PDA

View Full Version : wimbledon 2006 seeding is out


tonsorial
06-21-2006, 07:31 AM
here are the top 32 seeded players, roddick is 3rd seed

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/seeds.html

ksbh
06-21-2006, 07:54 AM
Nadal seeded 2nd?! And Roddick seeded 3 places higher than Hewitt?!

Not very accurate seeding, to say the least.

here are the top 32 seeded players, roddick is 3rd seed

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/seeds.html

Arafel
06-21-2006, 08:02 AM
here are the top 32 seeded players, roddick is 3rd seed

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/bios/seeds.html

Now the question is will Andy be on Rafa's half or Fed's half.

malakas
06-21-2006, 08:22 AM
Oh..thanx very much for the link..

BTW..the seeding was fair IMO.

ACE of Hearts
06-21-2006, 08:26 AM
My guess is that Roddick will be placed on Nadal's half.I expect Nalbandian too be placed on Roger's side of the draw.

Lagger
06-21-2006, 08:26 AM
Was I sleeping when Henman pulled out?!? :confused: Is he hurt?

malakas
06-21-2006, 08:27 AM
Yes..they would like a Fed-Rod match as later as possible!!

diegaa
06-21-2006, 08:29 AM
Now the question is will Andy be on Rafa's half or Fed's half.

he should be on fedīs.
BTW, Ive been wondering why it is this way (#1 and #3 in the same half and #2 and #4 at the other)

ACE of Hearts
06-21-2006, 08:31 AM
I dont know about that.Rafa is seeded second based on results and not grass results, i will be shocked if he makes it to at least the QFs.

matty p
06-21-2006, 08:43 AM
Nadal seeded 2nd?! And Roddick seeded 3 places higher than Hewitt?!

Not very accurate seeding, to say the least.

so therefore nadal shouldve been seeded 1 at the french open for it to be accurate using that logic right?

dozu
06-21-2006, 08:43 AM
the bigger question is which side will Ljubicic be on. It's just weired to have a clay specialist thrown in there to mix up the pot..... if Nadal makes into the 2nd week, you can eat my shorts.

dozu
06-21-2006, 08:44 AM
the bigger question is which side will Ljubicic be on. on my book he is the #2 fast court player in the world. It's just weired to have a clay specialist thrown in there to mix up the pot..... if Nadal makes into the 2nd week, you can eat my shorts.

matty p
06-21-2006, 08:44 AM
he should be on fedīs.
BTW, Ive been wondering why it is this way (#1 and #3 in the same half and #2 and #4 at the other)

its random. #3 can be put on #1 or #2's side of the draw and then #4 is put on the opposite side.

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 08:57 AM
The seeds are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP), BUT then rearranged on a surface-based system. A seeding committee is not required for the Gentlemen's Singles since the seeding order is determined using an objective and transparent system to reflect more accurately an individual player's grass court achievements: The formula is:

Take ESP points at 19 June 2006
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournament in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that.

ksbh
06-21-2006, 09:08 AM
I see where you're coming from. I don't have a problem with rankings being used to determine seeding but Wimbledon is known to consider players past performance on grass. Using their logic, Hewitt (former Wimbledon champ) and recent Queens winner, should have been seeded higher than Roddick (2 time finalist) who in turn seeded higher than Nadal.

so therefore nadal shouldve been seeded 1 at the french open for it to be accurate using that logic right?

simi
06-21-2006, 09:09 AM
Nadal's good showing at the Queen's Club earned him the #2 seed.

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 09:17 AM
ksbh,
read my post, it explains their seeding. there is a formula that determines it, no committee.

simi,
Nadal had such a huge lead over #3 in rankings that his queen's results were irrelevant in his seeding.

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 09:20 AM
Using their logic, Hewitt (former Wimbledon champ) and recent Queens winner, should have been seeded higher than Roddick (2 time finalist) who in turn seeded higher than Nadal.


Only past 2 years results are used, so Hewitt's 02 title can't help him:

"Take ESP points at 19 June 2006
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournament in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that."

If they used all past performances on grass, Agassi would be #2 seed.

Here are the numbers using their formula:

1 Federer 9235
2 Nadal 4585
3 Roddick 3880
4 Nalbandian 3615
5 Ljubicic 3078.75
6 Hewitt 2592.5

barry
06-21-2006, 09:31 AM
Seeding is crap, let ranking determine seeds instead of a bunch of old men in the back room. Roddick should be seeded 5th, not 3rd.

The ranking system worked fine at the French and everywhere else.

KBalla08
06-21-2006, 09:33 AM
seeding is stupid, roddick should be #2... gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 09:34 AM
Seeding is crap, let ranking determine seeds instead of a bunch of old men in the back room. Roddick should be seeded 5th, not 3rd.

There are no "old men" determining the seeds. Try the formula out yourself, the numbers match up with their seedings.

Take ESP points at 19 June 2006
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournament in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that."

DMich
06-21-2006, 09:35 AM
Seeding is crap, let ranking determine seeds instead of a bunch of old men in the back room. Roddick should be seeded 5th, not 3rd.

The ranking system worked fine at the French and everywhere else.

Its a formula, not a "bunch of old men in the back room". I'm no Roddick fan (at all) but thats how the numbers worked out.

rod99
06-21-2006, 09:36 AM
agassi at 26. will be interesting to see which seed is in his section.

ksbh
06-21-2006, 09:39 AM
Moose,

Thanks for the clarification. If Hewitt and Roddick play each other (donno if that's a possibility), I can guarantee Hewitt will beat Roddick.

ksbh,
read my post, it explains their seeding. there is a formula that determines it, no committee.

simi,
Nadal had such a huge lead over #3 in rankings that his queen's results were irrelevant in his seeding.

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 09:46 AM
If Hewitt and Roddick play each other (donno if that's a possibility), I can guarantee Hewitt will beat Roddick.


They could possibly play in quarters. And Roddick has won their only grasscourt meeting.

Regardless of Roddick's recent struggles, he has clearly been the 2nd best grasscourt player since '03. I'm not sure anyone has ever compiled a better 3 year period on grass & not won Wimbledon during that span(3 times Queens champ, 2 time W finalist, 1 time W SF)

MonkeyPox
06-21-2006, 09:50 AM
I don't think Henman did pull out, he's just not in the top 32 anymore I don't think.

slice bh compliment
06-21-2006, 09:50 AM
agassi at 26. will be interesting to see which seed is in his section.

Yeah, he could get Federer in the third round.....or it could end up being as good a draw as anyone's. I just hope he gets a rematch with Henman. Nice contrast in styles. Wish I had seen their match at Queen's Club.

Anyway, when do they make the draw? Thursday? Friday?

Lagger
06-21-2006, 09:54 AM
I don't think Henman did pull out, he's just not in the top 32 anymore I don't think.

Thanks for the input. I would think since he's playing so well on grass lately that he'd be in the top 32. Heck, wasn't he the 5th seed at Queens?

lucky leprechaun
06-21-2006, 10:05 AM
Nadal's too dominant a number 2 player to insult him with anything less than a 2 seed.

Feņa14
06-21-2006, 10:06 AM
Thanks for the input. I would think since he's playing so well on grass lately that he'd be in the top 32. Heck, wasn't he the 5th seed at Queens?

Well Wimbledon can only tinker with the top 32 seeds and change them around.

They can't invite someone from outside the top 32 into a seeded position.

Henman ranked 70 odd is miles away from getting seeded.

matty p
06-21-2006, 10:06 AM
Yeah, he could get Federer in the third round.....or it could end up being as good a draw as anyone's. I just hope he gets a rematch with Henman. Nice contrast in styles. Wish I had seen their match at Queen's Club.

Anyway, when do they make the draw? Thursday? Friday?

agassi will get an easy draw as always.

the draw comes out on friday.

Ash Doyle
06-21-2006, 10:08 AM
Thanks for the input. I would think since he's playing so well on grass lately that he'd be in the top 32. Heck, wasn't he the 5th seed at Queens?

His ranking has dropped badly in the last year. There just weren't that many top ranked players at Queens. He's probably one of the most dangerous floaters anybody could draw for the first round.

matty p
06-21-2006, 10:11 AM
Thanks for the input. I would think since he's playing so well on grass lately that he'd be in the top 32. Heck, wasn't he the 5th seed at Queens?

he was unseeded. i think your thinkin of agassi

barry
06-21-2006, 10:29 AM
There are no "old men" determining the seeds. Try the formula out yourself, the numbers match up with their seedings.

Take ESP points at 19 June 2006
Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournament in the past 12 months
Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that."

We have enough formulas, let ranking determine seeding, after all you earn rankings, and Wimbledon seeding is by appointment.

bm99
06-21-2006, 11:13 AM
seeding is stupid, roddick should be #2... gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

maybe if he didn't play like garbage at so many tourneys, he would be ranked higher

fastdunn
06-21-2006, 11:20 AM
By the way, is Boris Becker still the only truely non-seeded/non-wild card
winner in Wimbledon history ?

Richard Krajicek wasn't seeded but effectively seeded because some
seeded player pulled out and placed there.

Ivanesvic was a wild card.

Mattle
06-21-2006, 11:21 AM
It's a scandal that Nadal is seeded higher then Roddick. Nadal shows exeptional talent, but Roddick is always playing good grass tennis no matter he loses or wins. Beside, he has a lot of good results from wimbledon. Which good grass experiences have put Nadal on 2.? Wimbledon aint clay morrons!

And... Davydenko? no no no.... He's a really good player, but he's known for not good results on grass. Clay, carpet, he rules. But that dosent mean he should be seeded. Saw his match vs. Kohlscreiber? Indeed no grass player... and then Henman is not seeded... and he's one of the best grass players... wtf is going on at wimbledon..

ShooterMcMarco
06-21-2006, 11:22 AM
ridiculous seeding, nadal hasn't even made it to a quarterfinal. andy should have definitely been #2

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 11:22 AM
By the way, is Boris Becker still the only truely non-seeded/non-wild card
winner in Wimbledon history ?


Yes. But he would have been seeded under the current system(32 seeds)

Mattle
06-21-2006, 11:26 AM
the bigger question is which side will Ljubicic be on. It's just weired to have a clay specialist thrown in there to mix up the pot..... if Nadal makes into the 2nd week, you can eat my shorts.

I will eat my own shorts if Nadal get's there..:S

Chadwixx
06-21-2006, 11:26 AM
It doesnt matter if roddick is the #2, #3, or #4 seed. He will be placed on the other side of the draw as fed. This random seeding placement gives tournament directors alot of flexiblity to get the outcomes they desire.

exruda
06-21-2006, 11:51 AM
It doesnt matter if roddick is the #2, #3, or #4 seed. He will be placed on the other side of the draw as fed. This random seeding placement gives tournament directors alot of flexiblity to get the outcomes they desire.
Wrong.
#2 is sure to be in th opposite side of the draw.
#3 and #4 are placed RANDOMLY=one can not arrange a "desired" result

bm99
06-21-2006, 12:08 PM
I can't believe some of this talk about why Roddick should be #2. The guy has done nothing lately.

Chadwixx
06-21-2006, 12:08 PM
Tell me exruda, in the past 3 years how many times has roddick and fed been in the same side of the draw? Look up that figure and you will understand my original comment.

Random? Lol

Moose Malloy
06-21-2006, 12:15 PM
Tell me exruda, in the past 3 years how many times has roddick and fed been in the same side of the draw?

From beginning of '04 until Feb '05, Roddick was ranked #2 so its understandable he was on other half of the draw as Fed during that span. And he was #2 seed at last years W(using the grasscourt formula they've been using for years) So they've only been in opposite halves when Roddick was ranked less than 2 twice-'05 US Open & '06 Australian.

They were in the same half at '03 W & '03 US Open.

Shabazza
06-21-2006, 12:21 PM
Tell me exruda, in the past 3 years how many times has roddick and fed been in the same side of the draw? Look up that figure and you will understand my original comment.

Random? Lol
Hello?! Roddick was seeded 2 the last few years at Wimbledon - of course he was on the other side of the draw and in 2003 he wasn't 2nd seed and was in Feds half, go figure!
I can't believe you guys really believe they rigged the seeds and the draw. All seeds are determind by a public formula, it is the same formula they used for many years!!
They use both, the entry points AND the grass court points to determine the seeds and the draw is random except the 1st and 2nd seed, like in any other GS, period!!
Stop this nonsense about rigged draws, it makes you look stupid.

Simon Cowell
06-21-2006, 12:23 PM
Roger caught a big time break and is lucky he won't have to face Rafael till the final.

bluescreen
06-21-2006, 12:25 PM
what? being that nadal's on the other half of the draw, federer's never gonna even see nadal. oh well, i think a meeting w/ nadal on grass would boost his confidence a bit.

ShooterMcMarco
06-21-2006, 01:04 PM
Roger caught a big time break and is lucky he won't have to face Rafael till the final.

Hilarious, good joke man.

Rob_C
06-21-2006, 01:09 PM
Seeding is crap, let ranking determine seeds instead of a bunch of old men in the back room. Roddick should be seeded 5th, not 3rd.

The ranking system worked fine at the French and everywhere else.

What about Hewitt? He got bumped up to 6th from 9th, is that ok?? Let's see if Pat Cash complains this year about the seeding system at Wimby.

exruda
06-21-2006, 01:14 PM
What about Hewitt? He got bumped up to 6th from 9th, is that ok?? Let's see if Pat Cash complains this year about the seeding system at Wimby.
That will dependo on whether or not he meets Fed in the QF :)

norcal
06-21-2006, 01:57 PM
From beginning of '04 until Feb '05, Roddick was ranked #2 so its understandable he was on other half of the draw as Fed during that span. And he was #2 seed at last years W(using the grasscourt formula they've been using for years) So they've only been in opposite halves when Roddick was ranked less than 2 twice-'05 US Open & '06 Australian.

They were in the same half at '03 W & '03 US Open.
Nice try Moose but as barrywixx could tell you Roddick only reached the #2 rank or seed through rigged draws and favorable treatmeant. His true rank should have been 107 so he should be facing Fed in the first round each tournament. See the logic?

Chadwixx
06-21-2006, 03:17 PM
"When some one calls 30 all 'deuce' I say, "yeah right loser, like you could win 3 points in one game against me, call the score right."

"Screw baseball and football, I can throw a left hook harder than Mike Tyson. It's a natural motion from my left handed high swinging topspin volley."

One moronic comment after another for norcal. Not even worth responding too.

exruda
06-21-2006, 04:19 PM
haha! I just noticed.

we all concentrate on the men's seeds (and some say that the forumla applied is biased), and if one scrolls down to the very bottom of the wimby seedings page, one may find this:

Ladies:
The seeds are the top 32 players on the WTA Tour rankings. The seeding order will follow the ranking list, except where in the opinion of the Committee, the grass court credentials of a particular player necessitates a change in the interest of achieving a balanced draw.

Now this is arbitrary :mrgreen:

dubsplayer
06-21-2006, 05:37 PM
haha! I just noticed.

we all concentrate on the men's seeds (and some say that the forumla applied is biased), and if one scrolls down to the very bottom of the wimby seedings page, one may find this:

Ladies:
The seeds are the top 32 players on the WTA Tour rankings. The seeding order will follow the ranking list, except where in the opinion of the Committee, the grass court credentials of a particular player necessitates a change in the interest of achieving a balanced draw.

Now this is arbitrary :mrgreen:

That's how it use to be for the men too until they started complaining how they worked all year to earn their seeds and then got to Wimby and got bumped from a high seed to a lower seed or not seeded at all ( especially when only 16 were seeded). The Committee never had to move around the seeds on the women's side like they did on the men's side because the top seeded women were always the as good on grass as they were on every other surface.

slice bh compliment
06-21-2006, 06:53 PM
[quote=Chadwixx..."Screw baseball and football, I can throw a left hook harder than Mike Tyson. It's a natural motion from my left handed high swinging topspin volley."

One moronic comment after another for norcal. Not even worth responding too.[/quote]

Chad, dude, that was satire. Pretty good satire, at that. Don't have to respond to it at all. But it is worth laughing at.

jhhachamp
06-21-2006, 07:28 PM
It's a scandal that Nadal is seeded higher then Roddick.

It can be argued for Roddick to be above Nadal, but it is far from a scandal that he is not. Nadal has nearly double the ranking points that Roddick has right now, current form is not even close. Not only that, but current form suggests that they are near the same level on grass. I base this off of the Queens tourny.

Scandal??? I don't think so, stop being so dramatic.

TENNIS_IS_FUN
06-21-2006, 08:31 PM
just out of curiosity, how many points is wimbledon worth?

fastdunn
06-21-2006, 08:43 PM
just out of curiosity, how many points is wimbledon worth?

1000 pts for winner and 500 for runner-up, AFAIK.

d12agonxboi
06-21-2006, 09:15 PM
yes nadal shouldn't be ranked that high, maybe 5th but anything higher is a joke. and even 5th seed is pushing it

yes its based on formula blah blah blah....

knasty131
06-21-2006, 09:39 PM
We have enough formulas, let ranking determine seeding, after all you earn rankings, and Wimbledon seeding is by appointment.


I really think the people at Wimbledon know what they are doing. This tournament has so much prestige, they wouldn't let some losers run things. Not only that, but I am sure that the tour has certain guidelines. I also am positive the directors at Wimbledon have much more knowledge and insight than some person sitting at home on a computer complaning about how things should be done.

barry
06-22-2006, 02:44 AM
I really think the people at Wimbledon know what they are doing. This tournament has so much prestige, they wouldn't let some losers run things. Not only that, but I am sure that the tour has certain guidelines. I also am positive the directors at Wimbledon have much more knowledge and insight than some person sitting at home on a computer complaning about how things should be done.

Well you would be wrong! Even the players union has been trying to eliminate the special Wimbledon seeding by committee. The tournament has lost a lot of prestige after last years move of the number 3 player in the world to the 2nd seed, even if the real number 2 player in the world has won the event.
You should understand the world ranking system is in place for a reason. That reason is to determine seeding. It took years for the players to win getting a 32 seed draw, old days it was 16, and the committees could place player. You earn rankings! Rankings should determine seeding; at least it happens at all the other grand slam events.

Random coin toss, how many times do they toss the coin to determine which side players go in? It is about putting fans in the stands, not about the tennis!

brucie
06-22-2006, 02:51 AM
Well everyone on NADALS SIDE WILL BE LAUGHING! roddick federer and ljubicic all on same side, other side nalbandian blake hewitt nadal.

AceYouVeryMuch
06-22-2006, 09:59 AM
Nadal at #2 is a joke.

Chadwixx
06-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Hello?! Roddick was seeded 2 the last few years at Wimbledon - of course he was on the other side of the draw and in 2003 he wasn't 2nd seed and was in Feds half, go figure!
I can't believe you guys really believe they rigged the seeds and the draw. All seeds are determind by a public formula, it is the same formula they used for many years!!
They use both, the entry points AND the grass court points to determine the seeds and the draw is random except the 1st and 2nd seed, like in any other GS, period!!
Stop this nonsense about rigged draws, it makes you look stupid.

I was referring to all tournaments, not just wimbledon, if i was referring to wimbledon i would have said it. Please try to follow along.

theNetCordHatesME
06-22-2006, 02:07 PM
Did they use the same formula for the womens' side also because Venus Williams received the #7 seed although she is what 12th? Don't misinterpret this because I like Venus and I want her to win. I know, however, that seed manipulation is unprecedented on the womens' side so did they just have a committee choose Venus' seed or did they apply the mens' seeding formula to the women. Also, if they only moved Venus up, what would the entire top 32 seeds look like if they applied the formula to all the women (could someone please do the math)?

jackofromalsager
06-22-2006, 02:25 PM
its kinda put in the ranking orders in the top ten

dubsplayer
06-22-2006, 03:54 PM
Did they use the same formula for the womens' side also because Venus Williams received the #7 seed although she is what 12th? Don't misinterpret this because I like Venus and I want her to win. I know, however, that seed manipulation is unprecedented on the womens' side so did they just have a committee choose Venus' seed or did they apply the mens' seeding formula to the women. Also, if they only moved Venus up, what would the entire top 32 seeds look like if they applied the formula to all the women (could someone please do the math)?

Seeding the women is completely left up to the commitee there is no formula. Was already discussed on a previous page. It is unusual though as they hardly ever move the ladies around.

knasty131
06-22-2006, 05:22 PM
Well you would be wrong! Even the players union has been trying to eliminate the special Wimbledon seeding by committee. The tournament has lost a lot of prestige after last years move of the number 3 player in the world to the 2nd seed, even if the real number 2 player in the world has won the event.
You should understand the world ranking system is in place for a reason. That reason is to determine seeding. It took years for the players to win getting a 32 seed draw, old days it was 16, and the committees could place player. You earn rankings! Rankings should determine seeding; at least it happens at all the other grand slam events.

Random coin toss, how many times do they toss the coin to determine which side players go in? It is about putting fans in the stands, not about the tennis!

OK barry, since i'm so wrong and youre so right...i guess you should be commisioner of the ATP, until that happens you should accept that the tradition of wimbledon will stay...by far my favorite grand slam...

alienhamster
06-22-2006, 05:57 PM
Well you would be wrong! Even the players union has been trying to eliminate the special Wimbledon seeding by committee. The tournament has lost a lot of prestige after last years move of the number 3 player in the world to the 2nd seed, even if the real number 2 player in the world has won the event.
You should understand the world ranking system is in place for a reason. That reason is to determine seeding. It took years for the players to win getting a 32 seed draw, old days it was 16, and the committees could place player. You earn rankings! Rankings should determine seeding; at least it happens at all the other grand slam events.

Random coin toss, how many times do they toss the coin to determine which side players go in? It is about putting fans in the stands, not about the tennis! Barry, please actually answer this question:

WHY do you think seedings should go exactly according to overall world ranking rather than be adjusted according to performance on a surface? There is a really compelling argument, in my mind, that this sort of ranking, which STILL EMPHASIZES OVERALL WORLD RANKING (btw) yet adds points for individual surface success, produces more realistic and fair seeding. Should Roddick be a top 5 seed at Roland Garros? I highly doubt that you honestly think he should be. At this point, I don't think Federer should be the number 1 seed on clay, either. (It seems crystal clear, in fact.)

I have never, ever seen you provide any reasoning for your position, no matter how many bazillion times you repeat it. You simply state your opinion with a "it should be done because I said so" sort of attitude.

Basically, I'm just asking you to engage in the counterargument here. Why in the world is your idea better than what Wimbledon is doing, which clearly has some advantages over seeding solely by world ranking? (e.g. Why provide clay court experts with high seeds when you've got Karlovic's and Alexander Popp's who always magically appear and do well on grass and can knock out some good players unfairly early?) Why are the advantages of your way oh-so-much better than the way they are doing it now?

If you don't reply, I'll assume you have no actual reasons for your position.

gully
06-22-2006, 06:20 PM
Unless the tour rearranges itself to provide a longer grass season, and thus more opportunities for good grass-court players to earn points that could improve their lot in Wimbledon's seeding, I see no reason to change. Right now, there's probably only half of the points available on grass that are on clay -- and those who excel at the former would be at a serious disadvantage without any kind of adjustment.