It's coming up to Wimbledon again, the initial WCs are no doubt going to be announced on Wednesday, and understandably there has been quite a bit of discussion about who might get them. And though participating in some of these discussions, of late the undoubted minority view that we simply shouldn't have Slam MD WCs has kept silent on that so as not to interfere with the general flow. But it is time to put again such a view in it's own little space Contribute, agree, disagree, ignore as you please.
As I said I have contributed myself to WC discussions although for the most part I don't discuss specifically Wimbledon MD WCs, partly because I don't like them myself and partly in case I am thought to be compromising that view, although I can separate what I'd like from the reality for the foreseeable future.
So tomorrow we will have MD WCs announced for various players, mostly home players, generally absolutely miles out of the top 100, some who would have difficulty getting into qualifying ( or simply wouldn't ) on their ranking, that figure that orders how players have performed over the last year.
For me the elite four tournaments of tennis, the Grand Slam tournaments, should be for the very best and places earned by a) ranking ( including PR/SRs ), b) pre MD qualifying and possibly c) some other recognised earned way - eg. junior champion or top points scorer in a series of tournanents. Precious and valuable places divied up by some comittee to chosen ones - just no. And while many players need / appreciate the extra income, don't fund by WC !
For non Slam tournaments, particularly a fair bit lower down, I absolutely accept some of the arguments about WCs ( most certainly including MD ones ) helping push on the fast developing players up the rankings ladder quicker towards their likely true level, and often local WCs leading to more local interest and support. They are quite an important part of tennis. MD ones are not needed at Slams - the up and comers can go through qualifying, Wimbledon and other slams attendances will be very little affected by adding a few lower ranked locals.
Anyway, it's a view
-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 14th of June 2016 10:46:48 PM
For Grand Slams, not only do I thin there should be no main draw wild cards, or qualifying wild cards, I don't think we need qualifying either.
Four events on pure merit; the cut off dates always publicised well in advance; top 128, no exceptions.
Except of course, with SR that cant work, and if you have no one hanging around from qualies, you have no LL to fill in spots that arise from late withdrawals, except, perhaps, doubles players. Which is part of why it persists.
Wild cards are in principle unfair. Grand Slams are the pinnacle of the professional game and a true test of ability over 5 sets. Really extrapolating Indys argument to be fair we should give up Wimbledon and hold the second European slam on clay in Spain.
However, there are many inequalities in tennisand we tend to fixate on the less important ones (So perhaps it's better to raise an inverted churchillian salute to total equality and keep Wimbledon) The UK just doesn't have the weather for Tennis! Perhaps we should have a sunshine quota. It's bl**dy expensive and for the most part only for the affluent. The wages throughout the game are unequally distributed with almost all the earnings shared amongst the top 100 players of either sex. Some elite players use performance enhancing drugs and retain the sponsorship of sports manufactures who sponsor youth tennis primarily to indoctrinate and sell their goods to children and maintain that brand loyalty into adult hood. Some tennis wear (sports wear) manufactures use children and or sweatshops in the developing world to manufacture goods sold to the affluent in the west. College tennis is the ultimate disenfranchisement of for most part socio-economically deprived superior athletes generating massive revenues for their athletic departments playing as amateurs in Football and Basketball college games broadcast across the nation, the revenue generally being used to fund niche sports and relatively wealthy poorer quality athletes playing in front of a comparative audience of one man and his dog. In proportion to the degree of inequality we should discuss these more and wild cards less. But in time honoured tradition lets just go there......Again.
Wild cards in Slams increase the participation levels of players from the host nations, increasing local press coverage, profile and interest. Success inspires young players and motivates at a number of levels. Without wild cards we would have had one male player in the men's game and only two, often less, in the women's to follow at slams for the last decade. Andy's next game is the first time he will have played another Brit on the main tour for a decade and although I embrace Aljiaz and his Britishness he is not a product of British tennis. Wild cards within the domestic game redistribute wealth and increase the profile of British players outside the top 100, they expose young players early yo the senior grand slam environment.
If used appropriately wildcards are a positive force for British tennis, my stance has hardened a bit in that I think the criteria for awarding them should be tougher ie players outside the top 200 should definitely not be considered for MD wild cards unless they have a track record of success on grass and are in excellent form or an immensely talent youngster being fast tracked although they should all have played a year in qualifying first. I would give a maximum of 4.
Qualifying wild cards are fine, those that go to watch are interested in the players playing and the players need the money to keep playing and it is the best value day out in British sport, See you there!
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 15th of June 2016 04:24:41 AM
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 15th of June 2016 04:26:52 AM
Tennis is a travelling circus. The ATP & WTA essentially have a couple of hundred international sportsmen that they drag around the world to play the same matches time and again for the purposes of extracting money from the paying public and sponsors. Quite a few countries have surrendered their tournaments to the circus, including some National events.
The Grand Slams were different, as the British, French, US and Australians haven't quite surrendered their sovereignty.
Wimbledon is the British Open, as I understand it, and as such it is for British players to contest their National championship. Of course, to increase the quality of play and as a sop to the upstart foreigners it has been decided to invite a few (around 110) foreigners into the 128 person draw and another few (again around 110) into the 128 person qualification draw. Thus the invited foreigners (chosen by their world rankings, perhaps) are the wild cards, and the handful of Brits (whatever their ranking) are actually in the draw by right.
Well I am sure that various people will advance several well though out arguments but honestly you are all wasting your time. You might as well start a thread complaining about the sun rising in the east or the existence of gravity. Wild cards aren't going away.
Personally I love WCs. After all, without them, what would we have to argue about here on the forum.
Oakland - You wrote "although I embrace Aljiaz and his Britishness he is not a product of British tennis". If I am not mistaken, he has trained, played and lived in the UK since the age of 17 (he is now 26), so whilst I accept that he is not WHOLLY a product of British Tennis, I think it's fair to say that British tennis has played a large part in his development.
I think it's hard to argue aganist all WCs - Dustin Brown's is a good example of why. It seems eminently fair and reasonable - especially for a tournament on grass, which has such a short season - to have some mechanism to include a player whose ranking dipped around the time of the acceptance list, but who is one of the strongest players going on the tournament's surface and now has a ranking that would give MD entry. Indeed, it seems fairer than saying, in effect, "the acceptances will be determined at a time when the Tour is not on your strongest surface, and despite the fact that you're in-form on this surface and would be eligible if we made the list today, you're not playing."
As for the rest of the arguments, well, like CD, I quite like WCs, even in Slams, assuming they're used responsibly. But I can see the counterarguments, too.
Bob, Aljaz has almost all his success on clay, with all but 2 or 3 of his 20 odd challenger finals on the surface. I would argue he honed the vast majority of his tennis skills battling his twin brother in Slovenia, quite handy to have another elite junior on tap 24/7.
He played almost all his futures and challenger tennis in and around the countries that formed Yugoslavia and those almost adjacent ie Italy and Austria with the odd trip to Turkey and Eygpt but didn't really compete in the UK until slightly older than the age Kyle is now.
Quite sensibly he has used the resources available to him in the UK to build on this but I think above and beyond that to suggest British tennis did more than inherit a very focused young man with a clear plan as to how to optimise his career development would be conning ourselves.
Although unlike me he was not a product of the maternity unit at the QE2 and most likely didn't touch a shredded wheat until he was 18 I think he enjoys being part of the British tennis set up and comes across as being a great role model (ie can't find any negative press at all) and is likely to give back more to British tennis in the long run than he has taken.
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 15th of June 2016 09:31:17 PM
Not necessarily the right place to post this, but I was surprised to see Sam Smith on breakfast television saying she didn't know where the Wimbledon WC playoffs took place. I would have thought she would have been more interested in British tennis.
Yes, indeed, not many WC winners out there. I make it 3 who progressed beyond R1 - Dustin, Tara and Evgeniya Rodina. And Rodina basically qualified through winning the Ilkley 50K - qualification through a specified tournament or series of tournaments I have said is the third area beyond DA and normal qualifying that I have much less of am isdue with. The 9 R1 losers won one set amongst them all.
All 3 R1 winners lost in R2. And given we surely wouldn't expect virtually all WCs to fall down in R1, especially as some e.g. Dustin, have been chosen on their grass ability ( he was maybe also partly chosen as an entertainer, which I accept some may think is OK ) that does not greatly support the system. 3 wins, 12 loses - all out after R2.
But actually that's not really my argument ( merely a response to ooo they won ) and to be fair there were some tough draws and one could no doubt point to better Wimbledons and other Slams for WCs.
No that remains, as these WCs are essentially at the whim of the AELTC ( largely really by the LTA for the Brits ) and players nowhere near the top 100 get to play in our elite Grand Slams and all that brings.
But hey, I know that's not changing any time remotely soon ( as I am often reminded ) and it's been great to see Tara and Dustin's exploits even if in a universal Grand Slam system ( i.e. all following the no general MD WCs ) I wouldn't have had them here.
-- Edited by indiana on Monday 4th of July 2016 09:52:26 AM