Wimbledon Seedings

[marc45]

looks like there's going to be movement...

http://tennis.si.com/2014/06/11/wimbledon-seeds-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-andy-murray/

Rafael Nadal may be the No. 1 player in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be the No. 1 seed at Wimbledon.

The All England Club doesn’t merely adhere to the ATP Tour rankings to determine the 32 seeds. Instead, Wimbledon uses a formula — which is applied only for the men — that rewards players for their grass-court achievements. Simon Cambers of The Tennis Space has crunched the numbers to conclude the following for this year’s tournament: Novak Djokovic, who is ranked No. 2, will be the top seed.


Here is how the top five seeds shape up, according to Chambers:

1. Novak Djokovic (ATP ranking: 2)
2. Rafael Nadal (1)
3. Andy Murray (5)
4. Roger Federer (4)
5. Stan Wawrinka (3)

The All England Club’s seeding formula takes a player’s ATP ranking as of June 16 (the week before Wimbledon), adds all points earned on grass in the previous 12 months and includes 75 percent of points earned from his best grass-court event in the 12 months before that. (The Tennis Space uses ATP rankings as of June 9 and notes that this week’s results at grass-court tune-ups won’t alter the projected seedings.)

This system explains Murray’s anticipated bump from No. 5 in the ATP rankings to No. 3 seed at the third major of the year: He won Wimbledon and Queen’s Club last season and made the Wimbledon final in 2012. A No. 3 seed is significant for Murray, who won’t have to face a top four player in the quarterfinals.

Wimbledon plans to announce the seeds next Wednesday. The tournament starts on June 23.

 

[tacou]

Huge for Muzza

 

[Warmaster]

This is one of the many reasons Wimbledon is great. Murray deserves to be seeded above Wawrinka on grass.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Why can't they do a normal seeding according to rankings? I never understood that. A player earns his rank, so he should get seeded accordingly.

 

[JMR]

Why can't they do a normal seeding according to rankings? I never understood that.

What do you mean that you don't understand it? It's explained above, and at greater length in many other easily available sources. Wimbledon believes that tennis on grass is different enough from tennis on hard courts and clay that the seedings should reflect the players' grass court ability. Wimbledon is free to adjust the seedings that way because it's not bound by ATP or WTA rules on the subject. You may not agree with the policy, but it's not hard to understand.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

What do you mean that you don't understand it? It's explained above, and at greater length in many other easily available sources. Wimbledon believes that tennis on grass is different enough from tennis on hard courts and clay that the seedings should reflect the players' grass court ability. Wimbledon is free to adjust the seedings that way because it's not bound by ATP or WTA rules on the subject. You may not agree with the policy, but it's not hard to understand.

Surgical.

10

 

[Graf=GOAT]

What do you mean that you don't understand it? It's explained above, and at greater length in many other easily available sources. Wimbledon believes that tennis on grass is different enough from tennis on hard courts and clay that the seedings should reflect the players' grass court ability. Wimbledon is free to adjust the seedings that way because it's not bound by ATP or WTA rules on the subject. You may not agree with the policy, but it's not hard to understand.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I understand the seeding system, I don't understand why they need to deviate from the standard seeding rules.

I mean, clay game is completely different from hard courts as well and they still follow the normal seeding system. For example, Murray doesn't deserve top 10 seeding in French (especially after what he pulled in semis) and yet he was protected by his rank every time.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I understand the seeding system, I don't understand why they need to deviate from the standard seeding rules.

I mean, clay game is completely different from hard courts as well and they still follow the normal seeding system. For example, Murray doesn't deserve top 10 seeding in French (especially after what he pulled in semis) and yet he was protected by his rank every time.

They maybe should. Look what happened when Roddick was seeded #2 at RG.

 

[Mustard]

I wish Wimbledon would come into the modern world and seed according to world rankings like other tournaments. To think that when some players threatened a Wimbledon boycott in 2001, the All England Club decided to go up to 32 seeds instead as a way of heading off the rebellion. 32 seeds was then replicated at the other majors.

 

[JMR]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I understand the seeding system, I don't understand why they need to deviate from the standard seeding rules.

I mean, clay game is completely different from hard courts as well and they still follow the normal seeding system. For example, Murray doesn't deserve top 10 seeding in French (especially after what he pulled in semis) and yet he was protected by his rank every time.

There are lots of clay tournaments compared to grass. Thus, a player's general ranking already reflects his clay ability to a reasonable extent. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but it does well enough for the folks at Roland Garros not to have to spend time tinkering with seedings. In contrast, the grass "tour" is so limited that very little of a player's ranking is attributable to grass results. Hence, Wimbledon's practice of applying a multiplier to those results.

 

[batz]

I wish Wimbledon would come into the modern world and seed according to world rankings like other tournaments. To think that when some players threatened a Wimbledon boycott in 2001, the All England Club decided to go up to 32 seeds instead as a way of heading off the rebellion. 32 seeds was then replicated at the other majors.

*Sigh* How many times does it have to be explained?

In every other slam, a player's record on that surface is well represented in his ranking points total - so there is no need to adjust for surface when seeding.

This is absolutely not the case for Wimbledon, as unlike the other surfaces, there aren't 4 grass masters series and 5 grass 500 events that help make up a player's ranking points total.

That is why Wimbledon applies its completely unbiased, purely grass performance based, seedings formula. It's nothing to do with 'coming into the modern world' and everything to do with ensuring a player's grass performance is represented in his seeding in the same way that it is at other slams.

 

[tennisaddict]

*Sigh* How many times does it have to be explained?

In every other slam, a player's record on that surface is well represented in his ranking points total - so there is no need to adjust for surface when seeding.

This is absolutely not the case for Wimbledon, as unlike the other surfaces, there aren't 4 grass masters series and 5 grass 500 events that help make up a player's ranking points total.

That is why Wimbledon applies its completely unbiased, purely grass performance based, seedings formula.

/ thread.

 

[Mustard]

*Sigh* How many times does it have to be explained?

I don't want it explained. I want it changed. We don't have rankings according to different surfaces in tennis, just world rankings based on the previous 52 weeks' results on all surfaces.

 

[tennisaddict]

I don't want it explained. I want it changed. We don't have rankings according to different surfaces in tennis, just world rankings based on the previous 52 weeks' results on all surfaces.

Are you saying this because they are making Wimbledon also like clay ?

How hard it is to understand that grass court is played just the 3 weeks of the year ?

 

[Mustard]

Are you saying this because they are making Wimbledon also like clay ?

How hard it is to understand that grass court is played just the 3 weeks of the year ?

I'm saying that there are the world rankings, based on every player's results on all surfaces from the previous 52 weeks at all times. There is a not a system of having different world rankings for each of the different surfaces, so Wimbledon shouldn't be using such a seeding formula.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I'm saying that there are the world rankings, based on every player's results on all surfaces from the previous 52 weeks at all times. There is a not a system of having different world rankings for each of the different surfaces, so Wimbledon shouldn't be using such a seeding formula.

It's Wimbledon's tournament. They can do whatever they want. Feel free to boycott the event like the players threatened to.

I think most people would consider their seeding system more logical than other majors'. And it's especially important that they use it since grass offers so few ranking points.

 

[tennisaddict]

I'm saying that there are the world rankings, based on every player's results on all surfaces from the previous 52 weeks at all times. There is a not a system of having different world rankings for each of the different surfaces, so Wimbledon shouldn't be using such a seeding formula.

if such is the case why doesnt Nadal have 9 hard court majors out of 14 ?

 

[tacou]

I don't want it explained. I want it changed. We don't have rankings according to different surfaces in tennis, just world rankings based on the previous 52 weeks' results on all surfaces.

Yes we do. That's what this thread is about.


A player can play a maximum of 5 weeks on grass, and that is if they win Queens, Eastbourne, Wimbledon in consecutive weeks before hopping on a plane to good ole New Port Rhode Island.

In reality, only 1-2 tournaments are played on grass for each player. It would be silly to pretend that if 33% of the year was played on grass courts the rankings wouldn't look very, very different. That's all Wimbledon is accounting for.

 

[Mustard]

Yes we do. That's what this thread is about.

We have 1 set of world rankings, taking all results from all surfaces in the previous 52 weeks into account. Every tournament except Wimbledon seeds according to these world rankings. The US Open in 1996 did what Wimbledon do for one year only, and Kafelnikov pulled out of the tournament in protest.

In 2001, when a Wimbledon boycott was threatened over the seeding issue by some players, Wimbledon increased the number of seeds from 16 to 32 as a way of lessening criticism. The other majors then followed suit in going up to 32 seeds, which changed the dynamics of the draws in some ways.

 

[tacou]

We have 1 set of world rankings, taking all results from all surfaces in the previous 52 weeks into account. Every tournament except Wimbledon seeds according to these world rankings. The US Open in 1996 did what Wimbledon do for one year only, and Kafelnikov pulled out of the tournament in protest.

In 2001, when a Wimbledon boycott was threatened over the seeding issue by some players, Wimbledon increased the number of seeds from 16 to 32 as a way of lessening criticism. The other majors then followed suit in going up to 32 seeds, which changed the dynamics of the draws in some ways.

I'm aware of all this, but we have world rankings and then we have Wimbledon's rankings, so there are indeed multiple rankings being used throughout the year.

Keep in mind that none of the grand slams are obligated to follow the ATP rankings at all.

I'm not sure if you are a big Wawrinka fan or something, but it makes total sense. Wimbledon is the "biggest" tournament of the year, yet there is absolutely no prep time leading into it. To account for this, Wimbledon recognizes players who have excelled on grass over the last 18 months (which again, is mostly just their past two Wimbledon performances).

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I'm aware of all this, but we have world rankings and then we have Wimbledon's rankings, so there are indeed multiple rankings being used throughout the year.

Keep in mind that none of the grand slams are obligated to follow the ATP rankings at all.

I'm not sure if you are a big Wawrinka fan or something, but it makes total sense. Wimbledon is the "biggest" tournament of the year, yet there is absolutely no prep time leading into it. To account for this, Wimbledon recognizes players who have excelled on grass over the last 18 months (which again, is mostly just their past two Wimbledon performances).

Probably because he's a Muster (and general clay courter) fan.

FYI, Muster won RG and ended the year ranked as high as 3. But he never in his entire life won a single match at Wimbledon. Could you imagine if someone like that was seeded #3 at Wimbledon?

 

[Mustard]

Probably because he's a Muster (and general clay courter) fan.

FYI, Muster won RG and ended the year ranked as high as 3. But he never in his entire life won a single match at Wimbledon. Could you imagine if someone like that was seeded #3 at Wimbledon?

Muster's record at Wimbledon has got sod all to do with it.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The Wimbledon system does seem to be fair overall, all points considered.

 

[marc45]

There are lots of clay tournaments compared to grass. Thus, a player's general ranking already reflects his clay ability to a reasonable extent. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but it does well enough for the folks at Roland Garros not to have to spend time tinkering with seedings. In contrast, the grass "tour" is so limited that very little of a player's ranking is attributable to grass results. Hence, Wimbledon's practice of applying a multiplier to those results.

good point...they'll have some more data when the extra week of grass season starts next year

 

[batz]

I'm aware of all this, but we have world rankings and then we have Wimbledon's rankings, so there are indeed multiple rankings being used throughout the year.

Keep in mind that none of the grand slams are obligated to follow the ATP rankings at all.

I'm not sure if you are a big Wawrinka fan or something, but it makes total sense. Wimbledon is the "biggest" tournament of the year, yet there is absolutely no prep time leading into it. To account for this, Wimbledon recognizes players who have excelled on grass over the last 18 months (which again, is mostly just their past two Wimbledon performances).

A big Rafa fan.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes, JMR made the striking point which was then followed up by others. Love his work.

 

[SQA333]

Inb4 Nadal gets Berdych and Federer in his half for the ultimate cake draw.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Inb4 Nadal gets Berdych and Federer in his half for the ultimate cake draw.

All 4 QF opponents are weak.

Berdych
Wawrinka
Ferrer
Raonic

Raonic, Ferrer, Wawrinka all weak on grass. And I don't expect much from Berdych either.

Nadal no good on grass anymore. Federer old. Murray still out of form IMO. Grass Novak's worst surface.

That's why I think someone outside of the top 10 could win this year.

 

[Mainad]

I'm saying that there are the world rankings, based on every player's results on all surfaces from the previous 52 weeks at all times. There is a not a system of having different world rankings for each of the different surfaces, so Wimbledon shouldn't be using such a seeding formula.

But there are so many other tournaments on the other 2 surfaces! Apart from Wimbledon, there are only 5 small 250 grass tournaments in the season. It's because grass is so under-represented as a surface compared to clay and hardcourt that Wimbledon feels justified in making its own seeding arrangements based on previous performance on grass. I can understand that logic!

 

[tacou]

But there are so many other tournaments on the other 2 surfaces! Apart from Wimbledon, there are only 5 small 250 grass tournaments in the season. It's because grass is so under-represented as a surface compared to clay and hardcourt that Wimbledon feels justified in making its own seeding arrangements based on previous performance on grass. I can understand that logic!

Don't forget that two occur in pairs, and Newport is the week after Wimbledon, so it's not at all like you can play 5 or 6 in a year.

I wonder if Newport could support another 250 this week, right after FO. Wouldn't gather a very strong field, but it'd be interesting in some ways..

 

[Mustard]

But there are so many other tournaments on the other 2 surfaces! Apart from Wimbledon, there are only 5 small 250 grass tournaments in the season. It's because grass is so under-represented as a surface compared to clay and hardcourt that Wimbledon feels justified in making its own seeding arrangements based on previous performance on grass. I can understand that logic!

Nadal hasn't always been seeded number 1 at the French Open, and he's been the best player on clay for years. The fact is that tennis doesn't have different official rankings for each different surface, but has 1 set of overall official world rankings that covers all tournaments on tour.

Wimbledon goes against seeding according to the world rankings. One of the most scandalous was in 2005, when the then world number 2 and a former Wimbledon champion, Hewitt, was seeded at number 3 and ended up in Federer's half of the draw. At the same tournament, Roddick, then world number 4, was seeded at number 2. That was very wrong.

In 1996, Muster was world number 2, and was only given the number 7 seed!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal hasn't always been seeded number 1 at the French Open, and he's been the best player on clay for years. The fact is that tennis doesn't have different official rankings for each different surface, but has 1 set of overall official world rankings that covers all tournaments on tour.

Wimbledon goes against seeding according to the world rankings. One of the most scandalous was in 2005, when the then world number 2 and a former Wimbledon champion, Hewitt, was seeded at number 3 and ended up in Federer's half of the draw. At the same tournament, Roddick, then world number 4, was seeded at number 2. That was very wrong.

In 1996, Muster was world number 2, and was only given the number 7 seed!

First of all your memory really is incredible Mustard! Secondly, don't you think it was right that Muster was only seeded 7 given that he never even won a match at Wimbledon?!!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Good to see Murray where he belongs.

 

[Bud]

if such is the case why doesnt Nadal have 9 hard court majors out of 14 ?

9 FO majors stand above 9 HC majors.

 

[Mustard]

First of all your memory really is incredible Mustard! Secondly, don't you think it was right that Muster was only seeded 7 given that he never even won a match at Wimbledon?!!

Muster should have been the number 2 seed at 1996 Wimbledon. At the 1995 French Open, Muster was the number 5 seed, even as he was on a 28 match winning streak on clay going into the event. Muster himself said after being seeded at number 7 for 1996 Wimbledon that all tennis tournaments should seed according to the world rankings or there should be different rankings for the different surfaces, but not the mish-mash mess of Wimbledon's formula.

The US Open experimented with how they seeded that same year in 1996 amidst much controversy. Muster again had his seeding downgraded, as a world number 2 who was seeded at number 3. The biggest loser was world number 4 and 1996 French Open champion, Kafelnikov, being seeded at number 7. Kafelnikov was so angered that he pulled out of the tournament in protest.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Scandal, Outrage, and so on.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Muster should have been the number 2 seed at 1996 Wimbledon. At the 1995 French Open, Muster was the number 5 seed, even as he was on a 28 match winning streak on clay going into the event. Muster himself said after being seeded at number 7 for 1996 Wimbledon that all tennis tournaments should seed according to the world rankings or there should be different rankings for the different surfaces, but not the mish-mash mess of Wimbledon's formula.

The US Open experimented with how they seeded that same year in 1996 amidst much controversy. Muster again had his seeding downgraded, as a world number 2 who was seeded at number 3. The biggest loser was world number 4 and 1996 French Open champion, Kafelnikov, being seeded at number 7. Kafelnikov was so angered that he pulled out of the tournament in protest.

Well I do kind of agree that it would be simpler to just seed by your world ranking but at the end of the day Wimbledon do have their own system so it's understandable that they would seed Muster lower given his poor grass record.

And I'm shocked that Kafelnikov pulled out of the US Open:shock: I can't even remember that happening, he must've been really angry to do something that extreme.

 

[Mustard]

I fail to see why Wimbledon should seed differently to every other tournament on the tour, by going on grass-court results, when tennis has never had separate official world rankings according to different surfaces.

 

[Mustard]

Well I do kind of agree that it would be simpler to just seed by your world ranking but at the end of the day Wimbledon do have their own system so it's understandable that they would seed Muster lower given his poor grass record.

But the French Open didn't seed Muster higher in 1995 just because he had dominated on clay going into the event.

And I'm shocked that Kafelnikov pulled out of the US Open:shock: I can't even remember that happening, he must've been really angry to do something that extreme.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/25/sports/an-angry-kafelnikov-withdraws-from-open.html

Here's the New York Times article about it.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

On the whole, I'm siding with Mustard.

Just because there are lots of hard and clay court events to get ranking points, and they still both contribute to the overall ranking of a player. As such, for example: a player might do excellently on clay and get most of their ranking points there and still be seeded very high for the US Open -- this undermines the argument that it's fine for i.e. the US Open to not have its own seeding system due to there being enough HC tournaments, because for some players the impact of their clay court results is so big that it becomes relatively meaningless how well they do on HC's in their run up to the US Open.

It should probably be rankings by surface or just one set of overall rankings.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Especially for the grass season, there are not many events for players to prove themselves, so in a sense it's hard to actually formulate an accurate and honest system for grass, where as HC and clay in a surface dependent ranking system would rely on thorough and therefore trustworthy (or trust-worthier) examination due to the much larger tournament pools.

 

[tennisaddict]

Wimbledon seedings have history behind it.. Folks are forgetting so soon that it is not long before the Spaniards would Win / make Finals and SF of FO, have a great ranking , yet stink big time at grass that they would skip Wimbledon.

Imagine top 10 ranked player at Wimbledon skipping the tournament because they suck on grass ! Rightfully Wimbledon factors in grass performance.

If FO wants to do that, they could as well. But it is absolutely right that Wimbledon does this when there is just ONE prep tournament.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Wimbledon seedings have history behind it.. Folks are forgetting so soon that it is not long before the Spaniards would Win / make Finals and SF, have a great ranking , yet stink big time at grass that they would skip Wimbledon.

Imagine top 10 ranked player at Wimbledon skipping the tournament because he sucks on grass ! Rightfully Wimbledon factors in grass performance.

If FO wants to do that, they could as well. But it is absolutely right that Wimbledon does this when there is just ONE prep tournament.

Argentine players skipped Wimbledon too.

 

[Bertie B]

Wimbledon goes against seeding according to the world rankings. One of the most scandalous was in 2005, when the then world number 2 and a former Wimbledon champion, Hewitt, was seeded at number 3 and ended up in Federer's half of the draw. At the same tournament, Roddick, then world number 4, was seeded at number 2. That was very wrong.

Poetic!!!

Why didn't he Vicht & Come-On his way out of that one?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Poetic!!!

Why didn't he Vicht & Come-On his way out of that one?

Next major predictions, please?

 

[tacou]

meaningless how well they do on HC's in their run up to the US Open.

It should probably be rankings by surface or just one set of overall rankings.

This is like playing in the neighbor's back yard. You play by their rules. In this case, those rules are slightly different and make perfect sense.

 

[alpinenut]

Nole, Nadal, Murray, Fed, Stan. If you were a bookmaker isn't that how you would rank them by probability to win? That's how I would. I've always thought that's what seedings should represent, who has the best chance to win.

 

[dannythomas]

I really don't think there is much difference now between the pace of the courts at Wimbledon and the 2 hard court slams. They slowed the surface down, ironically , during the years Henman was trying to win with a total serve volley game ! The main difference is really the footing can get slippery as we saw last year with all the injuries. These days you just can't see a serve volleyer winning there. Though mixing it in here and there will still help those who can do it.
If any surface is different it has to be the French. The struggle against the top spin merchants , not just Nadal, means there are only 2 or 3 realistic challengers and it would be difficult for Murray or Federer to win there even if Nadal was out. So if any slam should have different seeding it should in my view be Roland Garros.

 

[kOaMaster]

The seeding in wimbledon is makes sense - I don't see why it should change. There are enough "weird" regulations in tennis, this is certainly not one of them I haven't heard players complaining about.

Just because of "equalities" sake I wouldn't want it to change. Grass has by far the fewest tournaments so I don't care when they have a different seeding system.

Nole, Nadal, Murray, Fed, Stan. If you were a bookmaker isn't that how you would rank them by probability to win? That's how I would. I've always thought that's what seedings should represent, who has the best chance to win.

Exactly.

 

[EsteL]

I always wonder why every tournament does not follow a separate seeding system like Wimbledon; emphasizing more on a player's past performance in the said tournament and on similar courts.

1) A player's motivation and his playing level and by extension his chances of winning, definitely depend upon the type of court and the player's history in a tournament, so why should the seeding not reflect this?

2) There are glaring examples of how rankings-based seeding can be unjust at times, but as far as I know, there is no complain against Wimbledon's seeding system. A separate seeding system in my opinion can only do good.

3) Such seeding system could give us some exciting match-ups and reduce the monotony of similar draws across all tournaments. It also has the potential of making players outside top-8 more relevant during tournaments and in a way rewarding and motivating them for performing better in the said tournament.