Top 250 - 2015

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

RE: Top 250 - 2015

PaulM · Tennis legend

The Optimist wrote:
Do others read it the same as me - 8 WCs in total, to include all MD and Q places for both men and women?

It's the same wording as the last policy. Up to 8 in total (MD and Q) per sex to be recommended for singles.

LouieG · County player

Not beyond the realms that James & Kyle could both be top 100 by Wimby

RJA · Hall of fame

LouieG wrote:
Not beyond the realms that James & Kyle could both be top 100 by Wimby

Quite possible that they will both make it. Liam has an outside chance as well but I can't see it happening.

scottie1 · Futures level

Never understood why Hewitt got WC as well he won Wimbledon over 10 plus years ago

indiana · Tennis legend

Personally, I absolutely agree with any WC for Hewitt. Former champion, a personality and his career terribly interrupted by injury yet keeps on going.

indiana · Tennis legend

PS : OK, I still ( re previous discussions ) don't actually agree with MD WCs per se for Slams. But they are not disappearing anytime soon so Lleyton is as worth one as anyone.

scottie1 · Futures level

indiana wrote:
Personally, I absolutely agree with any WC for Hewitt. Former champion, a personality and his career terribly interrupted by injury yet keeps on going.

Have to draw a line some times on previous champs getting WCS I found the Hewitt one strange but everyone has different opinions! What I can never understand is the AELTC issuing say 4 WCs prior to the qualifying then filling the last 4 places with the next 4 ranked players ----travesty! why bother keeping 4 back

Spaced · Lower Club Player

So do people agree with this decision from the LTA? It seems they are making it harder and harder for our players below the very elite to make a living from the game, removing the bonus scheme and now removing this carrot for all our players ranked say 200-400 to at least attempt to chase. I do understand the reasons behind this approach, removing the sense of entitlement, making players work harder to earn rewards. But I fear it could result in more players making the decision Jamie Baker made and looking to ply their trade elsewhere to make some real money.

emma · Strong Club Player

yes, having read the article, I agree with the recommendations. I think it is better to be flexible than have a cut off point.

It would be good to give a player who is on form and doing well, maybe lower down the rankings rather than someone higher up but struggling. also maybe to give a younger player, who is mentally strong enough to deal with a possible battering by a top seed in the first round, the opportunity to play at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with giving wild cards on favouritism or using it to finance players. (this ought to be done in other ways)

is there another thread on here about financing?)

edit: sorry! was going off the post above who said it had been decided and I was questioning whether it had been decided, I didn't phrase it well. must learn not to post when I'm tired.

-- Edited by emma on Tuesday 10th of February 2015 02:35:35 PM

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

If both subjective and objective are failing, then I would prefer objectivity for transparency unless the subjective approach is indeed transparent, which it doesn't seem to be.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

The problem before the rankings cut off rule was that the wildcards were recommended by the heads of men's and women's tennis. Who did they recommend? Those players with whom they were directly involved, the ones they had recommended for funding or who trained at the NTC. To select anyone else would suggest that those they had recommended for investment as potential elite players were maybe not the best choices. Who is doing the recommending under this new regime? The heads of men's and women's tennis.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

The Optimist wrote:
The problem before the rankings cut off rule was that the wildcards were recommended by the heads of men's and women's tennis. Who did they recommend? Those players with whom they were directly involved, the ones they had recommended for funding or who trained at the NTC. To select anyone else would suggest that those they had recommended for investment as potential elite players were maybe not the best choices. Who is doing the recommending under this new regime? The heads of men's and women's tennis.

However, as hardly anyone now gets funding (bar a few kids) and absolutely no one trains at the NTC, at least they'll have hardly anyone on the inside to recommend . .. ( cry )

Shhh · Challenger level

I thought I would update this as James Ward became the first player to use up his 18 scores this week,now he's got to improve on his worst to improve his ranking for Wimbledon. Of course the top 250 target has gone, and so has the top 200 one more or less so I doubt I'll update this again? I think the top 3 in this list will get WC's, maybe others if they can pick up some wins above futures level but its hard to see imo.

Pts

550 - Approx Main Draw Cut

436 - James Ward (18)

308 - Kyle Edmund (12)

245 - Approx Top 200

243- Liam Broady (15)

222 - Brydan Klein (17)

190 - Approx Top 250

157 - Ed Corrie (12)

128 - Dan Cox (11)

87 - Alex Ward (10)

77 - Marcus Willis (8)

49 - Dan Smethurst (10)

18 - Dan Evans (3)

LouieG · County player

Another 40 for JW today, what's his 18th best?

Either way, less than 100 points to go for James. I think he'll crack the top 100 over the next few weeks with IW, Irving and Miami coming up.

-- Edited by LouieG on Saturday 7th of March 2015 12:26:31 AM