Wimbledon seeds announced :) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon seeds announced :)

Yoel and co.
06-15-2005, 02:22 PM
1. FEDERER, Roger (SUI)
2. RODDICK, Andy (USA)
3. HEWITT, Lleyton (AUS)
4. NADAL, Rafael (ESP)
5. SAFIN, Marat (RUS)
6. HENMAN, Tim (GBR)
7. CANAS, Guillermo (ARG)
8. DAVYDENKO, Nikolay (RUS)
9. GROSJEAN, Sebastien (FRA)
10. ANCIC, Mario (CRO)
11. JOHANSSON, Joachim (SWE)
12. JOHANSSON, Thomas (SWE)
13. ROBREDO, Tommy (ESP)
14. STEPANEK, Radek (CZE)
15. CORIA, Guillermo (ARG)
16. PUERTA, Mariano (ARG)
17. FERRER, David (ESP)
18. NALBANDIAN, David (ARG)
19. HAAS, Tommy (GER)
20. LJUBICIC, Ivan (CRO)
21. GONZALEZ, Fernando (CHI)
22. HRBATY, Dominik (SVK)
23. FERRERO, Juan Carlos (ESP)
24. DENT, Taylor (USA)
25. KIEFER, Nicolas (GER)
26. LOPEZ, Feliciano (ESP)
27. GASQUET, Richard (FRA)
28. NOVAK, Jiri (CZE)
29. MASSU, Nicolas (CHI)
30. SODERLING, Robin (SWE)
31. YOUZHNY, Mikhail (RUS)
32. VOLANDRI, Filippo (ITA)

Golfnduck
06-15-2005, 02:24 PM
Thanks for posting the seeds :hug:

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 02:24 PM
sucks for Grosjean that they couldn't quite bump him into the top 8. :(

Alvarillo
06-15-2005, 02:30 PM
Ferrero Nº23 :eek: :)

NATAS81
06-15-2005, 02:40 PM
Davydenko seeded ahead of the Johanssons :rolleyes:

jtipson
06-15-2005, 02:42 PM
All as expected apart from Kiefer/Dent.

Angle Queen
06-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Henman at 6. :lol: Oh, no, there was no fiddling with that.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Davydenko seeded ahead of the Johanssons :rolleyes:He's hundreds of points ahead of them in the rankings and the Johanssons' grass results haven't been THAT good to make up that big of a difference. PimPim hasn't done that much on grass, surprisingly, and ToJo was bumped up 8 spots above his ranking.

jtipson, how come the Dent/Kiefer positioning wasn't expected? I mean if they announced the formula, how could it be a surprise? lol

Five
06-15-2005, 02:46 PM
Davydenko seeded ahead of the Johanssons :rolleyes:
hes curently ranked higher than any of the two Johanssons :rolleyes:

jtipson
06-15-2005, 02:47 PM
He's hundreds of points ahead of them in the rankings and the Johanssons' grass results haven't been THAT good to make up that big of a difference. PimPim hasn't done that much on grass, surprisingly, and ToJo was bumped up 8 spots above his ranking.

jtipson, how come the Dent/Kiefer positioning wasn't expected?

On my calculations Kiefer was supposed to get 24th, but Dent got it instead. It was very close: 1281.25 for Nicolas, and 1280.00 for Taylor. Perhaps I missed out a Newport result for Dent or something ;)

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 02:47 PM
Canas Number 7 seed?
Before ancic?
strange

jtipson
06-15-2005, 02:48 PM
Henman at 6. :lol: Oh, no, there was no fiddling with that.

No indeed, that was according to formula. Would have been seventh if Agassi hadn't pulled out.

Angle Queen
06-15-2005, 02:51 PM
No indeed, that was according to formula. Would have been seventh if Agassi hadn't pulled out.Yeah, tipster. After looking at the full entry ranking points, who's in and who's out...I suppose it's expected. It's just that it seems so odd. ;) I wish him well. :)

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 02:56 PM
On my calculations Kiefer was supposed to get 24th, but Dent got it instead. It was very close: 1281.25 for Nicolas, and 1280.00 for Taylor. Perhaps I missed out a Newport result for Dent or something ;)Ah, gotcha. Surprisingly, though, Taylor hasn't played Newport for past 2 years (he's entered this year, however), even though he won in 2002! but that wouldn't count to his grass points for this year's Wimby, right?

Anyway, interesting stuff. Thanks :)

jtipson
06-15-2005, 02:56 PM
On my calculations Kiefer was supposed to get 24th, but Dent got it instead. It was very close: 1281.25 for Nicolas, and 1280.00 for Taylor. Perhaps I missed out a Newport result for Dent or something ;)

Dent actually had second round at Queen's with no bye, so 5 points instead of 10, giving grasscourt points of 1285. Wow, one win made the difference between playing a top 8 player in the third round of Wimbledon and being safe ;)

Aleksa's Laydee
06-15-2005, 03:22 PM
Thomas :D

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Well if Wimbledon wants to seed Roddick ahead of Hewitt, they better rig the draw so they meet in the semi's to see who really is the better grass court player.

VingaRafel
06-15-2005, 03:38 PM
Well if Wimbledon wants to seed Roddick ahead of Hewitt, they better rig the draw so they meet in the semi's to see who really is the better grass court player.

My take is that they want them to play in the finals to have a re-match of last year.

I bet you anything they want a Roger/Nadal semifinal (provided Nadal makes it that far) so they can hype it beyond imagination as Roger's revenge :) It would actually be fun to watch.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 03:42 PM
They get to fiddle with the seedings, not the draw. They don't get to pick the finals or the semifinal matchups or anything, plus this is all with the large assumption that these players will all MAKE it this far.

rofe
06-15-2005, 03:45 PM
It is interesting to me that Nadal's seeded 4th even though he has not displayed any grass prowess over the last two years. I thought Wimbly's seeding was (to a large extent) based on performance on grass.

Having said that, I would love a Fed-Nadal matchup even though I feel Nadal may not reach the semis this year.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 03:48 PM
It is interesting to me that Nadal's seeded 4th even though he has not displayed any grass prowess over the last two years. I thought Wimbly's seeding was (to a large extent) based on performance on grass.Yes, it is based on grass performance. But they can't make up for huge gaps in the rankings. Rafa's a few hundred points ahead of Marat, and Marat's grass record isn't particularly any better than Rafa's is. So him being #4 makes perfect sense.

jtipson
06-15-2005, 03:58 PM
They get to fiddle with the seedings, not the draw. They don't get to pick the finals or the semifinal matchups or anything, plus this is all with the large assumption that these players will all MAKE it this far.

Yes, I agree that the draw is (supposed to be) random. Won't be able to help having a tiny sneaking suspicion about the randomness if Henman gets put in Nadal's quarter though, and if that's in Roddick's half.

smucav
06-15-2005, 03:59 PM
It is interesting to me that Nadal's seeded 4th even though he has not displayed any grass prowess over the last two years. I thought Wimbly's seeding was (to a large extent) based on performance on grass.http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=1835273&postcount=18

But as you can see from jtipson's calculations, Nadal is 302 formula points (& 405 entry points) ahead of Safin. Given that neither of them has many grass court results from the last two years, Nadal's substantial lead in the entry race helped him keep his lead over Safin. Safin reaching the final in Halle didn't effect the numbers very much (& was canceled out by Nadal's 2003 Wimbledon results) so given the Roland Garros results, it was fairly impossible for him to close that big of a gap.

NATAS81
06-15-2005, 04:02 PM
Dent should be seeded higher than Puerta.

NATAS81
06-15-2005, 04:02 PM
I agree with the top 5, except I would put Safin ahead of Nadal.

NATAS81
06-15-2005, 04:04 PM
He's hundreds of points ahead of them in the rankings and the Johanssons' grass results haven't been THAT good to make up that big of a difference. PimPim hasn't done that much on grass, surprisingly, and ToJo was bumped up 8 spots above his ranking.
He still doesn't have the serve to compete and is tons of ranking points behind them on hardcourts, which is most similar.

You can't base seedings on one or two grass tournaments.

NATAS81
06-15-2005, 04:05 PM
hes curently ranked higher than any of the two Johanssons :rolleyes:
His grass play isn't :rolleyes:

roisin
06-15-2005, 04:09 PM
Woo for JC :banana:

*shock* henman 6th :rolleyes: maybe they think he'll actually win it this year? :shrug: :p

jtipson
06-15-2005, 04:10 PM
You can't base seedings on one or two grass tournaments.

It's mostly based on the ATP ranking, with a slight grass weighting. Davydenko has hardly any points on grass (no wins in the last 2 years) but it's his performance elsewhere that's the main reason for his seeding. The others below him haven't done well enough on grass to catch him.

It's a pity that Grosjean was drawn in Roddick's quarter at Queen's - because with one more win he would have easily overtaken Davydenko for that eighth seed, and that would have been more appropriate imo.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 04:12 PM
You can't base seedings on one or two grass tournaments.They're not, they're based on 2 years' worth of tournaments. Actually, more, since the first week of this year's grass season counted as well. It's a mathematical formula and aside from the discretion that Wimbledon uses in utilizing a formula at all, there is no discretion in how the formula comes out - we can see this is true because jtipson was dead on with his calculations which used the formula published plainly and clearly on the Wimbledon website.

It's a pity that Grosjean was drawn in Roddick's quarter at Queen's - because with one more win he would have easily overtaken Davydenko for that eighth seed, and that would have been more appropriate imo.I totally agree. :(

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 04:16 PM
My take is that they want them to play in the finals to have a re-match of last year.

I bet you anything they want a Roger/Nadal semifinal (provided Nadal makes it that far) so they can hype it beyond imagination as Roger's revenge :) It would actually be fun to watch.

Nadal is going nowhere, nor is Safin. There won't be much suspense in Roger's half, even Hewitt is a joke to him.

Nocko
06-15-2005, 04:18 PM
Well, I think it has category,3&4, 5-8,9-16,17-32 in each category, number doesn't mean because they are seeded by lot. but look at a few guys... :rolleyes:
entry rank
1. FEDERER, Roger (SUI) 1
2. RODDICK, Andy (USA) 4 :lol: don't meet rogi until final
3. HEWITT, Lleyton (AUS) 2 :sad: 50-50to meet Rogi at SF
4. NADAL, Rafael (ESP) 3
5. SAFIN, Marat (RUS) 5
6. HENMAN, Tim (GBR) 9
7. CANAS, Guillermo (ARG) 8
8. DAVYDENKO, Nikolay (RUS) 7
9. GROSJEAN, Sebastien (FRA) 26 :lol: should be 16-32
10. ANCIC, Mario (CRO) 21 :lol: should be 16-32
11. JOHANSSON, Joachim (SWE) 10
12. JOHANSSON, Thomas (SWE) 18 :rolleyes: this jump is no meaning
13. ROBREDO, Tommy (ESP) 13
14. STEPANEK, Radek (CZE) 15
15. CORIA, Guillermo (ARG) 14
16. PUERTA, Mariano (ARG) 11
17. FERRER, David (ESP) 16 :sad: should be 9-16!!!
18. NALBANDIAN, David (ARG) 19
19. HAAS, Tommy (GER) 22
20. LJUBICIC, Ivan (CRO) 17 :sad: should be 9-16!!!
21. GONZALEZ, Fernando (CHI) 23
22. HRBATY, Dominik (SVK) 24
23. FERRERO, Juan Carlos (ESP) 31 :rolleyes: this jump is no meaning
24. DENT, Taylor (USA) 30 :rolleyes: this jump is no meaning
25. KIEFER, Nicolas (GER) 25
26. LOPEZ, Feliciano (ESP) 33
27. GASQUET, Richard (FRA) 27
28. NOVAK, Jiri (CZE) 28
29. MASSU, Nicolas (CHI) 29
30. SODERLING, Robin (SWE) 35 Lucky guy because 3 seeds are out!
31. YOUZHNY, Mikhail (RUS) 34
32. VOLANDRI, Filippo (ITA)[/QUOTE] 32

Agassi 6 out due to injury
Gaudio 12??????
Moya 20????


mmmm, what do you think? I think Gro is spoiled. and Lubicic :sad:
I'm not sure about Pandy and Lleyton..... :scratch:

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 04:19 PM
As for Henman, I'm tired of him, he didn't do shit in his prime, what changes now that he's aging? Except to waste more time on the BBC. And to the guy who said the draw is random, yeah right! You'll see just how random it is when you see Henman's draw.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 04:20 PM
How is Grosjean spoiled? The formula uses results from the past 2 years and Grosjean has without a doubt had the 3rd best grasscourt results over that period. I just think it's too bad he couldn't have gone up just one more spot.

rofe
06-15-2005, 04:22 PM
Yes, it is based on grass performance. But they can't make up for huge gaps in the rankings. Rafa's a few hundred points ahead of Marat, and Marat's grass record isn't particularly any better than Rafa's is. So him being #4 makes perfect sense.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

rofe
06-15-2005, 04:26 PM
Anyone know when the draw comes out?

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 04:27 PM
Anyone know when the draw comes out?

tomorrow

jtipson
06-15-2005, 04:28 PM
10:30 am. Will be sitting with fingers poised ;)

Skyward
06-15-2005, 04:34 PM
And to the guy who said the draw is random, yeah right! You'll see just how random it is when you see Henman's draw.

If Hewitt is in Henman's quarter, I'll believe in the random theory. :silly:

tennischick
06-15-2005, 04:35 PM
from yahoo news:

Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam tournament which doesn't strictly adhere to the world rankings to determine its seedings. The All England Club takes a player's grass-court experience and record into account.

The men's seedings offered some surprises.

Nadal, a 19-year-old Spanish clay-court expert, has played only one grass-court match since winning the French Open earlier this month for his first Grand Slam title. He lost in the first round in Halle, Germany, to Alexander Waske. He pulled out of this week's Ordina Open in the Netherlands, saying he needed rest.

Nadal's only appearance at Wimbledon was in 2003 when he reached the third round.

Britain's Tim Henman, a four-time semifinalist, was seeded No. 6, three places above his ranking.

Sebastien Grosjean, a semifinalist the past two years, was the biggest beneficiary. The Frenchman, ranked No. 26, was bumped up 17 places to No. 9.

Croatia's Mario Ancic, a semifinalist last year and ranked 21st, was seeded 10th. Sweden's Thomas Johansson, who reached the third round last year and has never advanced past the fourth round in eight attempts at Wimbledon, was seeded 12th. He's ranked 18th.

Australia's Alicia Molik, ranked ninth by the WTA, didn't make the list of 32 seeds. Jennifer Capriati, who is ranked 27th, also wasn't seeded. Capriati missed the French Open because of injury but has not formally withdrawn from Wimbledon.

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 04:37 PM
mario could have been seeded higher
canas at number 7 and mario at 10? it seems a bit out of place

Pea
06-15-2005, 04:40 PM
What a huge jump for Sebastien. All the way 9th:lol: but couldn't move him just a place higher? :rolleyes:

Auscon
06-15-2005, 04:49 PM
Fingers crossed Lleyton wins the coin toss, and Rafa ends up on Rogers side

Sorry Rafa :)

tennischick
06-15-2005, 04:51 PM
Fingers crossed Lleyton wins the coin toss, and Rafa ends up on Rogers side

Sorry Rafa :)
i wouldn't mind that at all. Rogi needs some easy matches on his way to the final ;)

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 04:55 PM
Hewitt is an easy match, the only difficulty is deciding if it should be a 6-0 set or give him a game.

Julio1974
06-15-2005, 05:06 PM
mario could have been seeded higher
canas at number 7 and mario at 10? it seems a bit out of place

Why is out of place? Cañas has done well on all surfaces. He even won a MS on hard surface (Toronto). What has Ancic won to deserve that? All he did was to reach a SF last year.

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Why is out of place? Cañas has done well on all surfaces. He even won a MS on hard surface (Toronto). What has Ancic won to deserve that? All he did was to reach a SF last year.

mario had a semi at wimbledon, semi at bosch and a r16 at queens , canas had one r128 (wimbledon) and r16 at h'bosch
wimbledon gives huge weight to grass performance. which is how Seb's seeding is explained

Auscon
06-15-2005, 05:23 PM
Hewitt is an easy match, the only difficulty is deciding if it should be a 6-0 set or give him a game.

not this tournament

if Roger faces Lleyton at Wimbledon this year, it'll either be Roger's last match, or if he's to win it, it'll go the distance :tennis:

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 05:32 PM
not this tournament

if Roger faces Lleyton at Wimbledon this year, it'll either be Roger's last match, or if he's to win it, it'll go the distance :tennis:

why do you say that? I'm curious, because lleyton has not shown his best form recently so why would you think it would go the distance?

Julio1974
06-15-2005, 05:40 PM
mario had a semi at wimbledon, semi at bosch and a r16 at queens , canas had one r128 (wimbledon) and r16 at h'bosch
wimbledon gives huge weight to grass performance. which is how Seb's seeding is explained

Cañas also had SF last week in Halle.

willie
06-15-2005, 05:59 PM
good seed for andy!!!
GO A-ROD and obviously GO LLEYTON!!!!!

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 06:02 PM
Cañas also had SF last week in Halle.
but surely a SF at wimbledon is viewed as a much more impressive grass performance than an SF at halle (and mario has also had an SF at halle last year). i dont think there is any doubt that mario's grass performance is better than canas's

Winston's Human
06-15-2005, 06:22 PM
but surely a SF at wimbledon is viewed as a much more impressive grass performance than an SF at halle (and mario has also had an SF at halle last year). i dont think there is any doubt that mario's grass performance is better than canas's

Mario's grass performance is better than Cañas' grass performance. However, Cañas' overall ranking is so far ahead of Ancic's overall ranking that Ancic's superior grass performance cannot make up the difference.

Winston's Human
06-15-2005, 06:23 PM
I do not understand why people have so much trouble understanding the Wimbledon seeding process. It is not based on grass performance alone. Rather, it is based on the actual computer ranking with a bonus for superior grass play. However, that bonus can only lift a player so high above his actual computer ranking.

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 06:31 PM
I do not understand why people have so much trouble understanding the Wimbledon seeding process. It is not based on grass performance alone. Rather, it is based on the actual computer ranking with a bonus for superior grass play. However, that bonus can only lift a player so high above his actual computer ranking.

What exactly was it that lifted Ferrero and Dent?

vincayou
06-15-2005, 06:31 PM
That's really bad for Richard. 27. Bad. He got Nadal at the French, I have the feeling that he will get Federer this time.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 06:33 PM
I do not understand why people have so much trouble understanding the Wimbledon seeding process. It is not based on grass performance alone. Rather, it is based on the actual computer ranking with a bonus for superior grass play. However, that bonus can only lift a player so high above his actual computer ranking. :worship:

jtipson
06-15-2005, 06:35 PM
What exactly was it that lifted Ferrero and Dent?

Ferrero: Wimbledon 4th round 2003, 3rd round 2004 and QF at Halle last week
Dent: Wimbledon 3rd round 2004, SF at Nottingham? 2004 and winning one match at Queen's last week (that's what got him into the 17-24, that single match).

Papakori
06-15-2005, 06:38 PM
Good luck Tojo and Radek! :)

Scotso
06-15-2005, 06:43 PM
I agree with Mario's seeding. Henman's bump doesn't mean anything because 5-8 doesn't matter. His draw will tell the story on if they're fixing it for him or not.

I'm pretty annoyed that Roddick got #2, but whatever.

Grosjean's bump is laughable, and if it hadn't happened, Ferrer would be top 16 :sad:

Haute
06-15-2005, 06:46 PM
What does the 17-24 seed range mean in terms of meeting other seeds? What round would that happen, and which seeds would they meet first?

SUKTUEN
06-15-2005, 06:50 PM
Yes~!!!

Roger will see Andy in Final~!!

Winston's Human
06-15-2005, 06:54 PM
What does the 17-24 seed range mean in terms of meeting other seeds? What round would that happen, and which seeds would they meet first?

17-24 seeds meet 9-16 seeds in the third round.

Julio1974
06-15-2005, 07:07 PM
but surely a SF at wimbledon is viewed as a much more impressive grass performance than an SF at halle (and mario has also had an SF at halle last year). i dont think there is any doubt that mario's grass performance is better than canas's

But not good enough to put Ancic ahead of Cañas, at least for Wimbledom organisers. Besides, it's not simply a question of who is better on grass. The system is much more complex. Otherwise, Cañas should be ahead of Nadal, and Nalbandian should be ahead of Ancic because he reached the final.

Lee
06-15-2005, 07:10 PM
from yahoo news:

Australia's Alicia Molik, ranked ninth by the WTA, didn't make the list of 32 seeds. Jennifer Capriati, who is ranked 27th, also wasn't seeded. Capriati missed the French Open because of injury but has not formally withdrawn from Wimbledon.

I think Molik is not seeded because she's not playing :p She has inner ear infection and withdraw.

mitalidas
06-15-2005, 07:30 PM
But not good enough to put Ancic ahead of Cañas, at least for Wimbledom organisers. Besides, it's not simply a question of who is better on grass. The system is much more complex. Otherwise, Cañas should be ahead of Nadal, and Nalbandian should be ahead of Ancic because he reached the final.

well there is no question the Wimbledon organizers have an algorithm and apply it thats why nadal is 4 despite his nonexistent "results" on grass
but its not like everyone has to agree with this algorithm and canas ahead of ancic is one that i disagree with
I would put lleyton ahead of andy as well although i know many people think it is appropriate

Chloe le Bopper
06-15-2005, 07:47 PM
Ferrero's promotion is officially the most hilarious thing about the seeds this year.

Chloe le Bopper
06-15-2005, 07:50 PM
Not only was Ferrero promoted, but he was promoted ahead of Lopez! Hee. I know how this happened, I'm just saying.

Leo
06-15-2005, 08:00 PM
So ridiculous! Roddick being seeded ahead of Hewitt is not right. And they fiddled around so much with the lower ranked players, as well.

I don't understand why they bumped up the likes of Henman and Grosjean in the men's seedings when they didn't move V.Williams or Clijsters on the women's side at all... in fact, they went entirely with the women's entry system rankings. Where's the logic?

Wimbledon sucks. Hard court tennis in a little over 2 weeks. :cool:

Leo
06-15-2005, 08:01 PM
Ferrero's promotion is officially the most hilarious thing about the seeds this year.

More like the most logical. Quarterfinals in Halle, hello!!!!! :D

Leo
06-15-2005, 08:02 PM
I think Molik is not seeded because she's not playing :p She has inner ear infection and withdraw.

:lol: :haha: That's too funny.

I read another article that made it seem surprising that "former champ" Henin-Hardenne was only seeded #7.

dukeblue5
06-15-2005, 08:16 PM
So ridiculous! Roddick being seeded ahead of Hewitt is not right. And they fiddled around so much with the lower ranked players, as well.


Last two years:

Roddick: 2005- Queens winner 2004- Wimbledon finalist, Queens winner, 2003- Wimbledon Semis, Queens winner (26-2).

Hewitt: 2005- Queens quarters 2004- Wimbledon quarters, Queens semis, 2003- Wimbledon 1st round, Queens quarters (11-5).

Makes sense to me..

Leo
06-15-2005, 08:26 PM
[QUOTE=Leo]So ridiculous! Roddick being seeded ahead of Hewitt is not right. And they fiddled around so much with the lower ranked players, as well.
QUOTE]

Last two years:

Roddick: 2005- Queens winner 2004- Wimbledon finalist, Queens winner, 2003- Wimbledon Semis, Queens winner (26-2).

Hewitt: 2005- Queens quarters 2004- Wimbledon quarters, Queens semis, 2003- Wimbledon 1st round, Queens quarters (11-5).

Makes sense to me..

Sure, Roddick has had better results on grass the past two years, but he's not significantly better on this surface and he's not a Wimbledon champ - Hewitt is. I'd understand it more if it was Nadal who was moved from #2 to #3 because he hasn't done anything on this surface yet. Hewitt is ranked higher than Roddick and he's proven to be competent enough on grass, so I think he should have stayed as #2. It's especially mind-boggling considering that they switched those two players and some other guys based on recent performance while they let the rankings decide seeding placement with other players and they let who-knows-what decide it with others (Ferrero at #23?). And, on the women's side, V.Williams and Clijsters were not upped at all when they should have been if the seeding committee was consistent and used the same logic all the time. There's just no rhyme or reason with them. This, to me, is an obvious attempt by Wimbledon organizers to get a Federer/Roddick final again and I don't agree.

Hopefully Roddick and Hewitt will still be on the same side of the draw.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 08:31 PM
They did not "tinker" with anything - they use a mathematical formula and just plug in the numbers. 2-4 are all only 50 points apart. This concept is not that difficult to understand.

Russian elephant
06-15-2005, 08:40 PM
Karlovic can be seeded in top10 now indeed...
He got the sense of service and grass...

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 08:50 PM
Here's an article from the ATP site that explains things very plainly and clearly.
----------------------
Roddick Earns Second Seed at Wimbledon

World No. 4 Andy Roddick has been seeded second at Wimbledon, creating the prospect of a repeat of the 2004 final with Roger Federer, who will again be the top seed. With the All England Club applying a formula – which rewards grass court performances of the past two years - to this week’s INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking, Roddick leapfrogged World No. 2 Lleyton Hewitt and World No. 3 Rafael Nadal to claim the second seeding.

With a mere 50 INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking points separating Hewitt (3,640 points), Nadal (3,600) and Roddick (3,590), the American was elevated to the second seeding after Wimbledon applied its grass court formula (explained below).

Roddick, who also was seeded second last year, benefited from reaching last year’s Wimbledon final, winning last week's Stella Artois Championships at Queen’s and reaching the Wimbledon semifinals in 2003.

Hewitt, the 2002 Wimbledon champion, has been seeded third and new Roland Garros champion Nadal has been seeded fourth. By the toss of a coin, either Hewitt or Nadal will find himself in Federer’s half of the draw; the other will be in Roddick’s half.

World No. 5 Marat Safin has been seeded fifth but World No. 9 Tim Henman has been elevated to the sixth seed. No. 9 seed Sebastien Grosjean (No. 26 in the INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking) and 10th seed Mario Ancic (No. 21) – both semifinalists last year - made the biggest jumps among the seeded players.

Federer, the two-time defending champion, is seeded first in a Grand Slam tournament for the sixth consecutive time, dating back to Roland Garros 2004. Federer will take a 29-match winning streak on grass into the tournament.

If top seed Federer and second seed Roddick meet in the final it would be the first time since 1988-90 (Edberg and Becker) that the returning Wimbledon champion and finalist met in the final in two consecutive years.

How the All England Club Calculates its Seeds

The world’s Top 32 participating players according to last Monday’s (June 13) INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking earn a seeding. Because three players in that Top 32 – No. 6 Andre Agassi, No. 12 Gaston Gaudio and No. 20 Carlos Moya – withdrew from the tournament before the seedings were announced, No. 33 Feliciano Lopez, No. 34 Mikhail Youzhny and No. 35 Robin Soderling move into the group of 32 players who earn a seeding.

The All England Club then applies a formula to re-order the 32 players who earn a seed. The formula is:

· Take INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking points at Monday, June 13, 2005
· Add 100% of points earned for all grass court tournaments in the previous 12 months
· Add 75% of points earned at a player’s best grass court event in the 12 months before that.

The men's singles draw will be made Thursday. (Check ATPtennis.com for a full report on the winners and losers from the draw ceremony.)

The men’s doubles is seeded entirely according to the ATP Entry Ranking.

Below is a look at the Wimbledon seeds and their current INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking.

Seed/Player/INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking
1. FEDERER, Roger (SUI) 1
2. RODDICK, Andy (USA) 4
3. HEWITT, Lleyton (AUS) 2
4. NADAL, Rafael (ESP) 3
5. SAFIN, Marat (RUS) 5
6. HENMAN, Tim (GBR) 9
7. CANAS, Guillermo (ARG) 8
8. DAVYDENKO, Nikolay (RUS) 7
9. GROSJEAN, Sebastien (FRA) 26
10. ANCIC, Mario (CRO) 21
11. JOHANSSON, Joachim (SWE) 10
12. JOHANSSON, Thomas (SWE) 18
13. ROBREDO, Tommy (ESP) 13
14. STEPANEK, Radek (CZE) 15
15. CORIA, Guillermo (ARG) 14
16. PUERTA, Mariano (ARG) 11
17. FERRER, David (ESP) 16
18. NALBANDIAN, David (ARG) 19
19. HAAS, Tommy (GER) 22
20. LJUBICIC, Ivan (CRO) 17
21. GONZALEZ, Fernando (CHI) 23
22. HRBATY, Dominik (SVK) 24
23. FERRERO, Juan Carlos (ESP) 31
24. DENT, Taylor (USA) 30
25. KIEFER, Nicolas (GER) 25
26. LOPEZ, Feliciano (ESP) 33
27. GASQUET, Richard (FRA) 27
28. NOVAK, Jiri (CZE) 28
29. MASSU, Nicolas (CHI) 29
30. SODERLING, Robin (SWE) 35
31. YOUZHNY, Mikhail (RUS) 34
32. VOLANDRI, Filippo (ITA) 32

smucav
06-15-2005, 09:02 PM
Here's an article from the ATP site that explains things very plainly and clearly.Also, the seeding procedure/formula for both men & women was posted on the Wimbledon website late Monday:
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/seeds.html

Jtipson & others did the basic math: there were no deviations from the stated procedure:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=1839248&postcount=1

Julio1974
06-15-2005, 09:06 PM
Wimbledom is a joke...

Skyward
06-15-2005, 09:27 PM
They did not "tinker" with anything - they use a mathematical formula and just plug in the numbers. 2-4 are all only 50 points apart. This concept is not that difficult to understand.

Well, the concept is not difficult to understand, but who said that the formula was right.

Angle Queen
06-15-2005, 09:34 PM
Well, the concept is not difficult to understand, but who said that the formula was right.Finally, a point to discuss. What do you think is wrong with it? The percentages? The number of years they go back? Or is it that results on the surface shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 09:35 PM
Also, the seeding procedure/formula for both men & women was posted on the Wimbledon website late Monday:
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/seeds.html

Jtipson & others did the basic math: there were no deviations from the stated procedure:
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=1839248&postcount=1Y'know, some people need to read things THREE Times before they can grasp it ;)

Skyward, discussing the merits of using the formula and the exact formula used is one thing, and it's a perfectly valid and interesting discussion, but if you read what some people are saying, after all these posts about the formula and the math involved, they are still saying that the committee exercised discretion over the seeds.

tennischick
06-15-2005, 09:44 PM
They did not "tinker" with anything - they use a mathematical formula and just plug in the numbers. 2-4 are all only 50 points apart. This concept is not that difficult to understand.
it is not at all difficult to understand that "applying a formula" and "tinkering" may in the end be exactly the same thing. ;)

NYCtennisfan
06-15-2005, 09:45 PM
Looks about right.

Deboogle!.
06-15-2005, 09:48 PM
TC, my point is that there was no discretion involved. they didn't just say "oh let's put Roddick at 2 and Henman at 6 because we want to" They have a formula, which was published beforehand, and they put the numbers in, and this is what came out. And moreover, it is the exact same formula as used last year, so there's no way to accuse them of trying to fix something just for this year.

croat123
06-15-2005, 10:08 PM
so, had karlovic sacked up and stayed in the top40, he'd be seeded :o oh well, there's only 3 seeded players that i see him losing too anyways :p (and one of those is 50-50 :p)

:angel:

Skyward
06-15-2005, 10:17 PM
Finally, a point to discuss. What do you think is wrong with it? The percentages? The number of years they go back?

I'm not saying that numbers and percentages are wrong/right. I just want to see a proof that this formula reflects current power on grass (if this is a goal). If it doesn't, what's the point of using it?

robinhood
06-15-2005, 10:22 PM
I'm not saying that numbers and percentages are wrong/right. I just want to see a proof that this formula reflects current power on grass ( if this is a goal). If it doesn't, what's the point of using it?

Whatever explanation/excuse they come up with, this formula is all for Henman.
Look how they seeded women based on their computer rankings alone.

Skyward
06-15-2005, 10:25 PM
Whatever explanation/excuse they come up with, this formula is all for Henman.
Look how they seeded women based on their computer rankings alone.

LOL. Will this formula be abandoned when Henman retires?

smucav
06-15-2005, 10:28 PM
LOL. Will this formula be abandoned when Henman retires?No, because by then Andy Murray will be the beneficiary.

Daniel
06-15-2005, 10:41 PM
Roger :D

guida
06-15-2005, 11:14 PM
No, because by then Andy Murray will be the beneficiary.

:haha: :haha: You're probably right. :lol::lol:

bad gambler
06-15-2005, 11:29 PM
c'mon rusty

uNIVERSE mAN
06-15-2005, 11:42 PM
Karlovic is going to lose in one of the first two rounds.

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:29 AM
All pretty much as expected although I did think that Seb Grosjkean was supposed to get #6 and Henman #7. Either way, no - one can complain that Henman got bumped up - the calculations of Jtipson roughly match the list as posted on page #1.

Now for the draw! :devil: Henman, please be in Roddick's half!! :lol:

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:32 AM
Karlovic is going to lose in one of the first two rounds.

I actually side with him...I think he is more than capable of winning. It took Federer to dispose of him last year. Without Federer in his half, who knows how far he can go? :shrug: I just hope Henman isn't anywhere near him!! :lol:

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 12:47 AM
I don't think you guys realize that they actually have a specific formula to determine who gets each seed. Its not like they pick from a hat or something like that.

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:49 AM
I don't think you guys realize that they actually have a specific formula to determine who gets each seed. Its not like they pick from a hat or something like that.

Believe me the sensible ones among us do...it is just those that can't take Henman being bumped up (deservedly) etc etc

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 12:51 AM
Now for the draw! :devil: Henman, please be in Roddick's half!! :lol:He was last year - some good that did him ;) And anyway, considering Tim's trouble at Wimbledon and how well Andy's played on grass the past couple years, is being in Andy's half really THAT much better :p

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:54 AM
He was last year - some good that did him ;)

Let's move Ljubicic, Ancic, Karlovic, Grosjean, Dent ( :rolleyes: ) Philippoussis, Murray, Arthurs, Beck, Tojo, Pimpim, Olivier Rochus, Nadal, Mirnyi, Carlsen etc from his half. I wonder if anyone could beat him before the SF? :lol:

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 12:54 AM
He was last year - some good that did him ;) And anyway, considering Tim's trouble at Wimbledon and how well Andy's played on grass the past couple years, is being in Andy's half really THAT much better :p

Besides even if Tim beats Roddick he will most likely have to play Federer in the Finals and its not like Tim owns Roddick anymore.

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:56 AM
He was last year - some good that did him ;) And anyway, considering Tim's trouble at Wimbledon and how well Andy's played on grass the past couple years, is being in Andy's half really THAT much better :p

I think it is - he is beaten before he even takes to court with Hewitt (I think secretly Hewitt threatens him/beats him with his oversized d*ck). Federer would beat him, maybe not in straight sets but he would. Besides, Henman has too much respect for him now. Tim has done okay against Roddick although i admit that a couple of his wins were lucky...but with a crowd on his side he might do it. Roddick is 1-dimensional. Tim can cope with it although it would be a hell of a battle. :p

Horatio Caine
06-16-2005, 12:57 AM
Besides even if Tim beats Roddick he will most likely have to play Federer in the Finals and its not like Tim owns Roddick anymore.

Believe me - Henman fans and probably Henman himself would settle for a final right now ;)

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 01:20 AM
Roddick is 1-dimensional.Oh jezzie, I thought you'd gotten past this rubbish :p :o

and nkhera, Tim never 'owned' Andy anyway - even when he had a more one-sided h2h against him, all of their matches were extremely close (except the one Andy won easily:p) and Andy had match points in two of the ones he lost.

And anyway! Is there REALLY such a good thing as a good draw for Tim? once he gets to the QF or SF it seems like almost every year he loses to someone he arguably shouldn't anyway. :p:lol:

Leo
06-16-2005, 01:34 AM
They did not "tinker" with anything - they use a mathematical formula and just plug in the numbers. 2-4 are all only 50 points apart. This concept is not that difficult to understand.

So why didn't they use the same for the women? There's nothing consistent or sensible about it.

Leo
06-16-2005, 01:38 AM
Y'know, some people need to read things THREE Times before they can grasp it ;)

Skyward, discussing the merits of using the formula and the exact formula used is one thing, and it's a perfectly valid and interesting discussion, but if you read what some people are saying, after all these posts about the formula and the math involved, they are still saying that the committee exercised discretion over the seeds.

The "formula" is the tool that the committee uses to tinker the seeds with.

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 01:44 AM
The "formula" is the tool that the committee uses to tinker the seeds with.

No, its a set formula every year. Do you not understand this?

Skyward
06-16-2005, 01:47 AM
Y'know, some people need to read things THREE Times before they can grasp it ;)

Skyward, discussing the merits of using the formula and the exact formula used is one thing, and it's a perfectly valid and interesting discussion, but if you read what some people are saying, after all these posts about the formula and the math involved, they are still saying that the committee exercised discretion over the seeds.

Oh, sorry, it didn't cross my mind that I was supposed to open a new topic in order to look at this formula under a different angle.

robinhood
06-16-2005, 01:55 AM
I don't understand why the women are seeded based on their computer rankings alone. The only explanation I can think of is that no female Brit benefits from it whereas with men we all know how the formula bodes well for them.
Unless there is a clear and convincing explanation as to why they did not apply their formula to determine women's seeds, this formula will remain "a tool to tinker seeds with" in some people's mind, mine included.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 01:55 AM
No, its a set formula every year. Do you not understand this?

no sorry- it is not the same set formula every year
it has been routinely changed. so Leo's point is valid. the organizing committee can decide how they want to tweak the seedings and devise the formula accordingly

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:05 AM
Cash disputes Hewitt's demotion

Former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash has hit out at All England organisers for dropping Australian Lleyton Hewitt to number three seed in this year's event.
The 2002 Wimbledon champion is second in the world rankings, but organisers handed the number two seeding to world number four Andy Roddick.

"I think it's a real slap in the face," Cash told BBC Sport.

"It's not fair that they are changing it around - the guys work all year to get rankings to win the Grand Slams."

Second seed Roddick, who lost in last year's final to Roger Federer, cannot meet the Swiss top seed until the final of this year's tournament.

But Hewitt could meet the strong favourite in the semi-finals.

"Lleyton Hewitt is the number two player in the world," said Cash.

"He should have stayed number two. He is a Wimbledon champion. He is the 2005 Australian Open finalist.

"It has certainly given Roddick a boost that I don't think he deserves over Hewitt. The rankings are there for a reason. They are fair."

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 02:06 AM
no sorry- it is not the same set formula every year
it has been routinely changed. so Leo's point is valid. the organizing committee can decide how they want to tweak the seedings and devise the formula accordingly

Sorry than that is my mistake.

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 02:07 AM
Oh, sorry, it didn't cross my mind that I was supposed to open a new topic in order to look at this formula under a different angle.No, you weren't. I'm just saying that while what YOU say makes sense, if you read what some OTHERS here say, it is as if they still don't understand what's going on. I was merely pointing that out, that's all.

mitalidas, that's right, they have altered the formula in the past, but this year it was not only the same as last year, but it was actually published on the wimbledon website BEFORE the seeds were announced. Therefore, this was no surprise. And if you looked at the threads where jez, jtipson, and others did calculations even before this year's formula had been announced (it was Jez I believe who did the possibilities under all of the prior known formulas), many of these alterations would still have been the same no matter what formula was used.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:07 AM
Sorry than that is my mistake.
c'est cool
it is actually the mistake of those freaking organizers
this tournament always makes nongrass players feel second class. i just have never agreed with it. Didn't think the day would come when I would agree with Pat cash. I do think lleyton should be number 2

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 02:15 AM
c'est cool
it is actually the mistake of those freaking organizers
this tournament always makes nongrass players feel second class. i just have never agreed with it. Didn't think the day would come when I would agree with Pat cash. I do think lleyton should be number 2

I agree though it did help out my favorite player so I really can't complain, but its not fair.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:16 AM
mitalidas, that's right, they have altered the formula in the past, but this year it was not only the same as last year, but it was actually published on the wimbledon website BEFORE the seeds were announced. .

i thought the formula was only posted monday night- -after queens and halle were over? is that not correct?
which is to say that they are free to choose a formula that suits their messing with the seedings at least to some extent (especially in the close numbers between 2 and 3, and 4 and 5).

if they announced it before last week, like in the beginning of the year, I stand corrected --but I dont think they did. And if they claim to be so transparent, why is it they wait till 3 days before the draw to publish their algorithm? all hogwash

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 02:23 AM
Considering I don't believe they've ever published it beforehand before this year, it's an improvement. Plus, even without last week's results, very little would have changed anyway. That's how great some of the disparities were.

Where's all the whining about Grosjean being seeded a full SEVENTEEN Spots above his ranking? Just curious.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:25 AM
Considering I don't believe they've ever published it beforehand before this year, it's an improvement. Plus, even without last week's results, very little would have changed anyway. That's how great some of the disparities were.

well honestly, the real issue was about hewitt versus roddick. they are both genuine contenders, both have problems with Roger, and their ranking disparities were small. So their seedings depended crucially on the formulas

For both it would be a boon to be drawn on teh side opposite to Roger's and this is why the formula question is more problematic than ever --the other seedings and how they trump the ATP rankings is not probably going to make enormous difference

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:28 AM
Where's all the whining about Grosjean being seeded a full SEVENTEEN Spots above his ranking? Just curious.

one can safely say that he is not one of the true genuine contenders. like i said above --- the ranking versus seeding has become a real issue because by trumping the ATP rankings, the organizers are going to (probably) have a much bigger hand in who is more likely to get to the finals between roddick and hewitt

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 02:35 AM
If the person who has had the third best grass results over the past 2 years is not a genuine contender on that surface's slam, then mens tennis is in more trouble than any of us thought.

The point is, accepting the fact that Wimbledon uses a formula to change the seeding, there is basically NO formula that they could have come up with that could have made up for the HUGE disparity in grass performance between Andy and Lleyton over the past few years when they are only 50 points apart in the rankings. Even if they had used an older formula that went back more years and had taken Lleyton's 2002 title into account somehow, it probably would not have been enough to keep him at #2, because all the previous formulas gave much more weight to recent grasscourt results over the earlier results.

So if they had done something like, say, include 100% of a person's best EVER grass result, regardless of when it occurred, that would have been a radically new formula from anything they had ever done, and that would be even worse than simply picking up the same formula from last year, wouldn't it? But there's one good reason why this is SUCH a big deal. It's Andy. :)

It's a fascinating and amusing thought about what this discussion would have been like if the situation had been opposite. I can take a guess.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:43 AM
If the person who has had the third best grass results over the past 2 years is not a genuine contender on that surface's slam, then mens tennis is in more trouble than any of us thought.
.

honestly - you really think that grosjean stands a better chance than hewitt?? he is third best partly as an artefact of his draw last year (and may be of the year before as well). if he had drawn in roger's quarter and hewitt in henman's perhaps this third-best-thing would not be bandied about as much. i think tennis is in more trouble when labels like this are taken a tad too seriously

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:47 AM
The point is, accepting the fact that Wimbledon uses a formula to change the seeding, there is basically NO formula that they could have come up with that could have made up for the HUGE disparity in grass performance between Andy and Lleyton over the past few years when they are only 50 points apart in the rankings. Even if they had used an older formula that went back more years and .

I don't know if I would go so far as to say "huge" disparity in grass performance!

Hewitt: WINNER Queen's 2000, 2001, 2002, SF 2004; WINNER 's-Hertogenbosch 2001
WINNER Wimbledon 2002, QF Wimbledon 2004

roddick: WINNER Queen's 2003-2005,
Wimbledon SF 2003 and Finalist 2004

this sounds like a "HUGE disparity in grass performance" to you? :rolleyes:

Skyward
06-16-2005, 02:48 AM
I still don't understand what this formula is for. How come Puerta is the 16th best player on grass? :shrug: He hasn't played on grass since his 1st round loss at Wimbledon 2001.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 02:51 AM
I still don't understand what this formula is for. How come Puerta is the 16th best player on grass? :shrug: He hasn't played on grass since his 1st round loss at Wimbledon 2001.

it ensures to the organizers there are people that would lose to Henman when needed :)
just goes to show --dont mess with the rankings. its so damn elitist to do this when other slams dont.

Henman reaching the SF of the FO is evidence that nonspecialists can do well on alien surfaces. just freaking let the rankings be

Jimena
06-16-2005, 02:56 AM
I don't know if I would go so far as to say "huge" disparity in grass performance!

Hewitt: WINNER Queen's 2000, 2001, 2002, SF 2004; WINNER 's-Hertogenbosch 2001
WINNER Wimbledon 2002, QF Wimbledon 2004

roddick: WINNER Queen's 2003-2005,
Wimbledon SF 2003 and Finalist 2004

this sounds like a "HUGE disparity in grass performance" to you? :rolleyes:

But this is the thing. You're ignoring 2003. And 2003 does count towards the seeding, while 2000, 2001 and 2002 do not, IIRC. So if you take into consideration the last two years, yes Roddick has indeed been a better grass court player than Hewitt.

I don't agree with Pat Cash. It does not surprise me at all. If Lleyton had been the benneficiary of the seeding formula, Cash wouldn't have opened his big fat mouth.

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 03:00 AM
But this is the thing. You're ignoring 2003. And 2003 does count towards the seeding, while 2000, 2001 and 2002 do not, IIRC. So if you take into consideration the last two years, yes Roddick has indeed been a better grass court player than Hewitt.

I don't agree with Pat Cash. It does not surprise me at all. If Lleyton had been the benneficiary of the seeding formula, Cash wouldn't have opened his big fat mouth.EXACTLY.

mitalidas, you are missing the point entirely. The point is that for the past several years, the seeding formula HEAVILY FAVORED the previous year's result, and then graded off as it got less and less recent. As I already said, using ANY OF THE PREVIOUS formulas, the #2 and #3 seeds this year would have come out the same. So taking THIS into account, yes, over the past 2 years, there has been a huge disparity in their grass performance.

The seeding has never taken more than 2 years' worth of results into much account, this is indisputable. And what I am saying to you is that if they HAD done that this year then it would have been a far more alarming departure from what they had previously done than simply just keeping the SAME formula as last year.

Skyward, the formula can't - and does not pretend to - make up for the points gaps in the ATP rankings. I'm sure the committee is not stupid and they know if they had a formula that altered things too much that there would be more backlash again.

By the way, last year, hewitt was ranked 10th and seeded 7 by the same formula. That's a big difference being inside or outside the top 8. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:03 AM
But this is the thing. You're ignoring 2003. And 2003 does count towards the seeding, while 2000, 2001 and 2002 do not, IIRC. So if you take into consideration the last two years, yes Roddick has indeed been a better grass court player than Hewitt.

I don't agree with Pat Cash. It does not surprise me at all. If Lleyton had been the benneficiary of the seeding formula, Cash wouldn't have opened his big fat mouth.

I said I wouldn't go so far based on their records to say "HUGE disparity" in performance. there is no doubt that the first round loss in 03 plays a role here.

And this is exactly what the discussion here is about ---whether this formula is appropriate. Whether a first round loss in 03 should count so much that it nulls three Queen wins, plus a Wimbledon title, plus another grass title. no one is saying that the formula has been wrongly applied. it is an issue about the formula itself
and when two players, who are otherwise very close in the rankings, and whose fortunes at this tournament can vary so much depending on these arbitrary formulas, it is certainly a contentious point

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:06 AM
EXACTLY
By the way, last year, hewitt was ranked 10th and seeded 7 by the same formula. That's a big difference being inside or outside the top 8. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

sorry -- it did hurt him to be seeded 7! he drew Roger and lost didn't he
lets look back and see who got 10. maybe that person emerged in the other half, where lleyton stood a better chance of reaching the final

(Also, you wrote about "taking the last FEW years", not "taking the last TWO years" into account, that there was this great disparity in their performance)

Skyward
06-16-2005, 03:07 AM
Skyward, the formula can't - and does not pretend to - make up for the points gaps in the ATP rankings. I'm sure the committee is not stupid and they know if they had a formula that altered things too much that there would be more backlash again.



If the formula can't come up even with 16 best players on grass, it's a useless manipulative tool. Abandon it, and go with the rankings.

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 03:08 AM
I said I wouldn't go so far based on their records to say "HUGE disparity" in performance. there is no doubt that the first round loss in 03 plays a role here.

And this is exactly what the discussion here is about ---whether this formula is appropriate. Whether a first round loss in 03 should count so much that it nulls three Queen wins, plus a Wimbledon title, plus another grass title. no one is saying that the formula has been wrongly applied. it is an issue about the formula itself
and when two players, who are otherwise very close in the rankings, and whose fortunes at this tournament can vary so much depending on these arbitrary formulas, it is certainly a contentious point


but the person who got second also has 3 queens victories (in fact the latest 3) and he doesn't play in any other grass tournaments plus he finished second best last year which is more important imho that winning a wimbledon 3 years ago.

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 03:08 AM
sorry -- it did hurt him to be seeded 7! he drew Roger and lost didn't he
lets look back and see who got 10. maybe that person emerged in the other half, where lleyton stood a better chance of reaching the final

(Also, you wrote about "taking the last FEW years", not "taking the last TWO years" into account, that there was this great disparity in their performance)It would potentially have hurt him even worse being seeded 10 but good job missing the point yet AGAIN. Point is being seeded 10, he could've had Roger even earlier than the QF. Are you honestly going to sit here and try to say that the SAME FORMULA did not help Hewitt last year by putting him into the top 8? You can't look at last year's draw retrospectively and say well in that particular instance being seeded 10 would've been better than being seeded 8. Hindsight is 20/20 and the discussion about this year is currently beind held before knowledge of the draw. That's absolutely hysterical.

What if Andy gets Karlovic in the first round tomorrow. Following your logic, suddenly it'll be a good thing that Hewitt is seeded 3 and not 2.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:15 AM
It would potentially have hurt him even worse being seeded 10 but good job missing the point yet AGAIN. Point is being seeded 10, he could've had Roger even earlier than the QF. Are you honestly going to sit here and try to say that the SAME FORMULA did not help Hewitt last year by putting him into the top 8? You can't look at last year's draw retrospectively and say well in that particular instance being seeded 10 would've been better than being seeded 8. Hindsight is 20/20 and the discussion about this year is currently beind held before knowledge of the draw. That's absolutely hysterical.
.
are you just crazy or something? can you see not that by being seeded 10th he might not have been in the same half as Roger? He could have very well been the other finalist if he came up through the other half, which would definitely help him. Look back on your post! Didn't you just say: can't bite the hand that feeds him? I'm saying that was WRONG. Open your head and stop pontificating to others who don't agree with you -- you are the one who is missing the point. Good job in doing so. Yet again.


What if Andy gets Karlovic in the first round tomorrow. Following your logic, suddenly it'll be a good thing that Hewitt is seeded 3 and not 2.

Good to see that you too have no faith in roddick's bashing "tennis ability" that you have fear of his facing karlovic! what is karlovic seeded? Oh hes not even in the top 32! :lol:

Done discussing this with you. Enjoy your Wimbledon 2005! :wavey:

nkhera1
06-16-2005, 03:21 AM
The thing is that even though they do have a formula its not really stupid or anything like that. Sure changing it around every year may be kind of dumb but it just rewards players who play on grass and everybody knows what the formula is most likely going to be. Its not a surprise to anyone and if they wanted to they could play more grass tournaments in order to get a better ranking.

Hurley
06-16-2005, 03:21 AM
are you just crazy or something? can you see not that by being seeded 10th he might not have been in the same half as Roger?


Uhhhhh can you not see he could have stayed seeded 7th and ALSO not been in the same half as Roger? :confused:

Socket
06-16-2005, 03:24 AM
My only objection is Wimbledon's use of a formula -- any formula -- is that Roland Garros doesn't. So, the guys who play best on clay courts can get screwed twice. They won't get the benefits of their superior clay court results to get seeded above their Entry Rankings at RG, BUT -- double whammy -- they can get demoted from their Entry Rankings at Wimbledon because of their poor grass court results. How is that fair to them?

I think that the ITF should require that if Wimbledon uses a formula for seedings, then Roland Garros should, also. Both use them or neither does. After all, if Roddick gets the advantages of good grass court results at Wimbledon to bump up two places in the seedings, then his seeding at RG should correspondingly suffer the disadvantages of all those second-round losses in past years. That's only fair.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:25 AM
Uhhhhh can you not see he could have stayed seeded 7th and ALSO not been in the same half as Roger? :confused:

Uhhhh can you not see that he could have been seeded lower without this formula and ALSO not been in the same half as Roger? :confused:

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 03:27 AM
Very worthwhile points, Socket, and there are certainly good points on both sides of that. Just to be clear, I am not really offering an opinion on the stuff you have mentioned, I am only discussing this from the perspective of: accepting that Wimbledon uses a seeding formula, that this was basically the only feasible result that was going to come out this year, regardless of which formula was used, and that to somehow seed Lleyton at #2 would actually have required doing something much MORE arbitrary than what they have done the past four years.

Hurley
06-16-2005, 03:28 AM
Right. So...it doesn't matter what seed he was. It matters how the draw goes. The only way he was guaranteed to NOT be on Roger's side was to have been seeded 2.

So...thanks for proving my point.

tangerine_dream
06-16-2005, 03:28 AM
:haha: Wow. Some people have absolutely zero reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Poor Deb, looks like you got more than your fill of Dumbojuice tonight. :hug: :cuckoo:

I'll say it again. Wow.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:28 AM
My only objection is Wimbledon's use of a formula -- any formula -- is that Roland Garros doesn't. So, the guys who play best on clay courts can get screwed twice. They won't get the benefits of their superior clay court results to get seeded above their Entry Rankings at RG, BUT -- double whammy -- they can get demoted from their Entry Rankings because of their poor grass court results. How is that fair to them?

I think that the ITF should require that if Wimbledon uses a formula for seedings, then Roland Garros should, also. Both use them or neither does. After all, if Roddick gets the advantages of good grass court results at Wimbledon to bump up two places in the seedings, then his seeding at RG should correspondingly suffer the disadvantages of all those second-round losses in past years. That's only fair.

I completely agree.
I posted a couple pages ago that seeing as henman can do well at the FO and in previous years players deemed clay specialists like ferrero could do well at the USO, means there is every possibility for a nongrass player (whatever that means) to do well at Wimbledon

it is extremely inapproriate, especially at the top where such arbitrariness can mean the difference between reaching a final, or winning the thing, and not. which of course, will affect their seeding the following year and so on. for instance, lleyton's meeting Roger in the QF last year and losing it has affected his seeding this year. And this seeding will probably affect (Adversely most people would assume) his seeding next year.

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:30 AM
Right. So...it doesn't matter what seed he was. It matters how the draw goes. The only way he was guaranteed to NOT be on Roger's side was to have been seeded 2.

So...thanks for proving my point.

man, take a look at what was written. i said look back and see where the Number 10 seeded guy was drawn. If that guy was drawn in the half away from Roger's it goes to show that the seeding system at Wimbledon DID affect lleyton's prospects. Understand, sweetheart? so your brainless theory was not proved. sorry. Now, go get your milk and cookies and go to bed :hugs:

Skyward
06-16-2005, 03:31 AM
but it just rewards players who play on grass and everybody knows what the formula is most likely going to be. Its not a surprise to anyone and if they wanted to they could play more grass tournaments in order to get a better ranking.

No. Otherwise, Karlovic would be seeded, and Puerta'd miss the boat.

Deboogle!.
06-16-2005, 03:34 AM
No. Otherwise, Karlovic would be seeded, and Puerta'd miss the boat.well they used to do stuff like this before the near-riots from the Spaniards in 2001. So what exists now is somewhat of a compromise. They agree to seed the top 32 players who are entered into the tournament and they are allowed to use a formula to readjust the seeding. So they USED to do a more complete "Grass-court ranking" and were basically forced to change. And this is what resulted.

tennischick
06-16-2005, 03:36 AM
The "formula" is the tool that the committee uses to tinker the seeds with.
my point exactly ;)

mitalidas
06-16-2005, 03:39 AM
my point exactly ;)

mine too. although i may have made the point after yours TC. i didn't read a few pages in between. maybe all they want is to see Roger inflict the same treatment in the final this year, as he did last year.

Scotso
06-16-2005, 07:08 AM
I think the most annoying thing is that they don't mess with the women's seedings like they do with the men. If there was a top British woman, I think they would.

As Henman would say "where's the consistancy?!"

World Beater
06-16-2005, 07:18 AM
I think the most annoying thing is that they don't mess with the women's seedings like they do with the men. If there was a top British woman, I think they would.

As Henman would say "where's the consistancy?!"

They bumped up ancic and grosjean...they are not british...or are they just trying to be fair since they bumped up timmy?

Scotso
06-16-2005, 07:19 AM
If they just bumped up Timmy it would be an obvious insult that would lead to boycotts.

But they don't need to bump a British woman so they don't bump anyone.

World Beater
06-16-2005, 08:41 AM
If they just bumped up Timmy it would be an obvious insult that would lead to boycotts.

But they don't need to bump a British woman so they don't bump anyone.

Lol...when have they not insulted some of the players one way or another?

NATAS81
06-16-2005, 09:07 AM
Since when was Puerta a grass god?

Yoel and co.
06-16-2005, 09:14 AM
Australian Pat Cash has criticised Wimbledon championship organisers for seeding compatriot Lleyton Hewitt, the 2002 winner, third. Cash argues that as world number two Hewitt should have ranking and not last year's beaten finalist Andy Roddick.

Wimbledon's organisers handed Roddick the second seed berth on Wednesday because of the American's better recent form on grass.

"I think it's a real slap in the face," Cash, who won Wimbledon in 1987, told BBC radio.

"I don't think it's fair that they should be changing it around."

As second seed, Roddick, who lost in last year's final to Roger Federer, cannot meet the Swiss top seed until the final of this year's tournament. Third seed Hewitt could face Federer in the semi-finals.

"Lleyton Hewitt is the number two player in the world," Cash said. "He should have stayed number two. He is a Wimbledon champion. He is the [2005] Australian Open finalist.

"I don't like them tinkering with the seeds. The guys work the whole year to get rankings to win the grand slams.

"It has certainly given Roddick a boost that I don't think he deserves over Hewitt.

"The rankings are there for a reason. They are fair."

Unlike the other three major championships, Wimbledon has traditionally varied its seedings from the official rankings in order to reflect players' strengths on grass.

Yoel and co.
06-16-2005, 10:27 AM
Sorry, didn't see there is a seperate thread for Cash's words...

SuperFurryAnimal
06-16-2005, 11:03 AM
(provided Nadal makes it that far)

:lol: That depends on whether his friend Alex Waske makes it through the qualies! ;)

Socket
06-17-2005, 07:35 PM
This is Peter Bodo on the issue, from his Tennis World blog. (Personally, I am confident that Lleyton will use this as he did the slow surface issue at the AO -- to spur himself into fighting mode. Go, Rocky! :boxing: )

Thursday, June 16, 5:32 P.M.

Wimblediss

We knew the Wimbledon seedings were going to unleash controversy, and the first volley was fired almost immediately by the surprise Wimbledon champ of 1987, the combative Pat Cash. I think Pat has a legitimate beef about Wimbledon giving Andy Roddick the No. 2 seeding, thereby ensuring that he would not have to face No. 1 Roger Federer until the final, while Lleyton Hewitt (the World No. 2 on the ATP Tour Entry Ranking) was left looking down the double barrel of a semifinal shotgun, one tube potentially containing Federer, the other, Roddick.

All that changed just a few hours ago, when the draw came out and spit up pairings that might leave Cash and Hewitt rubbing their hands and chortling: “What goes around, comes around, mate…” For Hewitt, it turns out, is in the same quarter of the draw as Marat “I Hate Wimbledon, I Can’t Play Tennis, Somebody Please Kill Me” Safin, while Roddick, way at the bottom, is looking at a Round 2 meeting with the 6-10 Croatian whom he had to struggle to beat last Sunday at Queens Club, Ivo Karlovic.

Of course, this doesn’t relieve Hewitt’s fundamental – and highly theoretical – problem of having to play Federer in the semis rather than finals because of the whim of Wimbledon’s seeding committee. Okay, "whim" may be too strong a word, because the Wimbledon seeding committee does have some powerful arguments for departing from the customary – and straightforward – method of seeding in exact accordance with the order. And tournament officials do have a precise formula to determine who ought to be lifted out and placed higher in the seedings than the Entry Ranking suggests. Matt Cronin has the skinny here, and you can get the full story of the tweaked seedings for this year from this piece in The Guardian.

Contrary to popular belief, Wimbledon doesn’t reserve the right to determine its own seeding because the club is run by a toweringly arrogant bunch of twits and know-it-alls with out-of-control nose hairs and nicknames like Bimby or Buzzer. It’s also because so many of the perennial Top 10 players in recent years not only have no clue about how to play on grass, they often don’t show even a desultory interest in learning how.

Take Gustavo Kuerten: lovely guy, beautiful game, on his day the best in the world (at least he was, before the injuries began to take their toll) – can’t beat a drum on grass. The beloved Guga, a former World No. 1, has mustered the interest (and respect, some say) to enter Wimbledon exactly once since the year 2000, despite having posted his best-ever result on that occasion (he got to the third round: Look Ma, I’m almost a Second Week guy!)

How about Carlos Moya, who pulled out of this year’s tournament with a shoulder injury. In 2002 , he put up tour-high numbers for clay court wins (34) and tiebreaker wins (27), but decided to take a little time off in that late June time slot when lots of other players are inexplicably drawn to an upscale London suburb to play the world’s most important and closely watched tournament. Why sweat the details? It’s not like you have to win Wimbledon to be someone in tennis anymore.

At various times, either of these guys, and scores of others ranging from last year’s French Open champ, Gaston Gaudio, who’s got exactly one win at Wimbledon (we’re talking matches here, not titles, and career - not 2004) to Guillermo Coria (like his countryman, Gaudio, another one-Wimbledon-win-wonder) would have been highly seeded at Wimbledon if the club followed ATP Tour protocol (as it does for the women) and seeded according to entry ranking.

So it’s not like Wimbledon can’t defend its policy on the grounds of common sense. And why seed a guy who, even if he does deign to show up, won’t bring a sufficient appetite for the challenge. In this age of the Surface Superstar, why bother trying to demonstrate that you can master the grass-court lexicon? Let’s face it, Entry Ranking-based seeding would be an invitation to chaos, and the next thing you know the Wimbledon champ is someone named Harpentier Markoniovilkch while a Federer or Safin goes down in the first round to, say … Ivo Karlovic.

This brings us to the heart of the matter, and why I think Wimbledon blew it. Hewitt isn’t Moya and he’s not Gaudio. Note to Wimbledon seeding committee: Hewitt won the whole shooting match in 2002. And while the pugnacious Aussie did slump two years ago, he recaptured his groove last year, and had an amazing Australian Open just five months ago. No matter how you cut it, this was a serious screw-up, underscored by the fact that I’m not sure a single soul – including Andy Roddick - would have cried foul if the Entry Ranking had been observed.

On top of that, Karlovic, who’s done some serious damage on grass, didn’t make the final list of 32 seeds. Which is how he came to be Roddick’s potential second-round opponent.

Do the words “Poetic Justice” ring a bell?

Deboogle!.
06-17-2005, 07:50 PM
No one in the media, at least not that I've seen, has addressed the fact that Lleyton himself was helped by the exact same seeding formula last year when he was put up to the 7th seed but was ranked 10th - big big difference between being top 8 or not. Hm. Plus, he was seeded #1 in 2003 but was not #1 in the world. Some good that did him.

Socket
06-17-2005, 08:11 PM
I think it's pretty clear from the article that Bodo thinks that there's a big difference between moving a player up from 10 to 7 and moving him down from 2 to 3 -- especially if the player is a former champion.

Also, I think he's saying that the formula simply should not have been used this year. I actually thought that was the case, that use of the formula was discretioary. If so, simply because they used the formula one year doesn't mean that they must use it the next year, if the Entry Rankings produce what the Committee decides are appropriate seedings. And obviously, Bodo thinks the Entry Ranking produced appropriate seedings, at least for the top 4.

All spilled milk now.

Deboogle!.
06-17-2005, 08:40 PM
That's fine, I'm not saying his argument is not valid. I'm just saying that it has happened before where a former champion (in 2003, Agassi) was 'demoted' (to use the Australian press's terminology) by this (or a very similar) formula. This is not new, it's happened before, and it's happened to HEWITT before where he was on the beneficial side of the adjustments. And yet that is being ignored almost completely by all these people speaking out about it.

There is also the argument that, had they abandoned the formula completely (or somehow come up with one that would have kept Lleyton at #2 - and it would have had to have been a radically different one from what had been used in years' past), it would have been a much more blatant and radical departure than what they did do, which was simply continuing with the exact same formula as last year.

If they want to get rid of the formula, then they should do that. But they should do it far in advance and announce it. But they shouldn't do so to help one particular player. That would be just as wrong as changing the formula from year to year to help one particular player (which of course many people believe that they have done in the past to help Tim).

And in my opinion, the "degree of help" you receieve from the formula is irrelevant. The point still exists that in both 2003 and 2004, Lleyton was seeded above his ranking - in 2003 that was over another former champion who was #1 in the world at that time. But did you hear cries from Agassi or the press complaining about being slapped in the face by being a former champion and NUMBER ONE in the world but being 'demoted' from the #1 seed? Speaking of slaps in the face, that is arguably a pretty big one.

Andy said he didn't care where he was seeded as long as he was in the top 4. He knew it was completely out of his hands and wasn't going to waste energy on it. He said that to win a slam, you have to beat the top players at some poinrt or another. I hope that this is just media people writing about this and that Hewitt is not wasting his energy on it. He has plenty of tough people in his draw before he would even have to think about Roger in the Semis, and it's not worth it. This is the system, it's the system they've used for years, and it's controversial. Everyone can write and argue all they want about whether the system should be used or not.

But this year, this was the only result that was going to come out, regardless of what had happened in queens - everyone who knows the rankings system really well (including many of our own like jtipson, jez, and smucav), such as writers like Bob Larson, all predicted Andy would get the second seed weeks ago. So I fail to see how abandoning the system this one year solely to engineer a particular result when Wimbledon has basically never adhered to the Entry Rankings is any less wrong. If in, say, January, they had a bolt of brilliance and said "oh hey, we'll just go by the entry rankings from now on" that's one thing, but doing that for this one particular instance is just as bad as the formula itself.

lilfairyprincess
06-17-2005, 08:55 PM
My only objection is Wimbledon's use of a formula -- any formula -- is that Roland Garros doesn't. So, the guys who play best on clay courts can get screwed twice. They won't get the benefits of their superior clay court results to get seeded above their Entry Rankings at RG, BUT -- double whammy -- they can get demoted from their Entry Rankings at Wimbledon because of their poor grass court results. How is that fair to them?

:bigclap:

heya
06-17-2005, 08:58 PM
Is there a fear that Hewitt would lose a top 3 entry ranking? If that happens at the end of the year, it's not because anyone conspired to bring him down.

Socket
06-17-2005, 09:10 PM
Bodo is not the only one who thinks that the Seeding Committee should have exercised its discretion. Neil Harman, the tennis correspondent for the London Times, agrees and does a good job of explaining why it would have made sense to do in this case: "Discretion could be used when a situation arises that a former Wimbledon champion, who has also won three times on grass at Queen’s Club, been the world No 1 and played on the surface in the Davis Cup with distinction, but who has had three months out injured, is handicapped by the formula."

And Matt Cronin from tennisreporters.net:

"Wimbledon seedings examined
I'm a big proponent of seeding by surface, and agree with most of Wimbledon's men's seedings, but the AELTC should take head-to-heads and a player's performance on all surfaces this year more into account. That's why I wouldn't have seeded No. 4 Andy Roddick second over Lleyton Hewitt, whom he has only beaten once and lost to three times in the past nine months. Yes, those losses were on hard courts, Roddick's serve is more effective on grass, and the American has had better grass performances over the past two years. But, Hewitt is a former Wimbledon champ who has all but owned Andy. Had he not been on Roger Federer's side of the draw last year, the Aussie could have very well reached the final … just like he did in NY. Hewitt should have gotten the respect he deserved with the No. 2 seeding."

And Jon Wertheim from cnnsi.com:

"Pops Hewitt probably got a raw deal from the seeding committee, but they made it up to him with a generally congenial draw."

Socket
06-17-2005, 09:12 PM
Is there a fear that Hewitt would lose a top 3 entry ranking? If that happens at the end of the year, it's not because anyone conspired to bring him down.
I don't think that's the issue. It's of course possible that Lleyton will not compete at the end of the year when his child is due to be born (October or late November, depending on which newspaper you read), which would of course bring down his YE ranking, but nothing has been said or hinted about that.

Socket
06-17-2005, 09:18 PM
[Lleyton] was seeded #1 in 2003 but was not #1 in the world. Some good that did him.
Cheap shot. But since you opened the door, I'll respond. It did Lleyton about as much good as seeding Roddick No. 2 at this year's RG. All that seed did was give us a numerical indication of what early round he'd be losing in this year. At least Lleyton's won Wimbledon. Roddick's best showing at RG is third round. Sorry, formula or no formula, seeding Roddick No. 2 at RG makes no sense at all.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 09:57 PM
Roddick's seed at RG is totally irrelevant seeing as they don't use a seeding formula. Furthermore, it's not like Lleyton's going to be pumping out the RG titles anytime soon, even if his record there is fairly respectable. Hey, that reminds me of something Hewitt and Roddick have in common - both have amazingly blown 2-0 set leads against better claycourt players than themselves :hearts: Hewitt's blowout was far more hilarious, though, if only because it was totally in control not only when up 2-0, but in the fifth set as well.

I post things irrelevant to the topic too.

vincayou
06-17-2005, 10:00 PM
I love Roddick being seeded number 2. I can enjoy the professionalism of French sport journalists when they announce his elimination as a big upset.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 10:01 PM
No one in the media, at least not that I've seen, has addressed the fact that Lleyton himself was helped by the exact same seeding formula last year when he was put up to the 7th seed but was ranked 10th - big big difference between being top 8 or not. Hm. Plus, he was seeded #1 in 2003 but was not #1 in the world. Some good that did him.
Apparently he's supposed to benefit from his last slam win for the rest of his career. I am pleased to see that reality has proven otherwise.

By "last" I mean most recent. Nothing more, nothing less

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 10:01 PM
I love Roddick being seeded number 2. I can enjoy the professionalism of French sport journalists when they announce his elimination as a big upset.
:lol:

vincayou
06-17-2005, 10:02 PM
Borg should have been seeded but he decided not to participate at the last minute.

BelgianGirl
06-17-2005, 10:04 PM
I read Canas withdrew and Olivier Rochus takes his place in the draw as 33th seed.
Is this true? That would be good for Ollie :p

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 10:05 PM
I don't know if I would go so far as to say "huge" disparity in grass performance!

Hewitt: WINNER Queen's 2000, 2001, 2002, SF 2004; WINNER 's-Hertogenbosch 2001
WINNER Wimbledon 2002, QF Wimbledon 2004

roddick: WINNER Queen's 2003-2005,
Wimbledon SF 2003 and Finalist 2004

this sounds like a "HUGE disparity in grass performance" to you? :rolleyes:

I have done you the favour of highlighting all relevant points in this post in red.

Enjoy.

Chloe le Bopper
06-17-2005, 10:05 PM
Borg should have been seeded but he decided not to participate at the last minute.
:haha:

*high five*

vincayou
06-17-2005, 10:07 PM
I read Canas withdrew and Olivier Rochus takes his place in the draw as 33th seed.
Is this true? That would be good for Ollie :p

Yes that's true. As a result he draws Karlovic.

vincayou
06-17-2005, 10:10 PM
:haha:

*high five*

:wavey: I take that as a high five smiley.

tangerine_dream
06-17-2005, 10:34 PM
Very amusing look at the seeds from the BBC :lol:

Men to watch at Wimbledon

We all know Tim Henman has reached four Wimbledon semi-finals - but did you know the naughty Brit was chucked out of the tournament in 1995?

Forget the ranking and win-loss records, BBC Sport brings you the facts you really need to know about this year's Wimbledon contenders...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226057_federer66.jpg
ROGER FEDERER
Odds: 4/6

* Also known as - Fed Express.

* Wimbledon high - Confirmed his genius by winning his first Grand Slam title at the All England Club in 2003.

* Wimbledon low - He might want to forget crying like a girl during the subsequent on-court interview with the BBC's Sue Barker.

* In the players' box - Miroslava 'Mirka' Vavrinec - his agent and girlfriend of five years. Vavrinec was a professional tennis player ranked 76th in the world but her career was ended by a foot injury.

* Tears or tantrums? - Unless Sue Barker gets to him again, Federer is far too cool.

* Look out for - ... him losing. Federer has not been beaten on grass since 2002. He has only lost three times this year - spookily, both his Grand Slam conquerors (Safin at the Australian Open and Nadal at the French) were celebrating their birthdays on the day they played the world number one.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226115_roddick66.jpg
ANDY RODDICK
Odds: 9/2

* Also known as - A-Rod, Hot Rod.

* Wimbledon high - Roddick looked set to upset Federer in last year's final after a barrage of power-hitting bagged him the first set but a rain delay halted his momentum and he faded.

* Wimbledon low - In a "Weakest Link" Wimbledon special, Roddick was asked 'what name for a female sheep is also a letter of the alphabet?' Roddick thought long and hard before replying "Baaah".

* In the players' box - Roddick split with pop star/actress Mandy Moore last year so there's unlikely to be much glamour in the players' box - unless you count his coach Dean Goldfine.

* Tears or tantrums? - He's a bundle of pent-up energy on court, but he doesn't usually blow his stack. He seems to have learnt his lesson after calling an umpire an "absolute moron" at the 2001 US Open.

* Look out for - ...him at a U2 concert. He's going to see the Irish supergroup while he's over in the UK.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226093_hewitt66.jpg
LLEYTON HEWITT
Odds: 10/1

* Also known as - Rusty, Rocky...or Satan Hewitt to the Australian press.

* Wimbledon high - Hewitt did what fellow Aussie Pat Rafter was unable to with victory in 2002 and celebrated with "a few beers and a few mates".

* Wimbledon low - The following year, he was the victim of one of the biggest upsets in the tournament's history when he lost in the first round to man mountain Ivo Karlovic.

* In the players' box - No Kim Clijsters this year after tennis' dream team split in November. In her place steps Hewitt's pregnant fiancee Bec Cartwright - star of Home and Away and recently named "Sexiest woman in Australia and New Zealand" by FHM magazine.

* Tears or tantrums? - Jimmy Connors was an angel compared to Hewitt. From calling the umpire a "spastic" at the 2001 French Open to getting involved in a race dispute at the US Open five months later, from winding up the Australian press to his long-running argument with the ATP..... this man loves a scrap.

* Look out for - ...his cry of 'Come aaaaaawn, Rock' - a reference to fictional boxer Rocky, Hewitt's hero.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226055_nadal66.jpg
RAFAEL NADAL
Odds: 12/1

* Also known as - Rafa, El Nino, El Prodigio.

* Wimbledon high - He's only played once, but he reached the third round in 2003, knocking out Mario Ancic along the way.

* Wimbledon low - Give him time.

* In the players' box - Coach is his uncle Toni. King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia turned out to watch Nadal win the French Open this year - and young Rafa gave them a hug after sealing victory.

* Tears or tantrums? - None - life is too sweet for the Mallorcan teen dream.

* Look out for -...his three-quarter length trousers and sleeveless shirt. How will the All England Club cope?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226105_safin66.jpg
MARAT SAFIN
Odds: 16/1

* Also known as - "Headless Horseman" - so called by veteran American journalist/commentator Bud Collins because of the Russian's unpredictability.

* Wimbledon high - Er...

* Wimbledon low - Hard to pick one, but how about last year's first-round defeat to obscure Russian Dmitry Tursunov?

* In the players' box - Former Russian president Boris Yeltsin is a big fan and even mixed it with the ordinary folk on Court Two last year to see him in action. On his run to the 2002 Aussie Open final, Safin was supported by a bevy of blonde admirers, nicknamed the Safinettes.

* Tears or tantrums? - Safin is justifiably proud of his record for breaking racquets. He estimates he has destroyed over 300 in his career.

* Look out for - ...him turning up. After last year's horror show, a sulking Safin said: "I hate this. I give up on Wimbledon."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226029_henman66.jpg
TIM HENMAN
Odds: 14/1

* Also known as - Tiger Tim (when he wins), Timid Tim (when he loses).

* Wimbledon high - In the 1998 semi-final, the rampant Brit had Sampras on the ropes when he levelled at one set all. We know the rest - but Sampras was moved to predict Tim would "win this thing one day". We're still waiting, Pete.

* Wimbledon low - In 1995, naughty Henman became the first player in history to be thrown out when a ball he hit in anger accidentally smacked a ball girl in the face.

* In the players' box - Don't expect too many stars, just the familiar sight of stoney-faced Mr and Mrs Henman and a nervous-looking Lucy. But will two-year-old daughter Rosie make her Centre Court bow?

* Tears or tantrums? - Seems unlikely. The best Henman usually offers is a muttered profanity.

* Look out for - ...him having a crafty fag at the change of ends. Last year, friends shattered Tim's squeaky-clean image when they revealed that Oxford's finest used to enjoy the occasional cigarette.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41226000/jpg/_41226117_rusedski66.jpg
GREG RUSEDSKI
Odds: 125/1

* Also known as - Grinning Greg.

* Wimbledon high - In his first Wimbledon as a Brit, Rusedski reached the fourth round before falling to Sampras. (We'll turn a blind eye to the attempt to endear himself to the fans with a Sun-sponsored Union Jack bandana.)

* Wimbledon low - Vince Spadea had put together a record 21-match losing streak before coming up against Rusedski in 2000. Even the American admitted he was surprised by his five-set win. Rusedski was understandably devastated.

* In the players' box - Wife Lucy will certainly be there but given that the Rusedskis are friends with the Beckhams, perhaps Posh might join her?

* Tears or tantrums? - No one will ever forget Rusedski's remarkable Centre Court outburst in 2003 - largely because he used a very British swear word during an astonishing tirade.

* Look out for -...his hair. Rusedski is a man in the middle of a barnet crisis. He even experimented with a Beckham-style hairband recently - which did nothing to hide the fast receding hairline.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40629000/jpg/_40629972_scud66.jpg
MARK PHILIPPOUSSIS
Odds: 80/1

* Also known as - Scud, The Pou, Flip.

* Wimbledon high - Philippoussis was the story of 2003 when he reached the final - two years after he was confined to a wheelchair while recovering from knee surgery.

* Wimbledon low - Seeded seventh and with the Queen's title under his belt, Philippoussis had high hopes in 1997...and then lost to Greg Rusedski in straight sets in round one.

* In the players' box - The Scud has compiled an impressive relationship CV, including the likes of Anna Kournikova, Delta Goodrem and, according to some reports, Paris Hilton. But he is now engaged to Alexis Barbara, the 18-year-old daughter of a property tycoon.

* Tears or tantrums? - The BBC had to apologise on Philippoussis' behalf last year when the Aussie let fly at some "home" line calls during his defeat to Henman. At one point, he asked the umpire: "What are you looking at? Open your eyes! I should give you a warning!"

* Listen out for -...those cheeky Aussie fans with their cry of "Come on the Pou!".

Socket
06-18-2005, 04:15 AM
Thoughts on Wimbledon seedings from Tony Roche (a/k/a Fed's coach):

Hewitt seeding unfair: Roche
June 18, 2005 - 12:11PM

Former Australian Davis Cup coach Tony Roche believes Lleyton Hewitt has been harshly treated by the All England Club which named him third seed for Wimbledon despite his world ranking of No.2.

As the third seed, Hewitt is lined up for a semi-final against top seed and defending champion Roger Federer, who is currently coached by Roche.

Hewitt is disgruntled at the decision by tournament organisers to promote world No.4 Andy Roddick to second seed using their formula based on grass court form over the past two years and Roche believes he has a point.

"I realise why Wimbledon do it and it's important they have the right to do that because of the way the men's game is," said Roche, who lost the 1968 Wimbledon final to fellow Australian Rod Laver.

"But I'm not sure that's the correct one with Lleyton. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't have been second seed. He's had a pretty good year.

"There's two sides of the argument, but I think when there's something that close, why tamper with that?"

With only 50 ranking points separating Hewitt (3,640 points), world No.3 Rafael Nadal (3,600) and Roddick (3,590), organisers gave the American the nod because of his win at the Queen's Club last week and the fact he reached the Wimbledon final last year and the semis in 2003.

Hewitt, on the other hand, lost in the quarters at Wimbledon last year and the first round in 2003, while he lost in the third round at Queen's on his return from a 10-week lay-off following toe surgery and cracked ribs.

Roche believes the 2002 champion, who opens his tournament against Christophe Rochus on Monday, is the type of player who would benefit from a break.

"It can work two ways," Roche said.

"One is you're little bit rusty, you haven't had the match play. On the other side of the ledger is you're pretty keen, you should be jumping out of your skin.

"I'd imagine that'd apply to Lleyton and I'd say he's very keen to get stuck in here."

Hewitt believes only a handful of players are capable of winning the tournament, including himself.

"Roger's the favourite and so he should be," Hewitt said.

"Andy Roddick, Tim Henman, they're probably the next tier below Federer.

"Then you've got dangerous guys like Ivo Karlovic, Wayne Arthurs, Mark Philippoussis."

Philippoussis has returned to form at the right time, reaching the semi finals of the Ordina Open in Holland with a 7-6(7-2) 7-6(7-0) win over Italian Davide Sanguinetti today.

The world No.188 needed a wildcard to enter Ordina at the last minute after Roddick knocked him out in the second round at Queen's.

The Victorian has not dropped a set on his way to the semis which marks a substantial boost for the former world No.8 who had not won a second round match since Wimbledon last year.

Philippoussis came back from 5-2 down in the second set to win his fifth tiebreak in succession and enter his first semi final since September 2003.

"Considering I wasn't even going to play here, I am pretty pleased with how it's going," he said.

"I am at my best when I am aggressive.

"I served well at the important moments and was aggressive in the tiebreaks."

Philippoussis plays Slovakia's Karol Beck in the opening at Wimbledon.

- AAP


Roche blasts Hewitt seeding
Sportal

Tony Roche has slammed Wimbledon officials for seeding Lleyton Hewitt third for this year's championship at the All-England club.

Andy Roddick is seeded second for the championships, behind two-time defedning champion Roger Federer, who Roche coaches. Hewitt is no.2 in the world but is third seed, putting him in line to meet Federer in the semi-finals.

Roche, who coaches Federer, is mystified by the decision to promote Roddick, despite the fact the American took out last week's Stella Artois Championships and lost the final at Wimbledon to Federer Last year.

"I'm not sure that's the correct one with Lleyton. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't have been second seed. He's had a pretty good year," Roche told AAP.

"There's two sides of the argument, but I think when there's something that close, why tamper with that?"

Hewitt distanced himself from the controversy, saying Roddick has a strong chance to take the crown.

"Roger's the favourite and so he should be," Hewitt said.

"Andy Roddick, Tim Henman, they're probably the next tier below Federer."

Hewitt opoens his campaign against Christophe Rochus.


Photograph Copyright Getty Images

Saturday, 18 June 2005 12:54:38 PM AEST
__________________

Chloe le Bopper
06-18-2005, 04:18 AM
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about this decision.

Do we have any articles that spare us the wisdom of people involved with Aussie tennis? I'm sure there are some. For some reason this is a confusing issue for many.

Socket
06-18-2005, 04:22 AM
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about this decision.

Do we have any articles that spare us the wisdom of people involved with Aussie tennis? I'm sure there are some. For some reason this is a confusing issue for many.
Actually, Pat McEnroe thinks that Roddick shoud be seeded No. 2.

He's the American Davis Cup captain.

Chloe le Bopper
06-18-2005, 04:25 AM
I think it goes without saying that Pat doesn't count. Ever ;)