Coup Droit wrote:

---

Nix wrote:

---

Mervatron2 wrote:

---

Kerber and Williams are former champions of Wimbledon and Haley was for drugs reasons so not great PR.

---

 At what point should they no longer be in the frame though. I just don't see why being a former champion should give you a WC forever even if you're no longer playing regularly on tour. It just seems unfair on young up and coming players. Especially as it's not their home tournament. 

---

 Well, I suppose it's not unfair in that it's discretionary 

i.e. there's no obligation to give them a wildcard (hence, the French approach, just ignore them all)

But the committee can if they want (which I guess is no different than for any player) but it seems OK to say the ex-champions will get 'priority consideration' - but can still be ignored 

---

 I guess it comes down to a matter of opinions. I would rather players who are now pretty much part-time and have had their careers largely behind them not given 'priority consideration' compared to players for whom a Wimbledon WC could be life-changing, enabling them to hire coaches and travel that bit more over the next season. I know the arguments about WCs not being inherently fair because they disproportionately benefit only four nation's players. As you say, though, the committee can decide as they choose. I like the French approach! Good for them.