ATP tennis seeding is prejudice

Federiffic

Rookie
The ATP tennis seeding should be changed, it is not valid system for all players, it is prejudiced against players who are older and have family.

Players should be seeded by overall career achievement not by a few months point totals.

All these mandatory tournaments is not fair to mature champion players, who want to spend time with children and family.

A player can not make a family traveling all over the world to these small meaningless tournaments and have to worry about playing all time to keep rank for majors.

Once player is over 24 years old masters tournaments should not be mandatory, ranking to major tournaments should be protected and determined by past results in major tournaments only.

This should be real ranking and seeding for majors:

Federer should always be #1 seed he has most major titles
Nadal should always be #2 seed at majors he has second most major titles and is of age 24.

The rest of players should be seeded by point total unless they have more than 2 major titles and are of age 24.


This system is fair to already accomplished champion players who have nothing to prove, and should have more reward for career achievement.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
I'm sure the OP started this thread just because Roger isn't ranked no.1 right now.He'd have had no qualms had Nadal for example been down to 3/4 or something.What a troll post.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
No, I am not think of only Roger,how about older player who wants to have family too, but can not because of ATP rules.

Other sports a player can have family, and are not requirement to travel all over world for 10 months to play and keep rank points.

Look at how many players can not have wife and children because tennis system prejudice.

Roger is one of the only ones who can do this because he is very rich champion, very few other player can travel all over world with wife and children, so they don't make any family until retirement age.
 

cucio

Legend
I think players whose name start with "Fed" are awarded the trophies without having to play a match. Anything else is shameful discrimination.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Sampras says nooooo.

Here's what the ATP computer says:

images


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY
 

Federiffic

Rookie
So if Sampras started playing again next week would he be seeded Second?

Yes, I think that would be fair, he deserves that seed more from all his major victories than a young player who gets free points from maybe Davis Cup and winning a few small masters events.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Yes, I think that would be fair, he deserves that seed more from all his major victories than a young player who gets free points from maybe Davis Cup and winning a few small masters events.

Dude, the ATP isn't the civil service. There are no family days or sabbaticals that allow you to keep your ranking. Federer chose to have kids, the world of tennis does not revolve around Roger's family time. Sampras choose to retire, why should he be given special treatment?

If a tourny wants to give inactive players a wild card, so be it. But if you're an active player, your rank determines your seeding. PERIOD!

Also, why keep rewarding older, proven players that have had a great career instead of promoting new players that still have everything to play for and to prove?

Also, Master's events aren't small. Go check out the list of past Master's winners. These are very prestigious events that are very hard to win......... do you even watch tennis?
 
Last edited:

mtr1

Professional
Yes, I think that would be fair, he deserves that seed more from all his major victories than a young player who gets free points from maybe Davis Cup and winning a few small masters events.

This is crazy. Sampras could come back for one event and immediately be seeded above Nadal and Djokovic, both who have to travel the world, winning titles and earning points to be at the top of the game. What happens if Laver decides he wants to play Wimbledon?
 

Federiffic

Rookie
This is crazy. Sampras could come back for one event and immediately be seeded above Nadal and Djokovic, both who have to travel the world, winning titles and earning points to be at the top of the game. What happens if Laver decides he wants to play Wimbledon?

Nadal and Djokovic would get their protected seeding when they are of age too, so it is fair system.

This is how it works in real world for most jobs, people should be rewarded by time on job and accomplishments, not some meaningless minor tournament results for few months.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
Also, why keep rewarding older, proven players that have had a great career instead of promoting new players that still have everything to play for and to prove?

Also, Master's events aren't small. Go check out the list of past Master's winners. These are very prestigious events that are very hard to win......... do you even watch tennis?

Younger players would like this new system too, because they would now have better chance to win a few titles and make more money, if it is not mandatory for all top players to play. They have more chances to win.

This would also make for better tennis, than forcing top players to play when they don't want to be there wasting time and energy.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
The 32 seeding system was brought in at 2001 Wimbledon, in response to a boycott threat by leading clay-courters. There used to be 16 seeds before that, and the chances of bigger match-ups earlier on in slams. Those ranked between 17-32 could have ended up being drawn against the top 16 in the first round back then, whereas now they are kept apart from the top 16 for a few rounds.
 
Last edited:

batz

G.O.A.T.
The ATP tennis seeding should be changed, it is not valid system for all players, it is prejudiced against players who are older and have family.

Players should be seeded by overall career achievement not by a few months point totals.

All these mandatory tournaments is not fair to mature champion players, who want to spend time with children and family.

A player can not make a family traveling all over the world to these small meaningless tournaments and have to worry about playing all time to keep rank for majors.

Once player is over 24 years old masters tournaments should not be mandatory, ranking to major tournaments should be protected and determined by past results in major tournaments only.

This should be real ranking and seeding for majors:

Federer should always be #1 seed he has most major titles
Nadal should always be #2 seed at majors he has second most major titles and is of age 24.

The rest of players should be seeded by point total unless they have more than 2 major titles and are of age 24.


This system is fair to already accomplished champion players who have nothing to prove, and should have more reward for career achievement.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Whether Roger was seeded 1st or 3rd - he'd still probably lose to Novak or Rafa anyway.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Nadal and Djokovic would get their protected seeding when they are of age too, so it is fair system.

This is how it works in real world for most jobs, people should be rewarded by time on job and accomplishments, not some meaningless minor tournament results for few months.

Camarade, the world of competitive tennis is not like a white collar office job; You don't get better with age. Why bump a young up and comer so that bad-back Agassi or slow-poke Pete can loose in the first round against a junior with a wild card??

Did you watch the Nole-Rafa finals? Anyone over thirty would be hard pressed to win points in todays ATP, let alone games or sets.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
Camarade, the world of competitive tennis is not like a white collar office job; You don't get better with age. Why bump a young up and comer so that bad-back Agassi or slow-poke Pete can loose in the first round against a junior with a wild card??

Did you watch the Nole-Rafa finals? Anyone over thirty would be hard pressed to win points in todays ATP, let alone games or sets.

Players wont get old as quick if they not forced to play 10 months of year and travel all over world.

People want to see champion players, not young no bodies.

Who would you rather see at Wimbledon Pete Sampras or some young no body?

This is mostly to extend career of top players to play their best tennis and have family.

Young players have big advantage with current system because they recover much quicker not because they are best players.
 
The 32 seeding system was brought in at 2001 Wimbledon, in response to a boycott threat by leading clay-courters. There used to be 16 seeds before that, and the chances of bigger match-ups earlier on in slams. Those ranked between 17-32 could have ended up being drawn against the top 16 in the first round back then, whereas now they are kept apart from the top 16 for a few rounds.

Such a thoughtful response to such a thoughtless thread. :oops:
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Players wont get old as quick if they not forced to play 10 months of year and travel all over world.

People want to see champion players, not young no bodies.

Who would you rather see at Wimbledon Pete Sampras or some young no body?

This is mostly to extend career of top players to play their best tennis and have family.

Young players have big advantage with current system because they recover much quicker not because they are best players.

To achieve what you want, the ATP would have to speed up the game. As it stands, the slow surfaces favor youth. Seeding wouldn't help any.

I'd love to see Sampras at Wimbledon, but at the same time, I'd hate to see him get triple bageled by some road runner like Gilles Simon in the first round.
 
To achieve what you want, the ATP would have to speed up the game. As it stands, the slow surfaces favor youth. Seeding wouldn't help any.

I'd love to see Sampras at Wimbledon, but at the same time, I'd hate to see him get triple bageled by some road runner like Gilles Simon in the first round.

Sampras managed to beat Federer back in 2008. Sampras is the true GOAT.

Also, Wimbledon seedings are also weird. Remember how Federer was top seed last year?
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Sampras managed to beat Federer back in 2008. Sampras is the true GOAT.

Also, Wimbledon seedings are also weird. Remember how Federer was top seed last year?

He beat him in Macao on one of the fastest courts on the planet. Wimby grass is no where near as quick as that court, not even close.

Wimby seedings are actually mathematical now and they incorporate present ranking and past grass court results.

The formula is out there if you're willing to search.
 

Fee

Legend
No, I am not think of only Roger,how about older player who wants to have family too, but can not because of ATP rules.

Other sports a player can have family, and are not requirement to travel all over world for 10 months to play and keep rank points.

Look at how many players can not have wife and children because tennis system prejudice.

Roger is one of the only ones who can do this because he is very rich champion, very few other player can travel all over world with wife and children, so they don't make any family until retirement age.


your posts make my head hurt.
 

MixieP

Hall of Fame
I think it should be back-to-back masters and majors, week in and week out, except in December and July, and weeks like this one should be abolished immediately. They are too boring, no decent tennis to talk about and a board full of peculiar posts.
 

powerangle

Legend
The ATP tennis seeding should be changed, it is not valid system for all players, it is prejudiced against players who are older and have family.

Players should be seeded by overall career achievement not by a few months point totals.

All these mandatory tournaments is not fair to mature champion players, who want to spend time with children and family.

A player can not make a family traveling all over the world to these small meaningless tournaments and have to worry about playing all time to keep rank for majors.

Once player is over 24 years old masters tournaments should not be mandatory, ranking to major tournaments should be protected and determined by past results in major tournaments only.

This should be real ranking and seeding for majors:

Federer should always be #1 seed he has most major titles
Nadal should always be #2 seed at majors he has second most major titles and is of age 24.

The rest of players should be seeded by point total unless they have more than 2 major titles and are of age 24.


This system is fair to already accomplished champion players who have nothing to prove, and should have more reward for career achievement.

Man, sorry, I just can't take this thread seriously with a post like this and then seeing your avatar. :) Certainly no bias at all...lol
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Wow, stupidest idea ever

It is based on rank 365 days prior to signing up. If you aren't at the top of the game, you don't deserve to be at the top of the draw.

But I do agree with the OP. Seeding should go:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Hewitt
Roddick
Muster
Del Potro

After all, Muster deserves to be in the top 10 for his title years ago :roll:
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Dude, the ATP isn't the civil service. There are no family days or sabbaticals that allow you to keep your ranking. Federer chose to have kids, the world of tennis does not revolve around Roger's family time. Sampras choose to retire, why should he be given special treatment?

Exactly. Family or no family, you take your chances; if a certain family man cannot handle his seeding, then that's just tough sh*t for him. Deal with it, or retire.

The OP title is written in a "style" similar to another member...time will tell...
 

PimpMyGame

Hall of Fame
It's all been said in previous posts, and with all due respect, the OP is talking BS.

All players have a choice. The ones at the top of the game get paid a huge amount of money for what's a relatively short career. If you're not making enough money to have time out to start a family, you better find a country club who will pay you a regular Joe salary. No room for half measures in individual sports, both on and off the court.
 

aphex

Banned
The ATP tennis seeding should be changed, it is not valid system for all players, it is prejudiced against players who are older and have family.

Players should be seeded by overall career achievement not by a few months point totals.

All these mandatory tournaments is not fair to mature champion players, who want to spend time with children and family.

A player can not make a family traveling all over the world to these small meaningless tournaments and have to worry about playing all time to keep rank for majors.

Once player is over 24 years old masters tournaments should not be mandatory, ranking to major tournaments should be protected and determined by past results in major tournaments only.

This should be real ranking and seeding for majors:

Federer should always be #1 seed he has most major titles
Nadal should always be #2 seed at majors he has second most major titles and is of age 24.

The rest of players should be seeded by point total unless they have more than 2 major titles and are of age 24.


This system is fair to already accomplished champion players who have nothing to prove, and should have more reward for career achievement.

71J7VD8XT0L._SL500_AA300_.gif


This is how it's done, noobs.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
tennis seeding is outage, scandal !!

I totally agree with the OP. In fact, the current system also discriminates against those of us who can't compete during Lent or the Holy Month of Ramadan. There should be no mandatory events during those months. Those of us who participate in the World Bog-snorkeling Championships have to tank Wimbledon and USO early in order compete. Its a outage, an scandal.
 

cocolate

Banned
Seeding system could be made better.I mean they should start from 0 points every year, that means Djokovic would be one(he deserves it at the moment), NAdal 2, Fed,Murray..i mean the in form player should be first, not the player that was in form last year.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
You assign too much significance to the calendar, an arbitrary artifice. Under that proposal, a player could win every tournament from July to the end of December but the guy who wins a tune-up tourney in Perth in January would be seeded #1 at the AO. Very sensible!
 

cocolate

Banned
You assign too much significance to the calendar, an arbitrary artifice. Under that proposal, a player could win every tournament from July to the end of December but the guy who wins a tune-up tourney in Perth in January would be seeded #1 at the AO. Very sensible!

what about until the ao the results from the last year matter...then it matters only the results starting from that year, even those before the ao.
 

FlamEnemY

Hall of Fame
Nadal and Djokovic would get their protected seeding when they are of age too, so it is fair system.


What is the point of working your @ss on and off court only to be seeded below some old man who can barely compete with the top 100?

And working like crazy only to have the privilege to be seeded well when you are a grandpa in tennis terms.

This makes no sense.


This is how it works in real world for most jobs, people should be rewarded by time on job and accomplishments, not some meaningless minor tournament results for few months.

No, people are rewarded by their usefulness. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of paying your young and healthy construction worker 5$/hour because he had the misfortune to work for you, while the retired worker who does practically nothing is rewarded 40$/h

And you know what will happen? No one is gonna work for you.
 
Last edited:
Dude, the ATP isn't the civil service. There are no family days or sabbaticals that allow you to keep your ranking. Federer chose to have kids, the world of tennis does not revolve around Roger's family time. Sampras choose to retire, why should he be given special treatment?

If a tourny wants to give inactive players a wild card, so be it. But if you're an active player, your rank determines your seeding. PERIOD!

Also, why keep rewarding older, proven players that have had a great career instead of promoting new players that still have everything to play for and to prove?

Also, Master's events aren't small. Go check out the list of past Master's winners. These are very prestigious events that are very hard to win......... do you even watch tennis?

I could not agree more with you. You want a place?? win it. Fight for it, kill for it.
 
Seeding system could be made better.I mean they should start from 0 points every year, that means Djokovic would be one(he deserves it at the moment), NAdal 2, Fed,Murray..i mean the in form player should be first, not the player that was in form last year.

I think it is ok, the way it is...

this is the best way to keep good players in the last year to the final rounds.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
What is the point of working your @ss on and off court only to be seeded below some old man who can barely compete with the top 100?

And working like crazy only to have the privilege to be seeded well when you are a grandpa in tennis terms.

This makes no sense.

This make no sense, who you think work more overall in career top GS champion or some young nobody just starting out?

This is problem with world these young people want it all right away but don't want to put the time and work in for it.



No, people are rewarded by their usefulness. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of paying your young and healthy construction worker 5$/hour because he had the misfortune to work for you, while the retired worker who does practically nothing is rewarded 40$/h

And you know what will happen? No one is gonna work for you.

This make no sense, young construction worker know nothing yet, he will never be paid more than experienced top older worker.

Show me company who pays young inexperienced worker more than
top experienced worker and I show you company that won't be around long.

Are you young person? This is how real world works, you must put your time in and accomplish something before you will be rewarded. You are not entitled to anything until you earn it.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
This has to be a joke, you cant have it all, do you know why the price money is so big for tennis players? so they can make enough money in the little time they have, you make your choices, If you want to have a family you have to stop touring as much as you used to, period, worst ****ist thread ever, and the funny thing is that it seems like it is a serious proposal!
 

Federiffic

Rookie
This has to be a joke, you cant have it all, do you know why the price money is so big for tennis players? so they can make enough money in the little time they have, you make your choices, If you want to have a family you have to stop touring as much as you used to, period, worst ****ist thread ever, and the funny thing is that it seems like it is a serious proposal!

This is change that needs to be made if ATP wants to keep interest in sport.

What you think happens right now to tennis if Federer and Nadal both leave because they are tired of being forced to play 10 months out of year.

Both players still have top tennis, it is the travel and grind that hurts their level now not skill level.

ATP made all these small master events mandatory and make them worth more points.

This is not good idea, a player should not be penalized because they need more time off of tour when they get older.

The current system will force top players out of the game earlier than ever before.
 

Netzroller

Semi-Pro
This make no sense, who you think work more overall in career top GS champion or some young nobody just starting out?

This is problem with world these young people want it all right away but don't want to put the time and work in for it.
[...]
Are you young person? This is how real world works, you must put your time in and accomplish something before you will be rewarded. You are not entitled to anything until you earn it.
Seriously, this is incredibly stupid.
I'm still not sure if you're actually serious about that...

Of course, the 'old' guy has done more work and he has been awarded with titles, money, fame, recognition and a place in the history books for this work.

Just be getting a certain seeding, the young guy doesn't at all get this for free - he still has to win and put time and work in just like the old guy once did.


A tournament is supposed to be fair which means the better you are, the further you make it. The seeding is not supposed to be a prize for achievements in the past or to let old guys rest on their laurels, it should ensure that the best players meet in the final rounds.
No matter how many titles someone won in the past, it doesn't make him a better player now. Every game starts at love all. If the old guy doesn't want competition anymore, he is free to quit.
It would simply not be fair, if the best player kick each other out in the early rounds and some older player gets much further despite being not nearly as good.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
Seriously, this is incredibly stupid.
I'm still not sure if you're actually serious about that...

Of course, the 'old' guy has done more work and he has been awarded with titles, money, fame, recognition and a place in the history books for this work.

Just be getting a certain seeding, the young guy doesn't at all get this for free - he still has to win and put time and work in just like the old guy once did.


A tournament is supposed to be fair which means the better you are, the further you make it. The seeding is not supposed to be a prize for achievements in the past or to let old guys rest on their laurels, it should ensure that the best players meet in the final rounds.
No matter how many titles someone won in the past, it doesn't make him a better player now. Every game starts at love all. If the old guy doesn't want competition anymore, he is free to quit.
It would simply not be fair, if the best player kick each other out in the early rounds and some older player gets much further despite being not nearly as good.

Look at this in bigger picture not just as one tournament seeding.

Current system forces players to play 10 months out of year and mandatory tournaments. Once player is older they do not recover as fast as young player. It becomes more about recovery and less about skill.

I am certain players would like opportunity to take time off without being penalized, current system does not allow this to happen this is problem.

Maybe my proposal is not perfect but some change needs to be made, because current system is not good.
 

Fee

Legend
Seeding system could be made better.I mean they should start from 0 points every year, that means Djokovic would be one(he deserves it at the moment), NAdal 2, Fed,Murray..i mean the in form player should be first, not the player that was in form last year.

So how would the seeding be done in the draws for the first month of the year, especially the first week?

This is change that needs to be made if ATP wants to keep interest in sport.

What you think happens right now to tennis if Federer and Nadal both leave because they are tired of being forced to play 10 months out of year.

Both players still have top tennis, it is the travel and grind that hurts their level now not skill level.

ATP made all these small master events mandatory and make them worth more points.

This is not good idea, a player should not be penalized because they need more time off of tour when they get older.

The current system will force top players out of the game earlier than ever before.

Blah Blah Blah. Federer has actually played fewer events in the last four or five years than the rest of the players on the tour. A few years ago (I think it was 2007 or 2008) he was the number one player in the world with a 1000 point lead and he only played 16 of the 18 mandatory events.

Players are required to play 18 tournaments in a season. Most of the top players choose to play exos in addition to that. Yes the travel sucks, but the ATP point structure and seeding is not making their careers shorter.
 

cocolate

Banned
So how would the seeding be done in the draws for the first month of the year, especially the first week?

I said before keep old rankings until AO then use only the tournaments that took place in that year...anyway it's ok how it is, it's not like top seeds don't make it to the higher phases so it works anyway.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
Blah Blah Blah. Federer has actually played fewer events in the last four or five years than the rest of the players on the tour. A few years ago (I think it was 2007 or 2008) he was the number one player in the world with a 1000 point lead and he only played 16 of the 18 mandatory events.

Players are required to play 18 tournaments in a season. Most of the top players choose to play exos in addition to that. Yes the travel sucks, but the ATP point structure and seeding is not making their careers shorter.

Federer was penalized points for not playing enough 500 events, is this fair?

Should seeding system be more about quantity or quality of play?
 
Top