Thiem would be toast against certified servebot Raonic, plus he'd want nothing to do with Cilic on grass. Stan would be fine. Thiem as 8 seed would seed out with:
(but Daddy Tsonga a bit distracted these days
)
I can see what they've done now; they listed 100% for Y2 but only added 75%.Numbers look right to me. Look again.
It is 100% correct. They are doing 75% for points from two years ago. 100% back through Eastbourne last year which is Y1. It is very easy to see with Djoko's and Rafa's numbers.
Wasn't Roger 7th seed in 2002... he would have been 20 then... 21 after the championships
They should just go the whole hog and just count the grass court points for the last 2 years and forget about the world rankings so that Nadal wouldn't even qualify for the main draw and will have to play the qualifying rounds.
Wimbledon's top 4 seedings confirmed:
1 1 Andy Murray 3015.05.1987 1 18
9390
2000
720
11930.00
2 2 Novak Djokovic 3022.05.1987 4 16
5805
90
2000
7395.00
3 3 Roger Federer 3508.08.1981 5 14
5265
1220
1200
7385.00
4 4 Rafael Nadal 3103.06.1986 2 15
7285
0
45
7318.75
http://openerarankings.com/home?Race=3
The same kind of non logic could be applied to Federer being seeded only 3rd. He is the most decorated grass court and Wimbledon champion of them all...
Yeah, all those players that won it while playing with a seeding that is below their current level on clay and hard!
That will teach the Wimbledon organisers!
The Bamos a la playa Brigade at its finest.
The grass is almost extinct and the current system takes this into account.
It creates incentive for the players to put effort not only at Wimbledon, but also at all the other available events consistently and honours the effort made at Wimbledon itself.
It is not that changes to the system cannot be made. It is that mostly they are dumb in the form that they are presented.
It is not a coincidence that most of them come from a group of self-serving ignorant individuals.
Really?
There is no perfect way of determining the seeds and the current system takes into account one of the biggest problems concerning the grass at the moment, so that is where I am coming from.
That dual champion and 5 times finalist hasn't done anything on grass for several years now, so why should he be favoured just because he used to be good on grass?
There is a lot of failed logic here.
You defend the current ranking of the player as the metric by which the seeding at Wimbledon should ultimately be decided.
But, why is the current ranking not subject to your criticism?
For example I could say that it skews the ranking heavily in favour of the players that excell on clay and HC.
Why aren't you criticising that flaw and instead criticise Wimbledon's system which is much more relevant to Wimbledon and the grass tennis itself?
The results show that something has changed and getting privileged treatment is more in the vein of protecting the players that already should have been able to secure their fate as they have all the resources for that.
Why don't they apply the same formula to the WTA? Frankly, I don't think it stops anyone from winning the title because the matches have to be played and if you are playing well enough to win the title you should be able to beat everyone in no particular order.Facepalm.
How many M1000 are there on clay compared to grass?
How many points from clay tournaments are available for the players compared to grass?
And why should Federer receive such treatment?
He could have used his time to improve his game when the other players on tour didn't have that luxury and had to play on grass to secure their ranking for Wimbledon.
It is double unfair for everybody not named Federer in that scenario.
As unlikely your scenario as it is I presented a valid argument why it would not be OK for Federer to receive such treatment.
Please, have the courtesy to argue my points and not go on like nothing has been said.
My argument was not exclusively about grass.
And anyone who has observed the development of players long enough would know that it takes an awful lot of time to develop changes in one's game.
Changes that are much easier when not combined with the regular grind on the tour.
Should I point at the most obvious recent example or you will spare me the pain of pointing at obvious things?
Also, "no" that is not how those changes occur. That is how they are honed to become useful.
For the second time, I'm not bothered about the Wimbledon formula. If Rafa plays well he'll win the trophy, if he doesn't he won't. It's that simple.You didn't answer my two questions.
Whatever they decided for the WTA is completely irrelevant. For example they play 2/3 sets. Should the men also get that?
Moaning is not the word you are looking for. I have said it makes no difference where players are seeded if they are good enough to win the title.
OK, so I'm moaning. What are you going to do about it? Sue me?Yet you have presented no viable arguments as to why the system is bad or worse than anything else.
In fact you tried to argue that the system in place is in fact bad, but unsurprisingly, considering your ignorance, you have not been able to defend whatever you were trying to say.
So you are moaning.
Fair enough.After reading this and comparing it to your previous posts I think that it is clear that you have mental issues.
I know two very prominent ones that did just recently.
It also has been argued since forever that, because of commercial interests, the tour schedule has been overloaded and that IMO might have contributed to the next gen not being able to develop whatever talent they have! The tour schedule at the moment is helping the current veterans to have the edge in that regard.
It is not the load of the schedule itself. Thiem plays a lot more than he "has" to.
It is the lack of flexibility that is the problem.
Whether players come back and play like Federer is a different matter altogether, but they should be able to pick their schedule the way they see fit for their personal development.
I can bet all my worldly goods that if Roger and Rafa are seeded 3 & 4 they will be on opposite sides of the draw.
