Wimbledon seeds announced - Serena Williams at #25.

Is this the right decision

  • Yes - good choice of spot

  • No - should've been unseeded

  • No - should be ranked higher


Results are only viewable after voting.

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Bad decision from Wimbledon but time for the WTA to make the rankings based on a 2 year cycle, then women who get pregnant, or injured can hold some ground. Williams getting special treatment that is the norm and how the game has suffered.
Special treatment? How many qualifying rounds did Sharapova played when she returned from suspension?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
This just shows you that when you are the cash cow for either tour, ATP or WTA, you will get special treatment. If you are a Federer fan, you really have no room to be critical of this decision because he gets preferential treatment as well. Nadal only gets it on a smaller scale like deciding who can umpire his matches. I don't agree with giving this treatment to Serena nor do I agree with it when they do it for Federer, and feel that other women that had babies didn't get the benefit of the doubt. If you didn't do it for Azarenka then it shouldn't be done for Serena. Yet this is the way it is when you are the premier name in the sport.
 

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
This just shows you that when you are the cash cow for either tour, ATP or WTA, you will get special treatment. If you are a Federer fan, you really have no room to be critical of this decision because he gets preferential treatment as well. Nadal only gets it on a smaller scale like deciding who can umpire his matches. I don't agree with giving this treatment to Serena nor do I agree with it when they do it for Federer, and feel that other women that had babies didn't get the benefit of the doubt. If you didn't do it for Azarenka then it shouldn't be done for Serena. Yet this is the way it is when you are the premier name in the sport.
I am not sure what you are on about Federer special treatment. Or you are another of those roof closed conspiracy followers?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I am not sure what you are on about Federer special treatment. Or you are another of those roof closed conspiracy followers?
Fed gets preferential treatment at Wimbledon with center Court assignment

Forget tht fact that he has had to deal with getting scheduled always as the last match so tournament organizers can milk his presence
 

VaporDude95

Banned
Ironic considering my post was open to interpretation whereas you literally reduced it to the only two interpretations your diminutive brain could infer.

A video I recommend for you

How exactly was it “open to interpretation”? It was less of my diminutive brain and more of your diminutive viewpoint
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I never said Azarenka didn't play. I said she never really returned to tennis.

Maybe they should have turned their attention to the issue last year.

And maybe they did in private and rejected any change to her seeding based on perceived form.

But fortunately they have this year.

It's incontestable that Serena's level of play is sponge-worthy despite her ranking.

Whether Azarenka's was is a different story.
Azarenka did play Wimledon 2017. What the heck are you talking ?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I never said Azarenka didn't play. I said she never really returned to tennis.

Maybe they should have turned their attention to the issue last year.

And maybe they did in private and rejected any change to her seeding based on perceived form.

But fortunately they have this year.

It's incontestable that Serena's level of play is sponge-worthy despite her ranking.

Whether Azarenka's was is a different story.
So what exactly has Serena played - IW, Miami and FO.?

Vika reached R4 and lost to Halep . So she did better than what was expected from a 25th seed
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I am not sure what you are on about Federer special treatment. Or you are another of those roof closed conspiracy followers?
Federer played almost every match this year in the evening session on Rod Laver. He only had 1 match where he played in the day session which was the last match on Rod Laver. He basically said he makes requests on the scheduling so it's clear they grant him what he wants. This isn't the first time the Aussie has been called out for this since back in 2013 the British press reported that Murray's camp complained about this. Murray had played 4/5 of his matches before the SF in the day session and Federer played 4/5 of his in the night session on Rod Laver. Also, the roof shouldn't have been closed since the women played with it open and it's an outdoor tournament.

At Wimbledon, Federer has not played a match off Centre Court since the QF in 2015. You wanna know where Sampras, 7 time champ, played his last match at Wimbledon? On Court 2. Sampras also played 2 matches in 2001 on Court 1. So yes Federer definitely gets preferential treatment that other players and notably other legends before him did not get.
 

SQA333

Hall of Fame
Actually, the seeding formula they use for Wimbledon for the men's side uses 2017-18 grass points + 75% of best 2016-17 grass tournament.

I think it's entirely possible that they've applied the men's formula on Serena as a special case.
Serena won Wimbledon 2016, so if they implemented this discretionary change, that would give her 2000*0.75 = 1500 additional points. (No points earned in the following grass season)

So her adjusted pts total goes from 315 to 1,815. The rest of the seedings follow the WTA ranking list, and thus 1,815 pts puts her at #25.
Nope. I’m pretty sure they were certain on placing her at 24, but because Sharapova was already there they slotted her at 25 for diplomacy’s sake. If any other player were at 24, you can bet your top dollar she would be bumped.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
Nope. I’m pretty sure they were certain on placing her at 24, but because Sharapova was already there they slotted her at 25 for diplomacy’s sake. If any other player were at 24, you can bet your top dollar she would be bumped.
Yup. Basically anywhere above 24 would be political.
 

TennisBro

Semi-Pro
Well you can. You can make a judgement from her most recent tournament only 3 weeks ago that Serena is easily capable of Top 20 tennis but her fitness is still questionable.

I actually don't care about her form.

If you are Director of Finance and you go on maternity leave, you don't return as a junior accounts clerk, you return as Director of Finance.

It doesn't matter even if the person who covered for you was doing a better job, you return to your same position at the same level with the same conditions.

I see no reason why tennis should not be the same. You left as World No. 1. You return as World No. 1.

That this good practice did not happen for Clijsters or Azarenka is no argument for it not starting now if it is the right thing to do.

In my opinion, it is.
Apples and Oranges. D of F don't get ranking points for their performances but employment agreements. WTA/ATP players don't get employment agreements but ranking points. In both of the examples suggested, there are performance evaluation as well as legal agreements. Positions in companies or public offices aren't the ones of the athletes who don't sign agreements to be at the top but work their way to get there. What agreements the WTA/ATP have for their competitors would be interesting to have a look at.
 

TennisBro

Semi-Pro
The Wimbledon organisers reserve the right to change the seeds in the women's competition in order to achieve a balanced competition.

And that is what they have done.

They have an agreement with the ATP to seed the same 32 as the rankings, but not necessarily in the same order and so Federer is no. 1 seed.

And hence he robbed Nadal, according to the logic around here.
This is a really good point. Now, do the organizers have the same kind of agreement with the WTA?
 

Soianka

Hall of Fame
She should have been seeded number 1 and Venus should be seeded higher considering they won the tournament a combined 12 times with Venus being a finalist last year. I seem to remember in the past that Wimbledon was the only slam that would take into account a player's past performance at that tournament and seed players higher than their ranking.
 

TennisBro

Semi-Pro
She should have been seeded number 1 and Venus should be seeded higher considering they won the tournament a combined 12 times ....
Hypothetically, returning Navratilova, Graff, Davenport, Mauresmo and Bartolli at the same time would really mix up the draw at Wimbledon given what should be according to your suggestion there. I remember Martina doing exactly that on her old knees a while back but I can't imagine the fine army of old women marching down the green grass in front of all the hard working young talented women in top ranking positions. Anyhow, when we say what it should be or not, we ought to think of all the consequences more than profits and entitlements. The rankings are well deserved for the CURRENT performances rather than overall historical ones which I would like to believe is in the agreement with all the WTA and ATP players there.

PS The WTA/ATP punishes players for not delivering their blood samples etc and so the players associations need to sanction themselves for not living up to their promises (in this case the women's tennis association it is)
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon came to an agreement with the ATP to accept the men's ranking for its seeds and only change the order based on a grass formula.

Otherwise they might have decided differently.
How is this fair?????

If so same should apply to Andy Murray and Stan Warinka.

Murray has won 2 wimbledons and had a hip surgery. Should aslo be seeded if that is the criteria.
 

kOaMaster

Hall of Fame
Before people answer or vote, they should consider this posting, which explains the situation perfectly well:
Actually, the seeding formula they use for Wimbledon for the men's side uses 2017-18 grass points + 75% of best 2016-17 grass tournament.
I think it's entirely possible that they've applied the men's formula on Serena as a special case.
Serena won Wimbledon 2016, so if they implemented this discretionary change, that would give her 2000*0.75 = 1500 additional points. (No points earned in the following grass season)
So her adjusted pts total goes from 315 to 1,815. The rest of the seedings follow the WTA ranking list, and thus 1,815 pts puts her at #25.
That's exactly what happened in this case, has barely anything to do with pregnancy. Simple and useful. It's also completely according to the rules that have been enforced for years:
http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/seeds.html

Ladies' Seeding
The seeding order follows the WTA ranking list, except where in the opinion of the committee, a change is necessary to produce a balanced draw. In 2017, there were no changes.
IMO, Wimbledon should apply this kind of seeding for Ladies & Gentlemen Championships in the future.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Now that we've established that preferential treatment is acceptable, can Nadal please get a 3rd serve cause we all know a Fedal final would be box office?
May not be a bad idea.

Could save a lot of time.

As Nadal is serving triple faults the other guy has enough time for his strategic medical massage.

Could work.
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
My view is it should. In 2018 women should not have to make a choice to sacrifice everything they have worked for if they choose to have a child. Men are not forced to make that choice when they become fathers, neither should women when they choose to become mothers.

Sport is in the stone age. Every tiny step forward helps (like today) but it has a long way to go in terms of gender equality.
Tennis players work for themselves and not the Atp or Wta. They should then be judged the same way other people who also work for themselves.
I think the decision on Serena was a good one...if only it wasn't to the detriment of Cibulkova.
 

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
Federer played almost every match this year in the evening session on Rod Laver. He only had 1 match where he played in the day session which was the last match on Rod Laver. He basically said he makes requests on the scheduling so it's clear they grant him what he wants. This isn't the first time the Aussie has been called out for this since back in 2013 the British press reported that Murray's camp complained about this. Murray had played 4/5 of his matches before the SF in the day session and Federer played 4/5 of his in the night session on Rod Laver. Also, the roof shouldn't have been closed since the women played with it open and it's an outdoor tournament.

At Wimbledon, Federer has not played a match off Centre Court since the QF in 2015. You wanna know where Sampras, 7 time champ, played his last match at Wimbledon? On Court 2. Sampras also played 2 matches in 2001 on Court 1. So yes Federer definitely gets preferential treatment that other players and notably other legends before him did not get.
Thanks for confirming what I thought initially. I would love to continue the argument started in January about this but one time was enough. I would also love to argue the rest but I will pass. Have a good day
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I guess this way the tournament can ensure one of their biggest drawcards will stick around til the 3R. Not protecting her too much by making her a top 8 seed but still protecting her enough from drawing a seed in the 1R. If she was unseeded she could've drawn Halep or Venus in the 1R which whilst would be a popcorn match, would mean they'd lose a huge drawcard early.
You got that backwards.

The organisers are protecting the top 8 seeds from Serena.

By seeding her (that high), they ensure that none of the top 8 (presumably a crowd drawing players) will get eliminated early at the expense of Serena advancing, and test her if she is in good enough form to make the women's tournament interesting.

That way, if she's not in good condition to go deep in the tournament, she will probably get knocked out earlier, thus naturally not being a problem for the other potential top seeds to advance further in it.

Can you imagine the scenario, where Serena draws Halep/Muguruza, eliminates her, and has nothing in the tank to continue with her run, eliminated in R2 or R3?

It will be a pretty awkward situation.

:cool:
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
This is Wimbledons prerogative. It's a benefit to them as tournament hosts and organisers. To those mentioning Clijsters and Azarenka. Neither of them have won Wimbledon 7 times let alone win it once or even made a Wimbledon final. So Wimbledon didn't really have any incentive to give them a protective seeding after childbirth.

They've always done things their own way. Is it right? Who's to say in this situation.

It just shows that if you have won Wimbledon especially multiple times you are given special treatment. And frankly Imho you should get some special treatment.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
Can't help but note that Azarenka got pregnant and left tour when she was top 6 in the world after winning the Sunshine double and yet received no such help when she returned as a mum.
I can't remember offhand - did Azarenka come back at Wimbledon, the only slam that has this seeding protocol?

Not to mention that Serena's history at Wimbledon is somewhat more stellar than Azarenka's
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
It's only a bad decision if Serena Williams is no longer the 25th best player in women's tennis. And even with the layoff it's likely she's still top 5 despite her ranking. If I'm running a tournament it comes down to the best players getting seeds. Not some politically correct BS about "so and so was pregnant and didn't get a seed when she came back." Serena just played in the FO and looked like one of the top women even if she wasn't playing her best. If she hadn't strained her Pec, I suspect wimbledon would give her an even higher seed.
 

Soianka

Hall of Fame
Hypothetically, returning Navratilova, Graff, Davenport, Mauresmo and Bartolli at the same time would really mix up the draw at Wimbledon given what should be according to your suggestion there. I remember Martina doing exactly that on her old knees a while back but I can't imagine the fine army of old women marching down the green grass in front of all the hard working young talented women in top ranking positions. Anyhow, when we say what it should be or not, we ought to think of all the consequences more than profits and entitlements. The rankings are well deserved for the CURRENT performances rather than overall historical ones which I would like to believe is in the agreement with all the WTA and ATP players there.

PS The WTA/ATP punishes players for not delivering their blood samples etc and so the players associations need to sanction themselves for not living up to their promises (in this case the women's tennis association it is)
None of those people are coming back except maybe Bartoli and she won the tournament once not SEVEN times
 
Serena may get a pregnancy special seeding treatment. Wimbledon should give me stagnancy special seeding treatment. While Serena was pregnant, I was stagnant. I suffered more. I should be seeded 25 for being a two Grand Slam titles holder and a Wimbledon quarter finalist.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Seedings are a form of special treatment for the better players, but designed by tournaments to reserve them for the later rounds and final if possible.

Given this is the case why wouldn't they seed Williams?
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
“Wimbledon did such a good thing with the seeding,” she [Serena] said afterwards, in reference to the All England Club’s decision to seed her at No.25 – a judgment now justified by her progress to the third round.

“It will be nice to see ladies live their life and not start having families at my age. These women can take a year off and have the most amazing thing in the world, then come back to their job and not have to start from the bottom, scrape, scrape, scrape. Still give them an opportunity to be out there after bringing life into the world. It’s so important.”

http://www.wimbledon.com/index.html

Fantastic comment. Well said. Well played. Keep going!
 
Top