Pros and cons of surface specific seeding [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Pros and cons of surface specific seeding

oz_boz
04-08-2005, 12:40 PM
You should support surface specific seeding if you think that:

* Tennis will develop better with players being surface specialists
* The seeding procedure is so crucial for the character of a tournament that each tournament should be allowed to have its own seeding (Wimbledon fanatic anyone?)
* The ATP ranking system is so flawed that most tournament seeding committees would do better

You shouldn't if you think that:

* Allround players should be favoured
* The ATP ranking system is fair enough to determine the seeding
* Specialists are favoured enough by playing their best surface, they don't need a seeding system that helps them to do well in a tournament on top of that

I support the ATP system for seeding, despite its flaws. I'd rather see a future of multisurface players than grass smokers and dirtballers. The question whether specialising will speed up development is not so simple, downhill skiing and swimming are two sports that at the present are dominated by versatile athletes.

uNIVERSE mAN
04-08-2005, 04:21 PM
this type of seeding is good for the grand slams, since they're more than just a tennis tournament, they're avenues to promote tennis on a world scale. it's definitely better if the really dangerous surface players meet in the final rounds when the whole world is watching.

robinhood
04-09-2005, 02:53 AM
However they do it, the seeding procedure should be consistent in all four GS.

Chloe le Bopper
04-09-2005, 02:59 AM
I"ve always thought that subjective seeding was just something that Wimbledon kept doing to try to convince us that they are the special-est *vomit*

As you can see, I lack a certain amount of respect for this .;)

Plastic Bertrand
04-09-2005, 08:35 AM
There should a consistent seeding system for all of the events and no exceptions.

Smankyou
04-09-2005, 08:42 AM
It will only encourage specific surface 'specialists'.

Wulfram
04-09-2005, 09:40 AM
I"ve always thought that subjective seeding was just something that Wimbledon kept doing to try to convince us that they are the specialist *vomit*

As you can see, I lack a certain amount of respect for this .;)

It's something Wimbledon does in order that it's seeding has some relation with reality. Though Roland Garros needs it rather more desperately. Look at last year, when Moya and Coria met in the quarter finals, while the bottom quarter was entirely devoid of clay court talent.

It's just a shame Wimbledon allowed itself to be bullied into adopting the formula system - all that means is that we're stuck with silly people like Safin this year and Coria last year being top 4 seed, despite Safin already having declared that he's given up on grass.

uNIVERSE mAN
04-09-2005, 03:25 PM
Safin unseeded at Wimbledon, I'd laugh myself into a coma.

Action Jackson
06-16-2005, 08:46 AM
Safin unseeded at Wimbledon, I'd laugh myself into a coma.

It likes you will have to wait at least another year for that.

Halba
06-16-2005, 10:36 AM
PROS = NOT facing FEDERER

CONS= FACING FEDERER

Angle Queen
06-16-2005, 01:00 PM
However they do it, the seeding procedure should be consistent in all four GS.:yeah:

And for both the mens and womens draws. What's good for the goose...

El Legenda
06-16-2005, 01:10 PM
pro- wont have roddick #1 seed at TMS on clay.

Jim Jones
06-16-2005, 01:18 PM
I don't mind how the seedings are done at Wimbledon. It differentiates with other Grand Slams. Each Grand Slam has it's own identity such as the 5th set tie-breaker used at U.S. Open. In any case the seeding system at Wimbledon respects more or less the ranking system. I.e you won't have Karlovic or Rusedski seeded when they are not even in the top 32.

Action Jackson
06-16-2005, 01:25 PM
pro- wont have roddick #1 seed at TMS on clay.

RG has had so many lopsided draws where the majority of the best players on clay are usually lumped together in the one section and this year was an example of that, though it was good that Nadal won from the harder section.

RG should have it and your reason is good enough, but since they don't. Then it's just an excuse for Wimbledon to be different.

uNIVERSE mAN
06-16-2005, 01:42 PM
Agassi seeded #2 at 2006 Aus Open.

goran_the_2nd
06-16-2005, 02:16 PM
to be honest... it just isnt fair to determine the seeding through ranking system. at least not for grass. if there is like 10 tournaments on every surface then i would say - ok. but when you have only 2 tournaments on grass before GS then it just sucks to have no 4. seed player like nadal (right now, in a few years he might be good but now he isnt), who cant beat waske on grass.

ATP ranking system right now isnt fair enough to determine the seeding on grass.

oz_boz
06-16-2005, 03:37 PM
but when you have only 2 tournaments on grass before GS then it just sucks to have no 4. seed player like nadal (right now, in a few years he might be good but now he isnt), who cant beat waske on grass.

ATP ranking system right now isnt fair enough to determine the seeding on grass.

But using surface specific seeding will produce more specialised players, like Nadal who you use as an argument for not using the ATP ranking for seeding.

The only almost fair seeding system I can think of would be to have a random draw among the 128 top players. But I don't support that, I support the ATP ranking system for seeding, which favours allrounders. Btw I think Federer's superiority is a consequence of that.

Leo
06-17-2005, 06:57 PM
I"ve always thought that subjective seeding was just something that Wimbledon kept doing to try to convince us that they are the special-est *vomit*

As you can see, I lack a certain amount of respect for this .;)

:lol: So true.

World Beater
06-17-2005, 07:05 PM
the nature of draws is that they are always unfair. I would rather see absolutely no seeding according to surface. If the lower ranked players are specialists, then they should be able to beat the higher ranked non-specialists. If you happen to run into a top tier grass/clay courter...well its the luck of the draw...sucks for you