"It's Not Good For Him But It's Good For Us" Ha ha ha!

Nadal being seeded 5th at the FO is odd. There is much talk of it because it's obvious that if seeding is to do the job intended he should be seeded at one or two. Not as a symbolic recognition of past achievements but based on ability and present form. Rankings can be used for seeding but the FO is not obliged to do so. Why haven't they done so when it would be in the best interest of the tournament? Why doesn't everyone feel it is the correct thing to do?

Miles Mclagan let slip why so many fans and players don't want Nadal seeded correctly. He said yesterday when talking about the issue. "It may be bad for him but it will be good for us" And then he laughed. "Ha ha ha!" (By us he meant Murray supporters... )

But not good for the one player who gets drawn against Nadal in the quarters. Ha ha ha! My fingers are crossed that the player would be Murray with Ferrer in the semi's. The draw could redeem this odd seeding situation.

sigh!

another Murray bashing thread

For me the real question is not about Nadal's seeding, it's much more about how high Rosol should be ranked. The fresh ATP Bucarest champion is in great form and, in my humble opinion, is worth, right now, a top 20 to top 15 in terms of real ranking. It would be a great shame if we are to miss an epic Nadal - Rosol fourth round at this RG, only because Rosol was unfairly ousted by Federer or Djokovic in earlier rounds............

My mobile doesnt show thread authors, I only clicked onto the article to see if the the author was HE... (The 'ha ha' was a tell tale sign)

I'm like Federer on this matter...in that yes he should be ranked higher (he's said that) seeding wise but it doesn't really matter though. If Nadal is good enough to win the title he's just going to have play some matches in reverse order. If he's good enough to beat Djokovic in the final, then there's no reason he shouldn't do it in the quarters.

lydian wrote:I'm like Federer on this matter...in that yes he should be ranked higher (he's said that) seeding wise but it doesn't really matter though. If Nadal is good enough to win the title he's just going to have play some matches in reverse order. If he's good enough to beat Djokovic in the final, then there's no reason he shouldn't do it in the quarters.

Exactly. I don't think the top guys are too worried about going deep into the tournament to get some ranking points. It's simply winning or not winning.

To win, they have to assume that they'll play Rafa at some point. Whether they face him in the QF, SF or F, it doesn't change the picture that much.

Of course, by "us" he didn't mean "Murray supporters", he meant fans of tennis in general who have the excitement of seeing where Nadal is in the draw and the potential for him to have to face all three of his main rivals to win RG. Another ludicrous article based on assumptions and half-truths.

Born Slippy wrote:Of course, by "us" he didn't mean "Murray supporters", he meant fans of tennis in general who have the excitement of seeing where Nadal is in the draw and the potential for him to have to face all three of his main rivals to win RG. Another ludicrous article based on assumptions and half-truths.

OK in addition to Murray supporters "fans of tennis who want to have the "excitement" of seeing where Nadal falls in the draw. If that is the case why isn't there a call to do away with seeding altogether? Then the "excitement" of seeing where top players fall in the draw would be there in all tournaments? Tennis fans should make up their mind if they want tournaments to be seeded or not. If they do want seeding then it should be fit for purpose.

I picked out Murray because Miles was clearly referring to Murray when he was talking about not giving Nadal the correct seeding. It's also obvious why he laughed. If Nadal is likely to be seeded incorrectly at RG so is Murray. Anyone talking about the tennis surfaces having become homogeneous has not looked at Murrays record on clay. He has only ever beaten one player in the top twenty on clay. That was Davydenko way back when. It was also played on an un-televised indoor clay court that I believe is not normally used for match play so we have no evidence of his form in it.

That Nadal should potentially be seeded 5 and Murray 2 is ludicrous. That's why Miles Maclagan laughed "Ha ha ha". By doing that he was highlighting how ludicrous the situation is. Just like me...

hawkeye wrote:I picked out Murray....

You did? That's never happened before

hawkeye wrote:That Nadal should potentially be seeded 5 and Murray 2 is ludicrous

We agree, which is why Rosol is going to be higher than Nadal at Wimbledon

lol, I say Rosol for European Union President!

HE, that's good obscure info you dug out there about top 20 wins and the indoor clay court. I think he'll break the Top 20 duck this clay season.
You're a hive of information sometimes

Murray beat Gasquet, then ranked 20, at RG last year, and Troicki, then ranked 15, at RG the year before. Also Simon in 2011 at Madrid. I haven't checked before that.

That hawkeye stat is very good - I remember when we got to 2009 when Rafa beat his first seeded player at the USO. I used to make liberal use of that one back in the day on old 606.

HE - You really have some issues with Murray

You take any snippet in the press, real or made up, and launch an attack on Murray

It really does you no good and makes you look a little deranged (which is sad, as most of your posts are very good (when Murray is not dragged in to appease your affliction).

We all realise that Nadal is seeded below his ability, but that is what happens when you have an injury

It will make no real difference and we all appreciate it

The fact that someone makes a light hearted comment, does not suddenly mean that Murray, or his fans are bad sports, liars or anything else

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray beat Gasquet, then ranked 20, at RG last year, and Troicki, then ranked 15, at RG the year before. Also Simon in 2011 at Madrid. I haven't checked before that.

Gasquet and Simon were ranked at 20 that is not "inside" the top 20. I was quoting the stat from elsewhere and should have checked it. You are correct about Murray's 5 set win over Victor Troicki at RG in 2011 who was ranked 15 at the time. Does that alter my point? If seeding is to do the job intended it is ludicrous for Nadal to be seeded 5 and ludicrous for Murray to be seeded 2. Both players are to be given a seeding that they don't deserve. That is why Miles laughed. "Ha ha ha!"

It's funny the way I get accused of "being mean to Murray" by pointing out that he is relatively poor on clay. It is stating the obvious. Sometime I think people are so carried away with sentimental patriotic bias that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious...

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray beat Gasquet, then ranked 20, at RG last year, and Troicki, then ranked 15, at RG the year before. Also Simon in 2011 at Madrid. I haven't checked before that.

Gasquet and Simon were ranked at 20 that is not "inside" the top 20. I was quoting the stat from elsewhere and should have checked it. You are correct about Murray's 5 set win over Victor Troicki at RG in 2011 who was ranked 15 at the time. Does that alter my point? If seeding is to do the job intended it is ludicrous for Nadal to be seeded 5 and ludicrous for Murray to be seeded 2. Both players are to be given a seeding that they don't deserve. That is why Miles laughed. "Ha ha ha!"

It's funny the way I get accused of "being mean to Murray" by pointing out that he is relatively poor on clay. It is stating the obvious. Sometime I think people are so carried away with sentimental patriotic bias that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious...

20 is indeed not "inside" the top 20. However, you wrote "He has only ever beaten one player in the top twenty on clay". Surely 20 is in the top 20?
However, you're correct, it doesn't alter you point and I agree that you were stating the obvious. It's like me saying "Here's another anti-Murray post from hawkeye" - it's stating the obvious.

JuliusHMarx.

So it is "anti Murray" to question the seeding at RG? If by questioning it you mean people saying "Nadal will be seeded 5 at RG" and "Murray will be seeded 2 at RG" incredulously there is a lot of anti Murray talk going on. Do you think if we all keep quiet no one will notice how funny the situation is? Better tell Miles not to laugh in public again. He's really letting the side down. I would also advise you not to stray from 606v2 you may see someone sniggering. I wouldn't want you to get upset...

I wouldn't get upset. Sometimes repetition bores me though. And sometimes obsession alarms me.

Exactly JHM. Well said.

I think this thread:

https://www.606v2.com/t42687-thoughts-on-nadal-s-seeding-at-french-open

pretty much covered everything off. And then some.

I always chuckle how when the same logic is applied to Nadal (re bogbrush's and banbrotam posts), these posts get ignored!

JuliusHMarx wrote:I wouldn't get upset. Sometimes repetition bores me though. And sometimes obsession alarms me.

Maybe you should just calm down a bit. Swinging from boredom to alarm will do you no good at all. You do know we are just talking about a game and that other people may have a different perspective to you...

loving the bit about Murray beating Davydenko on an untelevised indoor clay court. Can we have a link to back that up please? I can confirm that i saw it on the tv, so it seems that may be as accurate as the only ever beaten one player in the top 20 comment (the correct stat being top 10).

If it in any way make you feel better.. Federer agrees with HE (about Nadals seeding, not the Murray bizniz).

www.tennis.si.com/2013/05/07/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-french-open-seed/

“We all know he would deserve it,” said Federer,
who beat Radek Stepanek 6-3, 6-3 to make the
third round in Madrid on Tuesday. “I mean, he’s
been so successful there in the last eight, nine
years that everybody knows that he deserves it.”

“Is it really going to make a huge difference if he’s
five or one?” Federer said. “Not a whole lot, I don’t
think, at the end of the tournament. If I were to
play him in the quarters or in the semis or any
other player, it’s not the finals yet. So the best is
going to win. Rafa obviously has a great chance
because of the great player he is on clay.”

Must say, he sounds like an elder statement with this comment:
“I’m happy that they took a decision regardless of
which one was the right one, just to go with
something,” Federer said. “Now there is peace and
quiet around it again.”

tennis.si.com/2013/05/07/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-french-open-seed/

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:For me the real question is not about Nadal's seeding, it's much more about how high Rosol should be ranked. The fresh ATP Bucarest champion is in great form and, in my humble opinion, is worth, right now, a top 20 to top 15 in terms of real ranking. It would be a great shame if we are to miss an epic Nadal - Rosol fourth round at this RG, only because Rosol was unfairly ousted by Federer or Djokovic in earlier rounds............

Or indeed another round between Nole and Dimitrov ... same tournament would be fun wouldn´t it JK???

So HE by your outstanding logic should have Rafa been number 2 seed at Wimbledon prior 2008 because of his lack of grass titles? Really it is a crime that Roddick and Hewitt were ranked lower given the grass titles they had won compared to Rafa.

2008? I don't think she was born yet.......

kingraf wrote:

Must say, he sounds like an elder statement with this comment:
“I’m happy that they took a decision regardless of
which one was the right one, just to go with
something,” Federer said. “Now there is peace and
quiet around it again.”

I agree - I think Sir Alex Ferguson has shown Fed the way for 2013. I'd prefer Fed to be able to continue to entertain and be, if not one of the favourites, at least a v. dangerous floater in big draws for a couple of years yet. I think the next two months will be v. important for Fed's assessment of his own future in the game.

hawkeye wrote:JuliusHMarx.

So it is "anti Murray" to question the seeding at RG? If by questioning it you mean people saying "Nadal will be seeded 5 at RG" and "Murray will be seeded 2 at RG" incredulously there is a lot of anti Murray talk going on. Do you think if we all keep quiet no one will notice how funny the situation is? Better tell Miles not to laugh in public again. He's really letting the side down. I would also advise you not to stray from 606v2 you may see someone sniggering. I wouldn't want you to get upset...

No, but that is not what you do

We all agree that Nadals injury has skewed the rankings, but you use this as an excuse to imply Murray and his supporters are to blame or do not actually think it is strange as well

Why mention Murray several times in a thread about how Nadals injury has affected his ranking for this event?

Why not Mention Federer, or Djok as well.

just another lazy excuse to have a pop at Murray and his fans

Has Murray said ANYWHERE he thinks he deserves to be ranked 2 at the French open - NO

Nadal on the "travesty"

“The seeded players
historically have been there to protect the
tournament, to protect the players, that they’re
going to be fights against the best players on the
first rounds.
“The players that are in front of me are there
because they have been playing better than me. I
haven’t played; I haven’t trained either.
“If they were not injured and I have been injured,
well, with the format of the rankings that we have
currently, good for them for not being injured. The
problem is mine.”

kingraf wrote:Nadal on the "travesty"

“The seeded players
historically have been there to protect the
tournament, to protect the players, that they’re
going to be fights against the best players on the
first rounds.
“The players that are in front of me are there
because they have been playing better than me. I
haven’t played; I haven’t trained either.
“If they were not injured and I have been injured,
well, with the format of the rankings that we have
currently, good for them for not being injured. The
problem is mine, although I blame Murray and his fans, as they laughed last year, and like a butterflies wings, caused my injury, just so he could seeded ahead of me.”

I have added the last line that HE will be quoting

According to Peter Flemming seeding Nadal higher at RG was discussed but when opinions were sought those that were asked said no.

I bet whoever was asked was thinking "It would be good for him but not for us... Ha ha ha!" There are too many people who think they might gain by seeding Nadal incorrectly at RG.

If it makes people feel better Miles Maclagan could be secretly on the payroll of Federer, Ferrer or even Djokovic or another player and by "us" might have been thinking of how one of those players might benefit by Nadal having a tricky quarter... (Miles is probably a little doubtful that Murray will make it far enough into RG for Nadal's seeding to affect him after all...)

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray beat Gasquet, then ranked 20, at RG last year, and Troicki, then ranked 15, at RG the year before. Also Simon in 2011 at Madrid. I haven't checked before that.

Gasquet and Simon were ranked at 20 that is not "inside" the top 20. I was quoting the stat from elsewhere and should have checked it. You are correct about Murray's 5 set win over Victor Troicki at RG in 2011 who was ranked 15 at the time. Does that alter my point? If seeding is to do the job intended it is ludicrous for Nadal to be seeded 5 and ludicrous for Murray to be seeded 2. Both players are to be given a seeding that they don't deserve. That is why Miles laughed. "Ha ha ha!"

It's funny the way I get accused of "being mean to Murray" by pointing out that he is relatively poor on clay. It is stating the obvious. Sometime I think people are so carried away with sentimental patriotic bias that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious...

Perhaps from a performance point of view.

However from a fair and transparent process pov it is ludicrous for the seeding comittee at RG to change their entire seeding process (which presumably has been in place for many years) for the sake of one player, regardless of who that may be.

hawkeye wrote:According to Peter Flemming seeding Nadal higher at RG was discussed but when opinions were sought those that were asked said no.

I bet whoever was asked was thinking "It would be good for him but not for us... Ha ha ha!" There are too many people who think they might gain by seeding Nadal incorrectly at RG.

If it makes people feel better Miles Maclagan could be secretly on the payroll of Federer, Ferrer or even Djokovic or another player and by "us" might have been thinking of how one of those players might benefit by Nadal having a tricky quarter... (Miles is probably a little doubtful that Murray will make it far enough into RG for Nadal's seeding to affect him after all...)

You really should work in Hollywood, as you seem to be able to make up stories at will

Now he is on the payroll of people!

You have such an issue it is uncanny - in fact I think it is unhealthy - so much hate can not be good for people

Riskysports.

Sometimes you just can't please people! I speculated that Miles meant "Murray" when he said "it's good for us". But everyone felt that by speculating that it was Murray I was being mean to Murray. He never said who he meant by "us". Who do you think he was including in the "us". Who would potentially benefit from Nadal having the incorrect seeding at RG? Why do you think he laughed?

emancipator. Your last comment was the one glimmer of reason on this thread. Much of the rest is defensive emotional fandom...

Do you think that if you keep repeating 'incorrectly seeded', everyone will eventually buy into your nonsense?

God, I've just broken my own vow and that was not to get sucked in by irrational favoritism by someone who clearly knows absolutely nothing about sport.

Can I be banned from this thread please?

Now tell us how you really feel Johny don't hold back now.