PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon seeding


barry
05-24-2006, 12:17 PM
Will the Wimbledon seeding committee seed Roddick number 2 again, like last year over Hewitt, even if his ranking is 4th?
Come to think of it, how does Roddick manage to stay in the top 10, he has done so poorly all year.

devila
05-24-2006, 12:22 PM
Don't Reply To This Troll Thread. Zzzz

Dan007
05-24-2006, 01:08 PM
Will the Wimbledon seeding committee seed Roddick number 2 again, like last year over Hewitt, even if his ranking is 4th?
Come to think of it, how does Roddick manage to stay in the top 10, he has done so poorly all year.

Well Hewitt is not even in top 10 anymore, which means A-rod gets a higher seeding than him. Roddick had a better grass court season than hewitt for last 3 years.

wyutani
05-24-2006, 01:10 PM
Don't Reply To This Troll Thread. Zzzz

huh? what is troll thread? roddick managed to stay on top becos no one below him could catch up...they'll catch up after clay court season is over~ BURNING~!!!

Taram_Nifas
05-24-2006, 01:19 PM
Roddick will drop a lot if he does not defend his Wimbledon Points, I think... So if he plays well in wimbledon he will be in the top... I guess that's how it works...

barry
05-24-2006, 03:17 PM
Actually Hewitt lost to Federer in the Semi's last year. Roddick got the easy draw and was placed as the number 2 seed, thus not in the Federer side. The committee said Roddick was better than Hewitt on grass even if he was ranked lower and Hewitt has won Wimbledon. The committee could have put Roddick and Hewitt in the same side, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, but they once again elected to stack in Roddicks favor.

Devilla being a big Roddick fan hates when anyone tells the truth about Wimbledon and Roddick's easy draws.

Alexandros
05-24-2006, 03:28 PM
There's no bias involved in the seeding at Wimbledon, even if it isn't done in the conventional way. Half of it is based on your current ranking and the other half is based on your grass court results for the past TWO years.

So when Roddick was seeded second and Hewitt third last year it factored in the fact that Roddick had two wins in Queens and a semis and finals showing in Wimbledon. Hewitt had the first round loss in Wimbledon the year before.

In any case, assuming Roddick stays fourth in rankings it's very easy to see that he'll probably leapfrog Nalbandian and Nadal to be seeded second again. Which is fitting considering he's been the second best grass courter in terms of results for the past three years.

Fee
05-24-2006, 06:18 PM
The committee could have put Roddick and Hewitt in the same side, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, but they once again elected to stack in Roddicks favor.

This is not how tennis draws are done and you know it because its been explained to you 100 times. 1 and 2 are placed, 3 and 4 are randomly drawn to be in the bottom or top half of the draw. Wimbledon has one of the most witnessed draws on the planet. Get over it already.

Hops
05-24-2006, 07:55 PM
In any case, assuming Roddick stays fourth in rankings it's very easy to see that he'll probably leapfrog Nalbandian and Nadal to be seeded second again. Which is fitting considering he's been the second best grass courter in terms of results for the past three years.


Nadal is so far ahead of Roddick (~ 2000 points) that if seeding formula is the same Nadal will be #2 seed at Wimbledon. barring some unforseen calamity at RG.

travlerajm
05-24-2006, 08:21 PM
Actually Hewitt lost to Federer in the Semi's last year. Roddick got the easy draw and was placed as the number 2 seed, thus not in the Federer side. The committee said Roddick was better than Hewitt on grass even if he was ranked lower and Hewitt has won Wimbledon. The committee could have put Roddick and Hewitt in the same side, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, but they once again elected to stack in Roddicks favor.

Devilla being a big Roddick fan hates when anyone tells the truth about Wimbledon and Roddick's easy draws.

They did not elect to do this. This was decided by random draw.

siber222000
05-24-2006, 09:14 PM
i wouldn't be so surprised if one of them is better seed than the other, cuz they are both playing really bad this year and i think everyone knows that, i dont even think if hewitt or roddick can even make it to semi final this year =_= (not to cuss any fuss, this is my opinion)

HollerOne5
05-24-2006, 09:55 PM
There is no way they won't be able to give Nadal a #2 seeding because:

A) He is nearly 2,000 points ahead of the number 3 ranked player. If someone is ranked that high, it shouldn't matter the surface, they have earned their seeding.

B) People will still be hoping for a Federer/Nadal final no matter what, even if Nadal's chance of making the final is slim.

C) Wimbledon would get a ton of crap for this, and just add to the argument that it is a snotty and outdated tournament who feels they are too important to follow the ATP Rankings.

superman1
05-24-2006, 11:42 PM
Yeah, Nadal will be #2. If they went by past grass court results, Nadal would have to be a wildcard.

barry
05-25-2006, 01:36 AM
An argument can be made that rank is earned and seeds should be selected by rank. Rank determines seeding at the French, U.S. Open, and Australia.
Do we really want a committee to select whom they think is best on any surface, or should seeding be done by rank?
Borg was a clay court player, but somehow he managed to win 5 consecutive Wimbledon’s. I think if anyone is seeded over Nadal or Nalbandian, Both will skip the tournament in protest and rightly so. A few years back Nalbandian was in the Wimbledon final.

Wimbledon, it is time to dump the seeding committee.
.

jhhachamp
05-25-2006, 02:20 AM
Do we really want a committee to select whom they think is best on any surface, or should seeding be done by rank?

Yes. The French should do something similar to this as well. It adjusts the rankings to make them more consistent with ability on the surface.

Chadwixx
05-25-2006, 08:59 AM
This is not how tennis draws are done and you know it because its been explained to you 100 times. 1 and 2 are placed, 3 and 4 are randomly drawn to be in the bottom or top half of the draw. Wimbledon has one of the most witnessed draws on the planet. Get over it already.

Draws or seeding placements? Arent the seeds already placed on the board when they bring it out? Then they fill in the rest?

Please link me to some info and pics on how i can attend this ceremony. Please explain the "random" part as well. Thanks

Roddick will be the #2 seed if he is healthy and plays, nadal will be in the bottom half and nalbandian will be in the fed side.

ksbh
05-25-2006, 09:10 AM
I agree with Barry here. Andy Roddick hasn't won any tournaments of note this year and hasn't won a GS title in almost 3 years. Yet is ranked in the top 10? Puzzling!

Will the Wimbledon seeding committee seed Roddick number 2 again, like last year over Hewitt, even if his ranking is 4th?
Come to think of it, how does Roddick manage to stay in the top 10, he has done so poorly all year.

johnkidd
05-25-2006, 09:15 AM
Nadal is so far ahead of Roddick (~ 2000 points) that if seeding formula is the same Nadal will be #2 seed at Wimbledon. barring some unforseen calamity at RG.
I think they'll seed Roddick #2 and Nadal #3. As was mentioned Wimbledon takes in to account grass court ability as well as the rankings. That's why some of the clay courters get mysterious illnesses come Wimbledon because they don't like the fact their seed is dropped or they aren't seeded.

Hops
05-25-2006, 09:52 AM
I think they'll seed Roddick #2 and Nadal #3. As was mentioned Wimbledon takes in to account grass court ability as well as the rankings. That's why some of the clay courters get mysterious illnesses come Wimbledon because they don't like the fact their seed is dropped or they aren't seeded.

I am well aware of Wimbledon's grasscourt adjustments; running the numbers based on the current formula, Roddick still falls short of Nadal. If Roddick ends up the #2 seed, that means either

- they changed the formula (possible, but not likely)

- Nadal exits early at RG, lowering his overall point total to within range of Roddick+Grass bonus points (only a Rafa injury could make this happen, he's won, what, 632 consecutive matches on clay?)

there is the third option,

- Roddick does extremely well at RG

but let's try and be serious here :)

HollerOne5
05-25-2006, 10:27 AM
I am well aware of Wimbledon's grasscourt adjustments; running the numbers based on the current formula, Roddick still falls short of Nadal. If Roddick ends up the #2 seed, that means either

- they changed the formula (possible, but not likely)

- Nadal exits early at RG, lowering his overall point total to within range of Roddick+Grass bonus points (only a Rafa injury could make this happen, he's won, what, 632 consecutive matches on clay?)

there is the third option,

- Roddick does extremely well at RG

but let's try and be serious here :)

Hypothetically, if Nadal exited first round at the French, he would still be 1000 points ahead of Andy Roddick. AND - Andy Roddick must win Queen's club again just to stay within 1000 points of a RG First round loser Nadal, or else he would lose maximumly another 225 points. Get real folks, Nadal has won 14 titles in the past year, including a slam - Roddick has won 1 or 2 small tournaments.

I'm telling you folks, Wimbledon does not have the balls to not seed Nadal #2. Him and Federer are undisputed #1 and #2. They win every slam and Masters Series Tournament they have been entered in over a year. Wimbledon would get serious crap for this. It would be like if the French Open had a committee that would technically have to seed Nadal #1 at the French, although this would be absurd, seeing how Federer is second favorite and has nearly 7,000 ATP Ranking points.

The Wimbledon committee WILL however, lower the seeding of lower ranked clay courters like Ferrer, Robredo, Gaudio, etc etc. And raise the seedings for players like Ancic. Who knows, they probably will even give Karlovic a #32 seed. What a joke

SER
05-25-2006, 10:31 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/ATP_Rulebook.pdf


anybody who doesn't understanding how the seeding works go to this link please


It starts talking about the draw at section 6.09 and seeding process is a bit further down

FEDEXP
05-25-2006, 10:34 AM
In fact Roddick is now 5th.

a guy
05-25-2006, 10:44 AM
Henman will be #2 seed

wyutani
05-25-2006, 10:58 AM
Henman will be #2 seed

you're joking arent you? i mean, andy murray could beat him...

barry
05-25-2006, 11:03 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/ATP_Rulebook.pdf


anybody who doesn't understanding how the seeding works go to this link please


It starts talking about the draw at section 6.09 and seeding process is a bit further down

Wimbledon establishes it’s on seeding not based on rank which is unfair. Rank is earned! Last year Hewitt was number 2 in the world, Roddick number 3, Wimbledon decided to seed Roddick over Hewitt, and then they put Hewitt in Federer side. Normally 2 plays 3 and 1 plays 4. At least the tournaments so far this year have worked that way.

So the issue is do you think a tournament committee should establish seeding and placement of players? Or should it be strictly done by rank!

Max G.
05-25-2006, 11:26 AM
I agree with Barry here. Andy Roddick hasn't won any tournaments of note this year and hasn't won a GS title in almost 3 years. Yet is ranked in the top 10? Puzzling!

Well, you can add up the ranking points yourself if you'd like.
Points are calculated as follows - you add up the points from all four grand slams played in the past 52 weeks, plus all nine masters series played in the past 52 weeks, plus the Masters Cup, plus the best five other tournaments Roddick entered in the past 52 weeks.

(It works slightly differently for lower-ranked players - if a player is not ranked high enough to be accepted into a TMS or a Grand Slam, he can replace it with another tournament in his ranking. But it's a non-issue for Roddick, who was accepted into all of those tournaments.)

Adding up the ranking points, you get:

Australian Open R16 (150 points)
Roland Garros R64 (35 points)
Wimbledon Final (700 points)
US Open R128 (5 points)

TMS Indian Wells R16 (75 points)
TMS Miami Quarterfinal (125 points)
TMS Rome Quarterfinal (125 points)
TMS Canada R64 (5 points)
TMS Cincinnati Final (350 points)
TMS Madrid R32 (5 points)
TMS Paris Semifinal (225 points)


Queens Club Winner (225 points)
Lyon Winner (225 points)
Washington Winner (200 points)
San Jose Semifinal (75 points)
Memphis Quarterfinal (60 points)

Grand Total - 2585 points.

Of course, you could have also gotten that number by looking at http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/entrysystem/ .

From that site, you can also get the points totals for all of the other players.

There are four players with more points than Roddick - Federer at 7010 points, Nadal at 4545 points, Nalbandian at 3065, and Ljubicic at 2610.

Everyone else has fewer points - Davydenko at 2295, Robredo at 2020, Blake at 1925, Gonzalez at 1780, Gaudio at 1745, and so on and so forth.

Which is why Roddick is ranked in the top 10.

Rob_C
05-25-2006, 11:31 AM
Wimbledon establishes itís on seeding not based on rank which is unfair. Rank is earned! Last year Hewitt was number 2 in the world, Roddick number 3, Wimbledon decided to seed Roddick over Hewitt, and then they put Hewitt in Federer side. Normally 2 plays 3 and 1 plays 4. At least the tournaments so far this year have worked that way.

So the issue is do you think a tournament committee should establish seeding and placement of players? Or should it be strictly done by rank!

I'm more posting this for the newer members who might have missed Barry's 4th-5th consecutive year of starting this thread right before Wimby, not to debate Barry.

Wimbledon's seeding are done by this years ranking pts, + 50% of last year's grass court tourney pts, + 25% of the year before last's grass court tourney pts. That;s how they arrive at the final seedings. But, all players in the top 32 of the rankings will be seeded, the above mentioned formula determines the order in which they will be seeded.

siber222000
05-25-2006, 11:49 AM
I agree with Barry here. Andy Roddick hasn't won any tournaments of note this year and hasn't won a GS title in almost 3 years. Yet is ranked in the top 10? Puzzling!
haha i agree

Max G.
05-25-2006, 11:52 AM
Normally 2 plays 3 and 1 plays 4. At least the tournaments so far this year have worked that way.

No, that's not how it's done.
I quote to you the ATP Rulebook, page 78.
First seed 1 is placed in the first slot in the draw; then seed 2 is placed on the last line of the draw. From then on, the seeds are drawn randomly, in groups - 3 and 4 are randomly placed in the two halves, and so on. There's a whole nice chart.

I went in and looked at all the tournaments played this year. Approximately 40% have had the #1 seed in the same half as the #3 seed (including the Australian Open, btw), and the rest have had it the other way around.

Max G.
05-25-2006, 11:53 AM
I'm more posting this for the newer members who might have missed Barry's 4th-5th consecutive year of starting this thread right before Wimby, not to debate Barry.

Hehe, yeah... I should really know better than to get involved in these thread for the zillionth time. But hey, each time I find new statistics to bring up - it's interesting to look at, and it's the summer, so I have a bit of time to waste...

Max G.
05-25-2006, 12:32 PM
Okay, more statistics. If you look at the past five years (Roland Garros 2001 through Australian Open 2006), it turns out that exactly half of the Grand Slams have ended up with the 1st seed seeded to play seed 3 in the semis, and half have had the 1 and 4 seeds in the same half.

The breakdown:

1 vs 4, 2 vs 3:

Roland Garros 2005
Australian Open 2005
Roland Garros 2004
Australian Open 2004
Wimbledon 2003
Wimbledon 2002
USOpen 2002
USOpen 2001
Wimbledon 2001
Roland Garros 2001

1 vs 3, 2 vs 4:


Australian Open 2006
US Open 2005
Wimbledon 2005
US Open 2004
Wimbledon 2004
US Open 2003
Roland Garros 2003
Australian Open 2003
Roland Garros 2002
Australian Open 2002

Hops
05-25-2006, 01:30 PM
Okay, more statistics. If you look at the past five years (Roland Garros 2001 through Australian Open 2006), it turns out that exactly half of the Grand Slams have ended up with the 1st seed seeded to play seed 3 in the semis, and half have had the 1 and 4 seeds in the same half.



that's just misdirection to throw us offtrack

Hops
05-25-2006, 01:32 PM
Wimbledon's seeding are done by this years ranking pts, + 50% of last year's grass court tourney pts, + 25% of the year before last's grass court tourney pts.

pretty sure it's 100% + 50%. so e.g. Roddick gets 700 bonus points for 2005 Wimb., and 350 bonus points for 2004 Wimb.

Rob_C
05-25-2006, 02:56 PM
pretty sure it's 100% + 50%. so e.g. Roddick gets 700 bonus points for 2005 Wimb., and 350 bonus points for 2004 Wimb.

In last year's thread on this topic, somebody posted the formula. I tried to go to the ATP site, plus the Wimby site, couldnt find it, so I just went with what I thought I remembered.

barry
05-25-2006, 02:59 PM
In last year's thread on this topic, somebody posted the formula. I tried to go to the ATP site, plus the Wimby site, couldnt find it, so I just went with what I thought I remembered.

Point is there is no formula, just a bunch of old hacks in the back room making up the draw which is exactly the issue.
Ranking should determine seeding, not committee's. Unless the ATP is turning into the WWF, I think Wimbledon should be seeded just like any other events.

HollerOne5
05-25-2006, 03:18 PM
Point is there is no formula, just a bunch of old hacks in the back room making up the draw which is exactly the issue.
Ranking should determine seeding, not committee's. Unless the ATP is turning into the WWF, I think Wimbledon should be seeded just like any other events.

Exactly, but Wimbledon is too concerned with making people wear all white and complaining about how things in tennis these days aren't "classy" and like the "old times." Wimbledon thinks its better than any other tournament, and much more prestigious, even though its techinically on par with 3 other tournaments a year. I don't know what makes them so special.

Rob_C
05-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Point is there is no formula, just a bunch of old hacks in the back room making up the draw which is exactly the issue.
Ranking should determine seeding, not committee's. Unless the ATP is turning into the WWF, I think Wimbledon should be seeded just like any other events.

I went back and used the search function, quite well, if I may say so myself, and found the thread where a link to the formula was posted. Here it is.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2005/wimby_seeds.asp

Now all of us can figure out the seeds and come to the same conclusion as the seeding committee.

dmastous
05-25-2006, 03:31 PM
Since the grass court season only lasts 4 weeks (excepting the tourny in Newport after Wimbledon) they only have last years results to set this years seedings. In fact it may be that they have seen no player perform on grass while they are making the seedings. Grass is such a different surface from the others, and it suits a specific type player. Though that style has changed in the last 5 years.
Unless a player has dropped out of the top 10, and is having dismal results leading up to Wimbledon (and clay courts count for less than hard) they will probably seed Roddick #2 since he's been runner up the last 2 years.
If the situation were reversed and the clay court season was the same, Nadal would be the #1 seed in the French even if he had had a down hard court season running up.
Wimbledon is not "on par" with the three other Grand Slams. It is #2 in terms of noteriety and popularity. The US Open is #1 the French #3 and the Australian a distant 4th, but gaining. It is the Ying to the US Open's Yang. The US Open is anything goes, while Wimbledon likes tradition. The US Open is big and brash, while Wimbledon is staid and mannered. There's room in the world of tennis for everyone.
The bottom line is if Wimbledon's eye for tradition and very different style of play doesn't suit you, you don't have to watch. Take a 2 week vacation from tennis. Read a book.

gully
05-25-2006, 03:38 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=55105

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=56149

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=54844

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=44698

Rob_C
05-26-2006, 10:12 PM
Draws or seeding placements? Arent the seeds already placed on the board when they bring it out? Then they fill in the rest?

Please link me to some info and pics on how i can attend this ceremony. Please explain the "random" part as well. Thanks

Roddick will be the #2 seed if he is healthy and plays, nadal will be in the bottom half and nalbandian will be in the fed side.

Here's a pic of Nadal at this year's French Open draw ceremony. It looks like he's pulling a name out of a hat.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/photos/imagepages/2006-05-26/200605261148630483240.html

dh003i
05-26-2006, 11:20 PM
Wow, all the *****ing and moaning about Wimbledon.

Some people really hate tradition, which just shows their ignorance for tennis.

I think that clay and grass are such unique surfaces that seeding should be partly based on surface-specific performance.

So, yes, Nadal should be the top seed at the French, but also, he shouldn't even be in the top-10 at Wimbledon, since he hasn't shown he can do anything on grass other than flop.

But hey, I'd like to see a Nadal-Federer final at Wimbledon, so stupid Nadal fans like nadalfangirl could shut up about Nadal having a chance on grass (of course, reality check here, Nadal won't even get to the Wimbledon finals, or semis, or quarterfinals; probably knocked out in the first couple of rounds).

Eviscerator
05-26-2006, 11:43 PM
Having nothing to do with the OP's question regarding Roddick, I like the fact that Wimbledon seeds according to players ability on grass courts. I think the French should do so as well, since some players who do well on other surfaces do not do well on very fast or slow surfaces. Having Pete seeded #1 all those years always struck me as strange because you knew he was not likely to prevail on the slow red clay over a 2 week period.

barry
05-27-2006, 03:02 AM
Having nothing to do with the OP's question regarding Roddick, I like the fact that Wimbledon seeds according to players ability on grass courts. I think the French should do so as well, since some players who do well on other surfaces do not do well on very fast or slow surfaces. Having Pete seeded #1 all those years always struck me as strange because you knew he was not likely to prevail on the slow red clay over a 2 week period.

Question is who decides? And what is the criteria? Is the seeding committee trying to put more fans in the stands? Or prop up a failing American player? Roddick has done nothing since the Wimbledon final last year. Last year was last year, he had the easier side of the draw, and Hewitt the real number 2 seed / ranked player was placed in Federer side of the draw. Hewitt lost to Federer in the semis, Roddick lost in the finals.

Eviscerator
05-27-2006, 08:10 AM
Question is who decides? And what is the criteria? Is the seeding committee trying to put more fans in the stands? Or prop up a failing American player? Roddick has done nothing since the Wimbledon final last year. Last year was last year, he had the easier side of the draw, and Hewitt the real number 2 seed / ranked player was placed in Federer side of the draw. Hewitt lost to Federer in the semis, Roddick lost in the finals.


That is a very subjective question, and I imagine the process is subjective as well. You can choose to trust that they do it based on their experience and knowledge of players ability on grass. Conversely you can assume the worse and believe they are only interested in helping to make the best matchups to increase ticket sales and viewers.

In my case, I look at their past record and see that they make pretty good decisions regarding their seedings. Players like Rios who had no business being a top seed regardless of their rank were put further down the list where as other players who were either S&V's or had huge serves were put higher because of how their games translated well to grass. Even during an off year, players like Goran would get a higher ranking because of his serve and stlye of play over the clay court specialists. That is why I think the French should adopt the same policy, because players who do well on fast surfaces typically do not do as well on the slow dirt.

dh003i
05-27-2006, 08:53 AM
Let's say they are doing it to maximize ticket sales and profits by creating the best match-ups. So what? They're a private organization, and have every right to do so.

Regarding Roddick being seeded, if his record on grass is second best to Federer, it makes sense that he be seeded second to Federer.

Max G.
05-27-2006, 08:58 AM
Question is who decides?

Some group of people in charge of running the tournament, same group of people that decide everything about Wimbledon.

And what is the criteria?

Some formula based on current ranking and past grass-court results.

Is the seeding committee trying to put more fans in the stands? Or prop up a failing American player?

No, they're trying to seed players in closer accord to how they're likely to do at Wimbledon.

Roddick has done nothing since the [COLOR=black]Wimbledon final last year. Last year was last year, he had the easier side of the draw, and Hewitt the real number 2 seed / ranked player was placed in Federer side of the draw. Hewitt lost to Federer in the semis, Roddick lost in the finals.

And, what's your point? Hewitt isn't ranked anywhere near Roddick right now, about 1000 points behind.

jhhachamp
05-27-2006, 10:41 AM
I agree with Barry here. Andy Roddick hasn't won any tournaments of note this year and hasn't won a GS title in almost 3 years. Yet is ranked in the top 10? Puzzling!

If you really can't understand how Roddick is ranked in the top 10, then you really don't understand how the rankings work. I suggest you do some research before making ignorant statements.

jhhachamp
05-27-2006, 10:45 AM
That's why some of the clay courters get mysterious illnesses come Wimbledon because they don't like the fact their seed is dropped or they aren't seeded.

I remember reading that they first take the top 32 players entered and then adjust the seedings, meaning that you must be one of the best 32 players entered to get a seed. Karlovic will not be seeded again unless he racks up some serious points before that.

Max G.
05-27-2006, 11:47 AM
Karlovic will not be seeded again unless he racks up some serious points before that.

Well, currently Karlovic has 771 points in the Entry Ranking, and #32-ranked Paul-Henri Mathieu has 920. Thus, Karlovic needs to gain approximately 150 points between now and Wimbledon to be seeded! (Not really an exact number, since the rankings will change around, but I figure the cutoff between seeded and not seeded will be somewhere around there.)

Last year he lost in the 1st round at the French (5 pts to defend), got to the finals of Surbiton (35 pts to defend), final of queens (155 pts to defend), and the quarters of Nottingham (40 pts to defend, though I don't think that Nottingham results get factored in to Wimbledon seedings because the tournament doesn't end before the draw is done).

So if he plays the best tennis of his life for the next couple of weeks, he could do it... And some lucky draws at Queens would help too. He's got a great draw at the French Open, but I'm not sure that he has the claycourt prowess to take advantage of it ;)

Here are some pretty pictures of Karlovic's ranking and his point totals over time - his point total has been increasing rapidly this year, hopefully he can keep it up!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/savfan104/c59920b4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/savfan104/6b17baa4.jpg

(okay, so maybe I just put those up because I felt like showing off the graphs).

(And no, I don't really think that Karlovic can gain enough ranking points to be seeded by Wimbledon, but I really really hope he does)

HollerOne5
05-27-2006, 12:06 PM
Well, currently Karlovic has 771 points in the Entry Ranking, and #32-ranked Paul-Henri Mathieu has 920. Thus, Karlovic needs to gain approximately 150 points between now and Wimbledon to be seeded! (Not really an exact number, since the rankings will change around, but I figure the cutoff between seeded and not seeded will be somewhere around there.)

Last year he lost in the 1st round at the French (5 pts to defend), got to the finals of Surbiton (35 pts to defend), final of queens (155 pts to defend), and the quarters of Nottingham (40 pts to defend, though I don't think that Nottingham results get factored in to Wimbledon seedings because the tournament doesn't end before the draw is done).

So if he plays the best tennis of his life for the next couple of weeks, he could do it... And some lucky draws at Queens would help too. He's got a great draw at the French Open, but I'm not sure that he has the claycourt prowess to take advantage of it ;)

Here are some pretty pictures of Karlovic's ranking and his point totals over time - his point total has been increasing rapidly this year, hopefully he can keep it up!

So are you Ivo Karlovic's only fan or Ivo himself?

Max G.
05-27-2006, 03:09 PM
So are you Ivo Karlovic's only fan or Ivo himself?

Nah, he's got other fans besides me ;)

ford oliver
06-15-2006, 12:42 AM
First, in order to get good grass court results to help your Wimbledon seeding you need to enter grass court tournaments which Ivo, despite being a finalist at Queens last year, FORGOT TO DO! So he had to resort to playing qualies this week and I think he "crashed out" (as the British like to say) in the first round OF QUEENS QUALIFYING. How does that look on a graph?

Gugafan_Redux
06-15-2006, 08:11 AM
i wouldn't be so surprised if one of them is better seed than the other,

Neither would I.

//Head just asploded.