PDA

View Full Version : Serena ranked 19, but seeded #7 at Wimbledon


AR15
06-15-2011, 08:33 AM
This means she won't have to play the top players until the semi-finals. (what a free pass!)

Why does #26, get a #7 seeding?

xdani26
06-15-2011, 08:45 AM
The seeding isn't based on the ranking, but basically by the results of grass court tournaments in the past year. Serena won Wimbledon last year.

Andres
06-15-2011, 09:23 AM
The seeding isn't based on the ranking, but basically by the results of grass court tournaments in the past year. Serena won Wimbledon last year.
Ranking + previous grass results

TMF
06-15-2011, 09:27 AM
This means she won't have to play the top players until the semi-finals. (what a free pass!)

Why does #19, get a #7 seeding?

I don't think that's fair. The players have played their heart out for a year but now have to reserve for Serena to be at the very high position who was out for a year is a knock on those top players. Serena deserve a wild card.

rhubarb
06-15-2011, 09:28 AM
The women's seeding isn't based on any formula. It's based on the ranking and then whatever the AELTC think will produce a "balanced" draw.

fundrazer
06-15-2011, 09:29 AM
Numero 1, it's the way Wimbledon does things. See Andre's post. Numero 2, do you think it's fair for a top seed to have to play Serena in the early rounds? Look at it this way TMF, they played their hearts out, and now they get Serena in the 3rd round. That's not fun for them.

r2473
06-15-2011, 09:29 AM
Seeding are based on height and weight.

SStrikerR
06-15-2011, 09:37 AM
I don't think that's fair. The players have played their heart out for a year but now have to reserve for Serena to be at the very high position who was out for a year is a knock on those top players. Serena deserve a wild card.

So the person ranked at 19, and who has won the tournament multiple times, and who is better than the rest of the tour should barely get in?

Haha you're funny.

barry
06-15-2011, 09:42 AM
Only fair to seed all 128 players. Wimbledon has a back room committee which seeds players. You earn rankings therefore you should be seeded accordingly. But in this case, I guess the seeding committee feels it control who plays in the latter matches.

AR15
06-15-2011, 09:44 AM
Serena has not played in almost a year. IMO the 3 players seeded below her, ( Petra KVITOVA, Marion BARTOLI, and Samantha STOSUR) have EARNED their spots in the top 9.

We have no idea how Serena will play after such a long absence.

bluetrain4
06-15-2011, 10:01 AM
Serena has not played in almost a year. IMO the 3 players seeded below her, ( Petra KVITOVA, Marion BARTOLI, and Samantha STOSUR) have EARNED their spots in the top 9.

We have no idea how Serena will play after such a long absence.


I'm sure the seeding committee knows this. They've always done their own thing. Also, can you honestly say that you know how Stosur is going to play, even after no absence.

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Most of the aforementioned players will not lose their spot in their seed grouping (1-8, 9-16, 17-32), and that's all that really matters since tennis does not go by a rigid highest vs. lowest seed in each round, such that in the third round 1 vs. 32, 2 vs. 31, 3 vs. 30, etc., and in the 4th round 1 vs. 16, 2 vs 15 (well, you get the picture).

The only people who should even care is the one player that lost a top 8 seed and the one player who lost a 9-16 seed. No player lost a 17-32 seed since Serena would have been seeded in that group if the rankings were followed.

I'm sure the other top players are extremely pleased that Serena isn't just floating around out there.

bluetrain4
06-15-2011, 10:05 AM
Though Wimbledon reserves the right to deviate from the rankings they have in recent years primarily stuck to the rankings. This seems to be an extreme circumstance where the defending champion has been out for a year.

I remember back in the 80s and early 90s, Wimbledon would deviate considerably from the rankings for a number of players under normal circumstances. I guess since the surfaces were more different they really felt the need to avoid having the "wrong" seedings.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-15-2011, 10:06 AM
Ranking + previous grass results

No different than the seeding last year, the year before that, etc.

There is no problem with the way players are seeded at Wimbledon.

AR15
06-15-2011, 10:11 AM
No different than the seeding last year, the year before that, etc.

There is no problem with the way players are seeded at Wimbledon.

No one suggested there is a problem, or it being such a big deal. This thread is simply a discussion of how and/or why Serena was seeded where she is.

TMF
06-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Numero 1, it's the way Wimbledon does things. See Andre's post. Numero 2, do you think it's fair for a top seed to have to play Serena in the early rounds? Look at it this way TMF, they played their hearts out, and now they get Serena in the 3rd round. That's not fun for them.

So the person ranked at 19, and who has won the tournament multiple times, and who is better than the rest of the tour should barely get in?

Haha you're funny.

No matter how they choose to rank all the players, someone is getting the short end of the stick. Either Serena or the other top players suffered. There’s no solution to be fair for all players. Now if all the players played full time tennis, then there wouldn’t be any dispute about the Wimbledon ranking.

I don't agree full time tennis players are being punish.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-15-2011, 10:18 AM
No one suggested there is a problem, or it being such a big deal. This thread is simply a discussion of how and/or why Serena was seeded where she is.

That's my point; it's no big deal, because her previous performance (champion) has much to do with her 2011 seeding.

AR15
06-15-2011, 10:22 AM
That's my point; it's no big deal, because her previous performance (champion) has much to do with her 2011 seeding.

OK, fair enough. So, if your previous performance has so much to do with her seeding, at what point does that previous performance not play such a role. For example, let's say Serena got injured 2 years ago (instead of one), and hadn't played since. Or, let's say she came out of retirement after 5 years?

Moose Malloy
06-15-2011, 10:31 AM
Op, your info is wrong. Serena is ranked 26, and was moved up 19 spots to 7.

also some of you need to read what rhubarb posted before posting:

The women's seeding isn't based on any formula. It's based on the ranking and then whatever the AELTC think will produce a "balanced" draw.

in 2004 Serena was ranked 10 but was seeded 1. She ended up reaching the final.

For example, let's say Serena got injured 2 years ago (instead of one), and hadn't played since.

Seles was given co#1 when she returned after 2 1/2 years.

like bluetrain said Wimbledon can do whatever the hell it wants, & in the past they have given much bigger boosts to players(outside top 50, yet seeded, etc)

I can't believe some of you think players in the top 8 would prefer to play Serena in the 3rd round. Or a top 16 player playing her in the 4th. By boosting her seeding, Wimbledon is helping a lot of other players in the draw, not just Serena. You think Kvitova or Bartoli would have preferred to play Serena in the 3rd round? that could have happened had they stuck to the ranking.

Gaudio2004
06-15-2011, 10:39 AM
It's based on her previous results and the consistent showing of a player who can recover very quickly to win, thus deserving a higher seed to avoid knocking out the #1 or #3 in round 2.

powerangle
06-15-2011, 10:45 AM
OK, fair enough. So, if your previous performance has so much to do with her seeding, at what point does that previous performance not play such a role. For example, let's say Serena got injured 2 years ago (instead of one), and hadn't played since. Or, let's say she came out of retirement after 5 years?

Why do people still think the Wimbledon seeding is based on some committee or bigwig's decision?

Wimbledon seeding is based on a formula. I'm sure you can find it on their site. Something like: Current ranking points + 100% of previous year's Wimbledon results + 75% of the points accrued at Wimbledon 2 years ago.

So Serena is seeded 7 because of: HER CURRENT RANKINGS POINTS + 2000 (SINCE SHE WAS 2010 CHAMP) + 1500 (SINCE SHE WAS 2009 CHAMP, AND 75% OF 2000 POINTS IS 1500 POINTS).


When you use the formula for all entering players, that is where the cards fall. Serena, with her being champ in 2009 and 2010, and utilizing their formula....came out on top of all the other players in the draw, except for 6 (who got seeded above her, because they have more points when you utilize the formula).

This has ALWAYS been their formula. And newsflash, since Serena is the 2-time defending champ, she gets majorly benefited from this formula, which awards results from the past two years. It's not rocket science, people.

jonnythan
06-15-2011, 10:47 AM
Serena has won the past two Wimbledons and is only ranked as low as 19 because of a previous injury.

Putting her up at 7 is clearly the right thing to do.

Moose Malloy
06-15-2011, 10:50 AM
Wimbledon seeding is based on a formula. I'm sure you can find it on their site. Something like: Current ranking points + 100% of previous year's Wimbledon results + 75% of the points accrued at Wimbledon 2 years ago.

So Serena is seeded 7 because of: HER CURRENT RANKINGS POINTS + 2000 (SINCE SHE WAS 2010 CHAMP) + 1500 (SINCE SHE WAS 2009 CHAMP, AND 75% OF 2000 POINTS IS 1500 POINTS).




This formula is only used for the mens draw, not the womens. sigh.

powerangle
06-15-2011, 10:53 AM
This formula is only used for the mens draw, not the womens. sigh.

Do you know why they don't use it for the women?

barry
06-15-2011, 10:56 AM
Why not seed by ranking and forget the nonsense. If she won last year and never played for the rest of the year, why should she be seeded?

Stacked draws?

Moose Malloy
06-15-2011, 10:58 AM
Do you know why they don't use it for the women?

From what I recall, the implication was there are no grass specialists in the womens game compared to the mens(at least in 2001, when the formula started being used) so WTA rankings were a fair seeding.

Since 2001, they have rarely tinkered with the womens seedings.

ckhirnigs113
06-15-2011, 11:04 AM
Serena will be the favorite in most of her early matches, so I think the seeding should reflect that.

MichaelNadal
06-15-2011, 11:31 AM
I don't think that's fair. The players have played their heart out for a year but now have to reserve for Serena to be at the very high position who was out for a year is a knock on those top players. Serena deserve a wild card.

You are succcccccccccccch a Serena hater.

bluetrain4
06-15-2011, 12:01 PM
It's done. There are legit arguments in favor and against. If someone has a really big probem with it, they're not going to be addressed here since no one on TW (as far as I know) as the authority. Start a petition, write to the LTA.

Pushmaster
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
Serena has not played in almost a year. We have no idea how Serena will play after such a long absence.

She'll probably win it, lol.

TMF
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
You are succcccccccccccch a Serena hater.

Serena gain the others must lose, and vice versa. It's a give and take. I know certains fans will go by what benefit their favorites.