Wimbledon Wildcards Announced

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

RE: Wimbledon Wildcards Announced

paulisi · Tennis legend

RJA wrote:
Ed is now second alt for qualifying so will almost certainly not need the wild card.

I am genuinely bemused by the situation with qualifying wild cards. To only give 3 out before the play off is mad as it seems most likely that several play off losers will be getting qualifying wild cards anyway which makes a mockery of the whole thing. If they wanted to give 4 of the play off players a wild card they should have either doubled the draw to 32 or reduced the number of rounds to 2.

Thoroughly agree. The LTA now look stupid and will have to award wildcards to players who lost in the playoffs. Marcus Willis as the highest ranked player should have been given a wildcard anyway and it looks like he may have one now.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Maybe ---- but there are other scenarios.... see other thread - the doubles qualifying draw is definitely a factor.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Well they are going to have to give 5 more wildcards away for qualifying and they should be British.

So the finalist should get one each and then the highest ranked players.

The fact is the LTA mesed up and should have awarded more before the playoffs. It just makes a mockery of the playoffs.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

I'm confused by the LTA's approach. The playoffs serve a purpose in deciding who the remaining qwc's should go to. If certain players will receive them regardless of results, then allow the playoffs to act as a filter for the lower-ranked players who earn their qwc through the playoffs.

RJA · Hall of fame

Incidentally Noah Rubin who won the boys singles last year has apparently said that he didn't ask for a qualifying wild card because it didn't tie in with his plans for the summer. He certainly would have been given one if he had wanted it.

RJA · Hall of fame

No idea what to make of this but Marcus has re-tweeted this

Chris Daw ‏@CMDaw 1h1 hour ago

@BritishTennis is Jeremy Beadle in charge of your #Wimbledon #wildcard selection?! #watchout #beadlesabout #hiddencamera
1 retweet 1 favorite

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Knowing the powers that be, they'll give them to the next alts on the list.....

I think the play-off semi-finalists should definitely get them, before the top ranking players (otherwise why have the event?).

The Spanish star youngster definitely asked for a Q woman's wildcard. Don't know if she's had a reply. So there may be other men/boys who've asked too.

goldenboy · Club Coach

to be brutally frank, there's plenty of qWCs available but there's a paucity of options for players to give them to.

should you just hand them out to the "next ranked" british players, even if sitting outside the top 400? Probably not. Insufficient evidence over a whole year that any of those players deserve one. Yes - some have had injuries, but they simply haven't done enough.

should they be handed out to the qWC playoff losing finalists? Again, probably not! Winning 2 matches -and losing 1 - against quite frankly average opposition is the equivalent of reaching a futures QF and hardly merits £3.5k in the bank.

harsh perhaps, but little evidence outside of those already given WCs/qWCs that any more players deserve it. Similarly ranked/successful players in France/Aus/US wouldn't stand a chance.

sherbert · Lower Club Player

Who would you give them to instead then?

RJA · Hall of fame

goldenboy wrote:
harsh perhaps, but little evidence outside of those already given WCs/qWCs that any more players deserve it. Similarly ranked/successful players in France/Aus/US wouldn't stand a chance.

Since you mentioned evidence I thought I would test you assertion about players of the other slam hosting nations

At this year's Australian Open all 9 qualifying wild cards went to Australian players and as of the week before qualifying began they were ranked 261, 324, 353, 484, 566, 580, 654, 810 and 1043.

sherbert · Lower Club Player

I have never understood the theory of not giving the WCs to Brits. Surely it's giving them that small chance they may do something with it...as well as helping to fund them. It's a win win

Strongbow · All-time great

The French didn't for RG - why are we the only ones that have to be fair!

RJA · Hall of fame

sherbert wrote:
I have never understood the theory of not giving the WCs to Brits. Surely it's giving them that small chance they may do something with it...as well as helping to fund them. It's a win win

I can understand not handing a main draw wild card, and a huge pay day, to players who haven't reached a certain standard but I don't see why they would be reluctant to give out qualifying wild cards.

sherbert · Lower Club Player

RJA wrote:
sherbert wrote:
I have never understood the theory of not giving the WCs to Brits. Surely it's giving them that small chance they may do something with it...as well as helping to fund them. It's a win win
I can understand not handing a main draw wild card, and a huge pay day, to players who haven't reached a certain standard but I don't see why they would be reluctant to give out qualifying wild cards.

I still don't understand that though. Why give a WC and the money to a French guy who is 200 compared to a Brit who is 300 in the world? Are either going to win Wimbledon? Not likely...so why not fund our own players instead of somebody else's?