jb288 wrote:

---

It is odd, given that the top 4 doubles men are in Brit/non-Brit partnerships, that they are so obsessed with all British pairings.

---

 Agreed and virtually all over the tour , single country pairings are unusual these days 

It's a genuinely interesting discussion, Harry, and obviously just our opinions, there is no 'right' answer

I take your point about the smaller countries - Evo was making the same point when he said the guys from Argentina are a lot hungrier because they get no federation help. And the French authorities tried a similar approach back in the 2000s (was never going to work in France )

Wildcards are fundamentally unfair, it's true. But there are lots of aspects of tennis that are unfair. You mention Clara Tauson. Yes, there's no Danish Grand Slam. But her dad has coached her most of her life and was a top professional sportsman, and very successful. Her uncle was a professional tennis player, about ATP 100. Genetically this must help. But also she has had access to excellent coaching and she says she's loved having a big family team, all for free, that have paved the way for her. Which isn't really 'fair'.

Now, I know that it's no real justification to say 'life's unfair, so just add another unfair thing".

But when there is a good justificaiton for the other unfair thing - that it is a big boon to the crowds, local support, viewing figures, which boosts participation numberrs, etc etc - then I think that's relevant. And, again, I don't think it's the main problem in our country's tennis.

Lambda wrote:

---

Venus has a WC to 's-Hertogenbosch so I think it's likely she has a Wimbly WC.

If Venus and Svitolina have a WC and WCs are needed for Surbiton and Ilkley winners then either Hev or Katie S could miss out as there would only be room for 4 Brits.

---

 I guess we just needs a Brit to win one of those events?! Perhaps those players like Heather or Katie should play ilkley instead of maybe Birmingham? Might get some wins and points that way as well? 

HarryGem wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

And coz it's that time of year again .....

I like wildcards

Harry, in my view it's not a question of whether it helps the players or not

It's for the spectators

They like to see GB players; they don't really care about the 8th best Czech youngster, even if she is higher ranked that all the GB ones put together

The people in the stands, the TV viewers, everyone enjoys it

The vast bulk of the players are there on merit. The wildcards are just to add a little extra local interest.

And, as Indy says, France gives out tons of wildcards to players who don't 'deserve' it; so does the US and Australia.

Why should we take a stand and stop?

So I'd keep them

The problem with tennis in the UK is not because we give out wildcards (otherwise the other federations would have the same problem)

---

 CD what you say is obviously correct and I'm just stating my opinion.

However, I do think giving out wildcards to our players when they frankly don't deserve them just because the public might like to see  them play isn't the right thing to do.

Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. I do feel our women can basically play through the year knowing they are going to get a few wildcards in June to help their ranking and earnings and whilst I understand why this is done I don't think it is the way to breed the competitive edge and desire required to be a really top player.

In the case of some of our likely women they are not young players in terms of professional sport. Boulter and Dart are approaching 27, Watson is 31, Miyazaki is 27. I'm not sure how giving such players wildcards help either their personal game or the national game though I'm sure they will mostly get one and obviously I hope they make the most of them as I would if I were French, Australian etc etc in their grand slams.

Players of smaller nations have to fight their way up the rankings without a whole raft of free entries. Tauson is a good example of such a player. Of course as you say wildcards are not the reason we are struggling but I don't think they help.

Anyway, understandably Wimbledon are not going to change so it will be interesting to see to whom the wildcards are granted, though it will likely be the predictable usual candidates for the main draw, qualifying could be much more interesting.

---

 Are you really saying that you don't think our young women try hard enough because they think they'll just get a Wimbly wild card? I actually think that's really unfair on them if so. I've said this before and I'll change my mind if I hear actual evidence against it but I feel that the main issue overall is managing to keep injury free for a lot of our women. Jodie, Katie S, Katie B, Katy Dunne, Fran, Emma and in the recent past Laura Robson and Jo Konta have all had a succession of injury/health issues that have hampered them from really reaching their absolute potential. If you can't play a full season, it's harder to build momentum. This has happened regularly for Jodie and the Katies. Jodie would more than likely have reached the top 100 if she hadn't missed those couple of months when she wasn't defending points from last year. 

My question is about whether they are more prone to injury than women from other countries or if that's just my perception because I'm British and notice it more. And if it is true, then why does it keep happening? 

And Heather and Harriet are both triers, I don't think either of them can be accused of not doing their best. I'm happy to see them getting WCs and I am sure other countries use other ways to prioritise their players. There will always be unfairnesses but it seems silly to artificially disadvantage your own players. I understand your view but just can't agree with it. 

Although she is a name and a stalwart of British tennis does Heather deserve a wild card anymore? Her current WTA  ranking is 180 and her live ranking 190. Or does the fact she did well at Wimbledon 2022 (minus the Russians and Belarus)s till carry some weight.

Nix wrote:

---

HarryGem wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

And coz it's that time of year again .....

I like wildcards

Harry, in my view it's not a question of whether it helps the players or not

It's for the spectators

They like to see GB players; they don't really care about the 8th best Czech youngster, even if she is higher ranked that all the GB ones put together

The people in the stands, the TV viewers, everyone enjoys it

The vast bulk of the players are there on merit. The wildcards are just to add a little extra local interest.

And, as Indy says, France gives out tons of wildcards to players who don't 'deserve' it; so does the US and Australia.

Why should we take a stand and stop?

So I'd keep them

The problem with tennis in the UK is not because we give out wildcards (otherwise the other federations would have the same problem)

---

 CD what you say is obviously correct and I'm just stating my opinion.

However, I do think giving out wildcards to our players when they frankly don't deserve them just because the public might like to see  them play isn't the right thing to do.

Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. I do feel our women can basically play through the year knowing they are going to get a few wildcards in June to help their ranking and earnings and whilst I understand why this is done I don't think it is the way to breed the competitive edge and desire required to be a really top player.

In the case of some of our likely women they are not young players in terms of professional sport. Boulter and Dart are approaching 27, Watson is 31, Miyazaki is 27. I'm not sure how giving such players wildcards help either their personal game or the national game though I'm sure they will mostly get one and obviously I hope they make the most of them as I would if I were French, Australian etc etc in their grand slams.

Players of smaller nations have to fight their way up the rankings without a whole raft of free entries. Tauson is a good example of such a player. Of course as you say wildcards are not the reason we are struggling but I don't think they help.

Anyway, understandably Wimbledon are not going to change so it will be interesting to see to whom the wildcards are granted, though it will likely be the predictable usual candidates for the main draw, qualifying could be much more interesting.

---

 Are you really saying that you don't think our young women try hard enough because they think they'll just get a Wimbly wild card? I actually think that's really unfair on them if so. I've said this before and I'll change my mind if I hear actual evidence against it but I feel that the main issue overall is managing to keep injury free for a lot of our women. Jodie, Katie S, Katie B, Katy Dunne, Fran, Emma and in the recent past Laura Robson and Jo Konta have all had a succession of injury/health issues that have hampered them from really reaching their absolute potential. If you can't play a full season, it's harder to build momentum. This has happened regularly for Jodie and the Katies. Jodie would more than likely have reached the top 100 if she hadn't missed those couple of months when she wasn't defending points from last year. 

My question is about whether they are more prone to injury than women from other countries or if that's just my perception because I'm British and notice it more. And if it is true, then why does it keep happening? 

And Heather and Harriet are both triers, I don't think either of them can be accused of not doing their best. I'm happy to see them getting WCs and I am sure other countries use other ways to prioritise their players. There will always be unfairnesses but it seems silly to artificially disadvantage your own players. I understand your view but just can't agree with it. 

---

 No that's absolutely not what I'm saying. What I am saying is though that there is an underlying safety net there for them which in my opinion, and it is only that, doesn't necessarily lead to the best competitive outcomes for players. maybe I'm old school but I believe that true competition leads to better performances. It is the same in any sport, if you're a pro footballer with no competition for your place then you tend to drop off a certain percentage in your performances. 

Whilst I agree with your concerns re fitness I also think players need to learn how to win, learn how to compete every day they are out there in what is a very tough sport and I don't apply this to just Gb players but the same applies to all players and I don't think granting free entry to the top level competitions is the right thing to do. As I said earlier I'm not talking about just Wimbledon but all the 4 majors.

Of course as I also stated earlier there are valid reasons to grant wild cards but for me just being not quite good enough over the course of a year isn't one of them. It is the same for all countries. For eg why was Mladenovic granted a WC to Paris? yes I know the obvious answer but she didn't need it, she doesn't need the money, it doesn't help her career and as expected was a dismal first round loss. Were there not other more deserving cases? At least if we are going to have them use them wisely.