theemptyvessel wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

theemptyvessel wrote:

---

You can disagree with the system but so long as it is there I would far rather give a WC to Liam than to any non British player. All tournaments favor locals and do you really want to help develop the players of another nation with the revenue from your home tournaments?

---

We understand the reality of the err 'system'. And I think it not unlikely that Liam will get a MD WC especially if he achieves the epic feat of reaching the qualifying cut-off. 

But this is not about Liam or British players or who I would prefer to give MD WCs to, it's about I would prefer ALL elite Grand Slam fields to be made up of the best ranked over the year plus qualifiers rather than the best ranked plus qualifiers plus a chosen few largely including their own Australians / French / British / Americans as per the Slam in question.

Again, I am only talking Slam MD WCs. 

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 30th of April 2016 02:49:52 PM

---

I agree completely.  I would rather not have WC's at all at slams but I was responding more to the idea put forward by some other posters that Liam does not deserve it.  Essentially nobody deserves it but it's there and it's not changing so we might as well give it to Liam and quit debating if he deserves it. 

Having lived in America for the last 10 years I can assure you they will cheerfully hand their WC's to their own and not spare a thought for the fairness of rewarding their own over some better ranked player from another country.  I think all of the hand wringing that goes on around Wimbledon over the fairness of giving WC's to our players has more to do with the British character and our national tendency to feel guilty over any good fortune that comes our way.

---

The better question with giving out wild cards is whether handing out wild card after wild card to certain players is effective. Using the example of the US can anyone claim with a straight face that Donald Young or Ryan Harrison have benefited as players from the ridiculous number of wild cards that they have received?

huntley93 wrote:

---

any idea what time the final will be tomorrow?

---

Not before 8:30 BST  (After the doubles which starts at 7:00 BST) 

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

I have no problems with giving out wild cards if it will develop a player to an extent where they may in the future get to a level where they warrant direct entry.

Similar so for qualifying, although I also liked last years tournament for the final available qualifying wildcard which Dan won.

---

I assume we will have the now traditional Wimbledon qualifying wildcard tournament, which promises two Q WCs for both the GB men & women ( no finals are played ), In fact usually they end up having room to give Q WCs to 3 or 4 to players from the WC tournament. Last year Evo and Richard Gabb won the men's two guaranteed ones and the losing 'semi finalists' Alex Ward and Richard Bloomfield also got Q WCs.

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

The fact Bloomers was able to compete in the play off made it a mockery, it should be the top ranked players only that compete in the play off with maybe the top junior given entry. It was essentially a waste of a QWC as Bloomers isn't fit enough these days sadly to have a chance of winning any match that goes beyond 2 sets.

---

By definition, Bloomers was a top player. Because he beat the others.

Therefore, a QWC to anyone else would have been way more of a 'waste' because Bloomers was better than them so they would have lost even more quickly.

The wildcard play-offs IS only open to top ranked players i.e. it's a fixed number draw, based on ranking, and with two slots for the British Tour players - the winner from Felixstowe and the Tour leader at the time - and four other wildcards.