Wimbledon Seedings for this years tournament

by Fernando Wed 19 Jun 2013, 11:41 am

First topic message reminder :

GENTLEMEN'S SINGLES

DJOKOVIC, Novak (SRB) [1]
MURRAY, Andy (GBR) [2]
FEDERER, Roger (SUI) [3]
FERRER, David (ESP) [4]
NADAL, Rafael (ESP) [5]
TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) [6]
BERDYCH, Tomas (CZE) [7]
DEL POTRO, Juan Martin (ARG) [8]
GASQUET, Richard (FRA) [9]
CILIC, Marin (CRO) [10]
WAWRINKA, Stanislas (SUI) [11]
NISHIKORI, Kei (JPN) [12]
HAAS, Tommy (GER) [13]
TIPSAREVIC, Janko (SRB) [14]
ALMAGRO, Nicolas (ESP) [15]
KOHLSCHREIBER, Philipp (GER) [16]
RAONIC, Milos (CAN) [17]
ISNER, John (USA) [18]
SIMON, Gilles (FRA) [19]
YOUZHNY, Mikhail (RUS) [20]
QUERREY, Sam (USA) [21]
MONACO, Juan (ARG) [22]
SEPPI, Andreas (ITA) [23]
JANOWICZ, Jerzy (POL) [24]
PAIRE, Benoit (FRA) [25]
DOLGOPOLOV, Alexandr (UKR) [26]
ANDERSON, Kevin (RSA) [27]
CHARDY, Jeremy (FRA) [28]
DIMITROV, Grigor (BUL) [29]
FOGNINI, Fabio (ITA) [30]
BENNETEAU, Julien (FRA) [31]
ROBREDO, Tommy (ESP) [32]

LADIES' SINGLES

WILLIAMS, Serena (USA) [1]
AZARENKA, Victoria (BLR) [2]
SHARAPOVA, Maria (RUS) [3]
RADWANSKA, Agnieszka (POL) [4]
ERRANI, Sara (ITA) [5]
LI, Na (CHN) [6]
KERBER, Angelique (GER) [7]
KVITOVA, Petra (CZE) [8]
WOZNIACKI, Caroline (DEN) [9]
KIRILENKO, Maria (RUS) [10]
VINCI, Roberta (ITA) [11]
IVANOVIC, Ana (SRB) [12]
PETROVA, Nadia (RUS) [13]
STOSUR, Samantha (AUS) [14]
BARTOLI, Marion (FRA) [15]
JANKOVIC, Jelena (SRB) [16]
STEPHENS, Sloane (USA) [17]
CIBULKOVA, Dominika (SVK) [18]
SUAREZ NAVARRO, Carla (ESP) [19]
FLIPKENS, Kirsten (BEL) [20]
PAVLYUCHENKOVA, Anastasia (RUS) [21]
CIRSTEA, Sorana (ROU) [22]
LISICKI, Sabine (GER) [23]
PENG, Shuai (CHN) [24]
MAKAROVA, Ekaterina (RUS) [25]
KUZNETSOVA, Svetlana (RUS) [26]
LEPCHENKO, Varvara (USA) [27]
SAFAROVA, Lucie (CZE) [28]
PASZEK, Tamira (AUT) [29]
CORNET, Alize (FRA) [30]
BARTHEL, Mona (GER) [31]
OPRANDI, Romina (SUI) [32]

GENTLEMEN'S DOUBLES

BRYAN, Bob (USA) & BRYAN, Mike (USA) [1]
GRANOLLERS, Marcel (ESP) & LOPEZ, Marc (ESP) [2]
PEYA, Alexander (AUT) & SOARES, Bruno (BRA) [3]
PAES, Leander (IND) & STEPANEK, Radek (CZE) [4]
QURESHI, Aisam-Ul-Haq (PAK) & ROJER, Jean-Julien (NED) [5]
LINDSTEDT, Robert (SWE) & NESTOR, Daniel (CAN) [6]
MIRNYI, Max (BLR) & TECAU, Horia (ROU) [7]
BHUPATHI, Mahesh (IND) & KNOWLE, Julian (AUT) [8]
FLEMING, Colin (GBR) & MARRAY, Jonathan (GBR) [9]
GONZALEZ, Santiago (MEX) & LIPSKY, Scott (USA) [10]
BENNETEAU, Julien (FRA) & ZIMONJIC, Nenad (SRB) [11]
DODIG, Ivan (CRO) & MELO, Marcelo (BRA) [12]
LLODRA, Michael (FRA) & MAHUT, Nicolas (FRA) [13]
BOPANNA, Rohan (IND) & ROGER-VASSELIN, Edouard (FRA) [14]
KUBOT, Lukasz (POL) & MATKOWSKI, Marcin (POL) [15]
HUEY, Treat (PHI) & INGLOT, Dominic (GBR) [16]

LADIES' DOUBLES

ERRANI, Sara (ITA) & VINCI, Roberta (ITA) [1]
HLAVACKOVA, Andrea (CZE) & HRADECKA, Lucie (CZE) [2]
PETROVA, Nadia (RUS) & SREBOTNIK, Katarina (SLO) [3]
MAKAROVA, Ekaterina (RUS) & VESNINA, Elena (RUS) [4]
KOPS-JONES, Raquel (USA) & SPEARS, Abigail (USA) [5]
HUBER, Liezel (USA) & MIRZA, Sania (IND) [6]
GROENEFELD, Anna-Lena (GER) & PESCHKE, Kveta (CZE) [7]
HSIEH, Su-Wei (TPE) & PENG, Shuai (CHN) [8]
PAVLYUCHENKOVA, Anastasia (RUS) & SAFAROVA, Lucie (CZE) [9]
MLADENOVIC, Kristina (FRA) & VOSKOBOEVA, Galina (KAZ) [10]
BLACK, Cara (ZIM) & ERAKOVIC, Marina (NZL) [11]
BARTY, Ashleigh (AUS) & DELLACQUA, Casey (AUS) [12]
KING, Vania (USA) & ZHENG, Jie (CHN) [13]
HANTUCHOVA, Daniela (SVK) & KIRILENKO, Maria (RUS) [14]
CHAN, Hao-Ching (TPE) & MEDINA GARRIGUES, Anabel (ESP) [15]
GOERGES, Julia (GER) & ZAHLAVOVA STRYCOVA, Barbora (CZE) [16]

Source:http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-06-19/201306191371633190432.html

by Haddie-nuff Thu 20 Jun 2013, 9:49 am

Just to add to the mix as a matter of interest.. not trolling

http://sport.uk.msn.com/tennis/wimbledon-seeding-system-under-fire

by CaledonianCraig Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:00 am

Oh dear Brad. picard

Have you been conversing with hawkeye per chance?

The system used is clear and is how we got to those seedings. Is Rafa compaining? No? Is his team lodging an official complaint? No as they understand the seeding system used.

Just a thought here but look further down the rankings and why is there no such protestations that say Haas (better career record and grass court record) is seeded above Wawrinki or Nishikori? Odd don't you think? But they are in the same boat - placed there because of the seeding system. We couuld go even further down and find decent grass court players well below clay courters but that is the way it is. We don't call or demand for them to be bumped up do we?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:07 am

It's one thing saying the system threw up a bad result and needs changing (and I'm sure if the ATP want to change it, they will make efforts to do so). It's another thing to say that Wimbledon had any choice in the matter - they were bound by the agreement made with the ATP i.e. this is the system the players wanted and got.
If they now want a different system, then they can work towards that.

by Haddie-nuff Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:13 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Oh dear Brad.

Have you been conversing with hawkeye per chance?

The system used is clear and is how we got to those seedings. Is Rafa compaining? No? Is his team lodging an official complaint? No as they understand the seeding system used.

Just a thought here but look further down the rankings and why is there no such protestations that say Haas (better career record and grass court record) is seeded above Wawrinki or Nishikori? Odd don't you think? But they are in the same boat - placed there because of the seeding system. We couuld go even further down and find decent grass court players well below clay courters but that is the way it is. We don't call or demand for them to be bumped up do we?

Bye the way CC I do agree.. I just thought I should post what the "knowledgeable professionals" are saying: Rolling Eyes

by CaledonianCraig Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:17 am

The thing is JHM - this system has been in place since 2002. Now I'd hazard a guess in the early years Rafa (who first struggled on grass) with a 2nd and 3rd Round exit and then was seeded 2 in 2006 above players who were, at that time, deemed better grass court players so he has also benefited from the system as well.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:22 am

If Rafa Nadal, having lost 1 match there ever, winning the competition 7 times and in top form before the tournament (especially on Clay) can be seeded 3 at Roland Garros (in a draw with no Murray too), then I don't see why being seeded 5 at Wimbledon is much more ridiculous

by HM Murdock Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:33 am

ChequeredJersey wrote:If Rafa Nadal, having lost 1 match there ever, winning the competition 7 times and in top form before the tournament (especially on Clay) can be seeded 3 at Roland Garros (in a draw with no Murray too), then I don't see why being seeded 5 at Wimbledon is much more ridiculous

It was even more odd than that - he was seeded 4!

by CaledonianCraig Thu 20 Jun 2013, 10:44 am

So in short RG seeded it very similar if not identical (accepting for withdrawals) and remember that Nadal is far more profficient on clay than he is on grass. More cold water poured on hawkeye's scorn.

by lydian Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:05 am

Barry, your CAPS/BOLD/UNDERLINE response is appreciated but was frankly not needed. I haven't "fallen for" anything. If you read my post again I said "understand the sentiment". The sentiment is a philosophical one - should be a seeding be predictive or reflective? HE has been arguing predictive sentiments, most on here are - of course - expressing the formula based reflective method that is used. We can all understand both sides of the coin, HE is clearly frustrated the seeding method has no predictive "give". She stated this sentiment early on and has been somewhat derided ever since in a group smart-ass kind of way IMO. She could have just been told she was simply wrong without smart-ass comments like "only in HE land", "poor old HE", and other summary snipes. In trying to assign some benefit of the doubt I think she meant to refer to the "Wimbledon tournament committee" (not the seeding committee which is only used for the women's draw now) when referring to whether any flex could be put on the seeding determination. Yes we all know they've used an ATP agreed formula since 2002 but its unclear whether the TC can exercise a right to modify further if they spoke with ATP about 'special situations' (however unlikely that is to ever happen of course). I just think HE was trying to express that type of philosophy & scenario but perhaps not in the best way. The forum seems to becoming less tolerant of late IMO, particularly anything Nadal related.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:25 am

lydian, posters comments are not aimed at Rafa as he has remained dignified and not flung tantrums about where he is seeded. The protestations of one particular Nadal fan has taken it from the sublime to the ridiculous. In using words like skewed and cowardly at a committee that doesn't exist suggests some sort of bias that is just not there. Even at RG there wasn't this much fuss and we know his prowess on that surface so why so much fuss now? That tells me it is purely nerves on hawkeye's behalf. Whereas on clay there was no massive fear of Rafa getting beaten that fear exists on grass and so a quarter-final draw against a top four seed worries her to such an extent that this is her reaction.

Anyway like I have said earlier, Rafa has benefited in the past from the way Wimbledon seedings are worked out so he cannot win them all so to speak.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:29 am

Lydian, we tried telling HE she was simply wrong quite a bit but were blindly ignored. Hence the more exasperated comments.
Her description of the Wimbledon committee as cowards, 'their decision' etc raised some hackles - I don't think that's Nadal-related in any way.

by carrieg4 Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:29 am

IMO this is not to do with Nadal particularly Lydian. If HE were to argue for a general move back to a more predictive seeding methodology across all tournaments then that could lead to a good debate. She does not appear to be doing that but rather demanding a one off exception to be made to benefit a single player. To be fair there are a few posts pointing out the flaws in HE's argument in a straightforward way. In the meantime she is accusing the All England Club of stupidity and / or cowardice. In other words she is doing herself no favours. Especially in creating a new article talking about the seeding "decision".

I would expect the same arguments to be put to any poster demanding Federer's seeding to be upped as well.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:34 am

Also I cannot recall Murray fans creating such a stink when his ranking dropped to five and was seeded there for the 2010 Australian Open after he had time out due to a wrist injury.

by Johnyjeep Thu 20 Jun 2013, 11:53 am

Another little pearl of wisdom I read from a HE post was about tennis being branded as entertainment and therefore they have shot themselves in the foot.

The 'entertainment' is the effect not the cause. The prize money at stake is the effect not the cause. None of these (the entertainment or prize money) are what the vast majority of players are playing for. Any professional sport is not a job in the conventional sense. You don't suddenly decide at 25 to go from being a data inputter to becoming a professional sportsman.

How many times do you hear the winner saying 'I dreamed of this as a little kid, winning £250k for winning a tennis match' - right before being photographed endlessly with the oversized cheque paraded around above their head?

Entertaining the spectators is the last thing that is on the minds of these players. They want to win the match and the tournament. Not contrive rallys and points to satisfy our need for 'entertainment'. Hence you never sacrifice the cause (although there is an argument that in the long run - with the slowing down of conditions - that is what the ATP have done) in pursuit of the effect. Certainly not in the short term. Because then it doesn't become real and that is what punters want to see.

Each professional sportsman plays the game because they enjoyed it as a kid and turned out to be pretty darned good at it. I would hazard a guess that (if their new different lifestyle allowed) they would continue to play it regardless. Like many of the countless millions do as amateurs.

The point being Wimbledon will be sold out regardless of seeding or who is playing. Because people enjoy watching the highest level of a sport that they play/used to play/are interested in.

The 'entertainment' will not be lost at all in any sense what so ever. Much like it wasn't when Nadal was knocked out last year in the second round. Much like it wasn't when ever Nadal hasn't been playing.

You should be celebrating the fact that we have so many great players these days that we stand the chance of seeing such a high quality match in the quarter final. Not bemoan the fact that he might have to play a great players in the quarters.

Talk about glass half empty.

Not to mention you want one rule for Nadal and one for everyone else. And that you think Nadal is more important for Wimbledon than Wimbledon is for Nadal.

by summerblues Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:00 pm

lydian wrote:HE is clearly frustrated the seeding method has no predictive "give".

HE is not frustrated; she just likes to WUM a bit. She may indeed think that Rafa should have been seeded higher but she is plenty smart to put it in a less polarizing way if she wanted to. But she does not, because she wants to elicit the reaction she does.

On the other side, there are always plenty of posters itching to express the sentiment that nobody listens to HE's absurd posts anymore - and then to follow up with a multiparargaph response to HE.

So, all in all, everyone is happy and gets what they are looking for, no need to worry about either HE or those responding to her.

by HM Murdock Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:12 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote: Even at RG there wasn't this much fuss and we know his prowess on that surface so why so much fuss now?

I think you've had the good fortune to forget a lot of the comments! HE's comments here are virtually a carbon copy of those before RG: a seeding committee bottling it, punters being deprived of entertainment, all Rafa's opponents being scared about playing him and so on (and on and on).

Part of me hopes that Rafa is ranked #1 for USO, just so we don't have to hear it all for a third time!

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:16 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote: Even at RG there wasn't this much fuss and we know his prowess on that surface so why so much fuss now?
I think you've had the good fortune to forget a lot of the comments! HE's comments here are virtually a carbon copy of those before RG: a seeding committee bottling it, punters being deprived of entertainment, all Rafa's opponents being scared about playing him and so on (and on and on).

Part of me hopes that Rafa is ranked #1 for USO, just so we don't have to hear it all for a third time!

Yeah but by then Fed will be ranked 5th.....

by banbrotam Thu 20 Jun 2013, 12:27 pm

summerblues wrote:
HE is not frustrated; she just likes to WUM a bit. She may indeed think that Rafa should have been seeded higher but she is plenty smart to put it in a less polarizing way if she wanted to. But she does not, because she wants to elicit the reaction she does.

On the other side, there are always plenty of posters itching to express the sentiment that nobody listens to HE's absurd posts anymore - and then to follow up with a multiparargaph response to HE.

So, all in all, everyone is happy and gets what they are looking for, no need to worry about either HE or those responding to her.

Sums it up perfectly!! This was an irrelevant article, in comparison to most of the recent ones, which for some reason has suckered us all in picard

by lags72 Thu 20 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

OMG.

I'm surely not included in summerblues reference to "plenty of posters itching to express the sentiment ......"

But then again ...... Erm

by barrystar Thu 20 Jun 2013, 2:20 pm

summerblues wrote:
lydian wrote:HE is clearly frustrated the seeding method has no predictive "give".
HE is not frustrated; she just likes to WUM a bit. She may indeed think that Rafa should have been seeded higher but she is plenty smart to put it in a less polarizing way if she wanted to. But she does not, because she wants to elicit the reaction she does.

On the other side, there are always plenty of posters itching to express the sentiment that nobody listens to HE's absurd posts anymore - and then to follow up with a multiparargaph response to HE.

So, all in all, everyone is happy and gets what they are looking for, no need to worry about either HE or those responding to her.

Spot on. It is clear that HE is wumming and those of us who have responded have decided how far we want to get sucked in and why.

For my part I prefer to 'commentate' on what's going on because I know that there's no point whatsoever in attempting to communicate with HE when she's behaving like this.

I do think it's worth calling a wumming post when there is one. My bugbear is not that a post may be provocative or over-stated or wrong, it's when a post is deliberately framed dishonestly and the OP seeks to shift his/her ground to try and make it look otherwise whilst at the same time proclaiming innocence and reasonableness. I can pretty much take all other sorts of offensive, bombastic, or silly posts.

by hawkeye Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:04 pm

Good grief! I am expressing an opinion that isn't popular on 606v2 but is the same as many tennis commentators including Brad Gilbert in the article that Haddie Nuff linked to. So this means I am trying to wind others up Rolling Eyes

I'm quite grateful to any posters that have expressed that they understand my point of view even if they don't agree with it as it's quite difficult to do so in these circumstances.

lydian wrote:

The irony of course is that it was the Spanish Armada in 2001 that complained they werent protected enough in the early rounds. As a result the AELTC dispensed with a seeding committee in place of a formula that weighted normal tour points highly and expanded to 32 seeds. So, we have what we have and Nadal is #5.

I've heard this quoted a bit. But isn't this an example of how the way seeding was allocated in the past was changed? I don't really know the circumstances but it shows that change is possible. If then when presumably it was seen that it was necessary then why not now? Why does everyone think rules are set in stone and can't be changed if circumstances show it might be wise to do so?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also I cannot recall Murray fans creating such a stink when his ranking dropped to five and was seeded there for the 2010 Australian Open after he had time out due to a wrist injury.

Ha ha! You are not being serious comparing that situation to Nadals?

Anyway it is what it is. We shall see if the draw evens things up or makes things totally unbalanced. Ha ha! Unless anyone thinks the AELTC has any powers to decide that.

by carrieg4 Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:21 pm

Don't remember Brad Gilbert accusing AELTC of stupidity or cowardice. Must have missed that bit chin

by hawkeye Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:33 pm

carrieg4 wrote:Don't remember Brad Gilbert accusing AELTC of stupidity or cowardice. Must have missed that bit

No that was me but Gilbert did say "Wimbledon's decision was a 100% joke" I think it's fair to say that we both agreed it wasn't wise.

by carrieg4 Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:34 pm

It also wasn't a decision but never mind.

by hawkeye Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:37 pm

^ That quote using the word "decision" was from Gilbert (from Haddies linked article earlier in this thread).

by banbrotam Thu 20 Jun 2013, 4:43 pm

hawkeye wrote:We shall see if the draw evens things up or makes things totally unbalanced

How on earth can Nadal being seeded 5 make things "totally unbalanced" in comparison to, say, he been seeded No.2.

If he was outside the Top 8, I could understand your comments

Rafa facing Novak or Roger in the QF is not "totally unbalanced"

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:03 pm

hawkeye wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:Don't remember Brad Gilbert accusing AELTC of stupidity or cowardice. Must have missed that bit

No that was me but Gilbert did say "Wimbledon's decision was a 100% joke" I think it's fair to say that we both agreed it wasn't wise.

If you read Gilbert's tweet he does not use the word 'decision'. Your quote is not an actual quote.

by banbrotam Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:25 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Don't remember Brad Gilbert accusing AELTC of stupidity or cowardice. Must have missed that bit

No that was me but Gilbert did say "Wimbledon's decision was a 100% joke" I think it's fair to say that we both agreed it wasn't wise.

If you read Gilbert's tweet he does not use the word 'decision'. Your quote is not an actual quote.

And of course Gilbert's always been known as an intellectual heavyweight, who doesn't speak first and regret later, eh Hawkeye picard

Of course you'll be a Gilbert fan. After all Murray did sack him Rolling Eyes

by barrystar Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:41 pm

hawkeye wrote:Good grief! I am expressing an opinion that isn't popular on 606v2 but is the same as many tennis commentators including Brad Gilbert in the article that Haddie Nuff linked to. So this means I am trying to wind others up I'm quite grateful to any posters that have expressed that they understand my point of view even if they don't agree with it as it's quite difficult to do so in these circumstances.

lydian wrote:

The irony of course is that it was the Spanish Armada in 2001 that complained they werent protected enough in the early rounds. As a result the AELTC dispensed with a seeding committee in place of a formula that weighted normal tour points highly and expanded to 32 seeds. So, we have what we have and Nadal is #5.

I've heard this quoted a bit. But isn't this an example of how the way seeding was allocated in the past was changed? I don't really know the circumstances but it shows that change is possible. If then when presumably it was seen that it was necessary then why not now? Why does everyone think rules are set in stone and can't be changed if circumstances show it might be wise to do so?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also I cannot recall Murray fans creating such a stink when his ranking dropped to five and was seeded there for the 2010 Australian Open after he had time out due to a wrist injury.

Ha ha! You are not being serious comparing that situation to Nadals?

Anyway it is what it is. We shall see if the draw evens things up or makes things totally unbalanced. Ha ha! Unless anyone thinks the AELTC has any powers to decide that.

I am on record as thinking that it would be better were Nadal #4, what people don't like is the lying and playing innocent. Speak without forked tongue and everyone will get on fine.

by Johnyjeep Thu 20 Jun 2013, 5:55 pm

You wonder what Ferrer thinks of all this (not that this is an 'all this'). The vocal minority (4 pple are we up to now who think this is absurd?) as usual shout the loudest.

An honest hard working bloke who has played by the rules and deservedly got to where he has and has earned the right to be seeded number 4.

I didn't realise breaking into the top 4 (albeit briefly I suspect) would be such a heinous crime.

by Guest Thu 20 Jun 2013, 6:30 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw

This all I have to add

by Jahu Thu 20 Jun 2013, 9:22 pm

you guys are just something else. This forum has become like TopGear, more entertainment then real tennis, and its getting better and better thumbsup

Actually, honestly, truthfully, surprised that most tennis section posters have an IQ of average well over 145, intelligent, witty, nasty, cute, all of it.

Keep it up.

by yloponom68 Fri 21 Jun 2013, 1:50 am

Yeah well sad and erroneous decision by the AELTC again! Ferrer's made one QF on the hollawed lawns of SW19, Nadal - 5 str8 finals before last year's injury affected 2nd round loss. (Didn't play in 2009 as we all know by now!).

I hope that he gets drawn against either Djokovic or Federer and beats them, not because I want them out of the tourney early but just to show the AELTC the rubbish decision that they have made.

Djokovic is the clear World No 1 over the past 12 months and a previous Champion.

Murray is the World No 2 and had made semis multiple times.

Federer - 7 times champion, and defending champion.

This all makes sense.

Then we get to the nonsense - Nadal should be No 4 seed over Ferrer, hands down.

All respect to Ferrer, and if there was one person aside from Nadal to win Roland Garros, it's Ferrer. But to seed him above Nadal is just ridiculous. However, with all due respect to Nadal, Ferrer et al., I realize that about 1,000 children have died in Africa from the lack of a cup of clean water and a bowl full of rice, since I started this article. Perspective indeed. Vamos Rafa!

by Haddie-nuff Fri 21 Jun 2013, 6:46 am

yloponom68 wrote:Yeah well sad and erroneous decision by the AELTC again! Ferrer's made one QF on the hollawed lawns of SW19, Nadal - 5 str8 finals before last year's injury affected 2nd round loss. (Didn't play in 2009 as we all know by now!).

I hope that he gets drawn against either Djokovic or Federer and beats them, not because I want them out of the tourney early but just to show the AELTC the rubbish decision that they have made.

Djokovic is the clear World No 1 over the past 12 months and a previous Champion.

Murray is the World No 2 and had made semis multiple times.

Federer - 7 times champion, and defending champion.

This all makes sense.

Then we get to the nonsense - Nadal should be No 4 seed over Ferrer, hands down.

All respect to Ferrer, and if there was one person aside from Nadal to win Roland Garros, it's Ferrer. But to seed him above Nadal is just ridiculous. However, with all due respect to Nadal, Ferrer et al., I realize that about 1,000 children have died in Africa from the lack of a cup of clean water and a bowl full of rice, since I started this article. Perspective indeed. Vamos Rafa!

Leaving the tennis aside I applaud your last paragraph and wholeheartedly agree.. as I am sure Rafa would..as Boris said "its a game of tennis nobody has died" Im sure Rafa will survive one way or another.

by time please Fri 21 Jun 2013, 7:43 am

\"yloponom68 wrote:Yeah well sad and erroneous decision by the AELTC again! Ferrer's made one QF on the hollawed lawns of SW19, Nadal - 5 str8 finals before last year's injury affected 2nd round loss. (Didn't play in 2009 as we all know by now!).

I hope that he gets drawn against either Djokovic or Federer and beats them, not because I want them out of the tourney early but just to show the AELTC the rubbish decision that they have made.

While I agree that Nadal being seeded 5th seems crazy as he comes into the tournament as the in form player and he has a good Wimbledon pedigree, if the agreement with the players hadn't been made in whatever year it was, I am sure we all have no doubt that the Wimbledon Committee would have seeded him probably as No 2, but most certainly as No 3.

However (and this has been pointed out umpteen times now on this thread) Wimbledon has seeded according to the rules agreed with the players in the early 2000s. This was player driven, and according to those rules, Ferrer should be seeded No 4 -it is his reward for consistency throughout the last 12 months, as was deemed fair by the players when the new system was drawn up. There can't be exceptions now - Ferrer would have a real reason to protest in that event.

As for potentially preventing a marquee final, well that might not happen and many would argue that seeding as far down as the slams do now, protects a large chunk of the draw disproportionally. It is a shame for whoever draws Rafa in the QF, because I think when he gets to the second week he will be pretty well unstoppable - but that's sport.

by lydian Fri 21 Jun 2013, 8:54 am

Yes, the formula is the formula. A lot of this discussion is philosophical in terms of whether you believe seedlings should be predictive or reflective. I'm in the former camp given seedlings used to be basically who was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, favourite to lift the trophy. Personally, I'm not a fan of the "well he's earnt that seeding due to his ATP ranking over the past 12 months". That only partially works now because the surfaces are so homogenised. Can you imagine Muster being seeded #1-2 in the mid 90s from his clay runs on fast grass? Or Krajicek being #5 at French Open? They can duck the tough seeding decisions now, disband committees and hide behind formulas because the ITF turned it all into treacle. Also, how many times has a non Fed/Nad/Djokovic/Murray person got to the final of a Masters or Slams in the past 5 years...not many. But yes...it is what it is, Rafa was out of the game and he did poorly last year.

Anyway, Rafa won't care, he'll likely use it as motivation and have a point to prove...as TP says once he gets through the banana skin early rounds where he seems Bambi on ice these days.

by bogbrush Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:10 am

If only Wimbledon tickets were more easily traded I might take a punt on a bunch of Men's Quarter Centre Courts, looking to win if Nadal gets Djokovic, Federer or Murray then.

by time please Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:14 am

lydian wrote:A lot of this discussion is philosophical in terms of whether you believe seedlings should be predictive or reflective. I'm in the former camp given seedlings used to be basically who was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, favourite to lift the trophy. Personally, I'm not a fan of the "well he's earnt that seeding due to his ATP ranking over the past 12 months"

I agree with you about preferring a predictive seeding lydian - it is a shame that it was changed but as you and I accept, if it was to be changed again it has to be with players' agreement now otherwise W will have a revolution.

barrystar wrote:
Seedings will be doubled to ensure a more balanced draw, making early-round upsets less likely. That gives top players a better chance to reach the second week of the tournament, which pleases sponsors and television networks.
The United States Open pushed for the switch. The French Open, where Sampras and Venus Williams have been first-round losers the past two years, resisted but ultimately agreed to the change.
''Sixteen seeds isn't a magic number,'' said Merv Heller, the president of the United States Tennis Association. ''There are still going to be great matches the first week. I compare this to Beethoven's Fifth. You want to start out with a bang, but you want to finish with a grand finale.''

I pulled this up from earlier in thread - it is a really good point barrystar makes with this quote and illustrates why reflective seeding protects the big names even if they have been off form for the last couple of months. Perhaps another reason why it is difficult to compare the incredible achievements of Federer and Nadal and Co with those of Borg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras et al?

by Haddie-nuff Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:16 am

I bet in the Roman times you would have taken a punt on a bunch of tickets to watch the Gladiators being fed to the lions as well ...
never to miss an opportunity eh BB ?? Wink

by Born Slippy Fri 21 Jun 2013, 1:49 pm

I agree with Lydian's post that the seedings are meant to be predictive not a reward. However, I don't agree with the rest of his post.

First, there seems to be a belief that tournaments based seedings in the mid 90s on something other than rankings. Apart from Wimbledon, I don't believe that was the case. For example, whilst Lydian may find it hard to imagine Krajicek being seeded 5 at the French, he would have been seeded 5 if his ranking was 5 at the point of the draw. He was ranked 6th in 1997 and seeded 6th as a result. Similarly, Sampras was the number 1 seed that year and Goran was number 4.

More fundamentally, I can't agree that having a seeding committee randomly making decisions is better than a formulaic approach to take into account surface form. That can lead to bias, assumptions and justifiable irritated players. I'd be all for the other grand slams also having formulas and moving the seedings around as appropriate. Its a sensible way to proceed. The problem here is that Rafa's form on grass in the relevant period is fairly dreadful. If his clay and grass records were transposed, then he would probably be seeded 2 or 3. The AELTC can hardly be blamed for his poor performances and asked to unilaterally bump up one player as a result nor is the system to blame.

Finally, this has nothing to do with the surfaces becoming more similar. As stated above, the French would have merrily seeded a grass court specialist at 1 if that was his ranking in the mid-90s. Similarly, a clay-courter would have been seeded at 1 at the US or Oz if they were ranked 1. There was no argument about it then because that was accepted to be a fair process. Ignoring the rankings and trying to rely simply on a committee's decision on who is actually better on the surface is a recipe for disaster.

A better debate is whether there would be a better formula for Wimbledon to use.

by hawkeye Fri 21 Jun 2013, 2:01 pm

Ha ha ha! To the AELTC. Serves them right they only have themselves to blame.... but Sad

about the Nadal Federer quarter. The more I think about it the worse it gets.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 2:26 pm

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha ha! To the AELTC. Serves them right they only have themselves to blame.... but about the Nadal Federer quarter. The more I think about it the worse it gets.

No, they have the clay court players circa 2000/2001 to 'blame' picard

Not that a Rafa/Fed 1/4 final is a cause to blame anyone for anything.

by Guest Fri 21 Jun 2013, 2:27 pm

Can someone give me a possible route for Murrray and opponents? Thanks

by Johnyjeep Fri 21 Jun 2013, 2:36 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha ha! To the AELTC. Serves them right they only have themselves to blame.... but about the Nadal Federer quarter. The more I think about it the worse it gets.

No, they have the clay court players circa 2000/2001 to 'blame'
Not that a Rafa/Fed 1/4 final is a cause to blame anyone for anything.

I was thinking very much the same myself. I can imagine the scene now. The AELTC crying into their hands "oh no....we have a potential Federer Nadal Quarter Final....what have we done!!!!!"

If only the US Open hadn't seeded Nadal No 2 for all those years he wasn't deserved of it (according to the logic applied by some on here) then maybe they'd have had the match they always wanted in an earlier round rather than not (maybe never) at all.

by Guest Fri 21 Jun 2013, 2:42 pm

John wrote:Can someone give me a possible route for Murrray and opponents? Thanks

Rounds 1-4 - nobodies
quarter - Tsonga
Semi - Likely Rafa
Final - Deffo Screech (aka Djokovic)

ghost

emancipator - forever in the service of all intergalactic beings.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 21 Jun 2013, 3:00 pm

There's a potentially great opportunity here for someone to beat Fed, Nadal, Djoko and Murray in a slam!

by carrieg4 Fri 21 Jun 2013, 3:03 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:There's a potentially great opportunity here for someone to beat Fed, Nadal, Djoko and Murray in a slam!

Put a bet on it! I wonder what odds you would get?

by ryan86 Fri 21 Jun 2013, 3:11 pm

Murray could possibly have 3 grass court specialists in his first 3 rounds (Becker, Mr Lu, Mahut)

There's a potentially great opportunity here for someone to beat Fed, Nadal, Djoko and Murray in a slam!

Janowicz? Wawrinka? Rosol? Kyle Edmund?

by lydian Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:06 pm

Not sure where to post this so went here as we've talked about the years behind. I saw this on Wooffie's blog and thought it would be good to post here for those interested (thanks Wooffie!), it's a look at Wimbledon down the years. Fascinating to look at how poplar, and kind of similar, the game was 80 odd years ago onwards. Take a gander here:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2011/06/24/the-game-a-look-back-at-wimbledon/4507/

LF, hope you enjoy as know you like the historical side of tennis too Smile

by carrieg4 Fri 21 Jun 2013, 9:43 pm

Love it. Thanks for posting Lydian clap

by Sponsored content