PDA

View Full Version : Where the Roland Garros Seeds Justified??


Foot_Fault
Jun 1st, 2004, 01:13 AM
Seed- Player- Status
1 Justine Henin-Hardenne, BelgiumOUT - second round (Garbin)

2 Serena Williams, United StatesAdvanced to quarterfinals

3 Amelie Mauresmo, FranceAdvanced to quarterfinals

4 Venus Williams, United StatesAdvanced to quarterfinals

5 Lindsay Davenport, United StatesOUT - fourth round (Dementieva)

6 Anastasia Myskina, RussiaAdvanced to quarterfinals

7 Jennifer Capriati, United StatesAdvanced to quarterfinals

8 Nadia Petrova, RussiaOUT - third round (Weingartner)

9 Elena Dementieva, RussiaAdvanced to quarterfinals

10 Vera Zvonareva, RussiaOUT - third round (Sharapova)

11 Svetlana Kuznetsova, RussiaOUT - fourth round (Myskina)

12 Ai Sugiyama, JapanOUT - second round (Pascual)

13 Chanda Rubin, United StatesWithdrew (knee injury)

14 Paola Suarez, ArgentinaAdvanced to quarterfinals

15 Sivia Farina Elia, ItalyOUT - second round (Shaughnessy)

16 Patty Schnyder, SwitzerlandOUT - second round (Asagoe)

17 Francesca Schiavone, ItalyOUT - fourth round (Capriati)

18 Maria Sharapova, RussiaAdvanced to quarterfinals

19 Anna Smashnova-Pistolesi, IsraelOUT - third round (Dementieva)

20 Conchita Martinez, SpainOUT - second round (Dulko)

21 Magdalena Maleeva, BulgariaAdvanced to fourth round

22 Karolina Sprem, CroatiaOUT - first round (Casanova)

23 Fabiola Zuluaga, ColumbiaAdvanced to fourth round

24 Jelena Dokic, YugoslaviaOUT - first round (Perebiynis)

25 Elena Bovina, RussiaOUT - third round (Capriati)

26 Nathalie Dechy, FranceOUT - first round (Foretz)

27Eleni Daniilidou, GermanyOUT - first round (Weingartner)

28Lisa Raymond, United StatesOUT - second round (Parra Santonja)

29Petra Mandula, HungaryOUT - second round (Chladkova)

30Mary Pierce, FranceOUT - third round (V. Williams)

31Emilie Loit, FranceOUT - second round (Zheng)

32Dinara Safina, RussiaOUT - second round (Irvin)

faboozadoo15
Jun 1st, 2004, 01:21 AM
well the seeds went by rank except for venus and serena, so yes, they were justified bc venus and serena are in the quarters.

wtg for sharapova! but i think we all had to know petrova wasn't going to repeat :rolleyes:

darrinbaker00
Jun 1st, 2004, 01:28 AM
I say yes. Justine was obviously in no condition to play major tournament tennis, but as the top-ranked player in the world and defending Roland Garros champion, she had to be the top seed. As far as honoring the WTA Tour's Special Seeding Rule for the Williams sisters, I think their play has justified the FFT's decision. The real question is, what about Wimbledon?

faboozadoo15
Jun 1st, 2004, 01:29 AM
The real question is, what about Wimbledon?
same for williams sisters

but sorry, monica will be a top 16 seed ;)

darrinbaker00
Jun 1st, 2004, 01:37 AM
same for williams sisters

but sorry, monica will be a top 16 seed ;)
Now for the $10 million question: do you seed Serena and Venus 1-2? I'm not saying they should (althought, admittedly, I wouldn't mind it), but based on recent Wimbledon results, the Lawn Tennis Association of England would have a strong leg to stand on if they did. ;)

Foot_Fault
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:01 AM
Now for the $10 million question: do you seed Serena and Venus 1-2? I'm not saying they should (althought, admittedly, I wouldn't mind it), but based on recent Wimbledon results, the Lawn Tennis Association of England would have a strong leg to stand on if they did. ;)
I would Venus and Serena deserve the 1 and 2 seeds at Wimby.

sartrista7
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:26 AM
Now for the $10 million question: do you seed Serena and Venus 1-2? I'm not saying they should (althought, admittedly, I wouldn't mind it), but based on recent Wimbledon results, the Lawn Tennis Association of England would have a strong leg to stand on if they did. ;)

Look at the past history of Wimbledon women's seedings... they've only ever screwed with the rankings once (Graf and Davenport, '99) - and it backfired on them.

The RG seedings were justified because they went along with the rankings. This includes Venus and Serena, as they went along with their official WTA injury rankings. No arbitrary past-performance or recent-results criteria at all.

darrinbaker00
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:37 AM
Look at the past history of Wimbledon women's seedings... they've only ever screwed with the rankings once (Graf and Davenport, '99) - and it backfired on them.

The RG seedings were justified because they went along with the rankings. This includes Venus and Serena, as they went along with their official WTA injury rankings. No arbitrary past-performance or recent-results criteria at all.
You're right about Wimbledon not deviating from the rankings for the women, which they'll probably do again this year, but would they really be out of bounds if they didn't? Because the grass season is so short, past performances mean a whole lot more at Wimbledon than they would at the other three majors. Even Justine herself would be hard-pressed to argue that the Williams sisters aren't the two best grass-court players in the world right now, so why shouldn't the Wimbledon seedings reflect that?

Volcana
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:41 AM
Now for the $10 million question: do you seed Serena and Venus 1-2? I'm not saying they should (althought, admittedly, I wouldn't mind it), but based on recent Wimbledon results, the Lawn Tennis Association of England would have a strong leg to stand on if they did. ;)
How exactly can you drop the current #1 to the THIRD seed. Especially when she's been a finalist?

sartrista7
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:42 AM
You're right about Wimbledon not deviating from the rankings for the women, which they'll probably do again this year, but would they really be out of bounds if they didn't? Because the grass season is so short, past performances mean a whole lot more at Wimbledon than they would at the other three majors. Even Justine herself would be hard-pressed to argue that the Williams sisters aren't the two best grass-court players in the world right now, so why shouldn't the Wimbledon seedings reflect that?

I'm one of those who think that the seedings should just go by the rankings and be done with it... regardless of any other factors, otherwise it just becomes too subjective. Because if you seed Venus and Serena 1 and 2 based on other factors, you've got to apply those same factors to every other seeding place consistently... and you can't do that for 32 women.

I don't approve of special seedings, either... I hated Lindsay's special seeding at the time. The mid-ranked players get totally screwed on them.

Sam L
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:45 AM
How exactly can you drop the current #1 to the THIRD seed. Especially when she's been a finalist?
When you have two players who've split the last 4 championships and played against each other in the last two finals.

faboozadoo15
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:48 AM
Now for the $10 million question: do you seed Serena and Venus 1-2? I'm not saying they should (althought, admittedly, I wouldn't mind it), but based on recent Wimbledon results, the Lawn Tennis Association of England would have a strong leg to stand on if they did. ;)
wimbledon will be sly... kim will be back. kim will be number 2.
serena 3 and venus 4. we get the williams vs belgium semis that everyone loves and its a perfect tournament. that, my friends is your answer there.
if an all williams final is to be, it shall be. 3 and 4 MUST be on opposite sides of the draw, just like 1 and 2.

WF4EVER
Jun 1st, 2004, 02:58 AM
I agree: Justine - 1, Kim - 2, Serena - 3 and Venus - 4. I think this would be quite a fair seeding arrangement for Wimby.

alexusjonesfan
Jun 1st, 2004, 03:36 AM
Where the what? :confused:

They seeded by rankings plus wta ssr...just like any wta event would do...nothing to justify.

Martian Willow
Jun 1st, 2004, 03:40 AM
Where the what? :confused:

...hell do you keep hiding...? :p :)

bw2082
Jun 1st, 2004, 03:48 AM
I agree: Justine - 1, Kim - 2, Serena - 3 and Venus - 4. I think this would be quite a fair seeding arrangement for Wimby.

and would assure venus and serena being in different halfs

7~LV3
Jun 1st, 2004, 04:38 AM
I agree: Justine - 1, Kim - 2, Serena - 3 and Venus - 4. I think this would be quite a fair seeding arrangement for Wimby.

Tell that to Mauresmo :smash: :haha:

tennisIlove09
Jun 1st, 2004, 05:10 AM
I would Venus and Serena deserve the 1 and 2 seeds at Wimby.
:worship:

~ The Leopard ~
Jun 1st, 2004, 05:51 AM
Wimbie should seed according to rankings, including use of WTA special seedings as and when they apply.

That will probably mean:

1. Justine
2. & 3. Serena and Kim (I'm unsure of the correct order coz I'm not sure if Ree's special seeding is #1 or #2)
4. Momo
5. Venus
6. Lindsay or anyone who gets past her in ranking at RG (in theory, Cappy or Nastya or Elena D could, I imagine).

Kart
Jun 1st, 2004, 05:58 AM
but sorry, monica will be a top 16 seed ;)
No.1 seed :banana:

faboozadoo15
Jun 1st, 2004, 06:05 AM
No.1 seed :banana:
damn straight...
she also gets a bye

Kart
Jun 1st, 2004, 06:12 AM
Definitely a bye as well.

Preferably to the final at least ;).

faboozadoo15
Jun 1st, 2004, 06:14 AM
Definitely a bye as well.

Preferably to the final at least ;).
yes, and venus vs serena first round...
and monica gets to pick how long the match is.

Kart
Jun 1st, 2004, 06:21 AM
I thought Richard usually gets to choose that (j/k) ;).

Belgians in the first round sounds a good idea as well.

Maybe we can fix it for Alexandra Stevenson into the semis just to show the haters she can do it again - I'd say give her a bye as well, but she'd probably still not make it :tape:.

I'm so voting you to be a new Wimbledon tournament director BTW - I can see Monica winning Wimbledon for many years to come ;).

Smackie
Jun 1st, 2004, 06:27 AM
I think the RG seeding is fair enough it's hard not to seed Justine as no. 1 when she was defending champion and current no 1 by a margin (point-wise), whether she should have played is another issue. Serena above Amelie was a bit controversial for some but as former champion, I would put her at no 2 before Amelie too.

They probably took more time thinking about no. 4 and no. 5. Personally, I would put Lindsay before Venus with her current rank and 2nd in the race. However, they must have taken the fact that she never reached the final on board.

Both Justine and Lindsay would have gone further if they were healthy and fit. But tournement organisations can't predict (and are not responsible for) all players stay fit and healthy during the tournement, can they?

The rest is pretty much according to the ranks.

As for Wimbledon, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim being seed at 3 or even 4 though., ie 1-Justine, 2/3-Serena and Venus, 4-Kim. But I don't think the All England Club would seed the sisters above Justine, even though Venus would probably beat the shit outta Justine. But, as stated above in another post, as world number 1, don't think Wimbly would risk the controversy of seeding Justine anything but no.1.

bandabou
Jun 1st, 2004, 07:00 AM
Well...as long as they don't hurt the sisters by putting them in the same half...they are the two best players on grass and thus should only meet in the finals.