View Full Version : If Lindsay drops to #37 or #38 by the Australian Open

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:26 PM
Unlikely I know, but here's the scenario:

Lindsay starts off playing poorly, misses a tournament or two with stiffness in her knee, but comes on like a Top 5 player in the last couple events of the year.

What would you consider a fair seeding for her at AO?

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:29 PM
Pls be realistic and dispose these IDEA

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:43 PM
#2 behind Venus.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:47 PM
Leave her unseeded. She would have had enough time to prove herself. It's like Kournikova, she has also struggled after her injury and she was top 10 before, I don't see them giving her any special seeding because of her past. The same goes for Mary Pierce.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:03 AM

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:08 AM
I doubt the injury rank and its bonuses extend from july to late january, so unseeded.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Sonic The Hedgehog
I doubt the injury rank and its bonuses extend from july to late january, so unseeded.

Lindsay has eight (8) seeding/injury protection points she can use, and they seem to be available to her whenever, so, given she's only used one (1) for Stanford, she can use her other seven (7) when she wants.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:22 AM
In my world she's used them in august thru november :D lol

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:49 AM
Leave her unseeded so she can draw Venus in the first round and beat her.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:51 AM
# 33

Bright Red
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:42 AM
I think that by the time AO rolls around, Lindsay won't be ranked that low. She may be outside of the top 10, though. Given that she'll probably still be on the mend and constantly improving with each showing, she'd be a very dangerous player for anyone to face. I'd put her at #4.

Venus Forever
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:47 AM
I said unseeded because of the reasons of Kournikova and Pierce. If they were not allowed to get seeded after they were injured, then Lindsay shouldn't either. That's why I think it was unfair for Lindsay to be seeded #2 for Stanford. She should have been seeded #6!!

Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:52 AM
this is a tough one because if they left her unseeded then there's always a risk that she would draw a top seed in the first round. Imagine Capriati vs. Davenport first round in Oz 2003... isn't really fair to either of them if the situation is that Lindsay is playing well at the moment but hasn't played enough to have a good ranking.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:48 AM
Capriati vs. Davenport first round in Oz 2003?
That's great, Lindsay should take revenge for Martina!
A high TV Rate, the most fantastic first round match ever.

Crazy Canuck
Jul 23rd, 2002, 06:12 AM
Pierce wasn't seeded at the French, when she had won the event the last time they played

so if that is the presedent than IMO LIndsay should not be seeded if this occurs.

Williams Rulez
Jul 23rd, 2002, 09:41 AM
4th IMO... under the rules, she can be seeded in the top 4 if she hasn't used up all her special seeding thingies...

But I reckon her rank will be at least top 15 by that time.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 10:21 AM
Leave her unseeded... I think that's the most fair thing...

Jul 23rd, 2002, 12:01 PM
quote by Vanity:
Leave her unseeded so she can draw Venus in the first round and beat her.
OmG Vanity, Venus has finally done it. You have lost it!
Do you say or do anything without calling Venus's name?
You said somewhere that people are hanging on Venus' achievements as if their life savings depended on it. So now i must ask you, did you bet your life savings that she wont make it big in tennis? Is that why you are this bitter?
I dont post much here, though i read a lot. But you are everywhere like a vulture smelling a carcass whenever there is the remote possiblity that Williams would be mentioned. When it is not mentioned, then you must mention it. Explain for example what this thread has got to do with Venus. It is about Lindsay, L-i-n-d-s-a-y, incase you cant spell or read.
Man what's up? It is only a game, you can spend the rest of your life in Sanitorium and it wouldnt make any difference, what Venus will be or will not be.
For me i am privileged to be seeing the protype of the 21 century women tennis player playing and i am enjoying every bit of it!
For us fans, it is getting tiring, so i say chill it.

Thank You Beat!

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:13 PM
Pierce was most definately seeded at the 2000 French Open, I thought?

Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by servenrichie
It is about Lindsay, L-i-n-s-a-y, incase you cant spell or read.

:D :D :D

Jul 23rd, 2002, 03:31 PM
To drop that low, she'd have to earn virtually nothing, then win her last two events. If she's still got injury protection left, moot point, she'll use it and get seeded #1. (BTW, I don't think she used her injury-protection at Stanford. I think they made that decision on there own. Can't say I'm sur* :)

Balancing the tournament's desire to make money, TV's desire to keep their stars in, the fact that other players earned their spots, Lindsay won the tournament two years ago, and her injury.....

#8 would be fair.

She won't meet any of the elite players til the QF's, and she had a pretty good chance of meeting a good player then anyway. THe point of seeding is to give the highest seed to the player likeliest to win. That's hard to figure fairly, which is how we got the current system. But a healthy, in-form Lindsay (which is what you posited) is surely one of the eight likeliest players to won OZ.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 06:30 PM
OK, I don't thin that's going to happen. IF it happened, I don't think they would change the seedings. When Steffi came back in '98, she didn't play well at the beggining but peaked at the end of the year. Still, she was seeded 10th (and the didn't bump her into the top 8).

Williams Rulez
Jul 24th, 2002, 10:02 AM
Lindsay has gotta defend a good deal of her point this year end though... after that, it is plain sailing though.