PDA

View Full Version : Should Wimbledon authorities give Ash Barty a MDWC, a QWC or no WC? Vote now:


StephenUK
May 29th, 2012, 11:27 AM
In recent years, since the LTA and Wimbledon authorities introduced a new rule, effectively banning Brits ranked outside the top 250 from receiving main draw wild cards (still in force this year), the door has been effectively opened to non-Brits to receive wild cards, making Wimbledon the only grand slam where the majority of wild cards can go to foreign players. One tradition introduced has been to give the previous year's junior champion a wild card into the main draw or sometimes, the qualifying draw.

Last year's junior champion, Ashleigh Barty of Australia, is in line for this WC. So do you think that as a talented junior, she deserves a main draw wild card or given the fact that she is ranked outside the top 250, has gained most of her ranking points in low grade Aussie $25ks, and has received a MDWC for the last two slams, that she should only get a QWC this time or not one at all.

Personally, I think today's abysmal performance against Petra Kvitova confirms that she is not yet main draw GS standard and should only receive a QWC. What do you think?

BlueTrees
May 29th, 2012, 11:30 AM
You do realise she lost to Kvitova who is #4 in the world? :scratch: I do get your point though, but it's not like she would lose that badly to most of the players. She did quite well at the Australian Open against Tatishvili. She should get at least a QWC. Maybe three MWCs into Grand Slams in a row would be a bit too much.

binky-GOAT
May 29th, 2012, 11:38 AM
All her WTA matches I seen she played terrible, very nervous and many DFs. But she plays much better in lower events.

I think give her a QWC, where she can start to settle in a bit more.

GeeTee
May 29th, 2012, 11:43 AM
a) She's 16
b) This was probably the biggest match of her life, against a current GS champion on probably the biggest stadium she has ever played on.
c) Her worst surface is clay while grass appears to be her best
d) She is still limited in the number of tournaments she plays, which doesn't help with matchplay/form
e) She would probably beat plenty of Brits in line for a wild-card, especially on grass
f) She got 3 games against the World #4 and Wimbledon champion. Britain's Baltacha, in the MD for Wimbledon, got 4 games against the World #6 and US Open champion...

Svetlana)))
May 29th, 2012, 11:44 AM
No WC, she was completely hapless today and showed no signs of imposing her game even towards the end of the match when she had nothing to lose.

pesto
May 29th, 2012, 11:45 AM
I think it's a bit counterproductive to give a talented young player a huge string of MDWCs before she's really ready to take advantage.

Give her a QWC.

Mynarco
May 29th, 2012, 11:45 AM
A QWC is better I think

Kəv.
May 29th, 2012, 11:45 AM
:spit: At the last option. Its kind of mean though, she is just 16, she probably had nerves.
She should atleast get a QWC from winning Wimby Juniors last year.

Kəv.
May 29th, 2012, 11:46 AM
No WC, she was completely hapless today and showed no signs of imposing her game even towards the end of the match when she had nothing to lose.

:spit: She face no.4 in the world.. :rolleyes:

Madoka
May 29th, 2012, 11:46 AM
who is Ash Barty ?

StephenUK
May 29th, 2012, 11:48 AM
a) She's 16
b) This was probably the biggest match of her life, against a current GS champion on probably the biggest stadium she has ever played on.
c) Her worst surface is clay while grass appears to be her best
d) She is still limited in the number of tournaments she plays, which doesn't help with matchplay/form
e) She would probably beat plenty of Brits in line for a wild-card, especially on grass
f) She got 3 games against the World #4 and Wimbledon champion. Britain's Baltacha, in the MD for Wimbledon, got 4 games against the World #6 and US Open champion...

Only c) is a good reason for her being given a MDWC. You virtually admit that she is not ready by a), b) and d). f) is irrelevant, she only won 3 games v Petra due to Petra's errors as she only hit 3 winners to 26 unforced errors in her match. e) is also irrelevant as only Robson and Broady will get MDWCs and they are established members of the top 200 rather than the level of player like Barty who needs wild cards to get into grand slam qualifying events.

Shvedbarilescu
May 29th, 2012, 11:54 AM
I think the biggest argument against giving Barty a MDWC is that she has already had MDWCs at RG and the AO. And there is a pretty decent chance with the deals the Australian, French and US Federations have that she could end up with a US Open MDWC as well. To be this is actually a pretty reasonable argument. Barty is good, but no one should have a calendar Grand Slam of MDWCs. No one.

While with Wimbledon's 250 ranking cut off for giving Brits WCs, which except in exceptional circumstances I agree with, Wimby definately does have MDWCs to spare, I think they should go elsewhere and I wouldn't give Barty one. She's had enough. Obviously she deserves a QWC however. It would be totally wrong not to have the junior champion in the draw at all.

For the record, had Barty not had MDWCs to the two previous slams I would be totally in favour of her getting one to Wimbledon.

Alwaysfan
May 29th, 2012, 11:55 AM
NO WC of course

Shvedbarilescu
May 29th, 2012, 12:01 PM
I will add one more comment. If Barty does not get a MDWC that doesn't mean they should instead give it to lower ranked British girls who wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a match either.

Robson and Broady full deserve MDWCs. Watson obviously too but I'm pretty sure she will get in without needing one. The rest of the Brits do not.

StephenUK
May 29th, 2012, 12:03 PM
I think the biggest argument against giving Barty a MDWC is that she has already had MDWCs at RG and the AO. And there is a pretty decent chance with the deals the Australian, French and US Federations have that she could end up with a US Open MDWC as well. To be this is actually a pretty reasonable argument. Barty is good, but no one should have a calendar Grand Slam of MDWCs. No one.

While with Wimbledon's 250 ranking cut off for giving Brits WCs, which except in exceptional circumstances I agree with, Wimby definately does have MDWCs to spare, I think they should go elsewhere and I wouldn't give Barty one. She's had enough. Obviously she deserves a QWC however. It would be totally wrong not to have the junior champion in the draw at all.

For the record, had Barty not had MDWCs to the two previous slams I would be totally in favour of her getting one to Wimbledon.

You are absolutely 100% and totally right! This is a very good point and it looks like this will happen, which in my view, would be a travesty. There's loads of bright young players who won't get the chance of any MDWCs at slams, especially those not from Australia, France, USA or Great Britain, so they should step in line in front of Barty for the MDWC at Wimbledon in my opinion.

BlueTrees
May 29th, 2012, 12:05 PM
Laura Robson got a MWC the year after she won junior Wimbledon when she was ranked lower than Barty is now..

StephenUK
May 29th, 2012, 12:07 PM
I will add one more comment. If Barty does not get a MDWC that doesn't mean they should instead give it to lower ranked British girls who wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a match either.

Robson and Broady full deserve MDWCs. Watson obviously too but I'm pretty sure she will get in without needing one. The rest of the Brits do not.

I agree with you on this, maybe they should apply the MDWC ban re players outside top 250 to all players, unless they have a protected ranking. There must be six good candidates from the 100-250 group they could give them to or even players who end up in the top 100 after Roland Garros who have missed the cut-off.

Serenus Christ
May 29th, 2012, 12:14 PM
No Wild Card..

http://i39.tinypic.com/mrs5yx.gif

Shvedbarilescu
May 29th, 2012, 12:17 PM
I agree with you on this, maybe they should apply the MDWC ban re players outside top 250 to all players, unless they have a protected ranking. There must be six good candidates from the 100-250 group they could give them to or even players who end up in the top 100 after Roland Garros who have missed the cut-off.

I don't think that's necessary. There are exceptional cases. I actually think Barty is doing outstandingly well for someone so young. Thing is, she has already had two MDWCs. That's enough.

If a British player won the Junior championships then obviously they would deserve and get a MDWC regardless of ranking, as Robson did a couple of years back, quite rightly I'd say. But giving a MDWC to a young player who is producing outstanding results for her age is very different to giving a MDWC to the likes of Melanie South.

GeeTee
May 29th, 2012, 12:18 PM
Only c) is a good reason for her being given a MDWC. You virtually admit that she is not ready by a), b) and d). f) is irrelevant, she only won 3 games v Petra due to Petra's errors as she only hit 3 winners to 26 unforced errors in her match. e) is also irrelevant as only Robson and Broady will get MDWCs and they are established members of the top 200 rather than the level of player like Barty who needs wild cards to get into grand slam qualifying events.

Even though she was nowhere near her best today, at least she hasn't been bagelled in R1 of a Slam this year :wavey:

AO Barty L Tatishvili 26 67
AO Robson L 13-Jankovic 26 06
AO Watson L 3-Azarenka 16 06
AO Keothavong L Bartel 06 ret
FO Baltacha L 6-Stosur 46 06
FO Barty L 4-Kvitova 16 26

duhcity
May 29th, 2012, 12:21 PM
Frankly, I think a WC would be a mistake. As it is, I think a deal of match play would help LOADS for a young player, while a straight WC would be more use to a player coming off injury or former top 50/100 player.

Honestly, I think a QWC here would have helped her more or at least just as much.

AUSBOY
May 29th, 2012, 12:28 PM
For crying out loud, Barty was not 'given' her AO MD WC, she earnt it winning the play off beating Dellacqua, Rogowska etc.
Clay is Barty's worst surface as her serve is the weakest part of her game which was always going to be exposed on clay. She was never gonna take it to Kvitova with that serve.

Grass however is Barty's best surface, and her serve is less of a weakness.

I'm not fussed if she gets a QWC or MDWC, either way I think she will perform well. Clearly though if they aren't going to give her a MDWC there better be a better player lined up.
For the record Barty would smash South and Broady on grass anyday!

juki
May 29th, 2012, 12:34 PM
QWC definitely. I don't think you can draw too many conclusions about Barty from today's match though, she pulled out injured from her only clay warm-up tournament, which wasn't even against pros. I'm not sure what TA are doing with Barty. Ashleigh talks about wanting a slow development and transition but the opposite is happening. Until she starts playing more matches against top-150 players in ITFs or WTA qualies she shouldn't be given MDWCs. It hasn't been a good experience so far. The positive though is Ashleigh seems totally mentally strong and will probably be fine in the long run.

5tatRacket
May 29th, 2012, 12:36 PM
QWC is fine with me.

King Halep
May 29th, 2012, 12:39 PM
a) She's 16
b) This was probably the biggest match of her life, against a current GS champion on probably the biggest stadium she has ever played on.
c) Her worst surface is clay while grass appears to be her best
d) She is still limited in the number of tournaments she plays, which doesn't help with matchplay/form
e) She would probably beat plenty of Brits in line for a wild-card, especially on grass
f) She got 3 games against the World #4 and Wimbledon champion. Britain's Baltacha, in the MD for Wimbledon, got 4 games against the World #6 and US Open champion...

Its ridiculous these days. They want to give it to juniors, but the juniors hardly play WTA events so they have no chance of being competitive when they play in GS. The juniors will get more out of playing a few tough matches in qualifying.

Shvedbarilescu
May 29th, 2012, 12:40 PM
For crying out loud, Barty was not 'given' her AO MD WC, she earnt it winning the play off beating Dellacqua, Rogowska etc. Clay is Barty's worst surface as her serve is the weakest part of her game which was always going to be exposed on clay. She was never gonna take it to Kvitova with that serve.

Grass however is Barty's best surface, and her serve is less of a weakness.

I'm not fussed if she gets a QWC or MDWC, either way I think she will perform well. Clearly though if they aren't going to give her a MDWC there better be a better player lined up.
For the record Barty would smash South and Broady on grass anyday!

Fair enough. My point however is that I don't think one young player should end up getting MDWCs to three (possibly four or five) slams in a row. A QWC for Wimbledon is enough and if she is good enough she will get to the main draw on her own merits.

jameshazza
May 29th, 2012, 12:44 PM
Robson got one, whether she's shit or not she should get one if the LTA want to show they're not completely biased to Brits.

Singleniacki
May 29th, 2012, 01:07 PM
I think she actually should get one, alot of her success has come on grass.

The RG one probably shouldn't have been given to her, though Rogowska sucked to much to get it.

Shvedbarilescu
May 29th, 2012, 01:17 PM
Robson got one, whether she's shit or not she should get one if the LTA want to show they're not completely biased to Brits.

Err...regarding giving out WCs. Some bias towards home players is normal and to be expected.

chingching
May 29th, 2012, 01:19 PM
a) She's 16
b) This was probably the biggest match of her life, against a current GS champion on probably the biggest stadium she has ever played on.
c) Her worst surface is clay while grass appears to be her best
d) She is still limited in the number of tournaments she plays, which doesn't help with matchplay/form
e) She would probably beat plenty of Brits in line for a wild-card, especially on grass
f) She got 3 games against the World #4 and Wimbledon champion. Britain's Baltacha, in the MD for Wimbledon, got 4 games against the World #6 and US Open champion...

This is not very correct. Number 1, Clay is one of her best surfaces. Her victory at Wimbledon came as a surprise as she had lost R3 at the G1 the week before. This was not the biggest stadium she has played on and she may have been a bit nervous, but Petra played very well and Ash just didn't take all her opportunities. She has played enough matches. Since her birthday, this is her first of 12 tournaments IIRC until next April and she has Juniors to gain her match practice. I think the fact that she got 3 games was pretty irrelevant as she actually probably didn't deserve them. But still, I get and like your point. I think she should get a QWC as it may start to take a mental toll if she keeps on getting beaten comfortably. Losses are good for gaining experience but we don't want them to hinder her confidence and ranking. Also, in qualies, she could actually get some points from these tournaments rather than just collect the large amount of money for a R1 loss. I think that the British should organise the WCs for the womens this way:
British
British
British
Most points from Nottinghams and Birmingham (I know the second Nottingham overlaps)
Experienced player with previous good resultss on grass (e.g Lucic)
Young up and comer of the year (e.g. Putintseva, as much as I dislike her)
Then the other 2 I haven't decided :)

BlueTrees
May 29th, 2012, 01:23 PM
I agree Putintseva probably deserves a MWC into Wimbledon especially winning the $100,000+H title a few weeks ago.

chingching
May 29th, 2012, 01:45 PM
The British should exchange their WCs for big tournaments so that their players can play more tourneys. E.g. they could trade with Cincinatti and Montreal, saying that an American/Canadian can get a WC if a Brit gets WCs into both of those MDs

juki
Jun 17th, 2012, 09:24 PM
Neil Harmon and Craig Gabriel have said on twitter that Ash has received a MDWC now. Wish she would have kept her QWC, but maybe she won't be so nervous this time.

duhcity
Jun 17th, 2012, 09:26 PM
I hope she's ready is all I can say. A win and 100 points will go a very long way.

How many people have received 4/5 wildcards to slams in a row in history? Very few I imagine

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 17th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Neil Harmon and Craig Gabriel have said on twitter that Ash has received a MDWC now. Wish she would have kept her QWC, but maybe she won't be so nervous this time.

Agree with this. She really would have been better off with a QWC. The way Ash is playing right now her chances of qualifying and gaining 60 points would have been quite high. Then she could have played the main draw with no pressure already feeling the the tournament had been a success. As it is with a MDWC unless she gets a kind draw she is going to leave with nothing.

I personally think having a player, any player regardless of their merits getting 3 and perhaps as many as 5 MDGSWCs in a row is excessive. But it goes further than that. Barty is good and based on how she has been playing the last few weeks she really is not in need of a MDWC to get into the main draw and she have should be given the opportunity to reach the main draw on her own merits which I believe she would have.

Babolatpro880
Jun 17th, 2012, 09:54 PM
The British should exchange their WCs for big tournaments so that their players can play more tourneys. E.g. they could trade with Cincinatti and Montreal, saying that an American/Canadian can get a WC if a Brit gets WCs into both of those MDs

The AELTC decides the wild cards for Wimbledon, unlike the other three grand slams where the respective national associations do. Regardless, even if this were plausible, why on earth would the British trade main draw wildcards into WIMBLEDON for Cincinatti and Montreal?

time2burntt
Jun 17th, 2012, 10:00 PM
ppl saying she should of kept QWC instead of MDWC! HELLO MONEY!!!

jj74
Jun 17th, 2012, 10:39 PM
Well the last time a player decided to play the qualys instead of accept a wc MD was Mldenovic on Australian Open, and it didn't end well.
I agree that it would be better for her to play Q and win a couple of matches. If she pass que q, she would feel a lot less pressure on her, but if they give you a MD wc, you don't reject it.
Maybe she is lucky enough to play against someone who sucked on grass.
I really like Ash, and i think she will be very good, but she will need more time, she is not a big girl with a big serve, so i think she will need a couple of years to really start to cause trouble

Inger67
Jun 17th, 2012, 10:54 PM
ppl saying she should of kept QWC instead of MDWC! HELLO MONEY!!!

Money should be the least of her worries right now.

She has a bright future ahead of her with many sponsors to back her up I'm sure. Right now she needs to position herself to get her ranking up and play WTA tournaments on a consistent basis. As it has already been said, she could have surely won 3 matches in qualifying and won 60 points which would help her ranking out tremendously. And then since you're so concerned about money, she could have ended up with the same amount of money both ways.

Aussie_Fanatic
Jun 18th, 2012, 01:13 PM
Neil Harmon and Craig Gabriel have said on twitter that Ash has received a MDWC now. Wish she would have kept her QWC, but maybe she won't be so nervous this time.

WHOO HOOO to main draw wildcard- well deserved in my opinion :bounce: Now hopefully she doesn't draw a seed :drool: and agreed- she might not be as nervous this time around.. Personally I think Ash has a chance of winning at least one match if she has a kind draw

chingching
Jun 18th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Another waste of a tournament. Should have just played Qualies

Vincey!
Jun 18th, 2012, 04:51 PM
I think Barty totally deserved that WC for the MD. She'd be stupid not to keep it. She's playing well on grass and I think she could beat a fair number on player on that surface. The only WC that she didn'T really earned was the RG one cuz her result on clay are pretty much inexistant. To be fair though, it's not like if there were another Australian who could have done better on clay. She's a junior champion here, it's the GS where she probably has the best chance to win a round or two. It would have been ridiculous to give her a QWC here and and MD WC in the others.

pesto
Jun 18th, 2012, 05:20 PM
Well, her Nottingham Challenger performance was a game-changer. I voted QWC in the first place, but quite agree with the committee that her current grass form merits an upgrade.

A bit rum that we have ended up giving WCs to a French, a US and an Oz player, without having any sort of reciprocal agreement.