Robxon wrote:

---

I also believe that the National Junior Champion (Dan Cox this year?) should get a WC into the Main Draw. That would add a competetive edge to the Nationals. The Americans do this with the losing finalist getting a WC into the qualies.

---

I am not too sure about that. I am all in favour of younger players getting a chance, but Cox, Evo or Willis haven't been brought up in the correct way that could have prepared them for this level - that is, by making them play Futures all year long.

Also, the thing with the US is that they have a huge player base. If you're the best in the country in your year, you are going to be top 200, at least. With Britain, though, there are many years when we don't even produce a single top 400 player - being the best in Britain means absolutely nothing for a Junior.

-- Edited by Greenleaf at 21:45, 2008-06-10

Although Boggo has had a poor year and has slipped down the rankings, he's still almost 100 places above Slabinsky, 150 above Bloomfield and 200 above Ward in the rankings, so even if he is in decline and the others are showing an improvement, Boggo still comfortably outranks them.

All year long the LTA have said 250 is the cut-off point, and they've backed up their decision with their nominations. We've know the cut-off point and so have the players, so we can't blame the LTa for not giving Goodall etc a WC when they haven't met the criteria that they stipualted at the start of the year.

Do I agree with it? Yes and No - Yes as it gives players a target to aim for, doesn't let them sit confortbaly with £10,000 given to them each year and means that the WC's should be those who have a chance of winning a match, but No as I want to see as many Brits as possible, the £10,000 can make it so much easier for them to travel around the world, but on balance it is definately a fair idea.

Bloomers has had a good week this week, but should be rewarded for having 1 good week all year by being given a Wc when his ranking has dropped 250 players in a year?

Goodall has moved up the rankings but has lost tamely in every ATP match he's ever played, and has reached 1 challenger semi final this year, so does that deserve a wild card?

Slabinsky didn't qualify for Queens, and was thrashed by Dancevic at Surbiton, and he'd be one of the lowest ranked players in the Wimbledon draw, and hasn't done that much all year, so does that deserve a WC?

James Ward did well at Queens, but lost to a fellow Brit outside the top 650 last week (who's to say Eaton wouldn't have done as well as Ward at Queens) and hasn't even reached a futures final yet, yet alone anything better, so does that show form for a Grand Slam WC?

Boggo has had a poor year, but still can beat the top players as proven by thrashing Zverev at Surbiton, but often loses tamely to players he should beat, but has achieved the qualifying standard?

Baker has been injured for months, but before that he hadn't actually improved his ranking based on the position he was at the same time in the previous year, so should we give a WC to someone coming back from injury, and so hasn't improved his ranking?

All of a sudden you can see why the LTA hasn't given these players WC's and just stuck to the criteria.

I still think that a couple of them may get a WC as there are no other contenders for the other 3 WC's (other than Jamie Murray and Max Mirnyi), and they may decide to add another couple of Brits in the main draw, but there are logical reasons for not giving out all the wild cards (chardy, dancevic and malisse have a much better chance of winning a match than the Brits do).

And here's the real question - out of the Brits who haven't got WC's, which of them do you seriously see winning a match at Wimbledon? Honestly... you can't say that any of them will...

(Personally I'd have given Slabba and Goodall WC's, with a maybe on James Ward)

Count Zero wrote:

---

i think that is a decent summary FD,

its funny that despite having a nightmare year boggo has somehow managed to rack up some decent scalps like zverev, muller, reynolds & ginepri

---

And that's still why I think he's got the best chance of winning a match, as he actually can beat these higher ranked players - it's the one's ranked below him or when he should win that he struggles, so I'm hoping for a match at Wimbledon where he isn't the favourite, but won't be outclassed (someone around 80-90 who isn't strong on the grass) - and with all the hard draws he's had he must be due a draw against a clay-courter who can't play on grass at some point at Wimbledon

The summary is a bit negative, but shows why our players may not have been given a WC rather than just insulted the LTA. Make no mistake, I don't think the LTA are doing a great job at the top of the game (it's getting better at the lower level though), but there are very valid reasons as to why only Boggo and Baker have WC's

it may seem a bit odd but i'd have prefered boggo to draw safin than sirianni! i just think it would have suited him better.
i agree i hope he gets a clay courter, or just a player having an off day he never seems to get that, just players playing at the top of the game, dont they get nervous at slams too?

Well I've read the views of everyone who's posted in this thread and I have to say...yep, you're all right. This is and always will be a matter of opinion and the trouble is, every argument is based on 'what if's. And that's not a criticism, its just the nature of the beast. Personally speaking I would have given MD wildcards to Baker, Boggo, Slabba and possibly Ward and Bloomfield based on this week. However, I can see and understand why that wasn't the case. I struggle with the logic that says we shouldn't give as many wildcards as possible to Brits, especially when I see all the other national associations doing just that, but I do realise the reasoning behind it, even if that's not the way I would run things.

In conclusion then, there are two things that are absolute certainties this time every year...the media will moan about how terrible the current crop of British players is (bad work ethic, can't play, bad attitude, don't want it - that one bugs me, I wanted to reach into the telly and shake Andrew Castle today when he suggested the Brits didn't want it, of course they want it, they're travelling the world and living on no money just so they can have it - oops, slight rant over). The second is that we all will hate the wildcard decisions and argue about the whos, whys and wherefors. It just wouldn't be Wimbledon without it. Thank you for once again making my summer complete, and proving that this board really is the place to be for intelligent and well reasoned debate without any petty insult throwing.

Drew wrote:

---

Imoen ? What kind of silly name is that ???

Petty insult thrown

Now that makes us complete....

---

Pah! At least it's a full name. Who'd want to be called half a name, like '...Drew'???

Petty insult returned, ooh this is fun! Perhaps we should engage in it more often?

The thing is, though, Boggo and Baker were early starters - playing internationally from the age of 16. Ward or Slabba were nothing at that age and I can't imagine they had international level coaches, either. And so it is probably safe to assume that they are far from finished products, meaning that they will go ahead by a good deal in the next year or two.


I'm not saying that they are or will be better players - no one can say and I haven't even seen any of them play a full match barring Boggo. Boggo's surely top 100 material and I think he'll get there eventually but he's not going to be back in even the top 200 till he starts winning three matches in a row every now and then.

-- Edited by Greenleaf at 23:20, 2008-06-10