The eighth and final wild card into the men's draw for Wimbledon should be formally declared today and as of putting up this Net Post, the recipient was a player who had lost in the first round in two of his past three appearances and reached the fourth round once, had served 15 months out of the game for a doping offence and, more than likely, would not have bothered to make the journey to London to try and qualify.

The Net Post is not decrying Guillermo Canas, a former world No 8, his special invitation, for once the All England committee which decides such things had decreed that the "next player on the list" would be granted special dispensation, they probably did not even bother to wonder who it was and whether he merited such a leg up.

Canas it is and if he loses in the first round nobody will bat an eyelid. But the fact that he is here at all brings the debate about wild cards and how the system works front and centre again.

Can, by any stretch of the imagination, the 31-year-old be deemed to enhance the event by his presence? The same question can be asked of Roko Karanusic, the next in line if someone pulls out and Canas becomes a direct acceptance. The essence of the wild card is that whoever receives one, it should be as a reward for services rendered or that they will shine some light on the event. Either that or they are Brits in desperate need of a push and some money they can use to spend another year pursuing success on the ATP's challengers and futures circuit.

Of the eight cards into the men's draw, five have gone to British players, one to the reigning Wimbledon junior champion, Grigor Dimitrov of Bulgaria, one to Nicholas Mahut of France, a runner-up at Queen's a couple of years ago and fine grass court practitioner, and the last to Canas. It is not something The Net Post is saying for the first time, but the whole situation really does bring Wimbledon into disrepute.

An overhaul, complete and utter, is needed of the wild card process. First, determine whether we should have one at all and if it is agreed that it is a good thing, then at least come up with a plan that is both transparent and for which someone bears the ultimate accountability. As of now, it is a charade.

This year, the LTA decided that they would recommend to the All England Club eight players who would be "guaranteed" either a main draw or qualifying place (The Net Post had previously assumed that no such "guarantees" were ever given, or sought). Criteria would be "mainly" based on ranking, recent form, professional attitude, court surface and behaviour.

How wide a spectrum is that? Players with a ranking better than 250 on the ATP/Sony Ericsson WTA Tours would be "considered" for a main draw wild card (backtracking on the original guarantee). The only "exceptional circumstance" would be a younger player who performed really well prior to the championships (one has gone to Dan Evans, who is outside the 250 cut-off and is currently in a very poor run of form).

Like so many things that emanate from head office, this is a hotch-potch of badly thought through ideas, targets and non specifications which the All England Club should have torn up and thrown back at them, telling the powers-that-be to come up with a better set. The Net Post remembers insisting last year that wild card criteria for the next championship should be set immediately when the last one finished so every player would know where they stood in a year's time.

Who decided on the 250 ranking cut-off and why? (There was no explanation). Why not 150? Could it be, perchance, that the LTA realised that, had they set the bar that high, none of the male players would possibly have met the criteria, leaving them with a lot more explaining to do than they have already. Should there not be a built-in performance criteria - say, that a player would not be considered for recommendation for a wild card if their ranking had not improved by 100 places?

This all smacks of another meeting that takes place too quickly, with too little thought and with no regard for the consequences.

Alex Bogdanovic, having failed to win a round in seven attempts in SW19 receives another wild card and where is the justification, considering he was not even considered for the Davis Cup play-off, held by the very same people who have not put his name forward to play at Wimbledon? Does the right hand not know the left? Who are the people running this show which would receive one star from a decent critic?