Wildcards, just what are they ?

Given the rather lacklustre effort by our "top" British players in trying to qualify for Wimbledon, is there a need for the organisers to tell us just how they come to the decisions to allocate the wildcards or will it remain the secret whim of a few board members to throw them out like playing cards at a poker game ?

The first round of Qualies went as follows.......

Jamie Baker GBR bt George Morgan GBR 6-3 , 6-4
Karol Beck SVK (17) bt Daniel Smethurst GBR 6-2 , 6-3
Oliver Golding GBR bt Joshua Milton GBR 6-2 , 6-3
Bastian Knittel GER bt Alex Bogdanovic GBR 7-6 , 6-3
Ryan Harrison USA (14) bt Alexander Ward GBR 6-7 , 7-6 , 6-3
Liam Broady GBR bt Alessio Di Mauro ITA (31) 6-3 , 1-6 , 12-10

and

Conor Niland IRL bt Josselin Ouanna FRA 6-4 , 4-6 , 8-6

then

Andreas Beck GER (25) bt Jamie Baker GBR 6-3 , 7-6
Jerzy Janowicz POL bt Oliver Golding GBR 7-6 , 6-1
Roberto Bautista-Agut ESP bt Liam Brody GBR 6-1 , 6-2

and

Conor Niland IRL bt Greg Jones AUS 6-4 , 5-7 , 6-2

then

Conor Niland IRL bt Nikola Mektic CRO 6-3 , 6-7 , 6-4

next meeting for Conor is versus Adrian Mannarino FRA

Kudos for Conor for making it to the 1st round under his own steam !!!


So, based on those results, is there any justification in giving wildcards to our "best" players or should they go to up and coming players, to show them what it is like to play at a slam, against some seeded players, to see what they need to do to get to the top ?

Daniel Cox, Daniel Evans and James Ward should count themselves lucky to be there, when all the others fell by the wayside, very early on, only Liam Brody showing any backbone. (What a pick though, two pairs of Brit v Brit )

I know Jimmy Ward did well at Queens and has not had a bad year on the circuit, but does that really warrant a wildcard ?

Would they have gone to more useful purposes, given to the Brody's and Alex Wards ???

'I know Jimmy Ward did well at Queens and has not had a bad year on the circuit, but does that really warrant a wildcard?'

Definitely, in my opinion! Considering Boggo was given one for like 5 years in a row and did nothing at any tournament, I certainly think that James Ward deserves one for making the semis at Queens!

Not so sure Chaz, will this imbue him with a false sense of accomplishment?

If he is good enough, he could have sailed through the Qualies, like Henman did for a few years (not actually getting through to the 1st round) when he was young enough to remember them. Tim did get some WC's later, but he'd done his apprenticeship 1st, so to say, and I think that taught him just what was needed to get to a slam proper and a place by seeding. Its arguable that he was destined to reach the top ten by virtue of the title of "Most Improved Player" trophy at the ATP awards in 1996, but the hard work had already been done by then........top200 1994 - top30 player 1996.

I think ward out of all of them can be justified a WC from his results this year, I just hope they don't make a habit of it.

Bogo

Bogo

This year least they have been sensible about the distribution this year. I don't agree with the Daniel Evans one. The guy couldn't even beat a player ranked 200 places below him from Poland I think it was?

I guess with Morgan and Golding they are going the right way around it, though Golding hasn't done himself any favours by hitting out against the way they were handed out on Twitter.

Maybe it's rigged

To be fair to Boggo, 2 of his 1st round Wimbledon main draws were against Federer and Nadal so 8 first round losses isn't quite as bad as it looks on paper. That said, there were a couple of times when he definitely had winnable draws but couldn't rise to the occasion.
Like legendkillar, I don't agree with the Evans one, I really don't see what he's done to deserve his. Nor Katie O'Brien in the women's - her ranking has been on the slide for some considerable time.

noleisthebest wrote:Maybe it's rigged

You!!

No YOU!!!!
OK,

noleisthebest wrote:No YOU!!!!
OK,

I wasn't expecting that term to creep up again

Confessin time: I'm a bit OVERexcited, it's Wimbers tomorrow YEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I can't wait. My day will be watching the coverage and hoping the sun beats down on us all

Yes, yes, stop hijacking the thread you two....

But what should the criteria be for handing out wildcards ?

To me its all about giving some noob the chance to savour the feel and atmosphere of a Grand Slam and show them how their game compares to the seeded players and how far they must go to achieve the same standard.

It should not be a "pass" to get a few extra piles of dosh when they haven't earned it. To me any young kid getting a chance to play in a slam, should give their prize money to the Wimbledon fund for the Retired (hasbeens who've blown millions on wine, women and song) Players Hospice. Well maybe not them, but it should go back into the coffers of some deserving cause.

Also, the Boggo affect, as it is more colloquially known, shows that players who keep getting a free pass, live in the Free for all, everything paid for, LTA way of doing things never do well and don't realise anything like their potential.