The Hoose wrote:

---

 

gjr wrote:

I'm not a fan of the wild card system TBH. I wish wild cards where not allowed. I don't think it will have done him any harm though because playing someone like Malisse is good experience in what it takes to get to the big time.

---

I think the wildcard system's pretty important to generate local interest in an event (and sponsorship). In some countries (Britain included) events would end up being dropped from the calendar were it not for the local wildcards - this wouldn't be good for the game of tennis now, nor in terms of promoting the sport for the future.

 

---

Ok. but...

Some countries (Britain included :) ) have much better events than others.

We have a Slam, an Int and a ATP.
France has a slam, a MS, and other stuff.
US has loads of stuff.
Aus have a slam and 2 ATP.

The rest have either MS or ATP or nothing.

It's not a level playing field.

The ranking system (in it's present form) is designed for players to progress to their level. Giving wild cards is fast tracking players who are good enough or giving your home grown players exposure.

Thats all well and good but if Norway produce a good player, he will progress through normal rankings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Daniel getting a WC, it's just my view that everyone from every country should have the same chance to increase their ranking and earn money.

gjr wrote:

---

The Hoose wrote:

---

gjr wrote:

I'm not a fan of the wild card system TBH. I wish wild cards where not allowed. I don't think it will have done him any harm though because playing someone like Malisse is good experience in what it takes to get to the big time.

---

I think the wildcard system's pretty important to generate local interest in an event (and sponsorship). In some countries (Britain included) events would end up being dropped from the calendar were it not for the local wildcards - this wouldn't be good for the game of tennis now, nor in terms of promoting the sport for the future.

---

Ok. but...

Some countries (Britain included :) ) have much better events than others.

We have a Slam, an Int and a ATP.
France has a slam, a MS, and other stuff.
US has loads of stuff.
Aus have a slam and 2 ATP.

The rest have either MS or ATP or nothing.

It's not a level playing field.

The ranking system (in it's present form) is designed for players to progress to their level. Giving wild cards is fast tracking players who are good enough or giving your home grown players exposure.

Thats all well and good but if Norway produce a good player, he will progress through normal rankings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Daniel getting a WC, it's just my view that everyone from every country should have the same chance to increase their ranking and earn money.

---

I know it sounds terribly capitalist, and me a Labour man too, but tennis tournaments are businesses too, 75% of ATP events make a profit, and one of the reasons for this is people (all around the world) like to see how their local up and coming players do against top players, particularly in the early rounds when there isnt all that much else to excite the spectators.

Wild cards allow what is an inredibly global sport to at least have some sort of local focus, it might (very slightly) damage the purity of the rankings but given that the countries that have most tourneys also tend to have most players the wildies tend to get shared around a bit anyway, so whilst the system is imperfect it is there for a reason.

I seem to recall the likes of Federer beating some unknown local WC 7-6 7-6 (or similar) in the opening round in Dubai. Now there's a diplomatic scoreline for you.

I would say that sometimes the fast-track approach, I'm really thinking back to Jade Curtis at Wimbledon a few years ago, does make the LTA look rather ridiculous and well let's see how Dan does in the next couple of years.

indiana wrote:

---

Remember that nowadays ( other than for Grand Slams and Master Series events ) you actually have to win a match to receive any ranking points.

So a WC into a tournament, while potentially good experience, does not help rankingwise unless they actually win a match.

---

If Daniel had of played Grosjean today (and I don't have pictures so I don't know how bad his injury was) he could have picked up 10 points for no other reason than pure luck.

That would have more than doubled the points he has in possibly 10 minutes of not doing really much.

watching Bloomers now its really hard to believe he loses at any futures events.

XCW4EVA wrote:

---

gjr wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Remember that nowadays ( other than for Grand Slams and Master Series events ) you actually have to win a match to receive any ranking points.

So a WC into a tournament, while potentially good experience, does not help rankingwise unless they actually win a match.

---

If Daniel had of played Grosjean today (and I don't have pictures so I don't know how bad his injury was) he could have picked up 10 points for no other reason than pure luck.

That would have more than doubled the points he has in possibly 10 minutes of not doing really much.

---

Andy got 10 points of pure luck too
So andy deserves points from grosjeans retirement more then Evans would have done, what a ridiculous argument.


-- Edited by XCW4EVA at 14:45, 2008-06-10

---

To be fair qlf does have a slight point that a WC could pick up easy points through an opponent's injury. However, WC / opponent injured combination can't happen that often.

What is undoubtably true is that 10 ranking points to a player down in the 900's in ranking terms is heck of a lot more important than 10 ( or 20 in Andy's case ) points to someone at Andy's level.  In fact since Andy's 18th score is 75 points. he has to reach the semi-finals before it would currently affect his total counting ranking points.  Also, Andy is at least in the tournament in the first place on undoubted merit, so I cerainly do not think that qlf had a "ridiculous arguement".

-- Edited by indiana at 14:57, 2008-06-10

How often does that happen to, every two years, 1 undeseving wc gets 10 points from an opponents retirement, does that really make that much of a difference. Theres a chance Andy would not be where he is today without wc's for sure.