PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon 2012 Do Venus and Kim deserve to be seeded??


flareon
May 31st, 2012, 09:15 AM
Genuine questions both are not going to be seeded at wimbledon should they... we all know wimbledon seeds slightly differently.

Tenis Srbija
May 31st, 2012, 09:21 AM
Yes and they will be.

ElusiveChanteuse
May 31st, 2012, 09:22 AM
Vee yes Kim no.

Hashim.
May 31st, 2012, 09:22 AM
Venus I can understand but why Kim.:confused:

flareon
May 31st, 2012, 09:29 AM
Venus I can understand but why Kim.:confused:

Shes multiple grand slam champ, and has a huge fan base, I mean I dunno but if she wasn't she could easily draw someone high in the first round and wimbledon will lose one big name. Plus its her last wimbledon.

Just Do It
May 31st, 2012, 09:31 AM
Venus #24, Kim #32.

Tenis Srbija
May 31st, 2012, 09:41 AM
Venus I can understand but why Kim.:confused:

Really? :facepalm:

M.P
May 31st, 2012, 09:50 AM
Venus Yes like #24
Kim NO! not a Wimbledon Champion

Yoncé
May 31st, 2012, 09:51 AM
Venus is a 5 time champ so yes.
Kim is irrelevant at Wimbledon so no.

franklinbouvier
May 31st, 2012, 09:59 AM
Two-time Wimbledon semi-finalist Kim Clijsters?
I think she should.

vozas
May 31st, 2012, 09:59 AM
Saint Sin is useless on grass. She probably won't even play it so why bother :shrug:

StephenUK
May 31st, 2012, 10:03 AM
I thought the rule was that they could only juggle the seedings between the top 32, in which case both Kim and Venus are likely to be out, unless they play in Birmingham and win it or something.

I do think if Venus were to be seeded, it would be fair to seed Kim, as she has reached the semis etc. But surely if you were to seed Venus, you would have to seed Pironkova, as she has dumped Venus out for the loss of five games the last two Wimbledons....and has reached a semi and a quarter, so her recent record is better than both Venus' and Kim's!

SELVEN
May 31st, 2012, 10:06 AM
This thread gives haters opportunity to show their grace.

Mightymirza
May 31st, 2012, 10:08 AM
no...

ZAK
May 31st, 2012, 10:09 AM
Venus does. She won five times and hasn't lost to anyone outside the top 15 all year.

J4m3ka
May 31st, 2012, 10:11 AM
I think so. Even if Kim hasn't been remarkable on grass throughout the years, it does suck to see two big names playing in R2 or whatever.

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 10:14 AM
Kim certainly not, Venus probably not either. It's not enough to be a 5-time champ, seedings should reflect the likelihood to win. Grass might be her best surface, but she has been good but not great since returning this year. I think it's good practice in case of doubt to err on the side of basing seedings on current rankings rather than past surface form.

Meelis
May 31st, 2012, 10:14 AM
I thought the rule was that they could only juggle the seedings between the top 32, in which case both Kim and Venus are likely to be out, unless they play in Birmingham and win it or something.

That`s only for men (and they use algorithm), they can shuffle the women like they wish.

Mistress of Evil
May 31st, 2012, 10:24 AM
I believe that Venus and maybe Pironkova will be seeded, have no idea about Kimberly.

jameshazza
May 31st, 2012, 10:27 AM
Venus in the top 16, or if she's unseeded they'll just put Pironkova on the other half of the draw. Don't see why Kim should be, if they rearrange seeds it's due to prior success at a tournament, which Kim doesn't really have.

lenas warriors
May 31st, 2012, 10:28 AM
I think if they seed Venus they should seed Kim. She may not be best on grass but did pretty well at Oz this year and is reasonably high in the WTA race... Would be nice if they actually used for someone other than a Williams sister. Tbh they shoudl use same criteria that they seed the men by...

flareon
May 31st, 2012, 10:34 AM
This thread gives haters opportunity to show their grace.

Yes I was hoping it would'nt :O

Shvedbarilescu
May 31st, 2012, 10:39 AM
It's a very difficult one this. The Wimbledon guideline on seeding is currently that they are prepared the move around the top 32 seeds but if you haven't reached the top 32 you are not seeded. Of course if ever there was a case for making an exception to this policy, Venus is it. You don't get 5 time winners of Wimbledon who are ranked outside the top 32 and coming to the end of their careers very often. This is as exceptional a case as you are going to get.

Personally I hope they do seed Venus, it would be a real shame if she ended up drawing a top seed in the 1st or 2nd round again. I really don't want to see that happen.

As for Kim, have to say I feel more indifferent. I wouldn't object to her getting a seed but I most definately wouldn't be at all upset if she didn't.

Infact, whatever the Wimbledon board do, I won't object. They have their reasons and rules are rules. But if they were to make an exception here and did seed Venus I think it would be very much to their credit.

Tenis Srbija
May 31st, 2012, 10:40 AM
Venus in the top 16, or if she's unseeded they'll just put Pironkova on the other half of the draw. Don't see why Kim should be, if they rearrange seeds it's due to prior success at a tournament, which Kim doesn't really have.

She is a two times semi-finalist, former world No1, multiple Grand Slam winner, this is her last season. Of course she will be seeded. Dear God!

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 10:47 AM
She is a two times semi-finalist, former world No1, multiple Grand Slam winner, this is her last season. Of course she will be seeded. Dear God!

Slam seedings aren't a lifetime achievement award, they're supposed to reflect the likelihood to win. There are good reasons for Wimbledon to deviate from the standard practice of basing seedings on rankings, but for players it's a big deal whether or not they get a (higher) seeding, so the decision should never be taken lightly. I think they generally do a pretty good job of this, so if Venus is seeded it will be because the organizers expect her to do well, not because of her illustrious record (although that will certainly factor into their judgment).

davidmario
May 31st, 2012, 10:51 AM
That`s only for men (and they use algorithm), they can shuffle the women like they wish.

:oh:

Shvedbarilescu
May 31st, 2012, 10:53 AM
That`s only for men (and they use algorithm), they can shuffle the women like they wish.

Well then, even more the reason to give Venus a WC.

Tenis Srbija
May 31st, 2012, 11:01 AM
Slam seedings aren't a lifetime achievement award, they're supposed to reflect the likelihood to win. There are good reasons for Wimbledon to deviate from the standard practice of basing seedings on rankings, but for players it's a big deal whether or not they get a (higher) seeding, so the decision should never be taken lightly. I think they generally do a pretty good job of this, so if Venus is seeded it will be because the organizers expect her to do well, not because of her illustrious record (although that will certainly factor into their judgment).

Well, as you can see on the example of Wimbledon, their seeding is in good amount based on a lifetime achievement on grass ;)

*Jool*
May 31st, 2012, 11:16 AM
I'm not sure their recent record at Wimbledon deserve a special treatment , that doesn't take all Venus's titles there away, of course ..but ...even though she was to do good, she'd have to meet solid, top players to do so ..and right now evenon grass I'm not sure she has that much of an edge...

tricky situation, cause if they seed Venus ... they'd almost HAVE to seed Kim too... and let's face it: better not being seeded and draw seed 21 in R2 and 12 in R3, than being seeded 32 and drawing the N1 in R3 ..

JackFrost
May 31st, 2012, 11:22 AM
Venus ok, but Kim?
Shes multiple grand slam champ

Maybe, but shouldn´t the current form and the ranking still mean something?


and has a huge fan base,

That should absolutely no reason for a seeding. A wildcard maybe, but not a seeding spot.

I mean I dunno but if she wasn't she could easily draw someone high in the first round and wimbledon will lose one big name.
And? Every player, who is not seeded has the same problem. I don´t think it´s good to manipulate the draw that way, to help certain players. (Yeah, maybe they doing it all the time, but I still don´t think, it´s wise).
Plus its her last wimbledon.
Don´t care. If Kims ranking isn´t good enough to be seeded (because she played like three tournaments in the last twelve month), then it´s not good enough. No need to steal it from somebody else.

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 11:24 AM
Well, as you can see on the example of Wimbledon, their seeding is in good amount based on a lifetime achievement on grass ;)

Well Venus more than lived up to her seeding last year, so I don't think they've been just giving her a blank cheque or anything like that.;)

It would be interesting to see how the seeds have performed at Wimbledon over the years compared to seedings if they had been based on rankings. Any stats freaks out there willing to take up the challenge? :)

NashaMasha
May 31st, 2012, 11:25 AM
Just imagine 1R matches Serena vs Venus and Vika vs Kim

they deserve to be seeded

BlueTrees
May 31st, 2012, 11:30 AM
Saint Sin is useless on grass. She probably won't even play it so why bother :shrug:

Don't come crying when she draws Masha in the first round then :oh:

BlueTrees
May 31st, 2012, 11:32 AM
Pironkova should get a Top 24 seeding as well IMO :shrug:

colt13
May 31st, 2012, 12:06 PM
Even though I dont like seeing reseeding, as it penalizes the 31st and 32nd seed, I think they both get seeded. For reference, A.Bondarenko got knocked out of a seed when Sharapova came back. Ranked 60, she was seeded 24, and Kim and Venus probably will be between 40-50 when the new rankings come out.

Kworb
May 31st, 2012, 12:11 PM
Neither should be seeded.

Chip.
May 31st, 2012, 12:12 PM
Venus yes, Kim no.

dsanders06
May 31st, 2012, 12:12 PM
Venus should be #16 seed, Clijsters #24, Pironkova #32.

Queenpova
May 31st, 2012, 12:17 PM
Venus yes Fiona no.

olivero
May 31st, 2012, 12:21 PM
They should seed Venus.
I'm not sure about Kim. I wouldn't be upset if they didn't. And I'm Kim's fan.

The Kaz
May 31st, 2012, 12:25 PM
I just want Pironkova to do her stuff again on Venus :hysteric:

I want another 6-2 6-3 drubbing :hearts:

slydevil6142
May 31st, 2012, 12:34 PM
I just want Pironkova to do her stuff again on Venus :hysteric:

I want another 6-2 6-3 drubbing :hearts:

Really unnessary and childish... :-\

Sent from my LG-E739 using VerticalSports.Com App

Mattographer
May 31st, 2012, 12:39 PM
No and no.

This system for only 32 seeded players and neither of them are inside the top 32.

Wojtek
May 31st, 2012, 12:39 PM
Two-time Wimbledon semi-finalist Kim Clijsters?
I think she should.
so if Graf plays she will be seeded number 1 or 2 :confused:

Patrick345
May 31st, 2012, 12:51 PM
No they don´t. Simple as that.

vw.
May 31st, 2012, 01:00 PM
Sharapova went into 2009 ranked 60 and was seeded 24. I'm expecting similar for Venus.

dybbuk
May 31st, 2012, 01:01 PM
How is Kim having a lot of fans relevant to whether or not she should be seeded. They can't start giving special favors to players just because they're popular with fans. Kim hasn't had a good grass result in forever and has never even made a Wimbledon final; so clearly based on any objective use of how the seeding is done she should not be seeded.

Viktymise
May 31st, 2012, 01:10 PM
Pironkova should get the #1 seed.

Beat
May 31st, 2012, 01:11 PM
Shes multiple grand slam champ, and has a huge fan base

and that's what seedings should be based upon?

TheBoiledEgg
May 31st, 2012, 01:18 PM
let Venus beat Kim in 1st rd :)

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 01:21 PM
let Venus beat Kim in 1st rd :)

You mean as a kind of combined seed? ;) That would be truly innovative seeding! :lol:

The 2nd Law
May 31st, 2012, 01:24 PM
@ people saying Kim has a big fanbase as justification for a seeding, isn't that essentially a VIP seeding? :oh:


Venus should absolutely be seeded.

flareon
May 31st, 2012, 01:28 PM
I am not justifying she should be seeded for having a huge fan base, I was saying it as a positive, people want to see kim play they do not want her to go out in round 1 or 2 to one of the top 8... People want to see her in the second week that is what I meant....

Alejandrawrrr
May 31st, 2012, 01:31 PM
I'd be inclined to think Venus will, Kim might. I'd seed them just well enough to avoid potential upsets too early in the tournament that might be bad for the wta. That said, I won't be losing sleep over either of them not being seeded.

dsanders06
May 31st, 2012, 01:33 PM
How is Kim having a lot of fans relevant to whether or not she should be seeded. They can't start giving special favors to players just because they're popular with fans. Kim hasn't had a good grass result in forever and has never even made a Wimbledon final; so clearly based on any objective use of how the seeding is done she should not be seeded.

In her last two Wimbledons, she made the last 4 in one and the last 8 in the other. How would that suggest she isn't atleast in the Top 32 contenders? :weirdo:

Shivank17
May 31st, 2012, 01:34 PM
Vee yes of course. Kim not so much.

Yoncé
May 31st, 2012, 01:39 PM
In her last two Wimbledons, she made the last 4 in one and the last 8 in the other. How would that suggest she isn't atleast in the Top 32 contenders? :weirdo:

Because one of those 'last two' Wimbledons was six years ago...

TheBoiledEgg
May 31st, 2012, 01:40 PM
if they do that then Tsveti deserves to be seeded too

ViceUltramontain
May 31st, 2012, 01:41 PM
Venus is a 5 times champion. She should be.
Kim is a 2012 GS semi finalist who had to deal with small injuries this year, it would be nice to put her at #32 but I don't see it happening.

CloudAtlas
May 31st, 2012, 01:43 PM
Clijsters will give another half-arsed performance so who cares if she's seeded or not. She could just as easily lose 2R as she could in QF so why bother wasting a seed on her?

Venus perhaps should be, although I'm also not entirely confident of her post round 16 chances. But the fact that she's a 5 time champion weighs heavily in her favour.

RG Freak
May 31st, 2012, 01:45 PM
Neither of them deserves to be seeded. Other players earned their Top 32 ranking, and they are the ones who deserve the seeding. On the other hand, I don't think any of the seeded players wants to meet Clijsters or Venus in the first two rounds...

Kon.
May 31st, 2012, 01:45 PM
Venus deserves it. Not sure about Kim.

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 01:46 PM
In her last two Wimbledons, she made the last 4 in one and the last 8 in the other. How would that suggest she isn't atleast in the Top 32 contenders? :weirdo:

The SF was forever ago tbh. And even though her Wimbledon record is one most mere mortals would die for, it pales against Venus'. You need a pretty good argument to go this strongly against rankings in determining the seedings. I have my doubts whether even Venus' record justifies that, but Kim's certainly doesn't.

$uricate
May 31st, 2012, 01:49 PM
No.

Where do you draw the line?

I can accept Venus being seeded being that she is a 5-time champ and her ranking dropped because she could not play but Kim is part-timer. Why should she be seeded over girls who work all year?

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 01:50 PM
It would be interesting to see how the seeds have performed at Wimbledon over the years compared to seedings if they had been based on rankings. Any stats freaks out there willing to take up the challenge? :)

I did take a look at it once, but didn't find anything of statistical newsworthiness. Reason#1 is that the Wimbledon seedings pretty much follow the WTA rankings (from the week before), except they may bump up one or two players. That obviously shifts the seeding for everybody else, but it's a shift rather than a complete shuffle around. Reason#2 is that due to their criteria plus circumstances, only a very select group of players get bumped... and they're usually named Williams, so there's not much to work with, stats-wise.

Speaking of criteria, they'll typically bump last year's champion if her ranking has dropped significantly. That would be Serena in 2004 (#10->S:1 (WTA#1 Henin was out)), Venus in 2006 (#12->S:6), and Serena in 2011 (#25->S:8 (then S:7 when Clijsters#2 withdrew). But in 2009 they stayed with the WTA rankings (Safina#1, Serena#2, Venus#3) even though Venus defeated Serena in the final the previous year. Also, Sharapova didn't get bumped in 2005 (#2->S:2).

In recent years I think Venus and Sharapova are the only players (read: previous champions) to get bumped even if they didn't win the previous year: Venus in 2004 as a 2003-finalist (#8->S:3 (Henin#1 out)), in 2007 (#30->S:24 (then S:23 ...Clijsters)) after a R32 result, and in 2011 (#31->S:24) after a QF result. Sharapova was bumped from #60 to S:24 in 2009 - that's the only time I recall they've seeded someone ranked outside the top32. (Note how they always bump up to the last slot in a given bracket).

Being a finalist alone doesn't seem to be enough to get you bumped: Bartoli didn't get bumped in 2008 (#10->S:11 (she was #11 when they did the seedings)) and Zvonareva didn't get bumped in 2011 (#3->S:2 (Clijsters#2 out)).

ViceUltramontain
May 31st, 2012, 01:51 PM
No.

Where do you draw the line?

I can accept Venus being seeded being that she is a 5-time champ and her ranking dropped because she could not play but Kim is part-timer. Why should she be seeded over girls who work all year?

Kim has been injured.

C. Drone
May 31st, 2012, 01:51 PM
In her last two Wimbledons, she made the last 4 in one and the last 8 in the other. How would that suggest she isn't atleast in the Top 32 contenders? :weirdo:

Is her last name Pironkova? :lol:

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 02:04 PM
I'd be inclined to think Venus will, Kim might. I'd seed them just well enough to avoid potential upsets too early in the tournament that might be bad for the wta. That said, I won't be losing sleep over either of them not being seeded.

Given the circumstances with Clijsters being outside the top 50 (ca., I think), it would be unprecedented for them to seed her. She's not a previous champion (or finalist for that matter), she didn't participate last year, etc. The same goes for Pironkova. But I think they may bump Venus to #32 - that would not be out of line with how they've handled previous champions (usually named Williams...) in the past 10 years.

In The Zone
May 31st, 2012, 02:06 PM
If Sharapova, not being a seed, was bumped to 24, you'd think a 5 time champion and 3 time finalist would be bumped to 24 - minimum.

Kim - no. Nothing warrants her being seeded.

$uricate
May 31st, 2012, 02:06 PM
Kim has been injured.

I suppose.

I still don't think she should be seeded though.

Wimbledon is the only tourney this applies to, and I don't agree with it.

They use a formula involving some percentage of your last Wimbledon and a lesser percentage of the one before that. For Kim that would be zero and a QF. I dont think that would elevate her ranking enough.

lizchris
May 31st, 2012, 02:07 PM
Venus yes, Kim no.

Do you want a repeat of 2007 when Venus faced Sharapova in the fth round and beat her 6-1, 6-3 (or 6-3, 6-1)?

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 02:11 PM
I did take a look at it once, but didn't find anything of statistical newsworthiness. Reason#1 is that the Wimbledon seedings pretty much follow the WTA rankings (from the week before), except they may bump up one or two players. That obviously shifts the seeding for everybody else, but it's a shift rather than a complete shuffle around. Reason#2 is that due to their criteria plus circumstances, only a very select group of players get bumped... and they're usually named Williams, so there's not much to work with, stats-wise.

Speaking of criteria, they'll typically bump last year's champion if her ranking has dropped significantly. That would be Serena in 2004 (#10->S:1 (WTA#1 Henin was out)), Venus in 2006 (#12->S:6), and Serena in 2011 (#25->S:8 (then S:7 when Clijsters#2 withdrew). But in 2009 they stayed with the WTA rankings (Safina#1, Serena#2, Venus#3) even though Venus defeated Serena in the final the previous year. Also, Sharapova didn't get bumped in 2005 (#2->S:2).

In recent years I think Venus and Sharapova are the only players (read: previous champions) to get bumped even if they didn't win the previous year: Venus in 2004 as a 2003-finalist (#8->S:3 (Henin#1 out)), in 2007 (#31->S:24 (then S:23 ...Clijsters)) after a R32 result, and in 2011 (#31->S:24) after a QF result. Sharapova was bumped from #60 to S:24 in 2009 - that's the only time I recall they've seeded someone ranked outside the top32. (Note how they always bump up to the last slot in a given bracket).

Being a finalist alone doesn't seem to be enough to get you bumped: Bartoli didn't get bumped in 2008 (#10->S:11 (she was #11 when they did the seedings)) and Zvonareva didn't get bumped in 2011 (#3->S:2 (Clijsters#2 out)).

Yes, I can see that it would be difficult to draw any strong conclusions, but it might be interesting to see how often the people who were bumped at least lived up to their seeding, as opposed to those they bumped down. My impression is that bumped players tend to do quite well, but I have very little to base that on.

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 02:12 PM
Venus yes, Kim no.

Do you want a repeat of 2007 when Venus faced Sharapova in the fth round and beat her 6-1, 6-3 (or 6-3, 6-1)?

Sharapova was seeded in accordance with her ranking (#2) that year!?

Jajaloo
May 31st, 2012, 02:13 PM
Neither player deserves to be seeded. Just delaying the inevitable really. Past glories should not affect current tournaments. If they really are going to make an impact on the tournament, then it won't matter if they're seeded or not.

In The Zone
May 31st, 2012, 02:15 PM
Wimbledon already set precedence with this by seeding Sharapova, 1 time champion AND NEVER FINALIST, in 2009 by placing her at #24.

Now we have a 5-time champion and 3-time finalist. No brainer - if Wimbledon is consistent. They change the rules as they go.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/06/17/tennis.sharapova.wimbledon.nadal.williams/

Karma: Sharapova lost in the 2R to Dulko.

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 02:36 PM
Yes, I can see that it would be difficult to draw any strong conclusions, but it might be interesting to see how often the people who were bumped at least lived up to their seeding, as opposed to those they bumped down. My impression is that bumped players tend to do quite well, but I have very little to base that on.

Again, there's not so much to work with, but here are the ones I mentioned:

Better than expected:
2007: Venus#31, S:24 -> WON - (R32 expected)
2011: Venus#30, S:24 -> R16 - (R32 expected)

Right bracket:
2004: Serena#10, S:1 -> F

Worse than expected:
2004: Venus#8, S:3 -> R64 - (SF expected)
2006: Venus#12, S:6 -> R32 - (QF expected)
2009: Sharapova#60, S:24 -> R64 - (R32 expected)
2011: Serena#25, S:8 -> R16 - (QF expected)

Nina.
May 31st, 2012, 02:39 PM
If Sharapova, not being a seed, was bumped to 24, you'd think a 5 time champion and 3 time finalist would be bumped to 24 - minimum.

That pretty much sums it up.

Vicky88
May 31st, 2012, 02:42 PM
This thread has to be a joke right?

Why on earth would either of them deserve to be seeded over players who have earned it? Venus might have deserved it in her glory days, but there is nothing about her play the last 12 months that indicates she is any real threat to win Wimbledon. Even if they gave her the #1 seed she could easily lose round 1.

The seedings are not there to protect players that were once great and you think because you are a fan would like to see go thru to the end. They are supposedly merit based with the idea that the best players go thru to the end. It's time that we all admit that Venus Williams no longer resides on that list.

As for Kim, if a seeding and ranking was important enough for her she would have played a lot more.

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 02:43 PM
Again, there's not so much to work with, but here are the ones I mentioned:

Better than expected:
2007: Venus#31, S:24 -> WON - (R32 expected)
2011: Venus#30, S:24 -> R16 - (R32 expected)

Right bracket:
2004: Serena#10, S:1 -> F

Worse than expected:
2004: Venus#8, S:3 -> R64 - (SF expected)
2006: Venus#12, S:6 -> R32 - (QF expected)
2009: Sharapova#60, S:24 -> R64 - (R32 expected)
2011: Serena#25, S:8 -> R16 - (QF expected)

Hmmm... not a great record is it? Still, the number of observations is really too small to draw any real conclusion (which is what you said in the first place ;))

Jajaloo
May 31st, 2012, 02:52 PM
This thread has to be a joke right?

Why on earth would either of them deserve to be seeded over players who have earned it? Venus might have deserved it in her glory days, but there is nothing about her play the last 12 months that indicates she is any real threat to win Wimbledon. Even if they gave her the #1 seed she could easily lose round 1.

The seedings are not there to protect players that were once great and you think because you are a fan would like to see go thru to the end. They are supposedly merit based with the idea that the best players go thru to the end. It's time that we all admit that Venus Williams no longer resides on that list.

As for Kim, if a seeding and ranking was important enough for her she would have played a lot more.

:worship:

DefyingGravity
May 31st, 2012, 03:00 PM
Venus, Kim, and Tsveti need to all be seeded.

Venus and Tsveti much more so than the others.

Venus is a five time champion and has made at least since 2007. Tsvetana has had SF and QF results the past two years.

Honestly, Tsvetana should sneak in at like 27, Venus at 19.

Kim is a harder case since she didn't play Wimbledon last year, and she lost to Zvonareva in 2010.

However, it's not fair if Maria at #60 in the world after her shoulder surgery could get bumped up to #24 seeding (and then subsequently lose to Dulko), that Venus wouldn't be. Venus coming back from injury went farther than her seeding and lost to a healthier former semifinalist.

Alejandrawrrr
May 31st, 2012, 03:03 PM
This thread has to be a joke right?

Why on earth would either of them deserve to be seeded over players who have earned it? Venus might have deserved it in her glory days, but there is nothing about her play the last 12 months that indicates she is any real threat to win Wimbledon. Even if they gave her the #1 seed she could easily lose round 1.

The seedings are not there to protect players that were once great and you think because you are a fan would like to see go thru to the end. They are supposedly merit based with the idea that the best players go thru to the end. It's time that we all admit that Venus Williams no longer resides on that list.

As for Kim, if a seeding and ranking was important enough for her she would have played a lot more.

Like I said before I don't really care whether Venus is seeded one way or another, but you don't rate her as one of the top 32 players likely to make it to the tail end of/win Wimbledon? No one's saying she should take a top 8 seed or anything, but 32? Peng or Niculescu are expected to make a deeper run than Venus?

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 03:13 PM
Like I said before I don't really care whether Venus is seeded one way or another, but you don't rate her as one of the top 32 players likely to make it to the tail end of/win Wimbledon? No one's saying she should take a top 8 seed or anything, but 32? Peng or Niculescu are expected to make a deeper run than Venus?

She probably is good enough to make the last 32, but I think the seeding committee should err the side of conservatism, or they'll risk undermining the credibility of their special seeding procedures. Marlene's post makes clear that recent instances of players who were seeded above their ranking more often than not failed to live up to their seeding.

That doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong (the luck of the draw means that you can sometimes get a better draw as a lower seed than as a higher seed) but the more often that happens the more pressure they'll be under to just go with the rankings in future like the other slams. That would be a pity, because the shortness of the grass season and the fact that few players know how to play well on grass means that there is a genuine case for bumping certain players higher than their ranking.

C. Drone
May 31st, 2012, 03:16 PM
This thread has to be a joke right?

Why on earth would either of them deserve to be seeded over players who have earned it? Venus might have deserved it in her glory days, but there is nothing about her play the last 12 months that indicates she is any real threat to win Wimbledon. Even if they gave her the #1 seed she could easily lose round 1.

The seedings are not there to protect players that were once great and you think because you are a fan would like to see go thru to the end. They are supposedly merit based with the idea that the best players go thru to the end. It's time that we all admit that Venus Williams no longer resides on that list.

As for Kim, if a seeding and ranking was important enough for her she would have played a lot more.

there is another point of view.
The seedings are good to protect current top players to meet other inform or very good players too early. In other words, with their rankings seeded players earned the right to get a qualifier or someone lower ranked in early rounds.
Maybe Kim and Venus potential danger for these players, maybe not because they´ll play crap. Depends on how important avoiding early matchups of big names.

(of course another small problem someone might lose her seeding because of that.)

bobito
May 31st, 2012, 03:26 PM
No to both and frankly no to the All England Club's seeding committee doing this every year. Far too often players' seedings have been bumped up more to please crowd or sponsors than because they genuinely have a better chance of winning than those ranked above them. The obvious example is Tim Henman, who was always given an elevated seeding to please the home crowd. The argument that it is justified on the basis of previous results on grass is nonsense. Since the grass court season is so short, Wimbledon results and grass court record are virtually one and the same thing. It therefore becomes self perpetuating. If you give Henman an undeserved semi-final seeding every year, of course he will have a better record on grass.

It is tantamount to rigging the draw and it should be stopped. Seed the players by their ranking. If they are good enough they will get through anyway.

The only instance where I think it is justified is in the case of a defending champion, especially if that player's ranking has dropped due to injury, as in Serena's case last year.

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 03:46 PM
Hmmm... not a great record is it? Still, the number of observations is really too small to draw any real conclusion (which is what you said in the first place ;))

Well, perhaps we're not supposed to be so nitpicky about it. They've never bumped Venus more than one bracket up (heck, #31/30->S:24/23 is in the same bracket, an expected R32 result) and Sharapova #60->S:24 is also just one bracket, so sometimes it seems to be just a symbolic gesture. Even if they were truly expecting Venus (#31) to win in 2007, I don't think they would have bumped her much higher than they did, S:24.

Loveangelnr1
May 31st, 2012, 03:47 PM
Venus YES :worship:

Kim NO :wavey:

NeKo
May 31st, 2012, 03:52 PM
Why would either of them deserve to be seeded? There are players who earned their right to be seeded.

bobito
May 31st, 2012, 04:06 PM
In her last two Wimbledons, she made the last 4 in one and the last 8 in the other. How would that suggest she isn't atleast in the Top 32 contenders? :weirdo:

Because one of those 'last two' Wimbledons was six years ago...

And in the other one she was getting thrashed in the 4th round until her opponent slipped and badly hurt herself.

@ people saying Kim has a big fanbase as justification for a seeding, isn't that essentially a VIP seeding? :oh:

That's essentially what the Wimbledon seeding committee do.

danieln1
May 31st, 2012, 04:19 PM
Venus yes because she is the greatest Wimbledon player of her era.

Kimberly obviously not, didnt even reach a final in Wimbledon and she's pretty much useless on grass.

stromatolite
May 31st, 2012, 04:20 PM
No to both and frankly no to the All England Club's seeding committee doing this every year. Far too often players' seedings have been bumped up more to please crowd or sponsors than because they genuinely have a better chance of winning than those ranked above them. The obvious example is Tim Henman, who was always given an elevated seeding to please the home crowd. The argument that it is justified on the basis of previous results on grass is nonsense. Since the grass court season is so short, Wimbledon results and grass court record are virtually one and the same thing. It therefore becomes self perpetuating. If you give Henman an undeserved semi-final seeding every year, of course he will have a better record on grass.

It is tantamount to rigging the draw and it should be stopped. Seed the players by their ranking. If they are good enough they will get through anyway.

The only instance where I think it is justified is in the case of a defending champion, especially if that player's ranking has dropped due to injury, as in Serena's case last year.

You may well be right that that's the way it works in practice, and if so I agree they should just stick to rankings. But I still think there is a serious case to be made for tweaking the seedings at Wimbledon, and they should probably consider it for RG as well IMO. Because the bulk of the season is played on hardcourts, including 2 of the 4 slams, surface specialists are at a serious disadvantage.

Surface-specific seedings would make even more sense if they made the clay and grasscourts the way they used to be. These days they are more often than not just glorified hardcourts.

Stonerpova
May 31st, 2012, 04:21 PM
I don't think either of them do.

bobito
May 31st, 2012, 04:47 PM
You may well be right that that's the way it works in practice, and if so I agree they should just stick to rankings. But I still think there is a serious case to be made for tweaking the seedings at Wimbledon, and they should probably consider it for RG as well IMO. Because the bulk of the season is played on hardcourts, including 2 of the 4 slams, surface specialists are at a serious disadvantage.

Surface-specific seedings would make even more sense if they made the clay and grasscourts the way they used to be. These days they are more often than not just glorified hardcourts.

There's a far better case for doing it at Roland Garros because there are a fair number of clay events to draw upon. They could therefore weight their seedings based on that year's clay court results. The grass court season is too short to form a meaningful conclusion unless you are drawing upon results from several years ago. Of course this, in the case of Venus, is exactly what people are doing.

Venus will be 32 years old come Wimbledon. She has played only two top 50 opponents at the last two Championships, neither of them in the top 25, and lost to one of them. You have to go back at least three years to find some kind of grass court form to justify a seeding and, at her age, that is meaningless. To seed Venus would be, as Hurricane Ana put it, VIP seeding.

Stick to the rankings. That, after all, is what they are for. If that means that a a couple of good grass court players are unseeded then we'll have a bit of fun to look forward to in the first week.

lizchris
May 31st, 2012, 05:00 PM
Sharapova was seeded in accordance with her ranking (#2) that year!?
Yes and Venus looked more like the top five player that day.

Talula
May 31st, 2012, 05:09 PM
I have sympathy for Venus being seeded based on her record at Wimbledon - the most successful player on grass since Graf. And it would feel a bit odd if the Wimbledon Officials didn't show some appreciation of her achievements there. But Kim? No. She has deliberately and wilfully not played tennis. She has admitted she can't be arsed when playing smaller tournaments and lower ranked players. Yes she's a relatively big name but her ranking is her own fault and she hasn't been very respectful to the game so no, she should play and win or lose by her own petard.

Broseghini
May 31st, 2012, 05:17 PM
Pironkova >>> Clijsters :shrug:

Maddox
May 31st, 2012, 06:10 PM
Hoping for at least a 32 seed for Venus

Kim..... Eeeeeh :ras:

faboozadoo15
May 31st, 2012, 06:50 PM
Venis will of course be seeded. Even top 16 or top 8 wouldn't surprise me.

Where they put Kim and Pironkova will be interesting.

Roookie
May 31st, 2012, 06:52 PM
I really hope they seed the WS 1 and 2.

Nicolás89
May 31st, 2012, 06:59 PM
Venus definitely.

bobito
May 31st, 2012, 07:15 PM
Venis will of course be seeded. Even top 16 or top 8 wouldn't surprise me.

Where they put Kim and Pironkova will be interesting.

Last year she was ranked 30 but seeded 23 so I doubt we'll see anything higher than around 30.

manu32
May 31st, 2012, 07:18 PM
Venus obviously,Clijsters no

Dodoboy.
May 31st, 2012, 07:20 PM
Venus does. She won five times and hasn't lost to anyone outside the top 15 all year.

:speakles:

Really?

We forget that Serena and Venus have actually had great seasons :lol:

Well not 'great' seasons, let me rephrase that. Just not DISASTER seasons like RG makes it seem :sobbing:

Stonerpova
May 31st, 2012, 07:26 PM
:speakles:

Really?

We forget that Serena and Venus have actually had great seasons :lol:

Yeah that's a surprising stat, at least where Venus is concerned. Serena's only lost 3 matches, but all 3 were pretty bad losses. Venus isn't playing all that great, but she's getting through the matches she should be winning.

Dodoboy.
May 31st, 2012, 07:36 PM
Yeah that's a surprising stat, at least where Venus is concerned. Serena's only lost 3 matches, but all 3 were pretty bad losses. Venus isn't playing all that great, but she's getting through the matches she should be winning.

Even for some of Venus' good seasons we couldn't say that!

Wozniacki, Razzano and Makarova!

What a group :sobbing: They have nothing in common!

Marlene
May 31st, 2012, 08:26 PM
Last year she was ranked 30 but seeded 23 so I doubt we'll see anything higher than around 30.

Bumping Venus from #30 to 24 (23 after Clijster withdrew) is not much more than a symbolic gesture. She was still in the [17-32] bracket so the bump didn't make a huge difference in terms of when/where she'd face higher-seeded opponents. Based on what they've done before (with Venus herself and Sharapova), I think it's likely she'll get a 24-32 seeding.

Vincey!
May 31st, 2012, 08:33 PM
Venus #24, Kim #32.

doesn't really make much of a difference if you'Re seended 32 or 24 does it? lol :shrug:

If you want to make a difference in Kim and Venus seeding which I think would make sense is to put Venus in the top 16 and Kim 32. I think they both deserve seeds and they both probably will, but Venus would deserve to be favor more than Kim for sure.

mckyle.
May 31st, 2012, 08:34 PM
doesn't really make much of a difference if you'Re seended 32 or 24 does it? lol :shrug:

17-24 draw 9-16 in R3
25-32 draw 1-8 in R3

Sombrerero loco
May 31st, 2012, 08:34 PM
they wont be seeded right?

Vincey!
May 31st, 2012, 08:36 PM
17-24 draw 9-16 in R3
25-32 draw 1-8 in R3

oh then I think it'd be fair to put Kim 32 and Venus 24

mckyle.
May 31st, 2012, 08:36 PM
If Zvonareva, Petkovic, and Hantuchova all miss Wimbledon, then they can be replaced by Pironkova, Venus, and Kim without it really affecting anything.

Pironkova #23
Venus #24
Kim #32

perseus2006
May 31st, 2012, 08:37 PM
No. Part timers should not be encouraged.

Give them what their current rankings have earned.

Vincey!
May 31st, 2012, 08:39 PM
If Zvonareva, Petkovic, and Hantuchova all miss Wimbledon, then they can be replaced by Pironkova, Venus, and Kim without it really affecting anything.

Pironkova #23
Venus #24
Kim #32

Why would they bump up Pironkova? lol she makes one final and she's now a contestant every year? Wouldn't be fair to someone like Bartoli who also made the final and is never bumped up and she's actually in the top 10 lol.I doubt she'd ever be considered to be bumped up at Wimby even if she was outside the top 25.

mckyle.
May 31st, 2012, 08:43 PM
Why would they bump up Pironkova? lol she makes one final and she's now a contestant every year? Wouldn't be fair to someone like Bartoli who also made the final and is never bumped up and she's actually in the top 10 lol.I doubt she'd ever be considered to be bumped up at Wimby even if she was outside the top 25.

I guess just for fairness considering she's demolished Venus (the five-time champion) two years in a row.

Archer16
May 31st, 2012, 08:55 PM
I agree with the Venus #24, Kim #32 suggestion.
Slam seedings aren't a lifetime achievement award, they're supposed to reflect the likelihood to win. There are good reasons for Wimbledon to deviate from the standard practice of basing seedings on rankings, but for players it's a big deal whether or not they get a (higher) seeding, so the decision should never be taken lightly. I think they generally do a pretty good job of this, so if Venus is seeded it will be because the organizers expect her to do well, not because of her illustrious record (although that will certainly factor into their judgment).
Coming back from injury or not, you want to tell me there are 30 players (or even 15) in the draw with better chances to win than Kim (not to mention Venus)? The woman won a slam fresh out of retirement so "rust" is not a factor for her, and has two semis and two QF here. How many players in the draw have a better grass resume? Less than 10, that's for sure.
Even though I dont like seeing reseeding, as it penalizes the 31st and 32nd seed, I think they both get seeded. For reference, A.Bondarenko got knocked out of a seed when Sharapova came back. Ranked 60, she was seeded 24, and Kim and Venus probably will be between 40-50 when the new rankings come out.
The precedent alone closes the argument whether they should be seeded or not.

Tennis_News
May 31st, 2012, 09:21 PM
As a five-time champ, Venus needs to be seeded, and probably will be. But, Clijsters probably not, unless they cave in because she is playing her last WImbledon and has the potential to really mess up the event if she is unseeded.

bobito
May 31st, 2012, 09:21 PM
Bumping Venus from #30 to 24 (23 after Clijster withdrew) is not much more than a symbolic gesture. She was still in the [17-32] bracket so the bump didn't make a huge difference in terms of when/where she'd face higher-seeded opponents. Based on what they've done before (with Venus herself and Sharapova), I think it's likely she'll get a 24-32 seeding.

It ensured that she wouldn't face one of the top 8 in the 3rd round.

One of the considerations that should come into this is who are you depriving of a seeding if you bump an ageing VIP. The player currently ranked 32 is Mona Barthel. This raises a couple of questions that have to be seriously considered before you bump Venus or Kim into the seeds at Barthel's expense:


Is it right to deprive an exciting young rising star of the seeding she has earned in order to make way for an ageing star who appears to be past their prime?
Who would the top players consider the biggest threat? Remember that Barthel twice came within a whisker of stopping Azarenka's unbeaten run earlier this year.

thrust
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:27 AM
No they don´t. Simple as that.

CORRECT!

thrust
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:35 AM
I have sympathy for Venus being seeded based on her record at Wimbledon - the most successful player on grass since Graf. And it would feel a bit odd if the Wimbledon Officials didn't show some appreciation of her achievements there. But Kim? No. She has deliberately and wilfully not played tennis. She has admitted she can't be arsed when playing smaller tournaments and lower ranked players. Yes she's a relatively big name but her ranking is her own fault and she hasn't been very respectful to the game so no, she should play and win or lose by her own petard.

Good points. There would be some justification for Venus, but not for Kim.

ViceUltramontain
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:39 AM
But Kim? No. She has deliberately and wilfully not played tennis. She has admitted she can't be arsed when playing smaller tournaments and lower ranked players. Yes she's a relatively big name but her ranking is her own fault and she hasn't been very respectful to the game so no, she should play and win or lose by her own petard.

She has injured herself twice this year, on court, in front of people.

new-york
Jun 1st, 2012, 02:47 AM
It's not even about Venus' resume, although it prolly has an influence, but she made it to the last 8 and the last 16 the past two editions.

perseus2006
Jun 1st, 2012, 03:48 AM
Deviating from Rankings as the basis for Seeds is a very serious issue.

In this case, seeding Venus and Kim out of sympathy would mean depriving two players, who have worked throughout the last 52 weeks, the seeds they have earned!

Let Venus and Kim live with the consequences of their Part Time Participation on tour. If it's sympathy they need, then at the pretournament party have the ITF give them 2012 Appreciation Awards. Venus and Kim, who have been part timers for years, have no claim to the seeds others have earned.

Lyoshka80
Jun 1st, 2012, 04:30 AM
No, as much as i like both of these ladies, neither one deserves seeding this time around. Venus was already seeded higher than her ranking last year and didn't show anything for it. And Kim's record at Wimbledon is pretty lame. Two semifinals six years ago are not enough to justify an adjustment.

Buitenzorg
Jun 1st, 2012, 04:57 AM
Yes...

Venus #16
Kim #24

Temperenka
Jun 1st, 2012, 08:11 AM
Venus should be #16, Kim should be unseeded.

flareon
Jun 1st, 2012, 08:22 AM
I did not expect so many people to reply, I only started this thread because it crossed my mind the other day because I realised they would not make it... Who will miss out of seeding if they do, and I am going to add a poll.

NA-GOAT
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:08 PM
1 Serena
2 Maria
3 Venus
4 Petra
5 Na
6-128 The Other MUGS

VishaalMaria
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:13 PM
I hope Venus isn't seeded.

madmax
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:18 PM
who cares - both are irrelevant mugs nowadays anyway

bobito
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:21 PM
I did not expect so many people to reply, I only started this thread because it crossed my mind the other day because I realised they would not make it... Who will miss out of seeding if they do, and I am going to add a poll.

As things currently stand, if these two were seeded it would be at the expense of Kuznetsova, a 2 time slam winner, or Pavlyuchenkova, a promising young player. Another player who comes into it if somebody drops out injured is Mona Barthel, one of the most exciting young players to break through this year.

1 Serena
2 Maria
3 Venus
4 Petra
5 Na
6-128 The Other MUGS

You would bump Serena above the defending champion? Based on what, her stellar performances at other slams this year?

LightWarrior
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:22 PM
Venus will be seeded within the 17/32 range.
There's no way Kim will be seeded.
As for Serena being bumped to the 1/4 range I doubt it.

fede33
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:23 PM
Yes !!
Venus #24 and Kim #32

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:34 PM
She has injured herself twice this year, on court, in front of people.

she was fit 2-3 weeks before RG

ViceUltramontain
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:46 PM
she was fit 2-3 weeks before RG

She admited it herself :shrug: Given her injury history, there was no way she would have taken the risk to play on clay when her main goals are the Olympics. She's way too scared of the surface now.





Venus is a lock for a seed.
I thought Kim would not be seeded, but with the late withdrawals, they might think about it now.

dsanders06
Jun 16th, 2012, 09:59 PM
As things currently stand, if these two were seeded it would be at the expense of Kuznetsova, a 2 time slam winner, or Pavlyuchenkova, a promising young player. Another player who comes into it if somebody drops out injured is Mona Barthel, one of the most exciting young players to break through this year.

I'm probably among the biggest Pavlyuchenkova fans on the board, but Venus and Kim are far more deserving of a seeding than she is :shrug: Pavs barely lived up to her seeding at RG, she'll be lucky to beat anyone in the top 100 on grass with her form this year.
And Kuznetsova is barely a factor on grass even at the best of times.

Lulu.
Jun 16th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Yes. They both do.

dizoo
Jun 16th, 2012, 10:32 PM
No.

edificio
Jun 16th, 2012, 10:37 PM
who cares - both are irrelevant mugs nowadays anyway

:confused:

perseus2006
Jun 16th, 2012, 11:17 PM
No. they don't deserve to be seeded. Neither is active on the Tour this year or last year nor will either be active on the Tour next year.

Venus and Kim are only playing for Olympic glory. They made the cutoff for that, leave them where they fall. There is no need to deprive players who have earned their seeded positions for these part timers. Part timers who will probably not even play next year at all or, at best, just look for more special treatment into the Majors.

AcesHigh
Jun 16th, 2012, 11:22 PM
Neither should be seeded IMHO.

Venus, because giving her a seeding is not really doing her any favors anyway and she only made it to the fourth round last year.

Kim because she record on grass isn't stellar enough to even consider justifying a bump.

JRena
Jun 16th, 2012, 11:49 PM
Venus yes, Kim no.

Wiggly
Jun 16th, 2012, 11:57 PM
Venus : oh yes.
Kim : she's already semi-retired. No, thanks.

JeMa
Jun 17th, 2012, 12:20 AM
I say seed Venus because she is a champion on grass. I don't see the need to seed Clijsters but it would suck if she drew Sharapova, Azarenka, Kvitova, Serena or Venus. I wouldn't mind if she drew Radwanska. Wozniacki or Kerber first round and got those pushers out of there.

Chrissie-fan
Jun 17th, 2012, 12:23 AM
If you go by ranking obviously not. If you go by most likely to win, obviously yes, unless one thinks there are thirty players in the draw with a better shot at winning Wimbledon than Venus Williams and Kim Clijsters.

terjw
Jun 17th, 2012, 12:25 AM
Going by the bookies odds - Venus should be seeded #6 and Kim #7. That's what the money says. Of course that's not going to happen.

zxcVbnm88
Jun 17th, 2012, 01:51 AM
Given what they did for Maria, Vee should be seeded

jameshazza
Jun 17th, 2012, 01:55 AM
Given what they did for Maria, Vee should be seeded

To be fair Maria was only back and had just made RG QF, Venus hasn't done that. That said she had similarly shitty results the past two years and hasn't lost before R4 so I do agree she should definitely be seeded.

perseus2006
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:19 AM
Going by the bookies odds - Venus should be seeded #6 and Kim #7. That's what the money says. Of course that's not going to happen.

Bookies make a lot of money on name recognition, delusional fans and magical thinking.

Venus made 4thRound last year and is in worse shape this year. Go ahead and bet on Venus and Kim. Bookies need to feed their children, too.

Cajka
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:26 AM
In this case, seeding Venus and Kim out of sympathy would mean depriving two players, who have worked throughout the last 52 weeks, the seeds they have earned!


As much as I would like Venus to be seeded, this is true. :shrug:

AcesHigh
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:27 AM
Bookies make a lot of money on name recognition, delusional fans and magical thinking.

Venus made 4thRound last year and is in worse shape this year. Go ahead and bet on Venus and Kim. Bookies need to feed their children, too.

How is Venus in worse shape this year when she was injured from AO to Wimbledon??

Roookie
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:39 AM
As long as Venus draws Pironkova, seed her :oh:

Cajka
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:45 AM
Venus, because giving her a seeding is not really doing her any favors anyway and she only made it to the fourth round last year.


This is also true. She has more chances to make a big run by being non-seeded. If she causes some big upset early (against a top 4 player), the draw gets easier. If she's seeded #24, the draw can be awful (unless it falls apart).

perseus2006
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:48 AM
How is Venus in worse shape this year when she was injured from AO to Wimbledon??

Last year she played Eastborne before W.
This year she is going directly from clay to grass.
That was my thinking. Perhaps too narrow.

Regardless, IMO, she has not done enough on tour to bump a player from an earned seed position.

Pheobo
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:48 AM
If they're both so great, why do they need a special seeding at all? Obviously, if they excel on grass courts they'll do fine without the protection of a bump in seeding.

Shit, a high profile match-up in the earlier rounds would just make the tournament more interesting to me.

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2012, 03:41 AM
If they're both so great, why do they need a special seeding at all? Obviously, if they excel on grass courts they'll do fine without the protection of a bump in seeding.

Shit, a high profile match-up in the earlier rounds would just make the tournament more interesting to me.

Venus' seeding bump is less advantageous for her than it is for the other players. Do you want to be that seed that draws Venus in 1R or 2R at Wimbledon on CENTRE COURT? [As long as your name is not Pironkova]

Pheobo
Jun 17th, 2012, 04:04 AM
Venus' seeding bump is less advantageous for her than it is for the other players. Do you want to be that seed that draws Venus in 1R or 2R at Wimbledon on CENTRE COURT? [As long as your name is not Pironkova]

Given Venus' poor form as of late I would assume that most of the players in the top 100 would love a shot at her. She may be playing lousy tennis but a win over Venus at Wimbledon still looks pretty good whether your name is Pironkova or not.

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2012, 04:18 AM
Given Venus' poor form as of late I would assume that most of the players in the top 100 would love a shot at her. She may be playing lousy tennis but a win over Venus at Wimbledon still looks pretty good whether your name is Pironkova or not.

Would love a shot at her? I don't think so. I'd want Rus or Cornet over Venus any day. You're speaking as a hater and it's now transparent after that post.

Justin SW
Jun 17th, 2012, 04:23 AM
5 TIME (Most of all ACTIVE PLAYERS) Wimbledon champion...FUCK YES she should be seeded. bloody hell.

Pheobo
Jun 17th, 2012, 04:58 AM
Would love a shot at her? I don't think so. I'd want Rus or Cornet over Venus any day. You're speaking as a hater and it's now transparent after that post.

I would actually love to see Venus win a major one more time-- I would prefer a RG or AO title but if she could pull off another Wimbledon, great! The problem with your argument is that-- and we've seen this again and again-- lower ranked players tend to raise their "level" when they play against a Williams Sister. They don't carry the same intimidation factor that they did in 2002.

stegall
Jun 17th, 2012, 05:07 AM
The tournament doesn't want Petra,Maria,Serena,Vika etc playing Venus in round 1 and 2..I'm not saying I think she'd beat any of those players at this point but I think it something that will probably get Venus seeded..I don't know if Kim should be seeded though..

Banditoo
Jun 17th, 2012, 01:21 PM
The Wimbledon seeding system is based on a simple formula taking into account players performaces on grass over the last 24 moths as well as their current world ranking.
The formula is as follows
Take the current world ranking points
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournaments in the 12 months before that

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 17th, 2012, 01:29 PM
The Wimbledon seeding system is based on a simple formula taking into account players performaces on grass over the last 24 moths as well as their current world ranking.
The formula is as follows
Take the current world ranking points
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournaments in the 12 months before that


:facepalm:
That's only for ATP

Banditoo
Jun 17th, 2012, 01:35 PM
:facepalm:
That's only for ATP

And WTA doesn't have a rule? They can put Venus where they what as a seeded? :lol:

young_gunner913
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:38 PM
I'm struggling to remember what Kim has done at Wimbledon to deserve a seed. :scratch:

ViceUltramontain
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:42 PM
8 participations (2 in 1999 and 2000 before she was a real top player)
2 semis.
2 quarters.
Won some tournaments on grass.
Reach a Grand Slam semi this year.
Won a slam last year.

More than most of the seeds have.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:45 PM
I'm struggling to remember what Kim has done at Wimbledon to deserve a seed. :scratch:

Won more matches in Grand Slams than Serena this year despite only playing one :wavey:

Glad to see you're finally back btw :D

young_gunner913
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:46 PM
8 participations (2 in 1999 and 2000 before she was a real top player)
2 semis.
2 quarters.
Won some tournaments on grass.
Reach a Grand Slam semi this year.
Won a slam last year.

More than most of the seeds have.

Yeah that's diddly squat for a player of Kim's caliber. No seeding for her.


Won more matches in Grand Slams than Serena this year despite only playing one :wavey:

Glad to see you're finally back btw :D

Glad to see you're still illiterate. :D

Svetlana)))
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:46 PM
They both don't deserve to be seeded.

Matt01
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:50 PM
You "deserve" to be seeded if you make it into the Top 32 in the rankings. Since they both FAILED, they should obviously not be seeded.

AcesHigh
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:52 PM
Thinking about it more, since this is most likely going to be Venus's last Wimbledon, it would be a shame if she weren't seeded. She's one of the greatest Wimbledon champions men or women.

Patrick345
Jun 17th, 2012, 02:56 PM
If there was any doubt Clijsters removed it today. :tape:

Pump-it-UP
Jun 17th, 2012, 03:03 PM
The Committee will be too scared to give them seeds I think.

I'd personally seed them 16 & 24 so they can avoid the top 8 until R16. Otherwise we'll probably be getting some combination of Serena/Maria vs Venus/Kim matches in the 1st week. :o:tape:

August
Jun 17th, 2012, 03:17 PM
Neither deserves. Rules are the same for everybody even if you're former World No 1.

TPlaya8
Jun 17th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Venus should get one no question but Kim shouldn't.


And Venus actually went a round farther then she was suppose to with her seeding last year. But its fine don't give her a huge seed and let her have some "good days" illness wise and see what top players she knock off.

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2012, 08:36 PM
You "deserve" to be seeded if you make it into the Top 32 in the rankings. Since they both FAILED, they should obviously not be seeded.

I agree and of course. However, Wimbledon has shown they do not care about this. See Sharapova 2009 Wimbledon.

sammy01
Jun 17th, 2012, 08:40 PM
Tbh not bothered if kim is seeded or not. if she is going to do well at wimbledon she will need to beat some top players, if she does that 1st, 2nd, 3rd or qtr final round then whatever. she is in rosemalan to hopefully get matches and be more match fit for if she does draw a big name early.

Morrissey
Jun 18th, 2012, 03:20 AM
and that's what seedings should be based upon?

Clijsters is NOT that popular that is not true she is well known but hardly a star.

NA-GOAT
Jun 19th, 2012, 04:38 PM
OK after seeing Kim not injured in Rosmalen

I believe Venus should be #12 and Kim should be #16 :sobbing:

Monzanator
Jun 19th, 2012, 04:45 PM
Venus will be seeded, it's a no-brainer really :shrug: And because Kim is retiring I can see her being seeded as well on Wimbledon farewell. Too much bickering here, it's all over bar the shouting :D

marineblue
Jun 19th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Neither deserves. Rules are the same for everybody even if you're former World No 1.

In theory,yes, but Wimbledon works differently. Based on their previous merits in this event I think they both deserve a seed.

jrm
Jun 19th, 2012, 05:12 PM
no, this would mean two get ruled out who got there based on results

MB.
Jun 19th, 2012, 05:37 PM
Venus in the top 16, or if she's unseeded they'll just put Pironkova on the other half of the draw. Don't see why Kim should be, if they rearrange seeds it's due to prior success at a tournament, which Kim doesn't really have.

You don't understand how draws work, do you?

TPlaya8
Jun 19th, 2012, 05:43 PM
Yall are crazy If you believe Venus doesn't deserve a seed.

i'm indifferent about Kim.

On espn sportsnation chat with Mary Joe and Patrick McEnroe they said both Venus and kim should be seeded

Dawn Marie
Jun 19th, 2012, 05:51 PM
Venus's Grass Win Record Has No Bearing On Clijsters. The Fact That Vee And Kim Were Put In The Same Equation About Wimbeldon Is A Short Bus Move. For That The Thread Starter Will Get A Bad Rep. Get Real.

TPlaya8
Jun 19th, 2012, 07:16 PM
Venus's Grass Win Record Has No Bearing On Clijsters. The Fact That Vee And Kim Were Put In The Same Equation About Wimbeldon Is A Short Bus Move. For That The Thread Starter Will Get A Bad Rep. Get Real.

Ditto.

The poll should have had yes for Venus, no for venus, yes for kim, no for Kim, and yes for both, No for both

Because Venus deserves one more than anybody way more then the special seeding they gave Maria back in 2009. Maria hadn't won in 5 years since 2004, Then had lost in like the 4th Round and 2nd round the two years before.

And Kim I really don't think she should get one. What has she done at Wimbledon. And if they even seed Kim, then Venus's seed should be top 16

jameshazza
Jun 20th, 2012, 04:09 AM
You don't understand how draws work, do you?

You don't understand how sarcasm works do you? :sad:

Justin SW
Jun 20th, 2012, 05:09 AM
What time tomorrow will we get to know?

jameshazza
Jun 20th, 2012, 05:10 AM
I'd say about 6-8 hours from now.

Navratil
Jun 20th, 2012, 06:40 AM
Both yes!

And they both should be a higher seed than Errani, Wozniacki & Co ;)

Navratil
Jun 20th, 2012, 06:40 AM
But Wimbledon organizer's don't do that anymore. They did in the past but for the last years they just took the rankings for the seeding list just like every other tournament does.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 20th, 2012, 06:56 AM
I agree and of course. However, Wimbledon has shown they do not care about this. See Sharapova 2009 Wimbledon.

I know, right. Wimbledon organisers are so stupid and vain, superficial, etc. Just coz Cakewalk-p is blond and pretty, she was seeded. The staff didn't have any ground on making her a seed: I mean she was ranked fucking 60, haven't done anything significant on a tennis court all-year & not to mention that her Wimbledon title is a total freaking fluke.
But hey she flopped so hard that embarrassed both herself + the organisers so boo I say its high time you got over it.

perseus2006
Jun 20th, 2012, 08:08 AM
Isn't the AELTC Official Seeding Assignment, as opposed to NaMug's Official list, past due? I heard it was to be announced Tuesday. Obviously not, but when?

It would be nice to have this speculation about the Part Timers settled.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 20th, 2012, 08:12 AM
If you seed Venus, you kinda have to seed the player who has beaten her at Wimbledon the last two years ;).

nicky
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:12 AM
Isn't the AELTC Official Seeding Assignment, as opposed to NaMug's Official list, past due? I heard it was to be announced Tuesday. Obviously not, but when?

It would be nice to have this speculation about the Part Timers settled.


Seedings are announced today, but the Wimbledon site doesn't say what time. Wait and see...

hBence
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:18 AM
Wimbledon ‏@Wimbledon
The seeds have been announced for The Championships 2012. They follow the ATP and WTA rankings lists. Full list available shortly.

mckyle.
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:29 AM
They didn't bump Venus :eek:

nicky
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:39 AM
Full seedings list is on the site right now. They just follow the rankings.

Below it says:
HOW THE SEEDINGS WORK

LADIES

The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw.

There are no changes this year.


Apparently the seedings committee does not consider Venus or Kim likely of "unbalancing the draw".:angel:
Quite frankly, I don't think either Venus or Kim will care about this...

TZVETI83
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:42 AM
Full seedings list is on the site right now. They just follow the rankings.

Below it says:
HOW THE SEEDINGS WORK

LADIES

The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw.

There are no changes this year.


Apparently the seedings committee does not consider Venus or Kim likely of "unbalancing the draw".:angel:
Quite frankly, I don't think either Venus or Kim will care about this...

Pironkova, Clijsters and Venus Williams looming!:lol::tape::help::eek:

debby
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:45 AM
Pironkova, Clijsters and Venus Williams looming!:lol::tape::help::eek:

Watch Venus drawing Pova, Kim Radwanska and Pironkova Kvitty GOAT. :lol:

Kon.
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:45 AM
We are so gonna get some crazy early round match-ups. :lol: :help:
Can't wait for the draw. :drool:

I still think they should have seeded Venus.

Morning Morgan
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:47 AM
The draw is gonna be interesting...

Doully
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:49 AM
Nothing wrong with having some early round clashes! :)

Can't wait for the draw :lol:

TZVETI83
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:51 AM
As long as Pironkova does not draw a Serena Williams, Sharapova or Kvitova in the first round I am fine.

Viktymise
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:51 AM
It's going to be bedlam.

sammy01
Jun 20th, 2012, 09:59 AM
the draw will be huge. tbf ideally one of them will get vera, another errani and the other AMG in the 1st 2 rounds, but we know that wont happen.

flareon
Jun 20th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Venus's Grass Win Record Has No Bearing On Clijsters. The Fact That Vee And Kim Were Put In The Same Equation About Wimbeldon Is A Short Bus Move. For That The Thread Starter Will Get A Bad Rep. Get Real.

I only mentioned kim because shes a grand slam winner, and has been in the top 10 and no 1 in the world, yes venus is far superior at wimbledon, but I just wondered whether one of the biggest names on the WTA would be seeded.

J4m3ka
Jun 20th, 2012, 10:30 AM
Draw will be interesting, if Venus has a day when she feels good she could potentially beat anyone in the draw not named Serena. Kim looked decent enough as well in her last Rosmalen round and she could upset a big name early. Strange how the typical 'tards are complaining about it being unfair to seed Venus and Kim and that they don't deserve it. I can't understand this logic, if anything seeding them is to protect the other top players who actually have a seed. What good is a top #8 seed if they now draw Venus or Kim in the first round? Seeding is there to protect players from playing other top players too early.

*Jool*
Jun 20th, 2012, 11:38 AM
exciting ! :banana:

Vuvurenka
Jun 20th, 2012, 11:41 AM
Both do not deserve to be seeded and rightfully so

Justin SW
Jun 20th, 2012, 11:43 AM
Venus 5 time winner...shall not be seeded? REALLY? and Monica Niculescu should be? REALLY?

bobito
Jun 20th, 2012, 11:50 AM
Venus 5 time winner...shall not be seeded? REALLY? and Monica Niculescu should be? REALLY?

If Navratilova came out of retirement, how would you seed her? There has to be a cut-off point at which a player being a previous champion no longer justifies bumping their seeding. You could argue that a player whose most recent Wimbledon title was 4 years ago, who hasn't won a tour event in over two years and is now 32 years of age has passed that cut-off point.

Pump-it-UP
Jun 20th, 2012, 12:04 PM
If Navratilova came out of retirement, how would you seed her? There has to be a cut-off point at which a player being a previous champion no longer justifies bumping their seeding. You could argue that a player whose most recent Wimbledon title was 4 years ago, who hasn't won a tour event in over two years and is now 32 years of age has passed that cut-off point.

But she still made the F/QF/R16 in the 3 years since then. :lol: It's not like she's losing R1 or R2 and not making it into the last 32. Even if you only look at her two most recent showings like they do for the men, surely QF/R16 is worthy of a seeded player, right?

I understand it's controversial to take away a seed from Kuznetsova/Pavlyuchenkova, but Wimbledon should just abolish this whole "freedom to manipulate seeds"-nonsense if they're too scared to take advantage of it.

bobito
Jun 20th, 2012, 12:26 PM
But she still made the F/QF/R16 in the 3 years since then. :lol: It's not like she's losing R1 or R2 and not making it into the last 32. Even if you only look at her two most recent showings like they do for the men, surely QF/R16 is worthy of a seeded player, right?

I understand it's controversial to take away a seed from Kuznetsova/Pavlyuchenkova, but Wimbledon should just abolish this whole "freedom to manipulate seeds"-nonsense if they're too scared to take advantage of it.

That is a decline each of the last three years. At 32, is she likely to reverse that trend? Difficult to say.

Pops Maellard
Jun 20th, 2012, 12:27 PM
I think not.

perseus2006
Jun 20th, 2012, 12:43 PM
The AELTC decided they do not deserve to be seeded.

They realize sport isn't about nostalgic "deserve" but what is earned through actual performance. For years, both players have been "healthy" enough to play only for Majors and in Venus's case for Olympic Qualification. They are part timers on tour and don't "deserve" any special treatment by the WTA or ITF.

The question was asked and answered. There is no reason to keep whining about it.