[*]I do believe in having seeds. I actually think all the slams should not just do the seeds according to rankings but should determine themselves through a seeding committee.
I thought it crazy when Kim came back and then Justine came back that it was left to pure chance at the USO and AO that we didn't get a Serena vs Kim or Serena vs Justine match in the 1st round in which one of them would have to get knocked out.
.[*]Seedings should have nothing to do with what a player deserves. When I mention point 2 above - people say the players should earn the right for a seeding. Always in personal terms of what a player wants/deserves. But my argument on this is nothing to do with privileges for the player. It's for the tournament. The tournament and the people watching suerely should be wanting to provide the conditions for the best players to meet in the latest stages of the competion and the best two players in the climax which is the final. (and this is in the sense of who is the most likely at this tournament - not who is #1 and the best over the year, so I'd pretty well always have Serena as #1 seed except at RG).[/LIST]I often read in GM that the sole purpose of rankings is to determine seedings. This is not true. It's only one of the purposes. I think precisely the opposite in fact. The purpose of the rankings is to determine the best (not that horrible word consistent) - the best player over a whole 12 month period - not neccessarily the best in any match-up or the most likely to win a tournament that all are playing in. And I don't want them to be used as the sole means to determine seedings at slams.
To be honest, I don't think the WTA really care who's the best player "over a whole 12 month". Their main, and possibly their only, purpose with seedings is to implement the best possible conditions for bringing the best players (thus the best known and most popular) to meet in the final rounds of tournaments. Which should allow to sell the most tickets. You stated it in your comment when you wrote "The tournament and the people watching surely should be wanting the best players to meet in the latest stages of the competition and wanting the best two players in the climax which is the final". If the WTA could ensure that Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova and Ivanovic (and maybe Mirza and Na Li to appeal to Asian audiences) would meet in the finals of all tournaments, they would gladly make sure of it.
I understand that it might seem logical to make sure that the best players avoid each other in the early rounds, but most players do not deserve such a favor. They're proving it throughout the year by losing regularly against players ranked well below them. These include players from the Top10-15, like Stosur, Bartoli or Na Li. Why should we favor them? In complete honesty, I'd rather not see players like Clijsters and Serena meeting in the first round of a tournament. So I would allow, as you suggest, that the tournament organizers (not only in the Grand Slams) can assign 2 or 4 seeds. As for the other players, if they're good enough, they will make their way by themselves.
The only reason I am willing to give a seed to Clijsters and Serena, it's because I know they can beat every player in the tournament. So, if we leave them the opportunity, it's most likely that they'll meet in the final. Because in all logic, the best players do not need a favor to win a tournament. Players like Serena, Venus, Hingis, Graf, or Federer and Djokovic, no matter what draw they get, they'll come through. They don't need a seed. That's why they deserve the title.
I would add that assigning seeds in order to ensure that the best matches take place at the end of the tournaments may seem logical, but the system is a total failure in that sense, because WTA's finals are often the worst possible matches.
As for the word "consistent", its use has become laughable because Wozniacki"s detractors have distorted its meaning in order to denigrate her success. They emptied the word of its meaning, forgetting that we can be consistently bad. If Wozniacki has been successful, it's not because she was consistent, but because she was consistently good. Her detractors have forgotten the word "good" at the end of the sentence