

Not read the whole article but look forward to.

EddietheEagle · County player

The 'truth' on wildcards lies somewhere in that broad spectrum which ranges from Ivanisovic using his uniquely to win Wimbledon and Alex Bogdanovic turning up eight times in a row to collect his annual annuity.

I can see a place for wildcards in lesser ATP events where a marquee or local name would add considerable interest. The criteria there would differ somewhat from their more questionable (mis)use in Wimbledon where they often seem to function as little more than a means of providing financial subsidy to otherwise unremarkable players.

RJA · Hall of fame

Perhaps if Grand Slam wild cards were reduced to 4 they would be used better. Perhaps a couple going to promising youngsters from the host country but examples such as Boggo's 8 wild cards (nothing against Boggo of course) would likely be eliminated.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

EddietheEagle wrote:
The 'truth' on wildcards lies somewhere in that broad spectrum which ranges from Ivanisovic using his uniquely to win Wimbledon and Alex Bogdanovic turning up eight times in a row to collect his annual annuity.

I can see a place for wildcards in lesser ATP events where a marquee or local name would add considerable interest. The criteria there would differ somewhat from their more questionable (mis)use in Wimbledon where they often seem to function as little more than a means of providing financial subsidy to otherwise unremarkable players.

I totally agree Edd. Only it's not just Wimbledon that needs to change and in fairness they are not quite as bad as the other slam nations (eg reciprocal arrangements between the other 3 and at least one merit-based WC in the form of the Nottingham Challenge winners, whatever nationality they may be, and they have to win even more matches than those in qualifying instead of this bias towards the American who performs the best over a series of tournaments, or the Australian who performs the best over a series of tournaments or a WC playoff that only comprises of players from the home nation rather than across the world, and who would struggle to qualify for the qualifying event). But Wimbledon are bad enough. Any tournament that keeps awarding wild cards to the same players year after year, who by world standards, barring the odd exception, achieve nothing of note year after year needs examining as far as I'm concerned.

The whole process of awarding wild cards at all grand slam events needs to be reviewed - it won't in the immediate future I know but it should be. I think RJA is on the right lines regarding reducing them to 4. I certainly do not see any good, compelling reason to award 8 - it is just ridiculous.

Having read the article, which I do remember reading now some time ago, what I find astonishing is at the end where it mentions that some of the top players now,(Djokovic, Berdych and Ferrer amongst them) received so few and in some cases no wild cards before their 25th birthday. Collectively they did not get much help. James Ward, if you count Eastbourne and Queens, probably received twice nearly three times what they did before he turned 25 and he's still not cracked the top 100. Kyle Edmund has already received about 5 maybe more, so has Dan Evans - even Tara Moore has now received at least two. This is why I have little sympathy for British players who rarely survive round 1 at Wimbledon or refuse to become excited just because they might have played well for a set and a bit and why I don't completely accept some of the arguments given on previous threads as justification for them being there.

Of course they are bound to accept a WC if it's being offered but I think they should also accept that questions might be asked or even accept some criticism should they keep losing. They can't have it both ways.