Doubles Seeding - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:35 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 1,401
                     
Doubles Seeding

As usual, there is controversy over Venus and Serena receiving the #1 seed whils unranked in doubles play.

Here is the way I see it.

To leave them unseeded would be wrong, because they usually win titles when they play doubles and it would be unfair for the top doubles teams to meet them in the early rounds.

However, I think the #1 Seed should have gone to the #1 doubles team, with Venus and Serena receiving the #2 , 3 or 4 seed. (#1 and #2 seeds are escentually equal for competetion purposes) while of course the #1 seed carries more prestiege.

Wimbledon seeded them #3, and they still won. I think this was fair.

If anyone remembers Sydney, 2001, Venus and Serena were unseeded and met Martina Hingis and Monica Seles in the first round. Martina and Monica WON that match, but it was like the FINAL had been played first. They also won the doubles title.
VS Fan is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:43 PM
DD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 523
 
There is no solution for this. if you seed them, you will be disrespecting the rightful seeds. if you dont seed them, they will likely knock out one of the top seeds in the first round. but i think leaving them unseeded is the best solution sinds you wouldnt disrespecting anyone.

MY FAVES




JUSTIN HENIN


KIM CLIJSTERS


SERENA WILLIAMS



VENUS WILLIAMS
DD is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,702
                     
I'd have seeded them #2. However, if the only criteria for seeding is 'the best, in order', then the doubles seeds were obviously correct.

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 #4 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:52 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 1,401
                     
The real purpose of seeding is to prevent the top players from meeting in the early rounds. I would suspect the #1, 2, or 3 doubles would relly HATE having to play V&S in a first or second roung game. I think based on their records in doubles at slams, Venus and Serena should be seeded in the top 4, although NOT #1.
VS Fan is online now  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:54 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,053
                     
I'm curious, if you think seeding them #1 is NOT fair, why is it fair to seed them #2 or #3?

I do think the directors should have some discretion, but I think you have to pick one or the other - either stick to the rankings to determine the seeds, or if you're going to mess with it anyway, seed them #1.

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
--Robert Heinlein
griffin is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,843
                     
I don't believe in deviating from the rankings at all when you seed. At all. What are rankings FOR otherwise? When Wimbledon fucks around with the seeds, it sucks. When this happens, it sucks. If you've worked your butt off all year round to get a rank, you should get the same number seed.

And no one *knew* that Venus and Serena would win this. Hot favourites, yes, but we knew they'd win like we knew Martina Hingis would beat Vivi at Wimbledon 01.

If you're going to seed them, though.. you have to seed them #2. Seeding V and S essentially means that you're seeding according to who you think will win the tournament; below #2 would make a joke out of the whole thing, #1 would be (and was) disrespectful to Vivi and Paola.
sartrista7 is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:01 PM
double-dog daredevil
 
griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: self-imposed exile
Posts: 12,053
                     
But wouldn't seeding them #2 be just as much a dis to whoever holds THAT rank?

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
--Robert Heinlein
griffin is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 1,401
                     
Well it really doesn't matter to me, they WILL win MOST of the time whether they are seeded or not.

What you folks that think they should be UNSEEDED can't seem to understand is that it would be UNFAIR to the top ranked doubles teams to have to play such a talented team in the first or second round, and most likely lose early. (Prize money, Rankings)

I would be willing to bet these top ranked doubles teams are happy that they are seeded.
VS Fan is online now  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:06 PM
DD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 523
 
2nd seeds will be disrespected if you seed them second. i think if you seed them number one you disrespect all of the seeds. i think is better than seeding them number 2or3or4 or whatever since you would only be favoring one team.

It is either you seed them at number one to prevent them from knocking out the top seeds or you dont seed them at all.

MY FAVES




JUSTIN HENIN


KIM CLIJSTERS


SERENA WILLIAMS



VENUS WILLIAMS
DD is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,843
                     
Well, if you're going to seed them at all, it has to be according to how you'll think they'll do - which is at the very least to make the final. You'd certainly have a case for seeding them #1. But whether they're #1 or #2, it doesn't change the draw: they'd still be seeded to meet Vivi and Paola in the final (whereas it changes the shape of the draw if they're pushed from #2 to #3); really, there's no difference in being seeded #1 or #2. So out of respect for their ranking, I'd give the #1 to Vivi and Paola.
sartrista7 is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:42 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 1,401
                     
Well, Like I said before, it really doesn't matter to me whether Venus and Serena are seeded in doubles or not.

They will most often win the title anyway.

There are GOOD Reasons for seeding them to PROTECT top doubles teams from meeting them in the early rounds and most likely LOSING. (Prize money, Rankings)

Reasoning seems to be very lacking among many members of this discussion board. I should be used to this by now.
VS Fan is online now  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,702
                     
Visored one - Like it has been said many times, the rankings are done by one organization, the Women's Tennis Association ('the WTA'). The Slam tournaments are run by a TOTALLY DIFFERENT organization, the International Tennis Federation ('the ITF').

The ITF doesn't have to honor WTA rankings, and they don't. All the players know this. All the fans who are interested in reality instead of whining know this. We've been over this point 50 times on this board.

The point of having rankings, among other things, is to determine seeding at WTA events. The Australian Open is NOT a WTA event. Never has been.

As to why there's an ITF and a WTA, go read up on the history and development of 'Open Tennis'.

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 #13 of 16 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2003, 05:58 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobe Sound, FL
Posts: 1,401
                     
Visored boy:

You have a very good point, but I am not sure those "top doubles teams" will agree with you.

Like I said, if they play unseeded it will make very little difference to them. Someone suggested that they were given a high seed to discourage them from withdrawing if the singles competetion got tighter. After Serena's struggle vs Kim I would NOT have been surprised if Serena had withdrawn. BUT holding the #1 seed has more obligation, and she has now played TWO doubles matches prior to the singles final.
VS Fan is online now  
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