Weeks 26-27 - Wimbledon women's main draw

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

RE: Weeks 26-27 - Wimbledon women's main draw

paulisi · Tennis legend

Another doubles partnership close, but no success.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Mervatron wrote:
2 years in a row, 2 missed opportunities.

Somebody needs to sit Tara down and say 'Do you really want this?' If the answer is yes, she needs to work harder day in day out to get the best out of herself and her game. If no, she should retire now or she will regret not giving tennis her all.

The talent is clearly there but she's too streaky. I trust Sam's comments that Tara doesn't work hard enough and her results over the years show it. She was thought of more highly than Heather as youngsters and has been severely left behind

Then surely she should not have been given a wild card. It's such an insult to the likes of Konjuh and three others who had to come through qualifying and then reach the third round.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Yes but one of those qualifiers was destroyed by Freya a fortnight ago. Tennis is a funny sport.

Jaffa · Challenger level

This wildcard stuff is nonsense. Every country in the world does it so why shouldn't we would be my argument.

indiana · Tennis legend

These folk arguing against Slam MD WCs are generally specifically or implicitly arguing against them for ANY of the Slams, the pinnacles of tennis, not saying anything like just Wimbledon shouldn't be giving them to all these Brits.

I doubt there are many at all, certainly not me, who would suggest Wimbledon in isolation suddenly stops giving them to Brits ( though we may query some of the specific choices, but then WCs often generate discussion ).

So, agree or disagree, let's be clearer about the argument.

And even many full who like them and wish them to continue in Slams ( as they no doubt will ) concede that there is a reasonable argument about unfairness.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

PaulM wrote:
Yes but one of those qualifiers was destroyed by Freya a fortnight ago. Tennis is a funny sport.

Don't see what that's got to do with it - doesn't diminish the qualifiers achievements and Freya didn't even get past round 1 of qualifying.

PaulM · Tennis legend

You miss the point of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is week to week you never know what is going to happen in this game. It could as easily be a wildcard in the fourth round, like Parmentier at the French, or even Zvonereva (possibly) here. 2 weeks ago Smitkova is losing to someone outside the top 1000, now she's in the fourth round of a slam. Tennis is a crazy sport at times, anything is possible, a couple of points go differently and jeez we could be thinking about Tara as possibly getting to the third round or further.

The fact a few qualifiers go deep isn't a reason to abolish wildcards, the two couldn't be more unrelated. How can it possibly be an insult to Konjuh or Smitkova that Tara or Sam or Naomi or Taylor or Pliskova or Jarmelia or Vera got given a pass into the main draw? If you abolish wildcards they still wouldn't have been in the main draw on their ranking anyway, the existence or otherwise of wildcards made zero difference to them as they'd have still had to go through qualies to get where they are now.

Before the tournament starts you don't know where the surprises are going to come from, there are times no qualifiers reach the second week. There are times wildcards do. Is that a reason to abolish qualies? Of course not.

We seem to have this same discussion raised time and time again and it's such a pointless debate.

God forbid actually getting behind our players rather than having a go at them for taking up the opportunity to be there in the first place (not accusing you of doing so by the way, more a general comment aimed more widely)

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 27th of June 2014 09:11:45 PM

LordBrownof · Futures level

PaulM wrote:
You miss the point of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is week to week you never know what is going to happen in this game. It could as easily be a wildcard in the fourth round, like Parmentier at the French, or even Zvonereva (possibly) here. 2 weeks ago Smitkova is losing to someone outside the top 1000, now she's in the fourth round of a slam. Tennis is a crazy sport at times, anything is possible, a couple of points go differently and jeez we could be thinking about Tara as possibly getting to the third round or further.

The fact a few qualifiers go deep isn't a reason to abolish wildcards, the two couldn't be more unrelated. How can it possibly be an insult to Konjuh or Smitkova? If you abolish wildcards they still wouldn't have been in the main draw on their ranking anyway, the existence or otherwise of wildcards made zero difference to them as they'd have still had to go through qualies.

Before the tournament starts you don't know where the surprises are going to come from, there are times no qualifiers reach the second week. Is that a reason to abolish qualies? Of course not.

We seem to have this same discussion raised time and time again and it's such a pointless debate.

God forbid actually getting behind our players rather than having a go at them for taking up the opportunity to be there in the first place.

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 27th of June 2014 09:05:27 PM

Here here!

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
These folk arguing against Slam MD WCs are generally specifically or implicitly arguing against them for ANY of the Slams, the pinnacles of tennis, not saying anything like just Wimbledon shouldn't be giving them to all these Brits.

I doubt there are many at all, certainly not me, who would suggest Wimbledon in isolation suddenly stops giving them to Brits ( though we may query some of the specific choices, but then WCs often generate discussion ).

So, agree or disagree, let's be clearer about the argument.

And even many full who like them and wish them to continue in Slams ( as they no doubt will ) concede that there is a reasonable argument about unfairness.

AH Indy - the voice of reason and possibly I may have been a tad harsh towards our wild cards in an earlier thread in so far as media treatment goes but as you know it is a high profile event and if our wild cards - or the vast majority of them if not all - keep losing in the first round year after year after year then the think the media have every right to raise questions. That's part of their job but you know that.

In the case of Tara Moore, and whilst we are stuck with wild cards then I was under the impression that those who recommend the players should also take into account things like attitude or work ethic and not merely by virtue of being in the top 250. If there were question marks against Tara Moore then why was she still awarded a wild card? The again neither of us were involved in the process or know exactly how hard Tara Moore works or doesn't work as the case may be. Then again Dan E's coach is not the first Belgian to come out and say that British players are spoilt - but he doesn't say exactly which British players or does he mean generally?

indiana · Tennis legend

A131, part of what the media choose to do, deliberately or through sheer ignorance, is often have an annual go at the WCs and / or the general British win / loss record without any sort of context.

You, of course, do know that all the other Slams similarly give out "home" WCs and given the resulting generally very large disparity in rankings that the GB WCs face, the results are hardly unexpected, and not worthy of the stick individuals get, previously approved of by your self.

Though if you now realise that you were being overharsh re your previous comments ( I'd say more than a "tad" ) then that's something.

As you say, neither of us know how hard Tara works or doesn't work so I am rather at a loss to understand the point of that very hypothetical paragraph with regard to her.

steven · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
NB Despite all that frantic dashing around by poor Mrs. Dunne, I'm assuming the the Katy/ies never made it in yesterday ? Promoted to 1st Alts but not needed? Shame . . .

I think Katie's 'worst day ever' (or words to that effect) tweet probably gave that away

Still, I fully expect them to be there in some kind of main draw before too long

Ratty · County player

So much disapproval of a lack of moral fibre in these lazy molly-coddled British players who just WON'T TRY HARD ENOUGH!

A short digression. For an ageing non-athlete I'm extremely fit, and have a BMI of 24. I hurt my knee during a 10k practice run a few days ago. It's better now, but I'm using the odd twinge of discomfort as an excuse to skip my exercise programme. That's because I'd rather not do strenuous aerobic exercise - it's hard work and pretty boring; and while I know perfectly well that there's a long-term benefit from exercise, I prefer the short-term benefit of avoiding the immediate suffering. Psychology jargon is that, when I skip my exercise session or have that extra slice of cake, I'm discounting my future too much.

I'm perfectly normal in these feelings. And so I don't feel the need to berate tennis players who aren't prepared to be one of that tiny minority who spend all day every day slogging away on the practice courts and in the gym - because they're normal people too. Just like most of us with more mundane careers are not prepared to put in the long hours and single-minded commitment that gets us to the top of the corporate tree. We sort of admire the people who do, but recognise that it's not for us.

So yes, it's tempting to fulminate about people wasting their genetic gifts of athleticism and "talent". But as the good book says: he who is without sin, let him first cast a stone.

Shhh · Challenger level

School governors are volunteers. After the headlines from Birmingham there is some talk of making them a paid role (no idea if this would ever happen). The idea being that if you take the coin, no matter how much or little, more can/should/will be expected of you. I suspect the same applies to tennis players.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Ratty, I'm surprised at you.

Of course you're normal and of course it's normal for tennis players too, as normal human beings, to find it hard to commit to doing all the nasty, boring training that very few people genuinely enjoy, day in, day out.

But you don't get funded.

Exactly as Shhh says, if you accept public money as a grant to do something, there is an obligation to be better than 'normal' in trying to do it.

So the 'sin' you refer to is not the sin 'not trying your best' but 'not trying your best when paid by public finances to do so and there are plenty of others out there who DO try their best and show that it is perfectly possible to do so'.

I think people are perfectly entitled to air their dissatisfaction and that Heather's comments were very illuminating.