Originally Posted by skel1983
I agree in some respect's, it's hard to judge who to give WC to, but scrapping them is not the answer, certain players need break's in there career's for service to tennis and other criteria's they meet.
Look at Ivanisevic for instance, the guy deserved a WC what he had done for tennis and we went and won Wimbledon on a WC.
I don't know if i agree or disagree with Murray having a WC personally, but it wouldn't be a bad thing at all, do we as tennis fans not want to see competitive matches like the Nalbandian match at Wimbledon. If your refering to Murray not being good enough to play in the Us Open, totally disagree, but if you mean handing wildcard's to 15 year old kid's and old men who have been hovering around the 100-200 mark most of there career yes i agree, but you always have to make exceptions for certain players, whether it's injury(Blake) or confidence and bad form(Ivanisavic) and before anyone say's i am contridicting myself with Ivanisavic, he has done enough in his career in my eyes to claim a WC, rather than maybe Bogmolov Jnr who could possibly get one in the US.
Yeah I see your point with the Ivanisevics and the Blakes, and thats why I think we should still have qualifying, and maybe they can get qualifying WCs. If they are ready to play again then they will qualify, and in his Wimby 2001 form Ivanisevic would have qualified anyway if he'd got a WC into qualifying.
As it stands now, players who get WCs give the least competitive matches of the tournament and qualifiers who always put up a better fight and win matches, because they've had the match experience under their belt, so qualifying is better off for everyone IMO.