With reference also to the discussion as to whether Kyle's wildcards are a good idea, or not, (Mike Dickson, DM, remains very unconvinced), the ITF seemingly believe in it, having received about 100 pro-tour wildcards (about 50 at Challenger level, 50 at 10-15k level) for the participants of the Junior Masters:
It might well make some youngsters focus more on the Junior circuit (which must be part of the aim) - represents a fair-sized pot of money, and opportunity- even if maybe only short-sighted in terms of overall development. (No GB players qualified for the Junior Masters)
Not quite sure what to make of it given many folk think that for many players, certainly after a certain stage, NOT focussing on the junior circuit might be to their developmental benefit.
Good chance it will at least draw more players to end of year tournaments, particularly the Eddie Herr and Orange Bowl.
Poor Jonny Eysseric - has just beaten Stakhovsky (top seed and WR 52), on clay, and currently taking Gombos apart, and doesn't even get a wildcard into the qualies . ..
Mind you, there's been so much moaning about the choices (as there is every year) that the conclusion on the forums has been: why don't we double the draw and just invite everyone ?
Indeed. I took a step back for a little while from essentially repeating much of what I'd been saying for two or three years and not being changed by repeated similar counterpoints.
Just felt a bit more gungho again in recent months
When Bellis beat Cibulkova at the US Open, and made R3 at Indian Wells, she was a MDWC. I wonder how much the powers-that-be are considering Swan for something similar.
Though, at time of typing, Amanda is still down as 29thAlt, and 3rd choice, for a 50k in Italy; whereas Cavaday, Dart and Dunne today withdrew from their 2nd choices in Uzbekhistan. So maybe the latter 3 are expecting wildcards to the Eastbourne 50k.
WRT wildcards in general, I like them. I particularly like the US system of determining their RG wildcard by the results from a series of 50k tournaments; and it's worth noting that the two British women who won a QR1 match at Wimbledon '14, EWS and Gabi Taylor, had won their wildcards at the Aoranga Park QWCs Play-offs. I think that it would be better in future if more of the Wimbledon qualifying or even main draw wildcards were determined by play-offs between the potential candidates. All the UK women who were awarded, rather than winning, their QWCs, lost in R1.
I also feel that the whole ITF/ATP/WTA system would benefit from a rule change that gives a tournament winner at any level one wildcard to a higher level tournament. So if you win a 10k tournament, you get a wildcard to one 25k; if you win a 25k, you get a wildcard to a 50+k, win a 50+k and get a wildcard to a WTA 125k/250k.
Unfortunate, of course, if Katie B and Mandy are struggling, but if they weren't ready for Wimbledon qualifying, it might actually simplify the WC choice.
Taking out Laura for now, who may or may not compete ( and would also have a PR which she might not use though ), we would be left with 7 of our very clear top 10 requiring WCs and there is also Katie Swan.
So 8 ( MD + Q ) WCs to Jo, Naomi B, Katie D, Emily, Cav, Harriet, Tara and Katie S.