Thoughts on Nadal's seeding at French Open

First topic message reminder :

Ferrer currently stands at No 4, Nadal at No 5. This makes the seeding issue at the French Open very interesting as it's possible that the draw could see Djokovic (1), Federer (3) and Nadal (5) all in the same half, with a possible quarterfinal match: Djokovic v Nadal, or Federer v Nadal (as well as Murray v Nadal if other side of draw).

Ferrer made:

2nd rnd at Monte Carlo - didn't win a match
Final at Barcelona - lost to Nadal
1/4's at Madrid - lost to Federer
Rome SF - lost to Nadal
(SF - French Open - lost to Nadal again!)

I see him at bettering his Monte Carlo result, perhaps a round less in Barcelona, making same round at least in Madrid, and probably same round or perhaps one less in Madrid.

So doubtful that with Nadal winning all his clay court matches, with the exception of Madrid on blue clay (he has all pts to defend), will/can reclaim the No 4 ranking.

Do you feel that the French Open should flex their "muscles," and put Nadal into the fourth seeded position instead of Ferrer (they CAN do this if they wish to - there's no rule that says the French Open MUST STICK to world rankings with their seedings)?

I think that being the 3 time defending champion (7 titles in 8 years) in Paris, with 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Opens, plus his slew of other clay titles historically in the run up to Paris - that he SHOULD NOT be seeded lower than 4; but what are your thoughts on the matter?

Not a particularly good article, though...

Federer and Nadal, individually the two box office players of a generation. Retrospectively, the box office match up of a generation and one of the best of all time.

Last few years? Not really that much fun. I prefer watching all other big 4 match ups than fedal nowadays. It isn't anywhere near what it was. It's nostalgic, but that's about it.

But I will never forget one of the best bits of sporting entertainment ever... THAT Wimbledon final.

Danny_1982 wrote:Federer and Nadal, individually the two box office players of a generation. Retrospectively, the box office match up of a generation and one of the best of all time.

Last few years? Not really that much fun. I prefer watching all other big 4 match ups than fedal nowadays. It isn't anywhere near what it was. It's nostalgic, but that's about it.

But I will never forget one of the best bits of sporting entertainment ever... THAT Wimbledon final.

My thoughts exactly!

That Wimbledon final was a stunner. And the 07 final was a great aperitif and the AO09 final a worthy follow up.

But those heady days are now over 4 years ago.

And as much as some like paint RG11 and AO12 as great matches, they really weren't like the classics of yesteryear.

Federer and Nadal have continued to play in classic matches but they tend to be against other players now.

Dont you mean Those Wimbledon Finals? 2007 was amazing, Nadal nearly got it done then. Then 2008 happened, & the world stood still. Very rarely does a sequel exceed the original. I mean
When the winners are double that of the unforced errors, with only 29 aces. You know there was a battle royale.

I agree that Wibledon final was the best ever.. I have the DVD.. great entertainment even when you know the result.. Once in a lifetime an epic which wrote both of them in the tennis history books.

Find me a better Trilogy than AO12, W07 & W08, in ANY sport¡ I put that with
Ali-Frazier

kingraf wrote:Dont you mean Those Wimbledon Finals? 2007 was amazing, Nadal nearly got it done then. Then 2008 happened, & the world stood still. Very rarely does a sequel exceed the original. I mean
When the winners are double that of the unforced errors, with only 29 aces. You know there was a battle royale.

2007 was very good, but does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as 2008 in my opinion.

So 2008 is THE match for me.

Oh, I agree. Greatest match Ever

kingraf wrote:Oh, I agree. Greatest match Ever

I assume '18' that shows up as your age is not really true, is it? (Please do not take this question as an attack on you).

Haha. No I am 18. But I am a sports nut of note. I have an inordinate amount of tennis matches. Boxing fights, Basketball highlights, and pretty much any sport you can imagine on my hard drive(s). Must admit I dont have any tape of Fred Perry, Bill Tilden etc. But from Pancho Gonzales onwards, I'm sorted.

Plus I work as a junior sports reporter at a news station. So I have an archive to go through :-)

kingraf wrote:Plus I work as a junior sports reporter at a news station. So I have an archive to go through :-)

What a lovely job kingraf and so young too.... good for you

Thanks HN. Its lots of fun, only work four hours a day (editing, and scouring for stories) and can afford my own little car and apartment in town. So I'm living the life!

O thats great .. so nice to hear a young person enjoying their job and their life ..Im happy for you.

Haha thanks. I hear its not common, so I am blessed

I am very much against one-off tweaks with the seeding. Even if RG decides - upon reflection - that using a special formula similar to Wimbledon might have been better, I would want them to implement it next year at the earliest. Otherwise they would be just obviously changing the rules to fit the desired outcome; which is just the opposite of how it should be done.

kingraf wrote:Haha. No I am 18. But I am a sports nut of note. I have an inordinate amount of tennis matches. Boxing fights, Basketball highlights, and pretty much any sport you can imagine on my hard drive(s). Must admit I dont have any tape of Fred Perry, Bill Tilden etc. But from Pancho Gonzales onwards, I'm sorted.

If you have Pasarell-Pancho @W on tape/hard-drive and would care to post it on Utube with a link it would be wonderful.

Ferrer has pulled out of Monte Carlo, so won't gain any points there.

Id have to check LF, couldnt promise you. I will have a look when I get home. Such is the joys of being a reporter, that sometimes you have to cover the morning news, and get to work at unGodly hours...

kingraf wrote:Id have to check LF, couldnt promise you. I will have a look when I get home. Such is the joys of being a reporter, that sometimes you have to cover the morning news, and get to work at unGodly hours...

Thank you.

LF- what I do have is a DVD on Wimbledon firsts. In it they show a few highlights of that match, and the last three to five games, I think (Also shows the last few games of Connors-McEnroe 1982, if that means anything). Would that satiate you?

kingraf wrote:LF- what I do have is a DVD on Wimbledon firsts. In it they show a few highlights of that match, and the last three to five games, I think (Also shows the last few games of Connors-McEnroe 1982, if that means anything). Would that satiate you?

That would be wonderful.

I will get round to it, LF. Uploading videos to YouTube is a drag when you dont have uncapped. Must say, Pancho threw a right fit that match

Interesting comments from Forget:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/04/forget-french-open-should-seed-nadal-higher/47164/#.UXWBgWt5mK0

Nice article BS, the French committee won't change the seeding even if Nadal doesn't lose a match before RG. They've never been pro Nadal and will fear the backlash. They need to remember what a "seeding" is in the first place - it's meant to reflect who is most likely, or the favourite, to win the event, then 2nd favourite, 3rd, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_(sports)
"A seed is a preliminary ranking that can be used in arranging a sports tournament. It is called a seed because of the analogy with plants where the seed might grow into a top rank at the end of that tournament, or might instead wither away. Players/teams are 'planted' into the bracket in a manner that is typically intended so that the best do not meet until later in the competition."

Ironically, seeding was brought in during the 1920s to stop the very scenario of the 2 top guys for an event, like Nadal and Djokovic, meeting well before the final. Bill Tilden and Bill Johnston faced each other in the last 16 of the 1921 U.S. Championships, much to everyone's dismay. That was the only occasion from 1919-25 when the two Bills did not contest the final. That situation led to tennis seeding being introduced henceforth.

Slam committees now tend to follow ATP ranking to allocate seedings but that's just plain lazy really...most people who know tennis can rank the top 4 out of top 16 or 32 favourites for each slam pretty easily. Since when does Murray justify a #2 seeding, i.e. is the 2nd likeliest player to win RG when you have the best ever player on clay down at #5 best chance position? Murray has not even reached a clay final (yet). Like I say, nothing will change...they'll stick him in at #5, he'll end up playing Djokovic in the QF and either way the final will just feel weird/wrong because it was effectively played 2 rounds earlier.

But not only that. It's not just unfair/unrealistic on Nadal, it's actually unfair on whoever out of the top 4 has the misfortune of getting him in the quarters given they may be written off physically for playing 2 more rounds given the arduous task it would be getting past him on clay in Bo5.

kingraf wrote:Plus I work as a junior sports reporter at a news station. So I have an archive to go through :-)

Wow, I wish I could get a job like that.

lydian wrote:Nice article BS, the French committee won't change the seeding even if Nadal doesn't lose a match before RG. They've never been pro Nadal and will fear the backlash. They need to remember what a "seeding" is in the first place - it's meant to reflect who is most likely, or the favourite, to win the event, then 2nd favourite, 3rd, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_(sports)
"A seed is a preliminary ranking that can be used in arranging a sports tournament. It is called a seed because of the analogy with plants where the seed might grow into a top rank at the end of that tournament, or might instead wither away. Players/teams are 'planted' into the bracket in a manner that is typically intended so that the best do not meet until later in the competition."

Ironically, seeding was brought in during the 1920s to stop the very scenario of the 2 top guys for an event, like Nadal and Djokovic, meeting well before the final. Bill Tilden and Bill Johnston faced each other in the last 16 of the 1921 U.S. Championships, much to everyone's dismay. That was the only occasion from 1919-25 when the two Bills did not contest the final. That situation led to tennis seeding being introduced henceforth.

Slam committees now tend to follow ATP ranking to allocate seedings but that's just plain lazy really...most people who know tennis can rank the top 4 out of top 16 or 32 favourites for each slam pretty easily. Since when does Murray justify a #2 seeding, i.e. is the 2nd likeliest player to win RG when you have the best ever player on clay down at #5 best chance position? Murray has not even reached a clay final (yet). Like I say, nothing will change...they'll stick him in at #5, he'll end up playing Djokovic in the QF and either way the final will just feel weird/wrong because it was effectively played 2 rounds earlier.

But not only that. It's not just unfair/unrealistic on Nadal, it's actually unfair on whoever out of the top 4 has the misfortune of getting him in the quarters given they may be written off physically for playing 2 more rounds given the arduous task it would be getting past him on clay in Bo5.

Great post agree wholeheartedly, I doubt the French will do anything out of the ordinary to accommodate Nadal and the really the rest of the top seeds. It just strikes me as being against their typical mode of operation. But the fact is that you don't seed the guy who won the tournament last year and has won it 7 times as the 5 seed. Personally, it is more unfair to Novak, Roger, and Andy than it is to Nadal. I mean could you imagine a draw with Nadal in the QF, Andy in the semi, and fed in the final for the world #1 Djokovic? Then what the hell is the point of being ranked number 1, what exactly is the benefit in seeding? I tell you right now if this is Novak's draw for RG I will scream bloody murder. Not that I think he can't win it still but it just isn't a fair draw, whoever of the top 3 guys who draws Nadal in the quarter if it happens well be rightly aggrieved. The whole seeding concept as you put is made to assure that the most likely winners do not face each other early in the competition.

I do think Nadal seeding should be higher than 5. For Nadal to win the title 7 times and have won how many other tournaments on clay, it does seem ludicrous. I think he should at the very least be seeded 3rd or 4th taking into account his record on clay. I can understand them not making him number 1 seed as novak is world number 1 and has to be seen to have a decent chance of winning the tournament.

Those saying that Novak could well face Nadal, Murray, Federer. I am not too convinced that Murray will make it that far. I think it probably depends on how he does in Madrid and Rome. If he has two more early exits i would be surprised to see him reach even the quarters, particularly if he ended up playing the likes of Wawrinka before then.

I would never write off the chances of a quality player like Murray but I feel his form does need to improve on the clay if he is going to make inroads. I would consider Ferrer, Del Potro or Berdych just as likely as Murray to reach quarters at the French. Even Tsonga has been playing showing form on clay too though I think Murray is a bad match up for him.

If they do decide to alter the seeding, I believe they have to stick to a pre-defined formula (as Wimby do) and that this would be applied to all the seeds, not just Nadal.
They don't have discretion to just move Nadal up, as I understand it.

As I understand it, RG has the discretion to move the seeds around within the top 32.
It would be SIMPLY RIDICULOUS to keep Rafa at number five and really NO ONE could really have any complaint if he was moved up.

The complaint is obviously that it is ridiculous to change the rules for one player, no matter how exceptional they are on a surface. Whether they have discretion or not the fact remains that they have never used it.

I'm so partisan I find it difficult to know what to think.

To me it would be a complete hoot if Nadal got cuffed by Djoko in the QF and, like Wimbledon last year, I'd no doubt enjoy the tournament more for his absence. Of course he's the greatest clay-courter ever (and thankfully for him he's got the wins to prove it); there's no doubt about that, but the grinding inevitability of the final rounds at RG these last few years have been a major turn-off for me and not just because I dislike Nadal the player. Obviously I was delighted when Fed won in 2009, but one of the joys of that tournament was it's unpredictability after Soderling's win.

However, on the other hand I'd be none too pleased if Fed faced Nadal in the QF (he'd certainly get a cuffing should they meet at that stage).

All-in-all, if the RG committee is able to move the seeding about, it would seem absurd to have Nadal seeded at #5 with the chance of him facing one of the #1-3 in the QF, the least they should do is switch him with Ferrer who, nice chap and excellent player though he is, should not be seeded above Nadal.

Barry, they wouldn't be able to just swap him with Ferrer, they'd have to apply the agreed formula, if anything, and follow those results.

Yes its a nice theoretical solution, swapping Nadal and Ferrer.

JHM have you seen the specific formula they have to use?

Of course Ferrer can make his own statement for keeping #4 if he puts the Catalonian cat amongst the pigeons by getting one over on Nadal this week!

I think JHM and I have had this discussion before but, as far as I am aware, no agreed formula has ever been revealed and I strongly suspect there isnt one. They would have to put one in place and they would have to get a move on for this year!

I've seen the formula for Wimbledon and have read that it applies for all slams, should they wish to use it. However, it was a while back, probably when they first started using it.
It's something like weighting the points from the previous 12 months' tournaments on the given surface at 100% and the 12-24 months' tournaments at 50% and calculating based on that.

From Wimbledon.com

The seeds are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP), BUT then rearranged on a surface-based system. Since 2002 a seeding committee has not been required for the Gentlemen’s Singles following an agreement made with the ATP. The seeding order is determined using an objective and transparent system to reflect more accurately an individual player’s grass court achievements: The formula is:
•Take ESP points at 18 June 2012
•Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
•Add 75% points earned for the best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that.

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

Note - "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."

Clearly the NYT article was wrong though, as that obviously did not happen. My recollection from when it happened at the time was that only Wimbledon expressed a desire to factor in grass court form.

barrystar wrote: the least they should do is switch him with Ferrer who, nice chap and excellent player though he is, should not be seeded above Nadal.

Ferrer is quite decent on clay. If they're going to swap him with anyone it should be Murray.

Born Slippy wrote:Clearly the NYT article was wrong though, as that obviously did not happen. My recollection from when it happened at the time was that only Wimbledon expressed a desire to factor in grass court form.

It didn't happen, but the formula is in place should they choose to use it at any time.

hawkeye wrote:

barrystar wrote: the least they should do is switch him with Ferrer who, nice chap and excellent player though he is, should not be seeded above Nadal.

Ferrer is quite decent on clay. If they're going to swap him with anyone it should be Murray.

Well I did think about that - I don't think Murray's ever beaten him on clay. If manipulation were permitted a good outcome would be that those two face one another in the QF and Fed/Nadal/Djoko are in the other 3 QF draws.

I don't think any of us know precisely what latitude is available to RG or whether, if there is latitude, that is limited to a pre-ordained 'system' that has to be agreed with the ATP.

I suspect that if they have to re-jig the seeding substantially they won't want to, like Lydian I also have my doubts that they'll want to do anything in particular to deal with this conundrum.

@Lydian - I like the suggestion that Ferrer might beat Nadal at Barcelona, I'll believe that only when I see it. Although clay is his best surface, vs. Nadal he's far more effective on hard.

I don't think anyone anywhere is saying he can't be moved up. The point being that what ever formula they do use (which would be strange considering they have never used it before) needs to be applied to everyone.

Hawkeye is right. I would think Murray would stand to lose out a lot if this was the case? Haven't followed his clay court results that closely but interesting to see where he would fit. Certainly couldn't be seeded above Ferrer you would think.

How do you think Murray would feel at being outside the top 4 seeds because of this new formula just to accommodate Nadal?

I'd think he pretty annoyed to say the least. In essence all Murray's points accumulated while Nadal was off for 7 months basically count for nothing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Clearly the NYT article was wrong though, as that obviously did not happen. My recollection from when it happened at the time was that only Wimbledon expressed a desire to factor in grass court form.

It didn't happen, but the formula is in place should they choose to use it at any time.

It is odd. There's even a quote from Wimbledon saying how pleased they were that the other slams were moving to surface based seeding. However, they never did so. Personally, I cannot see how the same formula would work for clay, and particularly hard. I cant imagine it was ever intended to do so.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Clearly the NYT article was wrong though, as that obviously did not happen. My recollection from when it happened at the time was that only Wimbledon expressed a desire to factor in grass court form.

It didn't happen, but the formula is in place should they choose to use it at any time.

It is odd. There's even a quote from Wimbledon saying how pleased they were that the other slams were moving to surface based seeding. However, they never did so. Personally, I cannot see how the same formula would work for clay, and particularly hard. I cant imagine it was ever intended to do so.

Quite agree - the clay season is huge and overlaps quite significantly with elements of the HC season so both of these countering arguments would seem to run (a) relative journeymen players could boost their clay seeding yet never stand a chance vs. the top players at RG, conversely (b) there are sufficient clay points on offer for a handful of the really top clay players to get a decent seeding at RG without the need for a boost. Point (b) in particular goes for HC, coupled with the near impossible question as to which HC tournaments would count towards the extra seeding and which not - arguably only those outdoor tournaments in August to September or January to March, but that becomes unnecessarily complicated in itself.

The grass season is so short and specific - at the very most players will only play 4 grass tournaments, most will play only 2 (Wimbledon and a warm-up), there will always be good players at the warm-up minimising the risk of cheap points so Wimbledon's system makes sense and does not unfairly promote no-hopers up the ranking.

1st step went well....Nadal into Rnd 3, Ferrer out....No 4 seeding a little closer.

With all the comments on this, all valid and reasonable, still think seeding him No 4 at RG is wrong, but I am no longer the tournament director so meaningless.

Rock on Rafa!

Yes, Ferrer does seem to be doing his best to help solve this tricky problem. However, I think he only drops 50 points for this exit - as he has a couple of spare 250s in his ranking non-countables currently. Gap will therefore still be 935 points. Nadal needs Ferrer to exit relatively early in both remaining clay masters AND probably win them both himself.

If Nadal sweeps the rest of the clay court season I would have him as the favorite to overtake Ferrer (I think Ferrer would need something like SF+QF from Madrid and Rome, which to me has less than 50% chance of happening).

However, if Nadal loses anywhere, especially Madrid or Rome, then Ferrer has to be the favorite to remain at #4.

McEnroe believes Nadal should be seeded one at RG

John McEnroe doesn’t think the French Open will adjust its seeding system to bump up seven-time champion Rafael Nadal. But he does believe it’s the fair thing to do, not just for Nadal but also for his primary competitors.

Nadal, ranked fifth, is racing to secure the No. 4 seed by the time the French Open sets its seeds on May 20 after the Rome Masters. He trails Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray and David Ferrer, whose opening-match loss at the Barcelona Open on Wednesday improved Nadal’s chances of overtaking the fellow Spaniard for No. 4 at Roland Garros. If Nadal isn’t among the top-four seeds, he could face any of those four players in a potential quarterfinal.

“Let me put it to you this way: I guarantee you that none of those four guys, as great as they are, want to see him in the quarters,” McEnroe told Tennis.com. “Quite honestly, I would seed him number one. … [I] think he deserves that. I think the other players deserve it.”

http://tennis.si.com/2013/04/24/rafael-nadal-french-open-seed-john-mcenroe/

summerblues wrote:If Nadal sweeps the rest of the clay court season I would have him as the favorite to overtake Ferrer (I think Ferrer would need something like SF+QF from Madrid and Rome, which to me has less than 50% chance of happening).

However, if Nadal loses anywhere, especially Madrid or Rome, then Ferrer has to be the favorite to remain at #4.

Depends if Ferrer is fit or not. I'd expect him to make both QFs if he is and, apart from Nadal, the other top 8 guys he could play are his bunnies.