Strongbow wrote:

---

For some strange reason Mandy is now 22 in the quals for Brescia 50k given that a few hours ago she was well outside.

Not sure what's going on there? But hey ho!

 

---

 It's the Tuesday pm cut off when you have to nominate your event and multi entries get removed.

So with Laura not using her PR to enter, I would suspect the automatic wildcards to be:

Laura (MD)
Jo (MD)
Naomi B (MD)
Katy D (MD)
Emily (Q)
Mandy (Q)

And then it gets a bit tricky. I suspect they will give Katie S one (Q), and then either leave it at an initial 7, or give one to Harriet (Q). I think all things considered Tara will be made to go into pre-qualies, and Naomi C will be too (although I could see an argument for putting her in direct). This all assumes Boulter isn't back (she's still withdrawing from all her events).

If I was the LTA, I would have a separate play-off for one MD spot, definitely containing Emily and Mandy, and then 2 others (probably Harriet and Katie S, although I can see an argument for Katy D not getting one directly into the MD).

Of all the Slams, Wimbledon is the happiest to not use them for home players, or indeed at all ("NEXT DIRECT ACCEPTANT"), but if we are missing Laura (again), I suspect we might get an extra MD wildcard that we might not expect in order to keep the home nations representation up, and a lack of other obvious candidates generally. I suppose historically Katy D would be in this category, but I think with the new policy she will be squeezed in anyway. I suspect in those circumstances they'd push up Katie S before Em (particularly as the latter had such a bad time of it in Asia, if she'd won a few matches there and closed in on, or even passed, Katy she might have had an outside shot).

On doubles, it's interesting to note that since the change in policy Jo has started playing doubles weekly, as they have made it clear they will not grant wc's to players who don't play doubles normally just to give them a payday. I think this is right.

Given Anna and Joss were so close to making the French, they might just sneak into Wimbledon, but much will depend on how many of their Nottingham points they can defend.

Behind that, Heather should be able to find a partner for direct entry (Erakovic again most likely). Then it will be interesting to see whether Naomi and Em decide to pair up, or stick with foreign partners (the latter's partnership with Mestach seems to have tailed off, the former is unlikely to get to play with the lesser Pliskova who can pair up with her sister as she is doing at the French). Nik and Tara will need to win a good number of matches in the first of the two 50ks to stand a chance, whilst Katy and Harriet would need to be picked against the contents of the wildcard policy. No idea who Jo will find to play with, Sanchez again?

I know I am now rabbiting on, but it is also going to be interesting to see where the Brits go when the Tour and ITF meet on grass, and who gets the wildcards (often a good advance indicator of who they are giving opportunities to this year).

 

Also, CD, what do you make of Arcangioli getting the final French wildcard? Seems an odd choice to me (although I suppose there weren't all that many other options outside of Foretz/Coin).

-- Edited by PaulM on Wednesday 20th of May 2015 09:26:06 AM

-- Edited by PaulM on Wednesday 20th of May 2015 11:54:30 AM

Hi PaulM,

I think you've substituted NaomiC for NaomiB in the MD?

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with all of the above, but I think that Freya is also worth a mention (very good result against Smitkova on grass last year). I'm also a big fan of the Aoranga Park QWC play-off event, and agree it would be a good idea to decide at least one MD WC by competition between the rival claimants.

I'd also anticipate that, with every significant tournament organised by the LTA this year falling between now and Wimbledon, new obvious candidates may emerge in the interim, and with that intensity of activity, I'd very much fear that injuries will also raise their ugly heads.

On the doubles, it seems very possible that Joss and Anna will only qualify for a single Slam this year - Wimbledon - where they would be guaranteed a wildcard. They then defend a lot of points before the US Open.

Pretty much agree with all that Paul other than Katy D getting a MD WC rather than a qualifying one.

As you said there is an argument for Katy D not getting one. Her form has not been great and she is currently WR 283. She could probably do with some good early grass court form. Although yes she could benefit from laack of home MD WC candidates, especially if Laura doesn't take one.

Certainly decisions needing to be made if at least 9 of what I do think are the 11 clear candidates ( GB ranks 2 to 10 plus Laura R and Katie S ) are available to take up WCs.

Interesting idea to play-off for an additional MD WC ( or 2 ) in addition to say Laura ( if competing ), Jo and Naomi B.

PS : yes I know I have more general views on MD WCs at all, but I do live in the real world so contribute here as things are rather than how I would prefer for all Slams.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 20th of May 2015 05:31:28 PM

Hos many of these 7 PRs are likely to make it, or more relevantly stay entered until at least the start of qualifying?

indiana wrote:

---

Pretty much agree with all that Paul other than Katy D getting a MD WC rather than a qualifying one.

As you said there is an argument for Katy D not getting one. Her form has not been great and she is currently WR 283. She could probably do with some good early grass court form. Although yes she could benefit from laack of home MD WC candidates, especially if Laura doesn't take one.

Certainly decisions needing to be made if at least 9 of what I do think are the 11 clear candidates ( GB ranks 2 to 10 plus Laura R and Katie S ) are available to take up WCs.

Interesting idea to play-off for an additional MD WC ( or 2 ) in addition to say Laura ( if competing ), Jo and Naomi B.

PS : yes I know I have more general views on MD WCs at all, but I do live in the real world so contribute here as things are rather than how I would prefer for all Slams.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 20th of May 2015 05:31:28 PM

---

Indy - As you know I also know what happens in the real world but like I say I have my blood pressure to think of. Also, I read on another forum that the FFT pay for the French Open and in this poster's opinion they should be able to do what they like re WCs. As far as actually paying for the event is concerned I would not have thought that was entirely true or is it? Wouldn't the FFT get revenue from the event through TV, gate receipts, merchandise to help pay for it all or help cover their costs? Wimby make a profit each year so I thought the FFT would be similar - or am I completely wrong?