Week 15 - Challenger ($100,000) - Joey Gratton Sarasota Open, Sarasota, FL, USA (clay)

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 15 - Challenger ($100,000) - Joey Gratton Sarasota Open, Sarasota, FL, USA (clay)

Vandenburg · Futures level

Agreed, I think given the way he has given so much to the Davis Cup, he deserves a WC for Wim.

indiana · Tennis legend

Vandenburg wrote:
Agreed, I think given the way he has given so much to the Davis Cup, he deserves a WC for Wim.

Well, I wouldn't have anyone get a Slam MD WC, but that's by the way, and I actually fully expect James to receive a Wimbledon MD WC.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 14th of April 2016 04:09:47 PM

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
Vandenburg wrote:
Agreed, I think given the way he has given so much to the Davis Cup, he deserves a WC for Wim.
Well, I wouldn't have anyone get a Slam MD WC, but that's by the way.

As you might have guessed my views on this haven't changed in that in an ideal world no one should get MD WC's to Grand Slam events though I like RJA says he probably will get one and in my view totally unjustified. OK Wimbledon is still over 2 months off but the guy has not won a single match on the main tour since he beat Vesely (who was by some reports only half fit). He (JW) is now ranked 70+ places below what he was when at the time Wimbledon 2015 started. He has beaten only one player in the top 100 since - an out of form Sugita (now ranked 108). In the end I think he was a bit fortunate to make the top 100 and qualify for the US Open Direct but he wasn't in the top 100 for long and on current form will be lucky to stay in the top 200. All he's done is won a glorified futures event.

This man has received a wild card every year since 2009 (bar 2010) so 2016 would be his 7th unless the LTA/AELTC suddenly surprise us. Surely the people who decide these things must ask themselves why 7 years on from his first appearance at Wimbledon is this bloke still needing a WC? Why has there been no significant improvement in all that time? He's 29 FGS and as Boris Becker commented several years ago you really should not be awarded wild cards at that age. But I think he will be and I can think of no other industry where poor performance or lack of improvement is so well rewarded.

As for Broady - yes I know he won a match last year and came from behind to do so. He did what he had to so to speak. But he was playing a guy who was then on current form one of the worst players in the draw and who has since slipped to 393 in the rankings - he was even outside the top 400 a few months back. I do think some people and some media outlets did go overboard or got very excited over Broady's victory (which I can understand up to a point) especially the Daily Mail who described him as a sensation. I just wonder whether the Daily Mail now realise that this sensation has slumped to 293 in the rankings and like Ward has not won a match on the main tour since and has only won about 6 on the Challenger Tour and in all likelihood would need another WC if he was to make the main draw again. In short, I think he got a bit lucky (though I acknowledge that he deserved to win) but do not necessarily agree with those who think he justified his WC in 2015 as I don't believe he would have won 3 matches on the trot to reach the main draw at the time and there may have been a good number of other players who did not quite make it through qualifying who would have beaten Matosevic that day. Just my view but Broady took his chance but I still wouldn't award a wild card on the strength of that.

-- Edited by A131 on Thursday 14th of April 2016 05:01:59 PM

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

All of which leaves one question unanswered. So who DO you give them too. Now I know there are valid arguments for and against having WCs at all, for GS events and both sides have very valid points. But in terms of this year's Wimbledon, there will be wildcards so that is a different question altogether.

If you don't give WCs to GBs highest ranked players outside the automatic qualification, then who do you give them to. Wardy has undoubtedly had a really tough time on and off the court. His form is nowhere and there are few signs of it coming back at the moment. But, regardless of what the state of his opponents happened to be at Wimbledon last year, he was within a whisker of making the L16. That for me is enough for at least one more go this year. Had he been dumped out in the 1st round, I may well be thinking differently.

As for Liam, I agree he is struggling right now but in ranking terms, he is still GB Nº7. At just 22 years hold, he still has plenty of time on his side. You only have to look at what his sister has achieved to know that it is too early to give up on people at just 22.

So I will throw this open. There will be WCs whether we like it or not. So who would you chose ?

Spectator · All-time great

On another note, just turned on Sarasota, as it's the only thing on livestream and I needed a few minutes break. Quentin Halys v Francis Tiafoe. The former, whom I haven't seen play before, but who looks good, had won the first set 6-1 and was serving to stay in the 2nd at 4-5. But Francis Tiafoe managed a break point - and proceeded to hit a stonking service return ... just a super shot.

Remember watching a little of Nick Kyrgios' play in this run of Challengers last year and thinking "Wow." Francis Tiafoe isn't there by any stretch of the imagination (don't even know if he'll win this match), but when he's good, he's quite good.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I am now conflicted regarding wild cards particularly when awarded to British players. I like the idea of supporting Brits with the prize money but see the reality that they are often outclassed and really would be better as wildcards in qualifying where the prize money compared well with the challenger tour and the player has a chance of being competitive.

My feeling is wildcards should be awarded to players with form and more importantly a structure in place to build on the opportunity and improve. I would even suggest that this is joined up with LTA funding, my understanding is the latest iteration was that it existed in the form of grants/loans, i.e. over any year a player applies for a loan to fund a development plan (a coach or a part share in a coach). Such players should then be looked on favorably when the time comes for grass court wild cards.

Interestingly there should also be a performance based top up scheme for coaches demonstrating improvement of players in development that subsidizes high performing coaches (perhaps Britsh developed) working with British players, thereby incentivizing better coaches to work with and develop are players.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 15th of April 2016 03:48:53 AM

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 15th of April 2016 03:50:11 AM

baxi2 · Lower Club Player

There is a fundamental problem with the Grants/Loans method of funding players which I guess is a grey area to some.

Its a complete double standard when you ask payback from young players who can barely afford the tour while at the same time funding Murray,Murray,Edmund,Konta,Watson and Robson without asking for a return. I've mentioned this before but I cant see Andy coughing up 20% of his prize money in return ! (Broady not included as not involved)

disbelief

Shhh · Challenger level

I am sure Dan, Liam and James will all be considered for a wild card if required, as Bob says, they will want to give at least a couple I am sure. Especially as there is hardly another player who can lay claim to one.

I have always favoured a play off of maybe 8 players. It could take place in two days and the winner would have at least be able to claim 3 wins on grass.

Another idea (but VERY unlikely to ever happen) is a peoples choice. A short list of possibles on the website and LTA members vote online for who they'd like to see. Not only can the LTA wash there hands if they flop, the player should be genuinely inspired knowing the public backed him and a wild card should be about adding interest to the event anyway so it fits that bill. Never going to happen though

christ · Futures level

It would certainly help my predictions if Lloyd Glasspool and Evan Hoyt got Wildcards.

... and maybe Mr Bambridge too.

Merit is overrated when compared to self-interest.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

I would do away with GS WC tomorrow if I could but if we really have to have them then I would go along with Oakland on this one in that a player must show that he or she has shown a significant improvement in their performance/ranking from the year before and can at least be competitive - or something along those lines. In Liam Broady's case - correct me if I'm wrong but as things stand would he not even make the qualifying draw on merit? As much as I respect the views of BIS if a player has regressed over 100 places in the rankings and had to revert back to Futures to get the bulk of his wins, and has since not won a single match on the main tour or reached the main draw of any other slam, then surely it would be even more of a slap in the face to those (mostly non-Brits) who do have to win sufficient matches, or have to go through qualifying and spend all year flogging their guts out in order to reach the main draw of one of sports greatest spectacles. What his sister, or anybody else has achieved, or how old he is I feel is irrelevant - sorry. If he hasn't performed, he shouldn't be rewarded. Likewise James Ward who will no doubt feel a sense of entitlement (sorry - I do get that impression) and take away money which somebody more worthy should have collected. Can't believe he had the audacity to claim (assuming this newspaper didn't misquote him) a couple of years back that he has never been handed anything. Sorry I just thought he came across as a deluded, arrogant human being.

theemptyvessel · Club Coach

I am a big fan of Liam but to be fair I have to agree with A131 here. If he can string together some results over these next few weeks at challenger level and then pick up some wins on grass ahead of Wimbledon then I feel he would have a good case that he is getting back on track and should be encouraged. If he continues to struggle as he has been though then I think a WC would be hard to justify and the possibility of getting humiliated if he is drawn against a top 50 player would be worse than missing out altogether.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

i had sympathy with James' comments about help. Yes, he had had WCs which is a valuable assistance to any player but having been our #2 for a considerable period of time he got no other help. And yet whilst he was our 2nd best player, juniors such as Katie Boulter got to follow a world-wide schedule at the LTA's expense with Jeremy Bates travelling alongside as a personal coach and other players who had broken through at a younger age than James but had still to prove themselves also got generous travel help, coaching and funding. In that context I don't think his comments at the time he made them showed him as an arrogant and deluded human being!! IMO they were merely drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of LTA support.

Having said that, much as I love WCs I would not be in favour of awarding him one this year, unless he was only just going to miss out rankings-wise. I feel that they should be given to youngsters on the way up or those, like Laura, on the way back from injury. I'm not really bothered about how likely a youngster is to win a match, I think it's about giving them an opportunity and showing them what they are aiming at. I disagree with them being used as a payback or a retirement cheque, as in the case of Annie K who barely got off court after her R1 loss before announcing her retirement.

indiana · Tennis legend

Direct MD entry to tennis's elite Slam events for the top ranked only, lovely qualifying tournament to give others, such as up and comers, their opportunity. And I certainly have no problem in giving out quite a few qualifying WCs if needed, and yes Liam would currently need one. Well underranked, want an opportunity at your home Slam, here's your opportunity, prove yourself in qualifying and then you've really earned your place.

Yes, I know that in practice we will continue to have MD WCs at all the Slams this year, next year, for the foreseeable, and as I said I expect James to get one, but I don't have to like it

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 15th of April 2016 02:02:12 PM

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

The Optimist wrote:
i had sympathy with James' comments about help. Yes, he had had WCs which is a valuable assistance to any player but having been our #2 for a considerable period of time he got no other help. And yet whilst he was our 2nd best player, juniors such as Katie Boulter got to follow a world-wide schedule at the LTA's expense with Jeremy Bates travelling alongside as a personal coach and other players who had broken through at a younger age than James but had still to prove themselves also got generous travel help, coaching and funding. In that context I don't think his comments at the time he made them showed him as an arrogant and deluded human being!! IMO they were merely drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of LTA support.
Having said that, much as I love WCs I would not be in favour of awarding him one this year, unless he was only just going to miss out rankings-wise. I feel that they should be given to youngsters on the way up or those, like Laura, on the way back from injury. I'm not really bothered about how likely a youngster is to win a match, I think it's about giving them an opportunity and showing them what they are aiming at. I disagree with them being used as a payback or a retirement cheque, as in the case of Annie K who barely got off court after her R1 loss before announcing her retirement.

This was the extract/quote from 'The Guardian' (24 May 2014) I was referring to - no mention of Katie Boulter or much mention of the LTA.

''Im grateful and lucky enough to have the opportunity during the grass season, to earn some money and play big tournaments if I do well. Nothings being handed to you. Yes, youve been given the opportunity to get into the tournament but youve still got to win matches, otherwise its a waste of time. There are a lot of other guys who dont have a grand slam in their country and dont have other support. Its very difficult at the 100-250 level, tough to make a living.''

He says he's grateful - and so he dam well should be. Now I'm fairly certain that irrespective of his performance and/or the years when he has gone out the first round at both Queens and Eastbourne he has still received a WC to the main draw at Wimbledon so for him to say that nothing is being handed to you - well I just find that astounding. I'm sorry if you're being awarded a WC and therefore not having to prove yourself by beating two/three players in a qualifying tournament that is effectively a hand out. He might not see it like that but as far as I'm concerned he is being handed something and to try and say otherwise is just ludicrous.

As for his last comments re the 100-250 level - Now, I appreciate that his life might not always be easy (at least not then), or that he may be remarking in general terms but he chose tennis to try and make his living (assuming no one put a gun to his head and said you will play this sport) and if he isn't good enough at it, or not produced the necessary results then he should suffer the consequences as the vast majority of the other players around 100 -250 have to - not parachuted into the main draw of a grand slam and effectively take the place of someone who has earned the right to be there.

-- Edited by A131 on Friday 15th of April 2016 04:43:24 PM