Baker, obviuosly
Slabba, due to his vast improvment
Boggo, his bad start to the year, but i think the DC is partially to blame for that, perhaps poor scheudling on alex part too. (i worked out that alex has already tavelled about 40000 miles thsi year to play tennis!)

of the others i think maybe ward and seator, but dont know enough of behiond the scenes to be definate.

of course wimby's quite a way off so plenty of time for boggo, bloomrs and josh to prove they desevre one.

It always amuses me that the LTA (and the British public) expect that British WCs that usually play at Challenger level or below should suddenly produce great results against top 100 players in a grand slam.  I am sure there is national pride and a determination to win but our players need to have really good day to make an impression at this level.

The people who are most likely to make an impression are:
* Those already near that level of play - i.e. our higher ranked players
* Fast up and coming younger players who have the game but not the ranking
* Those who are really suited to playing on grass and can use it to their advantage.

Inevitably, the best way to determine WCs for Wimbledon is to have a pre-qualifying tournament.

Giving away lots of WCs abroad is admitting that you have no faith in your own set of players.

Now that would be a good choice !

I think the big questions here are what is the minimum number of GB WCs they'll give (personally I think they should give as many as possible, and from what I've seen when I've been there, the GB WCs attract far more interest from spectators than the non-GB WCs, so it should be in the AELTC's interest to have most of them given to Brits too ... but the LTA might want to be seen to be getting 'tough') and do they have in mind a ranking level below which they won't give out WCs because even if the player is on the up, they're likely to be severely embarrassed in R1.

I think they'll give them to the following, in order of likelihood:

Baker - natch

Boggo - as long as he's still in the top 200 by then (it would seem incongruous to let Brad coach him then deny him a Wimbledon WC, and JL was more complimentary about him after the ARG DC tie than he has been in the past ... and he was out for a fair bit last year, so would probably be ranked much closer to the old automatic WC cutoff of 150 if he hadn't been)

Slabba - especially if he has managed to push on towards the top 300 and is playing Challengers by then

Bloomers - if he's back in the top 300 by then (he's had a few WCs, I know, but he's put in credible performances), but probably not if he keeps falling

I can't see Josh getting one if he continues to drift, but if he has turned the corner by then (e.g. a 100-place rise in the rankings), who knows.

Kasiri, Seator & Ward are the obviously possibilities among the up and coming players - they may think it a bit risky to give any of them a WC when they have hardly had any experience above Futures level (and I could see their point), but a break into the top 500 then continuing to improve and perhaps showing some form at Challenger level should be enough to tip the balance, if any of them manage that.

The other possibility I can think of is Skupski, who has held his own against much higher-ranked players in the past (admittedly at the Liverpool exo), but he'll probably have to push on up the rankings quite fast to be considered. He should be able to move up quite fast given that all (or nearly all, I haven't checked) of his points so far have been gained since July.

I realise this is under the wrong section, but WCs for the ladies this year would seem to be much easier with 5 definites and then probably a best junior (Curtis) and a pre-quali play-off winner.

Madeline wrote:

---

Count Zero wrote:

---

to me 'natch' means no? i assume you mean yes.

---

To me, "natch" means naturally.

---

To me, too, Mad.  Can't understand how the Count thinks it means "no"!    I've always taken it to be an abbreviate, if colloquial (because it follows the "logic" of the pronunciation rather than that of the spelling), form of "naturally, so I think steven did mean "yes"! 

I never thought Count would be the one to fail to understand a dodgily spelt version of a word.

Yes, I meant naturally - just checked, the online dictionaries all say that.

I'm intrigued as to when you heard/used natch thinking it meant no ...