Wimbledon Officials Hypocritical? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon Officials Hypocritical?

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 12:11 AM
The guys at Wimbledon talk about tradition and what you have done at Wimbledon but they still manage to put Federer at No. 2 even though he has won 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons and he is the defending FO and US Open champ. Nadal is great and him being No. 2 doesn't really change his fortunes one bit, but Wimbledon Officials have developed this knack for disrespecting legends. Agassi lost to Nadal and left Wimbledon without any major effort by these guys to celebrate his career (at the time). Sampras had to play in outer courts even though he had 7 Wimbledons! I bet Murray would've been bumped to No. 1 if he had done anything major anywhere.

Am I reading too much into this? Will Nadal, Federer, and others end up in outer courts when they are not in top 10?

decrepitude
06-18-2009, 12:16 AM
When will people realise that it is not done on a whim? They take the top 32 seeds as per this week's ranking and apply a set formula using points achieved on grass in the last couple of years. There is more weight to the last year, so Nadal stays ahead of Federer.

Xenosys
06-18-2009, 12:18 AM
Am I reading too much into this? Will Nadal, Federer, and others end up in outer courts when they are not in top 10?

Possibly, and probably. Federer and Nadal will still have their fanbases, but the 'new' top 10 in future will be the ones that people will pay to see and Wimbledon officials will be keen to get them onto the show-courts. Especially the two-week a year Wimbledon fans.

Nadal is the World No.1 & defending champion. He should be no.1 seed. Agassi was actually pretty lucky his last match was against Nadal. Only a match up with Federer, top 4 seed, or a high ranking Brit would have prevented him being put on an outside court.

Cloudygirl
06-18-2009, 12:19 AM
Rafa is world number 1 and was undefeated on grass last year. He should be number 1 seed based on recent form.

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 12:44 AM
About the Rafa thing, I think your argument is strong that he should be seeded No. 1 but Wimbledon officials need to be more clear about their "formula" It's not like Roger lost in the 2nd round last year. OK. Rafa is No. 1 and Defending champ. Roger has won 5 out of last 6, French and US Open Champ. You can make the case for both but I remember Nadal being given the No. 2 seed the first year he reached the final. How do you explain that? Not a bad decision when you lack it but hindsight is 20/20.

nobama
06-18-2009, 01:05 AM
About the Rafa thing, I think your argument is strong that he should be seeded No. 1 but Wimbledon officials need to be more clear about their "formula" It's not like Roger lost in the 2nd round last year. OK. Rafa is No. 1 and Defending champ. Roger has won 5 out of last 6, French and US Open Champ. You can make the case for both but I remember Nadal being given the No. 2 seed the first year he reached the final. How do you explain that? Not a bad decision when you lack it but hindsight is 20/20.Since the formula starts with ranking points if you're far enough ahead of the next guy in the rankings weighting grass resutls doesn't much matter. That's how Nadal was seeded #2 in 2006. I think what's in place now is fine. Although I'm sure Williams Sisters fans would disagree as Dinara Safina was seeded #1, even though Venus won the tournament in 2007 and 2008 and Safina hasn't had great results on grass.

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 01:13 AM
Since the formula starts with ranking points if you're far enough ahead of the next guy in the rankings weighting grass resutls doesn't much matter. That's how Nadal was seeded #2 in 2006. I think what's in place now is fine. Although I'm sure Williams Sisters fans would disagree as Dinara Safina was seeded #1, even though Venus won the tournament in 2007 and 2008 and Safina hasn't had great results on grass.

OK. That makes sense then. I am still sure being British will have some advantages. But not this year. We will see.

DJ Soup
06-18-2009, 01:43 AM
at first I thought this was a a joke-thread, alas it isn't

Sunset of Age
06-18-2009, 01:49 AM
Rafa is world number 1 and was undefeated on grass last year. He should be number 1 seed based on recent form.

Obviously. And just as much, Roger should be #2. Don't see what the fuss is about, here. :shrug:

dam0dred
06-18-2009, 01:58 AM
Dear god, what is the matter with you people? They've been using the same formula to create seeds for years. If you want to debate whether or not the forumla they use works, fine. But get a clue before you start with the bias/conspiracy theory crap.

leng jai
06-18-2009, 02:00 AM
IMO Haas should be number 1 seed.

Sunset of Age
06-18-2009, 02:02 AM
IMO Haas should be number 1 seed.

Now why doesn't that surprise me. :haha:

leng jai
06-18-2009, 02:03 AM
Now why doesn't that surprise me. :haha:

:worship: KarEn :worship:

Black Adam
06-18-2009, 02:05 AM
Clownish thread. Not surprised seeing who started it.

MacTheKnife
06-18-2009, 02:06 AM
As long as they're 1 and 2, wtf difference does it make.

Sunset of Age
06-18-2009, 02:07 AM
:worship: KarEn :worship:

:lol: - KarIN it is.

I witnessed Haasi *boink* his way through Halle last week, and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd be able to do some damage to some seeds if he keeps up that level of playing, to be honest.

Wouldn't mind it either. :angel: ;)

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 05:37 AM
Dear god, what is the matter with you people? They've been using the same formula to create seeds for years. If you want to debate whether or not the forumla they use works, fine. But get a clue before you start with the bias/conspiracy theory crap.


Listen you got a point. That's what I was pointing at ( a debate over formula was the goal).. But you still didn't answer the 2nd part of my question. Legends in outer courts.

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 05:40 AM
Clownish thread. Not surprised seeing who started it.

Right. This may be clownish thread but you are a real life clown. But I am sure you knew that too! Sorry.

Lee
06-18-2009, 05:54 AM
But you still didn't answer the 2nd part of my question. Legends in outer courts.

Pete Sampras, winner of 7 Wimbledons, was playing in court 2 when he lost to Bastl in 2002. He ranked 13 at that time. At least that's still a "show" court.

Edit: or is it court 3?

finishingmove
06-18-2009, 05:58 AM
what's this thread about? i was totally distracted by mellow yellow's sig...

GlennMirnyi
06-18-2009, 06:01 AM
Don't whine this much.

Of course Nadull being the #1 seed of any tournament outside clay is a huge joke, but don't turn this into another Nadull vs Federer drivel.

leng jai
06-18-2009, 09:06 AM
Nadull > Fedmug on all surfaces.

Polikarpov
06-18-2009, 09:17 AM
Personally I have no problem about Nadal being seeded 1.

From Wimbledon site:

"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:

1. ESP points as at a week before The Championships
2. Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
3. Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that."

Can anyone knowledgeable about the rankings system compute their points based on the above criteria? I would love to see how big the gap is between Rafa and Roger.

What I can't stand is Wimbledon's favoritism with Sharapova who was seeded 24 despite being ranked out of the top 50 and losing before Rd4 for the last two years. Meanwhile Hewitt who is also a former champion was not given a seed because according to the Wimbledon committee, his ranking of 56 is too low to be give a seed.

Goldenoldie
06-18-2009, 09:22 AM
This is two threads in one.

The seeding is purely mathematical and has been in place since 2001. You can argue that it is not the best system, but it is probably better than slavish adherence to the rankings, and definitely better than the pre-ATP days when seeds were indeed chosen by the committee.

Scheduling is entirely a different matter. Officials could certainly be hypocritical, even cheat, by their choices of court and start times for the players. But I think on the whole they do a pretty good job.

«Ivan»
06-18-2009, 09:38 AM
Personally I have no problem about Nadal being seeded 1.



good to know.i was thinking what would alas say on this.i fell better now.

http://i42.tinypic.com/omn7t.gif is 2nd seed, 4th player, 158th by fairnes, 1,896,584,835th by " choosing woman" taste.

Bernard Black
06-18-2009, 11:28 AM
As long as they're 1 and 2, wtf difference does it make.

That's it really.

Nadal deserves number one seeding for being world number one and defending champion. Don't see how anyone can argue with that, but they try.

Merton
06-18-2009, 11:57 AM
Pete Sampras, winner of 7 Wimbledons, was playing in court 2 when he lost to Bastl in 2002. He ranked 13 at that time. At least that's still a "show" court.

Edit: or is it court 3?

It was court 2, the "graveyard" court.

nobama
06-18-2009, 12:25 PM
Personally I have no problem about Nadal being seeded 1.

From Wimbledon site:

"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:

1. ESP points as at a week before The Championships
2. Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
3. Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that."

Can anyone knowledgeable about the rankings system compute their points based on the above criteria? I would love to see how big the gap is between Rafa and Roger.

What I can't stand is Wimbledon's favoritism with Sharapova who was seeded 24 despite being ranked out of the top 50 and losing before Rd4 for the last two years. Meanwhile Hewitt who is also a former champion was not given a seed because according to the Wimbledon committee, his ranking of 56 is too low to be give a seed.The current rankings gap between Nadal and Federer is 2,115. Using the above critera the gap would increase to 2,531.

As far as Sharapova, I think she has a better chance of causing an upset than Hewitt would and that's probably why they seeded her. Personally I think they should use a formula for the women too. I've seen a lot of complaints that Venus wasn't seeded #1, but using the men's formula Safina would still have been seeded #1. The only difference is Venus would be #2 and Serena #3.

bizzle
06-18-2009, 12:30 PM
How on earth do you justify placing the world number 1 and defending champion 2nd behind the world number 2 and defending runner up? That's just plain silly.

SheepleBuster
06-18-2009, 02:21 PM
I agree that Wimbledon official do go with their system most of the time but I bet if Murray or Henman were seeded No. 9 or 10, they would push them to No. 8 to avoid the big guns early. Nobody cares about that. But of course, they won't do that when Murray is already No. 3, on course to becoming No 2 soon. Here is my question. Lets say Roger wins this tournament but ends the year as No.3 somehow by not winning anything else. Should Murray get the nod over him next year if he is No 2 even though he hasn't won the title? That's why I like just going with rankings outside clay....

nobama
06-18-2009, 02:37 PM
I agree that Wimbledon official do go with their system most of the time but I bet if Murray or Henman were seeded No. 9 or 10, they would push them to No. 8 to avoid the big guns early. Nobody cares about that. But of course, they won't do that when Murray is already No. 3, on course to becoming No 2 soon. Here is my question. Lets say Roger wins this tournament but ends the year as No.3 somehow by not winning anything else. Should Murray get the nod over him next year if he is No 2 even though he hasn't won the title? That's why I like just going with rankings outside clay....
Do you want to provide some proof that the organizers would deviate from their formula to benefit Murray?

dam0dred
06-18-2009, 03:00 PM
Listen you got a point. That's what I was pointing at ( a debate over formula was the goal).. But you still didn't answer the 2nd part of my question. Legends in outer courts.

Everyone wants the players they like to get the best court assignments, you can't please everyone. I think the organizers do a pretty decent job actually, and let's remember that tennis is a business. The tours and the tournaments only exist if they make money, and the directors have a responsibility to ensure that matches they feel will result in the highest levels of interest and turnout get top billing, whether the players are "legends" or not.

This is really a non issue.