Wild Cards

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: Wild Cards

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Coup Droit wrote:
Don't quite know what you mean, A131.

Roland Garros has a turnover of about 200 million euros, and profits of about 50 million.

The money all goes back into the federation.

Maybe the other forum person meant that, in France, the Grand Slam is completely governed by the federation, unlike in the GB where you have some other strange Wimbledon body.

Thanks CD - This forum person certainly used the word 'pay' - whether he/she meant to or not I can't tell but the word 'pay' was used.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Ha, Ha, don't know who you are trying to wind up, CD.

Greaaaatttt to se these lower ranked WCs strutting their stuff in QUALIFYING. I hope to see Katie Swan getting a Q WC for Wimbledon and seeing what she can do.

Good to see aspiring players, only in because of QUALIFYING WCs, even get all the way through to reach what apart from the qualifiers should ideally for me just be the province of the best ranked.

Have a nice day

Not trying to wind anyone up smile Honest, guv. Not my style. smile

And, yes, I know you're only an 'anti-MD-wildcard' guy.

And, in fact, logically, I think that ALL wildcards are highly debatable (or even unjustifiable - after all, the wildcard who wins is not suddenly 'worthy' of a wildcard: the player ranked one place above him/her, (and hence more deserving) may well have won too. And yet they never got the chance).

But that's the brain talking.

With the heart, I just love the whole story/romance/drama/power to change lives nature of wildcards - and that's for main draw too, I;m afraid.

So all 'feel good' wildcard stories get a big shout out from me.

(The blessing in all these things, I find, is that it's not up to us to choose !! How good is that? How much more difficult it would be if we actually had the responsibility to make the right decision . . . )

indiana · Tennis legend

Quite clearly if we have to have WCs my choices would be more logical and sensible than anyone's

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

To add to the French polemic, the doubles wildcards were announced, and Jonny Eysseric (who was passed over for a quali singles one when many behind him got one) didn't get one in the doubles either (again despite others behind him getting one). And, as he says (translated) :

so VERY nice of the FFT to wait till 18h to let me know - just to make sure I haven't even got the possibility of entering a Futures as a wildcard and going off to play the qualies. . . .

Strongbow · All-time great

Maybe they've drunk the enente cordiale.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Strongbow wrote:
Maybe they've drunk the enente cordiale.

smile

wimdledont · Challenger level

The one MD wildcard which I think Wimbledon gets absolutely right is for the Junior Champion of the previous year.

Sympathetic shout-out for Daria Kasatkina, French Open Girls champion 2014, who is knocking off the 25ks as fast as she can but who hasn't been able to play enough on the ITF women's circuit to accumulate enough points to get to RG qualifying, even.

www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx

Arguably the most impressive junior of the last few years (her JR3 was based on her tally from just 7 results, singles and doubles), particularly on clay. Roland Garros is much the poorer due to her absence.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

''The one MD wildcard which I think Wimbledon gets absolutely right is for the Junior Champion of the previous year.''

Sorry, I don't think it is absolutely right and it is a tradition I feel should be dropped. I can accept that the Junior Champion of the previous year being awarded a qualifying wc should he/she need it but certainly not to the main draw. Winning a junior slam guarantees nothing and as most of us can appreciate it is a big step up from juniors to seniors where you have to face bigger stronger and more experienced opposition and for various reasons some just never break through or have yet to break through (Fuscovics, Peliwo, Quinzi, Lertcheewakarn, Barty). It is also grossly unfair to other players who have slogged their guts out to climb the rankings and are close to getting the opportunity of earning grand slam points, prize money etc (especially those ranked 105 - 112) and adhered to the meritocratic system the sport is meant to promote and lose out to someone who has yet to prove his or herself. You are effectively saying to someone that it does not matter what you do between now and next year - you could lose every match you play even - and still get a wc to the main draw of a slam. No they should prove themselves at senior level and either get in on the strength of their current ranking (direct entry) or go through qualifying and if they are good enough they will prove it. Really can't see what's wrong with that.

indiana · Tennis legend

Indeed, A131.

I'd certainly have no problem though with Q WCs for the previous year's junior champions whatever their subsequent form.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Yes, a men's singles main draw wild card is pretty pointless unless they are ranked 200 or less as a teenager which is a pretty good marker of an elite player, less than 200 and a Q WC is entirely apropriate.

That said If it's Wimbledon and they are a British winner, I would want to see them in the MD with a wildcard regardless similar a French winner at RG etc.... When push comes to shove it is about creating a buzz about the game and the next generation of stars.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Tuesday 26th of May 2015 05:08:16 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

That said, thinking about it, does Wimbledon always give MD WCs ( if needed ) to the reigning junior champions as opposed to at least Q WCs ?

RJA · Hall of fame

indiana wrote:
That said, thinking about it, does Wimbledon always give MD WCs ( if needed ) to the reigning junior champions as opposed to at least Q WCs ?

Normally they get qualifying wild cards. I read some comments a couple of years ago by the reigning junior champion (Peliwo I think) saying that he had been told that he would get a main draw wild card if he was ranked inside the top 250 but if not it would only be a qualifying one. For me this is quite sensible. There is no point giving a young kid ranked 600 in the world a main draw wild card only for him to be thrashed in a match that he isn't ready for but if he has shown decent ability at adult level it is an appropriate reward.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Oakland2002 wrote:
Yes, a men's singles main draw wild card is pretty pointless unless they are ranked 200 or less as a teenager which is a pretty good marker of an elite player, less than 200 and a Q WC is entirely apropriate.

That said If it's Wimbledon and they are a British winner, I would want to see them in the MD with a wildcard regardless similar a French winner at RG etc.... When push comes to shove it is about creating a buzz about the game and the next generation of stars.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Tuesday 26th of May 2015 05:08:16 PM

Oakland - I would have no exceptions whether they are British, French, Japanese, Indian whatever. Wimbledon itself with all the best players all together in one place should be enough to create a buzz as you call it and not extended or used as an excuse to exercise your favoritism or bias. Like I say if they are good enough they will come through qualifying and only then will they deserve to be there.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Well, I thunk, here's a nice, completely uncontroversial posting I could make. Can't believe so many disagree.

The Wimbledon Juniors Girls champ, who gets the WC is Ostapenko...

www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx

She has a win-loss record for 2015 of W21-5L, and has climbed 156 places to WR152. This based on her best 16 results from 15 tournaments. She is entering the same sort of tournaments as the women ranked 105-112, only she starts in qualifying, and they start as seeds. They get to play up to 34 tournaments, including all the GS qualifying tournaments, and discard up to 18 results which they'd prefer to ignore. Ostapenko is still 17 years old, and can play only a maximum of 16 tournaments, every one of which is a counter.

I think the WTA rankings are very far from indicating the actual ability of players. Ostapenko is in my opinion, probably within the world's top 64 or so; and she's won her wildcard, by beating all the rest of the field last year at Junior Wimbledon. What's not meritocratic about that?