Wild Cards [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wild Cards

smucav
05-14-2012, 10:41 PM
Main Draw
1 Baker, Jamie GBR
2 Goffin, David BEL
3 Golding, Oliver GBR
4 Goodall, Josh GBR
5 Haas, Tommy GER
6 Hewitt, Lleyton AUS
7 Ward, James GBR
8 Zemlja, Grega SLO

Qualifying
1 Rice, David GBR (LTA play-offs finalist)
2 Eaton, Christopher GBR (LTA play-offs finalist)
3 Bambridge, Luke GBR
4 Broady, Liam GBR
5 Edmund, Kyle GBR
6 Morgan, George GBR
7 Fitzpatrick, Andrew GBR (replaces Saville, Luke AUS)
8 Bloomfield, Richard GBR
9 Corrie, Edward GBR

Doubles
1 DELGADO, Jamie (GBR)/SKUPSKI, Kenneth (GBR)
2 MARRAY, Jonathan (GBR)/NIELSEN, Frederik (DEN)
3 GUCCIONE, Chris (AUS)/HEWITT, Lleyton (AUS)
4 GOODALL, Josh (GBR)/WARD, James (GBR)
5 BROADY, Liam (GBR)/GOLDING, Oliver (GBR)

Qualifying Doubles
1. Lewis Burton and George Morgan (GBR)
2. David Rice and Sean Thornley (GBR)

Chase Visa
05-15-2012, 01:22 AM
The following will get WC....

Ward
Baker
Goodall
Hewitt
Haas
Schuttler

Who else?

SapELee
05-15-2012, 01:29 AM
Maybe a wc for Golding?

Ertl93
05-15-2012, 10:50 AM
Schüttler???

kingroger
05-15-2012, 11:23 AM
probably schüttler's farewell tournament.... :wavey:

CooCooCachoo
05-15-2012, 03:45 PM
Maybe a wc for Golding?

I would really hope so. Reigning US Open junior champion, plus he has won some Futures in Britain this year. But his 2R loss at Wimbledon juniors last year won't help his chances.

Liam Broady was in the Wimbledon Boys' final last year, so he might be on the radar too.

But we all know the AELTC is rather illogical in its WC choices, preferring not to allocate them and to let unknown and unpopular players into the draw than giving young Brits a chance.

CooCooCachoo
05-15-2012, 03:47 PM
FYI, the current highest-ranked Brits (excluding Murray):


141. James Ward
206. Jamie Baker
228. Josh Goodall
349. Richard Bloomfield
356. Alexander Ward
359. Alex Bogdanovic
384. Daniel Evans
410. Daniel Smethurst
432. Joshua Milton
462. Daniel Cox
469. David Rice
500. Andrew Fitzpatrick
519. Chris Eaton
529. Morgan Phillips
549. Oliver Golding
599. Edward Corrie

jazar
05-16-2012, 04:56 PM
I think Golding and Broady should get qualifying wild cards. Luke Saville will get a qualifying wild card as well, as last year's boys singles champ.

CooCooCachoo
05-16-2012, 05:45 PM
I think Golding and Broady should get qualifying wild cards. Luke Saville will get a qualifying wild card as well, as last year's boys singles champ.

This is probably what will happen, but I'd rather they get MD WCs than to have the field filled by the next-in-line.

scarecrows
05-16-2012, 05:48 PM
hopefully Bogo gets one

JurajCrane
05-16-2012, 08:06 PM
I think Evans will get a WC for his heroic efforts in Davis Cup. Plus his gamestyle fits to grass.

jazar
05-17-2012, 07:40 AM
This is probably what will happen, but I'd rather they get MD WCs than to have the field filled by the next-in-line.

Better off them having qualifying wild cards as they aren't ready for the main draw of a Slam.

ThomasVDM
05-18-2012, 02:21 PM
WC for Lleyton Hewitt ?

pesto
05-20-2012, 12:16 AM
Other than the guys within the top 300, I think Golding stands the best chance.

Last year, he didn't look embarrassingly out of place at Queens or at Eastbourne qualies, and he won a round in Wimbledon qualies.

I don't think his points for his recent futures win have gone on yet, so he will be ranked within the top 500 after that, I guess. So he'll have risen about 500 places in the past year. In that time, he also won junior US Open, and his first two Futures titles.

He is probably showing enough promise to be awarded a wild card on the basis of being a talented teen, especially as we have so few players worth considering for it.

Ausie
05-21-2012, 03:31 PM
Wild Cards announced - 12.06.

SamRFC
05-24-2012, 09:33 PM
Can't see more than 3 Brits getting WC's, in that case it'll be Ward, Evans following the Davis Cup and one of Golding and Broady (possibly both, fingers crossed)

No idea about the others, Brian Baker anyone?

jmjhb
05-25-2012, 12:09 AM
Broady has been poor for the best part of a year since last year's Wimbledon, doesn't deserve one to be quite honest.

Ward, Baker and Goodall are pretty much guaranteed one as they're within the threshold of the top 250, and I expect Golding will be given one too as he's made considerable progress this year.

yesh222
05-25-2012, 03:10 AM
Brian Baker has to get a Wild Card after this, right?

Ausie
05-25-2012, 06:47 AM
Brian Baker has to get a Wild Card after this, right?I think, depends on how it will play in the first week on the grass.

CooCooCachoo
05-25-2012, 07:06 AM
I think, depends on how it will play in the first week on the grass.

Not necessarily. They've given WCs to players who did well at the French, even if they had no real pedigree on grass.

Baker's run in Nice, coupled with a few wins in Paris could get him a WC.

Sombrerero loco
05-27-2012, 08:17 AM
they will give qwcs to oli and liam i think

Sombrerero loco
05-27-2012, 08:18 AM
i dont really get why some people want MD-WCs for golding and broady
why? we all know they will be defeated easily, so lets give them a chance to win a couple of matches in the qualy

BrunoBeidacki
05-28-2012, 07:34 PM
Goffin should get a WC. He's a really good player, and he plays even better in grass.

Fat Camel
05-28-2012, 09:34 PM
Goffin should get a WC. He's a really good player, and he plays even better in grass.

We'll see his match against Clement on wednesday who is also a WC contender playing his last season.

smucav
05-29-2012, 10:39 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20120529/wertheim-serena-williams-mailbag/index.htmlBrian Baker. Wimbledon? Olympics? Davis Cup? -- Mike, Chicago

• Let's go pessimistic to optimistic. The Olympics won't happen. The Olympics are virtually an impossibility. That's just a numbers game. (Of course Baker reaching the second round of a major was a virtual impossibility, too.) The Davis Cup is a stretch, too. Hard to bounce the various players who not only have superior rankings but have been loyal for years.
Wimbledon? Now you're talking. Baker has missed the cutoff, so no matter how he fares in Paris, he'll have to qualify for the main draw. Unless he gets a wild card. What's that? They always go to British players, no matter how modestly ranked? Not necessarily. The LTA has been outspoken about stopping years of coddling and giving the wild cards to the most deserving players. After Lleyton Hewitt (a former champ, albeit a full decade ago) who's more deserving than Baker? Not only a great narrative -- Jeremy Lin, Kurt Warner and Andre Agassi rolled into one! -- but fully deserving on the basis of his results this year.
Baker, incidentally, will play at least one event on grass this summer. The Campbell's Hall of Fame event in Newport has already added him to a stacked field.

dinkulpus
05-30-2012, 10:17 PM
Luke Saville WC - he is junior champion from last year :angel:

smucav
05-31-2012, 12:30 AM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=17927&zoneid=25Baker mulls Wimbledon wild card chances
Ticker - Wednesday, May 30, 2012

American Brian Baker, whose comeback from five surgeries has been the talk of tennis world, says that he would consider taking a Wimbledon wild card. After winning the USTA Roland Garros wild card, Baker went through qualifying at Nice and reached the final. He won his first-round match at Roland Garros before losing in five sets to Gilles Simon.

"Playing main draw Wimbledon would be an awesome thing," said Baker, who is projected to be ranked around No. 110 when the next rankings are released. "I haven't even sat down with anybody to inquire about what my chances of getting a wild card would be, or how I'd go about that. I think you take wild cards when you're playing well and you know that you can win some matches and go deep in tournaments. I don't think you take wild cards just to take them because they're throwing it at you, just to take some money first round, and just play. I have had some of my best results this year when I've had to go through qualies. I don't think it's the end of the world to have to play qualies. If you're playing well, I think you take the wild cards and see what you can do."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20120531/french-open-players-over-30-mailbag/index.htmlBrian Baker formally applied for a wild card to Wimbledon. Let's see what happens.

Fat Camel
06-01-2012, 02:29 PM
Clement asked for WC again this year.
Maybe he will even finish after Wimbledon. Hope they will give it to him.

Chilenaitor
06-07-2012, 02:02 AM
Saville :D

duong
06-07-2012, 03:09 PM
Hewitt, Haas, Clément, Goffin, Brian Baker that makes a lot of foreign contenders for a wild-card this year :eek:

I think Hewitt is given, Haas very likely, if the other ones want to have a chance they'd better play well on grass till next week imo :shrug:

CooCooCachoo
06-07-2012, 06:56 PM
Hewitt, Haas, Clément, Goffin, Brian Baker that makes a lot of foreign contenders for a wild-card this year :eek:

I think Hewitt is given, Haas very likely, if the other ones want to have a chance they'd better play well on grass till next week imo :shrug:

They could very well decide to hand the WCs out to these five foreigners, and to the three Brits meeting the Top 250-criterion (Ward, Baker, Goodall).

Though I doubt Clément will get one again, after last year (losing in R128).

grosjeanlol
06-08-2012, 11:41 AM
Paul-Henri Mathieu no?

kevin_071
06-11-2012, 06:40 PM
any chance for David Goffin?

soulage
06-11-2012, 06:51 PM
Goffin has his chances; Falla and Gabashvili got ones past years after good run in Roland Garros so why not Goffin ?

Hewitt and Haas are sure imo and They were used to not award all WC since few years but maybe not this year ?

CooCooCachoo
06-11-2012, 10:55 PM
any chance for David Goffin?

I think Goffin is pretty much certain to get one. Great run, and to go out like that against Federer. He is more deserving than Falla and Gabashvili last year.

Givenchy
06-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Wimbledon men's wcs - Goffin, Goodall, Golding, J Baker, Ward, Haas, Hewitt (one to come)

https://twitter.com/NeilHarmanTimes/status/212515758020898816

SamRFC
06-12-2012, 12:16 PM
Pleased with those choices. Plenty of Brits increasing the chances of someone actually winning a match. One to come will be anyone who has a run at Queen's I'd imagine otherwise I'm not sure

Ausie
06-12-2012, 12:21 PM
Lleyton Hewitt gets a Wimbledon wild card into singles and into doubles with Chris Guccione.

misty1
06-12-2012, 12:21 PM
jamie baker..what a waste of a wild card

really happy to see david get one

Sombrerero loco
06-12-2012, 12:35 PM
golding? O_O better give one to him in the qualies...

Vilnietė
06-12-2012, 12:37 PM
Pleased with those choices. Plenty of Brits increasing the chances of someone actually winning a match.

Yes, it's increasing the chances of two brits facing each other, then one of them would eventually win :p

Sombrerero loco
06-12-2012, 12:39 PM
:haha: true

Givenchy
06-12-2012, 01:56 PM
Gentlemen's Singles
1. Jamie Baker (GBR)
2. David Goffin (BEL)
3. Oliver Golding (GBR)
4. Josh Goodall (GBR)
5. Tommy Haas (GER)
6. Lleyton Hewitt (AUS)
7. James Ward (GBR)
8. TBA



Qualifying Gentlemen's Singles
1. Luke Bambridge (GBR)
2. Liam Broady (GBR)
3. Kyle Edmund (GBR)
4. George Morgan (GBR)
5. Luke Saville (AUS)
6. From wild card play-off
7. From wild card play-off
8. TBA
9. TBA

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2012-06-12/201206121339508369858.html

Fat Camel
06-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Clement or Baker. Hope they will choose Arnaud.

Sombrerero loco
06-12-2012, 02:46 PM
what a pity they didnt give a qwc for josh milton this year =(

yesh222
06-12-2012, 03:28 PM
Last Wild Card has to be Brian Baker, right?

misty1
06-12-2012, 03:33 PM
Gentlemen's Singles
1. Jamie Baker (GBR)
2. David Goffin (BEL)
3. Oliver Golding (GBR)
4. Josh Goodall (GBR)
5. Tommy Haas (GER)
6. Lleyton Hewitt (AUS)
7. James Ward (GBR)
8. TBA



Qualifying Gentlemen's Singles
1. Luke Bambridge (GBR)
2. Liam Broady (GBR)
3. Kyle Edmund (GBR)
4. George Morgan (GBR)
5. Luke Saville (AUS)
6. From wild card play-off
7. From wild card play-off
8. TBA
9. TBA

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2012-06-12/201206121339508369858.html

:eek:nothing for evans? i know he hasnt lived up to expectations but he's still one of the highest ranked guys they have and perfomed very well in davis cup against slovakia

is he for some reason not on good standing with them?

CooCooCachoo
06-12-2012, 07:27 PM
:eek:nothing for evans? i know he hasnt lived up to expectations but he's still one of the highest ranked guys they have and perfomed very well in davis cup against slovakia

is he for some reason not on good standing with them?

He should get a QWC or even the last MD WC. He hasn't played at all in between DC and Nottingham though.

CooCooCachoo
06-12-2012, 07:27 PM
Razzano got a Wimbledon WC after ousting Serena, and then losing to Rus :rolls:

navy75
06-12-2012, 09:17 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Brian Baker doesn't get one. The Wimbledon execs have always been stuffy pricks with no heart, brains, or regard for merit. If Baker doesn't a WC into Wimbledon then no one should ever get one.

That said, Baker's got a great attitude. He doesn't believe that WCs should be taken for an excuse to cash a 1st round check, doesn't mind playing qualies at all, and wouldn't even accept a WC to an event that he doesn't feel he can compete in.

smucav
06-12-2012, 10:03 PM
Paul-Henri Mathieu no?No, Mathieu is a direct entry, he doesn't need a wild card:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=11987200&postcount=1

J99
06-12-2012, 10:13 PM
The following will get WC....

Ward
Baker
Goodall
Hewitt
Haas
Schuttler

Who else?

Say what, no.

CooCooCachoo
06-12-2012, 10:13 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Brian Baker doesn't get one. The Wimbledon execs have always been stuffy pricks with no heart, brains, or regard for merit. If Baker doesn't a WC into Wimbledon then no one should ever get one.

That said, Baker's got a great attitude. He doesn't believe that WCs should be taken for an excuse to cash a 1st round check, doesn't mind playing qualies at all, and wouldn't even accept a WC to an event that he doesn't feel he can compete in.

Brian needed a better RG to properly get onto the AELTC's radar. They have consistently based their WC allocations to non-British players on that event, on previous Wimbledon performances, or on being a formerly top-ranked player. Baker falls short on all counts. And he lost in the Queen's QD.

I hope he gets one, but your comment is a bit much.

navy75
06-14-2012, 05:09 PM
Brian needed a better RG to properly get onto the AELTC's radar. They have consistently based their WC allocations to non-British players on that event, on previous Wimbledon performances, or on being a formerly top-ranked player. Baker falls short on all counts. And he lost in the Queen's QD.

I hope he gets one, but your comment is a bit much.

I very much respect your opinion sir, but I'm not sure what more that they could possibly want. He beat Malisse in straights and took Simon to five sets on Centre Court in front of a hostile crowd in Baker's first Grand Slam in over seven years. This was after reaching the finals as a qualifier in his first ATP level tournament in almost seven years. What else could the AELTC want from a guy just coming off of some of the most dabilitating injuries that a player could suffer from?

CooCooCachoo
06-14-2012, 05:22 PM
I very much respect your opinion sir, but I'm not sure what more that they could possibly want. He beat Malisse in straights and took Simon to five sets on Centre Court in front of a hostile crowd in Baker's first Grand Slam in over seven years. This was after reaching the finals as a qualifier in his first ATP level tournament in almost seven years. What else could the AELTC want from a guy just coming off of some of the most dabilitating injuries that a player could suffer from?

AELTC generally only start paying attention at 4R, maybe 3R.

WC choices in the previous years - and, IMO, especially the decision not to award some - suggest that the average MTF poster would make better picks. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they are considering Devilder as much as Baker.

veganlunch
06-16-2012, 09:57 AM
Does the winner of of the final get a wild card into the main draw at Wimbledon?

CooCooCachoo
06-16-2012, 08:05 PM
Does the winner of of the final get a wild card into the main draw at Wimbledon?

No. Both Eaton and Rice get QWCs. I don't think that there is even a final match.

CooCooCachoo
06-16-2012, 08:20 PM
Giving a doubles WC to Goodall/Ward over Rice/Thornley is just inexcusable.

CooCooCachoo
06-16-2012, 08:22 PM
Sean Thornley:

No fairness, no rules, no accountability

:yeah:

Idiots. Also Marray/Nielsen over them. Idiots.

outrider
06-16-2012, 10:31 PM
WTF? WC for Marray/Nielsen? :facepalm:

Inglot/Eaton
Goodall/Eaton
Rice/Thornley
would be better choices here

How looks the Doubles Qualifying? 16 or 32 teams?

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 07:14 AM
WTF? WC for Marray/Nielsen? :facepalm:

Inglot/Eaton
Goodall/Eaton
Rice/Thornley
would be better choices here

How looks the Doubles Qualifying? 16 or 32 teams?

I presume Inglot will be in the MD already, without a WC (partnering Huey?).

I think Marray/Nielsen is definitely a better team than Goodall/Eaton.

16 teams.

veganlunch
06-17-2012, 10:34 AM
No. Both Eaton and Rice get QWCs. I don't think that there is even a final match.

Thanks. In that case, is there no 8th wild card being given for the main draw?

veganlunch
06-17-2012, 10:37 AM
Is there no 8th wild card being given for the men's main draw?

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 10:56 AM
Is there no 8th wild card being given for the men's main draw?

We will most likely find out today. It's unlikely that another Brit will get one, as no one really excelled on grass in the last two weeks. And there haven't been any great runs by non-British players who do not have a direct entry either.

I think Brian Baker would be the only possibility remaining. Perhaps Clément.

soulage
06-17-2012, 11:36 AM
If Zemlja wins Nottingham can he gets one ? Last year the winners of Nottingham Sela and Muller got ones. Beck could get DE if the WC is not awarded or if he wins Nottingham. Both have their chances I think

veganlunch
06-17-2012, 11:40 AM
We will most likely find out today. It's unlikely that another Brit will get one, as no one really excelled on grass in the last two weeks. And there haven't been any great runs by non-British players who do not have a direct entry either.

I think Brian Baker would be the only possibility remaining. Perhaps Clément.

It is unusual that they would leave it until today before giving the wild card. Maybe the winner of Zemlja and Beck will get it, providing they would have had to qualify?

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 11:47 AM
Yeah, good point.

Would be truly sad though to see Baker losing out to either of those.

jmjhb
06-17-2012, 01:02 PM
Richard Bloomfield and Edward Corrie got the remaining QWCs.

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 02:09 PM
Richard Bloomfield and Edward Corrie got the remaining QWCs.

Good decisions, I think. Corrie has had some close losses on grass these few weeks.

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 02:12 PM
Article on Corrie:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Corrie-happy-despite-AEGON-Challenge-exit/story-16376512-detail/story.html

Filo V.
06-17-2012, 02:24 PM
It would be a fucking joke if Zemlja got a WC. What does he at all bring to the event?

Boreas
06-17-2012, 02:37 PM
It would be a fucking joke if Zemlja got a WC. What does he at all bring to the event?

Flawless grass court record this year.:yeah:

Filo V.
06-17-2012, 02:42 PM
So basically, nothing. Just as I thought.

Boreas
06-17-2012, 02:47 PM
Yes, as much as anyone else ranked outside the top 100. With that little difference that Zemlja won a warm up tournament played on grass. Good enough reason.

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 03:15 PM
I am a bit torn, as I think it's good that performance on grass is recognized. But Zemlja will struggle to win a match and no one in the crowd will care about him.

Filo V.
06-17-2012, 03:28 PM
Basically, the question is, what does Zemlja bring to the event. That's it. And he doesn't bring anything to the event. So there is no reason to give him a WC. It's basically a wasted spot, but at least it means another very easy potential draw for a favorite of mine.

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 03:30 PM
Basically, the question is, what does Zemlja bring to the event. That's it. And he doesn't bring anything to the event. So there is no reason to give him a WC. It's basically a wasted spot, but at least it means another very easy potential draw for a favorite of mine.

Nah, Zemlja would take out the likes of Volandri.

The AELTC just follows precedent. Sela wasn't any better a decision, in my opinion.

Filo V.
06-17-2012, 03:39 PM
Of course Grega would take out Filippo, but I'm talking about credible players (Pippo is barely that on clay these days).

Sela was top 30. He's got a strong Israeli fanbase. He's got a track record on grass. Zemlja has none of this.

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 03:52 PM
Of course Grega would take out Filippo, but I'm talking about credible players (Pippo is barely that on clay these days).

Sela was top 30. He's got a strong Israeli fanbase. He's got a track record on grass. Zemlja has none of this.

I agree that Zemlja does not have a strong Israeli fanbase.

jmjhb
06-17-2012, 05:46 PM
Andrew Fitzpatrick replaces Luke Saville as a QWC.

Saville couldn't play for some reason.

CoolMarker
06-17-2012, 05:50 PM
nothing for Evans..unbelievable

CooCooCachoo
06-17-2012, 06:29 PM
nothing for Evans..unbelievable

He had his shot. Pretty bad loss in the LTA play-offs.

Nevertheless, for Fitzpatrick to get one over him is ridiculous.

Action Jackson
06-18-2012, 09:51 AM
I am a bit torn, as I think it's good that performance on grass is recognized. But Zemlja will struggle to win a match and no one in the crowd will care about him.

Wimbledon fans don't care about anyone outside the top guys and locals.

smucav
06-19-2012, 03:14 AM
http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2012/06/the-racquet-scientist-wild-cards-atp.htmlThe Racquet Scientist: Wimbledon Wild Cards
06/18/2012 - 4:57 PM
by Pete Bodo

It's somewhat ironic to devote a Racquet Scientist post to wild cards, given that there's nothing very scientific about the way wild cards are doled out. This was amply demonstrated by thos recently awarded by Wimbledon—eight each in "gentlemen's" and "ladies'" singles. For today, we'll stick with the men's choices.

This is like Christmas morning for the players whose request for a wild card is granted; those who are denied get the proverbial lump of coal. The most disappointed petitioner this year is probably Brian Baker, the American player (and former French Open junior finalist) whose astonishing comeback from multiple surgeries is nothing less than an inspirational story. Baker is a 27-year old Tennessean who went from unranked to his present No. 124 in the blink of an eye; he recently made the final of one ATP event (Nice) and the second round at the French Open (he lost to local favorite and No. 11 seed Gilles Simon). Baker's surge, however, wasn't enough to earn a wild card for Wimbledon; his request was denied.

I can see why former No. 2 Tommy Haas and former Wimbledon champion Lleyton Hewitt were selected ahead of him, and I can even understand why four of the wild cards were given to British players, even though only one of them (25-year-old James Ward) is ranked inside the Top 200. Okay, it's a British tournament, distinguished by an utter lack of British contenders. But last time I checked, neither David Goffin nor Grega Zemlja is British, and both of them were awarded cards over Baker.

Goffin is a 21-year-old Belgian nicknamed "La Goff" (rhymes with "La Monf," the moniker attached to Gael Monfils). He had a dream run at the French Open before losing in the fourth round to Roger Federer—a performance that boosted him from No. 109 to No. 66. But let's remember, Goffin played in Roland Garros qualifying and lost; he didn't get into the main draw by merit but sheer dumb luck, as one of the "lucky losers" who are admitted by virtue of a last-minute withdrawal by a main-draw player before the event officially begins. Granted, Goffin is talented and young, but so are many, many other players who also fit that description, but knew enough not even to ask for a wild card.

Zemlja is from Slovenia, and he recently won the Nottingham Challenger. Before that, he won back-to-back matches only twice since the beginning of the year, and it's not like he's a prodigy—Zemlja is 25 years old. How he gets the wild card over Baker is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that this is another example of the way Wimbledon seems go out of its way sometimes to do what is least expected of it, just because it can—and wants to remind the world that it can. Or it just succumbs to the temptation to be too smart by half, as if the highest accolade it an get is, "Hmmmm. . . what an interesting choice."

Personally, I'd rather a wise choice.

Given that Haas grew up mostly in the U.S. (at the IMG Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy), Zemlja and Goffin are the only two wild cards who do not come out of the English-speaking, Anglo cauldron. I believe Wimbledon is acutely aware of this issue, and wants everyone to know the club isn't overly Anglo-centric. That's probably cold comfort to Baker.

For my money, the rationale for awarding wild cards to anyone other homegrown talent ought to be thought out and articulated. To me, the three main things are (in order): Recent record, mitigating circumstances (a long layoff due usually to injury), service to the game (as in longevity, or popularity—which is usually a function of longevity and history).

Baker scores high marks in the first two categories, and lacks significant credentials in the third only because of the selfsame mitigating circumstances (multiple surgeries and layoffs). It's a shame he wasn't granted a wild card.

smucav
07-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Sean Thornley:
:yeah:
Idiots. Also Marray/Nielsen over them. Idiots.WTF? WC for Marray/Nielsen? :facepalm:
Inglot/Eaton
Goodall/Eaton
Rice/Thornley
would be better choices here
How looks the Doubles Qualifying? 16 or 32 teams?

Marray/Nielsen Triumph In Magical Wimbledon Run:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/27/Wimbledon-Doubles-Final-Marray-Nielsen-Finish-Off-Magical-Run.aspx

smucav
07-14-2012, 02:23 PM
The Case of the Missing Qualifying Wild Card:
http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2012/07/case-of-missing-qualifying-wild-card.html

CooCooCachoo
07-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Thanks for posting smucav, very interesting.

CooCooCachoo
07-14-2012, 04:37 PM
Marray/Nielsen Triumph In Magical Wimbledon Run:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/27/Wimbledon-Doubles-Final-Marray-Nielsen-Finish-Off-Magical-Run.aspx

I stand by the post that Rice/Thornley deserved one over Marray/Nielsen. That Rice/Thornley didn't get a WC is simply disgraceful.

outrider
07-16-2012, 08:02 AM
Are you British?
No, from Haiti. Look at my country flag. Clearly Haiti.:wavey:

CooCooCachoo
07-16-2012, 09:30 AM
Classic.



Are you British?

Snowwy, instead of your (implicitly) snide post, please make the case for awarding a WC to Marray/Nielsen over Rice/Thornley without any post-hoc reasoning. I'd be intrigued. Note that I'm not asking why M&N shouldn't have been given one, but why they deserved it more than R&T. I don't think you'll be able to.

Snowwy
07-17-2012, 03:13 AM
Snowwy, instead of your (implicitly) snide post, please make the case for awarding a WC to Marray/Nielsen over Rice/Thornley without any post-hoc reasoning. I'd be intrigued. Note that I'm not asking why M&N shouldn't have been given one, but why they deserved it more than R&T. I don't think you'll be able to.

Oh you are actually serious. This will be good.

Rice's doubles achievements this year.

1 CH SF
3 CH QF
1 Futures QF
1 Futures SF
3 Futures F (Three losses to Inglot/Eaton)
1 Futures W

Thorney's doubles achievements this year.

1 CH SF
3 CH QF
2 Futures QF
2 Futures SF
3 Futures F (Three losses to Inglot/Eaton)
1 Futures W

_____________________________________

Marray's doubles achievements this year.

3 ATP QF
2 ATP R64
1 ATP R16
2 CH W
5 CH F
2 CH SF
1 CH QF
1 CH R16

Nielson's doubles achievements this year.

1 ATP R64
1 CH W
2 CH F
2 CH QF
1 CH R16
2 Futures W
1 Futures SF

__________________________

I clearly see the following four players in order of achievement as follows:

Marray (by far)
Nielson

BIG GAP

Thorney
Rice

Marray had by far the best results of the four, so lets assume you give the WC to the player that has the best shot at winning (I know right, crazy concept), he gets it. Now he should get some choice in partner and he picks/gets stuck with, a player who he made the final of a challenger on grass the week before.

By the way, that final they achieved together in their only other event together was better than anything Rice/Thorney did all year.

Since this is so clear, I am at a loss for what your reasoning is, could you please explain to me, you know with real reasons, why Rice/Thorney makes any sense at all?

CooCooCachoo
07-17-2012, 01:36 PM
First off, it's Nielsen.

Now to the argument:

1. The obvious statement to make is that Nielsen is not British, and Marray/Nielsen wasn't a long-standing partnership. Rice/Thornley are one of the best all-British teams around.

2. Rice/Thornley improved their doubles ranking quite a bit and were gradually making their way out of the Futures circuit. Both reached a career-high rank in doubles this year.

3. They didn't get a WC last year either, but came through qualies in Roehampton. You'd think that would have earned them some credit.

4. They had reached the SFs on grass in Nottingham the week before the final WCs were announced, having defeated a very strong team in Lipsky/Ram. Other British pairings fared poorly there: Delgado/Skupski and Goodall/Ward lost in the first round.

Yes, Marray/Nielsen reached the final, and I'm convinced that this is what made the AELTC decide in favor of their WC, but I don't see how a long-standing all-British pairing could be bypassed in favor of a novel partnership including two veteran players without much of a pedigree and whose careers were rather stagnant. Read the interview that the Guardian did with Marray after he won the title. It's clear he saw himself as a failure (his term) whose career hadn't been going anywhere for years.

5. Most importantly, Rice and Thornley met the AELTC's requirements. Marray/Nielsen didn't because Nielsen was ineligible. Ergo, them being snubbed is simply a hypocritical and unacceptable move. What is the point of setting criteria that players work towards meeting all year when you don't honor them?

___

As I see it, WCs should be used for a combination of:

a) national players (Nielsen isn't);
b) young players (Marray certainly isn't; Rice and Thornley are relatively young, especially for doubles players);
c) former top players who are coming back from injury or are out of form (none qualify)

Do I think M/N deserved a WC over Goodall/Ward: yes. But not over R/T.

Finally, in case I get accused of being blinded by favoritism: I much prefer Nielsen over Rice and Thornley, and am indifferent towards Marray.

Snowwy
07-17-2012, 01:44 PM
First off, it's Nielsen.

Now to the argument:

1. The obvious statement to make is that Nielsen is not British, and Marray/Nielsen wasn't a long-standing partnership. Rice/Thornley are one of the best all-British teams around.

2. Rice/Thornley improved their doubles ranking quite a bit and were gradually making their way out of the Futures circuit. Both reached a career-high rank in doubles this year.

3. They didn't get a WC last year either, but came through qualies in Roehampton. You'd think that would have earned them some credit.

4. They had reached the SFs on grass in Nottingham the week before the final WCs were announced, having defeated a very strong team in Lipsky/Ram. Other British pairings fared poorly there: Delgado/Skupski and Goodall/Ward lost in the first round.

Yes, Marray/Nielsen reached the final, and I'm convinced that this is what made the AELTC decide in favor of their WC, but I don't see how a long-standing all-British pairing could be bypassed in favor of a novel partnership including two veteran players without much of a pedigree and whose careers were rather stagnant. Read the interview that the Guardian did with Marray after he won the title. It's clear he saw himself as a failure (his term) whose career hadn't been going anywhere for years.

5. Most importantly, Rice and Thornley met the AELTC's requirements. Marray/Nielsen didn't because Nielsen was ineligible. Ergo, them being snubbed is simply a hypocritical and unacceptable move. What is the point of setting criteria that players work towards meeting all year when you don't honor them?

___

As I see it, WCs should be used for a combination of:

a) national players (Nielsen isn't);
b) young players (Marray certainly isn't; Rice and Thornley are relatively young, especially for doubles players);
c) former top players who are coming back from injury or are out of form (none qualify)

Do I think M/N deserved a WC over Goodall/Ward: yes. But not over R/T.

Finally, in case I get accused of being blinded by favoritism: I much prefer Nielsen over Rice and Thornley, and am indifferent towards Marray.

Why do both players have to be British? This is Wimbledon, not some silly 10K futures event. The BEST player of the lot is British. If Marray was partnered with say Inglot would that be acceptable then, even though they would probably lose R1 cuz Inglot isn't really that great.

CooCooCachoo
07-17-2012, 02:41 PM
Why do both players have to be British? This is Wimbledon, not some silly 10K futures event. The BEST player of the lot is British. If Marray was partnered with say Inglot would that be acceptable then, even though they would probably lose R1 cuz Inglot isn't really that great.

Exactly: it's Wimbledon, not some silly 10K. It's the one tournament that British people tune in to. 95% of the British people there don't know anything about professional tennis. Instead, they peruse the OOP in the newspaper in the queue, spot the British players (there's always a section 'Brits in action') and choose to support them. Of course they adopted Nielsen as one of their own (I guess they probably anglicized it to Nielson as well), but two Brits > one Brit.

Yes, Inglot/Marray would have been acceptable. And they might not have needed a WC. But Inglot actually had more success than Marray this year and got in on his own ranking with Treat Huey.

Snowwy
07-17-2012, 09:53 PM
Exactly: it's Wimbledon, not some silly 10K. It's the one tournament that British people tune in to. 95% of the British people there don't know anything about professional tennis. Instead, they peruse the OOP in the newspaper in the queue, spot the British players (there's always a section 'Brits in action') and choose to support them. Of course they adopted Nielsen as one of their own (I guess they probably anglicized it to Nielson as well), but two Brits > one Brit.

Yes, Inglot/Marray would have been acceptable. And they might not have needed a WC. But Inglot actually had more success than Marray this year and got in on his own ranking with Treat Huey.

Just to keep tabs of our guys who have graduated from the futures level..

Sean Thornley, new partner is seeded 4th in doubles a futures event in GB. How does this guy deserve a WC to Wimbledon, he is not even the top seed in a futures doubles draw.

CooCooCachoo
07-18-2012, 06:40 AM
Just to keep tabs of our guys who have graduated from the futures level..

Sean Thornley, new partner is seeded 4th in doubles a futures event in GB. How does this guy deserve a WC to Wimbledon, he is not even the top seed in a futures doubles draw.

The stupidity of this post is baffling. Last time I checked seeding is determined on the basis of the ranking of two players. Are you seriously blaming Thornley for Fitzpatrick's ranking? (Not that I would be entirely surprised with you.)

Edited to add:

For your convenience, I am listing the doubles rankings of the seeded players in the doubles draw of Great Britain F11.

205 Sean Thornley
295 Lewis Burton
343 Edward Corrie
386 Michael Look
396 Jaime Pulgar-Garcia
411 Marvin Barker
489 Marcus Daniell
871 Andrew Fitzpatrick

Just in case it eludes you: Thornley is by far the highest ranked and his partner by far the lowest ranked. The logical result: being the #4 seeds.

CooCooCachoo
07-19-2012, 08:27 AM
Awaiting your rebuttal.

Snowwy
07-20-2012, 10:17 PM
The stupidity of this post is baffling. Last time I checked seeding is determined on the basis of the ranking of two players. Are you seriously blaming Thornley for Fitzpatrick's ranking? (Not that I would be entirely surprised with you.)

Edited to add:

For your convenience, I am listing the doubles rankings of the seeded players in the doubles draw of Great Britain F11.

205 Sean Thornley
295 Lewis Burton
343 Edward Corrie
386 Michael Look
396 Jaime Pulgar-Garcia
411 Marvin Barker
489 Marcus Daniell
871 Andrew Fitzpatrick

Just in case it eludes you: Thornley is by far the highest ranked and his partner by far the lowest ranked. The logical result: being the #4 seeds.

Fair point. And you are fine giving a WC to a futures hack over a guy that has had ATP success in the past?