PDA

View Full Version : Will Wimbledon and The US Open ever conform?


Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:13 AM
:wavey: :wavey:

I know this has possible been posted many many times but I have never seen anything about it yet.

Two Questions :confused:

1. Will Wimbledon ever follow the official rankings for their seedings? I know there was a semi boycott a few years ago by spanish men because of it.

2. Will the US Open ever move to a third-set advantage set? There have been many great matches that could have been better (Seles-Capriati comes to mind)...and why don't they?

Cheers

Kirt :wavey:

Havok
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:32 AM
one other question i wanna know, how does Wimbledon seed the players????? what do they base it on if they don't use the proper rankings system?

WtaTour4Ever
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:35 AM
third-set advantage set?

Havok
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:37 AM
third-set advantage set?
meaning the third set goes on until one players wins by 2.

Messenger
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:39 AM
Okay say Serena fell down a hole somewhere and didn't emerge until the 2004 Wimbledon. She wouldn't have a ranking, and I don't see a problem with Wimbledon defying the numbers and giving her a seed. This is, of course, assuming that Serena had kept up with her training down in the hole and was still in top shape :)

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:39 AM
third-set advantage set?

The US Open is the only slam not to play advantage 3rd set...they use tiebreakers in third set.

To answer the question with Wimbledon, I believe they have a seeding committee and I can only guess they base it on past performances at Wimbledon and the current form the player is in...only guessing though. :wavey:

DutchieGirl
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:40 AM
yeah, third (fifth for the guys) set advantage set = you don't have a tie break in the last set, you keep playing till someone wins by two games... like the El Anaouyi (sp?)-Roddick match at the AO that went to like 23-21 in the last set or something! Now that was a great match! The USO is the only GS that doesn't have that.

Wimbledon seeding always sucks, but I don't think they'll ever do it by the rankings.

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:41 AM
Okay say Serena fell down a hole somewhere and didn't emerge until the 2004 Wimbledon. She wouldn't have a ranking, and I don't see a problem with Wimbledon defying the numbers and giving her a seed. This is, of course, assuming that Serena had kept up with her training down in the hole and was still in top shape :)


Yes I see the tradition with their way of seeding...but with Conchita having won the title she should be seeded every year? I know Pat Cash was considered for a seeding and he was ranked outside the top 100 at that stage? it's all very confusing :confused:

Sam L
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:42 AM
Quite frankly, I like the status quo for both.

1/. Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments, it should be allowed to do their own seedings. What's more, grass is a surface that's rarely played on tour these days. It's a fact that claycourters don't do well on grass, so they should be seeded accordingly.

2/. I'm not sure the history behind the final set tiebreak at the US Open but it's unique and it works well for the schedule. Why not keep it?

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:44 AM
Ps....I think Serena could play with a prosthetic leg and still get seeded ;)

CJ07
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:45 AM
They take your ranking (which is 60%) and average that with your past Wimbledon performances, and aptitude on Grass.

For example
lets say Monica is only around #9 come Wimbledon
and say Chanda is at #8.
She may very well get that #8 seed over Chanda
simply because she (while it doesnt sound right) has a very good record on grass, granting her a higher seed (sampras was seeded like 6th this year when his rank was way lower)

selesfan
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:48 AM
I thought Wimbledon was going to start going by the rankings this year.

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:48 AM
They take your ranking (which is 60%) and average that with your past Wimbledon performances, and aptitude on Grass.

For example
lets say Monica is only around #9 come Wimbledon
and say Chanda is at #8.
She may very well get that #8 seed over Chanda
simply because she (while it doesnt sound right) has a very good record on grass, granting her a higher seed (sampras was seeded like 6th this year when his rank was way lower)


Ty mmcdonald....was always curious how they did that...I wonder what sort of people are on the committee etc...international board or just people from The All England club? :confused: :wavey:

DutchieGirl
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:53 AM
Quite frankly, I like the status quo for both.

1/. Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments, it should be allowed to do their own seedings. What's more, grass is a surface that's rarely played on tour these days. It's a fact that claycourters don't do well on grass, so they should be seeded accordingly.

2/. I'm not sure the history behind the final set tiebreak at the US Open but it's unique and it works well for the schedule. Why not keep it?

REALLY don't agree with either of those points, sorry. Obviously WImby is on grass, but I don't think it matters what surface the tourney is on, we have the rankings for a reason: USE THEM! ;) Otherwise, if every tourney can just make up their own seeds, why bother with the rankings anyway?

Yeah, the USO likes the tiebreak for tv coverage probably! It means that you don't have a long drawn out 3 setter.

Messenger
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:55 AM
Yes I see the tradition with their way of seeding...but with Conchita having won the title she should be seeded every year? I know Pat Cash was considered for a seeding and he was ranked outside the top 100 at that stage? it's all very confusing :confused:

They usually don't change it that much. They bumped up Steffi (7 time champion) one place from 3 to 2 which made no difference because Martina bombed to Jelena, meaning Steffi and Lindsay were effectually #1 and #2 from the beginning.

And of course they would give Serena special consideration after her hole ordeal :)

WtaTour4Ever
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:56 AM
Owww right...I didn't even realize that the US Open went to tie break in the last set.....thats all but the final though isn't it.

selesfan
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:59 AM
Owww right...I didn't even realize that the US Open went to tie break in the last set.....thats all but the final though isn't it.

No, the final also has 3rd set tiebreaker.

Mateo Mathieu
Apr 2nd, 2003, 04:39 AM
The Wimbledon seedings thing for ONLY MEN!

And the third set tiebreaks was so stupid! I think Sarah probadly right about TV coverage.

CJ07
Apr 2nd, 2003, 04:57 AM
its not

Lisa Raymond got a top 16 seed and she was in the 30 something range

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 04:59 AM
The Wimbledon seedings thing for ONLY MEN!

And the third set tiebreaks was so stupid! I think Sarah probadly right about TV coverage.

I agree perhaps with TV time over there being so expensive perhaps it has something to do with it. I know here they delay any match that is terrific (delaying the news etc) and put running lines at the bottom of the screen saying "the news will follow this match"

But don't get what u mean by Men only? does that mean the women this year will follow seeds? :confused: Have seen a few of your'e posts and know you are up with the flow (unlike me lol)

BTW....Miss McQuillain rocks...I cried when she lost to Mary-Joe at the AUS open in 3 sets....but was giving my boxer dog "Hi-5's" when she beat Kelesi in 3rd round? :devil:

Cheers Kirt :wavey:

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 05:36 AM
1/. Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments,

That's subjective, and debatable. I can think of a few pro tennis players who would disagree with you ;) How a tournament that is played ona surface that is basically extinct can be considered the greatest tournament in the world is beyond me. Sure it was... 30 years ago. Moving on....

it should be allowed to do their own seedings.

I disagree. If they do their own seedings, then Roland Garros should do their own. However, I don't believe that either should see the necessity. The best players who should be in the finals will make the finals, no matter what seeding you gave them. A gift of a seeding did nothing for Pete last year, now did it? Or how about that year that they rewarded Greg Rusedski a seed (over Todd Martin btw), and he promptly lost in 5 to Vince Spadea (who wrapped up his infamous losing streak with that match).

I really see no logical arguement for messing with the rankings. There are what, 6 grass tournaments left on the ATP side? So I'm supposed to think that these guys at the LTA know who can and can't play on grass, when hardly anybody spends any time on the surface? Yeah... THAT makes sense.

What's more, grass is a surface that's rarely played on tour these days.

So how does this make a good arguement for ignoring the rankings?

Clay is a surface that gets a lot of use, and it's quite clear who is and isn't good on clay. Do we penalize the shitty clay court players at Roland Garros for it? *tries to recall the last time that Sampras, Henman, Rusedki, etc. were seeded lower than their ranking at RG*

It's a fact that claycourters don't do well on grass, so they should be seeded accordingly.

You should have written this a year ago.

But even then - Guga is a former Wimbledon QF. But hey, who really remembers such small details.

2/. I'm not sure the history behind the final set tiebreak at the US Open but it's unique and it works well for the schedule. Why not keep it?

Because it's crap?

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 05:59 AM
That's subjective, and debatable. I can think of a few pro tennis players who would disagree with you ;) How a tournament that is played ona surface that is basically extinct can be considered the greatest tournament in the world is beyond me. Sure it was... 30 years ago. Moving on....



I disagree. If they do their own seedings, then Roland Garros should do their own. However, I don't believe that either should see the necessity. The best players who should be in the finals will make the finals, no matter what seeding you gave them. A gift of a seeding did nothing for Pete last year, now did it? Or how about that year that they rewarded Greg Rusedski a seed (over Todd Martin btw), and he promptly lost in 5 to Vince Spadea (who wrapped up his infamous losing streak with that match).

I really see no logical arguement for messing with the rankings. There are what, 6 grass tournaments left on the ATP side? So I'm supposed to think that these guys at the LTA know who can and can't play on grass, when hardly anybody spends any time on the surface? Yeah... THAT makes sense.



So how does this make a good arguement for ignoring the rankings?

Clay is a surface that gets a lot of use, and it's quite clear who is and isn't good on clay. Do we penalize the shitty clay court players at Roland Garros for it? *tries to recall the last time that Sampras, Henman, Rusedki, etc. were seeded lower than their ranking at RG*



You should have written this a year ago.

But even then - Guga is a former Wimbledon QF. But hey, who really remembers such small details.



Because it's crap?

:wavey: Hey there Rebecca

I agree.....I have had some time to think on it....Perhaps when the Aussie Open was played on grass...with lead up events also on grass....but to have only 2 weeks leading in to Wimbledon....and many don't even play them....on their seeding structure it is cursible that rankings (60% as what was said before) can be taken after the clay court season....Most upsets will happen in the first 4 days.

I remember the Aussie Kristine Kunce (nee Radford) wiping first round opponents double bagels (Angelica Gavaldon rings a bell) and took Martina (Nav) to 3 sets and had to borrow shoes from her (Diff year though)...and almost took out Conchita the year she won.

Grass-courts are completely different..but I don't believe there are enough grass-court tournaments to warrant seeding through committee based on the previous year.

Perhaps the answer is to shorten the clay season...interesting thought though it will never happen :eek:


Cheers Kirt :wavey:

Sam L
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:03 AM
The rarity of grasscourt events is the very reason why a grasscourt grand slam should do their own seedings.

For example, you have a great grass court player who's had mediocre results in the past year but the tournament knows that he/she will always perform well at Wimbledon, so they should be seeded higher.

Alternatively, a player who's weakest surface is grass may have done really well in the entire year and be ranked say #1 or #2 but since they have never done well on grass and Wimbledon knows this then they should be only seeded say #5 at highest.

Aside from this, there's the argument of tradition too. Wimbledon is all about tradition this means seeding committees, all whites and grass amongst others.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:10 AM
Perhaps the answer is to shorten the clay season...interesting thought though it will never happen

The majority of the season is played on hardcourt. Hardcourts should be cut back before clay.

Why it is that everybody is so quick to look down on clay is beyond me...

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:13 AM
Grass-courts are completely different..but I don't believe there are enough grass-court tournaments to warrant seeding through committee based on the previous year.


This is one of the mant reason that I believe seeding outside of the rankings at Wimbledon is ridiculous.

What I dont' understand is how they kept it up after it came back and slapped them in the ass the year that Greg lost early.

Maybe they will consider doing it by the rankings after Tim retires?

Speaking of Tim, it will be VERY interesting to see how high they inflate his seeding this year. Hell... if he has a disaster of a clay season and doesn't defend his Queens finals... there is a chance that he might not even be in the top 32. I haven't done the math on that, mind you, but it sure looks that way

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:14 AM
Since we base seedings based on previous results, I suppose that you would agree Sam L, on inflating David Nalbandians seed by a bracket or so?

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:14 AM
The majority of the season is played on hardcourt. Hardcourts should be cut back before clay.

Why it is that everybody is so quick to look down on clay is beyond me...


Fair point too :wavey: Because Aussie women have troubles on clay as a general rule LOL j/k :p

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:15 AM
Fair point too :wavey: Because Aussie women have troubles on clay as a general rule LOL j/k :p
Just like American men ;) Escusing Andre Agassi, and Jim Courier of course. Oh yeah, and what about Chang? He won the FO too.

So what ARE the Americans complaining about? ;)

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:20 AM
Just like American men ;) Escusing Andre Agassi, and Jim Courier of course. Oh yeah, and what about Chang? He won the FO too.

So what ARE the Americans complaining about? ;)

:wavey: Well I'm Aussie and started the thread hun....kinda stoked I got more than 3 replies to a post I sumitted....still wondering what initiation I have to do to meet anyone here LOL....but love your'e attitude....you are always willing to listen to both sides....if initiation involes raw eggs or lubricant I should leave I think :eek:

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:22 AM
:wavey: Trust me I don't loose sleep over it LOL :bounce:

Sam L
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:23 AM
Since we base seedings based on previous results, I suppose that you would agree Sam L, on inflating David Nalbandians seed by a bracket or so?
But he didn't win :confused: For all we know, it could be a fluke

If he does SF or better consistently in next 5 Wimbledons, then yes :p

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:24 AM
:wavey: Well I'm Aussie and started the thread hun....kinda stoked I got more than 3 replies to a post I sumitted....still wondering what initiation I have to do to meet anyone here LOL....but love your'e attitude....you are always willing to listen to both sides....if initiation involes raw eggs or lubricant I should leave I think :eek:
Initiation? I had to shave my head and get an "I love Anna" tatoo.. I'm not sure what you would have to do.

I know that you aren't American, I just made that comment because people have said that the American men don't do well on clay as a rule... which is true, as a rule I guess. But when the exceptions to the rule have won RG, I don't think they are so bad off ;)

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:26 AM
Just like American men ;) Escusing Andre Agassi, and Jim Courier of course. Oh yeah, and what about Chang? He won the FO too.

So what ARE the Americans complaining about? ;)

Well I can say I am used to advantage sets...to me it is like having a major in golf and only playing 9 holes on the final day....these players are fit enough to play extended sets :wavey:

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:29 AM
But he didn't win :confused: For all we know, it could be a fluke

If he does SF or better consistently in next 5 Wimbledons, then yes :p
Which is of course, exactly what I thought you would say.

But he did well in his ONLY ATP grasscourt tournament. That doesn't count for something? Doesn't this go against what you said before?

The rarity of grasscourt events is the very reason why a grasscourt grand slam should do their own seedings.

For example, you have a great grass court player who's had mediocre results in the past year but the tournament knows that he/she will always perform well at Wimbledon, so they should be seeded higher.

Alternatively, a player who's weakest surface is grass may have done really well in the entire year and be ranked say #1 or #2 but since they have never done well on grass and Wimbledon knows this then they should be only seeded say #5 at highest

The only time that he's played well there he made the final. So how do we decided when somebody is or isn't a fluke? How much success does a player need to have in order to not be classified a "fluke" and to be rewarded like guys who didn't do as well as them the year before? Why should he be treated the exact same way as somebody like say, Juan Carlos Ferrero, will be.

And what about Malisse? Malisse reached the semifinals. Should he be awarded a higher seeding as well? Or does he also qualify as a "fluke", because he hasn't filled the required number of successes. Of course, with Xavier you might have an arguement. He's actually played more than one grass tournament...

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:30 AM
I just don't understand how you can say in on breathe that people who have had good grasscourt performances deserve to be rewarded, then in the next say that a guy who made the final in his first try does not.

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:40 AM
I just don't understand how you can say in on breathe that people who have had good grasscourt performances deserve to be rewarded, then in the next say that a guy who made the final in his first try does not.

I think alot of it depends on the conditions in the UK at the time. Of course Conchita's win was a fluke....the courts were harder than previous years....though her spin helped her through early rounds....she beat Martina on a court that suited her.

As for the quote? was an open field in the mens last year....Nalbandian isn't a net rusher....he got lucky yes :wavey:

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:50 AM
I'm not debating wether or not David was a "fluke". I'm debating wether or not he deserves the same treatment as other guys, who have done less, when it comes to seedings at Wimbledon.

What I'm doing is poking holes in the system and demonstrating why I think it's crap.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:53 AM
By the way - you don't have to be a net rusher to win Wimbledon these days. The mens final proved that. In fact, take a look at that entire tournament, and tell me how many serve and volleyers made the QF? I'm thinking of Henman, and then drawing a blank.

Granted there are far less Serve and Volleying players these days, but for a tournament that used to insist on giving higher seedings to guys with a particular game, the sure got a kick in the ass last year.

I don't suspect that this year will be much different.

(of course, there is always 2001, when 3 players with a particular game made the semi finals. But one of the retired, another is crippled every other week, and the other one is Henman. Ah yes, and there is always the fact that they have slowed the game down on grass by changing the type of seed, the balls etc.)

Sam L
Apr 2nd, 2003, 06:57 AM
I just don't understand how you can say in on breathe that people who have had good grasscourt performances deserve to be rewarded, then in the next say that a guy who made the final in his first try does not.

I somewhat agree that the system is sketchy sometimes, but it has worked for years and years. I think the trend is either you need to be 1. A former champion or 2. Someone with consistent good results (that means not just one final), before you get rewarded with a bump in the seedings. That's what I've noticed over the years, and I tend to agree with that system.

Anyway, I'm going home! ;)

Scorch
Apr 2nd, 2003, 07:49 AM
I agree with SamL when he said that if there were more grass events running up to Wimbledon then the rankings would probably have time to even themselves out in favour of the best grasscourt players.

I also believe that Roland Garros reserves the same right to alter seedings but has not done so in the past, probably due to the fact that there has been many tournaments running upto the slam and so the rankings should reflect who is competant on clay by then.

Personally if Guga is say ranked 10 by the time RG comes around I think that his seeding should be higher just because he is a bigger scalp than his ranking suggests.

However the year they moved Greg up alllll that way to make him a seed certainly brought the system under the microscope. I think that was a mistake.

It makes little difference imo in the long run, especially now the men have 32 seeds. You still have to win 7 matches and there will always be dangerous floaters in the draw regardless.

Another reason why I like it is because it gives us something interesting and tennis related (wow) to debate.

Jakeev
Apr 2nd, 2003, 08:18 AM
What you actually meant is will the other Grand Slams conform and adopt a fifth and third set tiebreaker right?

;)

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 2nd, 2003, 10:26 AM
We all got to hope Henman doesn't make the Top 32 by time of Wimbledon seeds (its a possibility, a slim one but not impossible)
After Monte Carlo he could be down to #30ish with Queens Final pts plus a little more clay pts to defend :devil:

then it will be VERY funny to see what the OLD FARTS do.

and we should set up a bucket collection so that Alex and Albert come to Wimby just to make sure Farmer Timmy isn't seeded :devil:

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 2nd, 2003, 10:28 AM
if TV had anything to do with it
they would make the mens tourn at the US Open 3 sets as well :rolleyes:
lucky the rest of the world sees sense ;)

Wimbledon rarely changes the womens seeds.
They should stick by rankings no matter what.

moby
Apr 2nd, 2003, 10:29 AM
We all got to hope Henman doesn't make the Top 32 by time of Wimbledon seeds (its a possibility, a slim one but not impossible)
After Monte Carlo he could be down to #30ish with Queens Final pts plus a little more clay pts to defend :devil:

then it will be VERY funny to see what the OLD FARTS do.

and we should set up a bucket collection so that Alex and Albert come to Wimby just to make sure Farmer Timmy isn't seeded :devil:


TBE, that wont work
they'll manage to get tim seeded somehow

King Lindsay
Apr 2nd, 2003, 11:34 AM
No, Wimbledon does not have a statistical formula they use for calculating their seeds. They just do what they please.

To whoever was arguing that the system worked in the past, you must know that the system has failed more than it has succeeded.

Also, there is the element of favoritism towards British players that has long been present to undermine the system. how can one argue for the "fairness" of the system when the favoritism extended towards the hometown boys is so transparent?

all other Slams have the right to alter seedings. But they don't, because they know it's retarded and it will upset the players. It has nothing to do with how long the clay season is.

The bottomline is that Wimbledon's subective seedings are laughable and should be abolished. If Pete Sampras and Tim Henman are so good on grass, then I'm sure they can do damage no matter where they are in the draw.

So that's that. But here is where I break with the purists. I like the final set tiebreak, and it's TV-friendly too. I also don't think it ruins great matches, I think it brings them to one final climactic conclusion. Long live the final set tiebreak. :)

Scorch
Apr 2nd, 2003, 01:55 PM
The idea behind seeds is traditionally to do with spreading the favourites throughout the draw.

On grass I think it is fair to say that there are occasions when the rankings do not reflect the favourites, this could in fact be true for any surface in any tournament but on grass I think the difference between rankings can be magnified.

If done wisely then it meets the goal of seeding - spreads the grass court talent through the draw.

It is not retarded imo, just controversial. I think that the French would be within its rights to do the same thing, all those years when Pete was seeded 1 and was never in any way the favourite.

I think the Wimbledon issue is mainly controversial due to Henman and Rusedski. There have been times when it certainly looked as though there was bias in the seedings committee.

The clay courters who skip Wimbledon are misleading us if they say it is because of this issue - they never had any intention of going there in the first place.

This is one of those issues where people are rarely going to be swayed from their original viewpoint!

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 02:09 PM
By the way - you don't have to be a net rusher to win Wimbledon these days. The mens final proved that. In fact, take a look at that entire tournament, and tell me how many serve and volleyers made the QF? I'm thinking of Henman, and then drawing a blank.

Granted there are far less Serve and Volleying players these days, but for a tournament that used to insist on giving higher seedings to guys with a particular game, the sure got a kick in the ass last year.

I don't suspect that this year will be much different.

(of course, there is always 2001, when 3 players with a particular game made the semi finals. But one of the retired, another is crippled every other week, and the other one is Henman. Ah yes, and there is always the fact that they have slowed the game down on grass by changing the type of seed, the balls etc.)


I believe Krajicek was in quarters last year hun...played Mark in 4th round....2 players who certainly deserve seeds if they are going on "Ability"

Kirt12255
Apr 2nd, 2003, 02:11 PM
The idea behind seeds is traditionally to do with spreading the favourites throughout the draw.

On grass I think it is fair to say that there are occasions when the rankings do not reflect the favourites, this could in fact be true for any surface in any tournament but on grass I think the difference between rankings can be magnified.

If done wisely then it meets the goal of seeding - spreads the grass court talent through the draw.

It is not retarded imo, just controversial. I think that the French would be within its rights to do the same thing, all those years when Pete was seeded 1 and was never in any way the favourite.

I think the Wimbledon issue is mainly controversial due to Henman and Rusedski. There have been times when it certainly looked as though there was bias in the seedings committee.

The clay courters who skip Wimbledon are misleading us if they say it is because of this issue - they never had any intention of going there in the first place.

This is one of those issues where people are rarely going to be swayed from their original viewpoint!


First line you are saying rigged draws....is my concern too :wavey:

Scorch
Apr 2nd, 2003, 03:06 PM
That is not what I mean! They pick the seeds which usually results in small alteration which almost always make sense (Rusedski aside). The seeds are then placed in the draw the same way that they are in any tournament.

Hell I would not care if they change it, it is not a big deal at all it is just intended to reflect who the players to beat are. I am happy with how it is at the moment though.

If we are going on to call it draw rigging then I am not sure that is true. Although they have been awfully kind to Greg in the past!

Good point about the death of serve and volley tennis. In the past the seeding committee favoured grass court styles of play. That style is dying out, and so might the committee in due course (although I doubt they will give up their right to alter the seeds if they wish).

Jem
Apr 2nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
I doubt the U.S. Open will ever change its final set tie-breaker and certainly hope it doesn't as well. The final set tie-breaker gives the Open a distinctive flavor from the other Slams and provides a very dramatic end to matches. Plus, the tie-breaker concept was developed in the U.S., so it's rather fitting that our Grand Slam tournament should use it. And we have used it for almost as long as I can remember!

Wimbledon should stick to the rankings as far as I'm concerned. Seems to me players who haven't performed very well over the course of the tennis season should not be rewarded with cushier spots in the draw than those who have had superior results. Also, I wish they would ditch the 32 seeds for the women. There hasn't been a good-exciting women's grand slam since they went to that format.

paul_masterton
Apr 2nd, 2003, 07:18 PM
omg ahve any of you actually bothered to read the AELTC's status on this?

By the way, AELTC is the All England Lawn Tennis Club, it is they who decide seedings and wild cards - not the LTA.

As Eggy pointed out, Women are rarely to never moved. Lisa Raymond was bumped up a couple of spots, but only to put her infornt of Clarissa Fernandez and other clay-court specialists who haven't got a hope in hell of winning more than a couple of rounds. (*cough* Smashnova *cough*)

You canot be changed bracket! If you are ranked 18th in teh world, you cannot be seeded 16th, unless 2 people infront of you pull out.

AELTC anounced after the boycott that the maximum number of spots you could be moved was 2 or 3 (i can't remember which, sorry).

If Henman is outside top 32, and no1 pulls out, he cannot be seeded, that is the official stance of the event.

Although knowing the LTA, they will bribe AELTC and he'll find himself there ;)

I also don't believe that #1 and #2 can be swapped, even though it makes no difference.

I think the important factor is the one that says the women are never moved to any degree. There may be 1 or 2 players pushed up at most, but its not a concern - that's why the female players don't complain about it.

And as some1 said, these players who always boy-cott usually can't play for s**t on the green stuff, and this is a good excuse to avoid certain humiliation.

If they cared that much, they'd show up seeded 12 instead of 10, and try to prove comittee wrong.

Grass season should be longer, seedings are decided after only 2 days play on grass - not exactly alot to go on.

Oh and having 3/5th set breakers in slams is just a farce. I mean who wants to see a 5 set classic end in a 7-0, 7-1 or 7-2 breaker score?!

ico4498
Apr 2nd, 2003, 07:45 PM
And as some1 said, these players who always boy-cott usually can't play for s**t on the green stuff, and this is a good excuse to avoid certain humiliation.

so true!

Nacho
Apr 2nd, 2003, 08:48 PM
Wimbledon's seeding comitee is just crap. I remember in 1998 ASV was supposed to be the 4th seed, but they gave her spot to Graf, who was totally out of form at that moment. As a result, ASV had to face Hingis in the QF, instead of the SF... I know, she would have lost anyways, but I'm sure Arantxa would have prefered to face Martina in the SF ;)

1jackson2001
Apr 2nd, 2003, 09:12 PM
I think Wimbledon should keep it's "special" seeding arrangements cuz it makes the tournament different...and I like variety.

Same goes with the USO tiebreaker in the last...it makes it different and unique.

Rollo
Apr 2nd, 2003, 11:57 PM
Rebecca-I usually love your posts but you're dead wrong here

Original Quote:
1/. Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments,
----------------------------------------

Rebecca's Quote:
That's subjective, and debatable. I can think of a few pro tennis players who would disagree with you How a tournament that is played ona surface that is basically extinct can be considered the greatest tournament in the world is beyond me. Sure it was... 30 years ago.
-----------------------------------

Subjective-yes, debatable-no. Note how you used the word "a few".
The fact that Wimbledon DOES seed however the hell they feel like it clearly demonstrates it's power and status. The other slams can only wish they had power like that. If Agassi and Serena want their asses kissed on national TV the US Open brass would bend over backwards to
do it. Wimbledon would die before they pander that far.


It's not "fair", but that's life. Wimbledon seeds how they wish because they can.

And give the old stuffed shirts credit. The other 3 slams have come a long way, but ask most people (non-tennis fans) to name one tennis tournament and the answer will be (drum rolls please)...the big W.

Jakeev
Apr 3rd, 2003, 10:39 AM
A third or fifth set could also end 6-0 or 6-1 paul_masterson so I would hardly consider a tiebreaker in the last set a farce.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but I have to admit that I have found more excitement in last tiebreakers in matches than I ever have with the last set going to the distance.

Tiebreakers make for more intense and nailbiting situations.

Dava
Apr 3rd, 2003, 10:43 AM
Last year at wimbledon the seeding were really on par with the rankings I think only Stevenson was ranked especially higher, but even that could be wrong.

As for the US Open, its become very commercialised, especially with the champions tie break in doubles and the 3/5th set tie break in singles.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2003, 11:31 AM
I think Wimbledon should keep it's "special" seeding arrangements cuz it makes the tournament different...and I like variety.

Same goes with the USO tiebreaker in the last...it makes it different and unique.


my sentiments exactly