Lin Dan WILDCARD to the 2013 World Championships: Yes or no?

Was BWF right to give Lin Dan a wildcard?

  • Yes - for the good of the game

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No - he hasn't played for 8 months

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Don't know - I can't decide - it's complicated :-(

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
I don't think BWF granted wild card to LD solely because of his achievements, which no doubt were unprecedented.

I think the primary reason was because LD vs LCW is what everybody wants to see (including Malaysia Boleh fans).

If LCW didn't enter this WC (for whatever reason), BWF would not have granted the wild card to LD.
 
cobalt said:
That wouldn't matter now, would it? You appear to have -for yourself at least- set the bar on qualification for wild-card. ;)

A wild card can be allowed to a player for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the status of the player and his/her impact on the popularity of the game etc. I personally have no problem specifically, with BWF issuing a wildcard to LD for the reasons they have stated or implied.

However, that does not to my mind, set the bar for qualification. I think the wild card can in fact be used in very beneficial ways, and BWF is guilty of not being creative or bold enough in their use of this wonderful weapon. No surprises there.

To your point: The idea that only the super-rich are eligible for a tax break only cruelly underscores the difference between the haves and have-nots. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

For me, it does set the bar for a wildcard in LD's case, and ones similar to it. I don't know what was the reason given by the BWF, but I believe that should be the benchmark for a performance/achievement-based wildcard. Of course, the BWF may have had other concerns such as commercial value, to draw interest to the tournament, etc; I am not commenting on those aspects.

And I am genuinely curious what other "creative or bold ways" there are for the BWF to use a wildcard. Care to name some examples?

To your analogy, I don't think that it is entirely accurate. It should be the role of a government to promote social/economic equality, it is not the BWF's, in my opinion, to promote equality, but rather to push the game by letting the best compete. Again, perhaps if you gave some examples of what other uses of wildcards that you have in mind, I can get a clearer picture of what you are driving at.
 
yamsyams said:
For me, it does set the bar for a wildcard in LD's case, and ones similar to it. I don't know what was the reason given by the BWF, but I believe that should be the benchmark for a performance/achievement-based wildcard. Of course, the BWF may have had other concerns such as commercial value, to draw interest to the tournament, etc; I am not commenting on those aspects.

And I am genuinely curious what other "creative or bold ways" there are for the BWF to use a wildcard. Care to name some examples?
To your analogy, I don't think that it is entirely accurate. It should be the role of a government to promote social/economic equality, it is not the BWF's, in my opinion, to promote equality, but rather to push the game by letting the best compete. Again, perhaps if you gave some examples of what other uses of wildcards that you have in mind, I can get a clearer picture of what you are driving at.
Click to expand...

BWF tried to force female dress code rule, I would say that is bold and maybe slightly creative.(although a bit of copycat)

There are many ways that BWF tried but nothing is bold and creative.
 
Wild cards can be used for anybody, I guess that's why it's called "wild".
It usually is to make a tournament more interesting. For example, to enter a home player to create more local interest in the event. Or to enter a semi-retired former champion. Or a promising player. Or a good player who could not qualify due to missing half the qualification period to injury. Anything ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top