Level of players in finals of slams by seeding

[Gary Duane]

Last night I decided to take one more look at seeding, this time examining the seeds in all finals of all slams in the OE.

Problems:

1. Before 2001-2002 there were only 16 seeds, not 32, so any unseeded player reaching a final could have had any seed over 16, theoretically, but we just don't know what that should have been.
2. Several times there were only 12 seeds, or 8, so in those years a guy who should have been seeded #13 - or #9 - was unseeded.

Solution?

I went through last night and did the best job I could finding the ranking of unseeded players before they entered the slam in question.

What I found:

This year Federer, at #17 at the AO, would have been unseeded before 2001. In contrast, Becker, unseeded at his first Wimbledon win, was ranked 20 before Wimbledon. In other words, he was just a bit more of a long shot that year than Roger this year.

I'm going to present what I found, so please argue or correct me if you have better ideas.

 

[Gary Duane]

These are the times unseeded players won slams:

1976 1-AO U 212 Mark Edmondson
1982 2-RG U 69 Sweden Mats Wilander
1985 3-W U 20 West Germany Boris Becker
1994 4-USO U 20 United States Andre Agassi
1997 2-RG U 66 Gustavo Kuerten
2001 3-W WC 125 Croatia Goran Ivanišević
2004 2-RG U 44 Argentina Gastón Gaudio

I could not even accurately place Edmonson.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/mark-edmondson/e005/rankings-history

Ranking was horrible back then.

Edmonson was 212 at the end of 75. In June of 76 he was 37.

My idea is to assign unseeded players a theoretical seed number based on ranking, but here we are really in the dark.

But since the AO happened right after his year-end ranking, I'm using that ranking (212), to assume that he deserved a theoretical ranking of around 128

Next, Wilander:

1982.12.13 9
1982.01.11 69

So, what would his seed have been at RG? I gave him 69, but although I don't believe he made a final before RG, his ranking probably should have gone up.

The rest are easy, because ranking info improved:

1985 3-W U 20 West Germany Boris Becker
1994 4-USO U 20 United States Andre Agassi
1997 2-RG U 66 Gustavo Kuerten
2001 3-W WC 125 Croatia Goran Ivanišević
2004 2-RG U 44 Argentina Gastón Gaudio

 

[Moose Malloy]

Wilander was ranked 18 when he won the French in 1982.

Not sure using ranking alone is the way to determine who was or wasn't a long shot. Agassi was certainly a bigger favorite to win the 94 USO than many ranked above him(he won Canada Masters Series that summer and had been one of the best harcourt players that year)

I remember some writers picking him to win beforehand(might have been in tennis magazines preview issue)

While Becker winning was a shock, at bare minimum he was a dark horse pre tournament. He won Queens(which was a bigger deal back then) and Wimbledon even scheduled his first round match on Center Court. It was obvious that he was a future star.

while someone like guga was a pretty obscure player pre Roland Garros.

Btw Gary, Krajicek was technically unseeded when he won Wimbledon. A seed pulled out and he got their spot in the draw, but there is no number next to his name in the record books.

 

[Mainad]

Wilander was ranked 18 when he won the French in 1982.
While Becker winning was a shock, at bare minimum he was a dark horse pre tournament. He won Queens(which was a bigger deal back then) and Wimbledon even scheduled his first round match on Center Court. It was obvious that he was a future star.

In what way?

Btw Gary, Krajicek was technically unseeded when he won Wimbledon. A seed pulled out and he got their spot in the draw, but there is no number next to his name in the record books.

The Wiki entry for the 1996 Championships states that he was seeded #17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

 

[Moose Malloy]

^queens was the only notable warmup event on grass back then. There was no Halle at the time. So everyone paid attention to who won Queens. Becker's win there was big news.

As I said they put Krajicek in the spot of a seed, but he wasn't a seed. Since they only seeded 16 players at the time. Do a search for articles about Krajicek at that event, all of them call him the first unseeded player to win Wimbledon since 1985.

In the roll of honor at Wimbledon.com there is no number next to Krajicek's name.

Krajicek originally had a different place in the draw and took muster's place after he withdrew. A LL then took Krajicek's spot.

 

[Gary Duane]

Wilander was ranked 18 when he won the French in 1982.

Man, is there any info you don't have?

This is all the ATP has, and there ranking records are awful from that time:

1982.01.11 69
1982.12.13 9

Not very helpful. Later you get rankings about once a week, so it's more accurate.

So he was 18 BEFORE RG? If so, I'll use that figure.

Because I'm not interested in what it became after he won, and I'm not evaluating quality of play. Federer was 17 and was ranked #17 before the AO this year.

Not sure using ranking alone is the way to determine who was or wasn't a long shot. Agassi was certainly a bigger favorite to win the 94 USO than many ranked above him(he won Canada Masters Series that summer and had been one of the best harcourt players that year)

For one slam, one event, it's going to be very misleading. But that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for clusters of years where the average seeding goes up for winners and finalists. I'd like the numbers to be reasonably close, so I have some problems with the early 80s and earlier because of lack of records.

The year Ivanisevic won Wimbledon he was ranked something like 125. Obviously that was no accurate indication of what the man was capable of if he got red hot. But the point is that nothing like that is happening now, and it didn't happen much in the very early OE. Then it happened mostly at the AO at a period when so many players didn't even go there.

While Becker winning was a shock, at bare minimum he was a dark horse pre tournament. He won Queens(which was a bigger deal back then) and Wimbledon even scheduled his first round match on Center Court. It was obvious that he was a future star.

while someone like guga was a pretty obscure player pre Roland Garros.

Here is what I'm finding out: if you go by ranking right before a slam, if an accurate record exists, then using that number for a guesstimate seed is pretty close. On that basis, if 20 is right for Becker's ranking, that's pretty good.

The problem is gauging how play right before a slam should push up seedings.

If we assume a seeding of 20 for Becker, it can't be off more than 3. Anything higher than 17 and we'd see him seeded. That would make him no more of a "dark horse" than Federer this year at the AO.

Btw Gary, Krajicek was technically unseeded when he won Wimbledon. A seed pulled out and he got their spot in the draw, but there is no number next to his name in the record books.[/QUOTE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

I noticed that because his seeding was the same as Fed's this year, if we go by the above. If anything it was probably too high, because he ranking right before was 13. But we at least know that he was probably next in line, after the #16 seed, so #17 is probably about right.

I'm about to post a picture of the unseeded players who won or reached finals. I have not yet changed numbers.

But on your recommendation I'll change Wilander's numerb to 18...

 

[Gary Duane]

 

[Mainad]

^queens was the only notable warmup event on grass back then. There was no Halle at the time. So everyone paid attention to who won Queens. Becker's win there was big news.

Fair point but I would say Queen's still remains the predominant warm-up event for Wimbledon even since the advent of Halle in 1993. After all, since 1993, no less than 10 of Queen's champions or finalists have gone on to win Wimbledon or make the final: Sampras, Philippoussis, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Raonic and Cilic. Halle has only produced 3: Federer (of course) Berdych and Djokovic.

As I said they put Krajicek in the spot of a seed, but he wasn't a seed. Since they only seeded 16 players at the time. Do a search for articles about Krajicek at that event, all of them call him the first unseeded player to win Wimbledon since 1985.

In the roll of honor at Wimbledon.com there is no number next to Krajicek's name.

Krajicek originally had a different place in the draw and took muster's place after he withdrew. A LL then took Krajicek's spot.

Interesting. Thanks for that info.

 

[Gary Duane]

Some of these numbers earlier in the OE are going to change.

82 will go from 69 for Wilander to 18, per @Moose Malloy ...

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Gary Duane

Krajicek situation does bring up a problem with your number crunching. Yeah he was ranked 13, but they determined he was unworthy of a seed because he lost first round 2 years in a row. Wimbledon seeding often conflicted quite a bit with the ATP rankings over the years. For example Sampras was seeded 1 in 2001 despite being only ranked 6. Goran was ranked 25, but seeded 14 in 98. rafter was ranked 21 but seeded 12 in 00. A lot of clay courters got dropped pretty low, some even out of seeded positions when they were ranked in the top 16. People forget this was the main reason 32 seeds happened, Wimbledon was getting a lot of negative press by clay courters complaining or even boycotting and this was the solution. Other slams then followed suit.

also Denton and Lewis were ranked a lot higher than 128(in your chart) when they made their major finals. I have that info somewhere as well. I'm sure articles on 1983 Wimbledon from SI or NY Times have the Lewis ranking. I think it was in the 60s.