Change how to determine Roland Garros seeding? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Change how to determine Roland Garros seeding?

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 12:18 PM
With the QF between Nadal and Soderling i got thinking the seeding for this clay slam is a bit flawed.

It is last years winner and 5 time winner vs last 2 years runner up. It is worthy to be at least a semi final. In a way both players are punished.

Nadal is the "clayking" and now risks going out while his biggest rival had gotten a much easier QF no matter how it played out (but yeah now even got a WO for other reasons, doesn't matter). Even if Nadal makes it through Soderling he will have to battle hard. In reality he is playing what probably is this years true 2-3 RG seed looking at past 2 RGs. That makes him vulnerable for the SF and F as well if he for example has to battle through a 5 seter and barely squeaks out a win.

Soderling has done way better than his actual seeding past tournaments but due to "only being nr5" combined with some bad luck often gets sloted vs world nr1/2 in the QF and then has to go through a lethal QF, SF, F to win. Even with a way harder draw than for the nr1-4 seeds he still made the final in 09, 10. In 2011 has to go through Nadal, Murray (likely) and Djokovic/Fed to win (likely). Talk about getting rewarded...not. He risks becoming a constant runner-up because he is drained physically by the time of the final. And the final becomes disappointing as a result.

If I understand correctly the seeding for RG is just the rankings at a certain time before the tournament. I know in Wimbledon it isn't necessarily like that. They take the ranking and apply their special formula on it depending on last 2 years results. Often the change is small but still spices things up. I think they should do something similar in RG. Maybe factor in last 2 years RG result as a certain percentage of the seeding. The ranking would still determine the big part and prevent any top player meetings in the first few rounds anyway.

The logic is that if you do well in RG it makes sense to be rewarded for it. That player obviously is very hard to beat on the special clay surface in Paris. The crowd will be familiar with that face deep in the tournament. I think it could create a more interesting tournament and also reward players for stepping up like it should.

Would it be good or bad to have a Wimbledon like formula at RG? How should it work? Discuss!

Sophocles
05-31-2011, 12:20 PM
Now that hard courts are basically the standard surface and clay is an elegant variation along with grass, I agree they should weight R.G. seedings to take account of clay points. It's ridiculous how many times Roddick has been a Top 10 seed.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 12:21 PM
Not now, it's not like there are massive differences between the surfaces. This would be more of a factor in the 90s not now.

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 12:24 PM
Yeah but before almost every tournament I see discussion about the surface. Especially the clay tournaments. If the RG clay is special, the ball is special, the atmosphere is special. Maybe only the rankings isn't the best possible seeding for RG

Also agree with that Roddick case. Such things would be tweaked a little then

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 12:28 PM
No, that's just a lot of Nadaltards looking for an excuse to justify if he loses.

The differential between the surfaces where there were clearly players stronger on clay as used to be, before homogenisation. Movement is the thing that separates clay now, not the style of game unlike previously.

Sapeod
05-31-2011, 12:29 PM
The seedings are based on the ranking that the players have the weeks before the slam, DURRR! No need to change it and if the runner up of a slam can't gain enough points to get his ranking up a good seeding before he defends the points, then that's tough.

Sonja1989
05-31-2011, 12:29 PM
If this formula work at grass yeah, should be also on clay.

I agree with Sophocles, players like Roddick don't deserve too good seeding if they don't show nothing on clay. All the same how is his draw, he never win more than two matches. His best result at RG is R4 even so he is former no1. :awww:

And this Bellucci - Gasquet R3 match was shame even so both of them played semifinal in this year on clay.

Anyway I would use it at all Grand Slam or nowhere.

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 12:33 PM
hmm yeah Murray would of course suffer. I tried out a wimbledon system for fun and then Soderling stole his seed. Part of why I made the thread. Look at Murray's draw...he'd better not waste it. He won't get a better one in his lifetime. :devil:

starclimer
05-31-2011, 12:37 PM
Look how the semifinalists of last year choked. Past result means little either.

Certinfy
05-31-2011, 12:37 PM
Well yeah, would have probably been more fair had Murray been the 5th seed and Soderling the 4th here.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 12:38 PM
If this formula work at grass yeah, should be also on clay.

I agree with Sophocles, players like Roddick don't deserve too good seeding if they don't show nothing on clay. All the same how is his draw, he never win more than two matches. His best result at RG is R4 even so he is former no1. :awww:

And this Bellucci - Gasquet R3 match was shame even so both of them played semifinal in this year on clay.

Anyway I would use it at all Grand Slam or nowhere.

Roddick being seeded is great for the other players, it's a big chance to take advantage of a good draw.

No Bellucci-Gasquet in the 3rd round is a shame at all. So we should give top seedings to someone who makes a semi final once in the year.

Nathaliia
05-31-2011, 12:40 PM
Well, with 4 top seeds very likely in the semis it looks like the current system is highly accurate ;)

Sonja1989
05-31-2011, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure Soderling would be 4 seeded here with that ranking. Murray played two semifinal on clay in this year, he showed much more than Soderling. Yeah, the final from last year for Sod. But there are more than 600 points among them on ranking.

Sonja1989
05-31-2011, 12:47 PM
Roddick being seeded is great for the other players, it's a big chance to take advantage of a good draw.

No Bellucci-Gasquet in the 3rd round is a shame at all. So we should give top seedings to someone who makes a semi final once in the year.

But Roddick never take advantage of his draw.

I think Bellucci made more on clay than 23 seeding. Last 16 at RG too in last year.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 01:06 PM
But Roddick never take advantage of his draw.

I think Bellucci made more on clay than 23 seeding. Last 16 at RG too in last year.

No need for clay rankings now, they missed their chance to do it.

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 01:14 PM
might as well check this out those who don't know. Wimbledon is coming up anyway.

http://www.helium.com/items/1832857-how-the-seeding-is-determined-at-wimbledon

Couldn't do exactly the same for RG since there are so many clay tournaments and points at stake.

Guess you just count that players 2-3 best clay tournaments and tweak it so it shouldn't matter if it was a ATP 250, 500 or 1000. Just show that you are a good clay player like the wimbledon formula is supposes to show you are a good grass player (and also boost the field in the grass tournaments ofc). I would prefer that solution because it's better for lower ranked players who get nightmare seeds in the big clay tournaments anyway and it might not say much getting owned by Nadal/Djokovic in a Rome R1.

Sometimes the formula could move a 30 seed to something like 15-20. Sometimes a 10 to 7 and so on. I think it would make it more interesting yes but it wouldn't completely alter the dynamics or anything. Wimbledon has worked very well with it's seeding, even made some years more fun than usual

DrJules
05-31-2011, 01:17 PM
Now that hard courts are basically the standard surface and clay is an elegant variation along with grass, I agree they should weight R.G. seedings to take account of clay points. It's ridiculous how many times Roddick has been a Top 10 seed.

If this formula work at grass yeah, should be also on clay.

I agree with Sophocles, players like Roddick don't deserve too good seeding if they don't show nothing on clay. All the same how is his draw, he never win more than two matches. His best result at RG is R4 even so he is former no1. :awww:

And this Bellucci - Gasquet R3 match was shame even so both of them played semifinal in this year on clay.

Anyway I would use it at all Grand Slam or nowhere.

Agree.

Then the seeding would be a better reflection of a players performance on that surface and at that GS event.

DrJules
05-31-2011, 01:18 PM
Well yeah, would have probably been more fair had Murray been the 5th seed and Soderling the 4th here.

Agree.

Action Jackson
05-31-2011, 01:18 PM
Clay 5 months, whereas Wimbledon much smaller sample.

finishingmove
05-31-2011, 01:23 PM
why adjusted clay rankings wouldn't work, example:

federer skips monte carlo , gets 0 points
almagro wins acapulco and 2 MM tournaments earlier in the year, gets 1000 points.

basically, lower ranked players would 'farm' RG seedings, because there's quite a number of clay tournaments all year long.

Chase Visa
05-31-2011, 01:42 PM
Too much clay court tournaments in contrast to grass courts, so it wouldn't work.

However, in a perfect world, it should happen.

ApproachShot
05-31-2011, 02:26 PM
I think there is a sufficient number of clay court tournaments throughout the year not to warrant Roland Garros using the same formula that Wimbledon uses to determine its seeds. That said, I guess each of the Grand Slam tournaments could add a 'bonus' to the 52 week ranking in accordance to a player's performance at the same tournament last year.

MaxPower
05-31-2011, 02:30 PM
why adjusted clay rankings wouldn't work, example:

federer skips monte carlo , gets 0 points
almagro wins acapulco and 2 MM tournaments earlier in the year, gets 1000 points.

basically, lower ranked players would 'farm' RG seedings, because there's quite a number of clay tournaments all year long.


yes that is why I said in an earlier post:

Couldn't do exactly the same for RG since there are so many clay tournaments and points at stake.

Guess you just count that players 2-3 best clay tournaments and tweak it so it shouldn't matter if it was a ATP 250, 500 or 1000. Just show that you are a good clay player like the wimbledon formula is supposes to show you are a good grass player (and also boost the field in the grass tournaments ofc). I would prefer that solution because it's better for lower ranked players who get nightmare seeds in the big clay tournaments anyway and it might not say much getting owned by Nadal/Djokovic in a Rome R1.

OR of course only use past RGs with a declining scale. Most recent year gives the highest
"bonus". RG should give the highest bonus anyway like in the Wimbledon formula and it would be about the same ratio.