PDA

View Full Version : Venus to #4? Will Wimbledon still seed #2?


tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:05 AM
I believe Justine just has to beat Chanda, and she's up to #3 in the world. So, Venus is at #4.

Will Wimbledon seed Venus #2, based her on W W RU last three years, even though there's now two players higher then her?

BasicTennis
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:07 AM
I think so.......Rusedski never won wimby and yet he was seeded before.:eek:

per4ever
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:08 AM
that would be ridiculous...Justine reached final and semi last year...so that isn't bad either ;)

BasicTennis
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:10 AM
well, Venus won it two times....so that isn't bad either.;)

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:11 AM
that would be ridiculous...Justine reached final and semi last year...so that isn't bad either ;)

Yes, but it's not a W W RU either...and both times she lost to VENUS ;)

Flatstat
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:14 AM
If Amelie makes the Final, she will pass Venus as well, making it even harder for wimbledon to justify any sort of "promotion"

BigB08822
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:14 AM
I think Venus should be seeded #2 at Wimbledon if she is healthy, she is clearly much stronger on grass. Either way, if she is #2 or #4 I don't think it will matter, she will probably make it to atleast the semi's.

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:18 AM
I think Venus should be seeded #2 at Wimbledon if she is healthy, she is clearly much stronger on grass. Either way, if she is #2 or #4 I don't think it will matter, she will probably make it to atleast the semi's.

Justine has proven she's also good at grass, one semi final, one final, won the heineken trophy (against clijsters btw). I don't think it would be fair to put venus in front of justine. Kim hasn't proven that much on grass, but in the rankings she probably have a big lead over venus...
i don't see why they should seed venus #2

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:24 AM
if Mauresmo passes Venus, it will further go to show how much of a joke the rankings are. The fact that Henin-Hardenne will, or could, pass her is already a joke.

Clijsters is understandable, but barely.

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:30 AM
if Mauresmo passes Venus, it will further go to show how much of a joke the rankings are. The fact that Henin-Hardenne will, or could, pass her is already a joke.

Clijsters is understandable, but barely.

Why is it joke henin could pass venus ??
She made semi finals at AO, at Wimbledon, fourth round at USO was her worst slam record, just like venus now.
she also won 3 titles this year, two tier 1's.
Don't see why it's a joke ?

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:34 AM
Why is it joke henin could pass venus ??
She made semi finals at AO, at Wimbledon, fourth round at USO was her worst slam record, just like venus now.
she also won 3 titles this year, two tier 1's.
Don't see why it's a joke ?

Venus hasn't lost to Henin since 2001. Venus last 4 Slams: RU RU RU 4th
Henin: SF, SF 4th, TBA [in QF currently]--the ONLY way she could do better then Venus is to win this event.

Rollo
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:35 AM
You missed the point with the seeding of Rusedski Basic. He's British. That gives them a reason to help him and Timmy boy.

Would seeding Venus #2 be in the interests of the All England club? In other words-do they WANT an all Williams final? Rollo thinks not, and anyhow they rarely mess with women's seeds.

On the other hand if Venus' computer rank is #5 it's possible they might bump her up to #4.

Flatstat
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:36 AM
if Mauresmo passes Venus, it will further go to show how much of a joke the rankings are. The fact that Henin-Hardenne will, or could, pass her is already a joke.

Clijsters is understandable, but barely.

Better face facts, Venus is just a challenger to the Number 1 spot like everyone else. In fact, she isn't even the best of the Challengers anymore :)

bilbo
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:36 AM
but I think she has good performance on the grass so no matter what she will #2 at Wimby or not she still be the great and could beat the player who ranking higher than Vee, Go Venus

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:39 AM
You missed the point with the seeding of Rusedski Basic. He's British. That gives them a reason to help him and Timmy boy.

Would seeding Venus #2 be in the interests of the All England club? In other words-do they WANT an all Williams final? Rollo thinks not, and anyhow they rarely mess with women's seeds.

On the other hand if Venus' computer rank is #5 it's possible they might bump her up to #4.

That's the question: do they WANT a Williams/Williams final, or a possibility of one.

It's a tough question. Obviously most feel like the sisters never bring out the best in each other, but the Wimbledon final was their best match...especially the first set.

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:42 AM
Venus hasn't lost to Henin since 2001. Venus last 4 Slams: RU RU RU 4th
Henin: SF, SF 4th, TBA [in QF currently]--the ONLY way she could do better then Venus is to win this event.

I already said this in an other thread, but the rankings aren't just based on the slams...I think it's just wonderful how a "small" person like justine can play well most of her tournaments, not only the slams.
Maybe i agree with henin not beating venus, but that's a useless discussion. Because venus lost 4 times to serena, while justine in the last 4 meatings is 2-2. Makes that justine a better player than serena ? no, so the h2h's don't say every thing. they just say venus beats justine almost always, but if we consider serena #1, and you see justine is just 4-2 in all their meetings, i, as a justine fan, could say justine is as good as serena. you can use the h2h's always like you want them to use

Rollo
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:45 AM
That's the question: do they WANT a Williams/Williams final, or a possibility of one.

Exactly TennisILove.

It all comes down to ratings/money I suppose. Does a sister/sister final help or hurt ratings worldwide? Does that even make a difference to the club? I think as long as Venus is 3 or 4 the club won't touch the seeds.


At #5 the chance of Venus meeting her sister in the quarters isn't attractive. I could see Mauresmo or Henin getting bumped from #4 to #5, with Venus 2 titles being the reason.

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:47 AM
I already said this in an other thread, but the rankings aren't just based on the slams...I think it's just wonderful how a "small" person like justine can play well most of her tournaments, not only the slams.
Maybe i agree with henin not beating venus, but that's a useless discussion. Because venus lost 4 times to serena, while justine in the last 4 meatings is 2-2. Makes that justine a better player than serena ? no, so the h2h's don't say every thing. they just say venus beats justine almost always, but if we consider serena #1, and you see justine is just 4-2 in all their meetings, i, as a justine fan, could say justine is as good as serena. you can use the h2h's always like you want them to use

I'm not saying it's not wonderful that Justine isn't consistent. I think it's great too. The H2H gets tricky, obviously.

I'm just saying that the rankings DO NOT indicate the correct rank of the players, because if they did the sisters would still be 1, 2. I don't think anyone can make a logical case against that. Should Clijsters win Paris, she is #2, IMO.

per4ever
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:50 AM
well said schalckske, you have to look at the results of a player...and Justine's results are as good (or even better winning two tier I's) as Venus'.

Players like Schwartz, Zvonareva, Maleeva etc are leading Venus in h2h..does that mean they should be ranked above her?

Rollo
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:52 AM
If Clijsters gets to the finals and loses she'd still be #2 in my book. Venus has had too many bad loses since the Aussie.

BasicTennis
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:54 AM
well said schalckske, you have to look at the results of a player...and Justine's results are as good (or even better winning two tier I's) as Venus'.

Players like Schwartz, Zvonareva, Maleeva etc are leading Venus in h2h..does that mean they should be ranked above her?

hmmm....only the Wimby officials have a SAY on this issue.;)

anton
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:54 AM
Venus should be seeded #1 at Wimbledon.

Any questions?

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:55 AM
I'm not saying it's not wonderful that Justine isn't consistent. I think it's great too. The H2H gets tricky, obviously.

I'm just saying that the rankings DO NOT indicate the correct rank of the players, because if they did the sisters would still be 1, 2. I don't think anyone can make a logical case against that. Should Clijsters win Paris, she is #2, IMO.

I do believe that it isn't undeserved of kim being 2. I think it's logic that if you play more events, and you reach each time at least semis (kim is doing that so far this year) that you are playing better than venus is playing at the moment, and so it's logic IMO that venus isn't the # 2 (in rankings and in logical thinking) anymore.
I also believe venus is just as kim, justine and momo an equal competitor for being n# 1, but with current results and play, i just think the rankings are logic enough

BasicTennis
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:56 AM
Venus should be seeded #1 at Wimbledon.

Any questions?

why do cows love to eat grass? :wavey:

anton
Jun 2nd, 2003, 08:25 AM
I guess cows just love that. That's one reason I stopped eating meat.

BasicTennis
Jun 2nd, 2003, 08:28 AM
I guess cows just love that. That's one reason I stopped eating meat.
Venus loves grass...i hope you won't stop liking her. :wavey:

anton
Jun 2nd, 2003, 08:29 AM
yea but she doesnt eat grass and I dont serve Venus at dinner...

Freewoman33
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:13 AM
Venus should be seeded #1 at Wimbledon.

Any questions?

Of all the current players, Venus has her the best showing at Wimbledon, hence, she should get the #1 seed.

If Wimbledon can seed Pete Sampras #1, they can do the same for Venus because they know that she's dangerous and the best on grass. No arguement there.

This isn't a fair sytem, but it is on that was instituted by the Wimbledon officials and must be followed.

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:17 AM
Of all the current players, Venus has her the best showing at Wimbledon, hence, the #1 seed.

If Wimbledon can seed Pete Sampras #1, they can do the same for Venus because they know that she's dangerous and the best on grass. No arguement there.

Sampras won wimbledon 7 times, it's totally different.
And if you do think Venus should be #1 seeded, then you just can seed Conchita Martinez 2 because she has as much titles as serena :confused: :confused:

Freewoman33
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:25 AM
It's not about how many titles anyone has, it's about their performance at this particular tournament.

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:29 AM
It's not about how many titles anyone has, it's about their performance at this particular tournament.

I know, but if you follow this logic the seeds would be something like this:
1 venus
2 lindsay
3 conchita/serena
4 conchita serena
5 justine
...
35 or something kim

i'm just wondering if this sounds logical to you :confused:
IMO these rules at wimbledon are :rolleyes:

Greenout
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:31 AM
Don't compare their own hometown favorites
like Henman, and Greg or even Sampras high
seeding to Venus. They'll go with rankings.

The Belgians are well received in the UK. No one's
going to be upset if Justine goes up a notch,and
Venus down a notch.

Kart
Jun 2nd, 2003, 11:45 AM
I think that if Venus made it to no.3 at Wimbledon, she ought to be the no.2 seed. In relative terms, Clijsters has done nothing exciting here.

The problem lies in if she is ranked behind Henin, which will more than likely come true. Henin has a good record at Wimbledon and I think she deserves the no.3 seed. To move Venus ahead of both Kim and Justine would be a bit much as they've both achieved more this year.

So Venus is no.4 seed. It actually means no more than it did at the French open.

A Williams final is still 50-50.

Martian Willow
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:20 PM
Can anyone remind me, because I am forgetful, when was the last time Wimbledon womens seeds didn't follow the rankings?

:confused:

They messed with the mens seeds the last few years because there were two British men in the top 32. They probably won't bother this year.

JPV
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:22 PM
It's not about how many titles anyone has, it's about their performance at this particular tournament.
it's about general performance in the past, performance on grass, and fitness level at the moment.

general performace : Kim = Venus > Henin
Performance on grass: Venus >= Henin > Kim
Fitness level: Kim = Henin > Venus

it's a hard time to justify seedings alterations, so i don't think they'll do it...

EXCEPT if Venus is ranked 5th...

irma
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:24 PM
1999 when they seeded steffi two but steffi had just won the french and was a seven times singles champion
before that they also seeded steffi three but that was her injury ranking so that had nothing to do with the wimbledon rules but with the wta.

before that the last time was 93 when they seeded nav two over asv

treufreund
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:27 PM
i thought that they ALWAYS follow the WTA ranking (except maybe in injury cases) Do you really think it is fair to Kim or juju or Amelie to not get their deserved seedings? Venus's ranking has fallen because she has CHOSEN to skip event and CHOSEN not to improve her game. what have kim, serena and juju been doing? They have been working HARD! venus has not won a slam or EVEN A TIER 1 in the last 52 weeks (actually not since the US Open 2001!)

anton
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:34 PM
If Venus does not get the #2 seed I'm not going to watch the tournament or go to wimbledon.com!!

Schalckske
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:35 PM
If Venus does not get the #2 seed I'm not going to watch the tournament or go to wimbledon.com!!

:D that's a very good argument for the organisators to give venus the #2 seed ;)

Aussie_Kim
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:36 PM
I personally think the rankings are screwed. They should include less tournaments & thats all I'm gonna say. I think both tours need a lot of work. :(

treufreund
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:40 PM
EVEN LESS TOURNAMENTS!! they already cut the number from 19 to 18 to 17!! If they move it to 14 tourney then Venus would just play 8 a year or something and Dokic and Hantuchova will still play 27 or so.

anton
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:45 PM
I think 14 is a good number. Also There are way too many tournaments.

I think they should count 9 big events or something like that plus year ends plus 4 slams=14.

skanky~skanketta
Jun 2nd, 2003, 12:46 PM
oh well, no one can win this argument so lets just wait for wimby to release its seeds.

i hate that stupid system.

Monica@53
Jun 2nd, 2003, 01:00 PM
1999 when they seeded steffi two but steffi had just won the french and was a seven times singles champion
before that they also seeded steffi three but that was her injury ranking so that had nothing to do with the wimbledon rules but with the wta.

before that the last time was 93 when they seeded nav two over asv

i think that was the same year when Tauziat was ranked #9 and Pierce was #8 and they decided to switch the seedings around.

mboyle
Jun 2nd, 2003, 01:05 PM
People, Wimbledon has already gotten rid of the special seeding rule. They now go exclusively by the rankings. I remember TNT explaining that over and over last year:rolleyes: . :wavey:

treufreund
Jun 2nd, 2003, 02:18 PM
If juju wins her qf she will have 4064 pts to Venus's 4038

Lindsay has 3477 and Amelie 3474. If Amelie beat Serena then she will have 3804 pts

a semis win over juju for Amelie= 4078
finals over Kim= 4422

so Amelie has a VERY TOUGH ROAD but if she can pull it off she will have a lot of pts!

DA FOREHAND
Jun 2nd, 2003, 02:31 PM
AGAIN It doesn't matter where Venus is seeded. If she plays up to par (uhummm ) she will make it well into the second week.

If they still adjust seedings at Wimbledon, Venus should get the #2 seed. She is much more accomplished than any other player on grass.

ys
Jun 2nd, 2003, 03:12 PM
If Venus is at #4, they will not adjust, because bumping her over two Belgian, one of which, in this case, would have won French Open would be unjustified.

If Venus is at #5, they could bump her one place up, but at whose expense? Definitely not Clijsters, because she will have very substantial lead in rankings over Venus and , even if there is reason to bump Venus over Kim, there is no reson to bump Amelie over Kim whatsoever.. Probably not Henin, who had two very good showings at Wimbledon in a row. Amelie? That could cause a very different kind of outrage, I guess.. So my guess is , they won't adjust at this point, given that Venus is in obvious slump.

fammmmedspin
Jun 2nd, 2003, 03:29 PM
I don't think Venus will change nationality so she is unlikely to be seeded upwards. It doesn't make any difference anyway does it whether she is 3 or 4? The played well in the past argument would see Lindsay and Conchita putting in claims too. On present form, watching Petrova's winning volleys and speed on the key points v JenCap, Nadia would have a good case to be seeded one - assuming she can translate to grass.

DA FOREHAND
Jun 2nd, 2003, 03:34 PM
Please Conchita has no claim, she hasn't been a top player in how many years? Her last win at Wimby. was almost ten years ago, and that should have no bearing on her Wimby. seeding. Venus however has the best Wimby. record of any female player this Century.

fammmmedspin
Jun 2nd, 2003, 06:57 PM
The point about looking at players past records is indeed how far you look back. Martina N had the best record at Wimbledon in any century but she doesn't get top seeded if she enters this year. Winning in the past is not enough which is why Conchita wouldn't get it and the same argument probably applies to the winners in 1999-2001.
The question comes down to how much weight you place on success pre 2002 and runner up last year versus ranking performance which measures how well you have been doing in the last 12 months. Wimbledon ranks Henman as if he was naturally a better grass court player than his ranking but this argument seems highly convenient and subjective (Petrova does look good in a volley...Chanda does better on grass....Monica and grass don't mix...). The grass ranking argument makes even less sense with the women as most of the top players do OK on grass wheras many of the top men do not.
Venus might well win the thing but it won't be because she played well till the final last year - it will be because she starts playing better than we have seen this year.

Dorr185
Jun 2nd, 2003, 07:31 PM
There is no way in the world Venus would get a number 2 seeding. I mean, it's not like Venus is even close to number two. If Kim makes the finals she will be somewhere around 1000 points higher than Venus.

Besides, if Amelie beats Serena and Justine, Amelie would be the number three player in the world, and no way Venus is good enough to be seeded above three players ranked higher than her.

Looking at her results this year, Venus is in serious danger of slipping lower than 5. No matter what Venus' seed is, she absolutely has to defend her finalists points in Wimbledon. If she doesn't, Justine, Amelie, and Lindsay (who isn't defending any points) are all likely to pass her in the rankings.

I think the focus should be on getting Venus healthy, not what seed she is. If Venus is healthy, she'll beat Kim, Justine, and Amelie on grass no matter what her seed is.

tennisIlove09
Jun 2nd, 2003, 09:24 PM
People, Wimbledon has already gotten rid of the special seeding rule. They now go exclusively by the rankings. I remember TNT explaining that over and over last year:rolleyes: . :wavey:

I don't think so. Last year Sampras was seeded #6, and his rank was 16, and he was 31 on the Champions race