Etienne wrote:

---

I think that the wild cards at Wimbledon are becoming more discerning already. Obviously last year 3 WCs weren't given for the women rather than handing them out to the likes of Moore, Dunne and Dart. Robson was obviously a special case and would have been given a WC by any country anywhere. Konta got hers on merit, and was unfortunate in her first round draw against Sharapova. Only N Broady could fell that she was fortunate.

For the men, Ward and L Broady obviously won, Edmund didn't but his French Open form merited a WC. Again, Klein might have been a bit borderline. But if it hadn't been him it would have been Kim Copperjans the top seed in qualifying who promptly lost in the first round of qualifying.

I think that the prospect of a Wimbledon WC is a great incentive to British players in the months beforehand.

---

I notice you are a relatively new poster, so I don't know whether you read the forum or not before deciding to post but irrespective of that the likes of Indy and myself are very much against players receiving wild cards at all Grand Slam events - not just Wimbledon. We both know that won't change anytime soon, we both know the reasons why they are handed out and we both know that we are in a minority. But nonetheless that is our view. As the Grand Slam events are considered the most prestigious of our sport then we feel that all players should earn their place in the draw rather than just have it handed to them which is what wild cards effectively do. If a player simply has performed well enough over the whole year, not just a bit of it, then they should simply go through qualifying and if there good enough they'll come through. So in effect we would simply increase the number of direct entries and if you are not ranked high enough at the cut off point then tough.

The only exceptions we would be prepared to make would be for former top ten/twenty players who have spent time out through injury/illness and have only recently returned to action (in which case we might have just allowed Laura Robson though she was only ranked 58 before she had her operation) or he or she is the defending champion. Certainly not so called 'promising juniors' - they should work their way up like everybody else. Don't mind them receiving a qualifying wild card but they should at least earn the right to be there.

As for as your comments go and at the risk of being pedantic or splitting hairs and you may not have meant to phrase it in such a way, but Konta did not get in on merit otherwise she wouldn't have needed a wild card. Fair enough if you feel that owing to her very recent form she merited a wild card (as many would agree with you) but she did not actually get in on merit (or receive direct entry at the appropriate cut off point if you prefer). It is also my belief that even if she had been knocked out the first round of qualifying at the French Open or failed to win a single match during the grass court season, she would still have received a wild card and for no other reason than for the fact she is British which again should not be any justification for somebody receiving a wild card at a grand slam but I'm well aware many disagree with that.

Liam Broady - well aware of what he did but would he have come through 3 rounds of qualifying? Has the fact that he has only won one match since perhaps give a bit of weight to the belief that he was just lucky to draw a player who was way out of form, out of shape and who has since slid down to below 200 in the rankings. As Indy says would Coppejans of Belgium beaten him on that day? All hypothetical I know but these are the questions I always ask and one of the reasons why I think they should be scrapped. Ward just got lucky and has not won a single match since as most of us know and Edmund, who I do think is a promising player, has already had 3 wild cards and yet to record a win. But, yes, I agree it must be a big incentive to British players.

Year in, year out, I get totally frustrated when I read threads on various tennis forums where posters argue over who should receive a wild card and who shouldn't. What has he/she done to warrant one etc etc. I just think that would it not be a lot simpler and fairer for all those who missed the cut off to go through qualifying? Then we'll find out who deserves to be in the main draw.

 

A131, Many thanks for the thoughtful post, I know it must be tedious repeating yourself for the benefit of new posters. I've been reading the forum for about a month, so long enough to get a feel for the place, but not to be familiar with views on every issue (naturalised players possibly being another contentious one!). I apologise in advance if what I say below is rehashing long-standing arguments.

I completely respect a philosophical objection to wild cards in general, or other than in exceptional circumstances. But I think they are a positive thing. For the tournament itself they offer the audience the chance to see some new faces, and some compatriots to cheer about. For players in general who aren't currently threatening the top 100 they offer the incentive to keep plugging away in the hope of a wild card which can transform their career (and finances).

I don't think the 110th ranked person in the world can claim to have earned the right to perform, they generally aren't significantly (any?) better than people ranked 10-15 places behind them, (as qualifying often demonstrates) and in any event have the chance to demonstrate they deserve to be there through the qualifiers. They might win marginally more matches than the WC, but the rankings suggest they shouldn't win that many matches or they'd be in the top 64.

With Konta, I said she got a WC on merit, and I stand by that.

Should Wildcards be given disproportionately to domestic players? I find it difficult to justify on philosophical grounds. But as I mentioned before, sport isn't simply about the best players in the world competing against each other, it is entertainment for those who attend and watch, and it's undeniable that some of the best atmosphere is created at Slams by a surprise success for a domestic player. Ward may have been lucky in Ferrer's withdrawal, but he still had to beat Vanni and Vesely, and it was a really heart-warming story. If you don't think much of Vanni as an opponent, well he would have been one of the people with a direct entry if the wild cards were got rid of (and I think Ward would have been first alternate and thus would have benefitted from Ferrer's injury either way!). Getting people enthused about sport is a tough business and I don't think we should squander opportunities to do so.

Incidentally, would you offer wildcards for qualifying?

Thanks, Etienne, for setting that out. Respect for your views, but fundamentally I disagee regarding Slam MD WCs, though I accept home WCs do generate more interest for many and it is something I have considered in the round, knowing it to be a big factor for many.

Absolutely I would offer Slam Q WCs to some very good up and coming players ( here's your chance in a Slam, young 'un, let's see you produce ) and to home players ( gives some of the better ones that chance to get to their home Slam MD, have the interest of following their efforts at Roehampton, and just by sheer numbers some good performances might get one or two to the MD ).

I would also offer MD WCs ( as well as Q WCs ) in other tournaments up to Masters / compulsory level ( I am a bit mixed on that level, but certainly below it ). As folk point out ( and I agree ) these help the up and comers more easily progress up the rankings to their more natural level and local additional interest may be much more economically important to the lower level tournaments.

But the elite Slam MDs - to me, these for entry by rank ( including PRs ) or qualifying and I possibly include in that some specific open separate tournaments or series of tournaments that offer Slam MD WCs based on success on the relevant surface leading into the Slam.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 25th of August 2015 05:22:08 PM

Etienne wrote:

---

But surely the same principle applies to Q WCs as main draw ones, it's just slightly lower ranked players who are being elbowed out. I mean, it's perfectly defensible as an argument on practical grounds, but I don't see where the philosophical line is drawn.

Incidentally, I very much like the idea that a player can earn a WC for tournaments leading up to the tournament, though that would obviously work better for the French and US Opens which have a longer run-up. The US does do it already I think, but only for domestic players. Mind you that can lead to unwelcome results - I think Wayne Odesnik got it in 2014.

---

 

The philisophical line for me is drawn at direct entry to the Slams, the elite level of tennis, to me for the best.

Once you don't agree with Slam MD WCs there clearly has to be a line unless we have no WCs in tennis  I wouldn't support that, and quite understand good reasons for many of these, so there has to be a line.

I am very happy in my own mind with this.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 25th of August 2015 05:29:47 PM

Just to jump in with a shout in Etienne's favour (partly because it's such a good French name ) but I'm in favour of wildcards.

Partly, illogically, just because I like the romance of them.

And, partly, because as Etienne implies, tennis - as the sport that we know and love - is business. And big business. It relies on mega TV rights, media spin-offs etc. As such, whether it is 'fair' or not, or the wildcard is 'deserved' or not, is not really the question - or certainly not the only question.

TV rights' purchasers like wildcards (mainly of domestic players - or, sometimes, 'big name' lower ranked players). It's like letting the home country for the football World Cup have automatic qualification. The public love it. And so business pays more. Which helps tennis (or those near the top, anyway).

Etienne wrote:

---

A131, Many thanks for the thoughtful post, I know it must be tedious repeating yourself for the benefit of new posters. I've been reading the forum for about a month, so long enough to get a feel for the place, but not to be familiar with views on every issue (naturalised players possibly being another contentious one!). I apologise in advance if what I say below is rehashing long-standing arguments.

I completely respect a philosophical objection to wild cards in general, or other than in exceptional circumstances. But I think they are a positive thing. For the tournament itself they offer the audience the chance to see some new faces, and some compatriots to cheer about. For players in general who aren't currently threatening the top 100 they offer the incentive to keep plugging away in the hope of a wild card which can transform their career (and finances).

I don't think the 110th ranked person in the world can claim to have earned the right to perform, they generally aren't significantly (any?) better than people ranked 10-15 places behind them, (as qualifying often demonstrates) and in any event have the chance to demonstrate they deserve to be there through the qualifiers. They might win marginally more matches than the WC, but the rankings suggest they shouldn't win that many matches or they'd be in the top 64.

With Konta, I said she got a WC on merit, and I stand by that.

Should Wildcards be given disproportionately to domestic players? I find it difficult to justify on philosophical grounds. But as I mentioned before, sport isn't simply about the best players in the world competing against each other, it is entertainment for those who attend and watch, and it's undeniable that some of the best atmosphere is created at Slams by a surprise success for a domestic player. Ward may have been lucky in Ferrer's withdrawal, but he still had to beat Vanni and Vesely, and it was a really heart-warming story. If you don't think much of Vanni as an opponent, well he would have been one of the people with a direct entry if the wild cards were got rid of (and I think Ward would have been first alternate and thus would have benefitted from Ferrer's injury either way!). Getting people enthused about sport is a tough business and I don't think we should squander opportunities to do so.

Incidentally, would you offer wildcards for qualifying?

---

 Ettiene, Thanks for this and even if you have re-hashed long-standing arguments it's not a problem you are just giving your view and of course I read it with much interest and here is my response to most if not all your comments.

WC's are certainly a positive thing for those that get them particularly at grand slams where in general only the players of the 4 home nations are ever going to benefit. If every tennis playing nation had a grand slam then fine I can accept the situation more readily - but then again GS would just lose their appeal. This leads me to the belief that if we are to persist with awarding wild cards then they should be limited to say 4 of which only 2 can go to home players and two to non-nationals, in otherwords have a completely new structure/system. I know this won't happen but there you go. 8 I think is a ridiculous amount and can't think of any good compelling reason why there should be that many. As for seeing new faces/compatriots - well there are probably many new faces that qualify directly across the four slams and as for compatriots - well as I said before I can understand why spectators might want players from the home nation to participate but I still think they should earn it. I suppose it depends on how you look at it but if I was a professional tennis player (now that would be nice!) from a non-grand slam nation and had slogged my guts out to climb to say 106, 107 in the rankings, then why should I not have the 106th, 107th place in GS draw. Now whether the players who are really in this position simply shrug their shoulders and get on with it - and fair play to them if they do - but I think to myself well sod what the spectators may want (if you excuse my French) I have put in the hard yards, put in extra training, earned the points, earned the victories why should I lose out to players often ranked way below me, not achieved anything of note, and forced to fight it out in qualifying? I totally understand what you say about the 110th ranked player and agree that here may not be much difference between them and whoever receives wild cards, but that is just the way I would go. If a player is simply not good enough at their job and can't get into a grand slam on merit I believe they should go through qualifying not parachuted into the main draw and get a boost to their finances. I don't think it's fair on those who have to qualify or get in on merit - but of course, sadly, it does not work like that.

Just my view!

ps - Think I know what you're getting re Konta and yes I would allow qwc's.

Welcome to the forum!