Djokovic will be seeded #1 for Wimbledon

[tented]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

 

[tented]

I've moved all posts about the 2010 Nadal/Petzschner match into another thread, beginning here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2186&pid=111271#pid111271

If you want to keep discussing it, do so there, not in this thread about this year's Wimbledon.

Thanks.

 

[Kieran]

Good idea, T. No need for a good thread to be spammed.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

I have a bit of sympathy for this, given that whatever a player did last year on grass is irrelevant to what he's doing now. The proof is in looking at what happened to Rafa over the last two seasons, and Roger last year. They don't want to come out and say, "look, we seed based upon what we think will happen on grass" because then they'd have to totally disregard the ATP rankings and trawl through the grass court tourneys.

Instead, they have a feeble compromise, which doesn't reflect the ATP, nor does it reflect grass court form (and again, I point at Nadal here).

So maybe they should just get over themselves and go straight from the ATP rankings, like Paris did when they had Pete as #1 seed...

 

[tented]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

But you do realize, don't you, that all of this was completely predictable based on Wimbledon's seeding algorithm which is always posted on their website? Anyone of us could have done the math, and figured out what was going to happen. It wasn't a backroom deal, which you seem to be implying.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

But you do realize, don't you, that all of this was completely predictable based on Wimbledon's seeding algorithm which is always posted on their website? Anyone of us could have done the math, and figured out what was going to happen. It wasn't a backroom deal, which you seem to be implying.

No, it is not a backroom deal, it is fraud in the open light of day. Funny how murray benefits the most. Nadal or Joker #1 or 2 makes no difference.

You earn your seeding from grinding it out the WHOLE year...with blood sweat and tears, not from some asswipe in a smoking jacket and pipe sipping tea.

What is done is done. The fact that Murray could not even make the semis at Queens and was bumped in the seedings is laughable.

 

[Front242]

I agree it's a flawed seeding formula but it's been like this for quite some time now and Murray's title at Wimbledon last year is what upped his seeding. Queens this year doesn't come into it.

 

[Kieran]

It may actually have more validity after next year, when players have 3 weeks between Paris and Wimbledon, and so can actually take part in more tournaments, giving a grasscourt "season" that can be separated from the whole, and measured.

Playing two tourneys a year on grass isn't a season...

 

[Iona16]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

Here was me thinking it was simple maths.

 

[Kieran]

The formula is simple maths, Iona, and it's been in place for decades, but is it time to look at changing this and seeding according to the ATP rankings list?

Or is Wimbledon's system a more accurate reflection of players chances at Wimbo?

 

[Iona16]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

But you do realize, don't you, that all of this was completely predictable based on Wimbledon's seeding algorithm which is always posted on their website? Anyone of us could have done the math, and figured out what was going to happen. It wasn't a backroom deal, which you seem to be implying.

No, it is not a backroom deal, it is fraud in the open light of day. Funny how murray benefits the most. Nadal or Joker #1 or 2 makes no difference.

You earn your seeding from grinding it out the WHOLE year...with blood sweat and tears, not from some asswipe in a smoking jacket and pipe sipping tea.

What is done is done. The fact that Murray could not even make the semis at Queens and was bumped in the seedings is laughable.

You do realise that this system has been in place for years. They didn't dream it up this year to 'benefit' Murray.

 

[Kieran]

An argument in favour of Wimbledon's system is Nadal in Paris: how often has he been #1 seed? 3 times? Last year he was seeded #5, I think, which was a woeful reflection of what everybody expected to happen...

 

[Iona16]

An argument in favour of Wimbledon's system is Nadal in Paris: how often has he been #1 seed? 3 times? Last year he was seeded #5, I think, which was a woeful reflection of what everybody expected to happen...

I was going to mention RG 2013 Kieran. There were suggestions last year that some sort of clay seeding formula should be implemented. The year Wimbledon (2010) seeded Federer #1 ahead of the world #1 (Rafa) there were Federer fans saying the formula was fair. All you had to do was look at Roger's record.

Wimbledon have a formula and that formula has Novak #1 and Andy #3. It is what it is.

 

[Kieran]

I know that Iona, but do you think it should be changed?

Or could the system become useful elsewhere?

I mean, the grass court season is only two tournaments, so there's hardly much to go on. Why not scrap it?

Or could there be an argument in favour of keeping it - and going further, by doing something similar on clay, indoors, and hards?

It would make the ATP rankings less credible though, would it? And these are results based...

 

[Iona16]

The All England Club has some set of stones.

Why? I'm not sure what you mean.

These seedings are downright insider trading, fraud, and manipulation.

ATP World Rankings are what should be used, period. Murray is protected from the top 4 until the semis now.

Sorry, this is BS. There are no more surface specialists in the top 20 anymore. The same players get to the qtrs, semis, and finals of all four majors. No reason to do anything but go by the rankings.

But you do realize, don't you, that all of this was completely predictable based on Wimbledon's seeding algorithm which is always posted on their website? Anyone of us could have done the math, and figured out what was going to happen. It wasn't a backroom deal, which you seem to be implying.

No, it is not a backroom deal, it is fraud in the open light of day. Funny how murray benefits the most. Nadal or Joker #1 or 2 makes no difference.

You earn your seeding from grinding it out the WHOLE year...with blood sweat and tears, not from some asswipe in a smoking jacket and pipe sipping tea.

One finds that most amusing. Those bloody Brits and their tea sipping and their dastardly plan to help Sir Andy Murray. We're going to need Sherlock Holmes to sort that formula out. If only someone had a calculator.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

An argument in favour of Wimbledon's system is Nadal in Paris: how often has he been #1 seed? 3 times? Last year he was seeded #5, I think, which was a woeful reflection of what everybody expected to happen...

He got to #4 by winning Madrid and Rome and beating Ferrer in the quarter final both times and was even seeded at #3 because Murray withdrew.

The reason for the Wimbledon formula is probably that most higher ranked players just play Wimbledon and one 250-tournament on grass each year, so the results on grass don't have much influence on the regular ATP Rankings and the formular gives them more weight for Wimbledon.

On clay a player can take part in the French Open, 3 Masters 1000, 3 500s and some 250s, so points accumulated on clay can significantly influence the ranking of those who prefer the surface.

 

[Kieran]

Surely -FG-, that's an argument against Wimbledon using the formula, and in favour of it being used on clay?

 

[Iona16]

I know that Iona, but do you think it should be changed?

Or could the system become useful elsewhere?

I mean, the grass court season is only two tournaments, so there's hardly much to go on. Why not scrap it?

Or could there be an argument in favour of keeping it - and going further, by doing something similar on clay, indoors, and hards?

It would make the ATP rankings less credible though, would it? And these are results based...

In all honesty I'm not really bothered. I'd be absolutely fine with Wimbledon using the world rankings. It's probably the fairest thing to do.

 

[Moxie]

An argument in favour of Wimbledon's system is Nadal in Paris: how often has he been #1 seed? 3 times? Last year he was seeded #5, I think, which was a woeful reflection of what everybody expected to happen...

He got to #4 by winning Madrid and Rome and beating Ferrer in the quarter final both times.

The reason for the Wimbledon formula is probably that most higher ranked players just play Wimbledon and one 250-tournament on grass each year, so the results on grass don't have much influence on the regular ATP Rankings and the formular gives them more weight for Wimbledon.

On clay a player can take part in the French Open, 3 Masters 1000, 3 500s and some 250s, so points accumulated on clay can significantly influence the ranking of those who prefer the surface.

I agree with you that RG doesn't need it, nor do the AO or USO, because there are plenty enough clay and HC tournaments to make a fair reflection of a player's ability on a surface, purely based on rankings.

Btw, I think Rafa was seeded #4 at RG last year because Murray withdrew, thus sorted of making moot all the previous wringing of hands at his going it at #5. In any case, though, I admire the FO for not changing its formula just in hopes of getting a better final. (I looked it up. On 13 May, Nadal was still ranked #5, though he rose to #4 the following week. Depends on when the FO fixed their seedings.)

 

[tented]

I know that Iona, but do you think it should be changed?

Or could the system become useful elsewhere?

I mean, the grass court season is only two tournaments, so there's hardly much to go on. Why not scrap it?

Or could there be an argument in favour of keeping it - and going further, by doing something similar on clay, indoors, and hards?

It would make the ATP rankings less credible though, would it? And these are results based...

In all honesty I'm not really bothered. I'd be absolutely fine with Wimbledon using the world rankings. It's probably the fairest thing to do.

I'm torn. On one hand, I agree with the idea of making things uniform across all tournaments. At the same time, I can appreciate Wimbledon wanting to keep the players who have demonstrated grass-court proficiency away from each other as long as possible.

We all (I think?) want to see the highest quality, most competitive final. In order to achieve that, you must separate the top players as much as possible to prevent their meeting too early. If Wimbledon's formula happens to bump Andy into the Top 4, then all the better, as far as I'm concerned. If his ranking had been a little lower (i.e., not enough to be moved into the Top 4 even after applying the algorithm), then that's that.