View Full Version : On Doubles Seeding (Williams2x)

Sep 3rd, 2012, 12:17 AM
I would not wish to penalize the teams that played doubles week-in and week-out. They deserve their seeding. But not seeding Williams2x leaves some possiblities that are difficult. it hasn't mattered this slam.

Facing the #15 seed in the round-of-32 is more than fair. But that could have as easily been the #1 seed in the 1st round. No advantage to a superteam that doesn't play 'regular season' doubles, but how about a rule that a tournament, at it's discretion, could say such and such a team couldn't face a seed in the first round. And no seed higher than #17 in the second round.

Okay, I re-read that paragraph, and it beomes 'My niece won't face a seed in the opening round, even though she can't play a lick'.

So that idea is bogus. And in fact, maybe the tournaments are handling it the best way possible. As I said, it's more than fine at this tournament. But if Azarenka and Greater Radwanska decided to play doubles at the slams 'to keep their volleying tuned,' they could upset the seeding almost as badly as the Willies do.

You might recall, ten years or so ago, Hingis and Seles teamed up and beat Williams2x. There aren't two players near that good outside of V&S on tour right now, but the theory is sound.

Sep 5th, 2012, 09:57 AM
I really think Williams, quite simply, should have been seeded (any other system seems too complicate to me). At Wimbledon, organizers somtimes showed some discretionality in the past (in singles), giving higher seeds to players who did well in the past (I remember Novotna, Serena). Why the cannot do it for doubles? Williams playing unseeded is simply not right, and it can turn out to be really unfair for the other teams too. In the end, luck counts too much while making the draw... Errani/Vinci or Huber/Raymond could have faced Williams in first round! If the purpose of the "seeding" is to avoid possible finals in round 1 or 2, I think Williams should be seeded when playing together, no matter what the raking says. At least something like 8th seed: lower than their "real" value, but higher than what the rankings say.

Sep 7th, 2012, 01:22 AM
Also, there is no such thing as a 17th seed in a doubles grand slam unless someone pulls out.