Ranking points so far guaranteed before Wimbledon

indiana · Tennis legend

Ranking points so far guaranteed before Wimbledon

indiana · Tennis legend

Updated guaranteed minimum ranking points as at Wimbledon MD WC date ( assumed based on rankings as at 15/06/15 ) after week 5 :

1 Heather Watson 764 (13)

Current WR 200 : 240

2 Jo Konta 180 (12)

Current WR 250 : 177

3 Naomi Broady 126 ( max 16 + )

4 Emily Webley-Smith 111 ( max 16+ )

5 Katy Dunne 96 (13)

6 Naomi Cavaday 78 (12)

7 Katie Boulter 65 (13)

7 Amanda Carreras 65 (14)

9 Harriet Dart 61 (13)

10 Tara Moore 41 (15)

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 23rd of February 2015 05:32:04 PM

steven · Tennis legend

The LTA have just issued a new Wimbledon wild card policy which includes the phrase "In 2015 the LTA has agreed with the AELTC Wild Card Committee that a ranking threshold will not be used as the basis for recommendation of players for Wild Cards."

bit.ly/2015wmwc

So back to the bad old days then (not that they ever followed the targets to the letter even then, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not, but at least the players had something to aim at and it wasn't quite as open to favouritism as it used to be)

PaulM · Tennis legend

I actually agree with everything that's in the Policy, it's all perfectly sensible and reasonable criteria, but I just have an inherent issue with the subjectivity of it all. The ranking measure was extremely crude, but it meant that everyone was treated equally.

It is now very easy for them to not give a wild card to a player who's face doesn't fit even if to you or me they show all the things the Policy is looking for.

If they had to tinker I'd have preferred them to harshen the ranking limit to 200 (although no other Grand Slam country goes down this route) and then have the woolier criteria beneath that so if we end up in a situation with only 1 or 2 players in the top 200 they can widen the net. There was enough room to maneuver in the existing one to catch players like Katy Swan (as either MD or Qualies) if they really wanted to for example.

Are they covered by FoI? Would be interesting to see the recommendations and reasonings!

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 9th of February 2015 03:52:28 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

Is that 8 wildcards combined or for men and women individually?

Is 8 wildcards enough for main draw and qualifying?

scottie1 · Futures level

What gets me is the number of wild cards issued to Foreign players I remember Cara Black getting a singles WC years ago on the basis of what?

paulisi · Tennis legend

So if you have 8 in total and James Ward in not a direct entry and Laura assuming fit will not be a direct entry, then James, Laura and Kyle would almost certainly get the first three. Then you have the likes of Naomi B, Joko, Liam also pushing for main draw WC's. I'm sure the likes of Katie Swann, Eleanor Dean, Naomi Cavaday, Katie Boulter, Katy Dunne, Dan Smethurst, Alex Ward, Marcus Willis will all be looking for wildcards into qualifying and probably a few more (assumes Ed C, Brydan, Dan C will all make qualifying cut off)

How is 8 enough?

PaulM · Tennis legend

It's 8 each (same as the current policy).

-- Edited by PaulM on Monday 9th of February 2015 04:46:28 PM

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

I have my cynical hat on today.
I read this pretty bluntly as - We need to get Laura in the draw come what may. Let's remove potential obstacles to that now.

If I remember, the Cara Black situation was a thinly disguised political move at the height of a round of GB tensions with Mugabe.

steven · Tennis legend

AliBlahBlah wrote:
I have my cynical hat on today.
I read this pretty bluntly as - We need to get Laura in the draw come what may. Let's remove potential obstacles to that now.

I'm sure that's not the reason - they could recommend Laura for a main draw wild card on the basis that she had been out injured for so long and if they didn't recommend here, the AELTC would offer her one anyway.

indiana · Tennis legend

Indeed, Laura would get a MD WC, if required, whatever and I can't imagine that anyone would seriously bat an eyelid so I don't see the changes as anything to do with her.

wimdledont · Challenger level

The BBC has an LTA source who is briefing that this is about tightening, not slackening, the criteria...

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/31318008

Of the several British women who got a QWC in 2014, the pair who won the wildcard playoffs (EWS and Gabi Taylor) were the only two to win a round of qualies. That suggests to me that it might be an idea to have a mini-tournament among the actual or potential QWCs, with a WC to the main draw as the prize.

It is a shame that this matters so much. Without a Wimbledon appearance, it's very difficult for any of the women to make ends meet. But it's on grass, which is, outside the UK, just not a surface. To make it on the tour, you're much better off to have a game suited for hardcourts or clay.

The LTA is apparently not bothering to put on any more women's ITF tournaments until the pre-Wimbledon grass season. Sunderland and Glasgow appears to be the lot. So our players are really forced into concentrating on grass court tennis; which is largely irrelevent for 48 weeks of the year.

PaulM · Tennis legend

It's also sad that none of the other slams seem to be such a downer on local wildcards as we are.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Also, if they are taking past wimbledon main draw appearances into account as demonstration an ability to up your kevel and compete I say give Em the wc now :p

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

In theory (and I stress 'in theory'), I think a subjective test is right.

After all, any robot can say 'just top 250' or 'just top 200' or whatever.

But the reason the top guys are supposed to be worth their salaries (or one of the reasons) is that they bring a level of expertise and 'big picture' and specialist knowledge. So that they really do know who would get the most benefit out of a wildcard and can see each players' development and commitment and potential.

After all, if they aren't the experts who can do this, then what are they doing?

But it does make it very vulnerable to selective and arbitrary favouritism (as shown before). It's here that the individual Chairman or CEO or President or whoever is vital - he/she had to lead from the front and show a level of ethics (and also, hopefully, tennis expertise) that is exemplary.