Wimbledon Seedings [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon Seedings

pesto
06-17-2009, 10:46 AM
They are out:

1 Rafael NADAL (ESP)
2 Roger FEDERER (SUI)
3 Andy MURRAY (GBR)
4 Novak DJOKOVIC (SRB)

5 Juan Martin DEL POTRO (ARG)
6 Andy RODDICK (USA)
7 Fernando VERDASCO (ESP)
8 Gilles SIMON (FRA)

9 Jo-Wilfried TSONGA (FRA)
10 Fernando GONZALEZ (CHI)
11 Marin CILIC (CRO)
12 Nikolay DAVYDENKO (RUS)

13 Robin SODERLING (SWE)
14 Gael MONFILS (FRA)
15 Marat SAFIN (RUS)
16 Tommy ROBREDO (ESP)

17 David FERRER (ESP)
18 James BLAKE (USA)
19 Rainer SCHUETTLER (GER)
20 Stanislas WAWRINKA (SUI)
21 Tomas BERDYCH (CZE)
22 Feliciano LOPEZ (ESP)
23 Ivo KARLOVIC (CRO)
24 Radek STEPANEK (CZE)

25 Dmitry TURSUNOV (RUS)
26 Jurgen MELZER (AUT)
27 Philipp KOHLSCHREIBER (GER)
28 Mardy FISH (USA)
29 Igor ANDREEV (RUS)
30 Viktor TROICKI (SRB)
31 Victor HANESCU (ROU)
32 Albert MONTANES (ESP)

DartMarcus
06-17-2009, 11:03 AM
What a shame James isn`t 16th :(
The most dangerous R3 for top 8 is Mardy Fish for sure :D
For 9-16 - Blake, Karlovic and Stepanek.

Goldenoldie
06-17-2009, 11:58 AM
Can't wait to see the draw, lots of questions to be answered then

sawan66278
06-17-2009, 01:49 PM
Why was Haas not bumped up to the #32 seed? Ridiculous that Montanes is ahead of him...the mug did nothing at RG, why here?

Stensland
06-17-2009, 01:57 PM
haas unseeded... :o i really hope he draws murray and kicks him out in rd. 1. serves the organisers right.

rubbERR
06-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Haas is unseeded because most of the time he sucks, there is always a reason :D

SloKid
06-17-2009, 02:05 PM
Seeds are the 32 by ranking, only among those can there be changes according to the Wimby seeding system.

Stensland
06-17-2009, 02:15 PM
Seeds are the 32 by ranking, only among those can there be changes according to the Wimby seeding system.

then they need to change it, as simple as that. the seeding procedure obviously is no god-given rule every tournament needs to obey. and wimbledon isn't even "every" tournament.

Frooty_Bazooty
06-17-2009, 02:19 PM
montanes being seeded on grass is a joke. he's won 2 matches on it EVER

bizzle
06-17-2009, 02:20 PM
Seems fair.

Quick question: If Nadal pulls out before the draw is made, will all the seeds be bumped up one place? or just re-arranged with an extra #33 seed?

What about if he (heaven forbid) pulls out after the draw has been made?

R.Federer
06-17-2009, 02:23 PM
Seems fair.

Quick question: If Nadal pulls out before the draw is made, will all the seeds be bumped up one place? or just re-arranged with an extra #33 seed?

The usual scheme is to bump every one up one place .... so Roger #1 seed :woohoo:

What about if he (heaven forbid) pulls out after the draw has been made?

I believe the LL comes in the first round.... someone can correct me if I'm wrong

leng jai
06-17-2009, 02:25 PM
Is Haasi #33?

el tenista
06-17-2009, 02:27 PM
Is Haasi #33?

Yes!

Fumus
06-17-2009, 02:28 PM
Why was Haas not bumped up to the #32 seed? Ridiculous that Montanes is ahead of him...the mug did nothing at RG, why here?

This way Haas can cause an upset early or maybe just get up 2-0 on Fed and then EPIC FAIL!

R.Federer
06-17-2009, 02:32 PM
This way Haas can cause an upset early or maybe just get up 2-0 on Fed and then EPIC FAIL!

Awww.... I don't think anyone wishes Tommy poorly on these boards... he's had such freakishly bad luck his whole career. Of course, if he wins a big one, there will be many on MTF that join the anti-Tommy movement. :rolleyes:

Isn't it a bit bizzare that Andy is seeded lower than JMDP here? Does no one feel that they should give SOME weight to previous years? Some...

rubbERR
06-17-2009, 02:35 PM
Stop whining, annoying stuff

Fumus
06-17-2009, 02:35 PM
Awww.... I don't think anyone wishes Tommy poorly on these boards... he's had such freakishly bad luck his whole career. Of course, if he wins a big one, there will be many on MTF that join the anti-Tommy movement. :rolleyes:

Isn't it a bit bizzare that Andy is seeded lower than JMDP here? Does no one feel that they should give SOME weight to previous years? Some...

Tommy is Tommy. He's fun because he's such a friggin' headcase. His results this year however have been trending up so I wouldn't want to run into him early and for some unlucky top seed that will happen.

Bizarre? Not really JDMP has been a consistently better player than Roddick over the past year. Wimbledon will only change their seeding for players who win grass court events (Roddick has not) or players that made it really deep in the tournement the year before (Roddick did not). It's all a moot point anyways because the difference between 5th seed and 6th seed is small, the difference between 4th seed and 5th seed is large.

AsGoodAsNew
06-17-2009, 02:55 PM
Haas should be seeded. Still it gives a chance of causing a major upset.

nobama
06-17-2009, 03:03 PM
Awww.... I don't think anyone wishes Tommy poorly on these boards... he's had such freakishly bad luck his whole career. Of course, if he wins a big one, there will be many on MTF that join the anti-Tommy movement. :rolleyes:

Isn't it a bit bizzare that Andy is seeded lower than JMDP here? Does no one feel that they should give SOME weight to previous years? Some...Wimbledon has a formula. But it starts with the entry system ranking. So if there is a big enough gap in the rankings adding weight to previous grass court results doesn't really make a difference. It's the women's seeding that is ridiculous.

From 2001, 32 players have been seeded in the Gentlemen’s and Ladies' Singles. These are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP) and the WTA Tour ranking. The former list is arranged on a surface-based system to reflect more accurately the individual player’s grass court achievement as per the following formula:

ESP points as at a week before The Championships
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that.
For the Ladies, the seeding order follows the ranking list, except where in the opinion of the Committee, the grass court credentials of a particular player necessitates a change in the interest of achieving a balanced draw.

BodyServe
06-17-2009, 03:26 PM
Since seeds reflect the ranking, why only changing it from 1-32 ? :retard:

Langers
06-17-2009, 04:01 PM
Some jokes amongst the lot.

Schuettler at #19. :o

Montanes seeded.

Sapeod
06-17-2009, 04:02 PM
Some jokes amongst the lot.

Schuettler at #19. :o

Montanes seeded.
Schuettler is seeded around there because of his semi final last year, I think :shrug: Montanes??????? No idea. Gasquet is out and Montanes is ranked around 33 so that's the only reason I see him as the 32nd seed.

Fumus
06-17-2009, 04:08 PM
In the end seeding is a number, the draw will make the tournement or break the tournement for some players.

decrepitude
06-17-2009, 04:13 PM
Montanes was ranked 34 on Monday, and both Gasquet and Nalbandian are out bringing him up to 32.

Burrow
06-17-2009, 04:15 PM
Safin at 15...

Mateya
06-17-2009, 04:18 PM
PHM unseeded too...

I hope for a lot of dark horses to demolish those silly seeds like Montanes and Schuettler. :rolleyes:

Lunaris
06-17-2009, 04:18 PM
Seeds are the 32 by ranking, only among those can there be changes according to the Wimby seeding system.
Sharapova is seeded...

el tenista
06-17-2009, 04:19 PM
Sharapova is seeded...

Women's seeding system is different to the men's one.

For the Ladies, the seeding order follows the ranking list, except where in the opinion of the Committee, the grass court credentials of a particular player necessitates a change in the interest of achieving a balanced draw.

Lunaris
06-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Women's seeding system is different to the men's one.
Is it? Didn't know that, thanks.

Corey Feldman
06-17-2009, 04:21 PM
Soderling will be a R16 opponent for one of the top 4 :devil::scared:

nobama
06-17-2009, 04:22 PM
What weeks ranking is used in the formula?

el tenista
06-17-2009, 04:22 PM
Is it? Didn't know that, thanks.

See above, I edited my post ;)

jtipson
06-17-2009, 04:24 PM
What weeks ranking is used in the formula?

Current week.

guga2120
06-17-2009, 04:38 PM
Soderling will be a R16 opponent for one of the top 4 :devil::scared:


That's pretty optimistic to think he will make it to the R16.

doublebackhand
06-17-2009, 05:28 PM
stupid of them not to seed Haas!?! judging by how things usually turn out, he is gonna play Djoker in the first round.

dam0dred
06-17-2009, 05:34 PM
Considering the Wimbledon courts are slower than most hardcourts these days, it seems logical they'd just follow the rankings.

Ciarán.
06-17-2009, 05:38 PM
Gael & Stanislas :bigclap:

mitalidas
06-17-2009, 05:50 PM
In the end seeding is a number, the draw will make the tournement or break the tournement for some players.

Yes but if Federer was ATP #3 and deservedly got seeding #2, then it would piss off Murray to be demoted to seeding #3 and potentially have to beat the Fedals to get the trophy. Regardless of what worse things he might have had to encounter due to the draw.

Voo de Mar
06-17-2009, 05:54 PM
Montanes seeded :o

crouching
06-17-2009, 08:16 PM
Since seeds reflect the ranking, why only changing it from 1-32 ? :retard:

Not sure if you know the history behind all this.

The major tournaments used to have only 16 seeds. The US, Australian and French seedings followed exactly the rankings, so the top 16 players were seeded 1-16 accordingly. Wimbledon used to ignore the entry rankings completely and seeded players as they saw fit. This resulted in "clay court specialists" being denied seedings.

In 2000, Alex Corretja was ranked no. 10 or 11, and Albert Costa was no. 15 but both were removed from the seedings and replaced by Rusedski and Krajicek who were both outside the Top 20. Corretja and Costa boycotted Wimbledon that year, along with Ferrero who had a "back injury".

As a compromise, the major tournaments then revised their seeding method. They would seed the top 32 ranked players entered into the tournament, regardless of how good they are supposed to be on the particular surface. All the majors reserve the right to alter the sequence of the seeds, but only Wimbledon actually does alter the sequence, and based on whatever mathematical formula they choose to use.

Lugburz
06-17-2009, 08:53 PM
Tommy's at #33,he could be still seeded though.If not,no big deal,he'll draw #32 Montanes in the 1st Round :D

MrChopin
06-17-2009, 08:57 PM
I hope Montanes draws Haas and Haas wins 1, 1, 0. Stupid organizers.

GlennMirnyi
06-17-2009, 09:00 PM
You know tennis is going through a joke period when Nadull is the #1 seed in Wimbledon...

rubbERR
06-17-2009, 09:04 PM
You know tennis is going through a joke period when Nadull is the #1 seed in Wimbledon...

GOAT deserves to be number ONE seed

Allegretto
06-17-2009, 09:06 PM
GOAT deserves to be number ONE seed
Especially coming off the back of a grass title at Queen's.

Byrd
06-17-2009, 09:15 PM
Nadal seeded 1st?, what a joke...

sammy01
06-17-2009, 09:20 PM
wheres boggo? lol

tangerine_dream
06-17-2009, 10:33 PM
Del Potro seeded higher than Roddick? :o They can move Sharapova up 35 spots but can't move the 4-time Queens champion up one?

They didn't have a problem switching the seeding of those two grass monsters, Simon and Verdasco.

rubbERR
06-17-2009, 10:36 PM
Another whining fanboy, epic stuff right here

TMJordan
06-17-2009, 10:36 PM
Del Potro seeded higher than Roddick? :o They can move Sharapova up 35 spots but can't move the 4-time Queens champion up one?

They didn't have a problem switching the seeding of those two grass monsters, Simon and Verdasco.

:banana:

Corey Feldman
06-17-2009, 10:37 PM
Del Potro >>>>>>>>>>>> Roddick on grass IMHO

FiBeR
06-18-2009, 01:09 AM
I have a decent chance on montañes here:spit:

nobama
06-18-2009, 01:11 AM
Considering the Wimbledon courts are slower than most hardcourts these days, it seems logical they'd just follow the rankings.Well they followed the formual (that they've been using since 2001) and for the top 5 (or more) it ended up working out to be just like the rankings. If someone doesn't like the seedings, then blame the formula they use.

dam0dred
06-18-2009, 01:38 AM
Del Potro seeded higher than Roddick? :o They can move Sharapova up 35 spots but can't move the 4-time Queens champion up one?

They didn't have a problem switching the seeding of those two grass monsters, Simon and Verdasco.

"They" didn't do anything - seedings are created using a mathematical formula. There is no human input or subjectivity involved. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing but every year people make the same comments over and over. I don't really get what is so difficult to understand about this.

Lugburz
06-18-2009, 01:40 AM
"They" didn't do anything - seedings are created using a mathematical formula. There is no human input or subjectivity involved. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing but every year people make the same comments over and over. I don't really get what is so difficult to understand about this.

spot on.

dam0dred
06-18-2009, 01:42 AM
Well they followed the formual (that they've been using since 2001) and for the top 5 (or more) it ended up working out to be just like the rankings. If someone doesn't like the seedings, then blame the formula they use.


What I was trying to say was that since Wimbledon grass is no longer a unique surface (it basically plays like a slow hardcourt) then there is no reason to deviate from the rankings when creating seeds.

tangerine_dream
06-18-2009, 03:28 AM
"They" didn't do anything - seedings are created using a mathematical formula. There is no human input or subjectivity involved. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing but every year people make the same comments over and over. I don't really get what is so difficult to understand about this.
Not exactly:

"The All England Club introduced a special formula, taking into account both the points on the rankings computer and also factoring in results on grass over the past couple of years."

Del Potro's grass record:
2007 4-3
2008 4-2
2009 0-0

Roddick's grass record:
2007 9-1
2008 3-2
2009 3-1

What I was trying to say was that since Wimbledon grass is no longer a unique surface (it basically plays like a slow hardcourt) then there is no reason to deviate from the rankings when creating seeds.
Since the grass will be playing fast again it probably does need special grass seeding.

nobama
06-18-2009, 03:32 AM
Er, where's the human input? :scratch:

nobama
06-18-2009, 03:33 AM
What I was trying to say was that since Wimbledon grass is no longer a unique surface (it basically plays like a slow hardcourt) then there is no reason to deviate from the rankings when creating seeds.Ah. Got it. And totally agree. :)

GlennMirnyi
06-18-2009, 03:36 AM
Stop underrating Montañes. He isn't that bad.

dam0dred
06-18-2009, 04:09 AM
Not exactly:

"The All England Club introduced a special formula, taking into account both the points on the rankings computer and also factoring in results on grass over the past couple of years."

Del Potro's grass record:
2007 4-3
2008 4-2
2009 0-0

Roddick's grass record:
2007 9-1
2008 3-2
2009 3-1


Since the grass will be playing fast again it probably does need special grass seeding.

I really don't understand this post. A player's grass record is converted into raw data (things like, I assume, wins versus losses, tier level of the tournaments, ranking of opponents he defeated, etc) which is then fed into a formula. It's a pretty simple concept...

nobama
06-18-2009, 04:26 AM
I really don't understand this post. A player's grass record is converted into raw data (things like, I assume, wins versus losses, tier level of the tournaments, ranking of opponents he defeated, etc) which is then fed into a formula. It's a pretty simple concept...

It is a simple concept - 100% of a players grass court points from the 12 months prior and 75% of the points from the 12 months prior to that.

Oh and as far as people saying the grass will play faster this year - I'll believe it when I see it. And anyway why does it matter? JDMP won, what, 4 tournaments in a row on hard court last year? I think the guy can probably play just fine on faster surfaces. :)

Johnny Groove
06-18-2009, 04:55 AM
Marat at 15 :lol:

Soderling will be a R16 opponent for one of the top 4 :devil::scared:

We're all wishing for it.

Goldenoldie
06-18-2009, 09:32 AM
Since the grass will be playing fast again it probably does need special grass seeding.

My back lawn needs special grass seeding more than Wimbledon does

freeandlonely
06-18-2009, 10:56 AM
Sometimes I feel it's a pity here, or unfair there. But sometimes I feel whatsoever. Very few has a real shot, and their names aren't secrets. Whatever. Perfect doesn't exist. Purely objective balance doesn't exist. And when is the last time your dream QF Line-Up indeed happened. Grass? Four 250-level to construct a season? There is only the championship. And only he or he ( or another he you added ) can win the whole thing. Sometimes I just feel......whatever.
At least make it 5 weeks and a relatively big one in the 2nd.
Whatever.

doublebackhand
06-18-2009, 11:19 AM
so much meaningless whining going on here!!

being a federer fan, i dont see why nadal shouldnt be the #1 seed. he is the #1 player and defending champ and according to my book, he is getting to the final again. there is no practical difference between being seeded #1 or #2. same as being seeded #5 or #6, ie del potro and roddick.

as for human input, the way they came up with the 'formula' is already human input. it involved a lot of subjectivity there. it wasnt exactly science even though it tried to be more transparent and fair. the whole special seeding concept is just outright stupid and unnecessary.

nobama
06-18-2009, 12:29 PM
as for human input, the way they came up with the 'formula' is already human input. it involved a lot of subjectivity there. it wasnt exactly science even though it tried to be more transparent and fair. the whole special seeding concept is just outright stupid and unnecessary.Of course someone had to come up with a formula and that's 'human input'. Just like the points that make up your ranking involve 'human input'. It's a pretty basic formula, I wouldn't call that 'a lot of subjectivity'.