Problem regarding seeding

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by gugafanatic, May 5, 2005.

  1. gugafanatic

    gugafanatic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    It seems ridiculous that players are seeded based on their results accumulated over the year, and little consideration is taken in slams regarding results produced on that particular surface. For instance Henman was seeded no 4 in Rome, when he is clearly not the fourth best clay courter in the world. Furthmore Gaudio will be seeded like 5 or 6 come wimbledon, yet he has never advanced past the second round!!.

    Should players be seeded according to previous grand slam performance, and current results to date on that particular surface??
     
    #1
  2. Jack the Hack

    Jack the Hack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,803
    I'm all for surface rankings... but doubt that the ATP, ITF, or individual tournaments want to go through the hassle.

    Basically, players earn their seedings based on play all over the world on different surfaces. Therefore, if they get seeded high on a surface that doesn't suit them... oh well... the best players will win the tournament anyway.

    By the way, Henman was a French Open semi-finalist last year, so a top 4 seed in a clay tournament isn't that much of a stretch. Besides, he just recently said in an interview that he now prefers clay to grass courts.

    Also, I believe the seedings at Wimbledon are done by their tournament committee, which deserves the right to seed players how they see fit (regardless of rankings). This meant that good grass players (like Ivanisevic) were seeded high in the past while other players with higher rankings were left out or seeded lower. All tournaments have this right when making the seeds, but most avoid controversy by sticking with the Entry system rankings.
     
    #2
  3. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,844
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Political correctness has brought us here.

    Seed along the computer rankings, and then no one can argue, that's the prevalent thinking, which I disapprove. The committees should have more freedom and individuality.
     
    #3
  4. dAgEnIuS

    dAgEnIuS Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    226
    i find Roddick getting the #1 seed more funny...
    and Ferrero not even getting into a qualifying draw...
     
    #4
  5. Jack the Hack

    Jack the Hack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,803
    Yeah... what was up with not letting Ferrero in?

    He had a down year last year due to injuries, but is still ranked 42nd... and Rome has a 64 person draw. Also, Ferrero is not only a former French Open champ, but a past Rome champ as well.

    He must have gotten his entry in too late or something...

    Does anyone know the real story?
     
    #5
  6. nswelshman

    nswelshman Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    They put their tournament entry forms in a while ago, at which time he was not able to directly qualify off his ranking.


    Roland Garros seeding is based off the Tournament Committee's decision, not ranking position too I think.
     
    #6
  7. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,825
    Agree with you about Henman, and yet, there he was in the Roland Garros semis!
    True, there is a heavy weighting towards hard court results in the seedings. Even though I'm a clay court fan, it doesn't bother me much or seem unfair. I'm more interested in giving the year long rankings meaning. If people want to weight performance by surface for seedings, I wouldn't argue much against it.
    Just curious, why are you interested in applying this just to the Majors, why not all tourneys?
     
    #7
  8. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    I actually kind of agree - for seeding purposes, rankings should be weighted by surface.

    If it's feasible logistically, I would be for it.
     
    #8
  9. Tennis Ball Hitter

    Tennis Ball Hitter Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    488
    I think seeding weighted per surface is a good idea, but there needs to be a more rigid calculatable system than just letting the committees seed how they want.

    Because if the comittees have too much freedom we will get things like Hewitt getting a higher seed than he deserves at the AO, Roddick and Henman getting preferential seeding at the US open and wimbledon ...
     
    #9
  10. JRoss

    JRoss New User

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    It's not a factor in seedings, but I notice that JCap's ranking went up 2 places this week--from 11 to 9!
     
    #10
  11. nswelshman

    nswelshman Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Because the player in those rankings just lost lots of points from Warsaw, but the new rankings are going show a big shift in the 9-15rank position. JCap will not defend her Semi-Berlin, Final-Hamburg, Semi-RG points, whilst players like Justine Henin Hardenne, Nadia Petrova, and Patty Schnyder are collecting good points this week in Berlin.
     
    #11
  12. nkhera1

    nkhera1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    338
    If a player is good enough it shouldn't really matter what seed they get. I think its fine the way it is otherwise people would only focus on what they are good at and not boter with the other surfaces.
     
    #12
  13. Misiti99

    Misiti99 Guest

    On the other threat entitled "nadal's close to being number 1" ...i think the second or third post said something about how the Champions Race is not what counts...the far more important rank is the Entry System Rank....I totally disagree with this. This Seedings are used as a guideline for who gets in to a specific tournament..thats all. I like the Entry Rank system and think that it is fine. What, Sampras finished number 1 every year but suddenly he should be seeded 32nd at the French? no way. He's number 1 and should be the 1 seed. I think the Champions Race at the end of the year shows who's number 1..not the seeding list. Rafael Nadal has been destroying everyone even when was unseeded and at Miami i believe he was the 29th seed. So the seeding does not matter as much as one may think. The only thing I agree with here is that JCF belongs in these Masters Tournamtns. Its a Sin that hes sitting this out...hes a favorite at RG.........anyone agree with me about these comments?
     
    #13
  14. Bertchel Banks

    Bertchel Banks Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    437
    Location:
    Kursk
    This entire post is a contradiction. You like the entry system because it decides who gets in and who doesn't. OTOH, there's something wrong with the entry system because JCF [a great claycourt player] diin't qualify [for a claycourt tournament]...curious.

    I was never head of the class, I lie, there was that one time in Primary 2, (teehee) but that was in the twenties and standards weren't what they are today. Anyway, ever since Tennis Talk switched to the V-Borad format this community has suffered major brain drain.
     
    #14
  15. nswelshman

    nswelshman Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Back to the JCF issue, it is reasonable (though I don't like it) that when the player nomination for these tournament acceptance lists was in January/February, he had shown almost no form on clay (as of January/February), losing in either the first or second match of the majority of his clay tournaments that past season. Now that his form has improved, and his ranking, as long as he keeps it up, he will have no problems gaining entry...his indirect entry is the price he has to pay for his general lack of performance (excluding the last couple of tourneys) over the last season.
     
    #15

Share This Page