Serena Williams seeded 17 at U.S. Open, nine spots above her ranking

[Deleted member 77403]

If giving her a higher seeding won't affect the end result why give her a higher seeding in the first place?

Maybe because none of the top seeded players would be too thrilled about playing Serena Williams in the first round. This protects them, just as much as it protects her. With her, you never know when she puts in a top performance. I am sure the USTA would like their seeded players to go deeper.

 

[tennis_pro]

Maybe because none of the top seeded players would be too thrilled about playing Serena Williams in the first round. This protects them, just as much as it protects her. With her, you never know when she puts in a top performance. I am sure the USTA would like their seeded players to go deeper.

Let's screw the entire seeding system altogether and put whichever player wherever we want. You can't just make exceptions for particular players citing the dumbest reasons for your decision too.

If Federer gets pregnant and drops below the top 30 let him work his way back.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If giving her a higher seeding won't affect the end result why give her a higher seeding in the first place?

Bc she deserves it. No more or less than Australians who get WCs at the AO. Its only news bc she has an army of haters. Go LOVE something for once, sheesh. The woman first won the USO looking like this:

Turn ur satan down a notch.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So just 'coz?
k

What is even the meaning of anything any more? Does anything mean anything or is it just whatever we want it to be?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Let's screw the entire seeding system altogether and put whichever player wherever we want. You can't just make exceptions for particular players citing the dumbest reasons for your decision too.

If Federer gets pregnant and drops below the top 30 let him work his way back.

Exceptions or not, they are protecting ALL their top players by seeding Serena. It doesn't just benefit her. You think Kerber would be thrilled to face Williams first round? I seriously doubt it. The USTA want the top players to go as far as possible...this is about making money at the end of the day.

 

[tennis_pro]

Bc she deserves it. No more or less than Australians who get WCs at the AO. Its only news bc she has an army of haters. Go LOVE something for once, sheesh. The woman first won the USO looking like this:

Turn ur satan down a notch.

Why not give her the top seeding?

And you should step outside of your closed self-loving circle for once in your life. This decision is absolutely mind blowing and is based on nothing. If Fed dropped in the rankings I wouldn't want the tournament organizers to give him a a higher seeding just because he's Fed.

 

[Wycliffe2]

I like Serena, Serena didn't change the rankings. Criticizing the US Open isn't criticizing Serena.

Wasn't directed at you Ann. Your comments are exactly as i said in my first post . This is about the usta and not Serena but peoples comment has made it about serena

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[tennis_pro]

Exceptions or not, they are protecting ALL their top players by seeding Serena. It doesn't just benefit her. You think Kerber would be thrilled to face Williams first round? I seriously doubt it. The USTA want the top players to go as far as possible...this is about making money at the end of the day.

It's just not right. If they did it once they will do it again in the future. Why the hell anyone bothered to create a seeding system in the first place if you can just manipulate the draw at your own whim?

Btw it would be fitting for the same top players who benefited from Serena's absence to draw her in the first round now.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It's just not right. If they did it once they will do it again in the future. Why the hell anyone bothered to create a seeding system in the first place if you can just manipulate the draw at your own whim?

Btw it would be fitting for the same top players who benefited from Serena's absence to draw her in the first round now.

Right or wrong, it is about making money to these people. Tennis is business at its core, and USTA will want all the top players to go as far into the event as possible. They will protect their top players.

Lets not forget, the seeding system was once only 16 players, now 32, why? They want to protect their assets. Does it really surprise you that much that they are doing it again, in this case giving Serena a seeding?

 

[Wycliffe2]

But what do you think about:

• her being seeded higher
• and because of her recent hard court results

I 100 percent do not agree with her being seeded higher buts an issie with the usta and not Serena. My reason is i would like to see her meet a top seed quite early in the draw rather than wait for the second week for things to hot up.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[tennis_pro]

Right or wrong, it is about making money to these people. Tennis is business at its core, and USTA will want all the top players to go as far into the event as possible. They will protect their top players.

This is true but you can't just manipulate the seeds. A lot of people want to see Federer go deep in the tournament so now the tournament organizers should throw some mugs at him until the SF?

Lets not forget, the seeding system was once only 16 players, now 32, why? They want to protect their assets. Does it really surprise you that much that they are doing it again, in this case giving Serena a seeding?

To be honest I find it very weird because there isn't a huge difference between being seeded 17th, 25th or 32nd (Serena should be seeded 24th I think) There's a big difference between being seeded 17th and 16th, though.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

This is true but you can't just manipulate the seeds. A lot of people want to see Federer go deep in the tournament so now the tournament organizers should throw some mugs at him until the SF?

The draw is often questionable. Sometimes you really wonder just how fair and unbiased draws really are.

I remember after the Isner - Mahut match of Wimbledon 2010, the 70-68 score...guess who drew each other to play first round at Wimbledon 2011 the very next year??? Coincidence?

To be honest I find it very weird because there isn't a huge difference between being seeded 17th, 25th or 32nd (Serena should be seeded 24th I think) There's a big difference between being seeded 17th and 16th, though.

I don't think it matters too much, because the 17th to 32nd seed are randomly placed into those those third round slots...Also, there seems to be a bit of sentimental love for the number 17.

Sampras won USO 2002 seeded 17th, Federer won AO 2017 seeded 17th.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

I must be the only one who understand this move from the US Open’s viewpoint.

She would’ve been the #25 seed so she could’ve faced a top 8 player in the 3R, they boost her to #17 so it’s the 4R instead before she meets a top 8 player. They factored in her recent performances (Wimbledon final being a good result and then the poor loss in San Jose and ok result in Cincy). Instead of making her a top 8 or top 16 seed they made her a top 24 seed. You can argue they should’ve just left her as the #25 seed but from an economic standpoint and trying to make sure they have the second biggest name in tennis in later rounds, I understand. (Yes, I just said Serena was the second biggest name in tennis, don’t @ me your anger).

The point here is that there is no parity across the board. So because her name draws more attention she gets preferential treatment and moved up spots in the rankings... Other players in similar situations were not given any special treatment, so this is obviously favoritism and bias at play here. I don't care about her past behavior, nor will I reference that, but clearly one can see that this is 100% biased showing favoritism towards one player. Stan Wawrinka and Andy Murray don't get moved up in the US Open rankings or any other tournament for that matter. They only got in as special exemptions or wildcards, with the possibility of having to play anyone in the first round. I also don't see what a run at Wimbledon has to do with the US Open. They are completely separate events played on different surfaces. That should not have anything to do with regards to determining whether to move a player up in the seedings.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

The draw is often questionable. Sometimes you really wonder just how fair and unbiased draws really are.

I remember after the Isner - Mahut match of Wimbledon 2010, the 70-68 score...guess who drew each other to play first round at Wimbledon 2011 the very next year??? Coincidence?




I don't think it matters too much, because the 17th to 32nd seed are randomly placed into those those third round slots...Also, there seems to be a bit of sentimental love for the number 17.

Sampras won USO 2002 seeded 17th, Federer won AO 2017 seeded 17th.

Two examples that span 15 years. Serena is guaranteed to win the US Open. Book it.

 

[PDJ]

Maybe because none of the top seeded players would be too thrilled about playing Serena Williams in the first round. This protects them, just as much as it protects her. With her, you never know when she puts in a top performance. I am sure the USTA would like their seeded players to go deeper.

Except Serena Williams is currently ranked 26 so she couldnt meet a seeded player in the first couple of rounds. Unless the seedings are taken from a different time period and she was ranked lower than 32, but l don't think this is the case?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

The point here is that there is no parity across the board. So because her name draws more attention she gets preferential treatment and moved up spots in the rankings... Other players in similar situations were not given any special treatment, so this is obviously favoritism and bias at play here. I don't care about her past behavior, nor will I reference that, but clearly one can see that this is 100% biased showing favoritism towards one player. Stan Wawrinka and Andy Murray don't get moved up in the US Open rankings or any other tournament for that matter. They only got in as special exemptions or wildcards, with the possibility of having to play anyone in the first round. I also don't see what a run at Wimbledon has to do with the US Open. They are completely separate events played on different surfaces. That should not have anything to do with regards to determining whether to move a player up in the seedings.

I understand the issue here of not having made this exemption for former mothers like Azarenka, I don’t follow the issue of Stan or Murray as they did not carry a child for 9 months as the world number 1. This is a gender issue for me and I’m annoyed Azarenka never got anything or Clijsters but hopefully this is the trend going forward and not the exception. It’ll be important in coming years as many of the top 10 players will be possibly wanting children in the next 5 years or so (Sloane, Pliskova (now married), Halep, Wozniacki (engaged), Kerber and more.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Except Serena Williams is currently ranked 26 so she couldnt meet a seeded player in the first couple of rounds. Unless the seedings are taken from a different time period and she was ranked lower than 32, but l don't think this is the case?

So then it is clear they are going the sentimental 17th seeded route. At the end of the day, no difference between being seeded 17 to 32. They all get randomly put into the third round slots to face top 16 players.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

This is true but you can't just manipulate the seeds. A lot of people want to see Federer go deep in the tournament so now the tournament organizers should throw some mugs at him until the SF?


To be honest I find it very weird because there isn't a huge difference between being seeded 17th, 25th or 32nd (Serena should be seeded 24th I think) There's a big difference between being seeded 17th and 16th, though.

That’s why they did it. They factored in her pregnancy and her recent performances which weren’t great (San Jose) so they didn’t bump her to the top 16 seeds but they bumped her a little thanks to the Wimbledon final. She only moved up one bracket which spares her a top 8 opponent in the 3R. I’m sure some wanted her to be the top seed but just wouldn’t make sense after the Konta thrashing so this was the compromise.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So then it is clear they are going the sentimental 17th seeded route. At the end of the day, no difference between being seeded 17 to 32. They all get randomly put into the third round slots to face top 16 players.

It is different, the number #25 can face a top 8 player like we saw at last years US Open where the 25th seed drew 4th seed Svitolina in the 3R. If you’re the 17th seed however you won’t draw a top 8 seed in the 3R.

 

[Primavera]

So, if you have a child you should be seeded up?

I have 3 kids and a racket. Can I claim some sort of seeding, please?

 

[tennis_pro]

That’s why they did it. They factored in her pregnancy and her recent performances which weren’t great (San Jose) so they didn’t bump her to the top 16 seeds but they bumped her a little thanks to the Wimbledon final. She only moved up one bracket which spares her a top 8 opponent in the 3R. I’m sure some wanted her to be the top seed but just wouldn’t make sense after the Konta thrashing so this was the compromise.

What kind of reasoning is this?

Clijsters wasn't seeded at the 2009 US Open even though she actually played well in Cincinnati (beat two top 15 players and lost to Safina who was ranked no 1 at the time). Came back after a 2,5 year break after giving birth.

Federer didn't get a higher seed than 17 even though the vast majority of tennis fans wouldn't bother if they organizers gave him a top 8 seeding.

What's so different about Serena?

 

[Primavera]

Wimbledon have done so in the past. And for the ATP also.

Wimbledon has a formula of giving extra points for performance in grass tournaments over the previous 2 years. It' s been used for years and is fully legitimate.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

I understand the issue here of not having made this exemption for former mothers like Azarenka, I don’t follow the issue of Stan or Murray as they did not carry a child for 9 months as the world number 1. This is a gender issue for me and I’m annoyed Azarenka never got anything or Clijsters but hopefully this is the trend going forward and not the exception. It’ll be important in coming years as many of the top 10 players will be possibly wanting children in the next 5 years or so (Sloane, Pliskova (now married), Halep, Wozniacki (engaged), Kerber and more.

Halep is single?

 

[tennis_pro]

She also outbicepsed Nadal and outweighted Federer

That's why Serena gets mad when people question her "best female player of all time" status because she thinks they question the "female" part.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

She also outbicepsed Nadal and outweighted Federer

My girlfriend sometimes weighs more than me, lol. I'm like 7-8 inches taller too.

 

[Primavera]

Serena achievement makes her the best female tennis player of all time and if you can't see that or even acknowledge tgat fact well i rest my case

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Ever heard about Margaret Court and her 64 slams? Or Steffi Graf and her Golden Grand Slam? Williams will never achieve either!

 

[ibbi]

USTA spokesman Chris Widmaier said the placement of Williams was determined by "balancing a variety of factors, including her return to competition following the birth of her daughter, her recent hard court performance this summer, and recognition of her achievements at the U.S. Open."

That ferocious 1-2 record?! first round exit, first round withdrawal, second round exit. Titanic stuff indeed. What is even the point? The seeds that low just end up anywhere in the draw, right?

 

[mellowyellow]

The point here is that there is no parity across the board. So because her name draws more attention she gets preferential treatment and moved up spots in the rankings... Other players in similar situations were not given any special treatment, so this is obviously favoritism and bias at play here. I don't care about her past behavior, nor will I reference that, but clearly one can see that this is 100% biased showing favoritism towards one player. Stan Wawrinka and Andy Murray don't get moved up in the US Open rankings or any other tournament for that matter. They only got in as special exemptions or wildcards, with the possibility of having to play anyone in the first round. I also don't see what a run at Wimbledon has to do with the US Open. They are completely separate events played on different surfaces. That should not have anything to do with regards to determining whether to move a player up in the seedings.

The Wimbledon run isn't even a usable stat, it was based off a false unearned seeding. It carries no true merit in the context of earning wins. By all rights Serena should have had to qualify, so she bypass a ton of competition and work.

 

[tennis_pro]

That ferocious 1-2 record?! first round exit, first round withdrawal, second round exit. Titanic stuff indeed. What is even the point? The seeds that low just end up anywhere in the draw, right?

including this:

If anything her seeding should be downgraded.

 

[mellowyellow]

I hope someone files a lawsuit and a 3rd party is mandated to seed from here on out. USTA AND USO are incapable of running a legit equal opportunity business.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

I hope someone files a lawsuit and a 3rd party is mandated to seed from here on out. USTA AND USO are incapable of running a legit equal opportunity business.

Genie Bouchard could probably assist in that regard.

 

[MichaelNadal]

So just 'coz?
k

What is even the meaning of anything any more? Does anything mean anything or is it just whatever we want it to be?

Theres only one thing that REALLY means anything

 

[Aussie Darcy]

What kind of reasoning is this?

Clijsters wasn't seeded at the 2009 US Open even though she actually played well in Cincinnati (beat two top 15 players and lost to Safina who was ranked no 1 at the time). Came back after a 2,5 year break after giving birth.

Federer didn't get a higher seed than 17 even though the vast majority of tennis fans wouldn't bother if they organizers gave him a top 8 seeding.

What's so different about Serena?

Care to read my other posts about how I’m not a fan that Serena is the first they’ve done this for but that I hope this is the new rule and not an exception? And Clijsters isn’t the best comparison as she retired and then had the baby. Azarenka is a much better comparison. Also, Federer didn’t grow a child inside him for 9 months and then give birth. Pregnancy isn’t the same as an injury and shouldn’t be treated as such.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Halep is single?

Pretty sure she’s with Del Potro actually. Not confirmed yet but lots of murmurings out there.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

That ferocious 1-2 record?! first round exit, first round withdrawal, second round exit. Titanic stuff indeed. What is even the point? The seeds that low just end up anywhere in the draw, right?

That ferocious record is part of it, how do people not see that! If she won San Jose and Cincy then they probably would’ve bumped her to like the #1 spot but they factored in the abysmal loss to Konta, ok loss to Petra along with the Wimbledon final run and instead of making her a top 16 or top 8 seed they just boosted her up one bar to a top 24 seed.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Fedr and Nadl are bigger than Serena worldwide.

You can say Serena is bigger in America but America isn’t the world even if some like to think it is.

Yeah I’m not going to bother arguing this too much. Serena goes way beyond the tennis world, far further than Nadal does. I’d say Federer and Serena are in a world of there own. Serena doesn’t just make headlines for her incredible tennis achievements, she attracts attentions and headlines on so many different things. She goes further than tennis and people who don’t even watch the sport tune in just to watch her.

Serena is arguably the most well known sportswoman globally, Nadal wouldn’t even be top 5 and he isn’t even the top tennis star (Usain Bolt, Ronaldo and more would be more recognisable).

 

[TMF]

Yeah I’m not going to bother arguing this too much. Serena goes way beyond the tennis world, far further than Nadal does. I’d say Federer and Serena are in a world of there own. Serena doesn’t just make headlines for her incredible tennis achievements, she attracts attentions and headlines on so many different things. She goes further than tennis and people who don’t even watch the sport tune in just to watch her.

Serena is arguably the most well known sportswoman globally, Nadal wouldn’t even be top 5 and he isn’t even the top tennis star (Usain Bolt, Ronaldo and more would be more recognisable).

I disagree. Even ESPN which is famous for being biased toward American athletes have ranked Serena way below Nadal. http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/worldfame100/espn-world-fame-100-top-ranking-athletes
Nadal #9, Serena #19


https://www.businessinsider.com/mos...onald-trump-later-rescinded-the-invitation-10
Nadal #8, Serena #12

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I disagree. Even ESPN which is famous for being biased toward American athletes have ranked Serena way below Nadal. http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/worldfame100/espn-world-fame-100-top-ranking-athletes
Nadal #9, Serena #19


https://www.businessinsider.com/mos...onald-trump-later-rescinded-the-invitation-10
Nadal #8, Serena #12

Djokovic and Ronda Rousey ahead of Serena? Say no more.

 

[TMF]

Djokovic and Ronda Rousey ahead of Serena? Say no more.

Article say most famous athletes on the planet, not in USA alone.

 

[boredone3456]

What recent hardcourt results? her first round win at Cincy where she was then bounced in 3 sets by Kvitova? She hasn't done much of anything on hard courts since coming back. If you wanted to try and argue that because of making the Wimbledon final her seed deserves a boost well...at least then you actually attempt to make an argument. I'd think said argument was ridiculous but you could at least make an argument. Fact is her ranking is what it is. she has played enough tournaments to have a ranking and that is what should be used to determine the seeding just like everyone else. It seems like they just don't want her facing any top players to early...which of course benefits them because at this point Serena would have a 50/50 chance surviving such an encounter with her recent up and down form.

 

[Ann]

I keep thinking about this whole situation (because I have no life) when she was 'boosted' for Wimbledon I didn't have a problem with it. She hadn't had time to get her ranking back, she had a difficult pregnancy with serious complications and deserved some consideration. I think my big issue with this NOW is that she has had the opportunity to play in multiple tournaments and has played fair to lousy. At some point, her ranking has to be based on her actual level of play on the field and not on her past. I really don't expect much from Serena at the the US Open but I'm crossing my fingers that she surprises me.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

It doesn't play into the the victim narriative she loves to create. Hope she loses early on- you have to earn your seeding, not be given a stupid arbitrary seeding for no good reason

 

[fed1]

I'm not a Serena fan in the least but this is all on the USTA. Their explanation is absolutely absurd and insulting. She's been back five and a half months and has basically done nothing. Hopefully we can agree agree that Wimbledon was the exception and not the rule. Paul Annacone and Shelby Rogers were both really questioning the move on air yesterday and that never happens. The next issue we are going to have is her scheduling, take a look at next weeks weather in Flushing, it's going to be toasty, if she get's all night matches then it's a complete joke.

 

[VigiliantEagle]

Fedr and Nadl are bigger than Serena worldwide.

You can say Serena is bigger in America but America isn’t the world even if some like to think it is.

Federer is bigger than serena anywhere.

 

[Tostao80]

It doesn't play into the the victim narriative she loves to create. Hope she loses early on- you have to earn your seeding, not be given a stupid arbitrary seeding for no good reason

She didn’t create this new seeding so why is she being the one attacked here? Attack the decision makers, the USTA. You’ve literally not mentioned them at all, which is bizzare. They decided this. And btw, I don’t agree with them doing this either.

 

[jm1980]

That ferocious record is part of it, how do people not see that! If she won San Jose and Cincy then they probably would’ve bumped her to like the #1 spot but they factored in the abysmal loss to Konta, ok loss to Petra along with the Wimbledon final run and instead of making her a top 16 or top 8 seed they just boosted her up one bar to a top 24 seed.

This subjective seeding is horsesh** no matter how you slice it

I guess it's good for Serena, but not so good for player(s) who were screwed out of their rightfully earned spots

Pregnancy isn’t the same as an injury and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Indeed it isn't. Pregnancy is a choice. Nobody chooses to be injured.

So do enlighten me: why should players be rewarded for taking time off the tour out of their own volition?

 

[Fabresque]

So ranking doesn’t matter? In that case Djokovic and Nadal should be top 2 seeds in whatever order and Federer should be 3-10 seed.

Can the USTA stop with this blatant favoritism?? “Fair decision”

 

[diggler]

Does it matter. Players 17-24 will compete in the 3rd round with opponents from 9-16. On the other hand, the 25-32 seeds is waiting in the 3rd round of the top 8. Serena was really prefered.

If this is correct, they only had to move her from 26 to 24. This also benefits the top 8. If you were a top 8 player, you don't play her in the 3rd round. The only player worse off is number 24.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer is bigger than serena anywhere.

Serena is bigger than Federer.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Other than a potential upgrade if a top-16 seed withdraws before the draw has been finalised - is there any really big advantage about being seeded 17th, rather than 26th?

I can't see it.