Oakland2002 wrote:

---

A131 that's a hardline to take, it's hard enough getting young people into tennis seeing some young people transition overtly as opposed to covertly is a more than acceptable use of 128th of Wimbledons resources and then only if they are good enough. If not a QW is more than enough. The nationality here isn't relevant and it's good for tennis full stop.

I am biased, very biased that's why I am on this forum but (so are the organisations running all of the slams) and would still like to see even a beaten finalist in the Wimbledon draw if they were British and good enough. Frankly the buzz as it stands is too short and not in anyway loud enough. It's all about generating an exciting tournament that people will watch.

I question your understanding of the adult ranking process which unless one translates to juniors as a 16 year old gives a male player little or no chance of making Wimbledon or any slam the year after winning the juniors unless goodness gracious that outstanding young players gets some wild cards to get them into challengers and 250s to score the points quick enough. No wild cards in reality means a year of futures. Not facilitating transition of the best young players in this way to the main tour is counterproductive, awarding a wildcard for winners is also a way of making sure all the best juniors are in the Junior slams.

More than happy to accept your stance if we can make everything else equal, the first A131 challenge would be 8hrs of sunshine for 9 months of the year in some part of The UK mainland. That would put British juniors on an equal footing.

After that please take over the LTA and the All England club, I am sure you would get unanimous support.

I don't think the present system disenfranchises anyone. The very best get to play each other in London at the end of the year, wild cards don't impact that.

---

Point 1) re "little or no chance of making Wimbledon or any any slam the year after winning the juniors" -  they certainly have by way of qualifying and with a Q WC if required. A131's stance and mine is about Slam MD WCs. They also can anyway have advanced up the rankings by non Slam WCS ( MD and Q ), which brings me to ... 

Point 2) "No WCs in reality means a year of futures" - No, my stance on MD WCs is specifically with regard to Slams, I believe this is the case with A131 too. Certainly, below masters level anyway, up and coming players do often need WC help to progress and I also think WCs for local players to draw more attention, crowds and income are also understandable, not really generally so for Slams so making them have the best ranked for direct entry could and in my view should prevail.

This is very much about Slam tennis being the absolute elite level of the sport as to why we think rankings should prevail for direct entry, say basically ranks 1 to 112, but that others can come through qualifying with Q WCs available to special up and coming players and indeed some for the host nation. And yes I ( and I am sure A131 ) very much know how rankings work generally, that they are not some whole truth, particularly for up and coming players, and the dificulties for such players to advance with out WCs. Hence my understanding of lower level WCs ( including MD ) and giving such players the chance to get into Slams via qualifying.

Thinking A131 and I may need to have our general thoughts, which are pretty similar, certainly with regards to Slam MD WCs,maybe differing in some other details, pinned somewhere to save us and others time with wrong assumptions from some and repetition from us. Though I am quite happy, time permitting,  to bore people into understanding, if probably not agreement 

I'm not remotely expecting Wimbledon or any other Slam to act unilaterally in dispensing with MD WCS. But I have discussed the generalities of Slam MD WCs and other WCs ) for 2 or 3 years on this forum, have understood various points, many that come up quite often, but all things considered I personally remain firm of the view that the elite Slams should not have MD WCs.

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

Me too and I am prepared to listen reason however, you still haven't sorted out the weather! Once you have done that the LTA and all England club may begin to take you both seriously.

Allowing wild cards elsewhere is I am afraid bending the rules and weakens the meritocracy argument, because it's based around the cream rising to the top ummmm. And indeed it does which is the beauty of a slam, the truly elite if on form get to play out against each other in the second week. Roland Garos wouldn't have the atmosphere it does without the large local contingent of players and the thrills and spills they generate in the first week, I'm sorry those outside the top 32 are not elite enough to generate an audience. There is a massive skill gap between 32 and 112 much less so between 100 and 250 where now many 26-30 yr old journeyman lie, I want to see the young stars flying through, given an opportunity to test themselves against the best in qualifying and even the elite in the second round if they are good enough.

By all means if you want to see Carlos Berlocq ( 32) clash with Menendez-Maceiras (29) you settle down with A131 and enjoy very much the sediment of your so called elite.

I'd much rather be watching Andrey Rublev the guys ranked (208) and he's panned Niemenen, Carreno Busta ( twice) and Verdasco ( but not our Kyle) in the last few months, and in nowadays would be out of place in the MD here, but destined for the top.

I know you both know all this so why not get the blinkers off.

The creams already risen your system to coin a phrase I've just heard from a 9 year old and I'm sorry if it's a bit harsh she has a potty mouth "an epic fail"

Indi please post immediately under your diatribe to those new to the Wild card debate.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 27th of May 2015 04:06:11 PM

---

 A new day ...

"diatribe" ???? -  really  ??  not in my understanding of the word, just putting forward, I think quite pleasantly, a point of view.

"patronising" though is one word that sprung to my mind about parts of the above and previous.

Anyway back to the discussion / debate :

Allowing WCs in most tournaments is not "bending the rules" at all. What rules say that we must have WCs in all tournaments or not at all ?  You and others have put forward good points regarding the need for WCs for players to progress forward and also to provide local interest ( yourself initially seeming to think that I and A131 were against WCs much more generally ).  I just don't believe that that necessity really holds at Slam level, with the more local interest to me outweighed by the fact that I think Slams should be reserved for the highest ranked and qualifiers ( clearly at many tournaments the more local interest has a lot to do with just getting folk in through the gates and managing to generate some income, not an issue at Wimbledon, though I accept that many of the swarms who do fill up Wimbledon would like to see Brits ). The players have a chance to progress through other tournaments, with WCs helping speed this up for the young up and coming, and still are most certainly not denied entry to the the Slams, by way way of qualifying WCs for the brightest up and comers not yet ranked high enough for direct entry to qualifying. I simply believe that the greatest, most prestigeous tennis tournaments of all should be by ranking or qualifying and not include freebees. 

I have no "blinkers" on this. I absolutely understand that I have a minority opinion on this and that most folk would prefer to see British or better known foreign WCs compared to the general player around WR 100. Most often I find myself in the majority, here in the minority, c'est la vie. Should I thus not put forward my view that the Slams should not have MD WCs and just shut up and fall into line ? Sorry ( not really ) but that's what I believe, have believed for years and continue to believe.

I have also been involved in discussion on this over the years and certainly in this forum been accorded rather more respect than I've at times seen recently ( that's a great general thing about this forum ). Most people have disagreed and I have respected and generally understood opinions such as that they and many / most others would prefer to see MD WCs at Slams and particularly Brits at Wimbledon. Many have acknowledged that they certainly see where I and occasional folk of much the same opinion are coming from, but just have their own preference. 

indiana wrote:

---

Thanks, wimdledont, I certainly needed to sleep on that reply.

---

Well done Indy - I did start a reply to Oakland but had to abandon it. I must admit I was a left a bit bemused shall we say when reading his comments last night - especially about the weather - really struggling to see what that had to do with anything. 

I am sorry I didn't mean to cause offence by bringing the weather into it. The intention was humour not hubris.

There are lots of things that influence the capacity of a nation to develop an elite tennis culture, having a climate that facilitates out door activity, and in this case tennis year round is obviously a massive advantage we don't have.

The playing field is not level in many respects, we do have a couple of things in our favour and running the worlds best slam is one of them, wildcards allow us to promote the best UK tennis talent, indirectly support them financially and so grow the game. The press in the UK focus on tennis other than Andy for two weeks a year, wildcards alllow indegenous players and uk tennis exposue.

The utilization of wildcards is one thing we can control and as we saw today the vagaries of the weather are beyond the control of all. My point, though put obtusely and I did not mean to be patronising, was merely we should be selfish in the name of UK tennis and I am in favour of wildcards for many reasons but one is it gives UK tennis an advantage.

I appreciate everyone is entitled to a view and I can see the meritocrity argument. For many sports that draw big crowds at a number of levels i would conceed it is a good argument. I just think for grand slam tennis when there are 128 1st round slots it holds little weight when balanced against the advantages and added value to the first week of any slam. Before the true elite players get to slug it out in the second week.

I am presently recovering from Indy and A131 bringing down a large sheet of metal on the back of my head while innocently warching the tennis at RG earlier this week. Although very disappointed with Indi's and A131 s efforts and would question boths commitment to the forum due to their inability to control a puff of wind and a light shower thereby keeping Andy on court and an inevitable victory tonight.

very poor show!