Ranking points so far guaranteed before Wimbledon

steven · Tennis legend

RE: Ranking points so far guaranteed before Wimbledon

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Ultimately there's no getting round the fact that there are way too few players qualifying for the MD as of right. And way too few players who are close to doing so.

This is the LTA's challenge.

The problem here (or one of them) is that everyone (public/press etc) gets well over-hyped for Wimbledon. It kicks off on Monday and Tuesday - and the British players fall like flies because there's only two, say, who truly are in the mix. So all anyone sees is a whole heap of losses - some quite brutal - and it looks dreadful, the press have a field-day etc. etc.

Firstly, if there were half a dozen players, say, all nicely in the top 70 (over men and women, i.e. three each, it's really not asking for much) then nobody would focus half so much on the wildcard losses. (Which would take the pressure off and some might actually win)

Secondly, if there were a dozen players (men/women) ranked 100-200, say, then the gap between their rnaking and the MD ranking cut-off would not be so huge, you could give half of them a WC, and there would be a reasonable chance that a few would have a decent draw and there would be a couple of wins. That would leave a couple of wildcards for a Q tournament and special cases, so there would be some flexibility.

The same applies to the Q wildcards and tournament, just with different ranking levels.

I know this is just stating the obvious - if we were better, it'd be better. But it's not really the wildcard system per se that's the problem. And it seems to me that we;ve tried giving a lot, tried giving less and letting next in line have them, tried objective criteria, tried subjective criteria - nothing has really made any difference.

PaulM · Tennis legend

CD, I agree, we don't have enough players getting into the draw by right, so we need to up home representation with wildcards. The additional problem is that the players on the fringes are the same faces who have been around a long time (which results in repeated wildcards for the same players), and we at the moment don't have the kind of quality of new players coming through and moving past the most experienced ones (hopefully Katy and in time Katie B and Harriet can do so, as well as Katie S). We have been a bit spoilt in recent years by our standards, having at least one, and often 2 or 3 girls make main draws by ranking since Anne broke through in 2008.

The problem is the over-hyping, and the lack of awareness about tennis being a year round sport or the concept of world rankings. Even when we had Laura, Bally, Anne and Heather all as legitimate tour players it was still the usual crap in the press, and even in 2011 where Bally and Anne reached the 2nd round (Anne beating Naomi), and Laura, Emily and Heather lost in high quality grueling three setters (the latter only because she tore a stomach muscle half way through), most of the press coverage of the first two days focused on Katie losing the first set to Date-Krumm in 19 minutes.

In theory you are right, that is how it should work, but it seems like certain people's favourite thing about Wimbledon is the opportunity to give our players a bit of a bashing, and even if we had a handful getting direct entry (which we have had in recent years), a handful winning a round (also happened), or even better a couple making third or fourth round - it will all ultimately end with headlines featuring words such as "dumped", "bundled", "hammered" etc... maybe just a couple of days later than usual.

For the most part I feel the British players who do get the opportunity make the most of it. Occasionally one might have a bad day, but generally they do themselves justice and will look to take advantage of kind draws (e.g. Naomi over Babos last year). The problem is when you get a Sam-Sharapova situation, and of course any other unseeded player would have probably faired about as well as Sam did that day anyway, but because she is a wildcard and is outclassed and wins 1 game it suddenly becomes, in some quarters, a reason to do away with wildcards altogether.

Qualifying is harder and more brutal generally because there is a much bigger gulf in quality between players ranked 150 and 500 than there is between 150 and 75. It's also where we tend to put our better juniors, and although from time to time they throw up great results, generally they just aren't able to complete at that level because ultimately being a top 150 junior doesn't really translate to anything in the pro's.

-- Edited by PaulM on Tuesday 10th of February 2015 09:44:59 AM

paulisi · Tennis legend

TennisLover wrote:
Don't think Katy Dunne has the game yet for a GS main draw. Will not be doing her any favours. Let her earn her way to main draw.

Katy on top form is more than capable of holding her own in a GS on grass.

Look at her record at Edgbaston and Nottingham last year - she beat Lim and Babos in qualifying and took a set of Giorgi on one leg and had beaten Lucic Baroni at Nottingham the week earlier

TennisLover · Strong Club Player

paulisi wrote:
TennisLover wrote:
Don't think Katy Dunne has the game yet for a GS main draw. Will not be doing her any favours. Let her earn her way to main draw.
Katy on top form is more than capable of holding her own in a GS on grass.
Look at her record at Edgbaston and Nottingham last year - she beat Lim and Babos in qualifying and took a set of Giorgi on one leg and had beaten Lucic Baroni at Nottingham the week earlier

Thanks for the info paulisi. I was going based on what I have seen of her actually playing in past couple of months. You know her better so can't argue with that. Hopefully, she can regain the form heading into Wimbledon.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

paulisi wrote:
TennisLover wrote:
Don't think Katy Dunne has the game yet for a GS main draw. Will not be doing her any favours. Let her earn her way to main draw.
Katy on top form is more than capable of holding her own in a GS on grass.
Look at her record at Edgbaston and Nottingham last year - she beat Lim and Babos in qualifying and took a set of Giorgi on one leg and had beaten Lucic Baroni at Nottingham the week earlier

That said, she played pretty poorly in her Wimbly Q match.

But there is the extra pressure of Wimbledon (hopefully the experience will have done her good) and - as you say - other tournaments were a lot better.

PaulM · Tennis legend

To be fair she was carrying a leg injury and playing Paszek, not exactly a kind set of circumstances!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
To be fair she was carrying a leg injury and playing Paszek, not exactly a kind set of circumstances!

Fair point - I'd forgotten about the leg injury.

Mind you, Paszek was hardly playing brilliantly either, it wasn't great.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I'll back Paul on this one, Katy was very good during the grass court season last year from a low base, and would think 12 months on is a good bet for a MDWC, if she can keep progressing.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

scottie1 wrote:
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?

I could say the same for a load of British players as well - if we can justify awarding wild cards to the likes of Samantha Murray, Tara Moore, Ed Corrie and a host of others then why not her (or when she was playing). I still maintain the view that in general wild cards to the main draw of all grand slam events (not just Wimbledon) should be scrapped. If you're good enough you'll either get in on merit or you'll qualify. None of this top 250, reciprocal arrangements, subjective bias nonsense that we get now. The only exceptions I would be prepared to make is for former Top 50 players whose ranking has suffered due to time out through injury/illness if the PR system does not cover them. But there you go.

indiana · Tennis legend

Again, absolutely agree, A131, but it isn't something that's going to change anytime soon.

TennisLover · Strong Club Player

I 2nd that A131.

scottie1 · Futures level

A131 wrote:
scottie1 wrote:
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?
I could say the same for a load of British players as well - if we can justify awarding wild cards to the likes of Samantha Murray, Tara Moore, Ed Corrie and a host of others then why not her (or when she was playing). I still maintain the view that in general wild cards to the main draw of all grand slam events (not just Wimbledon) should be scrapped. If you're good enough you'll either get in on merit or you'll qualify. None of this top 250, reciprocal arrangements, subjective bias nonsense that we get now. The only exceptions I would be prepared to make is for former Top 50 players whose ranking has suffered due to time out through injury/illness if the PR system does not cover them. But there you go.

The WC system will never disappear and it has its good and bad points. I cannot remember has Ed Corrie played at Wimbledon I thought he had never been in top 250 to warrant the WC! Tara Moore sorry I disagree with you two tough draws in two years and run both girls really close I think Tara played really well

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

scottie1 wrote:
A131 wrote:
scottie1 wrote:
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?
I could say the same for a load of British players as well - if we can justify awarding wild cards to the likes of Samantha Murray, Tara Moore, Ed Corrie and a host of others then why not her (or when she was playing). I still maintain the view that in general wild cards to the main draw of all grand slam events (not just Wimbledon) should be scrapped. If you're good enough you'll either get in on merit or you'll qualify. None of this top 250, reciprocal arrangements, subjective bias nonsense that we get now. The only exceptions I would be prepared to make is for former Top 50 players whose ranking has suffered due to time out through injury/illness if the PR system does not cover them. But there you go.
The WC system will never disappear and it has its good and bad points. I cannot remember has Ed Corrie played at Wimbledon I thought he had never been in top 250 to warrant the WC! Tara Moore sorry I disagree with you two tough draws in two years and run both girls really close I think Tara played really well

I accept that the WC system will probably never disappear - not in my lifetime anyway - and I can understand the need for it at more regular tournaments where there is perhaps a greater need for tournaments to survive and generate revenue but grand slam events are in my opinion far too important events to hand out freebies.

Ed Corrie - Got my facts wrong here and confused this with a WC to Queen's not Wimbledon

Tara Moore - Ok, so she may have played above her normal form but so what - a lot of players do from time to time. There may have been players who did not make it through qualifying that could have given Kanepi a good game on the day and Zvonereva, admittedly a former finalist and top 10 player, had practically been off the court for 18 months - so not as tougher draw as she would have been when she was fit and in her prime. My point is that she had not earned the right to be there on either occasion and should have been made to go through qualifying and would she have won three matches in a row? Very questionable at best but had she done so then of course I would be prepared to cut her a bit of slack and what has she done since? She's now ranked 358 in the world and would not even make the qualifying draw.

TennisLover · Strong Club Player

Totally agree with you A131.