Italian translation at settesei.it
For the last two days, we’ve looked at tour-level wild cards from various angles. Many top players never received any; others have gotten plenty but never taken much advantage. Still others have managed to prop up their rankings with occasional wild cards despite not having the game to take themselves to the next level.
Wild cards are perhaps most interesting from a structural perspective. Every tournament gets to give away between three and eight free spots in the main draw, and what they do with them is fascinating. Events must pick from among several priorities: Bring in the best possible players to build a competitive field? Award places to big names, even if they are unlikely to win more than a single match? Support national objectives (and perhaps invest in future fan interest) by handing the places to the best rising stars the home country has to offer?
Obviously, these priorities conflict. The Canada Masters events give out most of their wild cards to Canadians–56 of the last 59. But those local favorites have failed to win even one quarter of their matches, the second worst record for home-country wild cards among the current Masters events. Wimbledon is the least home-friendly of the Grand Slams, but perhaps it is still too friendly, as British wild cards have won barely one in five matches over the last 15 years. Lately, it has been even worse.
The dilemma is most pronounced for tournaments in countries without a strong tennis presence. These events generally hand out most of their wild cards to non-locals, saving a few for the best the homeland has to offer. Dubai, for instance, has only awarded 10 of its last 42 wild cards to Emiratis. Unfortunately, those guys have gone 0-10. The story is similar in Doha and Kuala Lumpur.
A different approach is evident in Tokyo, the only remaining tournament in Japan. These days, the 32-player draw only gives the event three wild cards to work with. The tournament isn’t wasting spots on outsiders: Every wild card since 1992 has gone to a Japanese player. The local wild cards have done better than we might guess, winning almost 30% of their matches, good for 45th among the 65 tournaments I looked at.
In fact, there is not a strong correlation between home-country favoritism and poor wild-card performance. Of long-running tournaments, Newport has seen their wild cards have the most success, winning more than half their matches. Next on the list is Halle, also a bit better than half. But the two tournaments take drastically different approaches to local players. Newport only awards 63% of its WCs to Americans–second-lowest among tourneys in the USA. Halle, on the other hand, gives nearly all of its free spots to Germans.
When discussing the structural biases of the wild card system, it’s easy to pick on the USA. America hosts far more tournaments than any other country, and thus US events have the most wild cards at their discretion. Many of those decisions are made by a single organization, the USTA. But US tournaments are far from consistent in their approach.
The US Open is by far the most nationalistic of the Grand Slams, having awarded about 85% of its WCs in the last 15 years to US players. The French comes next at 78%, then the Australian at 69%, followed by Wimbledon at 67%. But even that understates the case. Take out the French reciprocal wild cards since 2008 and the Australian reciprocals since 2005, and 100 of the last 105 wild cards in Flushing have represented the home nation.
Yet as we’ve seen, Newport shows less home-country favoritism than almost any other ATP event, and the Miami Masters is even more extreme, living up to its billing as the “South American Slam” by giving barely half of its wild cards to US players. Even the most biased US tournament (aside from the Open) is the clay court event in Houston, which isn’t even in the top third of all events, handing out “only” 86% of wild cards to Americans.
The problem isn’t the behavior of US tournament officials–if anything, they are more international in their thinking than their colleagues in other countries. Instead, their priorities–put home-country players on the court; amass a competitive field–combined with the sheer number of US events, result in one wild card after another for a small group of Americans and no equivalent advantages for players from countries that do not host tour-level events.
After the jump, find a table with many of the numbers I’ve referred to throughout this post. All tour-level events that took place in 2011 or 2012 are included, and data goes back to 1998. homeWC% is percentage of WCs that went to home- country players, WCW% is the winning percentage of all wild cards, and hWCW% is win% of all wild cards from the home country. I’ve excluded wild cards who were seeded, since those are usually just late entries, and don’t reflect tournament priorities in the same way that other WCs do. For a sortable table with even more data, click here.
Tourney Cty WCs hWCs homeWC% WCW% hWCW% Johannesburg RSA 9 9 100.0% 55.0% 55.0% Bucharest ROU 39 39 100.0% 36.1% 36.1% Hamburg GER 57 57 100.0% 36.0% 36.0% Tokyo JPN 60 60 100.0% 29.4% 29.4% Eastbourne GBR 36 35 97.2% 44.4% 39.7% Rome Masters ITA 62 60 96.8% 36.7% 36.8% Paris Masters FRA 43 41 95.3% 33.8% 33.9% Sydney AUS 40 38 95.0% 40.3% 40.6% Canada Masters CAN 59 56 94.9% 27.2% 24.3% Zagreb CRO 19 18 94.7% 26.9% 28.0% Stuttgart GER 50 47 94.0% 35.9% 34.7% Buenos Aires ARG 29 27 93.1% 38.3% 35.7% Halle GER 42 39 92.9% 51.9% 53.8% Metz FRA 25 23 92.0% 40.5% 39.5% Montpellier FRA 36 33 91.7% 37.9% 38.9% Rotterdam NED 42 38 90.5% 28.8% 29.6% Moscow RUS 40 36 90.0% 28.6% 29.4% Brisbane AUS 39 35 89.7% 45.7% 44.3% Bastad SWE 44 39 88.6% 38.0% 36.1% Costa Do Sauipe BRA 35 31 88.6% 33.3% 24.4% Gstaad SUI 41 36 87.8% 21.2% 16.3% Houston USA 36 31 86.1% 44.1% 49.1% Vienna AUT 36 31 86.1% 36.8% 29.5% Munich GER 40 34 85.0% 37.5% 37.0% US Open USA 118 100 84.7% 29.8% 30.1% Casablanca MAR 39 33 84.6% 22.4% 17.9% Stockholm SWE 38 32 84.2% 49.3% 48.3% Estoril POR 35 29 82.9% 37.0% 34.1% Memphis USA 44 36 81.8% 44.3% 40.0% Los Angeles USA 37 30 81.1% 41.0% 40.0% Santiago CHI 36 29 80.6% 32.7% 33.3% Kitzbuhel AUT 46 37 80.4% 34.3% 31.5% Winston-Salem USA 5 4 80.0% 44.4% 50.0% Valencia ESP 35 28 80.0% 34.0% 24.3% Marseille FRA 34 27 79.4% 50.0% 45.8% Barcelona ESP 62 49 79.0% 38.6% 38.0% Roland Garros FRA 119 93 78.2% 29.2% 32.1% Basel SUI 36 28 77.8% 40.0% 33.3% Delray Beach USA 36 28 77.8% 28.0% 22.2% Cincinnati Masters USA 57 44 77.2% 45.2% 42.9% St. Petersburg RUS 42 32 76.2% 38.2% 30.4% Atlanta USA 8 6 75.0% 38.5% 45.5% Madrid Masters ESP 35 26 74.3% 38.6% 31.6% San Jose USA 42 31 73.8% 41.4% 46.4% Chennai IND 42 31 73.8% 26.3% 22.5% Belgrade SRB 11 8 72.7% 31.3% 33.3% Washington USA 54 39 72.2% 36.1% 32.8% Nice FRA 7 5 71.4% 36.4% 16.7% Beijing CHN 24 17 70.8% 36.8% 22.7% Australian Open AUS 119 82 68.9% 28.3% 28.7% Shanghai Masters CHN 16 11 68.8% 20.0% 15.4% s-Hertogenbosch NED 34 23 67.6% 45.8% 37.8% Wimbledon GBR 110 74 67.3% 31.9% 20.4% Indian Wells Masters USA 70 47 67.1% 48.1% 47.8% Acapulco MEX 39 26 66.7% 36.1% 16.1% Umag CRO 43 28 65.1% 34.8% 33.3% Newport USA 38 24 63.2% 53.2% 46.7% Auckland NZL 42 26 61.9% 23.6% 21.2% Queen's Club GBR 64 39 60.9% 37.9% 31.6% Miami Masters USA 76 42 55.3% 38.0% 34.4% Bangkok THA 28 12 42.9% 24.3% 14.3% Doha QAT 43 13 30.2% 32.3% 0.0% Dubai UAE 42 10 23.8% 24.1% 0.0% Kuala Lumpur MAS 12 2 16.7% 45.5% 0.0% Monte Carlo Masters MON 57 8 14.0% 42.3% 27.3%
It’s really odd to me that the US Open is so nationalistic. It seems reasonable to have more local players at smaller events (to make the crowd happy), but philosophically speaking it seems like majors should have a more international flavor. I suppose the USTA likes to hedge its bets by awarding more US wild cards at the event with the most ranking points, though…
Remember, as well, that the USTA isn’t just a body that runs tournaments — it is an organization trying to develop young American stars. If I had guys I thought were the next big things and could put them directly in a grand slam main draw, I’d be awfully tempted!
Keep in mind America has a population of over 300M but the USO has the same # of wildcards as much smaller slam countries Australia, France, and UK.