PDA

View Full Version : Hmmm......Something To Think About...SERIOUSLY!


MrSerenaWilliams
May 4th, 2004, 04:13 PM
I was on www.menstennisforums.com (http://www.menstennisforums.com) and I read a thread about Grand Slam seedings, and how some feel they should be based on previous results. Others believe that seeding should solely be based on entry rankings, others, namely I, believe that it should be a factor from both of the two extremes, like the Wimbledon system. What do you guys think?

MrSerenaWilliams
May 4th, 2004, 04:41 PM
But in the case of Venus Williams, who was the defending champion at Wimbeldon, she was not the number one seed in the '01. I didn't think that was fair! Hingis hadn't won Wimbledon since 1997, and only got to the quarters in 2000. So I think that the Grand Slam seeding system should honor the defending champs and runners-up, providing that they fulfill special requirements.

The Crow
May 4th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Purely based on rankings imo. It's easy and no debate possible. Plus seedings do not matter that much...

Andy T
May 4th, 2004, 05:03 PM
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.

Foot_Fault
May 4th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Purely based on rankings imo. It's easy and no debate possible. Plus seedings do not matter that much...
Agreed!:worship:

The Crow
May 4th, 2004, 05:31 PM
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.
I agree that you could find more 'accurate' seedings, but it's way to complicated compared to the gain imo

Foot_Fault
May 4th, 2004, 05:37 PM
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.
AWSOME!!!!
I simply think we should rank players on QUALITY and Not Quantity such as the Porshe Race Points.

Volcana
May 4th, 2004, 05:59 PM
Seeding is supposed to be by how likely you are to win the tournament. The question is how you go about determining that.

I'm glad the ITF refuses to blindly obey the WTA rankings. It's simply not realistic. Since the WTA is essentially the player's tour, the point of using rankings for seeding is a matter of fairness to the players. The slams are completely independent. There only obligation is to seed the way THEY think is fair.

Foot_Fault
May 4th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Yeah... Just like there are ranking systems which would be more accurate (with more complicated math formula), but simplicity is an important factor. There isn't much to gain to invent formulas to determine seeding.

And Foot Fault, the WTA system does reward quality. Unlike the ATP, there are bonus points for quality wins and they are even double during Slams.Unfortunately..BONUS Pts...dont Cut it. I would rather reward players that perform well in slams and Tier 1's, Tier 2's and other tourny's and getting deep into draws and consistent results than a player that plays 22 tournaments getting tons of points with mixed results.

WF4EVER
May 4th, 2004, 06:25 PM
I think they should stick to one system. A few years ago wasn't Sampras given the No.1 seed despite losing in QTs? the year before. They claimed he was a repeat champion.

Last years, Venus the defending finalist was seeded 4? when she had won it twice before that. It's bul**it if you ask me.

Stick to one system, either past performance or ranking but not one whenever it suits you. Rankings would be fairer, tho, IMO. Then there'd be no discrepancy.

MrSerenaWilliams
May 4th, 2004, 07:00 PM
AWSOME!!!!
I simply think we should rank players on QUALITY and Not Quantity such as the Porshe Race Points.I couldn't have said it better! Why should have Serena Wiliams, defender of three out of the four Grand Slam titles, been in jeopardy of, and eventual loss of, her #1 ranking? Because she didn't play as many matches, but during her reign as #1 she had 3 times as many rank points as the #2 players (Venus and Kim C.) She should still be ranked #1 based on quality IMO! I do agree, however, that Justine has worked her ass off getting to the #1 ranking and I really dont want to take anything away from her. It really is a confusing situation, but I think that the Grand Slams, should honestly reward defending champs, maybe with a financial incentive for repeating, or special seeding or whatever, but it takes a hell of a lot to win 7 straight matches against, in most cases, the best players in the world!

alexusjonesfan
May 4th, 2004, 07:51 PM
The slams are completely independent. This needs to be reiterated. The slams can seed however they want. Wimby just does it most conspicuously.

I don't even think this is an issue for the women's tour. The same group of top-ranked players are the main contenders for all the slams, regardless of the surface. And players who fall in the rankings because of injury or whatever get special seedings and entry ranks anyway. Adding in past performances would, in most cases, just shuffle the order of people in 1-4 and 5-8 which really wouldn't change the tournament much and only serve as an extra headache for the tournament to calculate all 32 (!) of its seeds.

Interesting to note that Wimbledon does change seeds to put British men higher and 'claycourt-specialists' (;)) lower, but they don't bother on the women's side to bump up players like Tammy Tanasugarn who perform much better on grass than many players ranked above them.

fammmmedspin
May 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
I wish they would have a system like this:

The tournaments are divided into tiers as they are now, each with its points system and that would cover hard court surface seedings + overall + year-end rankings.

For seedings of grass/carpet (= fast) and clay tournaments, the entry list would determine the players directly admitted into the draw. For seedings, the points won from tournaments played on the same/a similar surface ("fast" or clay) to the tournament in question would carry double the weight of the points gained from tournaments played on the other surface.
For example:

Venus Williams wins Wimbledon and gets 600 points + 200 quality points
Justine reaches the final and gets 450 points + 150 quality points
Serena gets beaten in the first round and gets 2 points.

In Paris, Serena wins and gets 600 + 200
Venus reaches the qf and gets 300 + 100
Justine loses in the first round and gets 2 points

To determine the French seeding the year after,
Serena would have (800x2) + 2 = 1602: seed 1
Venus (400x2) + 800 = 1600: seed 2
Justine (2x2) + 600 = 604: seed 3

For Wimbledon, it would be the opposite:
Venus (800x2) + 400 = 2000: seed 1
Justine (600x2) +2 = 1202 seed 2
Serena (2x2) + 800 =804 seed 3

Here there is no rigging of the draw but the use of coefficients means that the seedings will more accurately reflect expectations based on past performance and overall form.Past performance doesn't necessarily tell you anything about current form. look at Capriati or Huznetsova, Winning a GS one year can have very specific unrepeatable causes (like half the top 10 being injured) Carrying forward last years GS results would mean ignoring players who were not at the GS (Venus and serena on hard court) You would have to go back further and what would a players relative form of 2 years ago tell you - not a lot. People complain that the rankings reflect form that goes back to far rather than current form - it would be odd to make looking back compulsory and would almost certainly produce rankings that were more out of step with current ability - think Venus, serena, Daniela, Jelena, Kim, Justine, Sveta, Dinara, Patty or Jennifer and tell me that their GS form at some GS last year had any relationship to their prosoects at the same GS this year.

Apart from that the rankings system needs to be as simple as possible - even allowing for different quality of tournaments and rewarding the quality of the beaten opponent makes it too difficult for most people to understand - allowing for past performance for 1000 or so players would be practically impossible would throw up all sorts of problems for new players and players playing different schedules and would even be incomprehensible to the noble souks around here who keep the rankings for us.

calabar
May 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Stick to one system, either past performance or ranking but not one whenever it suits you. Rankings would be fairer, tho, IMO. Then there'd be no discrepancy.
While I'm not a big proponent for any system that is subjective, I am not sure seeding strictly by ranking is necessarily the "fairest" or "best" way to fix the problem. Since 2000, anyone who as follow women's tennis should know that a player's rank is not always an accurate indication of their skill.

The whole point of seeding is to place the players based on their probabality of winning the tournament. That makes perfect sense to me, at least from a marketing point of view. Yes, tennis is a business, with a product that has to be marketed. While women's tennis lends itself to fewer "specialists" than say the men's tour, I do see some wisdom in considering the surface as a factor in the seeding conundrum. If Venus were to win the FO, depending on how the other women play, she may still not break the top 5. So if we follow the ranking, she would not be a top 5 seed.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that there are 5 women on this planet who are better than Venus Williams on grass (no jokes here. If there are, please name the OTHER 4.

fammmmedspin
May 4th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Does anyone in their right mind believe that there are 5 women on this planet who are better than Venus Williams on grass (no jokes here. If there are, please name the OTHER 4.
Depends what you think the rankings tell you. On last year's relative form the answer is clearly no. On this year's relative form we don't know as we have not seen Kim, Justine or Lindsay enough - although Venus might well still be better.
As a measure of the likelihood of winning though things look different. The rankings tell us Venus has health problems and does suffer surprise defeats. They also tell us she didn't win Wimbledon last year - which leads you to ask why. At that point the question comes down to Serena as beating Serena is probably a requirement to win Wimbledon. Do you think Venus has a better chance of defeating Serena than Kim or Justine or Amelie or Lindsay or Jennifer (or Patty or Petrova or whoever)? If Venus has a smaller chance than many on that list (which is what the recent H2H would tell you) and they have a better chance, Venus isn't likely to win Wimbledon however much better she is than 4 of the 5 people ranked infront of her .

Andy T
May 4th, 2004, 09:51 PM
The basic problem is that rankings reflect performance over the previous twelve months (quality and quantity, sadly) whereas seedings are supposed to predict what will happen over the next one-two weeks. As has been said, there is no real difference between being seeded 1 or 2, and the same goes for 3 or 4, 5-8 and 9-16 but this isn't necessarily enough to avoid ridiculous draws. On the current rankings, we could well see Venus play Serena in the 4th round, which seems absurd.

CJ07
May 4th, 2004, 10:15 PM
They need to do this.

Have your seeding be based 75% on your ranking, 25% on your performance on that surface.
It's more important for men, but it would prevent all-Williams SF at Wimbledon, where that would just be absurd

Seenus
May 4th, 2004, 11:47 PM
Seeding is supposed to be by how likely you are to win the tournament. The question is how you go about determining that.

I'm glad the ITF refuses to blindly obey the WTA rankings. It's simply not realistic. Since the WTA is essentially the player's tour, the point of using rankings for seeding is a matter of fairness to the players. The slams are completely independent. There only obligation is to seed the way THEY think is fair.
unless tennis is different from other sports this is true!