Last week, I presented a lot of data that demonstrated how American (and to a lesser extent, French, Australian, and British) players receive the bulk of ATP wild cards, mostly because there are so many tournaments in these countries. That leaves nationals of other countries to fight their way up through the rankings more slowly, earning less money and facing tougher odds.
How bad is it? Does it really help to get a handful of free entries, especially if most wild cards are doomed to lose in the first round or two?
To get a sense of the effect, let’s take a look at Jack Sock, the most gifted recipient of wild cards in 2012. He entered seven tour-level events this year, all on free passes. (He was also wildcarded into another three challengers and the Cincinnati Masters qualifying draw.) If you take away the wild cards, he would’ve played a couple of challengers, some qualifying draws for US 250s, leaving him to fill most of his calendar with futures.
As it is, Sock has boosted his ranking from 381 to 164 in a single year, earning $137,000 along the way. About half of that comes from his third-round showing at the US Open, which required him to beat Florian Mayer (who retired) and Flavio Cipolla, not a particularly tall order (as it were). Another $27,000 came entirely from first-round losses–tournaments that he didn’t earn his way into, and where he failed to win a match.
I don’t mean to pick on Sock. Kudos to him for winning as many matches as he has this year and establishing himself as one of the better prospects in the game. But if he weren’t from a Grand Slam-hosting country, he would have been lucky to get a single wild card, perhaps benefiting from two or three freebies at the challenger level. He would have spent most of 2012 on the futures circuit, hoping to pick up the occasional $1,300 winner’s check.
What would have happened then? A handy test case is Diego Sebastian Schwartzman, a young Argentine about one month older than Sock. At the end of last year, Schwartzman was ranked 371 to Sock’s 381. Schwartzman doesn’t exactly constitute a scientific control group, but as a point of reference, we couldn’t ask for much more.
In terms of on-court performance, Schwartzman may well have had a better 2012 than Sock did. The Argentine won six Futures events on the South American clay, and he added another four doubles titles at that level. He wasn’t nearly as successful at the next level, going 5-10 in Challenger and ATP qualifiying matches. Perhaps he was a bit worn down from his 49 Futures singles matches this year.
It’s an open question whether Sock or Schwartzman had the more impressive year. Some might prefer the American’s challenger title and handful of top-100 scalps; others would prefer Schwartzman’s 30-match winning streak at the Futures level.
But here’s the kicker: While Sock made $137,000 and raised his ranking to #164, Schwartzman made $17,000 and is currently ranked #245. By showing up at the Indian Wells Masters and losing in the first round, Sock made about as much money as Schwartzman did by winning six tournaments.
The rankings differential isn’t as striking, but it is just as important for both players in the near future. Sock was able to earn direct entry in the Tiburon Challenger earlier this month. A ranking inside the top 200 is good enough to get into almost all Challengers and a substantial number of ATP qualifiers. 245 will get you into many of the Challenger events with lower stakes (read: less money, fewer points on offer) and a much smaller number of ATP qualifiers.
Thus, the favors handed to the American–and never considered for the Argentine–will effect the trajectory of both players’ careers for some time to come.
Andrea Collarini, perhaps you’d like to reconsider?