If there is a group of young players with the potential and work ethic to succeed then they should be given the opportunity and experiences to motivate me hem as those that went before have been.

Dan skews things a little as he will win through the play off if anyone beats him they deserve the slot.

The remainder still have an opportunity as Alex Ward did last year to win through and then progress. Many have had plenty of opportunity before. I dont have an issue with any of the choices around the wildcards that have been awarded indeed I am strongly for giving youngsters an opportunity to experience what is needed to be a success on the challenger tour. Not to invest in such a large group of youngsters all in the top 200 would be a travesty.

My issue is not going with the young guys for Q WCs. Clearly Corrie, Farquharson, Klein and Glasspool have not produced and the next group in the rankings have not pushed a case either.

So certainly I understand McHugh and Loffhagen but I don't think they had to announce 7 Q WCs before the play-offs, thus only leaving the 2 play-offs slots.

They could have say left 4 and sent Matusevich and Draper to the play-offs. But then they might have got regally thumped which might have put them out the Q WC play-offs all together.

As I suggested, this year if any, with Dan in the play-offs and a shortage of really strong candidates, leaving one or two spare places for now seemed to make sense.

Can't see it would have been any "travesty" to hold back on say the Anton and Jack Q WCs.

I really couldnt say at the moment which of the 4 in the longer term will turn out to be the most successful but I am excited by the prospect of seeing all four at Wimbledon qualys hopefully over the next couple of years regardless of the outcome this time.

Thank you, Ernie, very interesting. The AELTC have been pretty clear on their "principle" thing re Dan but do you have any idea whether the LTA recommended him for anything or was there maybe just general agreement of "no"?

I see where you are coming from in that the 4 juniors would probably have really struggled to qualify here, which maybe does indeed beg questions as to whether relatively poor as the likes of Corrie and Klein have been ( quite apart from the IMO Dan fiasco ) maybe there is indeed an argument that, lucky as they would be in many ways with the lack of good options, for this year anyway at least one or two would still have been better for Q WCs than going with all the juniors. I feel myself leaning back more that way. I most certainly still think that the Q WCs should not have been fully subscribed in just leaving room for the 2 play-off places but leave some wriggle room and chance to observe more candidates, and how they react to the play-offs. But there is a bit of a look, even moreso from some of what you say, that the results might have been err inconvenient.

Best of luck to the boys of course but I do certainly think such older players would have done better in Wimbledon qualifying, we're essentually comparing some recently not very good challenger players with some barely futures players. And while it is certainly not just about who is actually the best, and you do want to help progress younger talent, I fear it may be proved that some at least are too far off to be at Wimbledon Q this year. I know some will say "ah but the experience" but I think that can be overrated and they will collect plenty experiences through the year, good and bad, hopefully not bad next week and that they will at least take some things from it.

It does seem perhaps the most clear show ever of generally setting aside those who it has deemed won't ever be top 100 in favour of those who just might and keeping them sweet.

I can certainly imagine discussion among some of the great unwashed that have ended up here and interesting, if not surprising to me, the general unhappiness around regarding the treatment of Dan. Most of those within tennis no doubt have little time at all for cheats and dopers, but talented fools is quite another matter.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 22nd of June 2018 05:44:42 AM

Interesting Oakland, so not only are you very supportive of the Q WCs as given, you wouldn't have GB #s 9, 10, 11 and 12 for starters even given a chance for Wimbledon through the play-offs.

I think you have to have at least an either or here. Arguably bypass such players for direct Q WCs if showing little form of late ( and I can see the case although personally I think they've gone too far this year with the slate of juniors ) but don't also deny them any other way in to Wimbledon through a couple of play-off slots.

Now Wimbledon is not everything but it is our home Slam, and I do think such domestically ranked if out of form / not lately progressing greater than 24 yos should have some possible avenue in.

Actually rereading your post "I wouldn't have players older than 24 in the wildcard play offs unless they were within 2 years of leaving college and had shown were showing significant progress" seems to exclude greater than 24 yos from the play-offs full stop with the progress bit applying just to the recent college leavers. But maybe that position is not what you meant? Hopefully not given it is more extreme than I was even first thinking and disagreeing with.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 22nd of June 2018 05:47:33 AM

No I am an extremist.

Throw everything at development up to the age of 24 (thats from 8-24) with an acclimatisation period for elite college players. Like almost every other career you then have to make your own way based on your own talent drive and initiative. If you stuck at 24/26 if post college its time to have a serious think about whether your aspirations are realistic.