PDA

View Full Version : Davenport hits out over women's seedings


gsm
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:05 PM
i agree with lindsay.

IMO the wimbledon organisers are crooks.

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,14604,-5098382,00.html

Davenport hits out over women's seedings

Top seed Lindsay Davenport launched a strong attack on Wimbledon organisers on Saturday over the women's seedings for this year's event...

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:07 PM
I agree with her. She should not have been seeded at #1.

!<blocparty>!
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:09 PM
Lindsay :worship:

TS
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:10 PM
"As an American, it makes no sense."

As an Australian, that comment makes no sense.

udachi Elena
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Lindsay deserved being seeded #1.. serena deserved #4.. Venus should not have been so far out

!<blocparty>!
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:13 PM
"As an American, it makes no sense."

As an Australian, that comment makes no sense.

Were they supposed to say "as a citizen of a developed country where men and woman supposedly have equal rights"?

Shenanigans
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:14 PM
Lindsay let it rip, what she meant to say is WTF do I have to play Kim in the round of 16.
Serena is seeded in the top 4 and Venus should not have been given a special seeding just because she is a past winner; her recent form is no where near what it is used to be. Conchita is a past winner should she have a special seeding.
I do not understand her comment as an American it makes no sense to her is she saying the British are less for equality than Americans.

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:16 PM
What I think she is inreality trying to say is :"I am so afraid of Kim. They should have seeded her higher so I would not have to play her in R16. Of course, she does well shifting attention to Williams sisters, failing to mention the only truly underseeded player.

Rocketta
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Lindsay let it rip, what she meant to say is WTF do I have to play Kim in the round of 16.
Serena is seeded in the top 4 and Venus should not have been given a special seeding just because she is a past winner; her recent form is no where near what it is used to be. Conchita is a past winner should she have a special seeding.
I do not understand her comment as an American it makes no sense to her is she saying the British are less for equality than Americans.

ah unlike you I think Lindsay was smart enough to realize Venus didn't get a special seeding. :rolleyes:

treufreund
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Lindsay is right! But I think she is complaining a little bit about this also because she is peeved and worried about her showdown with KIM CLIJSTERS

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:18 PM
ah unlike you I think Lindsay was smart enough to realize Venus didn't get a special seeding. :rolleyes:

Did Shenanigans say she was given it? :confused:

Mateo Mathieu
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM
I think she complaint that she have to face Kim Clijsters! :o

sadsmiley
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Even omitting the difference in prize money Wimbledon do treat the men differently and the seeding debate proves that, but yeah the 'as an American' bit did strike me as odd....

Rocketta
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Did Shenanigans say she was given it? :confused:

it read like she felt Lindsay should've said that but I see now she was just referring to the Clijsters comment. which of course is :bs: as Lindsay just beat the girl on clay.

So my apologies Shenanigans.

Why don't you take notes, ys? ;)

Rocketta
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Even omitting the difference in prize money Wimbledon do treat the men differently and the seeding debate proves that, but yeah the 'as an American' bit did strike me as odd....

I think the "as an American" statement was just Lindsay saying, "From where I'm from that doesn't make sense. " She's referring to fairness.

VRee_Willario
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Lindsay is right! But I think she is complaining a little bit about this also because she is peeved and worried about her showdown with KIM CLIJSTERS
I don't think so. It really doesn't matter in this case when you meet Kim. It's different in Venus and Serena, because they're both champion here and coul've both done well to get to the final. If Lindsay loses to Kim in any round she's disappointed. And Lindsay shouldn't be worried, she's on fire now :D

Shenanigans
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:24 PM
ah unlike you I think Lindsay was smart enough to realize Venus didn't get a special seeding. :rolleyes:

I know that smartass, otherwise I wouldn't bother to post in the first place as Lindsay thinks she should have been given a special seeding. Think before you type.

Rocketta
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:26 PM
I know that smartass, otherwise I wouldn't bother to post in the first place as Lindsay thinks she should have been given a special seeding. Think before you type.

apparently we're even now. :eek:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:29 PM
I think they did Hewitt greasy on the men's side. And on that note they technically did Serena greasy, because Roddick got the #2 seed because he was the runner up. The same should've been done for Serena.

udachi Elena
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:29 PM
'As an american' she means to her it makes no sense, b/c her country is all about equal opportunity.. In no sport that takes place in the US. would they ever get away with doing something different for the mens side then for women...which the development of title IX demonstrates

bobcat
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:32 PM
I think what Lindsay meant by the "being an American" part is the discrepancy between how the men and women are treated. The US Open wouldn't be able to get away with the stuff that Wimbledon does, like different seeding methods and different prize money.

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:36 PM
'As an american' she means to her it makes no sense, b/c her country is all about equal opportunity.. In no sport that takes place in the US. would they ever get away with doing something different for the mens side then for women...

You mean, in US Open women also play 5 sets?

tennisbum79
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:37 PM
I think the "as an American" statement was just Lindsay saying, "From where I'm from that doesn't make sense. " She's referring to fairness.

I agree. Englisgh are more pre-disposed to accept disprarities than Americans.
Just look at the social structure. In England in general one has has to come from certain stock to reach certain level of achievments. In America, it depends more on one's ability- though there some exception.
In England, the House of Lord is very much based on a system of inherritance as far as succeccession is concerned, although there has been some concesions recently.
This is true in other area of society, where you destiny is very much determined at birth. And it accepted by everyone.
It is no accident that a number of Silicon Valey sccessful companies were created by Indians. Yet Indians could not attain the same level accomplishments in England.
The difference is: In USA, they believe they can do it. In England they don't.

To come back to Davenport, she cannot believe people just accept this and don't raise any objections. She may have self interest, but objectively, she has a point.

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:40 PM
To come back to Davenport, she cannot believe people just accept this and don't raise any objections. She may have self interest, but objectively, she has a point.

She has no point whatsoever. Men in tennis are very surface-specialised. Women are not. If this obvious fact escapes her and you , it is not Wimbledon's problem.

udachi Elena
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:46 PM
You mean, in US Open women also play 5 sets?

In a beneficial way.. Do the men have a beneficial edge over the women by playing 5 sets? no...
why are you so annoying :rolleyes:

tobe
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:47 PM
I think what Lindsay meant by the "being an American" part is the discrepancy between how the men and women are treated. The US Open wouldn't be able to get away with the stuff that Wimbledon does, like different seeding methods and different prize money.

No, the US Open wouldn't....They only would do every peace of shit for letting Roddick win, like after the rain period to give him an extra time for training on centre court, instead of letting play Coria his match...That's AMERICAN Fairnesss

tennisbum79
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:49 PM
She has no point whatsoever. Men in tennis are very surface-specialised. Women are not. If this obvious fact escapes her and you , it is not Wimbledon's problem.

With all due respect, I did not see Wimbledon organizers evoke the reason you are stating here to justify what they did. Unless, you are saying that is how you would have justified it. Even that, is not true, because women are also very surface-specialized, Maybe not to the same degreeas the men.
We all know Justine and few other Europeans are at their best on Clay.
Maria and WS's on Grass and Hardcourt.
Most Russians all court

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:49 PM
In a beneficial way.. Do the men have a beneficial edge over the women by playing 5 sets? no...
why are you so annoying :rolleyes:

Sure. Compare the paycheck of Tier I winner and TMs winner. Men are paid twice as much. Because they play infinitely better tennis.

GogoGirl
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:52 PM
Hey All,

I thought the same thing from the day the draw came out. It absolutely makes no sense. And I felt for Hewitt on this one. Andy made the finals last year - but has never won it. Hewitt won it twice hasn't he - and he is #2.

And don't get me started on the Serena (i-sue - like the Brits say it) issue. She won it twice before making the final last year - and so on - so I agree with Lindsay to the max.

See I see - the problem with some - is that they prefer not to be fair-minded when it matters. Evidently the powers that be felt their reasoning and opinion on the matter of the draws were right - important and correct. Lindsay felt the same way about hers. What's left? The fact that some agree with the organizers and some agree w/Lindsay. It really is that simple - and especially if some felt the same way she did before mentioning it here, and for the ones that agree out there in the media and tennis world at large.

May haps the politics of the tourney bid-ness entered into their thinking and rationalzations. Who knows? The bottom line is that Lindsay didn't mention Kim - because in this case, she meant to only mention Venus & Serena and the women's side. Her point was made by mentioning the Serena situation. It could have not been made by mentioning her and Kim's - and in my little 'ole opinion. She most likely felt, Hewitt got shafted too.

ys
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:53 PM
With all due respect, I did not see Wimbledon organizers evoke the reason you are stating here to justify what they did.

That's exactly what they did. Their men's seeding correction system is not "Wimbledon" system. It is a "grasscourt" system. Nothing else.

goldenlox
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:57 PM
It is strange to have Serena, Justine, and Venus in the same quarter.
I think they've won 14 of the last 20 majors.

Shenanigans
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Hey All,


And don't get me started on the Serena (i-sue - like the Brits say it) issue. She won it twice before making the final last year - and so on - so I agree with Lindsay to the max.

.

Serena is seeded 4, What would be the point in moving her up7 She still could have been drawn against Venus, and who do you move down; all top 4 seeds are last years SF's which order they are in does not really matter.

tennisbum79
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:04 PM
That's exactly what they did. Their men's seeding correction system is not "Wimbledon" system. It is a "grasscourt" system. Nothing else.

Assuming you are right that it is a "grasscourt" system, not a "Wimbledon" system. How come Maria S. who won it last year and also won the warmup tournament on grass is not seeded first? It would make sense in your so-called grasscourt system.

I am afraid you are already locked in a position and now looking for agruments to defending it.

GogoGirl
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:16 PM
All,

Shenanigans - you make a very reasonable point. My point is, Wimby is about history and tradition. There are only four active players out there still in the draw that have won Wimby. Lindsay - Venus - Serena and Maria. Serena won in 2002 & 2003. She made the finals in 2004.

Believe me - I have no hangups as it pertains to the two top seeds - and I do agree Maria should have been seeded number 2. Number three should have gone to Serena. That is just my opinion though, tis my story - and I'm sticking to it.

What was Serena's ranking at last year's Wimby and what was she seeded? I forgot.

tennisbum79
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:22 PM
It is strange to have Serena, Justine, and Venus in the same quarter.
I think they've won 14 of the last 20 majors.

Go figure. I think there is a certain timitidy in the tennis world when it comes to questionning anything Wimbledon does. Because it is so revered.
There comes a point when tradition becomes an hindrance to progress. Wimblendon officials have been doing things the same way for so long w/o anybody challenging them that they are bound to make mistakes some times.
And this is one of those occassions.

venusfan
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:30 PM
I agree with Lindsay that Wimbledon should have looked at passed results on the surface. Yea, Venus form over the past year and a half hasn't been so good but since 2000 Venus went to four wimbledon finals winning 2 only last year was a fluke.. If this were Tim Henman he would have been seeded 4 or 5. I honestly think Venus deserved a special seeding of 5-8.

joz
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:36 PM
I don't like seeing Venus and Serena play in the round of 16 either... but I also don't like that Venus is not playing up to her potential!
The fact is...there is really little to support moving Venus up...
She's played the LAST SIX slams. SO, are injuries really a reason for her being seeded 14th?
The results are just not there for Venus... She's made ONE QUARTERFINAL IN THE LAST SIX SLAMS... and she lost in the second round at Wimbledon last year. Lindsey should consider the facts before just spouting off that it's only injury that has placed her down in the rankings. Opinion is one thing but at some point organizers have to go with the facts... and when her recent slam results are what they are there is really NO compelling reason for organizers to go against the tour rankings.

cheo23
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:43 PM
"As an American, it makes no sense."

As an Australian, that comment makes no sense.
:haha: :lol: ...& As a Latin AMerican Dude, It Makes NO SEnSE WHATSOEVer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tennisbum79
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:47 PM
I don't like seeing Venus and Serena play in the round of 16 either... but I also don't like that Venus is not playing up to her potential!
The fact is...there is really little to support moving Venus up...
She's played the LAST SIX slams. SO, are injuries really a reason for her being seeded 14th?
The results are just not there for Venus... She's made ONE QUARTERFINAL IN THE LAST SIX SLAMS... and she lost in the second round at Wimbledon last year. Lindsey should consider the facts before just spouting off that it's only injury that has placed her down in the rankings. Opinion is one thing but at some point organizers have to go with the facts... and when her recent slam results are what they are there is really NO compelling reason for organizers to go against the tour rankings.

Which is it?
Tour ranking? Grasscourt system as YS stated? Wimbledon system?
I think most people on this board make the mistake of refusing to consider one's argumentat face value without the baggage of how one feel about the persone making the argument.
Again, tradition, history and prestige are not anti-dot to making mistakes.
Davenport is making an argument worth getting a fair hearing and consideration. It hsould not easily be dismissed becaused she had said soemthing in the past you do not agree with.

cheo23
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:49 PM
Assuming you are right that it is a "grasscourt" system, not a "Wimbledon" system. How come Maria S. who won it last year and also won the warmup tournament on grass is not seeded first? It would make sense in your so-called grasscourt system.

I am afraid you are already locked in a position and now looking for agruments to defending it.
EXActly....Say No MoRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! :worship: :worship: :worship: ...Venus hasn't REACHED a SEMIS GRAND SLAM Appearance In a LONG LOnG Time...There's No Reason to MOVe her UP the SEEDinG just Because She won in 2000 & 20001....its Like WHATEVer & Get it TOgether People!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sadsmiley
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:05 PM
I agree. Englisgh are more pre-disposed to accept disprarities than Americans.
Just look at the social structure. In England in general one has has to come from certain stock to reach certain level of achievments. In America, it depends more on one's ability- though there some exception.
In England, the House of Lord is very much based on a system of inherritance as far as succeccession is concerned, although there has been some concesions recently.
This is true in other area of society, where you destiny is very much determined at birth. And it accepted by everyone.
It is no accident that a number of Silicon Valey sccessful companies were created by Indians. Yet Indians could not attain the same level accomplishments in England.
The difference is: In USA, they believe they can do it. In England they don't.

To come back to Davenport, she cannot believe people just accept this and don't raise any objections. She may have self interest, but objectively, she has a point.

Everybody accepts your destiny is determined at birth? :confused: I think thats a little bit of a generalization. I agree Wimbledon is one of many institutions in Britain in which patriarchy has a part to play. What I don't agree with is that we as a nation all agree with some sort of predetermined social status? Equality IS an important issue round the country and fought for by a great many people, myself included. I don't think you have to be American to understand that discrimination is wrong and thats why I don't understand that part of Lindsay's quote.

joz
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Which is it?
Tour ranking? Grasscourt system as YS stated? Wimbledon system?
I think most people on this board make the mistake of refusing to consider one's argumentat face value without the baggage of how one feel about the persone making the argument.
Again, tradition, history and prestige are not anti-dot to making mistakes.
Davenport is making an argument worth getting a fair hearing and consideration. It hsould not easily be dismissed becaused she had said soemthing in the past you do not agree with.

What has she said in the past that I don't agree with? I'm only addressing her comment that Venus "should be moved up"... not her comments about the seeding committe treating the women the same as the men when it comes to special seedings... I think the seeding committee has shown us before that they are willing to move people up in the seedings... they just didn't this year...
I have condisered Lindsey's argument... actually she made these same comments about 6 days ago... and I considered it then... and that's why I looked up Venus's stats... and after doing that... I'm going to say Lindsey spoke on what she considred recent past... and I'm sure when you are on the tour something from two years ago about another player could seem like it was just a few months ago... but it's not... Venus has been at the slams...
I actually think Venus will win the next round and go far.

bis2806
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:25 PM
People, listen, by Lindsay saying "As an American it makes no sense", she refers to how at the US open there's just equality in prize money and seedings. In the UK it is really the case that they're biased towards men - different prize money and different seeding system and putting more men's matches on the show courts.

bis2806
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Everybody accepts your destiny is determined at birth? :confused: I think thats a little bit of a generalization. I agree Wimbledon is one of many institutions in Britain in which patriarchy has a part to play. What I don't agree with is that we as a nation all agree with some sort of predetermined social status? Equality IS an important issue round the country and fought for by a great many people, myself included. I don't think you have to be American to understand that discrimination is wrong and thats why I don't understand that part of Lindsay's quote.

What do you not understand? Lindsay is from America, a country where equality is highly valued and respected. You don't expect her to name every single country that promotes the same equality she's talking about. For god's sake, she's trying to justify her opinions as an american woman. :rolleyes:

bis2806
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:31 PM
You mean, in US Open women also play 5 sets?


You stupid ass. Okay why don't we make the men play against the women now :D Don't you understand the rules of tennis? :rolleyes:

sadsmiley
Jun 25th, 2005, 10:13 PM
What do you not understand? Lindsay is from America, a country where equality is highly valued and respected. You don't expect her to name every single country that promotes the same equality she's talking about. For god's sake, she's trying to justify her opinions as an american woman. :rolleyes:


Yep fair point, i guess i meant when I read it it seemed a strange thing to say in my opinion . I respect Lindsay a lot so I never thought her comment was discriminatory or whatever I was just expressing my view I found it strange, which I can do without disagreeing with her overall point can't I? The rest of what I said was in response to the comments by tennisbum pasted into my original post.