Kyle up to about WR 480 now. Among the Brits who have been ranked at some point since the turn of the century, I think (i.e. unless I've forgotten someone who made the top 500 younger but didn't get much further) he'll be the 3rd youngest (at 18 y 4 m on 13 May) to make the top 500 after Andy (17 y 3 m in 2004) and Greg (18 y 2 m in 1991, though not GB at the time), a few weeks younger than Dan Evans was when he made the top 500 for the first time.

Quite interesting from @BENStan64 on Twitter:

@GBtennis I twice almost beat Kyle, both times lost in 3rd set #tennisclaimtofame hah

I jokingly asked for proof (I was aware from seeing stuff in the past that Ben was a good player when he was younger) and what age they were at the time:

@GBtennis haha I'm not lying! Yes we're similar ages I'm just 18, was in about 2007 maybe, played him twice within few weeks

Could be quite a claim to fame, I said ...

@GBtennis would have been better if I'd won! Always knew he'd be good he had a massive game back then, just hit n miss when younger!

Odd to think of Kyle as a 'hit and miss' player, but I imagine it's true of all players with big shots early in their career.

I suspect that Kyle will get one by default because there aren't that many serious options of Brit main draw wild cards. Ward will obviously get one as he meets the top 250 criteria, Evo might get one on account of his Davis Cup performance and you can make a case for both Oli and Kyle based on age. Although in Oli's case it might be deemed pointless giving him a wild card unless he can improve his form. No one else looks to have a remotely good case.

IMO a WC should be only be given to those with a reasonable chance of victory on the day (given a reasonable draw), or those who have demonstrated through their performances and progression that they have a shot at becoming top 100-150 players on the world stage at some point in the future - and they need to be going in the right direction (unless there is a genuine excuse), otherwise it sends out the wrong message.

On the above basis, Kyle and Ed should clearly be awarded WCs. Having been selected as joint 5th men for the DC and having shown considerable pro ranking progress over the last 12 months, including (hopefully after today) multiple $10k wins, would be odd if they weren't chosen. Same for James Ward and Dan Evans if they rack up more good wins over the coming month. As for Oli, unless he shows some clear progression in the next 4/5 weeks, I'd be slightly irritated if he was awarded another WC. Yes he was injured during January and February, but he didn't make obvious progress after Wimbledon 2012, petered out towards the end of the year, and has started very slowly in March and April, with no form whatsoever. His ranking is likely to be worse than at the same time pre-Wimbledon in 2012, whereas all his peers in the junior top 5 have made significant strides over the same period.

I think an arbitrary 250 ranking limit is ridiculous - are we saying that if Nick Kyrgios (AUS) or Dominic Thiem (AUT) were British, they would not be given WCs???? Are we saying that if players manage to hit 250 through a $10k Futures strategy (eg Josh Goodall), they should automatically be given a WC? Would Andy Murray have got a WC on the 250 rule for his first Wimbledon? (I haven't checked, but the point remains valid).

Pic of Kyle being interviewed after the match:

http://instagram.com/p/Y8I9qCAvzf/

-- Edited by steven on Sunday 5th of May 2013 06:32:10 PM

korriban, quite clearly if Nick Kyrgios and Dominic Thiem were British and not top 250 at the time they WOULD be recommended for ( and get ) Wimbledon WCs, since it is well known that that the ATP recommendations are based on being in the top 250 OR being an exceptional young player. Hence Oli last year and probably Kyle this year, with Oli more debatable. And very clearly Andy when he got a WC.

And the 250 is not some guarantee ( and it is made clear it is a minimum for the non exceptional young player, but not a guarantee ). Ask Boggo about that !

Actually they have let a few players in above 250, Dan Cox for one two years ago and I believe Jamie Baker one year spring to mind.

So, while I think there are arguements to be had about the ATP recommendation system, let's not misrepresent it and then mock it on this misrepresentation, eg. Kyrgios and Thiem.

In truth I don't think it works too badly, and I think the 250 level is quite well set. Certainly it is there as a target and if you are still on the rise and not played main draw before, you can pretty much take it that top 250 will get you a MDWC, a good merit based incentive.

Yes, it is not perfect and one can argue re futures dominated points and / or the form and impression of such as Ed, who I don't anticipate will get a MD WC.

However, if a player is say aged 21 or over and not top 250, I don't think one can argue hugely against them not getting a MDWC.

If the LTA employed a purely subjective approach to WCs, judging as fairly as they could whoever had the best shot ( plus some expected future high ranking players ), there would still be ( maybe even more knowing how differently folk can judge players ) arguements here about who they selected. I can certainly see the case for at least some objective measure.

I'd personally have pretty much as is with a clear exception for such as injuries / particular performances, which could be applied to such as Evo. They may indeed just add Evo, though I can see that going either way.

Indy. As always, your point is well made. For exceptional young players I concede your argument completely. But for the established pros if the 250 criterion is not a guarantee (as you say, just ask Alex), nor a minimum requirement (Cox and Baker), then what exactly is it??!!

What we are really saying here is that the LTA decides using its own judgement anyway, and that the 250 guidelines can be used or ignored by the LTA as they see fit - which is absolutely fine and dandy by me, because there are so many variables that subjective decision making using multiple criteria is the only sensible approach to WCs. But if the 250 criterion is, in effect, meaningless....why don't the LTA just say so. 

Anyway, I think we all agree on Kyle, and it does make for damned good argument re the rest!!!!