Will Wimbledon mess with the top 4 seeds? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Wimbledon mess with the top 4 seeds?

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:21 PM
I have a scary feeling that they may want to move Roddick to #2 and Nadal out of the top 4.

Please tell me they won't do this.

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:22 PM
Somebody did the math in another thread. If I understood correct, if they use any seeding formula from the past 4 years they can't bump Nadal out. That doesn't mean they won't make up a new one an try, but they'll have to work for it.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is any reason to do it, but I don't have any respect for Wimbledon and expect them to do the wrong thing ;)

As for the number 2 slot, I don't imagine they care where Hewitt or Roddick fall. It will depend on the Nadal-Math. Or the Henman-Math, if you prefer ;)

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:23 PM
I don't have any respect for them either, as far as seeding is concerned. I think the tennis world should be annoyed that they show such blatant favortism to their own players. Granted that's they only way they'll win matches, but still.

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:24 PM
I don't have any respect for them either, as far as seeding is concerned. I think the tennis world should be annoyed that they show such blatant favortism to their own players. Granted that's they only way they'll win matches, but still.
The USO and Wimbledon are both guilty in this regard. Mind you, I'm sure that Henman and Roddick would still win matches ;)

robinhood
06-06-2005, 10:27 PM
I think many hard-core Wimbledon fans are annoyed by it myself included.
Jez did the math in another thread, and it looks almost certain that Roddick will be seeded #2 and Nadal #4.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:30 PM
The USO and Wimbledon are both guilty in this regard. Mind you, I'm sure that Henman and Roddick would still win matches ;)

If you're refering to draw-fixing, I don't really believe that happens. And the US Open doesn't mess with seeds.

They do favor their players, but not blantantly with seedings and such... that's what I meant. It's normal to favor your country's players, you just shouldn't basically cheat for them.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:31 PM
I think many hard-core Wimbledon fans are annoyed by it myself included.
Jez did the math in another thread, and it looks almost certain that Roddick will be seeded #2 and Nadal #4.

If that's true, it's totally pathetic. Yes Roddick has done pretty well there, but Hewitt is a former champion and thus he deserves to have his seeding remain intact.

Roddick did make the finals last year, but I doubt they would go out of their way to increase Nalbandian's seeding.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:32 PM
Basically I want Federer and Roddick in the same half :p

blosson
06-06-2005, 10:32 PM
I agree Wimbledon does whatever they can in order for Henman to get the best possible seed and that's not fair. However, clay courters are yet to prove they can play on grass. So far it's been like 27/28 years a clay courter does not make the Wimbledon final. If Nadal gets to the quarters of so this year, I'm sure he will leave his mark and get the respect deserved.

At the other hand, it would make sense for RG to start seeding the players according to past results.

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:33 PM
If you're refering to draw-fixing, I don't really believe that happens. And the US Open doesn't mess with seeds.

They do favor their players, but not blantantly with seedings and such... that's what I meant. It's normal to favor your country's players, you just shouldn't basically cheat for them.

I wasn't talking about match fixing, I was talking about like... everything else you can possibly do.

Haute
06-06-2005, 10:34 PM
Seeding Nadal #2 for Wimbledon makes just about as much sense as seeding Roddick #2 for Roland Garros...

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:34 PM
If that's true, it's totally pathetic. Yes Roddick has done pretty well there, but Hewitt is a former champion and thus he deserves to have his seeding remain intact.

Roddick did make the finals last year, but I doubt they would go out of their way to increase Nalbandian's seeding.

They wouldn't go out of their way to do it, but Nalbandian did have a higher seeding one year if I'm not mistaken ;)

As for Roddick Hewitt, as I said : what happens with them probably has nothing to do with them. I really don't think the seeding committee gives a fuck where they fall. It's all about the people behind them.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:35 PM
I agree Wimbledon does whatever they can in order for Henman to get the best possible seed and that's not fair. However, clay courters are yet to prove they can play on grass. So far it's been like 27/28 years a clay courter does not make the Wimbledon final. If Nadal gets to the quarters of so this year, I'm sure he will leave his mark and get the respect deserved.

At the other hand, it would make sense for RG to start seeding the players according to past results.

Well what is your definition of a "clay courter." Because if someone who does well on clay is a clay courter, then Borg is probably a good counterexample of your statement. He won RG and Wimbledon back to back how many times? Five?

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:35 PM
I agree Wimbledon does whatever they can in order for Henman to get the best possible seed and that's not fair. However, clay courters are yet to prove they can play on grass. So far it's been like 27/28 years a clay courter does not make the Wimbledon final. If Nadal gets to the quarters of so this year, I'm sure he will leave his mark and get the respect deserved.

At the other hand, it would make sense for RG to start seeding the players according to past results.
I disagree. I think that the seeding systems are garbage. I don't want RG using them. If my favourite slam is tainted by stupidity I will be highly annoyed :p

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:35 PM
Seeding Nadal #2 for Wimbledon makes just about as much sense as seeding Roddick #2 for Roland Garros...

I agree... especially considering he's ranked #3 :confused:

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:35 PM
Well what is your definition of a "clay courter." Because if someone who does well on clay is a clay courter, then Borg is probably a good counterexample of your statement. He won RG and Wimbledon back to back how many times? Five?
He doesn't count, he's not a Spanish speaker.

;)

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:36 PM
I agree... especially considering he's ranked #3 :confused:
:lol:

I love how people have already assumed that Nadal is going to blow as hard on grass as Costa :yeah: It goes to show where their biases are ;)

blosson
06-06-2005, 10:38 PM
I disagree. I think that the seeding systems are garbage. I don't want RG using them. If my favourite slam is tainted by stupidity I will be highly annoyed :p

I just think it would make sense if Coria or Gaudio were higher seeded at RG than Andy for example. I meant to seed players based on past results on clay.

the cat
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
If the French Open didn't bump Roddick's seeding down to accomidate the more proficent red clay court players why should Wimbledon drop Nadal's seeding down? that would be very unfair. And Nadal is playing singles and doubles on grass courts this week in Germnay when he should be taking the week off. He's amking an effort to play on grass just the way Roddick did on red clay. And that effort should be respected.

robinhood
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
If that's true, it's totally pathetic. Yes Roddick has done pretty well there, but Hewitt is a former champion and thus he deserves to have his seeding remain intact.

Roddick did make the finals last year, but I doubt they would go out of their way to increase Nalbandian's seeding.

Also in that other thread I am referring to, someone else pointed out that Wimbledon now only uses the grass court results from the past two years, not four years like they used to because they don't need to seed Sampras at #1 any more. :)

If that is true, then Hewitt suffers from his first round exit in 2003 and his 2002 win doesn't count at all in math.

And if I were a Wimby organizer and desperately wanted to help out Henman, I would start out by putting Federer and Hewitt in one half and Tim in the other, so for that reason alone Hewitt would get #3 seed.

Haute
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
I agree... especially considering he's ranked #3 :confused:

With Lleyton out, Roddick took his place as the #2 seed, but I was just saying that it does no justice to seed him #2 when he's never gotten past the third round.

BiancaUL
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
I don't mind seeding based partly on past performance at Wimby, just like I wouldn't mind it if RG started doing it on the red stuff as well.

The "normal" rankings don't always pan out merit-wise on those two surfaces... I don't see a problem with adjusting for players' surface specific deficiencies.

Haute
06-06-2005, 10:41 PM
He's amking an effort to play on grass just the way Roddick did on red clay. And that effort should be respected.

Does Houston even qualify as being a true clay court tournament? :lol:

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:41 PM
Also in that other thread I am referring to, someone else pointed out that Wimbledon now only uses the grass court results from the past two years, not four years like they used to because they don't need to seed Sampras at #1 any more. :)

If that is true, then Hewitt suffers from his first round exit in 2003 and his 2002 win doesn't count at all in math.

And if I were a Wimby organizer and desperately wanted to help out Henman, I would start out by putting Federer and Hewitt in one half and Tim in the other, so for that reason alone Hewitt would get #3 seed.

My concern isn't for Our Tim. He's going to lose early this year.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:42 PM
With Lleyton out, Roddick took his place as the #2 seed, but I was just saying that it does no justice to seed him #2 when he's never gotten past the third round.

Hun, dear, sweetie... you said that Nadal shouldn't be ranked #2... which is why I said I agree, because he's ranked #3.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:42 PM
He's amking an effort to play on grass just the way Roddick did on red clay. And that effort should be respected.

:haha:

blosson
06-06-2005, 10:43 PM
Well what is your definition of a "clay courter." Because if someone who does well on clay is a clay courter, then Borg is probably a good counterexample of your statement. He won RG and Wimbledon back to back how many times? Five?


Let me fix this, by "clay courter" player I meant players who have good results on clay only.

Haute
06-06-2005, 10:44 PM
2, 3...whatever, lol If he has a good run in Halle this week, maybe then he'll be closer to deserving a seeding that high on grass.

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:45 PM
I just think it would make sense if Coria or Gaudio were higher seeded at RG than Andy for example. I meant to seed players based on past results on clay.


I understand the arguments for the seeding systems at both slams, I just disagree with the entirely.

the cat
06-06-2005, 10:46 PM
Karol and Sol Apollo, what's so funny, Bugs Bunny? :confused: ;) And yes Sol Apollo, Houston is a real red clay court tournament. :yeah:

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 10:47 PM
Let me fix this, by "clay courter" player I meant players who have good results on clay only.
And who wold that apply to?

Aside form Puerta. And possibly Gaudio.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 10:50 PM
I agree Wimbledon does whatever they can in order for Henman to get the best possible seed and that's not fair. However, clay courters are yet to prove they can play on grass. So far it's been like 27/28 years a clay courter does not make the Wimbledon final. If Nadal gets to the quarters of so this year, I'm sure he will leave his mark and get the respect deserved.

At the other hand, it would make sense for RG to start seeding the players according to past results.
Let me fix this, by "clay courter" player I meant players who have good results on clay only.

You're begging the question. If a clay courter only has good results on clay, then one could never made the final. If he did, he would no longer be a clay courter.

blosson
06-06-2005, 10:57 PM
And who wold that apply to?

Aside form Puerta. And possibly Gaudio.


Chloe, we will never agree on this matter as my favourite season is your least favourite season.

There aren't that many playerr who grew up on clay who can reach the quarters of Wimbledon in the last few years. Simple like that. If Rafa or Coria or Guga proves they can do well on grass then we are talking. Until then I favour the seeding system based on past results of the relevant surface.

Scotso
06-06-2005, 11:03 PM
If Rafa or Coria or Guga proves they can do well on grass then we are talking. Until then I favour the seeding system based on past results of the relevant surface.

So you favor the system until it benefits the players you don't like? :p

blosson
06-06-2005, 11:11 PM
So you favor the system until it benefits the players you don't like? :p

Who said I don't like these players? Guga is my favourite player ever and am very sorry he's not doing well this year. I'm just excited about Nadal as anyone else is and I like Coria too. As I said before, I favor the seeding system according to past results on each surface due to surface consistency.

smucav
06-06-2005, 11:18 PM
Bob Larson's column this week has a section on the Wimbledon seeding:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780338&postcount=5

star
06-06-2005, 11:19 PM
I don't have any respect for them either, as far as seeding is concerned. I think the tennis world should be annoyed that they show such blatant favortism to their own players. Granted that's they only way they'll win matches, but still.

I haven't had any respect for them for a long long time. :)

Scotso
06-06-2005, 11:25 PM
If they put Safin ahead of Nadal I will boycott Wimbledon.

ys
06-06-2005, 11:28 PM
The only remote possibility that they might kick Nadal out of Top 4 is if by some miracle Safin wins Halle.

There is no way they seed Nadal higher than 4. Roddick should be #2. Obviously. Because he is the second best grasscourt player..

Chloe le Bopper
06-06-2005, 11:28 PM
There is nothing to put Safin ahead of Nadal on, unless I missed his awesome grasscourt results. Rafa has won almost as many grass matches (if not more) in the past two years as Marat and didn't even play last year ;)

Unless Marat wins Halle this week. Then whatever.

heya
06-06-2005, 11:31 PM
Davydenko beat Coria and Ferrero. Davydenko won the St. Poelten title.
Puerta did so well in Houston.
Davydenko and Puerta will make the French Open semifinals again.
I love all these guys.

Haute
06-06-2005, 11:31 PM
We may even have to consider that Marat won't play Wimbledon.

Dr. Laborious
06-06-2005, 11:44 PM
You're begging the question. If a clay courter only has good results on clay, then one could never made the final. If he did, he would no longer be a clay courter.

:worship:

PamV
06-07-2005, 12:10 AM
I am curious if Wimbledon will force Nadal to wear sleeves. As for the seeding.....what ever. I am used to Roger getting the toughest draws regardless of the seeding. A high seeding doesn't guarantee a better draw.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 12:51 AM
I agree... especially considering he's ranked #3 :confused:

Well if the number 2 ranked player didn't show and RG goes by the rankings, it is not that mathematically difficult to calculate that the number 3 ranked player will be seeded number 2.

Three minus one = two. Use a pencil, if necessary.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 12:53 AM
I don't have any respect for them either, as far as seeding is concerned. I think the tennis world should be annoyed that they show such blatant favortism to their own players. Granted that's they only way they'll win matches, but still.

What was so blatant?

Scotso
06-07-2005, 02:19 AM
Well if the number 2 ranked player didn't show and RG goes by the rankings, it is not that mathematically difficult to calculate that the number 3 ranked player will be seeded number 2.

Three minus one = two. Use a pencil, if necessary.

We were talking about Nadal and Wimbledon, hun.

Scotso
06-07-2005, 02:20 AM
The only remote possibility that they might kick Nadal out of Top 4 is if by some miracle Safin wins Halle.

There is no way they seed Nadal higher than 4. Roddick should be #2. Obviously. Because he is the second best grasscourt player..

That's debatable. He has a big serve, which helps him, but doesn't make him the second best grasscourt player. Last year, yes. This year? Who knows. If Lleyton is healthy he would beat Roddick.

Ace Tracker
06-07-2005, 02:28 AM
I think Tim would like his chances better against Nadal-Roddick than against the combo Federer-Hewitt (if healthy) on grass, so let's just wait and see what happens... ;)

Scotso
06-07-2005, 02:34 AM
Lleyton owns Tim :p

But he wouldn't beat any of those guys.

PamV
06-07-2005, 02:37 AM
"clay courter" or "clay court specialist" refers to players who devote more time to clay tournaments than any other surface. They have more success there than on other surfaces.

robinhood
06-07-2005, 03:07 AM
My Prediction:

Federer(1) and Hewitt(3) will be drawn in one half and Tim(7) in the other.
Tim will draw Nadal(4) in the quarters and beat him or whoever in the qfs.
He will face Roddick(2) in the semis and somehow win that match!

Then of course he will lose to Federer in the final.

If he does avoid early matches with Fed or Hewitt, but still doesn't manage to get through his half, it's hopeless.
I'd like to think that apart from those two, Henman is capable of beating others on his good day.

Hurley
06-07-2005, 05:34 AM
I doubt they would go out of their way to increase Nalbandian's seeding.

They didn't "go out of their way." Nalbandian's seed was raised because they followed the formula. If I'm not mistaken he was seeded above Tim whatever year it was when he had made the final the year before. They've been pretty good at sticking to their formula.

NYCtennisfan
06-07-2005, 06:34 AM
Personally, I like Wimbledon's seeding system. Sicne you have only a few tournaments on grass and really only a few good players on the surface, it makes sense to reseed them. I actually think they should do this for RG as well. Nadal should be the 4th seed for Wimbledon, LH the 3rd seed and AR the 2nd seed. If LH beats Roddick easily at Queens then maybe he should be the 2nd seed.

NATAS81
06-07-2005, 06:35 AM
Do you think Nadal should be the #1 seed for RG next year, if he remains in the top 3?

NYCtennisfan
06-07-2005, 06:36 AM
That's debatable. He has a big serve, which helps him, but doesn't make him the second best grasscourt player. Last year, yes. This year? Who knows. If Lleyton is healthy he would beat Roddick.

Roddick and LH are 2 and 2a on grass. If Roddick wins Queens again, he is definitely the 2nd best player on grass. I think he is right now but a another win at Queens would leave all doubts behind.

NYCtennisfan
06-07-2005, 06:36 AM
Do you think Nadal should be the #1 seed for RG next year, if he remains in the top 3?

Yes, depending on how the clay court season goes. If Ndadl dominates again, then yes, I would make him the #1 seed.

NATAS81
06-07-2005, 06:39 AM
Roddick and LH are 2 and 2a on grass. If Roddick wins Queens again, he is definitely the 2nd best player on grass. I think he is right now but a another win at Queens would leave all doubts behind.
Good call, Andy's chances are best he could hope for as Lleyton is coming off the slip-n-fall.

Roddick vs Ancic I presume.

NATAS81
06-07-2005, 06:40 AM
Yes, depending on how the clay court season goes. If Ndadl dominates again, then yes, I would make him the #1 seed.
Very fair, since there's no way he's gonna pass Roddick and Federer after grass/HC/indoor rolls around back to RG 06.

My RG 2006 seeding:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Safin
4. Gaudio
5. Coria

NYCtennisfan
06-07-2005, 06:47 AM
My RG 2006 seeding:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Safin
4. Gaudio
5. Coria
NATAS81 is offline Visit NATAS81's Blog! Photo in Profile! Add to NATAS81's Reputation Report Bad Post Report Bad Post

Looks good but you never know about Safin. If he is playing like he did this year before RG and his ranking isn't that high, then I would'nt put him up that high. I think JCF might be back by next clay season too. I don't know why, I just have that feeling.

NATAS81
06-07-2005, 06:50 AM
Yeah, too bad for JCF Davydenko is having his career best clay season and has ousted @ Hamburg by his clean game.

I think he's steadily improving and losing to Safin in 4 tough long sets is no reason to hit the panic button yet.

Davydenko, already in the top 10 just might creep his way into the top 5 seedings judging from his clay season.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 02:52 PM
We were talking about Nadal and Wimbledon, hun.

OK dear, but we are just confusing each other. For Wimbledon I think Nadal's ranking is 5 and they are not likely to move him up based on his past Wimbledon successes. He will not be in the top 4, unless he wins in the next couple of weeks.

Winston's Human
06-07-2005, 03:03 PM
If the French Open didn't bump Roddick's seeding down to accomidate the more proficent red clay court players why should Wimbledon drop Nadal's seeding down? that would be very unfair. And Nadal is playing singles and doubles on grass courts this week in Germnay when he should be taking the week off. He's amking an effort to play on grass just the way Roddick did on red clay. And that effort should be respected.

As a Roddick fan, I would not be upset if RG lowered his seeding to reflect his dismal European red clay record. I do not think it matters whether Andy is seeded #2, seeded #10 or seeded #32 given his inability to move past the second round.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 03:09 PM
What this thread needs is for someone to post the rankings on the date that will be used for Wimbledon seeding. I think it is May 9, when Nadal was not ranked in the top 4 and, if so, should not be part of the discussion anyway.

crouching
06-07-2005, 03:13 PM
Wimbledon, and every other tournament, uses the rankings on the week that the draw is made. This means that next week's published rankings (and grass points accrued thus far) will be used as the basis of the Wimbledon seedings

Horatio Caine
06-07-2005, 03:13 PM
I have set up a seedings thread in the Wimbledon forum, and as far as my calculations go, no matter how much fiddling is done with the formula, the top 4 are: -

1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Nadal

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 03:25 PM
Wimbledon, and every other tournament, uses the rankings on the week that the draw is made. This means that next week's published rankings (and grass points accrued thus far) will be used as the basis of the Wimbledon seedings

So, do they have an earlier ranking list for entry purposes and then use a more recent ranking list for seeding? And fiddle with grass court points over the last x years on top of all that?
Aaaaah, don't bother to answer, it is all too complicated. I think I will just enjoy the matches as they come.

crouching
06-07-2005, 03:34 PM
Every single tournament does this, without fail. It's not a Wimbledon thing.

1. Entry lists based on rankings SIX weeks prior to start of tournament.

2. Compile the main draw on the week before the start of the tournament. The published rankings on the Monday of that week will be used for the seeding of the draw.

Wimbledon does an extra step in determining the seeds - they use a fixed formula (for the particular year anyway) to award extra points to players based on their previous grass courts results.

It's not complicated at all.

crouching
06-07-2005, 03:47 PM
Wimbledon's seeds are always different from the actual order in the ATP Entry Rankings.

In the past they used to subjectively seed players, with no objective mathematical formula. In 2000, Corretja, Ferrero and Costa, were ranking 11, 13 and 15 on the week the seedings were determined. Back then the Slams only had 16 seeds. and none of them were seeded. The three of them protested. In the first round, Costa ended up drawing Krajicek, seeded 11 but ranked 25 and Corretja was to face Todd Martin.

In the end, Corretja and Costa boycotted the tournament and Ferrero made a very late withdrawl, claiming to have a "back injury".

At Wimbledon 2001, the Slams re-structured their seeding system to expand it to 32 seeds. The system they agreed was:

1. The 32 seeds must all come from the top 32-ranked players entered in the tournament, based on the rankings of the week of seedings.

2. The tournament reserves the right to re-order the seedings, regardless of ranking.

As I mentioned, Wimbledon now re-orders the seedings based on an objective mathematical formula. You can argue with personal opinions, but you can't argue with mathematics and proper numbers.

jtipson
06-07-2005, 04:20 PM
As I mentioned, Wimbledon now re-orders the seedings based on an objective mathematical formula. You can argue with personal opinions, but you can't argue with mathematics and proper numbers.

The only thing is that they change the formula each year to suit their purposes. But there's nothing to say that's not allowed.

*Ljubica*
06-07-2005, 04:23 PM
No matter which way people try to vindicate the Wimbledon seedings system, I still think it's totally wrong and yet another reason why I personally don't have any respect for the tournament either. In my opinion, it just seems yet another example of the AELTC thinking that they and their tournament are so much more important and prestigious than everything and everyone else :devil: The other 3 Grand Slams stick to the rankings for their seedings - you don't see the US Open "down-grading" Gaudio because he's not so good on hardcourts, nor the French giving Roddick a low seeding - so why should Wimbledon be different?

Consigliere
06-07-2005, 04:38 PM
In my opinion, it just seems yet another example of the AELTC thinking that they and their tournament are so much more important and prestigious than everything and everyone else

You speak the truth.

Scotso
06-07-2005, 06:02 PM
OK dear, but we are just confusing each other. For Wimbledon I think Nadal's ranking is 5 and they are not likely to move him up based on his past Wimbledon successes. He will not be in the top 4, unless he wins in the next couple of weeks.

No sweetie, he's already #3.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 06:06 PM
No sweetie, he's already #3.

Thanks to ''crouching'' I now understand.
The good news is the wise people at Wimbledon can seed Nada at 32.

Scotso
06-07-2005, 06:08 PM
No, they can't.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 06:08 PM
It's not complicated at all.

OK, thank you very much. So, they take the top 32 and then look for a formula that moves Henman up as much as possible. I like that.

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 06:11 PM
1. The 32 seeds must all come from the top 32-ranked players entered in the tournament, based on the rankings of the week of seedings.

2. The tournament reserves the right to re-order the seedings, regardless of ranking.


If I believe crouching, and I do, yes they can.

Scotso
06-07-2005, 06:13 PM
The ITF would crack the whip.

I seem to remember that an agreement a few years ago limited the # of spaces they can move someone.

GermanBoy
06-07-2005, 06:21 PM
I have a scary feeling that they may want to move Roddick to #2 and Nadal out of the top 4.

Please tell me they won't do this.

Please tell me they will do this... :D

GermanBoy
06-07-2005, 06:25 PM
I would suggest:

1. Federer, 2. Hewitt, 3. Roddick, 4. Safin (if he will play), 5. Henman (they will seed him as high as possible) and then.... :shrug:

crouching
06-07-2005, 07:19 PM
The ITF would crack the whip.

I seem to remember that an agreement a few years ago limited the # of spaces they can move someone.

Not at all.

The year that Henman came back from injury (2003), they applied the following formula:

Entry ranking points + 100% of previous 52 weeks grass points + 75% of previous 53-104 weeks grass points

Henman's ranking had dropped to 28 or 29 at that point, but with his bonus points from his 2002 and 2001 Wimbledon SFs and 2002 Queens final, he ended up with enough points to be seeded No. 10.

I remember in the same year Arnaud Clement got a huge boost too, moving from his ranking of 30 to being the No. 15 seed because of his bonus points from his 2002 s'Hertogenbosch final, Wimbledon 4th rounds in 2002 and 2001 and 2003 Halle SF. (Clement also reached the 2003 s'Hertogenbosch final)

I believe this seeding system is fair as it is universally applied to the seeded players. It's not as if only Henman and/or Rusedski are the sole beneficiaries of the subjective seeding. In the example above, Clement certainly deserved the No. 15 seed - he's reached the last 16 of Wimbledon twice in the last two years and had been playing well on the grass leading up to the tournament, and was certainly one of the top players on grass at the time. In fact, on that kind of form, he would have been expected to make it to the last 16.

I also believe this system is the best compromise. Wimbledon wishes to recognise good grass play while the players want their seedings to reflect their rankings. As long as they apply a consistent and reasonable methodology, and not use personal opinions, whims or fancies, I can't imagine why anyone should dispute the process. Certainly none of the players have complained since 2001.

MissPovaFan
06-07-2005, 07:24 PM
d personally prefer them to just seed as per the ATP Entry System.

Horatio Caine
06-07-2005, 07:25 PM
If I believe crouching, and I do, yes they can.

With all due respect, you are reading his views and not fully understanding them. I have explained the procedure many times already.

Nadal cannot be #32 - he will be top 4.

Henman cannot be top 4 - he will be somewhere between #6 - 8.

It isn't that hard to understand

buddyholly
06-07-2005, 11:01 PM
With all due respect, you are reading his views and not fully understanding them. I have explained the procedure many times already.

Although crouching did not make it clear whether he was giving his views or quoting Wimbledon officials:

''The tournament reserves the right to re-order the seedings, regardless of ranking.''

is not hard to understand either. I am not saying they would put Nadal at 32, but it seems they could. If you do not agree, better take up your argument with crouching.

GoranIvanisevic546346
06-08-2005, 12:45 AM
I think list would look like this>
1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Henman
5. Agassi
6. Nalbandian
7. Nadal
8. Ancic...

megadeth
06-08-2005, 12:53 AM
wimbledon has been known for messing with the seeding based on a player's success on grass and past wimbledons...

that's why some spanish players back in the 90's boycotted the event...

ys
06-08-2005, 01:06 AM
I have no problem with whatever Wimbledon does. Their corrections are always reasonable. It's not a problem that they do that.. It's rather a problem that Roland Garros doesn't.

Scotso
06-08-2005, 02:55 AM
You can agree with the Wimbledon seeding if you want, but calling it fair is pushing it. Especially considering they would just adjust the formula whenever it suits them.

They should stick to the rankings. They only really use this technique because British players play more on grass and it helps Our Tim.

oneandonlyhsn
06-08-2005, 02:57 AM
I actually like seeding based on the surface rather than just rankings. I mean hello having Roddick as the #2 seed for RG is uh dumb.

buddyholly
06-08-2005, 04:25 AM
Ah jeez, why don't they just throw 128 names in a hat and pull'em out at random. Nobody remembers anybody but the winner anyway, so going out in the first round is no less memorable than going out in the final.

crouching
06-08-2005, 07:49 AM
Although crouching did not make it clear whether he was giving his views or quoting Wimbledon officials:

''The tournament reserves the right to re-order the seedings, regardless of ranking.''

is not hard to understand either. I am not saying they would put Nadal at 32, but it seems they could. If you do not agree, better take up your argument with crouching.

Of course technically, they could put Nadal or anyone else as the No. 32 seed. Obviously they would have to justify it somehow - logically, mathematically etc. In which case they won't be able to provide any good reasons, so obviously that will never happen.

crouching
06-08-2005, 08:07 AM
You can agree with the Wimbledon seeding if you want, but calling it fair is pushing it. Especially considering they would just adjust the formula whenever it suits them.

They should stick to the rankings. They only really use this technique because British players play more on grass and it helps Our Tim.

The system is fair because it is universally and consistently applied, on a year-on-year basis, to all players. The system can only be considered unfair if it's applied to a select few players.

The basic formula hasn't changed much in the past 2 or 3 years. Remember they only started doing this in 2001, so perhaps there is still scope for refinement or further change so that they can employ the most suitable system.

In any case, British players outside the Top 32 aren't going to be helped by this system at all - they won't even be seeded. Even Greg Rusedski this year isn't going to be seeded as he'll end up in the mid-30s ranking next week at best, unless he wins Queens this week and the players ranked 28-37 all happen to have a terrible week and lose massive points.

In fact, I have shown that non-British players routinely get a better seeding than their ranking, i.e. Clement above, and also others such as Grosjean, Schalken, Bjorkman etc.

So I just guess the complaints only come about because certain people's non-favourites/favourites get bumped up/down because of their good/bad grass records.

Chloe le Bopper
06-08-2005, 08:13 AM
So I just guess the complaints only come about because certain people's non-favourites/favourites get bumped up/down because of their good/bad grass records.

This is about as logical as my concluding that the only people who like it are those whose favourites benefit from the system would be.

Thankfully for my sense of logic, I don't do that. Because it's illogical and a total kick in the pants to the other side of the debate, which I do believe has some merit. I just don't happen to agree with it.

Chloe le Bopper
06-08-2005, 08:16 AM
No matter which way people try to vindicate the Wimbledon seedings system, I still think it's totally wrong and yet another reason why I personally don't have any respect for the tournament either. In my opinion, it just seems yet another example of the AELTC thinking that they and their tournament are so much more important and prestigious than everything and everyone else :devil: The other 3 Grand Slams stick to the rankings for their seedings - you don't see the US Open "down-grading" Gaudio because he's not so good on hardcourts, nor the French giving Roddick a low seeding - so why should Wimbledon be different?

Their surface has become almost completely irrelevant, so they have to do something to give merit to their constant "Wimbledon is da shit, those other slams blow" BS. Being backwards is their way of "following tradition" and "being special".

That sound you all hear is me puking.

Chloe le Bopper
06-08-2005, 08:18 AM
I would suggest:

1. Federer, 2. Hewitt, 3. Roddick, 4. Safin (if he will play), 5. Henman (they will seed him as high as possible) and then.... :shrug:

Thank you, Mr Objective. Bumping out Nadal for Safin REALLY makes sense based on their grass results over the past couple years :retard:

SanTaureau Fan
06-08-2005, 10:41 PM
Well yeah, after 7 pages of "hon, sweetie and babe", we can all agree that there is something wrong with Wimbledon messing with seeds and other Slams not doing it.

Though that I don't blame it on Wimbledon, like ys, I don't think their corrections are that bad - and I don't think they only do it to favor Henman, even if it's one of the reasons.

So either all 4 Slams should use the cute little formula that Wimbledon uses (and not changing it every year), or all 4 Slams should go by the ranking. Can the ITF be more strict on rules and impose the Slams to have the same rules?

My opinion? Really, I just don't know. Roddick being number 2 at the French is a joke, and Nadal clearly should have been number 2 there. But at the same time, players work hard enough to get a ranking, it's insulting to them to mess with seeds.

For this Wimbledon, if they mess with seeds, it's a no brainer Roddick should be number 2.

NYCtennisfan
06-09-2005, 01:06 AM
The system is fair because it is universally and consistently applied, on a year-on-year basis, to all players. The system can only be considered unfair if it's applied to a select few players.

The basic formula hasn't changed much in the past 2 or 3 years. Remember they only started doing this in 2001, so perhaps there is still scope for refinement or further change so that they can employ the most suitable system.

In any case, British players outside the Top 32 aren't going to be helped by this system at all - they won't even be seeded. Even Greg Rusedski this year isn't going to be seeded as he'll end up in the mid-30s ranking next week at best, unless he wins Queens this week and the players ranked 28-37 all happen to have a terrible week and lose massive points.

In fact, I have shown that non-British players routinely get a better seeding than their ranking, i.e. Clement above, and also others such as Grosjean, Schalken, Bjorkman etc.

So I just guess the complaints only come about because certain people's non-favourites/favourites get bumped up/down because of their good/bad grass records.

Well said.

Adman
06-09-2005, 10:09 AM
I think that the top 4 seeds should be:
1: Roger Federer
2: Lleyton Hewitt
3: Raphael Nadal
4: Andy Roddick (Unfortunatly)

Winston's Human
06-10-2005, 05:59 PM
Will Hewitt's QF loss at Queens affect the Wimbledon seeding?

Horatio Caine
06-10-2005, 06:02 PM
Well he won't be #2 now...but he had a slim chance anyway really.

alfonsojose
06-10-2005, 06:28 PM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2005/calendar2006.asp

"Hard court: 28
Clay court: 24
Grass: 5
Indoor Synthetic: 7
Outdoor: 47
Indoor: 17"

I think it's fair to give a boost to results per surface for all slams. The factor should be bigger if the surface is played less. I think the 75% extra points for Wimby are too much. Half of the percent of tournaments played in other surfaces could be a good number (46% for grass, % 31 for clay and % 28 for hard)

jtipson
06-10-2005, 06:57 PM
Will Hewitt's QF loss at Queens affect the Wimbledon seeding?

Nope. He wouldn't have been number two seed even if he had won the tournament and Roddick had lost his first match.

gooner88
06-10-2005, 07:59 PM
1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Safin (After his run in Halle this week)

jtipson
06-10-2005, 08:06 PM
Unless they change the formula, Safin's not getting that fourth seed, because Nadal is too far ahead of him. Wonder if that will really piss him off and he'll decide not to play.

eyeballer
06-10-2005, 08:43 PM
I have a scary feeling that they may want to move Roddick to #2 and Nadal out of the top 4.

Please tell me they won't do this.

Oh....Dear.

tangerine_dream
06-12-2005, 05:29 PM
I think Wimbledon has the right idea: seed players according to their results on the surface. Roland Garros should do this, too. All slams should do this. It just makes more sense to me. I think it would encourage players to adapt their games to different surfaces.

Hewitt-Roddick seeding quandary
Leo Schlink
13jun05

ANDY Roddick's push towards a third Queen's Club crown has complicated Lleyton Hewitt's hopes of retaining the Wimbledon second seeding.

The All England Club seeding committee faces one of its most difficult decisions in years when it meets this week to consider the claims of Hewitt and Roddick.

As the only major tournament to form its own seedings, Wimbledon will decide where Hewitt and Roddick land in the draw.

And with world No. 1 Roger Federer determined to avenge semi-final defeats at the Australian and French Opens, the second seeding carries the massive bonus of ensuring a clash with Federer would come only in the final.

By reaching his third Queen's Club decider in as many seasons, Roddick has consolidated a fabulous grasscourt record, which Wimbledon officials regard with favour.

Although fourth in the world behind Federer, Hewitt and Roland Garros champion Rafael Nadal, Roddick's performance on grass in the past three seasons is bettered only by Federer.

Hewitt has won three Queen's Club titles (2000-02) -- the only man apart from John McEnroe to win three in a row -- but Roddick has won the past two.

Using Wimbledon's complex weighting formula, which involves adding a player's ranking points to their grasscourt points in the past two years, Roddick would move ahead of Hewitt in the seedings.

But Wimbledon retains the right to alter its seedings subjectively, and it is felt it might be too controversial to demote Hewitt to three and Nadal to four to accommodate Roddick.

The American overcame Czech Radek Stepanek 6-3 2-6 6-2 yesterday to reach the Queen's final against Hewitt's quarter-final conqueror Ivo Karlovic, who stopped Thomas Johansson 6-4 7-6 (9-7) in the semis.

Delighted at his form, Roddick paid scant heed to Hewitt's premature departure.

"When you're coming back from being off for a while, you want to hit balls and you want to get into a rhythm," Roddick said.

"You're not going to get that with Karlovic, so I doubt Lleyton's too concerned or too worried. I think he's right up there as far as contenders go."

Hewitt practised with coach Roger Rasheed and Davis Cup captain John Fitzgerald for two hours yesterday.

He remains confident of mounting a serious challenge for his second Wimbledon crown from next Monday.

star
06-12-2005, 06:29 PM
Ah jeez, why don't they just throw 128 names in a hat and pull'em out at random. Nobody remembers anybody but the winner anyway, so going out in the first round is no less memorable than going out in the final.

In terms of money and ranking, it's a hell of a lot more memorable to go out in the final. :)

Afterall, we're talking about professional players here. They care about their pocketbooks.

We have Wimbledon to thank for the dreadful 32 seeds at all slams. That's enough for me to bear a grudge.

star
06-12-2005, 06:31 PM
The system is fair because it is universally and consistently applied, on a year-on-year basis, to all players.

The AELTC could just punch every player in the face as they arrived at the club and call it fair based on your reasoning. :)

robinhood
06-12-2005, 08:29 PM
And with world No. 1 Roger Federer determined to avenge semi-final defeats at the Australian and French Opens, the second seeding carries the massive bonus of ensuring a clash with Federer would come only in the final.

But #3 seed still has 50% chance of avoiding Rog until the final, right? If Lleyton doesn't get the second seed, I think it'll be fun to watch the Aussie media holding its collective breath the moment the draw is announced to see where Lleyton lands like they did in Australia in Jan.

But Wimbledon retains the right to alter its seedings subjectively, and it is felt it might be too controversial to demote Hewitt to three and Nadal to four to accommodate Roddick.

I don't get this part. If they are going by their own formula, Andy has clearly been the second best player on grass. Why would that cause any controversy? Sure Lleyton is a former champ, but it's his fault that he hasn't produced great results the last two years.

Delighted at his form, Roddick paid scant heed to Hewitt's premature departure.

"When you're coming back from being off for a while, you want to hit balls and you want to get into a rhythm," Roddick said.

"You're not going to get that with Karlovic, so I doubt Lleyton's too concerned or too worried. I think he's right up there as far as contenders go."

In other words, ":haha: In your face, mate!" :devil: