Fans enjoy watching British players compete over the first four days, and fans may expect to see Heather Watson and Laura Robson โ both pre-injury โ win one or two matches in the early rounds, know the meaning and rules of Wimbledon wild card explained
In the great scheme of things, however, a British triumph is a rare occurrence due to a scarcity of viable top-level talent.
Explained Wimbledon Wild Card Rules, Playoffs, Wildcards Meaning
Because there are so few British tennis players in the world’s top 100 in both the ATP and WTA rankings, the LTA’s wildcard system is significantly more important than any of the other four tennis Majors. It is how, in the last ten years, the vast majority of British representatives at Wimbledon have obtained access to the event.
During the first decade of the new century, the LTA seemed to hand out these extra freebies far too easily to British players. 14 British players were given direct entry into the first round ten years ago, in 2005. Only three players progressed to the next round. The old system appeared to reward mediocrity or, in the worst-case scenario, acceptance of failure. Without winning a single match, Alex Bogdanovic received nine direct entries into the main draw.
Giving serial ‘plateauers’ chance after chance in any firm is not only a waste of time and resources, but also sends the wrong message to the individual.
The necessity for more stringent entry conditions was recognised, and only players ranked in the top 250 in the globe would be considered automatically. Even back then, British players sat on their laurels for much too long. Dan Evans and Tara Moore were always barely inside the cutoff mark in the main draw, but they never threatened to upset the apple cart. Only one player, Naomi Broady, won her first-round last year out of the eight wildcard entries in the main event.
The LTA has now altered the system considerably more under the new administration. Players who are currently ranked in the top 250 will no longer be automatically considered for a wildcard, and only those who have the best chance of succeeding will be considered.
This new tough stance from a regulatory body that has been accused of being too indulgent and soft on its players for far too long has been welcomed by many.
The elimination of the 250 ranking guidelines may have given serial underachievers the boot, but it also removed the certainty that overachievers would reach their lifelong goals. Daniel Smethurst had spent his entire career hovering around the No.500 rating, only to uncover a fantastic run of form and snare a wildcard at the last minute.
Managers and bosses in every workplace must strike a balance between rewarding those who consistently put in the effort and produce above expectations versus those who have the ability to perform better but fail to do so.
If too much leeway is allowed to develop defective talents, the strong, dependable workhorses with lower ceilings may grow disappointed and wonder when they will be rewarded for their efforts.
These people have not been handed reprieve after reprieve, but have fought their way in with a shout of a chance for a moment in the sun.
For far too long, the LTA wildcard system teetered on the edge of charity rather than meritocracy. However, the new authorities must be careful not to rush across the bridge. Not only would they deprive the British people of the opportunity to watch credible British competitors compete in the first four days of the championships, but they would also discourage scrappers who struggle to make a living week in and week out from striving a little harder. What good is it if the benefits aren’t there?