Hmmm......Something To Think About...SERIOUSLY! - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 04:13 PM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Among The Greats
Posts: 40,064
                     
Hmmm......Something To Think About...SERIOUSLY!

I was on www.menstennisforums.com and I read a thread about Grand Slam seedings, and how some feel they should be based on previous results. Others believe that seeding should solely be based on entry rankings, others, namely I, believe that it should be a factor from both of the two extremes, like the Wimbledon system. What do you guys think?

Career Grand Slam in your 20s? Been there done that. Career golden slam your 30s?
There's only 1.
Serena.
♛♛♛♛♛♛♛♛
[22]
MrSerenaWilliams is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 04:41 PM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Among The Greats
Posts: 40,064
                     
But in the case of Venus Williams, who was the defending champion at Wimbeldon, she was not the number one seed in the '01. I didn't think that was fair! Hingis hadn't won Wimbledon since 1997, and only got to the quarters in 2000. So I think that the Grand Slam seeding system should honor the defending champs and runners-up, providing that they fulfill special requirements.

Career Grand Slam in your 20s? Been there done that. Career golden slam your 30s?
There's only 1.
Serena.
♛♛♛♛♛♛♛♛
[22]
MrSerenaWilliams is offline  
post #3 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 04:44 PM
The hottest straight, goth rocker on the board
Admin Emeritus
 
The Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 34,493
                     
Purely based on rankings imo. It's easy and no debate possible. Plus seedings do not matter that much...

If only I was sure that my head on the door was a dream
The Crow is offline  
post #4 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 05:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Under Carlos Moya
Posts: 4,917
                     
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.

Traits Gandhi considered the most spiritually perilous to humanity.
*Wealth without Work * Pleasure without Conscience

*Science without Humanity *Knowledge without Character

*Politics without Principle *Commerce without Morality

*Worship without Sacrifice
Andy T is offline  
post #5 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Foot_Fault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Live with my Wife Venus!!
Posts: 8,776
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Crow
Purely based on rankings imo. It's easy and no debate possible. Plus seedings do not matter that much...
Agreed!

NOW TRENDING
#SEETHE
#SerenaSLAM

#YourFaveCouldNEVER
#TWENTYTWO
#StillSEETHING
#
Foot_Fault is offline  
post #6 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 05:31 PM
The hottest straight, goth rocker on the board
Admin Emeritus
 
The Crow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 34,493
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy T
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.
I agree that you could find more 'accurate' seedings, but it's way to complicated compared to the gain imo

If only I was sure that my head on the door was a dream
The Crow is offline  
post #7 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Foot_Fault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Live with my Wife Venus!!
Posts: 8,776
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy T
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.
AWSOME!!!!
I simply think we should rank players on QUALITY and Not Quantity such as the Porshe Race Points.

NOW TRENDING
#SEETHE
#SerenaSLAM

#YourFaveCouldNEVER
#TWENTYTWO
#StillSEETHING
#
Foot_Fault is offline  
post #8 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Seeding is supposed to be by how likely you are to win the tournament. The question is how you go about determining that.

I'm glad the ITF refuses to blindly obey the WTA rankings. It's simply not realistic. Since the WTA is essentially the player's tour, the point of using rankings for seeding is a matter of fairness to the players. The slams are completely independent. There only obligation is to seed the way THEY think is fair.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #9 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Foot_Fault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Live with my Wife Venus!!
Posts: 8,776
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Canuck
Yeah... Just like there are ranking systems which would be more accurate (with more complicated math formula), but simplicity is an important factor. There isn't much to gain to invent formulas to determine seeding.

And Foot Fault, the WTA system does reward quality. Unlike the ATP, there are bonus points for quality wins and they are even double during Slams.
Unfortunately..BONUS Pts...dont Cut it. I would rather reward players that perform well in slams and Tier 1's, Tier 2's and other tourny's and getting deep into draws and consistent results than a player that plays 22 tournaments getting tons of points with mixed results.

NOW TRENDING
#SEETHE
#SerenaSLAM

#YourFaveCouldNEVER
#TWENTYTWO
#StillSEETHING
#

Last edited by Foot_Fault; May 4th, 2004 at 06:20 PM.
Foot_Fault is offline  
post #10 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 06:25 PM
Senior Member
 
WF4EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The West Indies
Posts: 2,069
                     
I think they should stick to one system. A few years ago wasn't Sampras given the No.1 seed despite losing in QTs? the year before. They claimed he was a repeat champion.

Last years, Venus the defending finalist was seeded 4? when she had won it twice before that. It's bul**it if you ask me.

Stick to one system, either past performance or ranking but not one whenever it suits you. Rankings would be fairer, tho, IMO. Then there'd be no discrepancy.
WF4EVER is offline  
post #11 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 07:00 PM Thread Starter
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Among The Greats
Posts: 40,064
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot_Fault
AWSOME!!!!
I simply think we should rank players on QUALITY and Not Quantity such as the Porshe Race Points.
I couldn't have said it better! Why should have Serena Wiliams, defender of three out of the four Grand Slam titles, been in jeopardy of, and eventual loss of, her #1 ranking? Because she didn't play as many matches, but during her reign as #1 she had 3 times as many rank points as the #2 players (Venus and Kim C.) She should still be ranked #1 based on quality IMO! I do agree, however, that Justine has worked her ass off getting to the #1 ranking and I really dont want to take anything away from her. It really is a confusing situation, but I think that the Grand Slams, should honestly reward defending champs, maybe with a financial incentive for repeating, or special seeding or whatever, but it takes a hell of a lot to win 7 straight matches against, in most cases, the best players in the world!

Career Grand Slam in your 20s? Been there done that. Career golden slam your 30s?
There's only 1.
Serena.
♛♛♛♛♛♛♛♛
[22]
MrSerenaWilliams is offline  
post #12 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,837
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
The slams are completely independent.
This needs to be reiterated. The slams can seed however they want. Wimby just does it most conspicuously.

I don't even think this is an issue for the women's tour. The same group of top-ranked players are the main contenders for all the slams, regardless of the surface. And players who fall in the rankings because of injury or whatever get special seedings and entry ranks anyway. Adding in past performances would, in most cases, just shuffle the order of people in 1-4 and 5-8 which really wouldn't change the tournament much and only serve as an extra headache for the tournament to calculate all 32 (!) of its seeds.

Interesting to note that Wimbledon does change seeds to put British men higher and 'claycourt-specialists' () lower, but they don't bother on the women's side to bump up players like Tammy Tanasugarn who perform much better on grass than many players ranked above them.

future 25+ gs champ alexus "don't you get in mah back seat" jones
alexusjonesfan is offline  
post #13 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,096
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy T
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.
Past performance doesn't necessarily tell you anything about current form. look at Capriati or Huznetsova, Winning a GS one year can have very specific unrepeatable causes (like half the top 10 being injured) Carrying forward last years GS results would mean ignoring players who were not at the GS (Venus and serena on hard court) You would have to go back further and what would a players relative form of 2 years ago tell you - not a lot. People complain that the rankings reflect form that goes back to far rather than current form - it would be odd to make looking back compulsory and would almost certainly produce rankings that were more out of step with current ability - think Venus, serena, Daniela, Jelena, Kim, Justine, Sveta, Dinara, Patty or Jennifer and tell me that their GS form at some GS last year had any relationship to their prosoects at the same GS this year.

Apart from that the rankings system needs to be as simple as possible - even allowing for different quality of tournaments and rewarding the quality of the beaten opponent makes it too difficult for most people to understand - allowing for past performance for 1000 or so players would be practically impossible would throw up all sorts of problems for new players and players playing different schedules and would even be incomprehensible to the noble souks around here who keep the rankings for us.

Last edited by fammmmedspin; May 4th, 2004 at 08:46 PM.
fammmmedspin is offline  
post #14 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 956
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by WF4EVER
Stick to one system, either past performance or ranking but not one whenever it suits you. Rankings would be fairer, tho, IMO. Then there'd be no discrepancy.
While I'm not a big proponent for any system that is subjective, I am not sure seeding strictly by ranking is necessarily the "fairest" or "best" way to fix the problem. Since 2000, anyone who as follow women's tennis should know that a player's rank is not always an accurate indication of their skill.

The whole point of seeding is to place the players based on their probabality of winning the tournament. That makes perfect sense to me, at least from a marketing point of view. Yes, tennis is a business, with a product that has to be marketed. While women's tennis lends itself to fewer "specialists" than say the men's tour, I do see some wisdom in considering the surface as a factor in the seeding conundrum. If Venus were to win the FO, depending on how the other women play, she may still not break the top 5. So if we follow the ranking, she would not be a top 5 seed.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that there are 5 women on this planet who are better than Venus Williams on grass (no jokes here. If there are, please name the OTHER 4.

No One Can Make You Feel Inferior Without Your Consent

- Eleanor Roosevelt


Until the philosophy which holds one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war...

- Bob Marley/Haile Selassie
calabar is offline  
post #15 of 24 (permalink) Old May 4th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,096
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by calabar

Does anyone in their right mind believe that there are 5 women on this planet who are better than Venus Williams on grass (no jokes here. If there are, please name the OTHER 4.
Depends what you think the rankings tell you. On last year's relative form the answer is clearly no. On this year's relative form we don't know as we have not seen Kim, Justine or Lindsay enough - although Venus might well still be better.
As a measure of the likelihood of winning though things look different. The rankings tell us Venus has health problems and does suffer surprise defeats. They also tell us she didn't win Wimbledon last year - which leads you to ask why. At that point the question comes down to Serena as beating Serena is probably a requirement to win Wimbledon. Do you think Venus has a better chance of defeating Serena than Kim or Justine or Amelie or Lindsay or Jennifer (or Patty or Petrova or whoever)? If Venus has a smaller chance than many on that list (which is what the recent H2H would tell you) and they have a better chance, Venus isn't likely to win Wimbledon however much better she is than 4 of the 5 people ranked infront of her .
fammmmedspin is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome