How do you feel about Wimbledon's Seeded players Bumping? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How do you feel about Wimbledon's Seeded players Bumping?

DualMedia
06-17-2010, 12:42 AM
I dislike it! How long has this been going on?

Mjau!
06-17-2010, 12:45 AM
I like, RG should copy it!

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 12:48 AM
They don't "bump" exactly,they just use a specific formula that takes into account the last 2 years' grass results.I like it,and I think other Slams should follow it too.

I think the current formula has been used since 2001 but maybe I'm wrong.

Sunset of Age
06-17-2010, 12:51 AM
They don't "bump" exactly,they just use a specific formula that takes into account the last 2 years' grass results.I like it,and I think other Slams should follow it too.

Fully agree.

I think the current formula has been used since 2001 but maybe I'm wrong.

I think it was 2002, but maybe wrong. Anyhows, it's been used for nearly a decade now, nothing new, move on, folks.

Beforehand
06-17-2010, 12:54 AM
I like it, and it makes sense for this tournament, and not really many others. There aren't enough grass court tournaments for someone to use the grass court season to inflate their Wimbledon seeds. You can build an entirely strong seed-ready ranking off of purely great clay or hardcourt results, and to do that on grass is just...not really that possible without being one of the last 4, maybe 8 of Wimbledon in a given year.

DualMedia
06-17-2010, 12:58 AM
sorry, I never really notice that!

Pirata.
06-17-2010, 03:14 AM
I like it and I think RG should follow it too.

Fee
06-17-2010, 03:23 AM
I like it, and its much better than what they used to do, which pissed everyone off, sitting around a table and deciding who to move up and down without any concrete justifications for their decisions. This way, they can back it up with a formula so everyone can see (even if some American tennis writers choose to ignore that fact).

Topspin Forehand
06-17-2010, 03:28 AM
I don't like it. It should be based on rankings.

Jills
06-17-2010, 04:47 AM
It's totally moronic. What's the point of switching the rankings to seed Fed #1 and Rafa #2? Or switching Roddick from #6 to #5? There's absolutely no point to it, doesn't make a difference in the draw. It's just smoke and mirrors and pomp and circumstance. Rafa couldn't play last year, he was injured. And because he couldn't play last year, like that wasn't punishment enough, he's losing his well-earned #1 spot this year? Ridic. And don't say "well Fed is seeded #1 bc he won 6 Wimbledons" because it's not just about that, or you'd have to say "well, Roddick has made finals and Murray and Djokovic haven't so he should be #3" and on and on down the list of history.

The system is flawed. If the system was a reliable measure of grass prowess, Roddick would be in the Top 4. He'd have his own quarter- which is one thing that actually WOULD change the draw, probably for the better.

Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break. Putting Isner down 5 spots under his ranking...why? Because he didn't do well a year or two ago? He's got a better shot to make it far with his game than a lot of people above him. If anything, he should go up and not down.

Rankings are in place for a reason. The rankings represent the hard work players have gone through all year to get where they are. It's stupid for good all-surface players who have busted their ass all year to get into the top 8 or top 16 of the rankings to lose their spot bc someone did better than them for one month on grass a year or two ago. It's unfair.

I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:

shuhrat
06-17-2010, 05:40 AM
...
The system is flawed. If the system was a reliable measure of grass prowess, Roddick would be in the Top 4. He'd have his own quarter- which is one thing that actually WOULD change the draw, probably for the better. It means Roddick didn't get enough of ranking points in the rest of the season to make it happen even with the help of this formula. If he was close to the top 4, it could've happen. :confused:


Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break. Putting Isner down 5 spots under his ranking...why? Because he didn't do well a year or two ago? He's got a better shot to make it far with his game than a lot of people above him. If anything, he should go up and not down.
While I agree that he has the right game on this surface though, who knows how things will turn out? Prove what you are capable of first, then you'll take advantage of it next year. ;)

...
I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:
Maybe they're not the typical clay courters, but again they can play on it more than decent and actually they've done well throughout the clay season, no? :scratch:

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 05:44 AM
It's totally moronic. What's the point of switching the rankings to seed Fed #1 and Rafa #2? Or switching Roddick from #6 to #5? There's absolutely no point to it, doesn't make a difference in the draw.

Not it's totally moronic.It's totally moronic NOT to understand how this system works which is obviously the case here.
There are things called seed groups that define the draw and every player could be very well moved to a different one.
It's not smoke and mirrors it's a specific formula that has been explained a thousand times alread.:rolleyes:

aloniv
06-17-2010, 06:15 AM
I think Jills is trying to say that there is little difference between positions 5-8 and that's why there is no point in changing those positions (as any player seeded 5-8 can meet the number 1 or number 2 seed in the quarterfinals, see Australian Open 2009 - 6 Simon vs 1 Nadal - or Australian Open 2010 - 5 Murray vs 2 Nadal and 6 Davydenko vs 1 Federer).

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 06:20 AM
I think Jills is trying to say that there is little difference between positions 5-8 and that's why there is no point in changing those positions (as any player seeded 5-8 can meet the number 1 or number 2 seed in the quarterfinals, see Australian Open 2009 - 6 Simon vs 1 Nadal - or Australian Open 2010 - 5 Murray vs 2 Nadal and 6 Davydenko vs 1 Federer).

when you made the adjusted wimby seeds you have to count points for all of them,because one could end up in a different seed bracket and from no.9 go to no.8 which will change his draw dramaticaly.

aloniv
06-17-2010, 06:24 AM
when you made the adjusted wimby seeds you have to count points for all of them,because one could end up in a different seed bracket and from no.9 go to no.8 which will change his draw dramaticaly.

What exactly did switching Nadal and Federer achieve? If moving someone in the same bracket (1-2, 3-4, 5-8 etc) is pointless then they should only move someone if they move into a different bracket regardless of which forumla is used.

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 06:31 AM
What exactly did switching Nadal and Federer achieve? If moving someone in the same bracket (1-2, 3-4, 5-8 etc) is pointless then they should only move someone if they move into a different bracket regardless of which forumla is used.

okkkaay...let's start from the beginning again.If you don't get if after this I will just give up and go away.:rolleyes: :p

They use the wimby formula to determine the seeds.In order to find the new seeds and to get which player goes to which seed groups they have to apply the formula to EVERY single seed.
Maybe it happens to change seed groups,maybe not.But to DETERMINE if they change or not,they have actually to calculate.And once they have applied and calculated the adjusted seeds voila!what you get?the new wimby seeds!!:D

ok??

Getta
06-17-2010, 06:34 AM
when you made the adjusted wimby seeds you have to count points for all of them,because one could end up in a different seed bracket and from no.9 go to no.8 which will change his draw dramaticaly.

at 2008 Wimbledon, Baghdatis bumped up to 10th compared to a world ranking of 25. Berdych was seeded 11th despite an ATP ranking of 19.

and rightfully so.


EDIT: lol at Dimitra's Jobean patience and her priestly role.

aloniv
06-17-2010, 06:35 AM
okkkaay...let's start from the beginning again.If you don't get if after this I will just give up and go away.:rolleyes: :p

They use the wimby formula to determine the seeds.In order to find the new seeds and to get which player goes to which seed groups they have to apply the formula to EVERY single seed.
Maybe it happens to change seed groups,maybe not.But to DETERMINE if they change or not,they have actually to calculate.And once they have applied and calculated the adjusted seeds voila!what you get?the new wimby seeds!!:D

ok??

They could easily apply the formula but only move players if they move to different brackets.

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 06:38 AM
at 2008 Wimbledon, Baghdatis bumped up to 10th compared to a world ranking of 25. Berdych was seeded 11th despite an ATP ranking of 19.

and rightfully so.


EDIT: lol at Dimitra's Jobean patience and her priestly role.

I try to make a good deed every day :angel: :p
They could easily apply the formula but only move players if they move to different brackets.

apparently it didn't work :( :sad:
my dear fellow,then why would all those calculations go to waste?after all you said it yourself,if it's in the same seed-group it doesn't matter.if it doesn't matter then why you make such a fuss about?:shrug:

have a good day and may you find your answer..elsewhere!

Getta
06-17-2010, 06:45 AM
apparently it didn't work :( :sad:
my dear fellow,then why would all those calculations go to waste?after all you said it yourself,if it's in the same seed-group it doesn't matter.if it doesn't matter then why you make such a fuss about?:shrug:


it does matter in the case of a plague of marquee players' last-minute withdrawals.

aloniv
06-17-2010, 06:46 AM
I try to make a good deed every day :angel: :p


apparently it didn't work :( :sad:
my dear fellow,then why would all those calculations go to waste?after all you said it yourself,if it's in the same seed-group it doesn't matter.if it doesn't matter then why you make such a fuss about?:shrug:

have a good day and may you find your answer..elsewhere!

All I'm saying is that in order not to confuse the casual viewers, Wimbledon could apply their formula and then keep the players in their original ranking if their bracket didn't change. Like I said switching Nadal and Federer (and also then #7 and #8 Simon and Verdasco last year), whilst being completely meaningless draw wise, is confusing to the casual viewer. How many times will you hear on TV this year world number 1 and number 2 seed Nadal (and number 1 seed and world number 2 Federer)?

aloniv
06-17-2010, 06:49 AM
Wimbledon should learn from the ATP. The ATP removed the year-end race in order not to confuse the casual fan with two different ranking systems. So if Wimbledon uses another system they should make it as similar to the rankings if they can.

oranges
06-17-2010, 06:57 AM
They could easily apply the formula but only move players if they move to different brackets.

To make it more confusing or is there another purpose? The only thing worth whining about is the fact that they apply the formula only to 32 seeds, not the entire MD.

oranges
06-17-2010, 07:00 AM
Wimbledon should learn from the ATP. The ATP removed the year-end race in order not to confuse the casual fan with two different ranking systems. So if Wimbledon uses another system they should make it as similar to the rankings if they can.

Right, the endless discussions in the ranking thread clearly demonstrate they've done a terrific job of making it more accessible to casual fans. Now, even those studying the rules in details have no idea what's going on. :yeah: If only they'd all learn from the ATP, there'd be suicides over frustration about too convuluted rules to follow.

n8
06-17-2010, 07:31 AM
To make it more confusing or is there another purpose? The only thing worth whining about is the fact that they apply the formula only to 32 seeds, not the entire MD.

They did this in response to clay courters pulling out of the event in protest due to not being seeded in the 90s. They reached a compromise by letting all top ranked 32 players be seeded but still making changes among these 32 players. Thankfully the withdrawals have stopped.

I think they should change the seeding order at Roland Garros as well. It's silly having Roddick as a top 8 year after year when you know it is extremely unlikely he will reach the quarters.

oranges
06-17-2010, 08:00 AM
^^ As far I understood it at the time, the compromise was to make the rules transparent and base it on both normal ranking and grass points, rather than having discretion to do as they please. Don't remember whether Haas ended up unseeded or not last year (which depended on someone withdrawing so that he's among 32), but it can serve as a good example when reseeding below 32 would be an excellent idea. Reseeding further down the line had him among top 24 seeds. Not doing it means a possible nightmare first round draw for one of the seeds. Less extreme example, but still to the point is Petzschner, who would overtake Robredo this year.

JolánGagó
06-17-2010, 08:00 AM
It is done by a known formula. It's been done for ages already. No one cares if you don't like it.

Next.

General Suburbia
06-17-2010, 08:18 AM
It's totally moronic. What's the point of switching the rankings to seed Fed #1 and Rafa #2? Or switching Roddick from #6 to #5? There's absolutely no point to it, doesn't make a difference in the draw. It's just smoke and mirrors and pomp and circumstance. Rafa couldn't play last year, he was injured. And because he couldn't play last year, like that wasn't punishment enough, he's losing his well-earned #1 spot this year? Ridic. And don't say "well Fed is seeded #1 bc he won 6 Wimbledons" because it's not just about that, or you'd have to say "well, Roddick has made finals and Murray and Djokovic haven't so he should be #3" and on and on down the list of history.

The system is flawed. If the system was a reliable measure of grass prowess, Roddick would be in the Top 4. He'd have his own quarter- which is one thing that actually WOULD change the draw, probably for the better.

Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break. Putting Isner down 5 spots under his ranking...why? Because he didn't do well a year or two ago? He's got a better shot to make it far with his game than a lot of people above him. If anything, he should go up and not down.

Rankings are in place for a reason. The rankings represent the hard work players have gone through all year to get where they are. It's stupid for good all-surface players who have busted their ass all year to get into the top 8 or top 16 of the rankings to lose their spot bc someone did better than them for one month on grass a year or two ago. It's unfair.

I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:
Your whole argument is destroyed once you understand that Wimbledon seedings are systematic and not arbitrary. It's not like there's a Council of Wimbledon Gentlemen who sit around a table, smoking cigars and twirling their mustaches, and decide the seedings based on who they believe are deserving of it.

I personally think the "bumping" is a good idea, but only because the grass court season is so short. I'd be less supporting if they made a grass masters.

Acer
06-17-2010, 08:19 AM
I'm totally with the Wimbledon's seeding. Grass is the most particular surface on which tennis is currently played, even some of the top players remain clueless on grass (HELLO NIKOLAY), so if the formula used helps a good grass courter get seeded then it's a good thing.

born_on_clay
06-17-2010, 08:53 AM
I may like or dislike this rule, but it definetely should be the same at all Slams

ShotmaKer
06-17-2010, 09:36 AM
It's totally moronic. What's the point of switching the rankings to seed Fed #1 and Rafa #2? Or switching Roddick from #6 to #5? There's absolutely no point to it, doesn't make a difference in the draw. It's just smoke and mirrors and pomp and circumstance. Rafa couldn't play last year, he was injured. And because he couldn't play last year, like that wasn't punishment enough, he's losing his well-earned #1 spot this year? Ridic. And don't say "well Fed is seeded #1 bc he won 6 Wimbledons" because it's not just about that, or you'd have to say "well, Roddick has made finals and Murray and Djokovic haven't so he should be #3" and on and on down the list of history.

The system is flawed. If the system was a reliable measure of grass prowess, Roddick would be in the Top 4. He'd have his own quarter- which is one thing that actually WOULD change the draw, probably for the better.

Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break. Putting Isner down 5 spots under his ranking...why? Because he didn't do well a year or two ago? He's got a better shot to make it far with his game than a lot of people above him. If anything, he should go up and not down.

Rankings are in place for a reason. The rankings represent the hard work players have gone through all year to get where they are. It's stupid for good all-surface players who have busted their ass all year to get into the top 8 or top 16 of the rankings to lose their spot bc someone did better than them for one month on grass a year or two ago. It's unfair.

I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:

you're disturbing the order of the Universe with your whining. stop it.

It is done by a known formula. It's been done for ages already. No one cares if you don't like it.

Next.

this.

coonster14
06-17-2010, 09:37 AM
i think the wimbledon seeding system is fine as it is.

Frooty_Bazooty
06-17-2010, 09:37 AM
for me, the justification in it is shown this year by Hewitt moving up into the top 16 seeds, he is way too good on grass to be seeded 26th.

and the reason it shouldnt be done in other slams is that there are 3 clay courts seasons and around 90 hard courts seasons. Grass needs this system because its season is too short

the fed/nadal switching argument is stupid. it only matters if you move from 2nd to 3rd seed or 16th to 17th seed etc.

Frooty_Bazooty
06-17-2010, 09:45 AM
Rankings are in place for a reason. The rankings represent the hard work players have gone through all year to get where they are. It's stupid for good all-surface players who have busted their ass all year to get into the top 8 or top 16 of the rankings to lose their spot bc someone did better than them for one month on grass a year or two ago. It's unfair.

If theyre really such good all surface players, they would have gotten some wins on grass in the previous seasons so theyve nothing to worry about as they'll keep their ranking/seeding (Melzer, ferrero, youzny, berdych, wawrinka, stepanek, tsonga, murray, djokovic etc). If you look at the people who move down the seedings as a result of this, its SHIT grass court players like Montanes, Ljubicic, Bellucci and Davydenko (although Kolya can reach the 4th round, its still less than his ranking suggests). this system is totally transparent and WORKS


I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:

they dont need to do it! there are 3 clay court seasons, - south american, european and late summer. if youre good on clay, you can get your ranking high enough to be seeded at RG on these 3 seasons alone!! on grass you cant! unless you win queens, wimbledon and eastbourne, which is never gonna happen.

JolánGagó
06-17-2010, 10:13 AM
I may like or dislike this rule, but it definetely should be the same at all Slams

No it shouldn't, the system was enacted in consideration to the very special (as in "bordering extinction") situation of the True and Original tennis surface, grass.

Sophocles
06-17-2010, 10:53 AM
The next person to start a thread on this subject having blatantly ignored the numerous careful explanations available on this board will receive my first ever (serious) bad rep. Also, Jill or whatever its name is, is very close to becoming the first member of my ignore list.

decrepitude
06-17-2010, 11:08 AM
The next person to start a thread on this subject having blatantly ignored the numerous careful explanations available on this board will receive my first ever (serious) bad rep. Also, Jill or whatever its name is, is very close to becoming the first member of my ignore list.

In total agreement.

Roamed
06-17-2010, 12:52 PM
The next person to start a thread on this subject having blatantly ignored the numerous careful explanations available on this board will receive my first ever (serious) bad rep. Also, Jill or whatever its name is, is very close to becoming the first member of my ignore list.

+ 1

l_mac
06-17-2010, 01:05 PM
so if the formula used helps a good grass courter get seeded then it's a good thing.

It doesn't helped a good grass court player get seeded if he isn't ranked high enough to get seeded anyway. If your ranking is outside the top 32 (or 33/34/36 etc depending how many withdrawls there are) you can't get seeded.

I'm not a big fan of Wimbledon's special seeding, and I wouldn't be in favour of a similar system for RG. Having said that, I understand why they do it and how the formula works. I'll never stop being amazed by how many people like tennis enough to spend time posting about it on forums, but are happy to be ignorant about so many issues.


Federer being seeded above Rafa is not a shock :shrug: I made a post (not on this board admittedly) about how Fed would definitley be seeded above Rafa at Wimbledon, even if he lost the #1, in April. Are people so bothered this year because Fedal are involved? I don't remember 56 threads on the topic last year.

propi
06-17-2010, 01:15 PM
Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break.

Gosh, first I defend ROgie and now Ferrer, where on earth are their fans?? :help::rolleyes::p

Ferrer is far from being a grass mug, he's only lost once in first round of Wimby, and actually won a title on grass (Rosemalen or however you want to call it 2008), but I guess you're here to brag out about how awful the system is... (that in fact, it is awful)

brent-o
06-17-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't like it simply because it seems so strange only happening at Wimbledon. I think all majors should do it.

NADALbULLS
06-17-2010, 01:53 PM
The Wimbledon seeding formula makes sense in terms of giving the best grasscourt players the highest seedings, but it is unfair in the sense that a player will work very hard to raise their ranking in the hope of avoiding top players early in slams only to have Wimbledon devalue the player's efforts.

decrepitude
06-17-2010, 02:15 PM
Well it should hardly come as a surprise to them, it has been like that for years.

shuhrat
06-17-2010, 02:27 PM
The Wimbledon seeding formula makes sense in terms of giving the best grasscourt players the highest seedings, but it is unfair in the sense that a player will work very hard to raise their ranking in the hope of avoiding top players early in slams only to have Wimbledon devalue the player's efforts.
Then there could be some grass courters who would complain that the season is too short to capitalize their strength and to get enough of chances of collecting more points.

jcempire
06-17-2010, 02:44 PM
I like, RG should copy it!

fully agree!!

dodo
06-17-2010, 02:48 PM
Good system. Might even multiply the grass points even more, since there are like 2 non-overlapping grass tournaments in the calendar.
Also, wouldnt be bad if they used it for RG. Lots of people there that are misrepresented in terms of seeding, some too high, others too low. Much more so than Wimbly.


It doesn't helped a good grass court player get seeded if he isn't ranked high enough to get seeded anyway. If your ranking is outside the top 32 (or 33/34/36 etc depending how many withdrawls there are) you can't get seeded.

wasnt aware of this part. if true, it sucks and ought to be changed.

paseo
06-17-2010, 03:04 PM
I feel nothing.

Jills
06-17-2010, 04:39 PM
It means Roddick didn't get enough of ranking points in the rest of the season to make it happen even with the help of this formula. If he was close to the top 4, it could've happen. :confused:


While I agree that he has the right game on this surface though, who knows how things will turn out? Prove what you are capable of first, then you'll take advantage of it next year. ;)


Maybe they're not the typical clay courters, but again they can play on it more than decent and actually they've done well throughout the clay season, no? :scratch:

1) I understand Roddick doesn't have enough points, obviously. :rolleyes: My point with Roddick is that the system is not reflective of grass court potential, period. If they want to implement a system, it should at least be effective. Sorry you're using a confused smiley...

2) But if someone is injured, and couldn't play WImbledon, or just had a bad first rd last year, why should they be punished with a lower seed a year later, when they achieved a good ranking and busted their ass all year?


3)You aren't telling me anything I don't know about Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych or anyone else. Don't know quite what your point is. I didn't say Soderling and Berdych weren't good on clay. You're actually proving my point. They are all-court players and those types of people should be rewarded for their efforts at every Slam. One surface "specialists" are the ones that would unjustly benefit from this system.

Start da Game
06-17-2010, 04:45 PM
I dislike it! How long has this been going on?

i have no feeling about this........wimbledon has been a clown slam since 2004.......

Jills
06-17-2010, 04:46 PM
Not it's totally moronic.It's totally moronic NOT to understand how this system works which is obviously the case here.
There are things called seed groups that define the draw and every player could be very well moved to a different one.
It's not smoke and mirrors it's a specific formula that has been explained a thousand times alread.:rolleyes:

I understand exactly how it works, and I'm saying it fails.

And if you can't see that, you are the one in lack of understanding.

The only person that actually benefited from the re-seeding is Hewitt, who knocked Ljubicic out of his position. The rest of it doesn't matter at all. #1 and #2 have the exact same benefits, as do #5 and #6 for Roddick. There was no point changing anything.

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 04:48 PM
I understand exactly how it works, and I'm saying it fails.

And if you can't see that, you are the one in lack of understanding.

The only person that actually benefited from the re-seeding is Hewitt, who knocked Ljubicic out of his position. The rest of it doesn't matter at all. #1 and #2 have the exact same benefits, as do #5 and #6 for Roddick. There was no point changing anything.

okay.:wavey: it seems basic logic is beyond you.:wavey:

Jills
06-17-2010, 04:49 PM
Wimbledon should learn from the ATP. The ATP removed the year-end race in order not to confuse the casual fan with two different ranking systems. So if Wimbledon uses another system they should make it as similar to the rankings if they can.

Finally someone who makes sense, and has good grammar! :)

Jills
06-17-2010, 04:58 PM
Your whole argument is destroyed once you understand that Wimbledon seedings are systematic and not arbitrary. It's not like there's a Council of Wimbledon Gentlemen who sit around a table, smoking cigars and twirling their mustaches, and decide the seedings based on who they believe are deserving of it.

I personally think the "bumping" is a good idea, but only because the grass court season is so short. I'd be less supporting if they made a grass masters.

"Arbitrary" is the wrong word..."pointless" comes to mind.

I think the fact that the grass season is so short is the reason this system should't be used, in fact. I'd prefer it on clay to grass, though I'd hate that too.

Look at all the players that are injured right now. Karlovic, Gulbis, Gasquet, Stepanek, Tsonga, list goes on...most of these guys haven't been able to play any grass tourneys and some are out of Wimbledon. So next year they will get screwed bc they weren't able to perform to their ability this year. I find that ridiculous.

The grass season is so damn short, it's just not fair to good players who happen to be injured or who just had a bad few weeks the year before to have their seeding lowered, even if they are obviously good on grass.

djb84xi
06-17-2010, 05:00 PM
It's totally moronic. What's the point of switching the rankings to seed Fed #1 and Rafa #2? Or switching Roddick from #6 to #5? There's absolutely no point to it, doesn't make a difference in the draw. It's just smoke and mirrors and pomp and circumstance. Rafa couldn't play last year, he was injured. And because he couldn't play last year, like that wasn't punishment enough, he's losing his well-earned #1 spot this year? Ridic. And don't say "well Fed is seeded #1 bc he won 6 Wimbledons" because it's not just about that, or you'd have to say "well, Roddick has made finals and Murray and Djokovic haven't so he should be #3" and on and on down the list of history.

The system is flawed. If the system was a reliable measure of grass prowess, Roddick would be in the Top 4. He'd have his own quarter- which is one thing that actually WOULD change the draw, probably for the better.

Some of this stuff is crazy. Putting Jo below Ferrer on grass? Give me a break. Putting Isner down 5 spots under his ranking...why? Because he didn't do well a year or two ago? He's got a better shot to make it far with his game than a lot of people above him. If anything, he should go up and not down.

Rankings are in place for a reason. The rankings represent the hard work players have gone through all year to get where they are. It's stupid for good all-surface players who have busted their ass all year to get into the top 8 or top 16 of the rankings to lose their spot bc someone did better than them for one month on grass a year or two ago. It's unfair.

I'm glad the other Slams don't do this. And by the way, if they adjusted RG for clay prowess, it wouldn't make a damn difference. It wouldn't stop non-clay specialists like Melzer, Soderling and Berdych from making the semis. Only thing it would do is rob players of their rightfully earned seed position. The whole thing is :bs:

Hey, I totally agree with you. If the other 3 slams go by ranking, so should Wimbledon. There should be no exception. If you really wanna know how flawed this system is, check out the seedings for the women, and you'll see why I hate this system. There's nothing I or anyone else can do about it, but still it's ridiculous.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:03 PM
I'm totally with the Wimbledon's seeding. Grass is the most particular surface on which tennis is currently played, even some of the top players remain clueless on grass (HELLO NIKOLAY), so if the formula used helps a good grass courter get seeded then it's a good thing.

Kolya being moved from #6 to #7 didn't change a thing. I'd imagine that if this was used at RG, Roddick would be moved from maybe #6 to #7 as well. So in other words, the only thing this reseeding thing does is potentially hurt players who were injured the year before.

For example, Tsonga was bumped to be seeded below Ferrer here (lol), presumably bc Tsonga couldn't play in 2008, so he had no points to add to Wimbledon's precious past results formula. That's just ridiculous to me. Anyone with half a brain knows Tsonga is a bigger threat than Ferrer on grass. The system is flawed.

oranges
06-17-2010, 05:04 PM
3)You aren't telling me anything I don't know about Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych or anyone else. Don't know quite what your point is. I didn't say Soderling and Berdych weren't good on clay. You're actually proving my point. They are all-court players and those types of people should be rewarded for their efforts at every Slam. One surface "specialists" are the ones that would unjustly benefit from this system.

You real blabber such nonsense, it's quite amazing. First of all, "one game suits all surfaces" players are already richly rewarded with the condition of surfaces nowadays, or else there'd be very few players highly proficient on all as was the case before. I don't see why they should be rewarded in any way if there are people better then them on some surfaces. Secondly, you can't seem to decide whether the fact the Wimbledon system attempts to balance the two is a good or a bad thing. You whine about it not reflecting ONLY grass court prowess, while at the same time lambasting about the misfortune of those "all-courters".

Finally, seeds are not just about benefiting the one seeded or not, it's as much about protecting other seeds and keeping things somewhat balanced and increasing the difficulty with each round. An excellent grass-courter, clay courter or whatever not being seeded is not just his bad luck, it's bad luck for the seed he draws in early rounds due to that as well. Similarly, someone sucking on the surface enjoying a high seed means a very lucky draw for those in his quarter. Just go check how many amazing RG runs are a result of being in Roddick's quarter. You take him out and whoosh you have the draw of the 4th, 5th or 6th seed most likely. Without the Wimbledon seeding system, Davydenko would be among top 4 seeds quite a few times. That means a possible semi for someone without actually having to play a dangerous player on grass. But I guess, we shouldn't mind that since he's excellent otherwise, be it clay, hard or carpet and he definitely earned his ranking.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:08 PM
Gosh, first I defend ROgie and now Ferrer, where on earth are their fans?? :help::rolleyes::p

Ferrer is far from being a grass mug, he's only lost once in first round of Wimby, and actually won a title on grass (Rosemalen or however you want to call it 2008), but I guess you're here to brag out about how awful the system is... (that in fact, it is awful)

I'm a Ferrer fan as well, I know he's decent on grass. The reason Jo is seeded under Ferrer is bc Jo couldn't play at this time in 2008, so Ferrer's 2008 Rosmalen and Wimbledon points trumped Jo.

In other words, Jo is being demoted for being injured 2 full years ago. Silly stuff.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:11 PM
okay.:wavey: it seems basic logic is beyond you.:wavey:

And using capital letters is beyond your comprehension, I suppose. :wavey:

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:15 PM
You real blabber such nonsense, it's quite amazing. First of all, "one game suits all surfaces" players are already richly rewarded with the condition of surfaces nowadays, or else there'd be very few players highly proficient on all as was the case before. I don't see why they should be rewarded in any way if there are people better then them on some surfaces. Secondly, you can't seem to decide whether the fact the Wimbledon system attempts to balance the two is a good or a bad thing. You whine about it not reflecting ONLY grass court prowess, while at the same time lambasting about the misfortune of those "all-courters".

Finally, seeds are not just about benefiting the one seeded or not, it's as much about protecting other seeds and keeping things somewhat balanced and increasing the difficulty with each round. An excellent grass-courter, clay courter or whatever not being seeded is not just his bad luck, it's bad luck for the seed he draws in early rounds due to that as well. Similarly, someone sucking on the surface enjoying a high seed means a very lucky draw for those in his quarter. Just go check how many amazing RG runs are a result of being in Roddick's quarter. You take him out and whoosh you have the draw of the 4th, 5th or 6th seed most likely. Without the Wimbledon seeding system, Davydenko would be among top 4 seeds quite a few times. That means a possible semi for someone without actually having to play a dangerous player on grass. But I guess, we shouldn't mind that since he's excellent otherwise, be it clay, hard or carpet and he definitely earned his ranking.

I know what seeds are for ;)

The guy in your avie who had to withdraw from both Rosmalen (edited) and Wimbledon would understand my point about the fact that injured players often get screwed in this system. That's all that matters to me.

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 05:17 PM
And using capital letters is beyond your comprehension, I suppose. :wavey:

grammar is not a matter of comprehension.:lol: especially when you post in a internet forum in a foreign language .:lol:

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 05:19 PM
I know what seeds are for ;)

The guy in your avie who had to withdraw from both Queen's and Wimbledon would understand my point about the fact that injured players often get screwed in this system. That's all that matters to me.

every player who gets injured and doesn't play has to be.."punished" :rolleyes:. same with the atp rankings.

let's try with an Example:Baghdatis was seeded 26.By your logic it didn't made any difference.But now that Stepanek and Karlovic have withdrawn he's seed no.24 which means in a different seed group alltogether.
:)

oranges
06-17-2010, 05:21 PM
I know what seeds are for ;)

The guy in your avie who had to withdraw from both Queen's and Wimbledon would understand my point about the fact that injured players often get screwed in this system. That's all that matters to me.

It doesn't seem like you understand anyhting at all. Injured players get screwed anyway, special seeding or not, it goes with the territory. In fact, in Mario's case, he'd get some decent points for 2008 QF if he was in a position to be up for a seed. So, he can't be your case in point in any way.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:25 PM
grammar is not a matter of comprehension.:lol: especially when you post in a internet forum in a foreign language .:lol:

Thank Sven for the ignore button.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:41 PM
It doesn't seem like you understand anyhting at all. Injured players get screwed anyway, special seeding or not, it goes with the territory. In fact, in Mario's case, he'd get some decent points for 2008 QF if he was in a position to be up for a seed. So, he can't be your case in point in any way.

Are you kidding me? So you want Mario's 2010 results to be taken into account in 2012 Wimbledon seedings?

As for your first point: They are adding points from grass season ONLY for the seedings. Obviously, the lack of grass points from an injury will affect the player's ranking anyway. I agree there.

Say 2 players with the same amount of ranking points get injured. One at Wimbledon, one at the AO. The first player that is unlucky enough to be injured DURING grass last year or in 2008 is being demoted for Wimbledon, whereas the second player who was injured DURING AO instead of Wimbledon will have those grass points, and thus won't be demoted at Wimbledon. Who is getting screwed here? Player #1.

That's exactly WHY a player like Rafa isn't #1 right now. It's because he didn't play Wimbledon. If he'd played Wimbledon and not AO, for example, he'd have the same ranking points, but he wouldn't be punished for not having specific grass points.

I don't know how much more I can explain it.

rocketassist
06-17-2010, 05:43 PM
I prefer Federer to Nadal, but I still reckon Nadal should have been seeded 1, not that it makes a difference.

out_here_grindin
06-17-2010, 05:43 PM
Works for wimbledon but I would not like it at OZ or US. Maybe the French could use it also

Dimitra
06-17-2010, 05:44 PM
Thank Sven for the ignore button.

:D :D :D

oranges
06-17-2010, 05:53 PM
I also don't know how to explain that players who are out with injury suffer similar consequences regardless whether there's special seeding or not. It's just what happens when you're out. You could argue in the same way that the entire rankign system is flawed then because they drop in rankings when they are injured and not playing.

The special seeding system is fine. It is also far less important nowadays then it used to be when grass was grass and it would be even better if they extended it to the entire MD as it would better reflect level of dangerousness of particular players, but it's still basically fine.

Jills
06-17-2010, 05:54 PM
I really doubt that anyone can look at these seedings with a straight face and honestly believe that those players were moved around in a way that was 1) beneficial to the draw and 2) fair and 3) actually represents the grass ability of the players in each spot.

If you can do that...hats off.

And the fact that Wimbledon doesn't alter the seedings for the women is a whole other issue that I find very strange indeed. Adds to the idea that the whole thing is just pointless and unnecessary.

Mjau!
06-17-2010, 06:16 PM
The highest seeded players should be the strongest players entering the tournament, so obviously it is a good idea that more accurately reflects who the best grass courters are. Roddick seeded above Ferrer and Almagro on clay or those two seeded above Hewitt on grass is simply wrong.

Merton
06-17-2010, 06:38 PM
It is fine with me as long as their formula is transparent and does not change according to convenience.

Getta
06-17-2010, 06:41 PM
The special seeding system is fine. It is also far less important nowadays then it used to be when grass was grass and it would be even better if they extended it to the entire MD as it would better reflect level of dangerousness of particular players, but it's still basically fine.

totally agree with you.

Roland Garros should also employ a seeding system that adjusts the ranking of players based upon their prowess on the clay.

Fee
06-17-2010, 07:12 PM
I'll never stop being amazed by how many people like tennis enough to spend time posting about it on forums, but are happy to be ignorant about so many issues.


Too true, that statement is signature worthy.

Finally someone who makes sense, and has good grammar! :)

You're looking for perfect grammar on a forum with so many international members who speak English as a Second Language? Perhaps you should save that criticism for the members that you know are native English speakers. Lord knows I wouldn't appreciate a comment like that if I ever tried to post in the French section of this forum.

Winston's Human
06-17-2010, 07:23 PM
And the fact that Wimbledon doesn't alter the seedings for the women is a whole other issue that I find very strange indeed. Adds to the idea that the whole thing is just pointless and unnecessary.

Wimbledon has on occasion adjusted the seeding for women. The difference is that they do not have precise formula for women; instead, they do it on their own discretion.

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/pdf/2009_seeding.pdf

Sophocles
06-17-2010, 09:09 PM
If you miss a season's play on a particular surface through injury, you're likely to be rusty on that surface anyway - & that should be reflected in the seedings.

straitup
06-17-2010, 09:48 PM
The highest seeded players should be the strongest players entering the tournament, so obviously it is a good idea that more accurately reflects who the best grass courters are. Roddick seeded above Ferrer and Almagro on clay or those two seeded above Hewitt on grass is simply wrong.

I completely agree...however, I still think that if I were a tourney organizer, I would be hesitant to seed Hewitt above a Ferrer on grass when Hewitt is about 15 spots below Ferrer...but that's just me.

And I think the women thing is silly too, all they did this year was keep everything in the same order as the rankings, of course removing Dementieva from that. Now Errani and Dulgheru are grass seeds... :eek:

bluefork
06-17-2010, 10:07 PM
Basically I like the adjusted seedings, although as others have pointed out, it isn't as important nowadays since there are fewer and fewer surface specialists.

I do think that to be fair, special seedings should be applied at the other Slams, particularly the French Open. Players who opt to skip the entire clay season and/or tend to do poorly on clay don't deserve a top seed, just as players who are clueless on grass shouldn't benefit from a being seeded higher than more capable players. The difference between clay and grass, however, is that there are many more clay events than grass ones. So when they calculate clay seedings, they should probably only take into account the best 3 or 4 tournaments, so that clay-courters can't inflate their seedings by playing a dozen events.

I kind of understand Jills' complaint about players being punished for getting injured during the grass season. But on the whole, it seems that the special seedings either help players who deserve a higher seed or, more often, have basically no effect at all. It's not that often that good grass court players get moved down in the seedings due to the rule.