Should Roland Garros alter their seeding a la Wimbledon? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should Roland Garros alter their seeding a la Wimbledon?

Johnny Groove
05-27-2009, 07:23 PM
I've wondered this for a little while, Wimbledon always switched up their rankings due to past results, moving some grass courters up and others down.

Should RG do the same? Roddick and Blake for instance being seeded while someone like Monaco for instance is unseeded.

What do you guys think?

GlennMirnyi
05-27-2009, 07:26 PM
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Lame troll attempt.

Sapeod
05-27-2009, 07:30 PM
No.

tennis2tennis
05-27-2009, 07:38 PM
agree

DrJules
05-27-2009, 07:40 PM
Agree.

Pointless having seeds who never justify their seedings.

Ivanatis
05-27-2009, 07:50 PM
no, the other way around

angry1
05-27-2009, 07:50 PM
I've wondered this for a little while, Wimbledon always switched up their rankings due to past results, moving some grass courters up and others down.

Should RG do the same? Roddick and Blake for instance being seeded while someone like Monaco for instance is unseeded.

What do you guys think?

I don't think it's needed as clay makes up a much bigger slice of available ranking points than grass.

Wimbledon only re-orders the 32 seeds so Monaco wouldn't have become one under an equivalent system.

heya
05-27-2009, 07:58 PM
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Lame troll attempt.Exactly. A way to upgrade Monaco and group all Americans together.

MrChopin
05-27-2009, 07:59 PM
Not much thought into this, but I think it would be a good idea.

timafi
05-27-2009, 08:01 PM
they shouldn't even seed either Blake nor Fish:mad:
give the seed to Ouanna;at least he can win back to back 5 set matches and on clay:rolleyes:

jonathancrane
05-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Roland Garros should be cancelled. Clown tournament

Fat Head
05-27-2009, 08:05 PM
If Monaco done more in the year, then maybe he would be higher seeded.

Beforehand
05-27-2009, 08:21 PM
I don't think it's needed as clay makes up a much bigger slice of available ranking points than grass.

This.

It has been proven time and time again that you can achieve a rather high ranking off of solely your clay prowess, and winning the occasional matches on hardcourts. Grass doesn't have the ability to pad a ranking in the same way - the clay players who deserve the seeding have the seeding, and we find that those who don't still tend to do well, if good enough.

Monaco/Tsonga is a good example of that tomorrow.

In any case, if RG seeded like Wimbledon, Roddick and Blake would still be seeded, because they only take seeded players and rearrange them with a formula.

Johnny Groove
05-27-2009, 08:28 PM
How about if they used a totally different system, weighting clay events more and possibly sliding players in and out of seedings?

MrChopin
05-27-2009, 08:33 PM
This.

It has been proven time and time again that you can achieve a rather high ranking off of solely your clay prowess, and winning the occasional matches on hardcourts. Grass doesn't have the ability to pad a ranking in the same way - the clay players who deserve the seeding have the seeding, and we find that those who don't still tend to do well, if good enough.

Monaco/Tsonga is a good example of that tomorrow.

In any case, if RG seeded like Wimbledon, Roddick and Blake would still be seeded, because they only take seeded players and rearrange them with a formula.

That's too general though. To say "grass doesn't pad the rankings" because it can contribute only 2750 to one's ranking (that alone would currently make someone #13 at RG) is just fogging over the issue.

I think adding some clay, hardcourt, grass, and possibly indoor factor is appropriate. Being the smallest, grass and indoor need the largest corrections. Then clay. Then hard.

But then there is the argument of "how different is indoor and hard, or what about hard variations and such?" I don't want to think about that.

Beforehand
05-27-2009, 08:47 PM
How about if they used a totally different system, weighting clay events more and possibly sliding players in and out of seedings?

Personally, I think that would be an even more odd attempt at selling, especially the more willing you are to mess with the rankings - I mean...sliding Blake out of seeding, when, counting all events equally regardless of surface, he's in the top 16 players here? Or Roddick, who is in the Top 8? And maybe you'd just move them down a bit, but I don't know. I think of Gaudio a few years back, and his year where he won like 5 clay titles, and had no problem staying in the Top 10 - I think the ranking system as is will reward a strong enough player with a nice seeding at RG.

That's too general though. To say "grass doesn't pad the rankings" because it can contribute only 2750 to one's ranking (that alone would currently make someone #13 at RG) is just fogging over the issue.

I think adding some clay, hardcourt, grass, and possibly indoor factor is appropriate. Being the smallest, grass and indoor need the largest corrections. Then clay. Then hard.

But then there is the argument of "how different is indoor and hard, or what about hard variations and such?" I don't want to think about that.

I don't think it's too general, though. I mean, as I said before, you can literally win the equivalent of 3 majors-worth of points or more on clay. I suppose there is SOME logic in ranking players according to surface component, but then, why not just have surface rankings, and we can let the Masters events seed with adjustments, etc. And yes, that's a bit of a large extrapolation, but I mean, I'm not sure even Wimbledon would be all that justified in their seeding if there were enough grass points about - it's the schedule that allows it.

MrChopin
05-27-2009, 09:20 PM
I suppose there is SOME logic in ranking players according to surface component, but then, why not just have surface rankings, and we can let the Masters events seed with adjustments, etc. And yes, that's a bit of a large extrapolation, but I mean, I'm not sure even Wimbledon would be all that justified in their seeding if there were enough grass points about - it's the schedule that allows it.

I think any system that would account for as much general (not h2h) information as possible is best, so I think the surface factors are a good thing for slams, but not masters series. In my view, slams should be a good representation/average of the tournaments leading up to them, and so an averaged factor would be appropriate at slams. Masters Series surfaces vary quite a bit within respective surfaces, so I'm not sure a similar argument could be made for rewarding a Monte Carlo SF at Madrid, or a Miami SF at Cincinatti. One could probably make adjustments to Masters Series rankings based on the 250s and 500s leading up to a TMS, but I don't know how many of those tournaments precede each TMS and so am not sure if consistency in ranking adjustments for TMS can be achieved. And then there is scheduling problems... and this is all theoretical... surface characteristics can literally change with the wind.

Throwing away a general ranking and going just by surface would lose you the bigger picture on issues like consistent form, injury...: a player entering Monte Carlo that hasn't won a match due racket change or divorce or... since winning a ton on clay the previous season is probably not best seeded at #1.

This whole argument can get so fine, especially as tennis benefits from surface variation. I think that a combination of overall success and surface success should be considered at the slams and nowhere else. The best way I can put it is that such a combination of information attempts to quantify surface skills (but only at an averaged level--which itself reflects the slams being an average of the other tournaments on the respective surfaces) while admitting to an inherently imperfect method, namely, the imperfections that result when attaching some fixed set of point differences to varying skill differences (mathematically) between different players' abilities, especially considering the changes that take place over the course of a year.

Sorry that got so long and long-winded.

calvinhobbes
05-27-2009, 10:59 PM
The ranking system is by definition a unique method of evaluating the objective merits of every player. By creating subdivisions we would be creating confusion. I would prefer the Wimbledon seeds to follow the general method of the other Slams. I don´t see why the specialists should be given special consideration if their status is not reflected in the general rankings. . . . .

Johnny Groove
05-27-2009, 11:34 PM
I think any system that would account for as much general (not h2h) information as possible is best, so I think the surface factors are a good thing for slams, but not masters series. In my view, slams should be a good representation/average of the tournaments leading up to them, and so an averaged factor would be appropriate at slams. Masters Series surfaces vary quite a bit within respective surfaces, so I'm not sure a similar argument could be made for rewarding a Monte Carlo SF at Madrid, or a Miami SF at Cincinatti. One could probably make adjustments to Masters Series rankings based on the 250s and 500s leading up to a TMS, but I don't know how many of those tournaments precede each TMS and so am not sure if consistency in ranking adjustments for TMS can be achieved. And then there is scheduling problems... and this is all theoretical... surface characteristics can literally change with the wind.

Throwing away a general ranking and going just by surface would lose you the bigger picture on issues like consistent form, injury...: a player entering Monte Carlo that hasn't won a match due racket change or divorce or... since winning a ton on clay the previous season is probably not best seeded at #1.

This whole argument can get so fine, especially as tennis benefits from surface variation. I think that a combination of overall success and surface success should be considered at the slams and nowhere else. The best way I can put it is that such a combination of information attempts to quantify surface skills (but only at an averaged level--which itself reflects the slams being an average of the other tournaments on the respective surfaces) while admitting to an inherently imperfect method, namely, the imperfections that result when attaching some fixed set of point differences to varying skill differences (mathematically) between different players' abilities, especially considering the changes that take place over the course of a year.

Sorry that got so long and long-winded.

Good points.

I don't think adjusting for TMS events would be a good idea, simply because it will get far too dicey. For the slams, though, I think if a certain base percentage be added to their current totals, it could work.

For instance:

Every clay result that has been counted in a player's ranking in the past 12 months adds like 50% to their total.

Monaco would have 980+392.5, Monaco would have 1372 for his "RG seed points"

It wouldn't drastically alter the seeds, but it might shake things up just enough to make things more justified.

Goldenoldie
05-28-2009, 08:37 AM
Any change in the system will only come about if enough of the players want it, or the tournament organizers want it, and I don't believe they do. The change at Wimbledon was a compromise between the ATP and the Wimbledon authorities. Previously the rankings had been ignored and the seeds chosen by the Seeding Committee, but there was a threat of a boycott by some of the clay court players. Now the rankings are followed, but with a grass weighting. I don't think there was ever a problem anywhere else, so no reason to depart from the rankings.

Of course I remember a time before there were any rankings, even before there was any A.T.P. Seeds were chosen by a committee, and there were only 8 or 16 seeds, so the luck of the draw was more important for the lesser players.

I also remember beer at a shilling a pint, black and white films, a time before mobile phones and and... (wanders off into senile reminiscences)

FairWeatherFan
05-28-2009, 09:21 AM
They shouldn't bother with special seeding systems like this, given that the surfaces these days are all the same.

vamosinator
05-28-2009, 09:42 AM
Roland Garros should be cancelled. Clown tournament

Well it makes one-dimensional players (Roddick, Blake etc.) look like clowns thats for darn sure!

Horatio Caine
05-28-2009, 09:55 AM
Good question Jon. :hatoff:

Well, if Wimbledon is allowed to do it, why not the French Open? Clay is a pretty 'unique' surface (at least compared to the standard hard court) so I think it would be quite 'fun' to mix the order a little, yeah.

Sorry Gu. :p

finishingmove
05-28-2009, 09:57 AM
no, the other way around

:wavey:

Jimnik
05-28-2009, 10:02 AM
Maybe when the clay season is reduced to three weeks.

Right now there are 22 clay events per year and 6 grass. This is why Wimby needs to alter its seedings.

Andi-M
05-28-2009, 10:08 AM
Maybe when the clay season is reduced to three weeks.

Right now there are 22 clay events per year and 6 grass. This is why Wimby needs to alter its seedings.

this.

MacTheKnife
05-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Not as much as it used to be needed, specially among the top guys. It's the usual suspects on every surface now.

Beforehand
05-28-2009, 10:38 AM
I was being somewhat facetious with the TMS thing. :tape:

Merton
05-28-2009, 02:39 PM
It would be good 10 years ago, under a known and transparent scheme. It is a non-issue today.

sawan66278
05-28-2009, 02:48 PM
Most definitely. Andy Roddick plays one clay court event leading up to RG...and he gets the benefit of a cakewalk draw and a higher seed than Verdasco? Blake...a man who says the U.S. players don't really care about RG? Has a seed higher than Monaco? Whose reward for an excellent clay court season is a second round match against Tsonga in France.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Rafa gets REAL clay court threats like Ferrer, Wawrinka, and Verdasco. Federer gets Blake and Roddick. All because the seeds are not in line with talent OR merit.

tennis2tennis
05-28-2009, 03:35 PM
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Lame troll attempt.

that's not a troll thread...its a good question

heya
05-28-2009, 06:31 PM
Rafa gets REAL clay court threats like Ferrer, Wawrinka, and Verdasco. Federer gets Blake and Roddick. All because the seeds are not in line with talent OR merit.I give you some credit. You're not a fake Roddick fan. I love Federer, and adore Djokovic and his parents too...

Sunset of Age
05-29-2009, 02:27 AM
I give you some credit. You're not a fake Roddick fan. I love Federer, and adore Djokovic and his parents too...

Sure you do. :haha:

GlennMirnyi
05-29-2009, 02:34 AM
that's not a troll thread...its a good question

It's a troll attempt.

Clay doesn't need altered seedings. There are a million clay tournaments every year.

MrChopin
05-29-2009, 02:57 AM
I was being somewhat facetious with the TMS thing. :tape:

On MTF? How was I to know?


Every clay result that has been counted in a player's ranking in the past 12 months adds like 50% to their total.

Monaco would have 980+392.5, Monaco would have 1372 for his "RG seed points"

It wouldn't drastically alter the seeds, but it might shake things up just enough to make things more justified.

Some combo of last year(s) at RG and current clay season would work. I haven't looked at the Wimbledon formula for a while, but adding points to the overall ranking seems best to me.

One complaint against this whole thing is that a guy like Roddick can beat several of the better clay players, so while one could possibly argue that you only know how good someone is based on their results, to swing rankings based on clay points would seem to encourage effort over talent (which has its pros and cons).

Rafa gets REAL clay court threats like Ferrer, Wawrinka, and Verdasco. Federer gets Blake and Roddick. All because the seeds are not in line with talent OR merit.

Dropping Blake from the Top 20 on clay would hardly alter the fairness of the draw process. And you can't draw specific players to specific rankings. That's tennis 101. Rafa had several of the "clay threats" last year and he absolutely thrashed them. He will have a harder time against Djokovic, Murray, Fed, Tsonga, possibly even guys like Del Potro and Cilic, than he will against Almagro, Bolelli, Ferrero... these guys don't have a chance. I'm not sure that even Ferrer has a chance on clay. Verdasco... maybe.

There are always going to be matchup issues, and that's why the correct decision in making draws is to pull at random. You haven't convinced anyone that knocking out a couple of those less concerned with clay will suddenly make the draws fair for Rafa again. In fact, do you really need to stain yet another thread with Rafa v. Fed?

mr_burns
05-29-2009, 03:26 AM
i would like that, changes are not that big, but it can help to create a balanced draw

I assume Monfils would be top 8 instead of simon if they would use the wimbledon system

without any questions monfils (healty) deserves a top 8 over simon
wawrinka would have been top 16 (or 12): no 3rd round with a tenth seed...

but don't see such a change coming

vamosinator
05-29-2009, 03:48 AM
Monfils is an awful example of consistency, and Simon is a greater threat to Federer/Nadal (I'm aware Monfils beat rusty Nadal at start of 09).

freeandlonely
05-29-2009, 07:09 AM
No.
And I hope Wimby not do it anymore, either.
And I hope USO decisive set morph into long-game instead of tie-break.
I hope 4GS are same in these aspects.
Ranking is about what you did in the last 52 weeks, which matters.
If you are strong enough you can just do like Williams, won AO/WIMBY when seeded low or even not seeded.
Or we just alter AO seeding base on what you did on Plexicushion?
And alter USO seeding base on what you did at USO series?
Clay(Grass) that special? Hard courts include different forms, too.
GS are not ATP/WTA events, but they have far more than enough characteristic marks already, no need to touch the ranking/seed part, and no need for USO to insist decisive tie-break.
Respect all of you. That's just the way I feel.