!Picby Pete Bodo
It's somewhat ironic to devote a Racquet Scientist post to wild cards, given that there's nothing very scientific about the way wild cards are doled out. This was amply demonstrated by thos recently awarded by Wimbledon—eight each in "gentlemen's" and "ladies'" singles. For today, we'll stick with the men's choices.
This is like Christmas morning for the players whose request for a wild card is granted; those who are denied get the proverbial lump of coal. The most disappointed petitioner this year is probably Brian Baker, the American player (and former French Open junior finalist) whose astonishing comeback from multiple surgeries is nothing less than an inspirational story. Baker is a 27-year old Tennessean who went from unranked to his present No. 124 in the blink of an eye; he recently made the final of one ATP event (Nice) and the second round at the French Open (he lost to local favorite and No. 11 seed Gilles Simon). Baker's surge, however, wasn't enough to earn a wild card for Wimbledon; his request was denied.
I can see why former No. 2 Tommy Haas and former Wimbledon champion Lleyton Hewitt were selected ahead of him, and I can even understand why four of the wild cards were given to British players, even though only one of them (25-year-old James Ward) is ranked inside the Top 200. Okay, it's a British tournament, distinguished by an utter lack of British contenders. But last time I checked, neither David Goffin nor Grega Zemlja is British, and both of them were awarded cards over Baker.
Goffin is a 21-year-old Belgian nicknamed "La Goff" (rhymes with "La Monf," the moniker attached to Gael Monfils). He had a dream run at the French Open before losing in the fourth round to Roger Federer—a performance that boosted him from No. 109 to No. 66. But let's remember, Goffin played in Roland Garros qualifying and lost; he didn't get into the main draw by merit but sheer dumb luck, as one of the "lucky losers" who are admitted by virtue of a last-minute withdrawal by a main-draw player before the event officially begins. Granted, Goffin is talented and young, but so are many, many other players who also fit that description, but knew enough not even to ask for a wild card.
Zemlja is from Slovenia, and he recently won the Nottingham Challenger. Before that, he won back-to-back matches only twice since the beginning of the year, and it's not like he's a prodigy—Zemlja is 25 years old. How he gets the wild card over Baker is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that this is another example of the way Wimbledon seems go out of its way sometimes to do what is least expected of it, just because it can—and wants to remind the world that it can. Or it just succumbs to the temptation to be too smart by half, as if the highest accolade it an get is, "Hmmmm. . . what an interesting choice."
Personally, I'd rather a wise choice.
Given that Haas grew up mostly in the U.S. (at the IMG Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy), Zemlja and Goffin are the only two wild cards who do not come out of the English-speaking, Anglo cauldron. I believe Wimbledon is acutely aware of this issue, and wants everyone to know the club isn't overly Anglo-centric. That's probably cold comfort to Baker.
For my money, the rationale for awarding wild cards to anyone other homegrown talent ought to be thought out and articulated. To me, the three main things are (in order): Recent record, mitigating circumstances (a long layoff due usually to injury), service to the game (as in longevity, or popularity—which is usually a function of longevity and history).
Baker scores high marks in the first two categories, and lacks significant credentials in the third only because of the selfsame mitigating circumstances (multiple surgeries and layoffs). It's a shame he wasn't granted a wild card.