"It does not seem right that Wimbledon is the only tournament to have it's own seed criteria" - Rafael Nadal

blablavla

Professional
A dream is not what you build your career on.

Grass has barely any tournament at all levels, from juniors/amateurs to pro, because grass is expensive and therefore outdated.
Looking how many sports are being played on grass, I wouldn't say "grass is expensive and therefore outdated".
It is rather: tennis can be played on cheaper surfaces, therefore the cheaper surfaces take more and more % in the calendar.

But let's not forget where it all started.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
I know why but I just want to know if the WTA ranking is good enough for Wimbledon why isn't the ATP ranking?
Because there is significantly more surface-specialty on the men's tour.

Women's tennis is more uniform across all surfaces.

Latest example: The one who won FO two weeks ago is a grass court lover who openly admitted hating clay. Three of the 4 in the semi final in Paris were flat hitters.
 
Last edited:

aldeayeah

Hall of Fame
Just curious: when you read/hear something like that from him, does it slide right off your fan preferences like water on Teflon coating, or it changes your opinion on him?

:cool:
Nadal is my countryman and the same age as me. I've had a blast watching him play and rooting for him for all these years.

That doesn't mean I worship the ground he walks on. The guy's a complete jock, somewhat out of touch, and can be pretty salty.

I'm still going to root for him whenever he plays. It's not like he has done/said anything unforgivable (yet)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
.
Because there is significantly more surface-specialty on the men's tour.

Women's tennis is more uniform across all surfaces.

Latest example: The one who won FO two weeks ago is a grass court lover who openly admitted hating clay. Three of the 4 in the semi final in Paris were flat hitters.
No, that's not the case. This from the Wimbledon website:

https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/seeds.html
Ladies' Seeding
The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
The seeds at Wimbledon make the most sense. A player’s performance on that surface should have a massive bearing on his seed on that surface. Lendl, despite being world #1 a then-record 270 weeks, which includes 157 consecutive weeks at #1, was only a #1 seed one time at Wimbledon. I.e, Lendl entered Wimbledon as the world #1 player 5 different times, yet was the #1 seed only once. And quite honestly, I think that was 1 time too many for Lendl to be a #1 seed at this event.
 

ScottleeSV

Professional
Rafa has a point but counting hugely against him here is the fact Novak and Roger have been far more successful at Wimbledon than he has.

If the semis were Federer v Djokovic and Nadal v Thiem, I would say - on grass - that's imbalanced.

Ultimately, it matters very little anyway. I wasn't even thinking about this when Federer lined up to play Goffin on Sunday, and if Nadal falls in Federer's half then that would basically be what could have happened even with Rafa at no 2.

What is Rafa's opinion on Thiem not getting the same rest time for the French Open final, btw? Has anyone asked him?
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
The seeds at Wimbledon make the most sense. A player’s performance on that surface should have a massive bearing on his seed on that surface. Lendl, despite being world #1 a then-record 270 weeks, which includes 157 consecutive weeks at #1, was only a #1 seed one time at Wimbledon. I.e, Lendl entered Wimbledon as the world #1 player 5 different times, yet was the #1 seed only once. And quite honestly, I think that was 1 time too many for Lendl to be a #1 seed at this event.
Two unseeded players have won Wimbledon - Becker and Ivanisevic.
 

NBP

Hall of Fame
He is right, it is not fair. If it was fair, he'd be unseeded.

How do you fail to play up to your seeding SEVEN years in a row. Even a 38 year old 3rd seeded Federer did that at his worst slam.

This will all be moot when he's sent packing in the first week.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
.

No, that's not the case. This from the Wimbledon website:

https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/seeds.html
Ladies' Seeding
The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw.
Yea they reserve the right to manipulate the seeding but in practice they simply adhere to the WTA ranking 99.9 percent of the time (except upseeding Serena every now and then/every couple of years when they feel like she is severely underranked.. but then that's moot since even the US Open made a one-time exception to push up her seeding last year). Your own quote says "except". So it's an exception to the RULE which is simply the ranking.

Not sure why you brought that up here. The way it is with the women is the original way it was at Wimbledon for both sexes (until the male claycourters complained in 2000 or thereabouts and we ended up with the current grass seeding formula for the men). So Nadal is complaining about a system that came about as a result of action taken by "his kind" of players: past era clay-courters. In the old Wimbledon system Nadal may have possibly been seeded second, given that it was all up to the discretion of the committee.
 
Last edited:

Luka888

Hall of Fame
Well, Brits have the Queen, French do not. So, that's the thing. Sorry, I had to say something stupid ;)
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
Federer would have crucified for blatant favortism, getting in with the big suits, etc etc. These guys have issues because Federer gets Center Court, that would have put it over the edge.

Follow the rules. Nadal knew the rules, this was not something they made at the start of Halle last week, catching Nadal out, then there is a real valid point. If you choose to sit out, then its on you. And if saying Nadal was tired from RG is some excuse, a near 38 year old made the semis also and still made it Halle to gut out a couple of close wins. You snooze, you lose.
You nailed it.
 

serbiavic

Rookie
He is right, it is not fair. If it was fair, he'd be unseeded.

How do you fail to play up to your seeding SEVEN years in a row. Even a 38 year old 3rd seeded Federer did that at his worst slam.

This will all be moot when he's sent packing in the first week.
I think you mean eight. Nadal was seeded 1 in 2011 but didn't win the title.
 

Nole_King

Rookie
When you know what needs to be done then go and do it; don't complain later. It is a rule that has not been introduced today or something that has not been understood well. If no. 2 seed was so important for Nadal, like other posters have said, he should have played one of Halle/Queen.
 

ScottleeSV

Professional
You should be putting that question to Djokovic who decided to call off the SF on Friday to finish on Saturday because he can't play unless there is no wind.
They should have played the semis at the same time. Nothing to do with Djokovic.

For me the biggest issue with Friday's draw is not the S/F line up but who gets the luck in the round of 16. Some lucky sod will get Fognini whereas others will Cilic/Raonic/Isner.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
You nailed it.
Nadal is still the third fav to win it, and who knows, upsets happen on grass, and the draw can open up for him. But he gets no sympathy for willingly sitting out the grass warm ups knowing all he needed was two wins, while Federer played the semis of RG then gutted out a Halle win. He knew the rules for the past 17 years.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Proves my point. Up to 2011, Djokovic was no threat to Fedr at Wimbledon. In 2009 & 2016, Rafa was absent from Wimbledon. We shall see what happens this year.
Up to 2011 Nole never had enough points to take over the no. 2 place, but he was no. 3 for most of the time. Which, and I guess I need to spell this out for you like to a little child, means Roger got the worse draw.

And after 2011 Nadal is basically a journeyman on grass so it didn't matter what his draw was.
 

Start da Game

Professional
wimbledon has never been the same after pistol pete........it never felt like wimbledon though there were some entertaining editions like 2003, 2008 and 2013........just the same baseline **** carried over to grass........
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Nadal is still the third fav to win it, and who knows, upsets happen on grass, and the draw can open up for him. But he gets no sympathy for willingly sitting out the grass warm ups knowing all he needed was two wins, while Federer played the semis of RG then gutted out a Halle win. He knew the rules for the past 17 years.
No, it can't. There is absolutely no way both Federer and Djokovic will lose early. An extremely small chance that one of them might lose, but for sure not both.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
I think each surface should be ranked and seeded separately. Barring that, Wimbledon's seeds seems fair. The goal in seeding is to ensure that good players don't knock each other out when both deserve to go deep.

But really the thing with Nadal is all his gripes are always so self serving. He's #3 instead of #2? Seeds are unfair. He prefers clay over HC? These hard surfaces are bad. He can't play indoors? WTF should rotate on clay. He can't defend non clay tournaments and therefore never has two dominant years in a row? Rankings should be 2 years.
 
Poppycock.

Nadal is not right at all (not even morally).

If he is arguing for some kind of "all slam" uniformity or equality then you can't have genuine equality unless grass court tournaments are at least 1/3rd of the tour and therefore one third of the points that (in theory) could be accumulated by all players

Then and ONLY then does Wimbledon has a moral obligation to follow the ranking. Otherwise they shouldn't because as of right now Wimbledon is uniquely disadvantaged by the fact that the grass season is much shorter than the rest and therefore grass court tennis is under-represented in the ATP ranking results of ALL players. This little but crucial fact seems to just fly over the heads of baldal and his ilk without ever being addressed.
Can I just continue to quote this every 5 minutes? This covers it all.

#TourneyEquality
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Ahhhh . . . I remember the good old days when the clay courters would just skip Wimby altogether and keep pretending that the clay season went on till late summer.

Then they whined like babies and got Wimby to go to 32 seeds so they'd be more "protected."

Then Wimby slowed the grass down and gave clay courters that nice reliable bounce they love so much.

Then the best claycourter in history got to win Wimby, twice.

And yet . . . they still complain.
please tell me you realize Federer didn't win your precious grass slam until it was firmed up!

don't be foolish...
 

RNadal

Professional
Usually I think that Rafa is a bit of a whiner, but this time around he's right. It's about keeping the same standard and being fair. No brainer, fellas.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
We all know Nadal tends to whinge when everything is not aligned to his liking. Nothing new. This Wimbledon seeding system has been in place for decades, for all of the legend who has been there before Nadal.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
No, it can't. There is absolutely no way both Federer and Djokovic will lose early. An extremely small chance that one of them might lose, but for sure not both.
Nadal can beat at least one of them, so if the other goes out, he will have his chances like last year. Though I think beating them both back to back is likely not going to happen.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Up to 2011 Nole never had enough points to take over the no. 2 place, but he was no. 3 for most of the time. *Which, and I guess I need to spell this out for you like to a little child, means Roger got the worse draw.

And after 2011 Nadal is basically a journeyman on grass so it didn't matter what his draw was.
*(Argumentum ad hominem )
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
oh and look, surprise surprise , agenda guy @DRII not using his head to actually evaluate the seeding rules and just blindly defending Nadal.
I'm not blindly defending anyone!

Nadal has every right to is opinion and its not without merit.

of course I don't expect you with your 'rain man' type mind to understand that :rolleyes:
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Nadal is my countryman and the same age as me. I've had a blast watching him play and rooting for him for all these years.

That doesn't mean I worship the ground he walks on. The guy's a complete jock, somewhat out of touch, and can be pretty salty.

I'm still going to root for him whenever he plays. It's not like he has done/said anything unforgivable (yet)
Banning a referee?
Sore loser blaming injuries for his losses?
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
please tell me you realize Federer didn't win your precious grass slam until it was firmed up!
Yes, after a decade's worth of fruitless toil on lightning-fast lawns, ancient Federer finally won his very first Wimbledon after the hard courts were installed. If only he'd faced the challenge of playing the defending champ at least once on fast grass, in an era where S&V players were sure to make the final! That would have exposed Fed for sure.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Nadal should be whining about adding some Masters on grass so he can prove that he is worthy of being the second seed at Wimbledon. :D

Since there is only one event on grass for grass court specialists before Wimbledon, the seeding formula is bang on.
 

aldeayeah

Hall of Fame
For example, would you still be his fan, if he disrespects the sport of tennis (which he has displayed many times, and that latest time is only one instance), just because he accidentally was wining a lot when you didn't know better?
I'll answer to the obviously loaded question with another obviously loaded question:

"Who disrespects tennis more:

- A whiney, bad loser, all-time great player?
- A self-proclaimed "tennis fan" who fails to recognize the greatness of the former, and maliciously twists the narrative against him due to their personal bias?"

No need to answer.

:cool:
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I always thought that the draws were set up that #1 would theoretically play #4 if they both made it to the semi-finals and #2 and #3 also would play each other, yet that wasn't the case recently (can't remember which Grand Slam it was?). So theoretically it would be Rafa vs. Roger and Novak vs Dominic; is this the case? Personally I want another Rafa vs. Dominic final! :)

I don't think that has ever been the case. Its meant to be random, but technically #3 has a 50/50 chance to either end up on the side of #1 or the side of #2.
 
Top