PDA

View Full Version : Serena seeded 28th at US Open


dirtballer
08-23-2011, 11:16 AM
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110823/2a0747e6-7375-475f-a194-7357e9603626

The Open stuck with the rankings. They're probably still gun shy from a number of years ago when they tried to adjust the seedings to rig a Sampras - Agassi semifinal.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Hopefully she draws Wozniacki in the 3rd round so the Woz can drop even more ranking points. Wozniacki will probably drop out of the tournament with the flu if that happens and play a futures event in Egypt for more points instead.

DRII
08-23-2011, 11:18 AM
Considering Serena's last outing at the USO, perhaps it was to be expected...

woodrow1029
08-23-2011, 12:19 PM
They're probably still gun shy from a number of years ago when they tried to adjust the seedings to rig a Sampras - Agassi semifinal.

When was that?

dirtballer
08-23-2011, 12:41 PM
When was that?

I believe it was 1996. The rumor was that CBS wanted a Sampras - Agassi semifinal for super Saturday and asked the Open if they could facilitate it. To get the pairings in line for the Sampras - Agassi semi, the Open initially dropped Kafelnikov from 4th to 7th, claiming that he had an injured back. Kafelnikov had won the French Open that year. The outrage was so extreme that the Open backed off and seeded by ranking. CBS still wags the dog. Remember two years ago when CBS rushed Del Potro through his winner's ceremony because of their "time window."

r2473
08-23-2011, 12:46 PM
Remember two years ago when CBS rushed Del Potro through his winner's ceremony because of their "time window."

Pfft....Delpo isn't American, and CBS had to air that rerun of "Surviving and dancing with celebrity idols in hell's kitchen" in its entirety.

rommil
08-23-2011, 12:46 PM
When Serena found out, she was delirious, stomped her right leg and the whole east coast shook.

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 01:02 PM
Pfft....Delpo isn't American, and CBS had to air that rerun of "Surviving and dancing with celebrity idols in hell's kitchen" in its entirety.

I've been watching the Open for 25 years. They always rush the ceremony if it goes beyond their scheduled timeslot, nationality has nothing to do with it. Delpo got to say more than sampras did in most of his uso wins. CBS didn't even show any of the trophy presentation in '89.

I believe it was 1996. The rumor was that CBS wanted a Sampras - Agassi semifinal for super Saturday and asked the Open if they could facilitate it. To get the pairings in line for the Sampras - Agassi semi, the Open initially dropped Kafelnikov from 4th to 7th, claiming that he had an injured back. Kafelnikov had won the French Open that year. The outrage was so extreme that the Open backed off and seeded by ranking. CBS still wags the dog.

They did lots of strange things that year, & actually re-did the draw (but not the seedings. Agassi had dropped to 8 that year, they didn't want to risk a Sampras-Agassi QF, so moved him to 6. Kafelnikov withdrew from the tournament after all this)

I think I have a copy of the original draw somewhere.

from steveg:

Wow, who would have thought that the USTA would turn out to be
such a bunch of dunderheads? (Long-time readers will note that
I usually reserve the word "dunderhead" for when I discuss the
ATP, but I think it fits in this case.) While, in theory, the
Grand Slam seeding committees are granted some leeway when it comes
to establishing seedings, the USTA seems to not have grasped the
concept that the APPEARANCE of impropriety is often as bad as
impropriety itself. Let's recount The Trail of Dunderheaded-ness,
shall we?
1) The USTA creates the men's draw EXCEPT for the 16 seeded spots
on Tuesday night (and goes ahead and releases the list of women's
seeds which, miraculously enough, required NO TAMPERING! Imagine!).
2) The USTA then places determines the seedings based on "a variety
of factors," including how a player has been performing on hardcourts,
how a player has been performing over the past few weeks/months (!),
whether a player is injured (!!), how a player can be expected to
perform in the tournament, and, oh yeah, what a player's
current ATP ranking is.
3) The seedings that JUST HAPPEN to come out of this hocus pocus
result in moving two AMERICAN players (Agassi and Chang) higher up
than they would have been had the ATP rankings been followed.
4) After the hue and cry went up from the players, the USTA redid
the draw, but LEFT THE SEEDS UNCHANGED FROM DRAW #1.
5) Yevgeny goes home in a huff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, so Wimbledon does this every year, and nobody *****es--
or so says the USTA, who conveniently forgot the stupidity of the
Wimbledon seeding process this year, when they dropped Richard Krajicek
out of the seeding he would have had had the ATP rankings been followed,
and then he promptly won the tournament.
In the long run, I think the seedings are a bit of a non-issue; after
all, Andre Agassi won the 1994 US Open as an unseeded player, and had
to go through five seeds to do it. But to do your rearranging in such
a way as to 1) help prop up a player who has had a HORRENDOUS year,
2) tick off the reigning French Open champion, and 3) make Thomas Muster
realize yet again that the tennis establishment holds no respect
for his accomplishments whatsoever is just ludicrous.
I was hoping they'd all walk....
Anyway. Now on to these rankings, which may or may not have any importance
in the Grand Slam scheme of things.



http://www.************.com/rankings/1994-1996/jd082696.txt

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 01:17 PM
some more on '96

This isn't the first time the revolving autocrats who run the United States Tennis Association have woven a tangled web, and it probably won't be the last. Yesterday they only half-untangled the apparently patriotic, apparently CBS-friendly concoction that briefly masqueraded as the men's United States Open draw at Wednesday's unveiling.

The draw is changed, but the seeding remains the same.

'It was embarrassing,'' said Les Snyder, the beleaguered president of the U.S.T.A., of yesterday's formal retraction, and formal revamping, of the draw. ''But it was better to redo it than have any chance of people calling it tainted. If I had it all to do over again, I would have announced my men's seeds before I did the draw.''

Snyder followed that protocol with the women's draw.

''I can't have a tournament running with a cloud over it,'' Snyder said last night from his Manhattan hotel after a day of making amends for a process that moved some players, the Olympic silver medalist Sergi Bruguera among them, to accuse Snyder and his fellow Open executives of cheating.

The rampant criticism from players was justifiable. The draw was originally made up Tuesday night with 16 empty slots where the seeded players normally would have been. To compile a tennis draw with ''seeded players to be named later'' was unprecedented at best. At worst, which is the way some players saw it, it created the perception that the Open's seeding committee then placed their chosen 16 not by the luck of the draw, but by the whim of what seemed telegenic, jingoistic, or both.

The telegenic theory was bolstered by the altered seeding status of the ever-colorful Andre Agassi, who was bumped up two spots to sixth, the better to avoid a midweek quarterfinal meeting with Pete Sampras.

Snyder denied that CBS, which this year lost its Super Saturday format because the women's final was moved to Sunday to stop it from being sandwiched between the men's semis, had anything to do with this year's creative seeding process.

Yet, despite the redraw, the U.S.T.A. stuck by the subjective seeding arrangement that gave two Americans, Michael Chang and Agassi, enhanced seeding berths that don't match their rankings.

Snyder said rankings and seedings are apples and oranges in his book, which takes its cue from Wimbledon's unabashedly subjective seeding committee.

''I think rankings are about where you finish over the long haul, and seedings should be about how you perform on that surface at that time,'' he said. ''I think every tournament should do seedings this way.''

Curiously, this one hadn't done it this way in decades

Snyder said he waited until the 11th hour to release his list of men's seeding because he had heard two highly ranked players were on the verge of withdrawing due to injuries. ''I was pretty sure Boris Becker was out,'' he said, ''but there were two other guys that were supposed to be withdrawing, and you don't want to have gaps like that.''

One of those injured guys, the French Open champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov, didn't withdraw after all, but the all-court player found himself bumped three spots to seventh place.

''Sure, he won the French,'' Snyder said, ''but that's on clay, and anyway, I gave up using slams solely for my seeding process.''

A slightly chagrined Chang, billed by the U.S.T.A. as the world's No. 1 hardcourts player (so why not seed him first?), was bumped up a notch into the spot the second-ranked Thomas Muster had expected to hold.

''I'm a little surprised,'' Chang said. ''I don't know why they did it, and it probably has upset some people.''

Of those people, Muster figured to be the most upset. Earlier this summer, Wimbledon overlooked his second-place ranking and seeded him seventh, a move he termed ''disrespectful.'' Muster subsequently withdrew from Wimbledon, citing a thigh injury in addition to the insult, but he gave no indication that this most recent slight would chase him from the event.

''I'm getting used to it,'' the 1995 French Open champion said of his Grand Slam demotions. This time Muster blamed the Grand Slam establishment for its lack of respect for the ATP Tour ranking system. He also accused the tournament of going to special lengths to protect Agassi from a premature encounter with Sampras.

''It's just to put Agassi not to face Sampras in the quarterfinals,'' he said of the seeding machinations.

As its emissaries in appealing for a redraw, the ATP Tour used Richard Krajicek, the Wimbledon champion, and the two-time Open champion Stefan Edberg, both of whom were so appalled by the unorthodoxy of the original draw that they called ATP head Mark Miles to complain.

Their appeal went so well that they now find themselves in the unfortunate position of facing each other in the first round.

Unless, of course, there's a third draw.
.


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/sports/in-open-the-usta-sows-seeds-of-doubt.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 01:22 PM
The seeds of doubt sown by U.S. Open organizers last week nearly sprouted into a massive player boycott yesterday, as controversy over the men's draw once again turned the tournament into a tangled mess before the first serve.
About 20 male players threatened to pass up America's Grand Slam in protest of its seeding procedures which for the first time in 23 years did not follow the Association of Tennis Professionals Tour rankings.
"It goes back to a very bad decision on the part of the U.S. Tennis Association to deviate from the rankings to make the seeds," said Mark Miles, CEO of the ATP Tour. "The way they did the draw, with committees, is OK for my country club, but not for a professional tournament."
The USTA had been stung by criticism all week, after putting together the bulk of the draw before announcing the seeds Wednesday.
When the seeding chart came out, it showed Michael Chang, ranked No. 3 in the world, seeded second ahead of No. 2 Thomas Muster, and No. 8 Andre Agassi in the sixth seed.
Players such as Muster immediately objected, not only to the fact that ATP rankings weren't followed, but that seeding after drawing up the brackets created favoritism toward Americans, particularly Agassi.
The Open tried to defuse the controversy by redoing its draw on Thursday an unprecedented event.
But tempers flared again yesterday when Russia's Yevgeny Kafelnikov, the French Open champ and No. 4 on the ATP computer, bolted from Flushing Meadows. "I was shocked when I saw what they did to me," Kafelnikov said. "I deserve to be seeded No. 4. I won a Grand Slam tournament and consider myself a good hardcourt player . . . I am disappointed, but I am sending a warning."
Nursing sore ribs, Kafelnikov, seeded seventh, used the injury as an excuse to leave. Yet shortly after his departure, a score of players were ready to follow him out the door.
The issue was Kafelnikov's replacement. Grand Slam rules call for filling a withdrawn seed's spot with the highest-ranked unseeded player.
That player was Spain's Felix Mantilla, who is ranked 16th in the world but was not seeded in the Open draw.
But according to Miles, the USTA was ready to fill Kafelnikov's spot with 19th-ranked Michael Stich of Germany.
That speculation prompted the 15 Spaniards in the draw including Sergei Bruguera and Alberto Costa to discuss boycotting the event. "You would have had 10 to 20 players who would have had to be restrained, right off the bat," Miles said. "And there was the potential for this to snowball."
But tournament director Jay Snyder said the Open never made a decision on Stich. "Yes, by the seeding committee's standards, Stich would be the next person, but the rules are very clear," Snyder said. "It had to be the next highest-ranked player, which is Mantilla."
Snyder said he heard about the boycott threats "only after the fact."
But it may not be the end of the Great Seed Scrap. Miles says players want assurances that the ATP rankings will be followed next year. Snyder says not to count on it.
"Will we give up our right to seed by our own criteria?" Snyder asked. "No."


http://articles.nydailynews.com/1996-08-25/sports/18009772_1_seeding-draw-atp-tour

Tanya
08-23-2011, 01:46 PM
Seeds are somewhat irrelevant given the results of the WTA this year... Truth is there is no way to predict who is going to win a certain match since seeded girls have been dropping like flies in the early goings of the recent tournaments. Serena's seeded, which is good, so she won't have to play a seeded player until at least the 3rd round but still... there is no guarantee that another seeded player is even going to make it that far anyway!

heftylefty
08-23-2011, 01:51 PM
Seeds are somewhat irrelevant given the results of the WTA this year... Truth is there is no way to predict who is going to win a certain match since seeded girls have been dropping like flies in the early goings of the recent tournaments. Serena's seeded, which is good, so she won't have to play a seeded player until at least the 3rd round but still... there is no guarantee that another seeded player is even going to make it that far anyway!

Agreed. I think this may work to Williams advantage. She will get tough matches early while tearing through the draw. Do you think any of the "top" seeds want to meet Williams in the 4th round or earlier?

dirtballer
08-23-2011, 01:54 PM
When Serena found out, she was delirious, stomped her right leg and the whole east coast shook.

I wondered what that was. My curtains were swaying.

moshi2
08-23-2011, 02:06 PM
When Serena found out, she was delirious, stomped her right leg and the whole east coast shook.

HAHAHAHA, that's a good one! LOL

boredone3456
08-23-2011, 02:06 PM
Why wouldn't they stick with the rankings...she lost in the 4th round of Wimbledon, and even though since then she has showed much better game they can't just ignore the fact that she was out of the game for almost a year with health issues. I don't see any reason to just hand her a higher seeding...because she is American? a Former Champion? what? In all honesty if she is truly ready and fitter then she was at Wimbledon whatever she is seeded shouldn't be a problem for her anyway, she won the Australian that time not even seeded...so really..if shes ready, her seeding won't matter, it'll all be on her, so really...why complain?

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 02:16 PM
^seeding her higher would be more for the benefit of the other players, not her. do you think anyone in the top 5 wants to play her in the 3rd round? that is what's going to happen.

which is better for the tournament a Sharapova-Serena SF or final, or a Sharapova-Serena 3rd round?

plus the whole 'us open series' things seems kind of odd when you can win it & be seeded so low at the us open.

Crichton
08-23-2011, 02:21 PM
I believe it was the '96 Open that they seeded Monica Seles as a co-#1 with Graf. They could have done that here, or put her in Clister's spot.

spiderman123
08-23-2011, 02:37 PM
which is better for the tournament a Sharapova-Serena SF or final, or a Sharapova-Serena 3rd round?


:raises an eyebrow like Nadal:

Is that a trick question?

why do I get a feeling that somehow you are suggesting that the first option is the correct one?

boredone3456
08-23-2011, 02:42 PM
^seeding her higher would be more for the benefit of the other players, not her. do you think anyone in the top 5 wants to play her in the 3rd round? that is what's going to happen.

which is better for the tournament a Sharapova-Serena SF or final, or a Sharapova-Serena 3rd round?

plus the whole 'us open series' things seems kind of odd when you can win it & be seeded so low at the us open.

Of course no one wants to play her in the openining rounds and it would of course be better for the tours top names to play in later rounds, but regardless, this is what happens when you are off of the tour for so long due to injuries. Her ranking dropped, and then when she went out in the 4th round of Wimbledon it nose dived, you can only earn so many points over the summer. If they had seeded her higher people would have just gone "Did her time completely gone for almost a year mean nothing? why is she seeded higher then players who earned their points and stuff by playing all year round?"

When Henin came back she had the same problem, she made the finals of her first Tournament back and then went into the Aussie and ended up drawing Dementieva as her 2nd round opponent..was it great for either one of them no but its what happens. As for the US Open series, anyone can technically win it, but you can only earn so many points for the summer hard court swing. Should seedings for the open be weighted more in favor of that? I personally don't think so. The only thing the Open series actually offers the players is a chance for more $$ at the Open, and so far only 1 series winner has actually gone on to win the Open the year they won the series anyway I think (Clijsters) so in terms of a predictor its not entirely great anyway.

Like I said, if Serena really is fit, as recent months seem to show, then her seeding won't matter. Does it make whoever draws her happy, no, but thats the risk of the sport and the risk of the draws. She could fall anywhere, and I doubt anyone wants to play her or would want to play her anytime in the tournament regardless of what her seeding is anyway. She didn't get bumped for her Aussie title she won from being unseeded and she wasn't likely to get bumped up now. If shes fit she wins, regardless of her seeding, if she plays well its hers. If not, well, oh well, she wasn't capable. Given the up and down tour her top seeded potential 3rd round opponent could just get kicked out earlier anyway.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-23-2011, 03:15 PM
Given the up and down tour her top seeded potential 3rd round opponent could just get kicked out earlier anyway.

True, or fall to SW in a hypothetical 3rd round, which would not too bad, since a top 5 player who never had a chance to take the title was just removed--saving the audience from certian players just going through the motions into week 2, but was not a serious contender in a final.

heftylefty
08-23-2011, 03:19 PM
Look, it doesn't matter if Williams is seeded 1, 28, or not at all. Smart money is not going to bet against her. There are not too many roadblocks in place preventing her to reach the final.

But I would love to know when another 28th seed was a favorite to win a Major.

Smasher08
08-23-2011, 03:52 PM
When I saw this seeding I actually laughed out loud. Based on the past two months, she should probably be in the top 5 or top 10.

She's easily my pick to win it.

kishnabe
08-23-2011, 04:11 PM
I hope she is in Wozzy QTR. We can tell who is the real NO 1!

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 05:32 PM
The only players who can beat Serena without her having a total crap day with Clijsters out are Li Na and Kvitova. However I doubt those two will survive long enough to face Serena right now, unless they draw her early. Kvitova is having a predictable post first slam letdown, I think long run she will be fine but probably wont factor into the Open much. Li Na has too many players who can beat her.

MichaelNadal
08-23-2011, 05:37 PM
Look, it doesn't matter if Williams is seeded 1, 28, or not at all. Smart money is not going to bet against her. There are not too many roadblocks in place preventing her to reach the final.

But I would love to know when another 28th seed was a favorite to win a Major.

That time Venus was seeded ridiculously low for Wimbledon. Or she might have been unseeded actually.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 05:54 PM
Venus won Wimbledon in 2007 as the #23 seed. Venus was not the favorite to win that year though. The bookies had Henin and Serena as the overwhelming favorites to win that year.

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 05:55 PM
The USTA did consider altering the women's seedings for the 2011 U.S. Open, but decided there was not a strong enough reason to do so and took the 32 seeds in the order they appear in the WTA Top 32.

The biggest question revolved around the seeding of three-time champion Serena Williams, who missed nearly a year of play in between Wimbledon 2010 and June of this year. However, by winning the tournaments at Stanford and Toronto, Williams was able to push herself into the Top 32 and ended up with a seeding of No. 28.

Sources told TENNIS.com that officials did discuss moving Williams into the top 16 or top 8, but given that Kim Clijsters wasn't seeded when she returned from motherhood in 2009—she won the event unseeded—they could not find a good enough reason to move Serena higher.

Had the USTA moved Serena higher, they may have had to determine some type of outdoor-hard-courts seeding formula, and would have had to address the seeding of every player, not just Serena. Two other Americans—two-time champion Venus Williams and Bethanie Mattek-Sands—fell just outside the WTA Top 32 and will not be seeded.

Had Serena not pushed her ranking up, officials were considering seeding her in the Top 32.


http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=13816&zoneid=25

Moose Malloy
08-23-2011, 05:57 PM
But I would love to know when another 28th seed was a favorite to win a Major

I'm guessing Seles was ranked pretty low at the '95 USO(after 2 year abscence from tour) but was co seeded 1 with Graf.

And Clijsters at '09 USO was unseeded.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 06:00 PM
I'm guessing Seles was ranked pretty low at the '95 USO(after 2 year abscence from tour) but was co seeded 1 with Graf.

And Clijsters at '09 USO was unseeded.

Clijsters definitely wasnt the favorite at the 09 U.S Open though.

I dont know if Seles was for the 95 U.S Open or not.

boredone3456
08-23-2011, 06:28 PM
Clijsters definitely wasnt the favorite at the 09 U.S Open though.

I dont know if Seles was for the 95 U.S Open or not.

Ya Clijsters wasn't a bookie favorite...she was a fan favorite for the title for sure, but overall Serena as the defending and current Wimbledon Champ was the favorite for the Open that year...as for 95...I am pretty sure Graf was the Favorite for the title, but Seles definitely had a lot of buzz as she won her first tournament back on the tour.

As for this US Open, Serena, its yours to lose I think. Shes won from lower down, shes a fighter. With Kim out, I can think of maybe a handful of ladies that might have a prayer if Serena is really dialed in and hungry. If Serena gets to the Quarters...I say its hers. If shes going to lose I think its going to be early, the more momentum she builds the more confident and hungry she will get. She is obviously so much fitter then she was at Wimbledon, so well...we'll have to see. She is definitely a favorite. Li Na, Kvitova if she snaps herself together, Maria is Serena is really off, and maybe, maybe a couple of others could pose a problem, Serena has had troubles at weird times before. But if the will is there and her body is with it...well..I'd say she'll match Kims 2005 achievement.

Tanya
08-23-2011, 09:50 PM
I think the more interesting story is the unseeded Venus Williams to be honest. Despite the fact that she has hardly played any tennis this year I never count her out... She is, to me, one of the most talented female players ever and she has almost always performed well at the US Open.

1997 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Hingis)
1998 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Davenport)
1999 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual finalist Hingis)
2000 - Champion
2001 - Champion
2002 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Serena)
2003 - DNP
2004 - 4th round
2005 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after leading a set and a break)
2006 - DNP
2007 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Henin in 2 tight sets)
2008 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Serena after having multiple set points in both sets)
2009 - 4th round (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after winning the second set 6-0)
2010 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters in 3 tight sets after winning the first set [6-4, 6-7, 4-6])

So you never know. The people that have defeated her here have earned it and only twice did she get defeated by a player that did not go on to win the tournament. I think that's a pretty incredible statistic, actually.

jamesblakefan#1
08-23-2011, 10:01 PM
Venus is a non factor, even given as weak as this field is IMO. She hasn't won a slam away from Wimbledon since 2001 (10 years!), and I don't think she'll do it now. She's much closer to being done as a contender than Serena is.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 10:08 PM
I think the more interesting story is the unseeded Venus Williams to be honest. Despite the fact that she has hardly played any tennis this year I never count her out... She is, to me, one of the most talented female players ever and she has almost always performed well at the US Open.

1997 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Hingis)
1998 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Davenport)
1999 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual finalist Hingis)
2000 - Champion
2001 - Champion
2002 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Serena)
2003 - DNP
2004 - 4th round
2005 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after leading a set and a break)
2006 - DNP
2007 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Henin in 2 tight sets)
2008 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Serena after having multiple set points in both sets)
2009 - 4th round (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after winning the second set 6-0)
2010 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters in 3 tight sets after winning the first set [6-4, 6-7, 4-6])

So you never know. The people that have defeated her here have earned it and only twice did she get defeated by a player that did not go on to win the tournament. I think that's a pretty incredible statistic, actually.

Davenport also would have won in 2004 if not for her fluke thigh injury in the semis, so she should have lost to the eventual champion that year too.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 10:09 PM
Venus is a non factor, even given as weak as this field is IMO. She hasn't won a slam away from Wimbledon since 2001 (10 years!), and I don't think she'll do it now. She's much closer to being done as a contender than Serena is.

Maybe, but that is what most were saying last year at this time and Venus ended up so nearly winning the U.S Open.

MichaelNadal
08-23-2011, 10:38 PM
I think the more interesting story is the unseeded Venus Williams to be honest. Despite the fact that she has hardly played any tennis this year I never count her out... She is, to me, one of the most talented female players ever and she has almost always performed well at the US Open.

1997 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Hingis)
1998 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Davenport)
1999 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual finalist Hingis)
2000 - Champion
2001 - Champion
2002 - Runner-up (lost to eventual champ Serena)
2003 - DNP
2004 - 4th round
2005 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after leading a set and a break)
2006 - DNP
2007 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Henin in 2 tight sets)
2008 - Quarterfinalist (lost to eventual champ Serena after having multiple set points in both sets)
2009 - 4th round (lost to eventual champ Clijsters after winning the second set 6-0)
2010 - Semifinalist (lost to eventual champ Clijsters in 3 tight sets after winning the first set [6-4, 6-7, 4-6])

So you never know. The people that have defeated her here have earned it and only twice did she get defeated by a player that did not go on to win the tournament. I think that's a pretty incredible statistic, actually.

Such a good post! Agree.

NadalAgassi
08-23-2011, 10:45 PM
What is also worth noting is all the people who have ever beaten Venus in the U.S Open are either retired or out of this years event (Clijsters) with the lone exception of Serena.

Tanya
08-23-2011, 10:54 PM
Venus is a non factor, even given as weak as this field is IMO. She hasn't won a slam away from Wimbledon since 2001 (10 years!), and I don't think she'll do it now. She's much closer to being done as a contender than Serena is.

I'm not saying that I think she's going to win it, I was merely saying that having her unseeded in the draw is a much bigger worry for the top players than having Serena seeded 28th.

DMan
08-24-2011, 12:17 AM
Of course no one wants to play her in the openining rounds and it would of course be better for the tours top names to play in later rounds, but regardless, this is what happens when you are off of the tour for so long due to injuries. Her ranking dropped, and then when she went out in the 4th round of Wimbledon it nose dived, you can only earn so many points over the summer. If they had seeded her higher people would have just gone "Did her time completely gone for almost a year mean nothing? why is she seeded higher then players who earned their points and stuff by playing all year round?"

WHY?

Because she's better than those players!!!!

Did you see the results at Stanford and Canada?

And seedings are not rankings!!!

Why doesn't anyone get that?!?!?!

DMan
08-24-2011, 12:21 AM
I love how the USTA followed the WTA rankings exactly, to seed the women at the US Open. Even though they ahve the prerogative to deviate from the rankings for seeding.

As anyone with a half a brain (feel free to admit if you don't have even that) knows, Serena Williams is better than, well just about, if not, everyone on the WTA Tour. And as she demonstrated in Stanford and Canada, she's capable of crushing the field.

So what's the risk of seeding Serena, say #3 (where Clijsters would have been?) or in the top 8? What, Azarenka or Bartoli would be ****ed?! It would, ahem, "undermine" the WTA rankings (remind me how many US Open titles Azarenka or Bartoli have. Heck, how many career titles do they have?!)

And again as everyone knows, the WTA rankings are such a joke, that the USTA follows them blindly shows how massively inept both organizations are!

DMan
08-24-2011, 12:30 AM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=13816&zoneid=25
The USTA did consider altering the women's seedings for the 2011 U.S. Open, but decided there was not a strong enough reason to do so and took the 32 seeds in the order they appear in the WTA Top 32.

The biggest question revolved around the seeding of three-time champion Serena Williams, who missed nearly a year of play in between Wimbledon 2010 and June of this year. However, by winning the tournaments at Stanford and Toronto, Williams was able to push herself into the Top 32 and ended up with a seeding of No. 28.

Sources told TENNIS.com that officials did discuss moving Williams into the top 16 or top 8, but given that Kim Clijsters wasn't seeded when she returned from motherhood in 2009—she won the event unseeded—they could not find a good enough reason to move Serena higher.

Had the USTA moved Serena higher, they may have had to determine some type of outdoor-hard-courts seeding formula, and would have had to address the seeding of every player, not just Serena. Two other Americans—two-time champion Venus Williams and Bethanie Mattek-Sands—fell just outside the WTA Top 32 and will not be seeded.

Had Serena not pushed her ranking up, officials were considering seeding her in the Top 32.

Again, what a pathetic move by the USTA!

And their excuse?!?!.....they had to consider a formula for all other players if they moved Serena higher? Puh-lease!

They can do whatever they want.

So here's what I really hope for:

Serena draws Venus in the 1R. Sure, it'll be the "blockbuster" promo the USTA will love. But it lasts one night. (And will probably be a dud of a match anyway). Then Serena is paired against Sharapova in the 3R. Serena will of course kill her again. So then the UTSA knocks out 2 heavy drawing cards by the weekend, with their idiotic and blind following of the pathetic WTA ranking system. And they're left with the Bartolis and Azarenkas, and Radwanskas, and the Chockas, and the HoosieWhatsees and HootNannys in the draw. Can't wait to see the massive defection of fans from any of the women's Stadium Court matches they schedule. Because apart from Serena, and for whatever reason Sharapova, no one cares about the women!

And oh, USTA, are you gonna schedule the women to play after the men at night, as part of your equal employment opportunity ?!? Isn't it gonna be fun seeing the empty stadium for Woz and Azarenka matches!!!

Federerx16
08-24-2011, 03:10 AM
WHY?

Because she's better than those players!!!!

Did you see the results at Stanford and Canada?

And seedings are not rankings!!!

Why doesn't anyone get that?!?!?!

I love how the USTA followed the WTA rankings exactly, to seed the women at the US Open. Even though they ahve the prerogative to deviate from the rankings for seeding.

As anyone with a half a brain (feel free to admit if you don't have even that) knows, Serena Williams is better than, well just about, if not, everyone on the WTA Tour. And as she demonstrated in Stanford and Canada, she's capable of crushing the field.

So what's the risk of seeding Serena, say #3 (where Clijsters would have been?) or in the top 8? What, Azarenka or Bartoli would be ****ed?! It would, ahem, "undermine" the WTA rankings (remind me how many US Open titles Azarenka or Bartoli have. Heck, how many career titles do they have?!)

And again as everyone knows, the WTA rankings are such a joke, that the USTA follows them blindly shows how massively inept both organizations are!

Again, what a pathetic move by the USTA!

And their excuse?!?!.....they had to consider a formula for all other players if they moved Serena higher? Puh-lease!

They can do whatever they want.

So here's what I really hope for:

Serena draws Venus in the 1R. Sure, it'll be the "blockbuster" promo the USTA will love. But it lasts one night. (And will probably be a dud of a match anyway). Then Serena is paired against Sharapova in the 3R. Serena will of course kill her again. So then the UTSA knocks out 2 heavy drawing cards by the weekend, with their idiotic and blind following of the pathetic WTA ranking system. And they're left with the Bartolis and Azarenkas, and Radwanskas, and the Chockas, and the HoosieWhatsees and HootNannys in the draw. Can't wait to see the massive defection of fans from any of the women's Stadium Court matches they schedule. Because apart from Serena, and for whatever reason Sharapova, no one cares about the women!

And oh, USTA, are you gonna schedule the women to play after the men at night, as part of your equal employment opportunity ?!? Isn't it gonna be fun seeing the empty stadium for Woz and Azarenka matches!!!
gurl im glad you know how to use the font size function

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-24-2011, 08:27 AM
So here's what I really hope for:

Serena draws Venus in the 1R. Sure, it'll be the "blockbuster" promo the USTA will love. But it lasts one night. (And will probably be a dud of a match anyway).

...but it would be an interesting bookend to their USO finals match from 2002...

Then Serena is paired against Sharapova in the 3R. Serena will of course kill her again. So then the UTSA knocks out 2 heavy drawing cards by the weekend, with their idiotic and blind following of the pathetic WTA ranking system.

The problem with a Sharapova match-up is that MS is nothing more than a practice session for SW, so there's anticpation to be built on. Moreover, even when Sharapova won a U.S. Open title in 2006, hers was among the lowest ratings of the decade (2.4), proving she's not much of a draw, so her reaching a hypothetical 2nd week meeting with Serena would not matter much, in any case.

And they're left with the Bartolis and Azarenkas, and Radwanskas, and the Chockas, and the HoosieWhatsees and HootNannys in the draw.

Well, this would happen anywhere; Bartoli's neverending bad attitude inspires fan rejection, while the Azarenkas, et al are fan/media washouts with no character and no much game, so they represent a lose/lose situation.

TMF
08-24-2011, 08:42 AM
WHY?

Because she's better than those players!!!!

Did you see the results at Stanford and Canada?

And seedings are not rankings!!!

Why doesn't anyone get that?!?!?!

A player don't play tennis doesn't have results, therefore she's cannot be part of equation. The ranking system don't include inactive players. You got to have results, and the only way is to earn it is get her *** on court. And for one year, Serena has little or no results. SHE HAS NO RESULT IN 2010 USO. Ridiculous!

boredone3456
08-24-2011, 09:25 AM
WHY?

Because she's better than those players!!!!

Did you see the results at Stanford and Canada?

And seedings are not rankings!!!

Why doesn't anyone get that?!?!?!

Just because you did well in the US Open series doesn't mean you win the US Open. Since the Inception of the US Open series contest only 1 of the 6 ladies has gone on to win her US Open, Kim. In fact Kim is the only one to even make her US Open final. Half of them have lost before the Quarterfinals.

Wozniacki crushed the entire tour in the US Open series last year, she won every tournament she entered and yet come the US Open she lost. Based on her form going in she was looking like the one to beat and what happened, Zvonareva made mince meat out of her in the SF.

What of the following do you not get. She was out of tennis for pretty much a year, not playing at all. She earned no points, her first slam back she lost in the 4th round, they can't just overlook that. Based on recent results sure she has momentum, but that doesn't mean she is going to win the title. People on the tour have played all year round and earned all their points to be in the top of the rankings for whatever reason, Would it be fair to seed Serena above current Major champions Kvitova and Li simply because of results at Standford and Canada? They didn't bump Serena up several years ago at the Australian and she went on the win the title. Henin didn't get a bump before her Australian Final run, Kim didn't get one before the US Open...and in the end they all proved those times they were better by what they did. However you can't simply assume its going to happen.

Also, the problems with the women and the rankings is not the fault of the computerized system. A computer cannot control how much a player deems to show up, when they get injured, their consistency, or anything in terms of their day to day form. Change the system however you want if the players winning the majors can't do anything outside of them its their own faults.

TMF
08-24-2011, 09:34 AM
Using Dman's logic, Sharapova should be ranked #1 b/c she just won the most recent event(Cincinnati).

Rippy
08-24-2011, 11:35 AM
Have the US Open just seeded by ranking?

If so, that's fair enough.

MotherMarjorie
08-24-2011, 01:11 PM
Appropriately seeded.

Her last appearance at the US Open didn't go well, and Mother Marjorie suspects that the USTA didn't feel they owed her any favors.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

DMan
08-24-2011, 11:18 PM
Appropriately seeded.

Her last appearance at the US Open didn't go well, and Mother Marjorie suspects that the USTA didn't feel they owed her any favors.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

Serena appropriately seeded.....at 28? Meaning should she fulfill her seeding, she bows in the 3R, to Aggie Radwanska ? ! ? <snicker, snicker, nicker>

Uh, no.

As far as Serena's last appearance at the US Open.....not going well.....Serena lost in the semis to eventual champ Clijsters. Sure, it was a major meltdown by Serena at the end. But it took a top flight effort by Kim, and that major meltdown, to derail the defending champ.

But I do agree there were probably some in the USTA who weren't looking to do any favors for Serena.

DMan
08-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Using Dman's logic, Sharapova should be ranked #1 b/c she just won the most recent event(Cincinnati).

I said, nor insinuated any such thing.

I advocated Serena Williams, not Maria Sharapova or any other player, should be seeded differently from the rankings.

That being said, I do believe that very recent results, along with history at each major, should influence seeding.

But the USTA is clearly willing to let the chips fall where they may as far as the US Open draw.

Kind of reminds me of 30 years ago. The week prior to the US Open, Andrea Jaeger briefly ascended to #2. So the USTA seeded her #2. Ahead of former champ Tracy Austin, Martina Navratilova, and Hana Mandlikova (who happened to have been in 4 consecutive major finals, including the previous US Open where she beat Jaeger in the semis). The USTA absolutely followed the rankings. And the draw came out, with #5 Mandlikova in the same quarter as #1 Evert (a repeat of the previous US Open final and most recent Wimbledon final), with Navratilova in the same half. Jaeger, as #2 seed, was shocked in the 2R. Not a big surprise. Jaeger had never been in a major final yet.
This seeding catastrophe was on the heels of Wimbledon that year deviating from the rankings, seeding Hana Mandlikova at #2, despite being ranked #5. Hana was the reigning French and Australian (when it was on grass) champ, and had been in the US Open final the year prior. Tracy Austin, Martina Navratilova, and Andrea Jaeger followed in the seedings. The WTA cried FOUL! And what happened? Jaeger and Austin, who were supposedly "dissed" by being seeded lower than their ranking, didn't live up to their "low" seeding. And Mandlikova got to the final, with a win over #4 seed Navratilova in the semis. So the Wimbledon committee got it right. And what of that organization that cried foul? The WTA. As ever, the WTA got it wrong!

jamesblakefan#1
08-25-2011, 07:28 AM
I'm not saying that I think she's going to win it, I was merely saying that having her unseeded in the draw is a much bigger worry for the top players than having Serena seeded 28th.

She's capable of winning, but she's also capable of losing in the 2nd or 3rd round to some lower ranked player. I don't think she's done anything this season to merit being seeded, and the last time she actually won the the USO was 2001. I understand she's been close and lost to the eventual champ alot, but she's still lost those matches. I don't really think she's a serious contender.

Telepatic
08-25-2011, 07:36 AM
Hopefully she draws Wozniacki in the 3rd round so the Woz can drop even more ranking points. Wozniacki will probably drop out of the tournament with the flu if that happens and play a futures event in Egypt for more points instead.

Like Wozniacki needs Serena to lose nowadays..

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-25-2011, 10:13 AM
Like Wozniacki needs Serena to lose nowadays..

No, she does not, but losing to Serena would hammer home what everyone is saying about Wozniacki's (placeholder) #1 status.

OrangePower
08-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Thing is, I would imagine Serena herself doesn't give a hoot where she's seeded.

Let's face it, Serena's results will depend completely on how well she's playing, regardless of who her opponents are. There are no players in the draw against whom she's going to feel that she's the underdog.

FuriousYellow
08-25-2011, 11:49 AM
Looks like Azarenka drew the short straw and may face Serena in the 3rd round. Wozniacki may have to play her in the QFs.

FuriousYellow
08-25-2011, 01:13 PM
And Lisicki may face unseeded Venus in the 2nd round.

Bad luck for blondes or what?

dirtballer
08-25-2011, 02:28 PM
And Lisicki may face unseeded Venus in the 2nd round.

Bad luck for blondes or what?

Attractive blondes get good breaks their whole lives. They shouldn't complain.

Tanya
08-25-2011, 09:21 PM
She's capable of winning, but she's also capable of losing in the 2nd or 3rd round to some lower ranked player. I don't think she's done anything this season to merit being seeded, and the last time she actually won the the USO was 2001. I understand she's been close and lost to the eventual champ alot, but she's still lost those matches. I don't really think she's a serious contender.

What I'm getting as is... as a top player/seed, would you rather have to play Venus in the first round or Serena in the 3rd?

Bryan Swartz
08-25-2011, 09:26 PM
And seedings are not rankings!!!

Why doesn't anyone get that?!?!?!

Every major except Wimbledon uses the rankings to determine their seeding.

Wimbledon uses the rankings with extra weight given to grass results the last two years, which ends with minimal adjustments given that most tournaments aren't on grass.

You seem to think seedings are a result predictor. They aren't. They are a reward for achievement.

NadalAgassi
08-25-2011, 09:26 PM
What I'm getting as is... as a top player/seed, would you rather have to play Venus in the first round or Serena in the 3rd?

Right now? Venus in the first round hands down.

NadalAgassi
08-25-2011, 09:29 PM
And Lisicki may face unseeded Venus in the 2nd round.


Honestly:

1. Lisicki has a good chance of winning that match right now.
2. Even if Lisicki loses she is the kind of player who could have easily lost in the 2nd round anyway.

So I dont see much bad luck for her. The really bad luck is Azarenka who almost for sure would have made the quarters or semis with her other nemisis Na and Kvitova seeded in the top 8 now, but instead plays Serena 3rd round. Certain curtains for her.

boredone3456
08-26-2011, 09:37 AM
Of all the top seeds Azarenka is one of the very few who I actually think could give Serena even a Modicum of trouble at the Open. She has pushed Serena at Grand Slam Level before (took the first set at the Aussie in 2009 before retiring, and in 2010 was up a set and 4-0 before gagging epically) and has beaten her on Hardcourts in Miami, which other then the YEC is really the only Non Slam even Serena ever seems to truly care about. Overall the fact that Azarenka is completely mentally inconsistent does her no favors against Serena...but she knows she has beaten Serena on a Hardcourt before and that she twice had chances to beat her at a Major, also on hardcourts. In all honesty of all the people Serena could have drawn she did draw someone who actually I think has chance of beating her, maybe not a good one, but more of a chance than like, 11 or 12 of the other top 16 seeds.

Marius_Hancu
08-26-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't mind that at all
Let Azarenka and Serena fight their guts out
We're paying