Cibulkova-Serena Should Not Be Seeded
- Thread starter MatsPhilander
- Start date
C
Chadillac
Guest
12months + 3 if needed? How long is it protected for then?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The protection begins from the first tournament or first date back (for Fed Cup), so the clock started ticking either on that date or the date of her first tournament.
So she is protected number 1 ranked player for up to twelve months or twelve tournaments, so you have a long time to complain so pace yourself ...
So she is protected number 1 ranked player for up to twelve months or twelve tournaments, so you have a long time to complain so pace yourself ...
C
Chadillac
Guest
Almost 2 and a half years at number 1 for having a baby? I find that amazing, but thanks for the explanation.
Does the atp have different rules? Murray declared his 5months after serena and he is already down to like #183.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
This is a technical question, so I tried to give a technical answer. It was not an opinion so I added a preface.
You, on the other hand, seem to have had very little idea of the technical aspects of this question from the beginning.
You, on the other hand, seem to have had very little idea of the technical aspects of this question from the beginning.
Ive known you for a while, no longer have to preface
C
Chadillac
Guest
Can she just play the next 8 grand slams? How long does this last? If she had a baby every 20months, she could be #1 forever it seems.
Man of steel
Hall of Fame
Lol the fact that you aren't even sure of if Davenport won Wimbledon or whether she reached the finals a few times says it all.
Davenport had a back injury that put her out of Wimbledon in 2006 but returned on tour in August and by the end of the year finished ranked 73. At the end of 06 she got pregnant and gave birth around the middle of June in 07. And announced she'd be returning to the tour (in doubles) at New Haven and in singles at Bali.
She never would have played Wimbledon because it was literally 3 weeks after giving birth. So entering Wimbledon was never a viable option and she missed the previous year due to injury.
Serena's case is completely different. She was the 2 time defending champion from Wimbledon 2015 and 2016. Ranked number 1 after Australia open 2017 since she won and was ranked number 1 for quite a bit of time till her points fell between Australia and RG due to being pregnant. Yet she was still in the top 30 by the time Wimbledon 2017 came around. So she missed that due to pregnancy. Her last points went off after Australia 2018.
Those other players didn't WIN WIMBLEDON. Wimbledon is it's own tournament. It doesn't have to follow what the other slams do.
I don't see you complaining that sharapova also got a protective seeding for 2010 (and she wasn't even having a baby). Serena didn't complain. All she did was request one from the AELTC and it was up to them whether she got one or not. It's people like you who have a problem with it.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Wrong again! There's a limit of 12 matches or 12 months, whichever comes first.
Her rank would be a calculated average of her last three months of play if she had another pregnancy break after her current PR runs out.
You still don't get the system and you probably never will!
Her rank would be a calculated average of her last three months of play if she had another pregnancy break after her current PR runs out.
You still don't get the system and you probably never will!
C
Chadillac
Guest
It makes no sense. Lets cut to chase, when is serena eligible to lose pts? You gave me the other date and know what your talking about
I simply dont understand because murray already has lost pts
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Her ranking is currently 181 so she is either dropping or gaining points based on performance.
But for the next eight tournaments after Wimbledon it's as if she was #1 from the point of view of entry only.
When those eight tournaments are over she will be what her ranking currently then is.
It's highly unlikely that will be anywere near #1 in the world, but she could win the next two slams just to make you happy!
Murray is losing points because he is not playing, but he gets the same 12/12 deal presumably so his protected ranking will get him into everything.
You don't understand because you still haven't grasped the fact that they have two rankings: the actual ranking and the protected ranking.
But for the next eight tournaments after Wimbledon it's as if she was #1 from the point of view of entry only.
When those eight tournaments are over she will be what her ranking currently then is.
It's highly unlikely that will be anywere near #1 in the world, but she could win the next two slams just to make you happy!
Murray is losing points because he is not playing, but he gets the same 12/12 deal presumably so his protected ranking will get him into everything.
You don't understand because you still haven't grasped the fact that they have two rankings: the actual ranking and the protected ranking.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Murray won wimbledon in 2016, he lost in the qtrs last year, he also was ranked #1 at the time. Are you saying murray is still atp #1?
Funny part is they didnt seed him
The 3month extension really helped serena if you look at the schedule
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
You still have no idea. There's no point explaining anything to a person so cognitively ill-equipped.
Murray's singles rankings is 156, but his protected ranking which is the average of his last three months of tournament play before injury must be very high.
Wimbledon has no discretion over men's seedings, so Murray is not seeded. He has entry though because of his protected ranking.
(For the purposes of Wimbledon entry, he might have been higher than 156 and got entry at a point where his ranking alone was high enough).
As I said, things get technical.
Murray's singles rankings is 156, but his protected ranking which is the average of his last three months of tournament play before injury must be very high.
Wimbledon has no discretion over men's seedings, so Murray is not seeded. He has entry though because of his protected ranking.
(For the purposes of Wimbledon entry, he might have been higher than 156 and got entry at a point where his ranking alone was high enough).
As I said, things get technical.
Last edited:
C
Chadillac
Guest
"You still have no idea. There's no point explaining anything to a person so cognitively ill-equipped."
Followed with the rest?
Thanks man, its always nice when you answer my questions. I dont mind your chest thump
Earned this one"As I said, things get technical."
Very, its like interim belts in the ufc. Or brock lesnar having to not defend his belt every 30 days
I'm joking, man.
bigserving
Hall of Fame
At this point has anyone changed their opinion about whether Serena should have been seeded?
mellowyellow
Legend
No, not the way it happened. Everything in place beforehand with player input is fine, do as you may. That wasn't the case, just making shyt up as they go along with no set standard to use? Gtfoh. The effed up thing is if this was just a little different situation and it was gender based scenario in favor of a man the Fems would be all over this "open ended" rule. We all know why this was done for her only, yet numerous moms in the past 10 years.
C
Chadillac
Guest
I still wanna know why she gets 2yr protective ranking and murray didnt even get a year.
Like mellow said, its obvious what they did. Both the wta and wimbledumb
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Personally I was shocked she was seeded simply because she hasn't played much as when she has she has in fact looked quite rusty. I will say her form seems to have been better at Wimbledon than any other point this year so she is clearly playing herself back. The draw has certainly helped as well, its not like she has had any particularly challenging people except maybe Mladenovic, and thats a stretch. She gets Giorgi next...another player who isn't exactly consistent. Gorges or Bertens would be a real test of where she is at right now.
As for the whole seeding thing, I think Cibulkova has had a fire lit under rear end over this because here she is in the QF as well. Personally I don't blame her for feeling upset over it whatever you want to say about protected rankings and previous results.
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
She did not get a 2 year protection ranking. Where did you get that from? She lost her #1 ranking and was 183 coming into Wimbeldon.
C
Chadillac
Guest
She has been off protected since feb 11th. Didnt defend her points, yet still #1 protected.
Look at the wta rankings she is SR #1 next to halep. Maybe SR is different than protected, they seem to invent terms to fit agenda
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Why don't you have the good grace to admit when you are wrong rather than continually repeating the same error?
C
Chadillac
Guest
If she was ranked 183 she would of had to qualify like Bouchard.
ihitlikeagirl
Semi-Pro
Sure, I still don't think she should have and believe it was suspicious (her seeding number choice and what draw she landed). If she is as good as she is touted (and truthfully has played), it wouldn't have affected her. She would still be in either way. As she kindly cockily said yesterday something to the effect that everyone plays the best against her. Or more obnoxiously than that. Roll eyes. Easy to say when you have faced 3 people that most top 50 could beat and typically start all your tournaments like that.
In fairness, she played really well today & looks fairly unbeatable. Serve on fire.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Bouchard is ranked on her performance. Serena was 'on leave' and her SR reflects her performance before 'taking leave'.
And Wimbledon's decision to seed her has been fully vindicated both in relation to her performance and in the light of the failure of the top ten seeds.
And Wimbledon's decision to seed her has been fully vindicated both in relation to her performance and in the light of the failure of the top ten seeds.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Once again, what about murray? He won the event in 2016 and made the qtr in 2017, yet unseeded. Was also ranked #1. I see alot of similarities aside from the way the rule is applied
Wimbledon has done a terrible job this year.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
This issue has been explained to you so many times that one can only presume you don't listen.
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
What rankings are you looking at. I look at the live rankings an now SW is ranked #88 and before the tournament she was ranked #183. Halep is alone at #1
C
Chadillac
Guest
Wta pdf that was linked earlier in the thread
But if serena was #183 going into the tournament, she would had to qualify or get a wc.
bigserving
Hall of Fame
She was seeded 25. At the moment, she is in the final eight. By any reasonable definition or observation, the fine folks at Wimbledon knew what they were doing.
Lots of outrage about Serena's seeding but not so much about the other, at least, 25 other seeds that did not hold their seeding.
Also, there is a severe lack of understanding of the rankings and draws by some here.
Lots of outrage about Serena's seeding but not so much about the other, at least, 25 other seeds that did not hold their seeding.
Also, there is a severe lack of understanding of the rankings and draws by some here.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Using the same logic wouldnt that mean they failed on 9 of the top 10? This is why opinion based seedings are terrible. People earn their ranking and their seed, not given based on opinion
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
I explained this to you already. the protected ranking gets the player into the draw. She had a protected ranking of #1 so on that PDF it has her as a number 1 with Halep but it does not make her seeded #1. Siegemund also has a protected ranking due to injury, Azarenka had a protected ranking of #6 when she returned from pregnancy so on the PDF's she would be on there as a co-#6 BUT she wouldn't be seeded #6.
The difference is the Wimbledon organisers decided to seed Serena.
bigserving
Hall of Fame
How many other of those players were not seeded based on their approximate ranking?
Serena should have been seeded much higher. Wouldn't you agree? Once again, the tennis establishment has treated the multi-time champion unfairly.
C
Chadillac
Guest
What about Cibulkova? Apparently she should of been seeded higher, but wasnt.
They got one right, the one they put all their focus on. Doesnt seem to worry about the other players
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
No you don't get it. The Committee at Wimbeldon reserve the right to give exemption to players that have injuries or in Serena's case childbirth just like the FO. The l
No she would not because the committee at Wimbeldon can issue exemptions (which they did for Serena) and they reserve the
right to seed as they see fit. That is why they seeded Serena #25. The FO gave her an exemption also but they didn't seed her. Do you understand now?
C
Chadillac
Guest
No i get it, they are within their rights to do everything they have. Why they still have this power when its now green clay is my question.
They were afforded this right because the surface was so unique, now its the same as others.
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
Because it is their tournament and they run it the way they see fit. They were not wrong because they were trying to protect the top 4 seeds from having to face Serena in the first 2 rounds, but they crashed out anyway.
wangs78
Legend
Some kind of grace period for a woman who has a baby is fair, I think. The only thing is that it would most likely be viewed as a "perk" for top players because it's more likely that a top player has the financial means to care for a kid while she continues to play on tour after giving birth. I would think most players outside of the top 20 are so concerned with maintaining their ranking and winning that extra match at a tournament that could translate into $50k or $100k of extra income that having a child viewed as completely impractical, with or without a grace period.
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
I thought they kindof slapped it together at the last minute and I'm not sure they would have done it for anyone else, so to me it was bad optics. And nobody should want bad optics. Not saying they shouldn't have or that they didn't have the right . . .
See, I'm not gonna give them props on this. The fine folks at Wimby took the easy way out on this one, slotting her at (a very random) #25. According to that seed, it meant they expected a third round to be a reasonable result. And that's nonsense. We all know the state of women's tennis. We all know that even a less-than-fit Serena can get farther than that. One need only look at all the seeds that didn't make their seed for proof.
They should have just bit the bullet and seeded her top 3 and taken the grief. After all, they can do as they please. And if she gets well into the second week, you're vindicated. Sure, it's an acknowledgement that the rankings don't mean much once the tourney actually starts. But we already know that. And so you have a legit reason for setting them aside. Seeding her #25 was them trying to have their cake and eat it too.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Nope, its an ITF grand slam, they just host the event.
Similar threads
- Poll
