On Friday, the Wimbledon men and women's draw came out, allowing every tennis pundit the opportunity to make predictions and projections that will look laughable in two weeks. But, part of the fun of the draw is making these prognostications, being that pundit who "called" the big upset. I will do my best to make my readers proud, with a goal of one bold prediction coming through. So, what do I expect to happen for the women in London?
Three Bold Predictions
- Camila Giorgi will make the Quarterfinals. Yes, this does sound crazy given Giorgi's form, or lack thereof. Giorgi had to pull out of the Ricoh Open in the Netherlands, a title she was defending, and lost her opening matches in both Birmingham and Eastbourne. She is under a lot of pressure to pick up a decent haul of points at Wimbledon due to the rankings drop that came with losing those Rosmalen points. And, given Giorgi disastrous Third Round against Wozniacki last year, is she Giorgi not good enough for the biggest stages of tennis?
Giorgi's draw initially seems as if it wouldn't help her cause but I see reason for hope. Her opening round against Muguruza will be a huge moment for Garbine, as well. This will be only the second match for Muguruza following her win at Roland Garros, and her first major. Not only that, but as the defending Finalist, she has a ton of points to defend, in addition to the new pressures on her shoulders. It's also important to note that Camila leads the H2H 2-1. I believe Giorgi's powerful game with overwhelm a stunned Muguruza and that she will advance. Although she had a good run in Mallorca, Mariana Duque-Marino is a clay courter and should not present problems for Camila in the Second Round (based upon my projections). In the Third Round I have Giorgi playing Lucie Safarova, and although she has had success here in the past, Safarova's poor recent form suggests that Giorgi could send Lucie packing, as well. In the Round of 16, I believe Camila will take on equally-as-erratic Sabine Lisicki, a former Wimbledon Finalist. I think a confident Giorgi goes toe-to-toe with Lisicki in a wild match, winning it in three sets. Then, in the Quarterfinals, Giorgi will lose to Venus Williams.
- Tsetvana Pironkova will make the Semifinals. Normally, drawing the seven seed is a recipe for a First Round exit, but given Bencic's recent absence on tour, the confidence Pironkova got from her run in Paris, and her history at Wimbledon, and all of a sudden, it seems as if the fortnight will be good to Tsetvana. As I mentioned earlier, Bencic has just returned from injury, and I watched much of her run to the Ricoh Open semis, and was not impressed by her game. It seems as if Belinda has lost some of the punch on her groundstrokes. From there, I think Pironkova easily dismisses Andrea Petkovic, who's counterpuncher style is not the best for grass.
From there, I foresee Pironkova taking on Petra Kvitova, two-time Champion, and Agnieszka Radwanska, former Wimbledon Finalist. In regards to the Kvitova match, last year's loss to Jankovic, when Petra looked to be in red-hot form showed me that Kvitova on any given day can just play disastrously. I also think that Kvitova has lost a lot of the confidence she gained from that 2014 title, and has gone off the rails a bit lately. Pironkova will win that match in what, like for Lisicki-Giorgi, should be a wild affair. Radwanska has not impressed me with her grass court play this season. She looked lethargic in her loss to Coco Vandeweghe in Birmingham, and collapsed from a set-and-a-break up against Dominka Cibulkova in Eastbourne. Radwanska seems to have even loss some of the touch that she is famous for. Pironkova will surprise again and win that match to reach the Semifinals, before ultimately losing to Serena Williams.
- The Final will be contested between the Williams sisters. Yes, we will get another Final between Venus and Serena Williams. For Serena to get to number 22, she will have to go through her sister, who will be desperate for another major to help cap off a brilliant career. The drama, the storylines, and the high level of play will help make this an extraordinary Wimbledon Final. The two have played 27 times, with the head-to-head very tight, Serena leading 16-11. And while Serena won easily at Wimbledon last year, the two played a very tight match the US Open last year, Serena taking it in three sets.
As a tennis fan, this is the type of match you want to see. And I believe we will see it on one of the biggest stages of tennis, two weeks from today. A five-time Wimbledon champion, with seven majors, battling a six-time Wimbledon champion, with 21 majors. So yes, I predict this match will be the Final, and it will surely be a treat to watch.
Draw Projections
- Quarterfinals:
Serena Williams defeats Coco Vendeweghe in two sets
Tsetvana Pironkova defeats Agnieszka Radwanska in three sets
Angelique Kerber defeats Madison Keys in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Camila Giorgi in two sets
- Semifinals
Serena Williams defeats Tsetvana Pironkova in three sets
Venus Williams defeats Angelique Kerber in three sets
- Final
Serena Williams defeats Venus Williams in three sets.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Kudos to Cici Bellis
Last year, following Roland Garros, I wrote an article very critical of Cici Bellis' decision to play in the junior French Open tournament. You can go back and read the article for yourself, and the accompanying comment section featuring an argument I got into with Bellis' mother, but I really felt as though Bellis was hurting her career, and damaging the sport, by occasionally continuing to play in junior tournaments. Well, I am happy to be able to now write a post praising Cici for great results and scheduling in the right manner.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Bellis, this year especially, is really putting in the work on the ITF level of women's tennis, which is exactly how she should be going about her business. In my opinion, Bellis got a little full of herself, and this lead to overconfidence which was eventually lost when the results didn't come on a consistent basis. This led me to question whether her win over Dominka Cibulkova at the US Open was merely a fluke. However, she has shown great growth with her game this year.
Starting out the year with a Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament at Daytona Beach, Bellis used this result to buoy her to a successful year and a more mature mindset this year, as well. Bellis didn't let a Round of 16 loss in Wesley Chapel get her down, as she beat Tatjana Maria (currently number 104 in live rankings) in Midland, a huge, confidence-boosting win. And while Bellis lost in the following round in Midland, the win over Maria once again, as the 2014 Cibulkova victory and her tournament wins previously have shown, that she had what it takes to play tennis at a very high level.
Despite ultimately losing, CiCi's run to the Final of the February $25,000 event in Surprise, Arizona was very impressive. Bellis won a set 6-0 on three different occasions in that tournament and did not drop a set until the Final. In that Final, Bellis even won the first set, meaning that she was won set away from another singles title at the $25,000 level. Even so, This was a great week for Cici and showed that she was starting to return to the level of play that excited so many Americans at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015.
Another Quarterfinals appearance at a $25,000 tournament was in the cards for Bellis following the run in Surprise, but after this, Bellis went into a little bit of a rut. She lost early in the next four tournaments she played. And while she manage to get a set off of Monica Puig in Miami, she did lose that match, and ultimately, winning a set and winning a match are two entirely different manners. It seemed, following a three set loss to Shelby Rogers in Indian Harbor Beach (a $75,000 tournament) that Bellis might never advance to the level of play needed to be a mainstay on the WTA Tour. However, as her recent results show, Bellis might be finally ready for a breakthrough.
When Bellis went to Naples, Florida to play a $25,000 tournament, it must have been hard on her. This tournament was played the same week as the qualifying tournament for the French Open. Just the year prior, Bellis had been in Paris, playing in the qualifying draw and (to my ire), playing in the junior draw too. So, to go from playing from playing on the grounds of Roland Garros the previous year to playing in a small tournament in Florida was probably humiliating to Bellis. If she still had any of the arrogance that I believe to have been part of her downward turn in results, this most likely zapped of the arrogance that was left.
And perhaps this was the wake-up call that CiCi needed, for she played quite well in this tournament. During this tournament, Bellis won three sets 6-0, including a double-bagel in the First Round of the tournament. She only lost one set on her ways to the semis, and while she did lose that semifinal match fellow American Kayla Day, Bellis had obviously made strides in the right direction with her results in Naples.
CiCi then did something that she hasn't done since 2014, which is post consecutive semifinal-or-better results. Bellis took some time off from tournament play following her good showing in Naples, before returning the court last week with a $25,000 tournament in Sumter, South Carolina. Bellis dominated the field in Sumter, winning all five of her matches in straight sets. This included the Final, where Bellis only lost four games in a resounding victory over Valeria Solovyeva. This was CiCi's first tournament victory since a tournament win in Rancho Santa Fe in the beginning of 2015 and Bellis' fourth ITF tournament, overall. CiCi Bellis finally seems to have figured out how to be a professional tennis player.
Now, you might be asking yourself, why is this tournament victory different than the previous three that Bellis had won? I believe this is because Bellis has finally undergone some adversity in her career, as opposed to when she first burst upon the scene in 2014. Bellis beat Cibulkova in just her fifth tournament ever as a professional player, and this included tournaments as low as the $10,000 level.
Just two tournaments after her spectacular win at Flushing Meadows, and her seventh overall, she won her first tournament at a $25,000 event in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Then, in her next event, she won another $25,000 title in Florence, South Carolina. Then, not too much later, Bellis won her third event ever at yet another $25,000, this time in Rancho Santa Fe, New Mexico. This was your classic example of a player experiencing huge amounts of success without having the maturity that the situation called for.
And that's why, as saddening as CiCi's decreased results were, I believe they were, ultimately, necessary in order for her to have a successful career. I believe the poor results that eventually struck Bellis provided her with the adversity needed to remember that being a professional tennis player isn't so easy. I think that her mediocre to poor results during much of 2015, and some of 2016, helped to give Bellis a different perspective on what a professional tennis has to go through, and will be invaluable to her throughout her career.
That's why, seeing Bellis fight through these problems, and have the successful results that she was once accustomed to, is so rewarding as an American tennis fan. Despite the setbacks, Bellis has continued to fight, and her hard work is finally being rewarded. I think that that Bellis almost certainly looks at her run in Sumter with a better appreciation than she did for her previous titles.
Today, CiCi Bellis won her opening match in yet another $25,000 tournament in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, if what I see from Bellis' results hold true, her time at the $25,000 level will be ending shortly. CiCi Bellis will be a WTA-level professional tennis player in the near future.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Looking at Grand Slam "Home" Wildcard Data
So, a little while back I compiled some data on how the "home" wildcard did at the four majors. By "home wildcard", I mean a wildcard entry who is from the same country that the tournament is hosted in. So, I went back and looked at how these main draw wildcards performed in the tournament they were given a wildcard into. I will be removing "home" wildcards who played each other in the First Round from the data, but will be using "home" wildcards who played a different wildcard not from the host country. And while this article may seem a bit repetitive given how much attention I have given wildcards on this blog, especially recently, I hope that this post is very informative.
For the sake of this post, let's give each round a point value. So, for instance, if a wildcard lost in the First Round, their result would be given a value of "one", while if a wildcard lost in the Final, they would be given a point value of "seven". Because I want to be complete in my specifications, despite it not occurring in the data, if a "home" wildcard wins the tournament they would be given a score of "eight". Therefore, you could look at a player's "score" as what round they lost in, correlated to a numerical value.
There are many different ways to group the data, which runs from the 2013 Australian Open through the 2016 French Open, but let's start with grouping the "home" wildcards by major. Let's look at the Australian Open first. There were 36 "home" (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores ranged from a home wildcard losing in the First Round (and, thus, receiving a score of one) to those losing in the Second Round (and, therefore, receiving two "points"). The Australian Open has a mean score (rounded to two decimal places) of 1.17. Meaning that the vast majority of home wildcards lose in the First Round at the Australian Open. With the range being so small, this is not surprising from a data standpoint, but given the larger ramifications of what this means, given that 1.17 is a shockingly low number, it seems as if the local players given these wildcards were, for the most part, not ready for the big scene.
Now, let's take a look at the data for the French Open. There were 46 home (eligible) wildcards given at the French Open during the timespan previously mentioned, which is much higher than the number given out at the Australian Open. The range of scores went as low as one and as high as four. The French Open had a mean score of 1.39. While this is still a shockingly low score, it is a tiny bit higher than the Australian Open, which shows, perhaps, that better home players were given wildcards at Roland Garros. However, one could also make the case that a larger sample size led to a larger chance of a home wildcard making a run, and also that, had the Australian Open given 50 home wildcards away, that their score could have been even lower since, perhaps, France is more of a tennis "hotbed" than Australia.
Wimbledon (data only 2013-2015) gave out 22 home wildcards. This number is significantly less than the two previously mentioned majors because, at the time of the writing of this article, the 2016 wildcards haven't been given out yet and because Wimbledon just seems to give out less home wildcards than the other majors anyways. Wimbledon had a range of scores from one to three. The mean score for Wimbledon is 1.18, just barely above the Australian Open's mean score, but below the French Open's mean point total. Although I have not collected all wildcard data, I am speculating (the latter due to conjecture from Men's Tennis Forums) that this low score, and low number of home wildcards given, could be due to a combination of a lack of professional-level talent in Great Britain and the LTA just deciding to award wildcards to more worthy foreigners who have done well that season on grass.
Finally, in terms of this specific analysis, let's take a look at the data for the US Open. The US Open (2013-2015) has given out 37 home wildcards, significantly more than Wimbledon gave out in the same time frame. This is even more than the Australian Open has given, but with a year less of data! The number of wildcards, in a four year increment, would be 49.33, slightly greater than the number of wildcards (both eligible and non-eligible for analysis) at the French Open (48). The US Open's range of scores went from as low as one to as high as four. The mean point total for the US Open is 1.43, the highest of any major. And while this shows that, roughly, home wildcards do generally still fall in the First Round, it shows home wildcards at the US Open, in the sample size collected (although smaller than the French Open and Australian Open) does do a better job with picking out home wildcards that can go further in the draw. And while this could be due to the deep talent pool that the USTA has to work with, this definitely gives me a little bit more confidence in the wildcard selection process at the US Open.
The other angle I want to take when exploring this data is what the difference in scores for female home wildcards as opposed to male home wildcards. I will start with female home wildcards. In total, from the 2013 Australian Open to the 2016 French Open, 73 home (eligible) female wildcards were given. The scores of these wildcards ranged from one to four. The mean score for female home wildcards is 1.29. This number, once more, shows us that the vast majority of female home wildcards are losing in the First Round. Now, let's see if the same can be said for the men.
In total, there are 68 male home (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores varied from as low as one to as high as three. The mean score for male home wildcards is 1.32. This means that, while the majority of male home wildcards did lose in the First Round, perhaps the grand slams were slightly better at choosing male home wildcards, as opposed to female ones. However, it would take many more majors' worth of data before we could really make any definitive conclusions or takeaways in regards to the relationship between female vs. male data.
So, with all of this said, we cannot really takeaway much from the data, as it was mainly constructed for my readers' enjoyment and intrigue. However, if we are to say that this is a representative sample, which I think it is, we can say that all majors, whether selecting male or female wildcards, are not selecting players who are making deep runs in these majors, unfortunately. Why this is, exactly, is not known, but the data does paint an interesting picture regarding home wildcards at majors.
Obviously more research is needed, and with no margin of error analysis, there is not much I can say with certainty regarding the data, so take all of this analysis with a grain of salt. However, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard the data either. Because, really, with as low as the numbers are, maybe less home wildcards should be given out.
For the sake of this post, let's give each round a point value. So, for instance, if a wildcard lost in the First Round, their result would be given a value of "one", while if a wildcard lost in the Final, they would be given a point value of "seven". Because I want to be complete in my specifications, despite it not occurring in the data, if a "home" wildcard wins the tournament they would be given a score of "eight". Therefore, you could look at a player's "score" as what round they lost in, correlated to a numerical value.
There are many different ways to group the data, which runs from the 2013 Australian Open through the 2016 French Open, but let's start with grouping the "home" wildcards by major. Let's look at the Australian Open first. There were 36 "home" (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores ranged from a home wildcard losing in the First Round (and, thus, receiving a score of one) to those losing in the Second Round (and, therefore, receiving two "points"). The Australian Open has a mean score (rounded to two decimal places) of 1.17. Meaning that the vast majority of home wildcards lose in the First Round at the Australian Open. With the range being so small, this is not surprising from a data standpoint, but given the larger ramifications of what this means, given that 1.17 is a shockingly low number, it seems as if the local players given these wildcards were, for the most part, not ready for the big scene.
Now, let's take a look at the data for the French Open. There were 46 home (eligible) wildcards given at the French Open during the timespan previously mentioned, which is much higher than the number given out at the Australian Open. The range of scores went as low as one and as high as four. The French Open had a mean score of 1.39. While this is still a shockingly low score, it is a tiny bit higher than the Australian Open, which shows, perhaps, that better home players were given wildcards at Roland Garros. However, one could also make the case that a larger sample size led to a larger chance of a home wildcard making a run, and also that, had the Australian Open given 50 home wildcards away, that their score could have been even lower since, perhaps, France is more of a tennis "hotbed" than Australia.
Wimbledon (data only 2013-2015) gave out 22 home wildcards. This number is significantly less than the two previously mentioned majors because, at the time of the writing of this article, the 2016 wildcards haven't been given out yet and because Wimbledon just seems to give out less home wildcards than the other majors anyways. Wimbledon had a range of scores from one to three. The mean score for Wimbledon is 1.18, just barely above the Australian Open's mean score, but below the French Open's mean point total. Although I have not collected all wildcard data, I am speculating (the latter due to conjecture from Men's Tennis Forums) that this low score, and low number of home wildcards given, could be due to a combination of a lack of professional-level talent in Great Britain and the LTA just deciding to award wildcards to more worthy foreigners who have done well that season on grass.
Finally, in terms of this specific analysis, let's take a look at the data for the US Open. The US Open (2013-2015) has given out 37 home wildcards, significantly more than Wimbledon gave out in the same time frame. This is even more than the Australian Open has given, but with a year less of data! The number of wildcards, in a four year increment, would be 49.33, slightly greater than the number of wildcards (both eligible and non-eligible for analysis) at the French Open (48). The US Open's range of scores went from as low as one to as high as four. The mean point total for the US Open is 1.43, the highest of any major. And while this shows that, roughly, home wildcards do generally still fall in the First Round, it shows home wildcards at the US Open, in the sample size collected (although smaller than the French Open and Australian Open) does do a better job with picking out home wildcards that can go further in the draw. And while this could be due to the deep talent pool that the USTA has to work with, this definitely gives me a little bit more confidence in the wildcard selection process at the US Open.
The other angle I want to take when exploring this data is what the difference in scores for female home wildcards as opposed to male home wildcards. I will start with female home wildcards. In total, from the 2013 Australian Open to the 2016 French Open, 73 home (eligible) female wildcards were given. The scores of these wildcards ranged from one to four. The mean score for female home wildcards is 1.29. This number, once more, shows us that the vast majority of female home wildcards are losing in the First Round. Now, let's see if the same can be said for the men.
In total, there are 68 male home (eligible) wildcards to be used in this analysis. The range of scores varied from as low as one to as high as three. The mean score for male home wildcards is 1.32. This means that, while the majority of male home wildcards did lose in the First Round, perhaps the grand slams were slightly better at choosing male home wildcards, as opposed to female ones. However, it would take many more majors' worth of data before we could really make any definitive conclusions or takeaways in regards to the relationship between female vs. male data.
So, with all of this said, we cannot really takeaway much from the data, as it was mainly constructed for my readers' enjoyment and intrigue. However, if we are to say that this is a representative sample, which I think it is, we can say that all majors, whether selecting male or female wildcards, are not selecting players who are making deep runs in these majors, unfortunately. Why this is, exactly, is not known, but the data does paint an interesting picture regarding home wildcards at majors.
Obviously more research is needed, and with no margin of error analysis, there is not much I can say with certainty regarding the data, so take all of this analysis with a grain of salt. However, that doesn't mean we should totally disregard the data either. Because, really, with as low as the numbers are, maybe less home wildcards should be given out.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Why Laura Robson Does Not Deserve a Wimbledon Wildcard
If you've followed this blog or my Twitter account (AllAboutTennisBlog, @TennisBlogger1) you would know that a lot of my tweets are about wildcards and the faults in the wildcard process. I still believe that wildcards in some form can exist in tennis, but the way and extent to which they are given out is truly sickening, with major reform needed. With that said, however, I will give Wimbledon credit for truly being the best major for not handing out the "walking bye" home" wildcard.
I have compiled a bunch of data regarding hometown wildcards either for a future article or just for general use, but in the past three years combined, Wimbledon has only given out 11 total wildcards to British female players. This, when compared to a slam like the French Open, which has given 19 "home" wildcards out, and you can see that Wimbledon doesn't just hand wildcards to any random player with a British flag next to their name. And, while Wimbledon British wildcard recipients have been very unsuccessful over the past three years, with only one match win since 2013, with a significantly less number of "home" wildcards, it seems reasonable to expect a significantly lower number of wins, as well.
This brings me to Laura Robson and the issue of the Wimbledon wildcard. I saw on Twitter the other day that Chris Goldsmith was tweeting out (and continues to tweet) some nonsense about how Robson deserves a wildcard based on random, anecdotal evidence such as a 4R Wimbledon results from three years ago and how she has beat a group of top players in the past. Goldsmith, however, completely ignores the obvious and instead cherry picks what he wants to form a weak argument. Therefore, I have taken to the blog to explain why Laura Robson absolutely does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Let's start off with Robson's results this year, specifically. On the year, in events bigger than $25,000's (which Robson is only 2-3 in), Laura has compiled a 2-10 record, meaning her winning percentage on the year is .17. If we look at her record in the main draws of events larger than 25k's, Robson is 1-8 for a horrific winning percentage of .11. Yes, the player that Goldsmith is advocating a wildcard has won one main draw match all season, which came, on clay, against a player currently ranked outside of the top 500 in the world in the live rankings.
This year, Robson has been a victim to nine straight set losses, and in tournaments bigger than $25k's, has only won five sets ON THE YEAR! Five sets! How anyone could advocate for a player who is struggling to win matches in $25,000 tournaments and has won only five sets in $50,000 tournaments and larger boggles mind. Robson currently is on a six match losing streak, as well, only winning one set out of her past 13. But yet, Goldsmith wants to shower this young lady with a wildcard because she really has the results to back her up this season!
But, how has she done on grass? Shouldn't that matter much more than how she did on clay? Absolutely, but unfortunately, this doesn't help Robson much either. This season, Robson has played two grass court tournaments, losing both in the First Round and managing just one set between the two matches. And, it's not as if she were playing a top player in either tournament. In Eastbourne, a 50k tournament, she battled world number 161 (live rankings) and lost in three sets. Then, in Nottingham, she took on world number 229 in the live rankings, Michelle Larcher de Brito, and lost that match in straight sets. Again, if Robson is having trouble taking sets off of players ranked outside of the Top 150 on grass, should Wimbledon, the premier grass court tournament in the world, really be handing her a wildcard?
In fact, Robson hasn't won a grass court match since that 2013 run, losing both of the grass court matches she played in last season (winning 0 sets), and not playing grass court matches in 2014, I believe due to injury. It's also important to note that outside of that 2013 run, she only won one other grass court match during that season, going 1-2 outside of Wimbledon and losing in straight sets in her two losses. And, while Robson did beat Angelique Kerber at Wimbledon in 2011, that was her only victory at Wimbledon from the first time she played Women's Singles in 2009 until her run in 2013.
If we are going to analyze her 2013 run further, we would note that during her run, while she did beat 10 seed Maria Kirlenko in the First Round, Kirlenko had suffered a knee injury during a warmup tournament very-well could not have been 100% in that match. In the Second Round, she faced clay-courter Mariana Duque-Marino, a player that has only been to the Second Round of Wimbledon twice, and in the Third Round she beat another unseeded player, Marina Erakovic, a player who has never made a Round 16 appearance at a slam. Then, in the Round of 16, when she took on a competent grass courter in Kaia Kanepi, Robson lost in straight sets.
Again, I'm all for giving players wildcards when they have proven they deserve them, but do the results I just laid out for you really warrant a wildcard to one of the four biggest tournaments of the season? Even with that Round of 16 run at Wimbledon, her winning percentage there is still .40, as she has a 4-6. In addition, to give y'all some perspective, Ashleigh Barty, who has just picked up tennis again after temporarily quitting in 2014, in just her second tournament back, discounting Eastbourne qualifying, in matches played at the 50k level and above, has 3.5 times as many match wins as Robson, which includes quadruple as many main draw wins, as many wins at the WTA Tour level, and has seven wins on grass to zero for Robson. Now, I'm not saying that Wimbledon should be giving Barty a wildcard, but this just puts things into perspective for Laura.
I'm also not opposed to giving wildcards out for good results during the previous year's tournaments. I was all for the French Open giving Andrea Mitu a wildcard for her French Open Round of 16 appearance during the previous season instead of Tessah Adrianjafitrimo. However, when we have to reach three years in the past, and only for a Round of 16 result, to justify giving a player with a 2-9 record in 50k and up tournaments all year a wildcard, then it just looks a little desperate, and really, pathetic.
If Robson has a great run next week, then great, give her a wildcard, it will be well deserved. But, if Wimbledon gives Robson a wildcard based on the current results, then it would be a total and complete disgrace and would make the calls to get rid of the wildcard system altogether even louder. Because, a player like Tara Moore, with a Final run in Eastbourne and winning a match in Nottingham does deserve to have her moment at Wimbledon, but given that Wimbledon is one of the four biggest tournaments of the year, the tennis governing body for Britain, the LTA, should act like it. And, by that, I mean, actually give out wildcards to players who deserve them. And beating some of the top players at random points of previous years, quite some time ago, doesn't exactly scream "deserving" to me.
Because, at the end of the day, let's be honest, there is no justification for giving Laura Robson a wildcard other than the fact that she is British, and that would look a lot like a corrupt, unfair system to me. Robson simply does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
I have compiled a bunch of data regarding hometown wildcards either for a future article or just for general use, but in the past three years combined, Wimbledon has only given out 11 total wildcards to British female players. This, when compared to a slam like the French Open, which has given 19 "home" wildcards out, and you can see that Wimbledon doesn't just hand wildcards to any random player with a British flag next to their name. And, while Wimbledon British wildcard recipients have been very unsuccessful over the past three years, with only one match win since 2013, with a significantly less number of "home" wildcards, it seems reasonable to expect a significantly lower number of wins, as well.
This brings me to Laura Robson and the issue of the Wimbledon wildcard. I saw on Twitter the other day that Chris Goldsmith was tweeting out (and continues to tweet) some nonsense about how Robson deserves a wildcard based on random, anecdotal evidence such as a 4R Wimbledon results from three years ago and how she has beat a group of top players in the past. Goldsmith, however, completely ignores the obvious and instead cherry picks what he wants to form a weak argument. Therefore, I have taken to the blog to explain why Laura Robson absolutely does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Let's start off with Robson's results this year, specifically. On the year, in events bigger than $25,000's (which Robson is only 2-3 in), Laura has compiled a 2-10 record, meaning her winning percentage on the year is .17. If we look at her record in the main draws of events larger than 25k's, Robson is 1-8 for a horrific winning percentage of .11. Yes, the player that Goldsmith is advocating a wildcard has won one main draw match all season, which came, on clay, against a player currently ranked outside of the top 500 in the world in the live rankings.
This year, Robson has been a victim to nine straight set losses, and in tournaments bigger than $25k's, has only won five sets ON THE YEAR! Five sets! How anyone could advocate for a player who is struggling to win matches in $25,000 tournaments and has won only five sets in $50,000 tournaments and larger boggles mind. Robson currently is on a six match losing streak, as well, only winning one set out of her past 13. But yet, Goldsmith wants to shower this young lady with a wildcard because she really has the results to back her up this season!
But, how has she done on grass? Shouldn't that matter much more than how she did on clay? Absolutely, but unfortunately, this doesn't help Robson much either. This season, Robson has played two grass court tournaments, losing both in the First Round and managing just one set between the two matches. And, it's not as if she were playing a top player in either tournament. In Eastbourne, a 50k tournament, she battled world number 161 (live rankings) and lost in three sets. Then, in Nottingham, she took on world number 229 in the live rankings, Michelle Larcher de Brito, and lost that match in straight sets. Again, if Robson is having trouble taking sets off of players ranked outside of the Top 150 on grass, should Wimbledon, the premier grass court tournament in the world, really be handing her a wildcard?
In fact, Robson hasn't won a grass court match since that 2013 run, losing both of the grass court matches she played in last season (winning 0 sets), and not playing grass court matches in 2014, I believe due to injury. It's also important to note that outside of that 2013 run, she only won one other grass court match during that season, going 1-2 outside of Wimbledon and losing in straight sets in her two losses. And, while Robson did beat Angelique Kerber at Wimbledon in 2011, that was her only victory at Wimbledon from the first time she played Women's Singles in 2009 until her run in 2013.
If we are going to analyze her 2013 run further, we would note that during her run, while she did beat 10 seed Maria Kirlenko in the First Round, Kirlenko had suffered a knee injury during a warmup tournament very-well could not have been 100% in that match. In the Second Round, she faced clay-courter Mariana Duque-Marino, a player that has only been to the Second Round of Wimbledon twice, and in the Third Round she beat another unseeded player, Marina Erakovic, a player who has never made a Round 16 appearance at a slam. Then, in the Round of 16, when she took on a competent grass courter in Kaia Kanepi, Robson lost in straight sets.
Again, I'm all for giving players wildcards when they have proven they deserve them, but do the results I just laid out for you really warrant a wildcard to one of the four biggest tournaments of the season? Even with that Round of 16 run at Wimbledon, her winning percentage there is still .40, as she has a 4-6. In addition, to give y'all some perspective, Ashleigh Barty, who has just picked up tennis again after temporarily quitting in 2014, in just her second tournament back, discounting Eastbourne qualifying, in matches played at the 50k level and above, has 3.5 times as many match wins as Robson, which includes quadruple as many main draw wins, as many wins at the WTA Tour level, and has seven wins on grass to zero for Robson. Now, I'm not saying that Wimbledon should be giving Barty a wildcard, but this just puts things into perspective for Laura.
I'm also not opposed to giving wildcards out for good results during the previous year's tournaments. I was all for the French Open giving Andrea Mitu a wildcard for her French Open Round of 16 appearance during the previous season instead of Tessah Adrianjafitrimo. However, when we have to reach three years in the past, and only for a Round of 16 result, to justify giving a player with a 2-9 record in 50k and up tournaments all year a wildcard, then it just looks a little desperate, and really, pathetic.
If Robson has a great run next week, then great, give her a wildcard, it will be well deserved. But, if Wimbledon gives Robson a wildcard based on the current results, then it would be a total and complete disgrace and would make the calls to get rid of the wildcard system altogether even louder. Because, a player like Tara Moore, with a Final run in Eastbourne and winning a match in Nottingham does deserve to have her moment at Wimbledon, but given that Wimbledon is one of the four biggest tournaments of the year, the tennis governing body for Britain, the LTA, should act like it. And, by that, I mean, actually give out wildcards to players who deserve them. And beating some of the top players at random points of previous years, quite some time ago, doesn't exactly scream "deserving" to me.
Because, at the end of the day, let's be honest, there is no justification for giving Laura Robson a wildcard other than the fact that she is British, and that would look a lot like a corrupt, unfair system to me. Robson simply does not deserve a Wimbledon wildcard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)