Spireman wrote:

---

Got to be qwc for Wimbledon surely? MD anyone?

---

 Yes - I think the qualis one was pretty guaranteed before (based on all the other wildcards she's been getting, and last year too)

But the BIG question, as you say, is: Main Draw ?????? 

HarryGem wrote:

---

Spireman wrote:

---

Got to be qwc for Wimbledon surely? MD anyone?

---

 Two fantastic results. Far rather she had a MD wildcard than Heather or Lily for eg. We need to encourage younger players.

---

 They have to be able to be competitive. No point throwing a youngster in and losing by breadsticks and bagels 

HarryGem wrote:

---

Spireman wrote:

---

Got to be qwc for Wimbledon surely? MD anyone?

---

 Two fantastic results. Far rather she had a MD wildcard than Heather or Lily for eg. We need to encourage younger players.

---

 I aggree

 You can see the reason tennis Australia didnt give rodinova a wildcard to the AO

Its all about bringing the youth through.

Lily and Heather either did or should have got their opportunities when they were in their early 20s.

They shouldnt be entitled to wildcards until they hang their racquet up just because they are ranked around the 150s

Well done Amelia 

paulisi wrote:

---

HarryGem wrote:

---

Spireman wrote:

---

Got to be qwc for Wimbledon surely? MD anyone?

---

 Two fantastic results. Far rather she had a MD wildcard than Heather or Lily for eg. We need to encourage younger players.

---

 They have to be able to be competitive. No point throwing a youngster in and losing by breadsticks and bagels 

---

 Well she's just beaten two players in the top 100. Maybe should would lose 0 & 1 but so will other players. That in itself is a way of learning. Also, I'm guessing here of course, but the money could make a big difference to help her training.

paulisi wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

HarryGem wrote:

---

Spireman wrote:

---

Got to be qwc for Wimbledon surely? MD anyone?

---

 Two fantastic results. Far rather she had a MD wildcard than Heather or Lily for eg. We need to encourage younger players.

---

 They have to be able to be competitive. No point throwing a youngster in and losing by breadsticks and bagels 

---

 That's HarryGem's point - she's proven she is competitive (and more so) than those ranked a lot, lot higher 

---

 Easy in hindsight....

---

 No, it's not hindsight - she hasn't played Wimbledon yet

It's foresight

HarryGem is saying, based on this week, she would be better a wildcard for Wimbly than the ones who've done not a lot

I see a bit of both points of view ( and of course the hindsight observation makes no sense ).

paulisi is though absolutely right, that the #1 thing re any MD WC is that they have to be likely competitive. These should mot be getting given out to youngsters / college players for say 'experience' if there are more likely winning options. In this case though Millie increasingly does look as if she could be competitive.

Personally, I'd still just about give MD WCs to Lily and Heather over Millie if it's a choice that they feel needs to be made. But I'd have no issue with all 3 of these getting MD WCs

Coup Droit wrote:

---

I would definitely give one to Heather

That's not even really about competitiveness but about crowd appreciation (although she'd probably be a pretty decent argument on competitiveness too)

I also don't particularly favour the youngsters - it's always kicking the can down the road, in my view - pressure from the Bates group, basically

And I'd never give one for pure experience (unless we had tons going begging and they were just going to go to next in line, which often happens but won't this year)

But I think it's very hard to argue that, on the evidence we have today, Lily will be more competitive than Millie, given Lily has barely won a decent level match in the last few months and Millie has had some class results on grass

---

 And if it came down to it, I would put 50p on Millie beating Lily if they had to play each other.