The mens' doubles Q WCs have been named:

Sean T & Darren Walsh

Brydan & Dave Rice

Daniell/Demoliner are in the draw too - don't actually know who got the wildcard and who got in directly - so shouldn't have posted it as i did last time.

Suffice to say, the four Brits are in the draw, as are Marcus D/Demoliner (and others )

scottie1 wrote:

---

I don't notice Dan Evans name on the QWC on the Wimbledon site although Gabb and Bloomfield are listed. Is Evans injured again

---

 I was just about to say the same thing, no Evo on the list there. Alex Ward and Bloomers are showing though. Really hope it's just an error! 

Dan Evans is in
GENTLEMEN'S QUALIFYING SINGLES - FIRST ROUND
Daniel Evans (GBR)
v
Jaroslav Pospisil (CZE)

The last two wild cards went to Boutillier and Lamasine who were next on the entry list. In my view that it is just incredibly poor. I can understand a reluctance to give main draw wild cards but for qualifying I really don't see the problem.

A131 wrote:

---

---

I perhaps should have made it clear that ideally I would have no main draw wild cards at all at any grand slam events for reasons I have explained before on this forum, as has Indy, in short because as these are the premier/elite events of our sport then rankings should hold sway and those who have earned it should get to play. I have much less of an issue with wc's being awarded at regular tour events or below but not at grand slams. I realize that won't change anytime soon and can understand why the French, American, British and Australian would want to see their own players but not just so that some spectator can have a better experience.

As for the 'it's about giving them the experience to help their development'' argument - well I think that is utter nonsenses and used as an excuse to exercise favoritism.  Did Boggo develop his game enough outside Wimbledon, or in between Wimbledons, to once get in on his own merit. Why was it he always needed a wild card 12 months later? So whether he was beaten by Nadal or Kim, the press probably felt, quite rightly, that a year on he has made no real improvement (or insufficient improvement) and quite right asked well what's is he doing here again? Like I say, if he had come through qualifying then fair enough -cut him some slack - but he didn't. He wanted the easy option. He was exempt from the pressure of qualifying and it was no surprise to me that when he was eventually asked to qualify for the main draw he failed and did not even reach the FQR.

Tara Moore - she was playing admittedly a former finalist but it was someone who had been off the court for a good 18 months and then ranked outside the top 500 and she still couldn't win.

---

 I think thats the basic principle that you cant ignore - this is exactly what wildcards are for. The ITF doesnt dish them out as a favour to players, they do it because they know that, on balance, the spectators would probably rather watch a Brit/Aus/US/French/upcomer/veteran player rather than the world number 115. More interest = more money and that always will be the bottom line.

I can understand the argument for introducing a fairer meritocracy to govern the allocation of Wildcards e.g. awarding the highest ranked 18, 19, 20 year olds to give fans a chance to see the games of upcoming players, but cannot understand how some people fail to grasp the value of WCs in improving entertainment value. 

As for the development argument, using the Bodganovic example again is dull and unimaginative, it has been done to death already. Wildcards can generate some of the most interesting headlines. Kyrgios used his WC to reach the QF, lifting his ranking from outside the top 140 to within the top 75, giving him totally different opportunities for the second half of the season, accelerating his progression as well as the additional exposure and sponsorship deals that came from him beating Nadal. That is the value of a well-allocated WC in both assisting players to develop whilst keeping fans talking and generating headlines- the players win, the fans win and the ITF win. 

Other examples like Bellis at the US Open, Mahut this year at the French, de Brito at Wimbledon all did their bit to generate interest. Organisers are not going to give up that sort of potential just to prevent the players ranked outside the cut-off from having to go through qualies.

murray_2k9 wrote:

---

A131 wrote:

---

---

I perhaps should have made it clear that ideally I would have no main draw wild cards at all at any grand slam events for reasons I have explained before on this forum, as has Indy, in short because as these are the premier/elite events of our sport then rankings should hold sway and those who have earned it should get to play. I have much less of an issue with wc's being awarded at regular tour events or below but not at grand slams. I realize that won't change anytime soon and can understand why the French, American, British and Australian would want to see their own players but not just so that some spectator can have a better experience.

As for the 'it's about giving them the experience to help their development'' argument - well I think that is utter nonsenses and used as an excuse to exercise favoritism.  Did Boggo develop his game enough outside Wimbledon, or in between Wimbledons, to once get in on his own merit. Why was it he always needed a wild card 12 months later? So whether he was beaten by Nadal or Kim, the press probably felt, quite rightly, that a year on he has made no real improvement (or insufficient improvement) and quite right asked well what's is he doing here again? Like I say, if he had come through qualifying then fair enough -cut him some slack - but he didn't. He wanted the easy option. He was exempt from the pressure of qualifying and it was no surprise to me that when he was eventually asked to qualify for the main draw he failed and did not even reach the FQR.

Tara Moore - she was playing admittedly a former finalist but it was someone who had been off the court for a good 18 months and then ranked outside the top 500 and she still couldn't win.

---

 I think thats the basic principle that you cant ignore - this is exactly what wildcards are for. The ITF doesnt dish them out as a favour to players, they do it because they know that, on balance, the spectators would probably rather watch a Brit/Aus/US/French/upcomer/veteran player rather than the world number 115. More interest = more money and that always will be the bottom line.

I can understand the argument for introducing a fairer meritocracy to govern the allocation of Wildcards e.g. awarding the highest ranked 18, 19, 20 year olds to give fans a chance to see the games of upcoming players, but cannot understand how some people fail to grasp the value of WCs in improving entertainment value. 

As for the development argument, using the Bodganovic example again is dull and unimaginative, it has been done to death already. Wildcards can generate some of the most interesting headlines. Kyrgios used his WC to reach the QF, lifting his ranking from outside the top 140 to within the top 75, giving him totally different opportunities for the second half of the season, accelerating his progression as well as the additional exposure and sponsorship deals that came from him beating Nadal. That is the value of a well-allocated WC in both assisting players to develop whilst keeping fans talking and generating headlines- the players win, the fans win and the ITF win. 

Other examples like Bellis at the US Open, Mahut this year at the French, de Brito at Wimbledon all did their bit to generate interest. Organisers are not going to give up that sort of potential just to prevent the players ranked outside the cut-off from having to go through qualies.

---

 Point 1 - I get where you are coming from but I would have thought that this would be much more less of an issue at grand slam events especially at the French and Wimbledon where the vast majority of tickets - if not all - are sold in advance so irrespective of whether there is a Brit or a Frenchman playing on the outside courts you will still get 37,000 through the gate at Wimbledon or whatever number through the gate at Roland Garros.

Point 2 - ''but cannot understand how some people fail to grasp the value of WCs in improving entertainment value. '' I saw Samantha Murray play Maria Sharapova last year on Court 1. Admittedly, I did miss a lot of the first set and yes she was playing the world number 5 and yes she did play some good points but from what I did see she did anything but improve the entertainment value. She had served five double faults when I had only been sat down 15 minutes and overall I felt she was fairly second rate shall we say and you just had to ask your self - how can the tournament organisers justify this? She'd have been lucky to get past the first round of qualifying. I could cite a few more but I'll leave it there for now. When you already have the world's best players on show I doubt that  many wc's are going to add to the entertainment value.

Point 3 - Kyrios fine - accept that! But didn't he get in on a more merit based performance by winning the Nottingham Challenger so he earn't his way in as opposed to just being parachuted in - like Boggo was and James Ward who is still developing hos game at 28 - 6 years on from when he got his first wc.

Point 4 - leave that for now but may come back.