British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

And Hannah will get a MDWC for no other reason than to give her experience.

Just for the record the criteria for LTA nomination is
Previous top 100 singles / representing GB: Players who have been selected for Billie Jean King Cup or Davis Cup in the last 12 months and been top 100 singles WTA/ATP ranked in the last 6 months (working back from the date of the start of the championships)

Emerging Players: Emerging players who are on an upward ranking trajectory towards achieving a direct acceptance into the Main Draw or Qualifying of the Championships (or other Grand Slams)

Ranking: The ATP/WTA rankings of players (normally top 250 ATP / WTA singles ranking will be most relevant)

Recent results: The quality of recent results in ATP/WTA or ITF Men's or Women's events will be considered as well as the 2026 Grass Court season. As a guide, results from the last three months will be the most relevant.

Development opportunities: Younger players who will gain a particular benefit from playing in The Championships. Consideration will be given to the following for singles:
- ATP / WTA ranking / ranking progression;
- ITF Junior ranking and performances at Junior Grand Slams
- NCAA singles ranking and results

https://www.lta.org.uk/49804d/globalassets/wild-card-policy-lta-major-events-and-champs-2026.pdf

Thanks Lambda for the guidelines re LTA nominations.

I knew there was some list ( and it seems to have extended quite a bit since l saw it for previous years ). I read someone say that the basically the AELTC WC committee could just make it up but the LTA recommendations are apparently a hugely important factor.

Regarding "Deveiopment opportunities: Younger players who will gain a particular benefit from playing in the Championships",and Hannah - I have queried earlier about what is best for her "development" and I'don't see what's to be gained at this time from a second year of the "experience". But they will not unlikely fall back on her junior ranking and this very arguable "experience" thing, plus she will no doubt have her camp and it's the lazy thing to do.

Plus tbf there's not huge competition for MD WCs with our women ( hopefully Mimi will be fit and ready pretty soon ).

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Lambda wrote:

---

Blue_Belle wrote:

---

 

dodrade wrote:

---

Last year a deliberate decision was made to give Hannah, Mika and Mimi wildcards each so none would be singled out. I expect they will take the same approach again this year Hannah's recent dip in form notwithstanding.

I would certainly give Alicia a WC ahead of say, Venus Williams who hasn't had a singles win since July.

---

 Venus will bring in people. Alicia unlikely would unless she was playing a big name. 

Not saying its right but.

---

It's a Grand Slam. Venus will not sell a single extra ticket that wouldn't otherwise have been sold. It would be a sad state of affairs if to sell tickets to a GS you have to give a WC to a 45 year old has been - and if the public want to see her there is always the legends event that she could be invited to. It will, however, generate media attention for the generally mundane 1st round which is the real reason she would be given a wild card.

---

 It will bring people into her court. That's what Blue_Belle is saying.

Obviously it won't change ticket sales that day

But it will (almost certainly) make the day far more exciting for those who've paid for their tickets that day - and hence they will have a better experience, and more likely to go the year after etc etc 

If once accepts that Venus is a draw, it's not just the media attention - the fans will benefit - and so therefore will Wimbledon

---

 Have to say I feel completely the opposite about Venus. Having been fortunate to see her in her prime she's probably the last player I would want to see.  Especially as she would be likely parachuted onto one of the main show courts at the expense of someone currently more deserving.  I guess if you want to see a player who can't compete physically for three sets and a complete shadow of her former self then fine. A polite invite to the legends event would be a good idea.

I'm not really sure that our players are all fully deserving of wild cards this year.  Would you give one to Jodie for eg?  She hasn't played a singles match for months, maybe can't so is it worth a wild card? For me she has to prove her fitness in singles before getting one.

Heather would just feel like a final pay check.  I know she's been a good servant for GB tennis but she's been well rewarded already for it. I'd rather see the wild card given to one of the younger players who could really use the boost in money to help their career. But then several of our younger players have not really shown much progress or consistency or even fitness right now to perhaps warrant one either.

Ultimately if there are not enough deserving cases then just give the place to the next person on the list who would qualify. As I've said before I don't really agree with wild cards for Grand Slams though I appreciate they aren't going to go away.

JonH wrote:

---

If Katie Swan continues to make good headway in Japan this next couple of weeks, she could be closing on top 200. Would she become a contender for a MDWC, or is she already one?

shed be bringing form, a ranking inside the top half dozen or so and a career high near the top 100 to the table, surely shed be in the conversation? 

-- Edited by JonH on Saturday 9th of May 2026 07:43:32 AM

---

 Yes, yes and yes   

"shed be bringing form, a ranking inside the top half dozen or so and a career high near the top 100 to the table, surely shed be in the conversation? "

She might be bringing form, rankings and a shiny near-top-100 badge... but in Harrogate, JonH, everyone knows the real question is whether the shed is bringing its A-game.

Because if that shed shows up with the same energy it brings to your tennis sessions - leaning slightly to the left, creaking ominously in the wind, and pretending it's not held together by three screws and a prayer - then yes, absolutely, it deserves to be "in the conversation."

Frankly, with its current structural integrity, it might even be top half-dozen in Harrogate for "buildings most likely to collapse mid-rally."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Lambda wrote:

---

"shed be bringing form, a ranking inside the top half dozen or so and a career high near the top 100 to the table, surely shed be in the conversation? "

She might be bringing form, rankings and a shiny near-top-100 badge... but in Harrogate, JonH, everyone knows the real question is whether the shed is bringing its A-game.

Because if that shed shows up with the same energy it brings to your tennis sessions - leaning slightly to the left, creaking ominously in the wind, and pretending it's not held together by three screws and a prayer - then yes, absolutely, it deserves to be "in the conversation."

Frankly, with its current structural integrity, it might even be top half-dozen in Harrogate for "buildings most likely to collapse mid-rally."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

---

 Oh, I like it! A response is required but it needs my brain to engage! Later!

PS - when I type on my phone, the apostrophes show but disappear in the posting. For example shed has question marks and apostrophe as Ive just typed it, but (and three dots there as well) 

JonH wrote:

---

Anyone else get that from their phone, and why does it happen and can it be overcome?

---

 Yes it happens to me. It doesnt bother me particularly but I know some people like the grammar to be spot on. Hopefully people realise this rather than assume Im being sloppy deliberately.