Wimbledon Wildcards Announced

Wakey · Junior player

Wimbledon Wildcards Announced

sherbert · Lower Club Player

I've never really understood the issue with players getting the money. I know Neil just wants to play at Wimbledon. But part of it for me will be thinking that we can finally have a year without worrying where the next lot of money is going to come from to fund tournaments. And without having that worry, surely it's a weight off a players shoulders, which encourages better playing and better results?

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I struggle to see the logic of not trying to give as many young British players as much as an opportunity as possible to progress. Wimbledon qualifying is essentially a well rewarded but by definition not loaded challenger. There has been a lot of debate about fairness and indeed life is fairer for some more than others, as a British tennis fan interested in our system producing as many elite players and coaches as possible, we need to make sure that it is as fair as possible for any British player with the potential to be competitive and improve.

A play off seems a sensible way of doing it, Evo and Richard can take confidence from winning through into qualifying. The structure this year doesn't appear fit for purpose, but with a little more thought ie a draw and structure that represents the number of wild cards to be awarded is definitely the way forward after players fitting ranking criteria, as opposed to giving them to Frenchman ranked 200 (unless they are interested in becoming British!)

A certain amount of intelligence needs to be excised along with a more global understanding of building up the resources to deliver elite players within the overall stratergy being employed, so for example one might consider a wild card for a player on the cusp of qualification training in Great Shelford with a young coach with interesting ideas an opportunity to develop, both the player and the coach. If we are going down the tough love route every penny not given to players need to be invested in researching, understanding and facilitating how you are going to make it work.

Jaffa · Challenger level

If Ed gets in qualies they should upgrade him to the last WC in my opinion, will be the first time in years a player has had to qualify as a DA if he doesn't won't it?

RJA · Hall of fame

sherbert wrote:
I've never really understood the issue with players getting the money. I know Neil just wants to play at Wimbledon. But part of it for me will be thinking that we can finally have a year without worrying where the next lot of money is going to come from to fund tournaments. And without having that worry, surely it's a weight off a players shoulders, which encourages better playing and better results?

The issue isn't simply with players getting the money. It is a question of how best to balance the incentives and to help a player advance their career. Lets take a hypothetical player.

Joe Bloggs is 24 years old and is ranked 423 in the world and is the British No7. Over the past 4 years his ranking has ranged from 350-500. Does giving him a main draw Wimbledon wild card every year (£25K +) help him to make the breakthrough or does it just subsidise mediocrity? Does being able to make a living by being ranked 423 in the world really give Joe the greatest incentive to make himself a better player?

Wild cards are part of the package available to the LTA to support British players and I want to see them targeted intelligently, to reward improving players with greater opportunities rather than simply to subsidise stagnating players.

RJA · Hall of fame

Jaffa wrote:
If Ed gets in qualies they should upgrade him to the last WC in my opinion, will be the first time in years a player has had to qualify as a DA if he doesn't won't it?

The last main draw wild card is almost certainly reserved for Kudla if he wins Ilkley.

indiana · Tennis legend

To my mind we should just not be in the position of thinking of Wimbledon MD WCs as needed as some essential part of "funding".

I certainly want British players to receive more assistance including financial and my comments against "tough love" and the cuts in the bonus awards are well recorded. The resources are there to fund in a much more rational manner.

My own onggoing arguments against MD WCs in ALL Slams I think are fairly easy to understand ( and thank you to those that at least acknowledge that ) although I accept that most do not agree.

It mainly comes down to a debate that places in our elite Slam MDs should be earned on a more level basis as against the more interest generated by having added home players.

Personally, in Slams the "earned" aspect wins out over "improve the specttator experience". Witthout these unearned WCs Wimbledon would still be packed with loads of interesting great tennis to enjoy.

Come through qualifying, even with Q WCs, quite a different matter.

sherbert · Lower Club Player

RJA wrote:
sherbert wrote:
I've never really understood the issue with players getting the money. I know Neil just wants to play at Wimbledon. But part of it for me will be thinking that we can finally have a year without worrying where the next lot of money is going to come from to fund tournaments. And without having that worry, surely it's a weight off a players shoulders, which encourages better playing and better results?
The issue isn't simply with players getting the money. It is a question of how best to balance the incentives and to help a player advance their career. Lets take a hypothetical player.
Joe Bloggs is 24 years old and is ranked 423 in the world and is the British No7. Over the past 4 years his ranking has ranged from 350-500. Does giving him a main draw Wimbledon wild card every year (£25K +) help him to make the breakthrough or does it just subsidise mediocrity? Does being able to make a living by being ranked 423 in the world really give Joe the greatest incentive to make himself a better player?
Wild cards are part of the package available to the LTA to support British players and I want to see them targeted intelligently, to reward improving players with greater opportunities rather than simply to subsidise stagnating players.

You are mistaken if you think a player makes a living out of that money. For Neil it would mean being able to spend every week that he isn't playing tournaments training instead of earning money coaching to be able to fund trips. And if a player really doesn't try because they know they'll be getting that money - then they shouldn't really be playing tennis. I think other's are right that the funding needs to be done differently. But with the current system, it seems the best way to me to fund your britosh players.

RJA · Hall of fame

sherbert wrote:
You are mistaken if you think a player makes a living out of that money. For Neil it would mean being able to spend every week that he isn't playing tournaments training instead of earning money coaching to be able to fund trips. And if a player really doesn't try because they know they'll be getting that money - then they shouldn't really be playing tennis. I think other's are right that the funding needs to be done differently. But with the current system, it seems the best way to me to fund your britosh players.

I appreciate that a Wimbledon wild card doesn't fund a player's whole year but it certainly would contribute heavily towards it.

It is sometimes easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the LTA should be doing everything possible to support players like Marcus Willis, Alex Ward and David Rice (all ranked between 350 and 450) but understandably the LTA are more concerned with how to get more players into the top 200 and the top 100 than they are with specific individuals. A balance needs to be struck between providing enough support for players to stay in the sport and maintaining a credible series of British tournament but not over subsidising mediocre players. Unlike some I am supportive of the idea of "tough love", I just think that the LTA have applied it in a nonsensical manner. As I said in another thread, it is carrot or stick rather than a sensible combination of both.

sherbert · Lower Club Player

RJA wrote:
sherbert wrote:
You are mistaken if you think a player makes a living out of that money. For Neil it would mean being able to spend every week that he isn't playing tournaments training instead of earning money coaching to be able to fund trips. And if a player really doesn't try because they know they'll be getting that money - then they shouldn't really be playing tennis. I think other's are right that the funding needs to be done differently. But with the current system, it seems the best way to me to fund your britosh players.
I appreciate that a Wimbledon wild card doesn't fund a player's whole year but it certainly would contribute heavily towards it.
It is sometimes easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the LTA should be doing everything possible to support players like Marcus Willis, Alex Ward and David Rice (all ranked between 350 and 450) but understandably the LTA are more concerned with how to get more players into the top 200 and the top 100 than they are with specific individuals. A balance needs to be struck between providing enough support for players to stay in the sport and maintaining a credible series of British tournament but not over subsidising mediocre players. Unlike some I am supportive of the idea of "tough love", I just think that the LTA have applied it in a nonsensical manner. As I said in another thread, it is carrot or stick rather than a sensible combination of both.

I do agree with you there. The whole system is a mess. When I met Neil 5 years ago, he had no concept at all of money - everything was paid for and then they suddenly drop you with no skills of how to do it themselves. No idea about taxes or national insurance, let alone ways of travelling cheaply. I'm angry because I think if Neil had been managed better then his tennis career would have been a very different story. I'm not saying top 100 - but certainly better than it has been.

I will ill always say though, that with the current system of WCs, it's better that the money goes to a Brit rather than a foreigner.

wimdledont · Challenger level

"Tough luck" is doomed to failure, unless Mr Downey and friends can succeed in bankrupting the UK economy entirely. The tennis industry alone is worth £2.5billion to the UK economy, and supports thousands of well-remunerated jobs in administration, marketing, coaching, etc, the vast majority of which are much better paid than any of the players who are competing at any level below ATP/WTA main tour.

The LTA has already succeeded, and is now trying harder, to create a situation where there are enormous economic pressures for the vast majority of our players to retire from competitive tennis, usually several years before they should be at their athletic peak, at around the age of 28 for male athletes, 26 for women athletes.

murray_2k9 · Challenger qualifying

For me, it can be very easy to separate sports from 'normal life' - but ultimately our British players are just young professionals trying to better themselves.

Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. show massive improvement year in, year out? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. have all the answers before their late 20s? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. rocket up to the top of the career ladder within the first few years? No.

Everybody hits tough patches and rocky months in their career, but the people who tend to pull through tend to be those who have a good support network, those who back them even when they wobble and those who are willing to put their neck on the line and take a punt on them. Until the LTA begins to build that sort of relationship with our players rather than one of constant uncertainty, unclear objectives and varying support we wont grow the sport.

Why dont the LTA ignore the British press and clarify what the expectations are of the WCs given to our players; to help them grow their game, gain experience of big match tennis and to have a crack at higher ranked players? I bet youngsters would be far more inclined to pick up a racquet if they saw Brits out their enjoying themselves in front of a supporting crowd AND with the vocal backing of a positive tennis association, rather than seeing all Brits who lose as failures who are fair play for the venomous press.

Wakey · Junior player

indiana wrote:
To my mind we should just not be in the position of thinking of Wimbledon MD WCs as needed as some essential part of "funding".

I certainly want British players to receive more assistance including financial and my comments against "tough love" and the cuts in the bonus awards are well recorded. The resources are there to fund in a much more rational manner.

My own onggoing arguments against MD WCs in ALL Slams I think are fairly easy to understand ( and thank you to those that at least acknowledge that ) although I accept that most do not agree.

It mainly comes down to a debate that places in our elite Slam MDs should be earned on a more level basis as against the more interest generated by having added home players.

Personally, in Slams the "earned" aspect wins out over "improve the specttator experience". Witthout these unearned WCs Wimbledon would still be packed with loads of interesting great tennis to enjoy.

Come through qualifying, even with Q WCs, quite a different matter.

Most people who attend a grand Slam don't watch tennis for most of the rest of the year and certainly not outside the top 100 so to me the spectators experience is important. You can always get behind a player from your own country but an unknown foreigner had to earn it. Yes maybe the foreigner might put up a better fight but that's not guaranteed, a home crowd and nothing to lose can see them put in a real fight. I'm not saying all MD WC should be given to Brits, ideally only those who.made the qualies and maybe a talented youngster but qualie wc seem perfectly fine going to almost only Brits, perhaps with the playoffs being extended to give more for these people and have more people taking part as going on a winning run has to aid them getting through qualifying so that like the other grand Slam nations we maximise the chances of getting more Brits into the main draw

Wakey · Junior player

murray_2k9 wrote:
For me, it can be very easy to separate sports from 'normal life' - but ultimately our British players are just young professionals trying to better themselves.

Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. show massive improvement year in, year out? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. have all the answers before their late 20s? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. rocket up to the top of the career ladder within the first few years? No.

Everybody hits tough patches and rocky months in their career, but the people who tend to pull through tend to be those who have a good support network, those who back them even when they wobble and those who are willing to put their neck on the line and take a punt on them. Until the LTA begins to build that sort of relationship with our players rather than one of constant uncertainty, unclear objectives and varying support we wont grow the sport.

Why dont the LTA ignore the British press and clarify what the expectations are of the WCs given to our players; to help them grow their game, gain experience of big match tennis and to have a crack at higher ranked players? I bet youngsters would be far more inclined to pick up a racquet if they saw Brits out their enjoying themselves in front of a supporting crowd AND with the vocal backing of a positive tennis association, rather than seeing all Brits who lose as failures who are fair play for the venomous press.

What annoys me about the press is how unfair they are, as a wc the chances are they aren't going to win their first match, even if they sneak into the main draw or come through qualies the chances are they will get someone on paper that they shouldn't win but the press expects them to and that bleeds down to the general public. Even if they put up a really good fight they get attacked by the press posing. If they put in a good performance against better ranked people then they should get some praise not the abuse and even if the get whitewashed the abuse they have to put up with isn't constructive. Boggo had Fed one year and got abuse for losing, he got Nadal another and it was fairly close sets yet he got attacked again. He also too a set a few times verses higher ranked people. Its just not helpful from the British media as it has to undermine any confidence they got from playing ok against top players

christ · Futures level

murray_2k9 wrote:
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. show massive improvement year in, year out? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. have all the answers before their late 20s? No.
Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. rocket up to the top of the career ladder within the first few years? No.

Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. retire from their chosen career at 35 because they are too old?

Do all 20 somethings in recruitment, finance, marketing etc. expect the best earning years of their career to be between twenty and thirty?

The "unfair" thing (well, one of the unfair things) about being a professional sportsman is that your body is only capable whilst it is just mature, and the effective years are very much fewer than jobs "in the real world" that rely less on physical prowess. Therefore one is forced to be better earlier, and lack of improvement/ success is a lot more debilitating.