Originally Posted by Kirt12255
Wondering why in this deal....reguarding Wild-Card deals between slams.....would Christine Wheeler be given the WC above Stosur....she is higher ranked and proven herself a better player this year.
If Stosur had been given the French Open wildcard then I think she couldn't have also been given the Wimbledon one, and she is a better player on grass so it makes more sense to give her the Wimbledon one.
Who decides this?? How about giving WC's to Juniors showing promise...no matter which country they come from? And yes to past champions obviously.
As far as I am aware, there is no rule that says you have to give the wildcards to people from a particular country (except for the reciprocal one), but juniors showing promise do not draw the same crowds and attention as a French player at the FO, for example, would, so it makes sense from the point of view of the FA for French players to be given WCs. It's unfair, but it makes sense. As for the reciprocal WC, well again, it isn't fair, but Christine Wheeler is ranked higher than all of the French WCs.
Even if we want to talk about being fair, it's very difficult to say with WCs who is 'deserving' or who have 'earned it' because if they had really 'earned it' they would be ranked high enough to get into the main draw or qualifying anyway. Yes, former champions, but apart from Michael Chang, I don't think there are any others who are still playing who would not qualify on their own. It's the same with formerly highly ranked players who have had devastating injuries, there just aren't many of them who are now in a position to play. You could end up in a situation where the WCs just go to the next-in and that isn't what they are supposed to be for.
Regarding undoing what the Williams' have done for the game, I really don't see that giving a WC to one obscure Australian is going to do that.