PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon seeds adjusted with men's formula


twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 04:50 AM
Hi guys :wavey:

There have been a few stupid threads today :tape: about the women's seeds and why they weren't switched around like the men's. Well, it got me wondering just how much it would affect the seeds if the women used a formula like the men.

So, I went through the top 32 ranked women (excluding Dementieva) and got their grass results over the past 2 years and figured it out :) For those of you that don't know, the formula is:

Current ranking points (week of 6/13) + 100% of ranking points from grass in last 12 months + 75% of ranking points from grass in 12 months before that

Check out the attached PDF to see the adjusted seeds :)


EDIT: I've adjusted the rankings to the correct formula with only the best result from the prior 12 :)

twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 04:52 AM
Big jump for Safina up 11 spots into the top ten.. And also good for Na Li who was bumped up from #10 into the top 8 seeds-- potentially a lot better draw. Other than that, not much difference :shrug:

Polikarpov
Jun 17th, 2010, 05:22 AM
Great job twight6!

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t316/ispaht/Untitled-7.jpg

Sp!ffy
Jun 17th, 2010, 05:32 AM
:shrug: I still just dont think Safina would be a good fit in the top 10, as of now. Good job!
It's definitely interesting to see how things wouldve changed if they use the formula. I think the rankings are fine how they are now. :tape:

Raz0r
Jun 17th, 2010, 05:37 AM
Just out of curiosity, what would Dementieva's seeding have been if she hadn't pulled out?

The Kaz
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:02 AM
Thats actually not the Men's system...close but not right.

You use their original ranking and add 100% of ALL grasscourt results for 2009 and 75% of the BEST grass court result in 2008.

You added ALL the grasscourt results for 2008 and not the BEST result only ;)

SvetaPleaseWin.
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:14 AM
thing i hate about that system is that it damages players like clijsters who didnt play last year. Nadal didnt get #1 seed because he was injured last year, stupid. i know it doesnt make a difference being #1 or #2 but it would be nice to be #1

leave the rankings as they are AELTC, they are there for a reason. grass isnt a totally different surface now that theyve slowed it down, it doesnt need special rankings.

Roookie
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:19 AM
Thank God they didn't use that flawed formula :tape:

tennisforadults
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:32 AM
It's a good thing they didn't use the formula for women, because current rankings are more 'accurate'.

Kim should stay as top 8 seed and Safina in top 10 is not reflective of her current form.

kiwialicat
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:57 AM
It's definitely interesting but if they had that or something similar, it would be grossly unfair to Kim & Justine as they haven't played the last two years.

kittyking
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:58 AM
I agree with sexyalicat, unfair to players on the comeback. And lets face it, Dinara peaked when she told off Alison...

rockstar
Jun 17th, 2010, 08:34 AM
franny 5 and aga 6? no thanks.

The Witch-king
Jun 17th, 2010, 10:55 AM
It's definitely interesting but if they had that or something similar, it would be grossly unfair to Kim & Justine as they haven't played the last two years.

:confused:
unfair?
it's not like they were forced out of the game

kiwialicat
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:15 AM
:confused:
unfair?
it's not like they were forced out of the game

that's not the point. Whether you were forced out by injury or are coming back from a voluntary break, it isn't fair that you get bumped down, in the case of Kim or Justine, 3-4 spots. Whatever rank you have you deserve it. I don't support any sort of change to the seeds unless it's obvious in the form of a past winner who has consistently good results at that particular venue.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:35 AM
that's not the point. Whether you were forced out by injury or are coming back from a voluntary break, it isn't fair that you get bumped down, in the case of Kim or Justine, 3-4 spots. Whatever rank you have you deserve it. I don't support any sort of change to the seeds unless it's obvious in the form of a past winner who has consistently good results at that particular venue.

they didn't take a break...they "retired"...that was THEIR choice...if they get bumped down by a formula that ISN'T biased that's THEIR fault....how the hell is that unfair??

so everyone here thinks jh and kim should be bumped at RG and other slams arbitrarily because of "how great they were and to give a balanced draw", but you have a formula to use and THAT would be unfair LOL:lol:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:40 AM
Thats actually not the Men's system...close but not right.

You use their original ranking and add 100% of ALL grasscourt results for 2009 and 75% of the BEST grass court result in 2008.

You added ALL the grasscourt results for 2008 and not the BEST result only ;)

Correct :yeah:


Using men's formula seeds would be:

1. Serena

2. Venus

3. Woz
4. JJ

5. Schiavone
6. Stosur
7. Radwanska
8. Li

9. Safina
10.Petrova
11.Clijsters
12.Azarenka

13.Bartoli
14.Pennetta
15.Wickmayer
16.Peer

17.Sharapova
18.Kuznetsova
19.Zheng
20.Rezai
21.Zvonareva
22.Henin
23.Hantuchova
24.Martinez Sanchez

25.Kleybanova
26.Pavlyuchenkova
27.Kirilenko
28.Safarova
29.Shvedova
30.Bondarenko
31.Errani
32.Dulgheru

mykarma
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:41 AM
they didn't take a break...they "retired"...that was THEIR choice...if they get bumped down by a formula that ISN'T biased that's THEIR fault....how the hell is that unfair??

so everyone here thinks jh and kim should be bumped at RG and other slams arbitrarily because of "how great they were and to give a balanced draw", but you have a formula to use and THAT would be unfair LOL:lol:
this

Lord Choc Ice
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:46 AM
If the seedings were done that way Caro would be way lower. :tape:

kiwialicat
Jun 17th, 2010, 11:57 AM
they didn't take a break...they "retired"...that was THEIR choice...if they get bumped down by a formula that ISN'T biased that's THEIR fault....how the hell is that unfair??

so everyone here thinks jh and kim should be bumped at RG and other slams arbitrarily because of "how great they were and to give a balanced draw", but you have a formula to use and THAT would be unfair LOL:lol:

yeah they retired and then came back, to all intents and purposes that is a break. and I never said it wasn't their choice I said it was voluntary which clearly means it was their choice. The formula is biased. It's biased against people who haven't played for two years. Duh. Therefore it's unfair. Pretty simple stuff. It would be just as biased against people who had poor results because they were injured.

And not 'everybody here' thinks Justine and Kim should be bumped at RG.
A) Kim wasn't playing and even if she was bumping her would make no sense since she hasn't good enough results.
B) I didn't think Justine should be bumped either. So immediately, I've just proven what you said was incorrect.

your last sentence doesn't even make sense. So I don't know how to refute that. :)

mr_burns
Jun 17th, 2010, 12:03 PM
I think Dementieva would have been higher than JJ

In general I think it would be good idea to use the men's system:
1. nowadays there are specialists for grass in the womens game (mainly venus and serena), and it can be helpful to that reflected in seedings. This year they are already 1 and 2, so it does not make a difference, but last year eg it would have...no safina at 1

2. The formula in general for women and men should take ALL Wimbledon results of a player into account. IMO experience counts the most at Wimbledon. Players like Maria, Justine and Hewitt on the mens side would get a more deserved bump

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 17th, 2010, 12:09 PM
If the seedings were done that way Caro would be way lower. :tape:

No, she wouldn't. Check my post.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jun 17th, 2010, 02:16 PM
yeah they retired and then came back, to all intents and purposes that is a break. and I never said it wasn't their choice I said it was voluntary which clearly means it was their choice. The formula is biased. It's biased against people who haven't played for two years. Duh. Therefore it's unfair. Pretty simple stuff. It would be just as biased against people who had poor results because they were injured.

And not 'everybody here' thinks Justine and Kim should be bumped at RG.
A) Kim wasn't playing and even if she was bumping her would make no sense since she hasn't good enough results.
B) I didn't think Justine should be bumped either. So immediately, I've just proven what you said was incorrect.

your last sentence doesn't even make sense. So I don't know how to refute that. :)


if you miss a year and that's what the formula takes into consideration it's not biased against YOU...it's applied across the board to ANYONE who misses a year...(in this hypothetical situation) it didn't single out jh and kim...it applied itself to ALL players, and those 2 CHOSE to miss years therefore the got the shitty end of the stick

twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 02:32 PM
Thats actually not the Men's system...close but not right.

You use their original ranking and add 100% of ALL grasscourt results for 2009 and 75% of the BEST grass court result in 2008.

You added ALL the grasscourt results for 2008 and not the BEST result only ;)

Woops :angel:

I've changed it and uploaded a new file :yeah: Thanks!

Leo_DFP
Jun 17th, 2010, 03:48 PM
thing i hate about that system is that it damages players like clijsters who didnt play last year. Nadal didnt get #1 seed because he was injured last year, stupid. i know it doesnt make a difference being #1 or #2 but it would be nice to be #1

leave the rankings as they are AELTC, they are there for a reason. grass isnt a totally different surface now that theyve slowed it down, it doesnt need special rankings.

This. 100%. The AELTC ridicules the entire entry system and it needs to get over itself.

Matt01
Jun 17th, 2010, 04:24 PM
they didn't take a break...they "retired"...that was THEIR choice...if they get bumped down by a formula that ISN'T biased that's THEIR fault....how the hell is that unfair??

so everyone here thinks jh and kim should be bumped at RG and other slams arbitrarily because of "how great they were and to give a balanced draw", but you have a formula to use and THAT would be unfair LOL:lol:


Who is "everyone"? :rolleyes:

The formula is biased because it punishes players who were injured and/or retired twice because it adds up ranking points AND grass points from the last few years.

Dawson.
Jun 17th, 2010, 04:28 PM
So it only favours Safina and Hantuchova :shrug: Why everyone here gets their panties in a twist over the seedings is beyond me.

spencercarlos
Jun 17th, 2010, 04:30 PM
Who is "everyone"? :rolleyes:

The formula is biased because it punishes players who were injured and/or retired twice because it adds up ranking points AND grass points from the last few years.
It also punishes up and coming players.

Imagine new player on her second year on tour having a great deal of success, getting ranked 16, having to drop down because of that rule :rolleyes:

twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 05:57 PM
It also punishes up and coming players.

Imagine new player on her second year on tour having a great deal of success, getting ranked 16, having to drop down because of that rule :rolleyes:

Very good point.

Someone like Wickmayer, who actually played ITF in 2008

twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:10 PM
Just out of curiosity, what would Dementieva's seeding have been if she hadn't pulled out?

Dementieva: 5570 current
Last 12: 60 (Eastbourne 09) + 900 (Wimbledon 09) = 960
Prior 12: 900 (Wimbledon 08) * 0.75 = 675

5570 + 960 + 675 = 7205

So she would've been 3rd :eek: :)

Direwolf
Jun 17th, 2010, 06:13 PM
Very good point.

Someone like Wickmayer, who actually played ITF in 2008

it could benefit her in the future if she for example have an injury and couldnt play the grasscourt season the following year, just Wimbledon...



and... no one knows how the draw will turn up anyway...
she could be seed 22 and end up in Caro draw
or 9 and be in Venus R16

pwayne
Jun 17th, 2010, 07:13 PM
What about 's-Hertogenbosch? They should be part of the formula.

twight6
Jun 17th, 2010, 08:58 PM
What about 's-Hertogenbosch? They should be part of the formula.

It's included for players who played their instead of Eastbourne, I just didn't have enough room to list it :lol:. Also included is ITF Nottingham

kiwialicat
Jun 18th, 2010, 06:28 AM
if you miss a year and that's what the formula takes into consideration it's not biased against YOU...it's applied across the board to ANYONE who misses a year...(in this hypothetical situation) it didn't single out jh and kim...it applied itself to ALL players, and those 2 CHOSE to miss years therefore the got the shitty end of the stick

exactly. I'm not trying to argue that it singles out Kim or Justine, I'm saying that its biased in general whether your on the comeback from retirement or injury. Therefore it isn't fair.