Who's For A Two Year Ranking System Now?

Fedal meeting in the quarters of any tournament. (Pftt!)

The number 4 ranked player being destroyed by the number 5 ranked player (6-0, 6-2).

The best clay court player in history, holder of 7RG titles and likely holder of the majority this years clay court masters titles being seeded 5th for RG.

Murray seeded 2nd at RG

Djokovic perhaps playing the 2nd best clay court tennis this year but going out in the quarters of RG

Quarter finals tickets suddenly leaping in value whilst finals tickets suddenly plummeting and even remaining unused...

Why was the seeding system introduced? Wasn't it to prevent things like this? Who's for a two year ranking system now?

Two year ranking system? Pffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!

Not me, 2 year rankings are bizarre. Fed playng Nadal in a quarter is hardly the end of the world.

I understand the sentiment of the OP but not sure 2yr ranking is the answer.
It makes it very hard for new players to break into the upper echelons, it also means players can pick and choose events more knowing that their points are smoothed out over a longer period.

Anyway...seeding Nadal anything other than 1 or 2 for RG is bizarre but then a player being off for 7 mths is bizarre also. Tickets for mens semis, finals, etc are sold out long before the slams start by the way. Whether the French turn up to watch the matches is an entirely different thing of course!

Not a fan of two year rankings but there would be some value in RG taking the same approach as Wimbledon i.e. taking greater account of results on that surface.

Murray seeded 2 and Rafa 5 at RG doesn't seem to be a great reflection of reality!

Fact is the one year rankings may benefit Nadal at the end of the year, if we had a 2 year rankings system, then at the end of this year there would be a gap in his rankings points.

RG should put Nadal at least at 4 I agree with that, but that doesn't require an overhaul of the seeding system that we have used for 40 years to some success.

French may yet swap him for Ferrer so he's 4th. Don't think Ferrer would argue much about it either. For all his clay prowess he's got to RG SF once and QF twice. Doesn't really warrant 4th seed tag anyway.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Two year ranking system? Pffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!

I think you may have missed a "t" there...

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Two year ranking system? Pffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!

I think you may have missed a "t" there...

I missed out the most important one, too
Never mind, leave it out and put in a windshield wiper instead

lydian wrote:French may yet swap him for Ferrer so he's 4th. Don't think Ferrer would argue much about it either. For all his clay prowess he's got to RG SF once and QF twice. Doesn't really warrant 4th seed tag anyway.

I don't think they can arbitrarily change seeding - they have to apply a pre-defined mathematical formula and see what they come up with. Then (I guess) they decide whether to actually apply it.

I haven't seen their rules. At the end of the day if they wanted to shuffle him to 4th or higher they could do, or rather find a reason to do so. However, the Parisians are not known for their generosity, or even common sense - creative flair is more their thing - so I suspect he'll stick at his ranking.

You reckon that if they so desired they would rig it, against the agreed formula i.e. the one agreed by the ITF that Wimbledon use?
I sniff a draw-rigging conspiracy

By Parisians, do you mean the Roland Garros organisers, the French tennis crowd, or just all Parisians in general?

I think it's great that there's a clash of the giants in the quarters of IW. Makes a nice change.

I agree with Murdoch that if anything should change its a a seeding reflecting results on that surface, rather than a two year ranking

But there's not really a big problem here. Rafa hasn't played for ages so its only right that he's outside the top places. He'll be back in them soon enough. This is essentially a lot of hot air.

socal1976 wrote:Not me, 2 year rankings are bizarre. Fed playng Nadal in a quarter is hardly the end of the world.

Actually both are not playing their best consistent tennis and the ranking reflects it aptly, otherwise how on earth Nadal could lose to Zebalos [or whatever his name is] and this is one of the worst years for Fed considering the start, so if they are said to meet in Quarters so be it, I won't be surprised if one of them bows out before the clash

In answer to the question, I would say, self serving players are

Oh no, not the draw rigging thread again

In my experience, pretty much all of the above...but with slant towards RG TDs and its wonderfully generous crowd. This is a capital city that invented the Peripherique ring road with its confusing signs and kamikaze drivers. Yeah I know, its a non-PC sweeping generalisation...but I've worked there extensively so I say it with some 'informity'.

Red wrote:Fact is the one year rankings may benefit Nadal at the end of the year, if we had a 2 year rankings system, then at the end of this year there would be a gap in his rankings points.

It is obvious who the longer-term rankings hurt vs. who it helps.

If you are sitting on the throne, it is harder to abdicate, but if you are in the crowd, a sword to kill the King and usurp the throne, is always beneficial for the bourgeois or proletariat.

RG has no precedence of Seeding vs Rankings being different, unless there are injury withdrawals, or they actually change, IIRC.

Inventing a 'formula' now, is as bad as rigging a draw, IMVHO.

I think the formula has always been there for all slams and they have always been at liberty to apply it or not, each year.
I stand to be corrected though.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think it's great that there's a clash of the giants in the quarters of IW. Makes a nice change.

I agree with Murdoch that if anything should change its a a seeding reflecting results on that surface, rather than a two year ranking

But there's not really a big problem here. Rafa hasn't played for ages so its only right that he's outside the top places. He'll be back in them soon enough. This is essentially a lot of hot air.

I wonder why you think its great? I bet it's not because you have quarter finals tickets so I wonder why you want the best match ups to take place in the quarters... Mmm.

Anyway Rafa has played and this scene could still be in place if he beats Murray, Federer and Djokovic one after another at Monte Carlo, Rome and Madrid and is number one in the race. I think even without doing any of that (yet) he is still the betting favorite for RG.

Hell no!

Pffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Whether they have no precedence or not isn't relevant in this situation. How many times has RG had a 7-time slam winner depart the game for 7 months to then come back in clay form by the following years slam but only be judged the 5th best player likely to win again?

Dont forget that's what seedings are...a judgement on who is most likely to win that event. By sticking to the rule, they are deeming Nadal to have the 5th best chance of winning a title he has won 7 slams, including being the defending champion. It is ridiculous if the rule is applied - carte blanche, as the French would say.

Rules are rules...but rules are also meant for breaking.

This article from 2001 states
"In contrast to Wimbledon, the seedings at the French, Australian and United States Opens have historically been the same as the rankings. Those three events now will also revise the order, using their own formulas that grade past performance on their playing surface."

So it would be a good idea if the FO used the formula this year - it wouldn't break/create any rules to do so, it would just take up the option they've always had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/12/sports/tennis-roundup-grand-slam-tourneys-change-seeding-process.html

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think the formula has always been there for all slams and they have always been at liberty to apply it or not, each year.
I stand to be corrected though.

Except W, I am not aware of one.

Please see this link as well - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=20010612&id=dM00AAAAIBAJ&sjid=KSEGAAAAIBAJ&pg=7184,5642052

hawkeye wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I think it's great that there's a clash of the giants in the quarters of IW. Makes a nice change.

I agree with Murdoch that if anything should change its a a seeding reflecting results on that surface, rather than a two year ranking

But there's not really a big problem here. Rafa hasn't played for ages so its only right that he's outside the top places. He'll be back in them soon enough. This is essentially a lot of hot air.

I wonder why you think its great? I bet it's not because you have quarter finals tickets so I wonder why you want the best match ups to take place in the quarters... Mmm.

Anyway Rafa has played and this scene could still be in place if he beats Murray, Federer and Djokovic one after another at Monte Carlo, Rome and Madrid and is number one in the race. I think even without doing any of that (yet) he is still the betting favorite for RG.

I like big matches. If it was Murray v Rafa in the quarters I'd be equally as excited.

I don't know why you think otherwise. Not every post or opinion has an agenda Hawkeye... Although you may find that view tough to empathise with.

I like big matches too. But why do you specifically like seeing them in the quarters?

Maybe they could have a new formula? If you've won a slam 7 plus times you automatically get seeded 1. If two players entered a slam with this criteria I would be quite happy for them to toss a coin to determine seeds 1 and 2.

More often than not the quarters are where the top guys prove how much better they are than the rest. For once we have a box office match a round earlier than usual.

That means we may have 3 rounds in a row containing blockbuster clashes. As a tennis fan I like that.

Clear enough?

hawkeye wrote:Maybe they could have a new formula? If you've won a slam 7 plus times you automatically get seeded 1. If two players entered a slam with this criteria I would be quite happy for them to toss a coin to determine seeds 1 and 2.

I don't quite agree with it HE, if Sampras return to WImbledon this year, he can't be garunteed a top 2 seed status inspite of having 7 trophies, the critieria can be adjusted slightly like how Wimbledon does by taking into account the last 2 years performance, RG can do something similar but cannot automatically garuntee Rafa the no.1 seed just coz he won 7 slams before.

hawkeye wrote:Maybe they could have a new formula? If you've won a slam 7 plus times you automatically get seeded 1. If two players entered a slam with this criteria I would be quite happy for them to toss a coin to determine seeds 1 and 2.

Oh my god you're actually being serious.

"Sorry Novak, I know you've been the best player this season and overall for the past 2 years, congrats for that by the way, but we're ranking you third for this tournament."

Brilliant.

...but not best player on clay if looking at points won...which is used for ranking and therefore seeding.
Either way, 5th seeding is going to be pretty ridiculous.

You just need to see how bad the golf rankings are to see two year rankings don't reflect current form.
The tennis rankings work perfectly. The simple fact is that Djokovic, Murray, Smug and the ghastly Trophy Biting Capybara are miles ahead of the rest.

Danny_1982 wrote:More often than not the quarters are where the top guys prove how much better they are than the rest. For once we have a box office match a round earlier than usual.

That means we may have 3 rounds in a row containing blockbuster clashes. As a tennis fan I like that.

Clear enough?

I don't know. Maybe I'm an old fashioned sort of tennis fan. When I watch a top match up I sort of think the winner deserves a trophy and maybe a little lie down not to have to play a less challenging player next. I also expect that if I've forked out for finals tickets I would have a chance of seeing a/the top match up. I would feel a little irritated that I could have saved my money and bought quarters tickets instead. If I was Djokovic and had been beaten in the quarters of Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome and RG I might be a little peeved too.

But aren't these the sort of scenes that seeding was invented to prevent?

invisiblecoolers. I would be willing to indulge Sampras, Federer, Nadal or any 7 times slam winner if they were brave enough to return as long as they were still capable of holding a raquet. It would be more fun than some of the wild card entries.

HE, you are completely bonkers so if Bjorn Bjorg decides to show up for wimbeldon he gets a #2 seeding at worst at like age 54? I knew your head would explode when Fed and Nadal where put in the same quarter and you have again proven Nostrafreakingdamus correct in his psychic abilities, your last couple of posts have no basis in logic, basically you just want to create criteria that will guarantee your two favorite players the best seed, why not pick 6 slams and 7 slams. I know why not pick 14 slams as the cut-off for automatic seeding? Really, HE just enjoy the tennis and stop trying to change the world to best suit Roger and Rafa, they are doing quite fine without unfair and ridiculous favors that you think should be done for them.

So the rankings should protect certain players even if they've been injured or out of form.... And yet the retired Sampras should get a 1 or 2 seeding if he comes back.

Oh my.

Lets just give Roger, Pete and Rafa permanent 1 2 and 3 rankings for every tournament ever. Even after they are dead.

hawkeye wrote:

I don't know. Maybe I'm an old fashioned sort of tennis fan.

I don't think it's old fashioned, I think this sort of 'tennis as a reality TV event' is a fairly new thing.

If you're buying tickets for a sporting event and then getting upset because you didn't get the exact result that you wanted means that you're not really a fan of the sport.

RG follows the rankings. I dont see that changing this year purely to suit one player. Of course, it might necessitate a change in future years.

1/ As I said, a 2 year ranking would actually play against Nadal at the end of 2013 (as there would still be a gap in his points due to injury).

2/ I am inherently uncomfortable with changing rankings systems to suit some players (ie the ageing stars who may be fearful of the younger ones). We should do what is fair, and while I can understand why some would like it to be a bit more like golf's ranking system, I prefer it as it is now.

3/ I think considering Nadal is a record holding champion at Roland Garros, and he is defending champion, I don't think it would be out of place if they put him above Ferrer at number 4 in the seedings.

Yes Red, just put him at 4 at RG you don't need to reinvent the wheel just make the minor adjustment. But as Lydian said I don't forsee the Parisians in doing the rest of us any favors and changing their system.

same as the tour down under bent their rules in allowing, at the time, 7 times tdf winner lance armstrong back before he was supposed to race in 2009...

Once again, if RG decide to take up the option of adjusting the seeding according to the existing, agreed formula, they won't be breaking/bending/creating any rules.

LuvSports! wrote:same as the tour down under bent their rules in allowing, at the time, 7 times tdf winner lance armstrong back before he was supposed to race in 2009...

Yes because the French Open changing the seedings slightly (which is totally legitimate), is definitely equivalent to that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Once again, if RG decide to take up the option of adjusting the seeding according to the existing, agreed formula, they won't be breaking/bending/creating any rules.

Blinking hek, even Julius is backing me up on this one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Once again, if RG decide to take up the option of adjusting the seeding according to the existing, agreed formula, they won't be breaking/bending/creating any rules.

What's the agreed seeding system? As far as i'm aware only Wimbledon has one.

BS - see the links above from LF and myself

Yes i've read those but RG has never had a surface specialist seeding system to my knowledge.

They've never used it, but I believe it is always an option they can take, should they wish to.

I am willing to make a bet that they won't do such a thing because frankly, to do something different might be seen as them cowtowing to pressure and they are a slam and they are in paris so they don't need to be swayed by something as crass as popular opinion.

Or they may just not do it because they never have, and still don't want to. Not everything is a conspiracy