This week the Grands Slam Board announced a number of revolutionary changes that will change tennis at the sport’s biggest events. Changes including a shot clock, and shorter on court warm-ups have been made.
Yet has the GSB missed a trick in all this change?
For years three of the four Grand Slams have engaged in the Reciprocal Wildcard Agreement. This Agreement sees wildcard places at the Grand Slam events exchanged between three out of the four host nations. For example, at the upcoming Australian Open, Tim Smyczek has won the wildcard through his results on the Challenger circuit, the way the United States Tennis Association awards its coveted prize. France will announce the recipient of theirs at an appropriate time, and Australia will then benefit with a wildcard at each of the French and US Opens respectively.
The key question is, should this Agreement exist at all?
Proponents of the agreement might suggest that it helps develop stronger relationships and firmer ties between the Grand Slams. Others might suggest that it reflects the contribution to tennis history that these nations have made. However, this doesn’t really seem to be a good enough reason to dole out a coveted position in the main draw of a Grand Slam.
Indeed, the Agreement seems almost an unnecessary monopoly by some of the biggest nations in tennis. Considering that these nations have a natural tendency to offer the majority of the wildcards at their event to home players, it seems strange that they should be afforded the luxury of yet another wildcard at other slams. Being awarded a wildcard should be an honour, a reflection of great talent or proven ability, as these are the only real reasons that could possibly justify handing out a coveted place at a grand slam.
Wimbledon has in the past seemed better in its decision-making. Until 2015 the tournament usually did not offer wildcards to home players unless they met stringent criteria, including a ranking of inside the Top 250 of the ATP/WTA rankings. It was changed to reflect the fact that Wimbledon views an upcoming generation of British players worthy of chances in the future. The principle was very sound, even fair. Wimbledon is also the only Grand Slam to not currently partake in the Reciprocal Agreement.
If the GSB board was to scrap the Agreement, what could take its place?
There are a number of ideas about how the wildcard could be better, and more fairly, used. One idea could be to follow the line taken by the Olympic Games. These tournaments reserve wildcards for smaller, nations that have less funding, access to funding, or local tournaments to benefit their players. This principle saw Slovakia’s Andrej Martin, Bosnia Hrzegovina’s Mirza Basic, Moldova’s Radu Albot, and the Bahama’s Darian King all receive wildcards after their pre-tournament rankings failed to gain them entry.
It seemed to pay off, as both Albot and Martin progressed past the first round, with Martin making it to round three. Yet progression is not necessarily the overall point, (though it would give weight to the decision if the individual progressed.) The point is that these wildcards make tennis far more inclusive. We might not expect a player from Kazakhstan, Panama, or Vietnam to win a grand slam but it would be a great move in the game today to see players from such nations afforded a rare piece of luck that so rarely comes their way compared to others. Of course, the player who is to be the recipient of such a wildcard must have a strong professional tennis ability, so a prerequisite criteria of a ranking inside the Top 300 would be sensible.
There seems to be a attempt to install something like this in tennis at present. The Australian Open hosts an Asia-Pacific Play-Off where sixteen players (excluding Australians) partake in a tournament with the winner earning a wildcard for the main draw of the Australian Open. It is worth mentioning that the winner for the 2017 wildcard was none other than Uzbekistan’s Denis Istomin, who would go on to stun defending champion Novak Djokovic in the second round on his way to an eventual fourth round run.
Yet the Australian Open seems to be the only tournament at present that explores this at present. In an age where tennis seems to be all about change, one of the most glaring issues stepped in recent tennis history seems to be surviving for no discernible reason.
