Wild Cards

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: Wild Cards

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Very tough on Constant but the rules is the rules, given the present circumstances what choice does a federation have. It was obviously an issue missed initially but following further thought the right decision made.

To grant him a wildcard part of which is or should be based on encouraging the right attitude in young professionals would be condoning betting as a minor offence, where do you draw the line, is 10 euros OK, 20, 100.

As mentioned earlier my stance on wild cards has changed in part through going to qualifying. Winning through is a process that I think is invaluable to a young players development and indeed should be a major goal for those trying to break into and through challenger tennis. I see them like factory reared chickens, they are of obvious fiscal advantage so tempting although immoral, my justification for buying a cheaper chicken (it would otherwise go in the bin) is to eat it all, ie get maximum value. This year I can see value giving Alex Ward (similarly Liam, Lloyd and James) a main draw wildcard at Wimbly as it is consistent with aiding his development allows him to fund a programme that is not incongruent with getting close to DE next year, i.e he is likely due to play US Open quals with a run of US challengers afterwards, throughly deserved.

The French seem to have more right than the LTA in terms of getting absolute value from optimal consumption of the immoral chicken. They also have more the depth of talent to utilise wild cards in the way in which they are meant. We should be exchanging some Wimbledon wild cards with the U.S. or Australians and definitely the French. We just do not have the depth in talent to justify more tha 4 main draw wild cards! A swap would be very cost effective in terms of giving intensive support to one or two real prospects as opposed to dealing out a 5th wildcard to a player in their mid twenties, that will fund another year scraping around on the ITF.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Saturday 21st of May 2016 06:21:42 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I think the FFT would have been perfectly justified in not giving him a wildcard.

In fact, if I'd been part of the committee, I'd have voted not to.

It was a stupid small bet on his part, just to use up the balance, he says, (which of course it didn't, as he won - the princely sum of 1.80 euros - which sort of shows that constant doesn't understand the basics of betting - which is another issue and not a story).

But he's just signed the Charter thingy saying no betting on your own sport, and so be it.

And wilcards are favours, not as of right. And no one at WR 200 is owed a wildcard (no one anywhere, in fact).

BUT given they only have a handful to give out, not checking properly, or deciding that it was fine, and then changing their mind, makes them look awful, in my view.

And the other major complaints against them don't help.

Mind you, I can't help but think: what is the Tennis Integrity Unit doing???? They've been investigating this since late 2015. Over 6 months. For a tiny bet of an account that was then closed. And was not contested. And no indication of anything else whatsoever.

I mean, surely, it's all obvious. Take a month (or two). Give the guy his punishment, whatever it is (caution? Month suspension? Whatever). But to have it still dragging on six months later - what are they doing? Just getting paid to shuffle papers????

RJA · Hall of fame

Coup Droit wrote:
I mean, surely, it's all obvious. Take a month (or two). Give the guy his punishment, whatever it is (caution? Month suspension? Whatever). But to have it still dragging on six months later - what are they doing? Just getting paid to shuffle papers????

The TIU are a complete and utter sham that exist simply for PR purposes. They catch a few low ranking players each year while doing absolutely jack about the clear majority of blatant match fixing and completely ignoring the most obvious of tanks. Benoit Paire's disgraceful performance this week in Nice did far more to damage the integrity of tennis that what Lestienne did yet he almost certainly will not be investigated and punished.

NB: For the avoidance of doubt I completely agree that FFT were well within their rights to deny him the wild card but revoking it after it had been promised to him was unacceptable.

-- Edited by RJA on Sunday 22nd of May 2016 12:04:23 PM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

It does look weak doesn't it, but I do have some sympathy for regulators who are fiscally out gunned by the individuals they are trying to regulate. I agree totally, Constant should have had his wrist slapped promptly I would suggest for such a ridiculously small bet a fixed penalty of a 1000 euros for a first offence on admission of guilt progressing to a brief period of suspension and the loss of consideration for wild cards for a year if there were any squabbling. Should a bet exceed 20 euros, a fixed non fiscal penalty with suspension of playing privileges that any gambling syndicate could not settle on any individual players behalf should be imposed.

It gets very difficult when trying to deal with big players with big pockets and dedicated legal teams able to deconstruct process. Particularly when they have the support of their kit sponsors, I noticed in the tens shop,yesterday Maria Sharpovas racket was heavily discounted.

RJA · Hall of fame

Oakland2002 wrote:
It does look weak doesn't it, but I do have some sympathy for regulators who are fiscally out gunned by the individuals they are trying to regulate.

They are only fiscally outgunned because the ITF, ATP and WTA do not want them to succeed.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

In the run-up to the vote for new President of the FFT, one of the candidates (Bernard Giudicelli, currently president of the Davis Cup Committee and General Secretary of the FFT) is suggesting that French wildcards for Roland Garros should be given based off a point system of ranking points gained by French players at French tournaments during the previous 12 months.

(He also gets very animated about introducing a 'monthly' ranking, as opposed to a yearly one, which I don't quite understand, because the ATP/WTA rankings are weekly and only the domestic ranking is yearly (well, twice-yearly really) and it sounds like he's a bit confused between the two).

But the guy is mega old school, with his feet well under the table for years and years. It's all very looking inwards, with nothing revolutionary to say.

The 'young pretender' 38-year-old Alexis Gramblat, wants to shake it all up, get rid of the old, dead wood, the 'serve ourselves before we serve tennis' mentality and isn't so concerned with wildcards but corruption...... you wish him luck but his chances are teeny....

Of course, it would be nigh on impossible to give out wildcards for Wimbledon based on points won by GB players in GB tournaments 'over the year'. Because they're are only about two of them left .....

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Following R1 of the US Open:

Steven Mills @StevenMtennis 1h1 hour ago

The reciprocal French and Aussie WCs scraped together a grand total of five games. This cosy arrangement really needs to be ended.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Ben Rothenberg @BenRothenberg 9h9 hours ago Queens, NY

Zero of the twelve American wild cards reached #USOpen R3.

*Three* American qualifiers, however, reached R3: Bellis, Donaldson, R.Harrison.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, boo to Slam MD WCs

the addict · Tennis legend

Whilst I am against the handing out of wildcards to players that aren't going to make the best use of them, there will always be exceptions that mean wild cards need be retained in some form. This year's USO appears to have only produced the one though, and no-one is going to deny that del Potro didn't deserve a WC.

indiana · Tennis legend

I'd allow PR entries but no Slam MD WCs, other than possibly open pre specified pre tournament success ( so not really wild ).

By PR or qualifying I reckon Del Potro could have made it in

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 2nd of September 2016 12:20:26 PM

Spectator · All-time great

JMDP for me was a very legitimate WC - one of the problems of asking him to do qualifying is that he's someone who could legitimately be expected to go all the way (unlike most qualifiers, if we are honest). Having to win three qualifying matches and then 8 five-set matches is probably a bridge too far. And indeed, while recognising all the points others have made, I'm generally not against WCs in singles.

But Colin Fleming's adventures have made me look again at doubles, and I think I'm less happy with that, because the main Tour doubles players are already disadvantaged by the rules that allow any singles player - however little experience in doubles they may have - to use their singles ranking to get into the tournament. This means that you can be ranked quite well - Mr Fleming being a case in point - and still not make it in ... with all the financial and points implications that entails. For someone ranked in the top 60, as Colin Fleming is, watching a large number of WC teams play despite having little or no chance of taking a set, let alone a match, would be intensely frustrating. So I would certainly cut down on the number of doubles WCs ... though having thrilled to Jonny Marray's Wimbledon win, I'd never be able to recommend getting rid of them entirely.

RJA · Hall of fame

Spectator wrote:
JMDP for me was a very legitimate WC - one of the problems of asking him to do qualifying is that he's someone who could legitimately be expected to go all the way (unlike most qualifiers, if we are honest). Having to win three qualifying matches and then 8 five-set matches is probably a bridge too far. And indeed, while recognising all the points others have made, I'm generally not against WCs in singles.

More importantly in my mind is that it is really unfair on the guys in qualifying who would have landed in Del Potro's section.

There has been quite a bit of debate in the US about the wild cards this year with many people (me included) thinking that Jared Donaldson was more worthy of a wild card than some of the recipients. After coming through qualifying he has beat Goffin and Troicki when he was asked about whether this showed that the USTA had got in wrong he replied along the lines that he wasn't remotely bothered to have to go through qualifying and that had he not been good enough to do so he obviously wouldn't have deserved to be in the main draw.

Spectator · All-time great

Very true. I hadn't thought of that.

The US's system of assigning WCs to the winners of particular tournaments has meant that two (Michael Mmoh, Mackenzie McDonald) were considerably weaker than the rest of the field and felt, in honesty, fairly questionable. Both might have made sense as QWCs; they didn't really as MDWCs. Ernesto Escobedo's seemed reasonable as he'd won on solid criteria and is playing quite well. The rest (Ram, Fratangelo, Tiafoe) generally also seemed reasonable: they were all within the top 125 . But I was surprised that they skipped Donaldson for Tiafoe - presumably it's because Donaldson has already had WCs two years running. Donaldson's attitude seems very sensible.