Week 18 - ATP Masters 1000 (Mutua Madrileña Open) - Madrid - qualies (red clay)

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

RE: Week 18 - ATP Masters 1000 (Mutua Madrileña Open) - Madrid - qualies (red clay)

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

RJA wrote:
philwrig wrote:
Purely based upon his DC heroics alone Wardy deserves a WC at Wimby. Endof !!!!!!!!!
Sorry Phil but this is utter nonsense. Henri Laaksonen's exploits in the Davis Cup this year probably exceed that of James. He was ranked 344 in the world when he won both live rubbers against Bemelmans WR 132 and Darcis WR 102, the former from 2-0 down and the latter from 2-1 down. He deserves a Wimbledon wild card just as much as James does but we all know that he won't get one. I don't begrudge James a Wimbledon wild card but it is a privilege not a right and if he did not have the good fortune to be a subject of Her Majesty he would not receive one.

-- Edited by RJA on Saturday 2nd of May 2015 09:54:11 PM

Good point RJA - you have highlighted what I feel is all that is wrong with the current WC system - too much bias and favoritism! Which at the end of the day is why Liam Broady and Kyle Edmund will get WC's though I do respect the fact that both have improved their rankings over the past year and Kyle in particularly has had some good results but as you say if neither had the good fortune to be a subject of Her Majesty both would be spending the week before Wimbledon trying to qualify at Roehampton.

Another case I would mention is Jared Donaldson who is still only 18 and now ranked 168 in the world - 11 places higher than what Liam is now and over 200 places higher than what Kyle Edmund was when he received his first WC two years ago. This time last year Donaldson was ranked 580. I read so many views of how people thought Kyle deserved it and how can we not give this boy a chance and I argued then that he should earn his place and if need be give him a WC to the qualifying but certainly not the main draw. Of course that was all ignored and just brushed aside. Will Donaldson be playing qualifying - you bet he will, unless his ranking dramatically sores over the next few weeks.

Shhh · Challenger level

I dont think we can deny a tournament the use of wild cards, it has to maximise its profits.

The slams having 8 to give out does seem a lot though, given the results of the players over years. There can be some great stories but the vast majority do not get past the first round. The number has been there historically but, maybe needs to be revised down slightly now, its hard to argue for more than 5 or 6 at most, quite possibly less.

The next direct entrant is a just reward for 12 months of playing, a hard case to argue against. I personally would also like to see more have the chance to qualify. An extra couple of spots this way involves another 16 players in the tournament, each of who get paid well for their efforts. The winners have also proved their right to play given they have won three (usually tough) matches on the surface.

But I doubt it'll happen any time soon. Fun to speculate though.

indiana · Tennis legend

I have much less of an issue with MD WCs outside Slams and can see the arguments such as increasing interest and profits, hardly a great problem in the Slams.

The local big prospect a MD WC into a challenger? - no great problem for me.

Anyone ( including the locals ) MD WCs into the elite Slam events over better ( usually much better ) ranked players? - problem for me.

I do recognise that this is not going to change anytime soon ( and logically if done all four Slams should do it ), but it continues to be my considered view, aghast as some folk may be each year :)

Though I do think many of you, while very much liking having the home MD WCs ( and I myself will be all into how they get on when it comes to.Wimbledon ), do see a logic / fairness in no Slam MD WCs.

wimdledont · Challenger level

1. Wildcards are the grease than makes the system work. If the Japanese Tennis Federation is running a 50k women's ITF this week, it is at least partially because they have several players that they will give wildcards, who get the chance to play at a level, and for more points, than their WTA ranking entitles them to.

If not, why would the JTF bother organising the event?

Abolish wildcards, and you abolish tournaments.

2. The official WTA and ATP rankings may be the be-all and end-all for deciding entries to events, but they are a very poor measure of a player's ability and form. They often end up comparing one player's best 16 results out of 30, against another who has played only half a dozen tournaments. After ten games this season, Chelsea had maybe 27 points - clearly by tennis logic, then, a worse team than Leicester City, who now have 34 points.

The system is also extremely conservative, due to seedings. And this is a deliberate ploy, to keep the sponsors happy. One of the top 32 gets a guarantee of weaker opposition for a couple of rounds at every Slam. If Dunlop/Head/Adidas/Nike signs up one of the top 32 for a couple of years, they have a pretty good chance of media exposure over that time.

It is almost mathematically impossible for a promising young player to rise through the rankings without wildcards. Case in point, Bellis, who is restricted to 12 senior tournaments per year; without wildcards, she would have to play almost all of these at 10k level, with 12 points for a tournament win - a maximum of 144 points = WR 280. That ranking is rarely good enough to make it into a 25k. Bellis actually has 304 points, from 11 tournaments. Go figure.

With a sister like that, maybe its not so surprising that Serena has never played an ITF match. But nor did Venus. WTA all the way up, baby.

3. British players do very badly out of the wildcard system compared to any comparable nationality.

First, the LTA organises around 20% of the ITFs run by France, Italy or the US. Less than China, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, Thailand, Greece, Rumania, Croatia.

Second, while we have a Slam, it is not run by the national federation, and the AE Club does not see itself as a champion of our players, but as an Olympian guardian of the Corinthian spirit, or summat. So while the other Slams exchange wildcards, Wimbledon won't. This, imho, is the change that they could introduce that would best benefit the British players. The question for friends of Mr Ward should be why he didn't get a wildcard to the main draw at the the Oz Open, and why no wildcard to the main draw of Roland Garros?

If he had either or both of those, it would be much less likely he would need one for either Wimbledon, or the US Open, as he could well qualify by ranking.

4. As things currently stand, I'd really question if Wimbledon is any advantage at all to British players. All of the ATP/WTA tournaments run by the LTA this year are essentially Wimbledon service events. There seems to be no interest at all in giving any of our lot a leg-up - whereas every other association/federation in the world seems to be focussed on advancing the interests of their own players.

Certainly, the subjects of her Maj fare much, much worse, and are "entitled" to so much less, than either the citoyens de France, or the braves from the land of the free.

indiana · Tennis legend

Some fair points there that I absolutely appreciate, but who is suggesting getting rid of MD WCs generally ?

Personally, I've tried to make clear that I am talking about Slam MD WCs.

wimdledont · Challenger level

But it's getting towards the point that we only have a Slam? (plus its service events)

The LTA certainly seems to be running a calendar where all the WTAs and ATPs fall in June, in Wimbledon warm-up weeks. Plus almost all the over 25k ITFs.

As we fail to take full advantage of the Slam wildcards already - much better in the long run if Ward gets WCs to Oz, US, RG, and the 3 least deserving cases miss a Wimbledon wildcard to accommodate a Frog, Yank and an Ozzy - it seems even more counterproductive from the players' point of view to single out the main advantage of sporting the Union Jack - A Wimbledon MD WC - as inherently wrong, while leaving all other WCs as a fine examples of beneficial necessary corruption.

I am not at all convinced by the current apparent LTA policy of putting all the eggs in this one basket; but to then say that this particular variety of basket can't be used... is worse still.

indiana · Tennis legend

My view is other MD WCs are generally OK for many of the positive reasons you site such as local players to generate more local interest and to very good aspiring players to help them progress.

Now call then "mutually beneficial corruption" if you want, and there are issues with some players who get them, but I have always accepted beneficial aspects. I think almost everyone can see non Slam MD WC positive aspects.

The interest is already there in the Slams. Yes some more with local WCs, but more important to me is that the Slams are the elite tennis events, where the best should be and not where financually lucrative passes should be given based on nationality and / or at the whim of the organising committees.

The aspiring rising players, not yet highly enough ranked, can play qualifying and I also have no particular issue with Slam qualifying WCs for say really prococious loeer ranked players. Good luck to them if they can come through qualifying.

indiana · Tennis legend

The issue re the LTA calendar and funding of GB players in general are issues much discussed and I too have issues with what seems even more disproportionate emphasis on grass with the extra week between the French Open and Wimbledon.

But a Slam should not be a vehicle for home player funding via WCs!

scottie1 · Futures level

I don't have a problem with wild cards saw David Sherwood win a first round tie with the benefit of a WC years ago at Wimbledon. James Ward is just outside top 100 and if he lived in Australia or USA he would probably get a WC into their slams as they heavily favour home players.

indiana · Tennis legend

AGAIN my argument is not about James Ward in particular, actually one of the most deserving hone WC recipients if he ends up needing one.

And, of course, similar home players in other Slams would also get MD WCs.

AGAIN ( and sorry for repetition ) my argument is against MD WCs in all Slams.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

James Bogdanovic

wimdledont · Challenger level

I fully agree that it shouldn't be, but Wimbledon certainly is 'a vehicle for funding home players'. Follows a link to what our women won in prize money last year...

britishtennis.activeboard.com/t59319073/gb-female-earnings-2014/

Many dependent for over half their annual total on a loser's purse from Wimbledon WCs.

I do have some sympathy for your position, that the Slams should be in a special category. But our players already suffer from Wimbledon's moral stance against swapping wildcards. They also suffer from almost all other LTA events being held on a surface for which there is not a circuit. They also suffer from the fact that Wimbledon so overshadows all else that the LTA organises next to nothing for them all the rest of the year.

And, the bit that really annoys me, is that they're supposed to be suffering from a sense of "entitlement". What will they be asking for next? They'll expect to be allowed to play with racquets, rather than batting the ball back barehanded.

-- Edited by wimdledont on Sunday 3rd of May 2015 03:25:22 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

A big issue is the ( what actually shouldn't be ) related issues of funding and performance bonuses.

I absolutely accept, as I have shown in other discussions, the financial issues that many of our decently ranked players have. And I have been very surprised at the performance bonus cuts for instance, a polucy that had seemed very good.

But that seems increasingly related to the LTA's seeming 'tough love'.

On anything that I have read here about the LTA finances there seems no need for the drastic player funding cuts or such as the future and ATP performance bonus cuts. Continuing these at at least previous levels seems to represent a very small fraction of the LTA's overall budget.

They do seriously seem to be cutting these back almost purely to do with some unproven ( arguably wacky ) idea of not helping when they could, to make players want it more and hence do better.

This all should have nothing to do with then 'subsidising' home players with MD WCs. And to be fair it probably has much more to do with the other Slams do the same.

I simply don't think that any of the elite four Slams should be providing MD WCs.

wimdledont · Challenger level

I do think they should be providing MD WCs, because I do not think that the WTA/ATP rankings are an infallible guide to current ability, nor less, future potential talent, particularly for up-and-coming recent graduates from Juniors, or players who are coming back after injury or retirement.