The weird & wonderful world of Wildcards

WILDcards. Players are mad for them, and critics can be mad about them (see Maria Sharapova, below). These coveted main draw invitations are a reliable source of contention and competition. Who gets them? Who should? Who is most deserving? Is the system fair?

This week, for example, as the hardcourt swing amps up in North America, Kei Nishikori (2), Milos Raonic (3) and Grigor Dimitrov (4) have been parachuted into high seedings at the Citi Open in Washington. Having not initially entered the 64-man draw, minds and circumstances have clearly changed, with ticket sales and TV ratings likely to be among the other beneficiaries.

RELATED: Which men benefit the most from wildcards?

Still, the remaining three of the six discretionary invitations were reserved for home-grown American trio Tim Smyczek, Tommy Paul and Alexios Halebian, marrying the more altruistic cause that is a leg-up for local talent with the likely boost to the tournament’s profile and bottom line of inserting three marquee names.

Like the joker in any regular pack of cards, wildcards are trumps that can be played as each individual tournament sees fit. There is much lobbying behind the scenes, sometimes a request or instruction from a national association, and links with management companies at privately-owned events can also play a part.

Generally, backs are scratched, cheques are written, deals are done.

But, sometimes, names and storylines are considered just too big to ignore. Like Maria Sharapova this year in Stuttgart, where her 15-month doping suspension expired mid-week. Never mind that she was still banned from setting a Nike-shod foot on-site until the day of her first match, the Russian was accommodated with a delayed opening round, and the world, inevitably, watched. Yet, others, including many of her peers, complained vigorously about favours being granted to someone who had broken the rules, when perhaps re-entry might have more appropriately come via the hard yards of the ITF circuit.

The French federation, of course, then decided to make Sharapova do exactly that, rationalising that wildcards should assist those with deflated rankings as a result of injury or illness, not returning from suspension. Not at Roland Garros, anyway.

RELATED: Which women benefit the most from wildcards?

Indeed, at three of the four majors, there are added layers of official reciprocity, with the French, Australian and US Opens part of a swap deal that reserves a main draw slot for one man and woman from each grand slam sister nation to allocate as they choose, often after intra-country play-offs.

Yet Wimbledon, as ever, does things its own way, and apart from the typical array of young and/or battling Brits, the All England Club often recognises players who have performed well in the lead-up events on grass. Most tournaments are keen to assist favourite sons and daughters, and the most famous example came at the the All England Club in 2001.

Goran Ivanisevic. The three-time runner-up was struggling with motivation and a shoulder injury as his ranking plunged to 125th. Then, on that very special “People’s Monday”, and at Pat Rafter’s expense, Ivanisevic became the first – and, still, the only – wildcard – to win the men’s singles title.

Sometimes, though, no-one is deemed worthy of the last invitation or two, and the privilege of direct entry determined by the computerised pecking order that is the rankings system. Which, certainly, seems like a fair and transparent way of doing things. But, for obvious reasons, is rarely the best outcome for the balance sheet. Which along with what is etched on the honour board, is the other result that counts.