Wimbledon Seedings

[Flash O'Groove]

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.

The seeding system aim to prevent the creation of a draw with all the top players on the same side, leaving another side depleted from which will emerge a "weak" finalist, following a semi-final between two "weak players", etc.

At Wimbledon several top ranked players used to underperform a lot regarding their ranking, that was particularly true in the 90's with the surfaces specialist.

Look in june 1995 the top 8 was the following: 1) Agassi 2) Sampras 3) Muster 4) Becker 5) Chang 6) Ivanisevic 7) Kafelnikov 8) Ferreira.

If the seeds were awarded according to this ranking, you could realistically have a draw with Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker and Ferreira on one side, and Agassi, Muster, Chang and Kafelnikov on the other. The prospect of seeing Agasssi cruise trough the final to meet whoever survived from the other side...bof.

Now I agree that, especially in the 90's, it would probably have legitimate to have a similar system at Roland Garros, to prevent the best clay courters to meet too soon like it was often the case.

I think today it is a lot less important for both tournament because their isn't any more as much differences from surface to surface.

 

[Russeljones]

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.

The top 8 seeds have been fixed for a while now (since we knew Gulbis wasn't going to win RG).

 

[Warmaster]

Not to mention the biggest emphasis is still on the actual world ranking. It's not like they only look at grass results.

Brilliant system. Should be used for every tournament.

A combination of general ability (world ranking) + surface prowess is the best way. After all the whole purpose of seedings is to create balanced draws.

 

[objectivity]

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.

i thought there is surface homogenization, so how could clay be different from hard?

 

[gambitt]

In the days of fast grass, we would never see the likes of Ferrer making the QF 2 years in a row and Verdasco 1 set away from a SF (where he would have played Janowicz, so could have easily be in the final).

 

[Ralph]

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.

You don't fail to see, you fail to accept the logical reasons repeatedly explained in this thread.

 

[clayqueen]

Wimbledon stick to the WTA rankings for the girls, why does the same logic not apply?

 

[Steve0904]

Looks right to me.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

What a stupid system.

 

[gambitt]

Wimbledon stick to the WTA rankings for the girls, why does the same logic not apply?

Apart from grass experts like Serena, Pironkova and Lisicki, the surface in WTA doesn't seem to make much difference!

 

[tennis_pro]

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.

You want it changed NOW. Don't recall you crying about it 2 years ago when Nadal was making every Wimbledon final.

 

[Mustard]

You want it changed NOW. Don't recall you crying about it 2 years ago when Nadal was making every Wimbledon final.

I've been criticising it for years. I've mentioned 1996 and 2005 Wimbledons in this thread. In 2005, there was then world number 2, Hewitt, a former Wimbledon champion, seeded at number 3 and ending up in Federer's half of the draw. In 1996, the then world number 2, Muster, was seeded at number 7.

Nobody will ever convince me that these cases were fair and just.

 

[Federator]

That's the problem, you have a closed mind. No one can change that except you.

 

[veroniquem]

The question is: who do you think will be the tougher SF opponent this year? Fed or Murray? Which one would you pick Djoko and Nadal fans? (I'm surprised Wawa is 5th. Isn't Ferrer a better grass courter?)

 

[Federator]

The question is: who do you think will be the tougher SF opponent this year? Fed or Murray? Which one would you pick Djoko and Nadal fans? (I'm surprised Wawa is 5th. Isn't Ferrer a better grass courter?)

Djokovic would rather face Murray (despite last year's final) and Nadal would rather face Fed.

 

[Federator]

But it's all moot, Fed will likely be humbled in the QFs, he just doesn't have it anymore.

 

[veroniquem]

That means they'll both be hoping for Fed... It kind of makes sense at this point in time I guess.

 

[clayqueen]

Djokovic would rather face Murray (despite last year's final) and Nadal would rather face Fed.

I doubt Nadal would care whether he faces Murray or Fed should they all make it to the SF. Neither of them would want to face Nadal.

 

[Warmaster]

I've been criticising it for years. I've mentioned 1996 and 2005 Wimbledons in this thread. In 2005, there was then world number 2, Hewitt, a former Wimbledon champion, seeded at number 3 and ending up in Federer's half of the draw. In 1996, the then world number 2, Muster, was seeded at number 7.

Nobody will ever convince me that these cases were fair and just.

Now they are using a completely objective unbaised system that every player knows about in advance. How is that unfair? Want a better grass seeding? Play better on grass. It's that simple.

 

[tennis_pro]

I've been criticising it for years. I've mentioned 1996 and 2005 Wimbledons in this thread. In 2005, there was then world number 2, Hewitt, a former Wimbledon champion, seeded at number 3 and ending up in Federer's half of the draw. In 1996, the then world number 2, Muster, was seeded at number 7.

Nobody will ever convince me that these cases were fair and just.

If I remember correctly Muster was unable to win a single Wimbledon main draw match in his entire career, not sure it made a whole lot of difference to him. I don't care what his ranking was, he was completely useless on grass.

It sure mattered to the players who benefitted from the Wimbledon ranking system, though so that they wouldn't run into Sampras or some other great grass court player early in the tournament.

Organizers want the best possible match-ups as late in tournaments as possible. Let's assume the seedings is based on rankings alone - so that Wawrinka is seeded 3rd and Murray 5th (instead of the other way round). Assuming Nadal draws Murray as early as possible - would you prefer watching a Nadal-Murray match in the QF stage or the SF?

 

[veroniquem]

Retrospectively, maybe they should have a special seeding on clay too. The most outrageous seeding in maybe the entire history of tennis was Nadal not seeded in top 2 at RG last year. Now THAT affected the draw big time!
#1 and #2 who cares? One is at the top, the other bottom, they still can't meet until final, don't see a difference personally.

 

[tennis_pro]

Retrospectively, maybe they should have a special seeding on clay too. The most outrageous seeding in maybe the entire history of tennis was Nadal not seeded in top 2 at RG last year. Now THAT affected the draw big time!
#1 and #2 who cares? One is at the top, the other bottom, they still can't meet until final, don't see a difference personally.

On clay? Maybe on hard courts as well?

Nadal has 3 Masters, a Slam and a bunch of small ATP250/500 tournaments to build up his ranking properly. He was seeded 3rd at the FO a year ago cause he missed out on a ton of tournaments but that was only his problem.

 

[veroniquem]

On clay? Maybe on hard courts as well?

No, that, they really don't need to because hard court is the majority surface (by a landslide), so the regular rankings mostly reflect hard court results anyway.

 

[Warmaster]

Retrospectively, maybe they should have a special seeding on clay too. The most outrageous seeding in maybe the entire history of tennis was Nadal not seeded in top 2 at RG last year. Now THAT affected the draw big time!
#1 and #2 who cares? One is at the top, the other bottom, they still can't meet until final, don't see a difference personally.

Agreed. I'm in favour of doing it for all surfaces.

 

[Crisstti]

Retrospectively, maybe they should have a special seeding on clay too. The most outrageous seeding in maybe the entire history of tennis was Nadal not seeded in top 2 at RG last year. Now THAT affected the draw big time!
#1 and #2 who cares? One is at the top, the other bottom, they still can't meet until final, don't see a difference personally.

Yeah. Ferrer got to the final not having lost a set, but he hadn't really faced anyone great. Wouldn't oppose all slams using this system. It'd be better if all or none used it anyway.

On clay? Maybe on hard courts as well?

Nadal has 3 Masters, a Slam and a bunch of small ATP250/500 tournaments to build up his ranking properly. He was seeded 3rd at the FO a year ago cause he missed out on a ton of tournaments but that was only his problem.

Going by the idea that seeding is there to have the best match ups as the tournament goes on, Nadal should have been seeded in the top two. You saw how anti-climatic the final was.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I don't mind surface specific seeding, but there being lots of clay and HC tournaments is a weak argument for why it shouldn't be the case for the other Slams, for reasons that I already expressed very clearly (and for which nobody has offered a reasonable counter for yet).

Come at me.

post #40

And an additional point, which doesn't have to be the case always but is a danger and may undermine some players:

''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.''

 

[Crisstti]

I don't mind surface specific seeding, but there being lots of clay and HC tournaments is a weak argument for why it shouldn't be the case for the other Slams, for reasons that I already expressed very clearly (and for which nobody has offered a reasonable counter for yet).

Come at me.

post #40

And an additional point, which doesn't have to be the case always but is a danger and may undermine some players:

''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.''

No one has countered it because it was a really good argument

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Funny how Wawrinka could win Queens and still get seeded behind Murray.

 

[jhhachamp]

*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.

Great post, I was on the fence but I am absolutely convinced now.

 

[tennis_pro]

Going by the idea that seeding is there to have the best match ups as the tournament goes on, Nadal should have been seeded in the top two. You saw how anti-climatic the final was.

That was one odd year. The only player who could really trouble Nadal at the FO landed in his half but he could've just as easily been in the other half of the draw.

 

[jhhachamp]

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.

I don't think you can say it was wrong because there was an unbiased formula used. The fact is that those players were very close in the rankings and both had past success on grass. Roddick just had more success in the previous 2 years which pushed him ahead of Hewitt.

I actually might support going back further than 2 years. If that had been the case, Hewitt's more distant success at Wimbledon might have kept him ahead of Roddick in that year. Something like world ranking points + .8(last years grass results) + .6(2 years ago grass results) + .4(3 years ago grass results) + .2(4 years ago grass results) might be more fair. This might be seen as unfair from players who have been on tour less than 4 years though.

 

[mr_eko]

I'm a huge fan of Wimbledon for seeding based on grass courts results. You don't have to be the same as every other tournament.

 

[jhhachamp]

The problem is that grass court specialists currently do not have enough tournaments to gain a ranking representative of their ability on all surfaces. My opinion is that the tour on the whole should mirror the grand slams. If 50% of the majors are on hard courts, 50% of the total tournaments and points should be on hard courts. If 25% of the majors are on clay courts and grass courts respectively, 25% of the total tournaments and points should be on each of those surfaces.

The best solution is to simply add a longer grass court season so that the surface is actually properly represented in the schedule. This would involve changing the schedule and replacing hard court and clay tournaments with grass court tournaments.

Short of that, the best option is to create separate grass court rankings for use on grass court tournaments (which is what is currently done at Wimbledon).

 

[Mustard]

Or better still, Wimbledon can become like everybody else and seed according to world rankings.

 

[PrinceMoron]

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.

You are right, dig up the clay and lay down some turf. All grass and indoor carpet would suit me just fine.

 

[Ralph]

Or better still, Wimbledon can become like everybody else and seed according to world rankings.

I don't get you Mustard, you're just shouting the same thing whilst covering your ears. You've given an example of one year where it may not have worked, yet refuse to accept other examples where it makes sense.

If it were that much of a problem, the players themselves would complain.

Are they doing so?

Didn't think so.

 

[Crisstti]

That was one odd year. The only player who could really trouble Nadal at the FO landed in his half but he could've just as easily been in the other half of the draw.

Nevertheless, if you think seedings are to get the best matches the further into the tournament, then he should have been seeded in the top two. Otoh, if you think seedings are deserved by the players, they've earned their ranking so deserved the seeding and therefore the chance to do better at the tournament in question, then the overall ranking should be used.

I do wonder if the same people finding the Wimbledon seeding fair thought Rafa should have been seeded 1st or 2nd in RG 2013, or were they shouting about rigging the draws...

 

[tennis_pro]

Nevertheless, if you think seedings are to get the best matches the further into the tournament, then he should have been seeded in the top two. Otoh, if you think seedings are deserved by the players, they've earned their ranking so deserved the seeding and therefore the chance to do better at the tournament in question, then the overall ranking should be used.

I do wonder if the same people finding the Wimbledon seeding fair thought Rafa should have been seeded 1st or 2nd in RG 2013, or were they shouting about rigging the draws...

We're not going to change the seedings on clay to favor 2 players in the world, that's just riddiculous.

And why should Nadal receive a top seeding on clay in every tournament based on his achievements? If so, why isn't Sampras the no 1 seed at Wimbledon (or no 2 behind Federer)?

 

[Crisstti]

We're not going to change the seedings on clay to favor 2 players in the world, that's just riddiculous.

And why should Nadal receive a top seeding on clay in every tournament based on his achievements? If so, why isn't Sampras the no 1 seed at Wimbledon (or no 2 behind Federer)?

Again, if you think the purpose of seeding sis for the sake of having the best matches later in the tournament, then it's not ridiculous at all. Also Nadal's case in 2012 is just the most glaring, but there are other cases, as someone else mentioned, a player like Roddick having a high seed at RG.

 

[Chico]

Not that is matters much, but Djokovic deserves to be seeded #1.

A player who was eliminated in second and first round in previous two years doesn't deserve #1 at Wimbledon.

 

[FedFanBoy]

Why is Djoker seeded #1 when he was totally embarrassed by overrated Nadal-worshipper Murray last year? Do people think if Nadal and Djoker meet in in a final Nadal would pass up an opportunity to win Wimby #3? Djoker would choke again. His best chance is if Nadal loses early. Djoker barely scraped by an injured one slam wonder Del Po in the semis last year. LOL Not to mention he now has a choke complex against Nadal. He would need a cakedraw walk with old man Fed in the semis to win.

 

[Chico]

Why is Djoker seeded #1 when he was totally embarrassed by overrated Nadal-worshipper Murray last year? Do people think if Nadal and Djoker meet in in a final Nadal would pass up an opportunity to win Wimby #3? Djoker would choke again. His best chance is if Nadal loses early. Djoker barely scraped by an injured one slam wonder Del Po in the semis last year. LOL Not to mention he now has a choke complex against Nadal. He would need a cakedraw walk with old man Fed in the semis to win.

Because according to AELTC published ranking formula used for years now, that accounts current ATP ranking points plus points from grass tournaments in previous two years, Djokovic has the most points. It is simple math. Not sure what is not clear?

Noticed lots of irrational hate towards Novak from many new green members. Interesting. Remind us please which injured one slam wonders Nadal beat in Wimbledon previous two years? Rosol? Darcis?

 

[Noleberic123]

djokovic should be seeded #1 End thread