Week 18 - WTA Premier Mandatory - Madrid, Spain - Clay

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Week 18 - WTA Premier Mandatory - Madrid, Spain - Clay

wimdledont · Challenger level

Helen40 wrote:
Arguably, we're down to the entertainment marketing issue again. It is a business at that level, as Shreiky has proved.

I'm not saying it's right, or that I like it, because I don't. But that's the way it is currently.

Though, in this context, the WC to Cirstea (ROM) at this tournament can't be explained as a crowd-puller. It's in the personal gift of the organiser.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, Helen was talking more about my comments re Kleyb.

However, I rather like the personal gift of the organiser ones too (being a fan of wildcards).

There was a nice story about Ancic (pretty sure, would have to check, but doesn't make any real difference) who - when at the top - was asked to play at one of the good (not top) French tournies, to boost their line-up, no extra money or anything, just a nicely worded request. Ancic agreed. All went well.

A couple of years later, his ranking had dropped, nothing working, injuries/illness. And the organiser called him up and said, would you like a wildcard? What goes round, come around....

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

It's deeper than just marketing, it's, well, troubling. It's who you know.
Your nation has something to do with it, but your quality, or proven record don't seem to.
We. here, often refer to players that can, 'use their WC' or that, ' still have x WC available' as though they are somehow guaranteed to be able to get them and use them.
So, I picked some random players of various ages and nationalities that had CH around about those of Heather & Laura ~CH20-40.
I looked at the number of WTA or GS MD WC they had received to date
I tried to pick at least some, but not all, that had had injuries or losses of form in their careers that might have facilitated some use of WC to recover their rankings.

Here's the result - not exhaustive, but indicative.
Wow!

If anyone wants the interactive version, I could upload it later.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Helen40 wrote:
A131 wrote:
Don't know how the rules stand at the moment but if she can still get in on a protected ranking then she should use it - I personally wouldn't give her a wildcard (no surprise there). I remember Kleybanova (who had previously reached the 4th round and reached the top 20)being refused a wildcard a few years ago and she had cancer FGS - she didn't even get a qualifying wild card. Admittedly there was some fault on Kleybanova's side in that her request or her team were late with some paperwork and she had not long been back playing but even so. Wimbledon made some limp excuse as to why she wasn't given one but you can bet your bottom dollar that if she had been British she would have got one. I think LR had only played one match back when she got a WC last year, which up to a point I can understand, but like ABB wrote once we start having special rulesets that apply only to them, in contrary to evidence; whoever they are - even Andy - I think we get in to very dangerous territory. So I say make LR qualify even if she thinks she's too good for it - at least make her earn the right to be there if you are going to refuse Kleybanova even a qwc, albeit 3 years ago.
I don't think has any SR left, her last one being for the French. My impression is that she is virtually guaranteed a Wimby WC otherwise she would have used her last SR for that.
As for the rules being bent to suit the Brits, well that's going to be the case for every country. Take the WTA tournament just last week in Morocco where Laura played against an UNR (with no previous history or calibre) , just because she was Moroccan.

Not every country has a grand slam though .Without going into great detail again Helen, Indy and myself don't have a problem with WC at regular tour events where there is perhaps more of a need to attract local interest though I agree in this case this UNR really should have been nowhere near an event like that. Grand Slams, I think, should not need to create this extra interest/business when you already have the best players in the world attending. Wimbledon is much bigger than any one player and I really don't think it would make much difference if Laura Robson was there or not. You would still get the same number of people through the gate.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

insomniacfolder wrote:
It's deeper than just marketing, it's, well, troubling. It's who you know.
Your nation has something to do with it, but your quality, or proven record don't seem to.
We. here, often refer to players that can, 'use their WC' or that, ' still have x WC available' as though they are somehow guaranteed to be able to get them and use them.
So, I picked some random players of various ages and nationalities that had CH around about those of Heather & Laura ~CH20-40.
I looked at the number of WTA or GS MD WC they had received to date
I tried to pick at least some, but not all, that had had injuries or losses of form in their careers that might have facilitated some use of WC to recover their rankings.

Here's the result - not exhaustive, but indicative.
Wow!

If anyone wants the interactive version, I could upload it later.

Very Interesting Insomniac.

I have been thinking in the last few days about protective rankings/wild cards etc. As I have said before if a player suffers a decline in ranking due to injury/illness after having climbed to the top 20/30 then under those circumstances I can perhaps be a bit more sympathetic to allowing them a GSMDWC especially if they got there without the help of or a very minimal amount of wild cards. But to me it would seem unfair that Heather Watson and Laura Robson, who according to your results have already had a tonne of help the first time round, get another batch of favourable treatment. It would be even more unfair on those who have to operate within the system without the benefits/advantages they have. Injuries are part and parcel of being an athlete and if that happens then the second time around they should have to qualify ( for grand slams at least) like 94% of the field have to. Just my view.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

I knew Laura had done very well out of wildcards as she has always had a high profile (relative to ranking) but I was surprised to see Heather was equal to her on the list (especially as even though Heather is older Laura's first Wimbledon at 15 would predate any of Heather's wildcards)

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Thanks IF, It makes interesting viewing.

Just one other thought I had. Is there any correlation between the number of WCs to GS nations and National rankings?

I agree with tony. I am surprised that Hev has had as many WCs as Laura. I always thought of her as the forgotten one as Laura had such early success.