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?

I posted this on another forum, cross-posting here. Still relatively complicated, but conclusions still much the same as before Barcelona:

With Barcelona out of the way and only two Masters events ahead of us, the permutations for #4 and #5 ranking for RG seeding got a bit simpler. If I got it right, this is how it works:

1. If Rafa wins both Madrid and Rome
1a. if Ferrer makes one final, Ferrer will be #4
1b. if Ferrer makes one SF, and at least QF in the other one, Ferrer will be #4
1c. otherwise, Rafa will be #4

2. If Rafa wins one, and reaches the final in the other
2a. if Ferrer makes at least one QF, Ferrer will be #4
2b. if Ferrer reaches at least R16 in both tournaments, Ferrer will be #4
2c. otherwise, Rafa will be #4

3. If Rafa does anything less than a win and a final, Ferrer will remain #4

So, it is still a bit complicated. My take on it is that Rafa almost certainly needs to win both in Madrid and in Rome. However, if he does that, I would then give him better than even money odds to reach #4.

Of course, in theory it is not just #4 and #5 between these two guys that is in play. For example, in theory David could overtake Federer or Rafa could drop below #5.

summerblues. I think Ferrer wants to hang onto the number four spot. He is playing Estoril this week.

Ferrer playing Estoril makes no difference to SB's explanation. he can't gain any points from tha tournament.

This is a bit tangential, but didn't want to create a new thread for it. It looks like the Roland Garros match win record is going to be broken this year, by both Federer and Nadal. The current top 4: Vilas (56), Federer (54), Lendl (53), and Nadal (52).

Can't see Fed losing in the early rounds, and Nadal is almost certain to win four matches, so looks like it's in the bag for both of them. If Federer loses in the SF and Nadal wins the tournament, they'll share the record. Djokovic currently has 31 wins, Murray on 18.

Hope Djokovic and Nadal in same quarter so Nole can inflict Nadal a huge loss of points there.

Interesting match stats there Silver. Notwithstanding the many disappointments suffered by Federer over the years at RG, it's a reminder of the fact that he has been the second best clay courter of his generation, overshadowed only by the very best clay courter of all time.

Chydremion wrote:Hope Djokovic and Nadal in same quarter so Nole can inflict Nadal a huge loss of points there.

A fed fan's wish chyrdremion, I know as a Novak fan as confident I am in Novak's form and ability against Nadal on clay after MC I think it would be bad for the tournament and bad for tennis. That match really should happen in the final and if not the final at least at the semi stage, really though I think even at the semi stage it would make the final feel a bit anticlimactic.

Silver wrote:This is a bit tangential, but didn't want to create a new thread for it. It looks like the Roland Garros match win record is going to be broken this year, by both Federer and Nadal. The current top 4: Vilas (56), Federer (54), Lendl (53), and Nadal (52).

Can't see Fed losing in the early rounds, and Nadal is almost certain to win four matches, so looks like it's in the bag for both of them. If Federer loses in the SF and Nadal wins the tournament, they'll share the record. Djokovic currently has 31 wins, Murray on 18.

Yes a very impressive victory, Djoko has a pretty good shot to get to the 50s as well. If he averages getting to the quarters the next 5 years he will be in the 50s also, still not a for sure thing but he could be right up there with them when it is said and done.

Luvsports, I think if Djokovic wins RG he will be the second best clay courter of this generation considering how he has now won every single clay court masters and been to the finals before as well. I hope he gets there, I think his game suits a clay court very well.

Hard to argue with that lags, the barebones slam titles don't show the four additional final appearances. I was surprised that Nadal was so close to him actually, having only started entering RG in 2005 although Fed's record prior to 2005 was also quite poor.

socal, I was thinking the same thing looking at the stats, definitely feasible that Novak's going to be up there when all's said and done. He'd go to 12th on the AT list with a tournament win this year, already well up there! Not sure I'd agree on his standing versus Fed in this generation, might take a few more RG final appearances to sway my opinion there. Though his play on clay and MS record is awesome, so there's an argument either way!

Yes but Silver Roger hasn't really performed against the hallmark of clay court tennis Nadal, where as djoko has beaten Nadal now in 3 separate finals on clay, beating Nadal again over 5 sets on clay on route to the title I think would be very special. It is debatable, but lets see what happens novak has to win this tournament before we can count the chickens.

Even though I didn't say anything socal, that is just terrific news!

This is true socal, the superior record against Nadal definitely needs to be commended, and in recent years Novak's record has been truly excellent on the surface. As you say, a win over Rafa at RG would be tough to argue against - if he wins this year, we'll have to have a discussion about who deserves the #2 then

socal1976 wrote:

Luvsports, I think if Djokovic wins RG he will be the second best clay courter of this generation considering how he has now won every single clay court masters and been to the finals before as well. I hope he gets there, I think his game suits a clay court very well.

Ha ha! No! This reminds me of talk elsewhere that because Djokovic beat Nadal at MC he is now the new king of clay. As if one win can wipe out the huge record of someone else. Same goes with him getting even close to Federer as far as achievements on clay. socal1976. Djokovic is a great player but some of the things you say about him are getting a little ridiculous...

YesI do have to agree with you on this HE. I dont know why Rafa is even going to bother to play the FO. he might as well hand over the trophy now it ihas already been won.
I do wish I knew where some of the posters on this thread bought their rose coloured specs because I certainly could do with a pair at the moment.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Luvsports, I think if Djokovic wins RG he will be the second best clay courter of this generation considering how he has now won every single clay court masters and been to the finals before as well. I hope he gets there, I think his game suits a clay court very well.

Ha ha! No! This reminds me of talk elsewhere that because Djokovic beat Nadal at MC he is now the new king of clay. As if one win can wipe out the huge record of someone else. Same goes with him getting even close to Federer as far as achievements on clay. socal1976. Djokovic is a great player but some of the things you say about him are getting a little ridiculous...

I'd probably agree with Socal that if Novak wins RG, beating Nadal, he'd be at least level with Fed in my estimation on clay.

Yes BS.. but lest we forget (and some have) that the operative word is IF

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yes BS.. but lest we forget (and some have) that the operative word is IF

Yes, that is why I stated IF and said hypothetically, and not to count your chickens. I don't get why a hypothetical of a Djokovic victory over Nadal at RG would be a case of rose tinted spectacles, nobody claimed it was a foregone conclusion. I said hypothetically if Novak does beat Rafa for RG he would be in my mind the second best clay courter of this era. Can we not discuss hypotheticals anymore?

I don't view it as a sure thing or anything as such, didn't say Nadal can't win and retain his title either.

Just clarifying for people because people don't seem to get what I actually posted. In no way or no where did I state what the chances were for that situation or claim that it was guaranteed or even likely that Djoko would win RG, I said IF he does by beating Nadal I would rank him better on clay than Federer. I think most people who are objective would agree, and then there is HE and as much as I like her she clearly isn't objective in anyway.

I do pretty much agree socal but to say you aren't objective if you don';t agree is a bit harsh.

On the one hand when arguing for djoko over feds:
1) 3 wins over nadal on clay compared to 2 for feds. (I guess 4 if he djoko would beat nadal at the FO).
2) Has won all the clay masters beating rafa in all 3! (Not counting the now downgraded hamburg).
3) At 25, djoko had won more clay tournies.

However:
1) Feds has reached 5 FO finals, 4 consecutive.
2) Has won more clay court masters than djoko

It is close but I would give it to djoko if he were to win but atm I don;t think he is.

Luvsports, again I would instruct you to reread my last post where I said "MOST OBJECTIVE PEOPLE WOULD AGREE" and did not say "ALL OR ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON". You are of course smart enough to understand the difference between the word "most" and "all".

Your responses sometimes Socal do not come over as opinions but more of a "rant"- and when those of us who do not agree with you or your assessment of your idol we are then accused of being "not objective". And I agree with LS its a bit harsh. And your use of CAPITAL letters in your last post proves my point .- There are many posters on here that could be accused of non objectivity Socal
when it comes to other players and your are no less guilty of that than anyone else.
As I said the fortunate thing about this forum is we are all entitled to an opinion you simply have to say you dont agree when you dont.

I have no pre-conceived ideas at all of who will or might win RG.. does that put me into the MOST or ALL category ???

On balance, like the "gay" discussion I'm not particularly bothered about the Rafa seeding issue either. At the end of the day if he's good enough to win RG then it doesn't matter if he has to beat Novak at QF or F stage. Conversely, if Nadal loses he wouldn't care at what stage he lost - 2nd, 4th or 8th place at RG wont matter a jot to him as its not 1st.

I'd also rather Nadal won it without later remarks of "oh well he was given an easier ride" cropping up.

Haddie-nuff wrote:
Your responses sometimes Socal do not come over as opinions but more of a "rant"- and when those of us who do not agree with you or your assessment of your idol we are then accused of being "not objective". And I agree with LS its a bit harsh. And your use of CAPITAL letters in your last post proves my point .- There are many posters on here that could be accused of non objectivity Socal
when it comes to other players and your are no less guilty of that than anyone else.
As I said the fortunate thing about this forum is we are all entitled to an opinion you simply have to say you dont agree when you dont.

I have no pre-conceived ideas at all of who will or might win RG.. does that put me into the MOST or ALL category ???

I did not accuse anyone of not being objective, obviously my putting it in caps still didn't help you get my meaning, maybe next time I should use caps, italics, and bold font. I didn't accuse anyone of being objective either. I said again most objective people would agree if Novak beats Rafa and wins the RG he is the second best clay courter of this era. It does not assume he will win for certain, which your last post seemed to be an argument with a strawman of your own creation. And from the simple meaning of my words it did not assume that those that disagree with me are not objective. If you want to read into my posts that I make a prediction when I don't, and that I attack people as being not objective who hold certain beliefs when I don't, that is on you Haddie.

Again my simple statement neither calls anyone unobjective nor does it predict with any type of certainty who wins the French open, which is what your second to last post seemed to be argueing against. Then you claim that my opinions are rants, which is actually insulting.

lydian wrote:On balance, like the "gay" discussion I'm not particularly bothered about the Rafa seeding issue either. At the end of the day if he's good enough to win RG then it doesn't matter if he has to beat Novak at QF or F stage. Conversely, if Nadal loses he wouldn't care at what stage he lost - 2nd, 4th or 8th place at RG wont matter a jot to him as its not 1st.

I'd also rather Nadal won it without later remarks of "oh well he was given an easier ride" cropping up.

I suppose it's a good thing then that Nadal's dropped to 5? All those years beating Federer in the final, then having by some fluke to play the only player to beat him in a RG in the final, then having to play the player that beat him at all the other slam finals in the final. They were all obviously flukes due to how easy he had it. At least this year things might be a little more tricky as he will be forced to play........ Oh wait a minute it will still be easy for him. Pfft! Why is Nadal always given an easy ride?

Socal

I have come to know better than to get into any dialogue with you because it leads to one result... you having the last word.. Seen to much of it.. so I learned one lesson in my life "that the customer is not always right" you just allow them to believe they are. When I insult you Socal you will know you have been insulted and I will doubtless get a warning from the mods.. in the meantime I speak as I find

HE, I cant make head nor tail of that...

I have to agree with socal on this. I would put djokovic ahead of federer on clay if he takes out nadal at French. People need to remember that numerous times djokovic had to face nadal in semis of the French, federer was on other side of the draw which kept him apart from nadal each year until final. I have no doubt had djokovic been on other side of the draw over the years he would have made a few French open finals.

Djokovic is the first player I have seen at least scare nadal on clay. Nadal is the greatest ever on clay, no doubt about it. However outside of novaks 3 wins over nadal on clay, he has also had other epic battles with him on clay over the years. I have never really had the feeling that federer will scare nadal on clay, such inevitability about the result. Federer is an excellent clay courter but I would put Novak right up there with him

I think we see inevitability in hindsight. There was nothing inevitable when Rome went to 5 sets, when Federer beat Rafa 6-0 in the 3rd set at Hamburg or when Federer was taking the first set of the final 6-1.

Also remember that their only meeting at RG saw Federer beat Djokovic in the semi as recently as 2011.

Not really bothered about the judgement of who's the 2nd best, but those are facts to be considered alongside the rest.

BB...not forgetting Djokovic beat Federer 6-4 7-5 6-3 last year at RG SF of course. Federer/Djokovic on clay are probably similarish notwithstanding that and the near 6 yr age gap. They're 3-3 on clay. Nadal is still 12-3 on clay vs Djokovic.

Anyone who's watched tennis for some time has seen some "ridiculous" seedings at Majors - noticeably in Paris of all places - see Roddick's seeding, Sampras' seeding in certain years - Roddick at No 2, for example.

ALL the four Majors have the ability to seed as they see fit according to surface performance. Agreed grass has traditionally been a "law unto itself," and I don't ever remember there being any negative comments from Corretja, Bruguera and the likes.

They use protected rankings at time, when an enforced long lay off due to injury occurs - and let's face it, this is exactly what this is...

I am sure if you surveyed every single fan who has been at courtside watching the French Open over the past 5 years and asked them about the No 4 seeding with reference to Nadal and Ferrer, this year; they would en masse say to put Nadal as No 4, rather than No 5.

It's not a matter of the four consecutive Major finals played between Nadal and Djokovic leading up to and including last year's French Open.

It's not a matter of being fair to any one individual - the whole point of seedings is to ensure a greater likelihood of the better players in a tournament, of not playing one another in "early" rounds, but in later round, thus showcasing the best of the best in hopefully the semis and finals.

For Nadal to be drawn against Djokovic or Federer in the 1/4's is just not good practice and the instance of perhaps doing this in 2013, does not set any precedence - it's already been done before with protected rankings.

Wonder how many of the people objecting in these circumstances, would have suggested with similar verve, that Seles should have been unseeded when she returned from her stabbing incident? Not many, or at least not many who's opinion would be valued by any of the "cognescenti" of the sports - commentators, tournament directors, past champions involved in the game.

We've had the article by McEnroe (John), suggesting that Nadal should be seeded No 1 and there is a strong argument for some people however, the No 4 seeding would be an appropriate adjustment in these circumstances. I don't know how long a player has to be absent, to be eligible for a "protected" ranking but regardless, I have a feeling you will see more of this issue right up to the French Open, and I suspect Nadal will be the No 4 seed, regardless of rankings.

He by far and away deserves the No 4 seeding over both Ferrer and Murray, and it will be a shame if this doesn't happen and he gets either Federer or Djokovic. Just wish we could hear Roger's views on this, but, being the ever neutral Swiss he is, we won't hear them. Whatever....bring it on, all comers...and let's see what happens.

I agree ylopnom if 7 grandslam titles and being the defending champion doesn't knock some sense in the tournament committee what possibly can. It isn't just unfair to Nadal and the other top seeds it is also unfair to the fans who want those type of matchups in the final or at least the semi. It actually can work out wonderfully for Federer who could play clay phobic murray in the semis and get a spent Nadal or djokovic following an epic 5 setter in the final. In fact judging by how the French typically bow down and pucker up for Roger's swiss backside I wouldn't be surprised if we saw that take place.

The grand slams don't have the ability to seed as they like. They were stopped from doing that precisely because the clay-courters complained about Wimbledon's seeding committee. What they are permitted to do nowadays is use a formula based on surface specialism but RG does not appear to have ever done so.

Protected rankings have no impact on seeding. A player can have a protective ranking of 1 but if their actual ranking is outside the top 32 then they will be unseeded. See Del Potro at the Australian Open 2011 as an example. Seles was different as, due to the circumstances of her absence, she was given an actual ranking of joint number 1 on her return. Consequently she was seeded 2. However, that was a special case.

RG really should use some sort of surface specialist formula but it doesn't. They cannot just move Nadal as that would be against their rules.

If seedings are to do the job intended Nadal should be seeded 1 or 2. Nadal is number 2 in the race despite missing the huge amount of points on offer at the AO. He was number one in the race prior to missing 8 months. He has got to the final of all 6 and won 4 of the tournaments he has played since he has returned. He has only lost once at the FO and won 7 times. He is the defending champion. He is a huge favorite as far as betting goes.

It's just a joke that this isn't reflected in the seeding. As far as getting the best match and matches towards the end of the tournament the FO will potentially be a disaster. Viewing figures for the final will potentially plummet. This will have huge financial implications. The FO is shooting itself in the foot in order not to appear to "favor Nadal". More fool them. Ha ha! I did warn them...

i wasn't sleepy before but after reading HE's regurgitated post i feel all yawny again! YAAWWWWNNNNNN

'Nadal won't receive preferential Roland Garros seeding'

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/205567.html#

LuvSports! wrote:'Nadal won't receive preferential Roland Garros seeding'

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/205567.html#

I can see why there would be temptation to tinker with the seeding, but it would have been more in the spirit of pro wrestling if they had done that. So I am glad they did what they did. That said, it would probably be best if he were drawn in Ferrer's quarter - just like in Madrid.

Should an exception be made for Nadal in this years seedings? Of course not. To do so would make a mockery of the whole system used by the FO.

It's no surprise anyway, the French hate Nadal. The likelihood though is that one of the big 4 will going home early.

lydian wrote:It's no surprise anyway, the French hate Nadal. The likelihood though is that one of the big 4 will going home early.

Murray in the third round?

Is anybody surprised.. I doubt it .. least of all Rafa. Frankly I dont think he would have wished it to be otherwise. He gets enough "stick" as it is

Ferrer's win today made the race for #4 seeding simpler. Now, for Rafa to be #4 seed at RG, he has to win both here and in Rome, and Ferrer must not reach SF in Rome.

(until now, Rafa could have - under good circumstances - reach #4 even if he did not win both Madrid and Rome).

Thanks for the analysis SB. Given the events of Madrid so far seedings may become irrelevant anyway if many of the players don't reach their seeded positions in the draw. I really don't think Nadal is too concerned about the seedlings.