Wimbledon: Level Playing Field Or Home Advantage?

Should Wimbledon treat all players equally (making allowances for seeding obviously) or should players from this country be given favourable treatment? Is it important to ensure a fair fight and that the best man or women wins? Or should countries hosting slams give a helping hand to home players (within the rules obviously)?

On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs. Should I reserve the dining chairs for my relatives? The other guests would be welcome to use the garden. I would of course keep my fingers crossed that it didn't rain and if one of my relatives had to leave early offer up the free dining chair to the most worthy of my friends. Everyone would understand that I love my mum and wouldn't want to risk her getting wet.

hawkeye wrote:
On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs.

Buy some more dining chairs.

If your friends were good at tipping, give them the seats

It's OK to muck around with the schedule a little bit in the early rounds and put local no-hopers on big Courts but come 4th-F a tournament has got to retain it's credibility.

For all the criticism yesterday the AELTC look to have pulled off a blinder today, and it was notable that the way the schedule worked the QF's are likely to involve players who have had similar amounts of rest facing one another - it's only really Djoko v. Mayer where there's a mismatch.

I just hope that Tsonga beats Fish and the rain - were Fish to win or take Tsonga to a 5th that would be such a pity for the next round.

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs.

Buy some more dining chairs.

LOL

As regards the OP, home players often get court advantage because more of the crowd want to see them, hence e.g. at the USO an American would play on the court that allows the most Americans to watch the match.

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs.

Buy some more dining chairs.

Unfortunately I just have to make do with things as they are and that includes a limited number of dining chairs.

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs.

Buy some more dining chairs.

Unfortunately I just have to make do with things as they are and that includes a limited number of dining chairs.

You could ask people to bring their own chairs. Ask them to bring their own food too. That way you wouldn't have to be there at all.

hawkeye wrote:Everyone would understand that I love my mum and wouldn't want to risk her getting wet.

What if your mum loved watching Andy Murray?

Then you'd lock her out.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Everyone would understand that I love my mum and wouldn't want to risk her getting wet.

What if your mum loved watching Andy Murray?

Then you'd lock her out.

Perhaps she could come round to your house and debate who the true world number 4 is

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
On this note. If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs.

Buy some more dining chairs.

Unfortunately I just have to make do with things as they are and that includes a limited number of dining chairs.

You could ask people to bring their own chairs. Ask them to bring their own food too. That way you wouldn't have to be there at all.

I don't understand? Are you saying that players should make their own courts elsewhere and that no one should watch when they play?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Everyone would understand that I love my mum and wouldn't want to risk her getting wet.

What if your mum loved watching Andy Murray?

Then you'd lock her out.

I don't understand? Are you saying that Federer shouldn't participate in Wimbledon he should be forced to watch Andy Murray on an outside court instead? Interesting but it doesn't really answer my question.

hawkeye wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Everyone would understand that I love my mum and wouldn't want to risk her getting wet.

What if your mum loved watching Andy Murray?

Then you'd lock her out.

I don't understand? Are you saying that Federer shouldn't participate in Wimbledon he should be forced to watch Andy Murray on an outside court instead? Interesting but it doesn't really answer my question.

No, it doesn't, does it

On this interesting note perhaps we can take the time to discuss what is your favourite Pot Noodle. Everyone likes original best, right?

I like Question Time.

So Hawky what are your views on this thread?

Should Home Players have an advantage?

Should I take my brolly with me when I head for the car after work?

hawkeye wrote:If I were to host a dinner party and I wanted to invite all my friends and family but only had a limited number of dining chairs. Should I reserve the dining chairs for my relatives?

Easy. I mean not having many friends, your relatives get all the seats

Interesting the poll is only about whether home players should get an advantage at Wimbledon, not at any other slams.

It Must Be Love

It was meant to be a serious question. It is a serious question! Not just about court allocation but other ways a home player can be given advantage if their country hosts a slam. I have noticed that it is accepted that this is fair. But is it? Maybe it was my fault for talking about dining chairs so that now no one feels able to defend or dispute this practice...

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interesting the poll is only about whether home players should get an advantage at Wimbledon, not at any other slams.

Wimbledon is being played at the moment but of course the question is equally valid for all slams and indeed all tournaments. Please answer the poll as a general question rather than a specific question if you wish.

Sorry HE, I'm a bit tired to think straight.
Should they some players home advantage.

I dunno.... I'm feeling quite tired. It's a philosophical question...

They should move Wimbledon to Spain, no?

I'm sorry I'm too tired to think properly. Ask Laverfan he will have sophisticated answer stored no doubt.

It Must Be Love wrote:Sorry HE, I'm a bit tired to think straight.
Should they some players home advantage.

I dunno.... I'm feeling quite tired. It's a philosophical question...

They should move Wimbledon to Spain, no?

I'm sorry I'm too tired to think properly. Ask Laverfan he will have sophisticated answer stored no doubt.

Please don't answer until your less tired then or are you trying to be mean...

No seriously I am tired

Hawky,

Should the UK hold a referendum about entering into the Eurozone under better terms?

All slams put the big home players on the show courts at good times. It's to maximise tv ratings and therefore revenue. Wimbledon is the only one that doesn't.

Nice to see you here though HE, obviously there's been very little anti Murray stuff to write the last few days.

Murray isn't English.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Murray isn't English.

No, but he represents GBR in a sport where the individual nations are collected under the GBR banner.

Not in my name.

Yes Home players do get some preference on courts , i don't see anything wrong in it, after all the slam committee have to make some money and they do whats best.

As long as the draws are not rigged in their favour, I see some local players getting court preference in the 1st week as no issue, however the top seeds should get the preference in the 2nd week.

OK I'll try to give a good answer, let's see.

The main question is:
Should Wimbledon treat all players equally (making allowances for seeding obviously) or should players from this country be given favourable treatment?

Now Wimbledon is a Grand Slam tournament where individual players play. Unlike the Davis Cup the players are not representing their country but their players. Let's keep this in mind first.

OK now should in a Grand Slam, let's use FO as an example, be able to help Tsonga to win a Grand Slam.
I believe there is two kinds of helping.
Firstly it is when the conditions are the same for all, but the conditions have been changed to benefit the home players. For example in USA, the conditions could be made really fast to help players who have big serves and have a more aggressive game. Let's call this 'A'.

Secondly the other type of helping is when the organisation of the tournament is actively changing the circumstances to ensure it is not the same for all. This in my mind is cheating. For example the line judges could be cheating to help the home player, new balls could be snuck in everytime he had an important service game etc. We can call this 'B'.

So there are two levels of helping, one is changing the conditions, but still keeping it the same for everyone (but not necessarily benefiting everyone- there is a difference). Second type is actively cheating and ensuring it is not a 'fair test' i.e. rigged umpires.

For me, morally, I do not believe that either A or B should be used- home players should not get an advantage. Why should they, just because of their nationality? It is unfair.
However in reality if we look at the results in the past few decades or so, we can see that having a Grand Slam at home has not really helped in that country. They were talking about this on Eurosport recently, in-fact they found that it is more of a hindrance than anything- this may be due to the extra pressure.

In the last 8 years I don't think a home player has won a Grand Slam.. and as far as I can see none of the organisations have helped their home players (Type A or Type B) to try and win.
I know after the Karlovic match people may be influenced, but how often does this claim happen? As said by others, he cannot really see his own feet, and was upset after losing, so can hardly be seen as an unbiased reference. Meanwhile Murray has been put on the roofless Court 1, despite the Wimbledon Committee knowing the weather forecast, which spelt trouble for Andy (but put him on anyway to balance the Court 1 ticket price).

Therefore I do not believe home players should get the advantage, whether passive (A) or active cheating (B), and I do not believe it happens in this day and age.

Hope this answered your question

Danny_1982 wrote:All slams put the big home players on the show courts at good times. It's to maximise tv ratings and therefore revenue. Wimbledon is the only one that doesn't.

Nice to see you here though HE, obviously there's been very little anti Murray stuff to write the last few days.

As your perhaps a little sensitive about Murray I'll give another example. What about Heather Watson on CC instead of Serena. That has nothing to do with TV ratings as Serena would easily win that battle.

Anyway my question is a broader one than just being given a show court. In certain circumstances a show court may not even be an advantage to a home player. The question is about a tournament deliberately considering what may be advantageous for an individual player and acting on it. This is a serious question because in the extreme it can affect the difference between a win and a loss.

Back to my original question. Should Wimbledon be a level playing field or should it give home advantage? Substitute other tournaments if you wish. The one thing that IMO is completely wrong is to give home advantage but PRETEND there is a level playing field. So with this in mind what do you think? If you don't like the question you don't have to comment so please no spoiler answers.

It Must Be Love

Thank you for that thoughtful answer. I'm sorry for suspecting you were being mean.

No worries

Sensitive? Moi? Far from it. I'm enjoying this slam more than any other I can remember. I'm not sensitive to anything... Except maybe the rain. It's getting on my nerves now. Summer? Pffft.

Are you enjoying this slam hawkeye, or has your interest waned a bit since Rafa went out. Serious question, not a wind up.

So are you asking me if I have an issue with Heather Watson being on centre while Serena was on an outside court? Not at all. A woman doing that well was a big story in Britain. The paying public will have probably wanted to see her on a show court. They have to satisfy the needs of the paying British public, as well as the players and the global audience.

Danny_1982

The rain is getting on everyones nerves...

No I'm not asking you about Heather Watson. I'm asking the more general question about Wimbledon (or any slam or indeed any tournament) providing a level playing field or home advantage. I've tried to spell that out clearly.

Incidentally (and this is more in response to your point about paying public and Watson or other British players) It was possible to watch Watson and quite a few other British players for free in Nottingham a few weeks ago. I know because I did. Sadly not many others chose to watch. I would say this demonstrates that when paying a high ticket price most want to see the stars not local talent.

You asked about my interest in Wimbledon since Nadal went out. I think I made my views on this clear elsewhere. But this thread is about a different topic.

Personally I'm happy for British players to get an advantage. But then I'm British and want to see all Brits do well. I don't think they get much advantage though, unlike other slams with their own players.

Certainly that's how it seems to me. We do try and be as fair and transparent as possible at Wimbledon, which is a good thing I guess. But as John Mac said the other day, we are the only ones that don't give the home hope any scheduling preferences.

I would like their to be a consistent approach either way I guess. Either they all favour their own players, or it goes completely on seedings.

There is normally a bit of home advantage at Wimbledon without in my opinion it being over the top. Murray as top male GB player and number 4 seed has earned the right to play all his matches on CC or No1 (Henman and Rudeski earned that right previously as top players). He gets no advantage over the current top 3 who also play all their matches on these courts.

I can see the point on Heather Watson and other GB players who have got to play on the show courts in the past few years. The honour though is usually given for having a good result in the first round (or occasionally second round). Therefore it's usually in the early stages which I don't think can be grudged.

I do hope that players like Heather, Laura Robson, and Oli Golding earn the right to be frequent show court players in the near future.