Djokovic will be seeded #1 for Wimbledon

[Moxie]

It doesn't much matter, anyway, right? Rafa and Novak still one and two. Murray moves into the top 4, but the top 8 would have been the same top 8.

 

[Iona16]

At Wimbledon 2010 Federer was seeded #1 despite being #2 in the world. Nadal was the world #1 at the time. This is not new ground.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The maths are there, Lux, that's how they do their seeding. Nole will be #1.

You think they'll change it this year?

Why?

Ok, sorry, can you clarify, I may have misunderstood. Nadal is #1 ATP, and I thought all grand slam seeding committed are loathe to do anything different than go by the rankings. They tried it in the 90s and there was a massive backlash and a proposed boycott for the Championships, most vocal were Coretjja and Muster.

So you are saying they have decided to do grass court seeding. Sorry for seeming out of it. I just assumed world rankings were used across the board.

 

[Moxie]

But it's the defending champion who plays first, isn't that right? Not the #1 seed. Someone was asking who will play first for the women: last year's runner up, or the previous champion, which I believe was Serena?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

At Wimbledon 2010 Federer was seeded #1 despite being #2 in the world. Nadal was the world #1 at the time. This is not new ground.

I missed that.

I do remember when Sampras was seeded #1 at the French every year he was #1 in the rankings....what a joke that was in reality but it was smart of them not to create "clay seeding" IMO.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

But it's the defending champion who plays first, isn't that right? Not the #1 seed. Someone was asking who will play first for the women: last year's runner up, or the previous champion, which I believe was Serena?

Yes, on center court, At 2pm sharp!!!!

 

[Moxie]

The maths are there, Lux, that's how they do their seeding. Nole will be #1.

You think they'll change it this year?

Why?

Ok, sorry, can you clarify, I may have misunderstood. Nadal is #1 ATP, and I thought all grand slam seeding committed are loathe to do anything different than go by the rankings. They tried it in the 90s and there was a massive backlash and a proposed boycott for the Championships, most vocal were Coretjja and Muster.

So you are saying they have decided to do grass court seeding. Sorry for seeming out of it. I just assumed world rankings were used across the board.

Only Wimbledon does it. (See Iona's formula on the previous page.) It makes sense, given how little grass tennis gets played. There was some talk last year about changing Nadal's seeding for RG (given that he was ranked about #4-5 at the time,) but that was just a bunch of palaver.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The maths are there, Lux, that's how they do their seeding. Nole will be #1.

You think they'll change it this year?

Why?

Ok, sorry, can you clarify, I may have misunderstood. Nadal is #1 ATP, and I thought all grand slam seeding committed are loathe to do anything different than go by the rankings. They tried it in the 90s and there was a massive backlash and a proposed boycott for the Championships, most vocal were Coretjja and Muster.

So you are saying they have decided to do grass court seeding. Sorry for seeming out of it. I just assumed world rankings were used across the board.

Only Wimbledon does it. (See Iona's formula on the previous page.) It makes sense, given how little grass tennis gets played. There was some talk last year about changing Nadal's seeding for RG (given that he was ranked about #4-5 at the time,) but that was just a bunch of palaver.

Ok, got it. I don't agree with it. I thought after getting such a backlash years ago they would just bag it.

Remember this debacle?????!!

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/sports/officials-draw-criticism-and-redo-men-s-open.html

The US Open in 1996 did not follow the ATP rankings...

 

[Moxie]

^ I wasn't following tennis at the time, so I didn't know that, but it sounds like an absolute train wreck. For Wimbledon only I think it makes sense, and I imagine they started doing it when the grass "season" shrank to brief holiday. And at least the ATP side follows a formula that everyone has agreed to. I don't see anything wrong with pushing up the players with better grass results.

 

[Fiero425]

^ I wasn't following tennis at the time, so I didn't know that, but it sounds like an absolute train wreck. For Wimbledon only I think it makes sense, and I imagine they started doing it when the grass "season" shrank to brief holiday. And at least the ATP side follows a formula that everyone has agreed to. I don't see anything wrong with pushing up the players with better grass results.

The USO men's draw has been under intense scrutiny since a scandal back in '96 where they had to "redraw" it after some behind the scenes manipulation! It's been years since it happened so I can only remember they had to re-do the seedings and ended up still doing a half-arse job! We've embarrassed ourselves from the draw to the venue with location and surface changes! It's been a crying shame for as long as I can remember! nono uzzled :angel:

 

[nehmeth]

I hope Nadal gets to the Quarters. uzzled

It hasn't been a given the past couple of years. I don't think there's any "favorite" to win this year. Wondering if Fed gets a favorable draw if this might not be his version of Sampras's 2002.

 

[Moxie]

I hope Nadal gets to the Quarters. uzzled

It hasn't been a given the past couple of years. I don't think there's any "favorite" to win this year. Wondering if Fed gets a favorable draw if this might not be his version of Sampras's 2002.

I think you're right that there's no favorite this year, though I get why betting odds go Djokovic. As far as Roger, I thought his version of Sampras's 2002 was in 2012. I wonder if this Wimbledon gets even more wild and wooly than last year, or like it did on the women's side. Of the 2 Slams remaining, I'd pick this one for the surprise winner, should such a thing happen.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

No difference between 1 and 2 except bragging rights. But if you drop ,say, the number 4 in the world to 5 , that is a serious blow.

Exactly. Here's the top 8 seeds, according to the site:

1. Novak Djokovic: 14,070 (inc 1740 grass-court points)
2. Rafael Nadal: 12,543.75 (inc. 43.75)
3. Andy Murray: 7,990 (inc 3,150)
4. Roger Federer: 6,740 (inc 1795)
5. Stan Wawrinka: 5,647.5 (inc 167.5)
6. Tomas Berdych 5,088.75 (inc 408.75)
7. David Ferrer: 4,820 (inc 630)
8. Milos Raonic 3,323.75 (inc 78.75)

yay..the "big 4" are back together again. :

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^lolwut, what happened ?...the incredible shrinking smiley.

 

[Fiero425]

I hope Nadal gets to the Quarters. uzzled

It hasn't been a given the past couple of years. I don't think there's any "favorite" to win this year. Wondering if Fed gets a favorable draw if this might not be his version of Sampras's 2002.

I think you're right that there's no favorite this year, though I get why betting odds go Djokovic. As far as Roger, I thought his version of Sampras's 2002 was in 2012. I wonder if this Wimbledon gets even more wild and wooly than last year, or like it did on the women's side. Of the 2 Slams remaining, I'd pick this one for the surprise winner, should such a thing happen.

I understand where you're coming from, but people forget how far Pete had fallen once he won 2000 Wimbledon; fell out of the top 20 after being winless for over 2 years! He was given a gift seed of #17 IIRC and had one more push, culminating in his personal pigeon waiting for him in the '02 USO final, Andre Agassi! Federer not only had won smaller events since his last major win at Wimbledon, but has taken a Masters here and there, and actually got back to #1 one more time! He'll leave the tour long before he falls that far! :angel:

 

[herios]

Someone who will be seeded with several spots above his current ranking is Janowicz. He is now #24, and with his 720 points added for his last year SF will be most likely seeded in the top 16.

 

[August]

But it's the defending champion who plays first, isn't that right? Not the #1 seed. Someone was asking who will play first for the women: last year's runner up, or the previous champion, which I believe was Serena?

Women's defending champ usually opens the day 2 on CC.

The maths are there, Lux, that's how they do their seeding. Nole will be #1.

You think they'll change it this year?

Why?

Ok, sorry, can you clarify, I may have misunderstood. Nadal is #1 ATP, and I thought all grand slam seeding committed are loathe to do anything different than go by the rankings. They tried it in the 90s and there was a massive backlash and a proposed boycott for the Championships, most vocal were Coretjja and Muster.

So you are saying they have decided to do grass court seeding. Sorry for seeming out of it. I just assumed world rankings were used across the board.

Only Wimbledon does it. (See Iona's formula on the previous page.) It makes sense, given how little grass tennis gets played. There was some talk last year about changing Nadal's seeding for RG (given that he was ranked about #4-5 at the time,) but that was just a bunch of palaver.

Ok, got it. I don't agree with it. I thought after getting such a backlash years ago they would just bag it.

Remember this debacle?????!!

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/sports/officials-draw-criticism-and-redo-men-s-open.html

The US Open in 1996 did not follow the ATP rankings...

The 32 highest-ranked players get seeded, even if some players ranked lower would get more points with the seeding formula. I think that was to prevent protests from players who'd lose their seeding to lower-ranked grass specialists.

Also, I prefer the system Wimbledon has for the ATP over the system for the WTA. The formula for the ATP is mathematical whereas the WTA system is based only on assessment, enabling rigging the seedings.

 

[Fiero425]

Ok, got it. I don't agree with it. I thought after getting such a backlash years ago they would just bag it.

Remember this debacle?????!!

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/sports/officials-draw-criticism-and-redo-men-s-open.html

The US Open in '96 did not follow the ATP rankings...

The 32 highest-ranked players get seeded, even if some players ranked lower would get more points with the seeding formula. I think that was to prevent protests from players who'd lose their seeding to lower-ranked grass specialists.

Also, I prefer the system Wimbledon has for the ATP over the system for the WTA. The formula for the ATP is mathematical whereas the WTA system is based only on assessment, enabling rigging the seedings.

Well Wiki finally caught up! They still had Nadal seeded #1 in the Wimbledon draw yesterday last I looked! "Congrats Nole; ya gotta keep winning though to make it more legit!" :clap :angel:

 

[Moxie]

But it's the defending champion who plays first, isn't that right? Not the #1 seed. Someone was asking who will play first for the women: last year's runner up, or the previous champion, which I believe was Serena?

Women's defending champ usually opens the day 2 on CC.

The maths are there, Lux, that's how they do their seeding. Nole will be #1.

You think they'll change it this year?

Why?

Ok, sorry, can you clarify, I may have misunderstood. Nadal is #1 ATP, and I thought all grand slam seeding committed are loathe to do anything different than go by the rankings. They tried it in the 90s and there was a massive backlash and a proposed boycott for the Championships, most vocal were Coretjja and Muster.

So you are saying they have decided to do grass court seeding. Sorry for seeming out of it. I just assumed world rankings were used across the board.

Only Wimbledon does it. (See Iona's formula on the previous page.) It makes sense, given how little grass tennis gets played. There was some talk last year about changing Nadal's seeding for RG (given that he was ranked about #4-5 at the time,) but that was just a bunch of palaver.

Ok, got it. I don't agree with it. I thought after getting such a backlash years ago they would just bag it.

Remember this debacle?????!!

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/23/sports/officials-draw-criticism-and-redo-men-s-open.html

The US Open in 1996 did not follow the ATP rankings...

The 32 highest-ranked players get seeded, even if some players ranked lower would get more points with the seeding formula. I think that was to prevent protests from players who'd lose their seeding to lower-ranked grass specialists.

Also, I prefer the system Wimbledon has for the ATP over the system for the WTA. The formula for the ATP is mathematical whereas the WTA system is based only on assessment, enabling rigging the seedings.

So, does that mean there will be more than 32 seeds? It is a bit confusing.

And it still doesn't answer the question of who will have the honor on the women's side, since Bartoli is not defending.

 

[Iona16]

I have to say that considering just how long Brad Gilbert has been around tennis he seemed completely in the dark when it came to how Wimbledon seed players. I thought he was joking on twitter but he was deadly serious. Check his twitter feed. It's just bizarre.