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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 05:43 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 05:47 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 05:52 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 05:54 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 05:56 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:01 PM
But wouldn't seeding them #2 be just as much a dis to whoever holds THAT rank?
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:06 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:06 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:08 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:42 PM
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.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:45 PM
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'.
Jan 24th, 2003, 06:58 PM
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.