Djokovic will be seeded #1 for Wimbledon

[Moxie]

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.

I'm with Tented on the side of torn between both, and I don't mind either way, like Iona. I can see the reason for doing it. But as to the point of "uniformity," if we're looking for it, then the USO shouldn't be allowed to decide that it will have 5th set tie-breaks. (Which is an issue I'm also torn on, btw.)

 

[Backhand_DTL]

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

For me that's the argument for using it at Wimbledon. If a player is much better on grass than on clay or hard he has just a few tournaments each year on his favorite surface and he has little chances to build up his ranking by just being good on grass. The formula allows such players to have a better seeding at Wimbledon, if they are in the Top 32 and those ranked directly in front of them have substantially worse results on grass, which seems OK to me.

Using a formula for the French Open would be acceptable to me, too, but the additional weight given to clay-points should be less, as the performance on clay is already much more reflected in the normal rankings, than the performance on grass.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

You have to admit, that was pretty funny.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

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.

tim henman is on the Wimbledon seeding panel..and he is not an "asswipe" and he prob is not smoking a pipe, and anyway Wimbledon premises are no smoking areas so you are totally wrong on that point as well.

Wimbledon is special. they can do what they want.

 

[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.

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.)

Before Madrid and Rome Rafa's chances to get a Top 4-seeding were pretty slim as he needed to win both events and Ferrer to net get too far in any of them. By being in Ferrer's quarter both times he had the opportunity to secure being #4 on his own, which is what happened in the end. Andy's withdrawal then meant that both Rafa and Ferrer got a Top 4-seed anyway.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

tim henman is on the Wimbledon seeding panel..and he is not an "asswipe" and he prob is not smoking a pipe, and anyway Wimbledon premises are no smoking areas so you are totally wrong on that point as well.

Wimbledon is special. they can do what they want.

You will be amused to know Henman despised the tournament committee when he was playing. There was a famous tantrum he threw when he found out they were opening the cans of balls two weeks before the event to soften the balls up..a move that did not exactly help his S&V game.

 

[Moxie]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

First, Wimbledon was trying to slow down the balls and hence, the game due to incredible outside pressure. Reduced ratings, and criticism over the lack of rallies was affecting the tournament, irrespective of how it would help,or hurt Henman, who by the way, as great as he was, never made a slam final.

Getting back to the seeding, the fact the whole grass season is 3 tournaments makes it even more absurd to tinker with rankings. Joker did not even play a single grass event before Wimbledon, and won't play one after!!!

Go with the rankings, which are earned over the whole year by a player busting their asses.

This is not 1992. The style of play is similar across all four slams. With their logic, why not seed Ferrer 2 or 3 at RG. Heck, why not seed Fed #1' he has got 7 Wimbledons...how many Halle's?

Their is no defending this nonsense. Seed by rankings. Period.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^that tim henman stuff is not new information. I'd say thanks anyway..but I will not.

 

[Moxie]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

First, Wimbledon was trying to slow down the balls and hence, the game due to incredible outside pressure. Reduced ratings, and criticism over the lack of rallies was affecting the tournament, irrespective of how it would help,or hurt Henman, who by the way, as great as he was, never made a slam final.

Getting back to the seeding, the fact the whole grass season is 3 tournaments makes it even more absurd to tinker with rankings. Joker did not even play a single grass event before Wimbledon, and won't play one after!!!

Go with the rankings, which are earned over the whole year by a player busting their asses.

This is not 1992. The style of play is similar across all four slams. With their logic, why not seed Ferrer 2 or 3 at RG. Heck, why not seed Fed #1' he has got 7 Wimbledons...how many Halle's?

Their is no defending this nonsense. Seed by rankings. Period.

Yes, I think Wimbledon did try to slow down play to make it more appealing, but that is a separate issue. As to the seedings, as I've said, I don't really care either way. However, you're not taking on board that there's a formula. They can't randomly seed Federer #1, if the points don't work that way. But maybe it is becoming anachronistic. If they slow the surface, then perhaps they're being a bit precious to privilege players who do well on grass. (And is perhaps not such a separate issue, after all.)

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

First, Wimbledon was trying to slow down the balls and hence, the game due to incredible outside pressure. Reduced ratings, and criticism over the lack of rallies was affecting the tournament, irrespective of how it would help,or hurt Henman, who by the way, as great as he was, never made a slam final.

Getting back to the seeding, the fact the whole grass season is 3 tournaments makes it even more absurd to tinker with rankings. Joker did not even play a single grass event before Wimbledon, and won't play one after!!!

Go with the rankings, which are earned over the whole year by a player busting their asses.

This is not 1992. The style of play is similar across all four slams. With their logic, why not seed Ferrer 2 or 3 at RG. Heck, why not seed Fed #1' he has got 7 Wimbledons...how many Halle's?

Their is no defending this nonsense. Seed by rankings. Period.

Yes, I think Wimbledon did try to slow down play to make it more appealing, but that is a separate issue. As to the seedings, as I've said, I don't really care either way. However, you're not taking on board that there's a formula. They can't randomly seed Federer #1, if the points don't work that way. But maybe it is becoming anachronistic. If they slow the surface, then perhaps they're being a bit precious to privilege players who do well on grass. (And is perhaps not such a separate issue, after all.)

Well written post.

Well, i am trying to understand the absurdity of seeding to privilege players who do "well on grass", when essentially that means, those who do "well at Wimbledon."

The courts now play like a plush hard court after the first two days. So you have just as much chance of winning Miami, Indian Wells, or Wimbledon. Oh, wait, how many common champions among those tournaments are there? Fed, Joker, Nadal, and Murray have all won Wimbledon, and either Miami or Indian Wells, or all...see what I am getting at?

 

[Moxie]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

First, Wimbledon was trying to slow down the balls and hence, the game due to incredible outside pressure. Reduced ratings, and criticism over the lack of rallies was affecting the tournament, irrespective of how it would help,or hurt Henman, who by the way, as great as he was, never made a slam final.

Getting back to the seeding, the fact the whole grass season is 3 tournaments makes it even more absurd to tinker with rankings. Joker did not even play a single grass event before Wimbledon, and won't play one after!!!

Go with the rankings, which are earned over the whole year by a player busting their asses.

This is not 1992. The style of play is similar across all four slams. With their logic, why not seed Ferrer 2 or 3 at RG. Heck, why not seed Fed #1' he has got 7 Wimbledons...how many Halle's?

Their is no defending this nonsense. Seed by rankings. Period.

Yes, I think Wimbledon did try to slow down play to make it more appealing, but that is a separate issue. As to the seedings, as I've said, I don't really care either way. However, you're not taking on board that there's a formula. They can't randomly seed Federer #1, if the points don't work that way. But maybe it is becoming anachronistic. If they slow the surface, then perhaps they're being a bit precious to privilege players who do well on grass. (And is perhaps not such a separate issue, after all.)

Well, i am trying to understand the absurdity of seeding to privilege players who do "well on grass", when essentially that means, those who do "well at Wimbledon."

The courts now play like a plush hard court after the first two days. So you have just as much chance of winning Miami, Indian Wells, or Wimbledon. Oh, wait, how many common champions among those tournaments are there? Fed, Joker, Nadal, and Murray have all won Wimbledon, and either Miami or Indian Wells, or all...see what I am getting at?

There are other tournaments on grass besides Wimbledon. Halle plays very fast, as I understand. There are two tournaments this week, and at least Newport, after, is still on grass. So there are a few tournaments by which to judge grass play.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ So I guess that means they aren't favoring British players.

LB, I'm wondering why you're so put off by the Wimbledon system of seeding? You seem especially incensed. Why not favor players who play well on grass, when the season is down to a couple of weeks, and then a few unimportant events after Wimbledon?

First, Wimbledon was trying to slow down the balls and hence, the game due to incredible outside pressure. Reduced ratings, and criticism over the lack of rallies was affecting the tournament, irrespective of how it would help,or hurt Henman, who by the way, as great as he was, never made a slam final.

Getting back to the seeding, the fact the whole grass season is 3 tournaments makes it even more absurd to tinker with rankings. Joker did not even play a single grass event before Wimbledon, and won't play one after!!!

Go with the rankings, which are earned over the whole year by a player busting their asses.

This is not 1992. The style of play is similar across all four slams. With their logic, why not seed Ferrer 2 or 3 at RG. Heck, why not seed Fed #1' he has got 7 Wimbledons...how many Halle's?

Their is no defending this nonsense. Seed by rankings. Period.

Yes, I think Wimbledon did try to slow down play to make it more appealing, but that is a separate issue. As to the seedings, as I've said, I don't really care either way. However, you're not taking on board that there's a formula. They can't randomly seed Federer #1, if the points don't work that way. But maybe it is becoming anachronistic. If they slow the surface, then perhaps they're being a bit precious to privilege players who do well on grass. (And is perhaps not such a separate issue, after all.)

Well, i am trying to understand the absurdity of seeding to privilege players who do "well on grass", when essentially that means, those who do "well at Wimbledon."

The courts now play like a plush hard court after the first two days. So you have just as much chance of winning Miami, Indian Wells, or Wimbledon. Oh, wait, how many common champions among those tournaments are there? Fed, Joker, Nadal, and Murray have all won Wimbledon, and either Miami or Indian Wells, or all...see what I am getting at?

There are other tournaments on grass besides Wimbledon. Halle plays very fast, as I understand. There are two tournaments this week, and at least Newport, after, is still on grass. So there are a few tournaments by which to judge grass play.

Yes, but exactly how many does Novak play? Berdych? None except for Wimby. Fed, Nadal? Halle and W., Murray? Queens and W.

So the top 25 essentially play either 1, maximum 2 grass tourneys in a calendar year. So I am still not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Moxie]

Well, i am trying to understand the absurdity of seeding to privilege players who do "well on grass", when essentially that means, those who do "well at Wimbledon."

The courts now play like a plush hard court after the first two days. So you have just as much chance of winning Miami, Indian Wells, or Wimbledon. Oh, wait, how many common champions among those tournaments are there? Fed, Joker, Nadal, and Murray have all won Wimbledon, and either Miami or Indian Wells, or all...see what I am getting at?

There are other tournaments on grass besides Wimbledon. Halle plays very fast, as I understand. There are two tournaments this week, and at least Newport, after, is still on grass. So there are a few tournaments by which to judge grass play.

Yes, but exactly how many does Novak play? Berdych? None except for Wimby. Fed, Nadal? Halle and W., Murray? Queens and W.

So the top 25 essentially play either 1, maximum 2 grass tourneys in a calendar year. So I am still not sure what you are getting at.

The notion of privileging grass-courters is not just about the top 4. That, I would think, is rather more the point than where any of the top 8 land. I don't agree that the top 25 play 1 or 2 max grass tourneys. Have you looked at the roster of players of last week and this? I'll just mention Feliciano Lopez as an example. He'll have played 3 by Wimbledon, and he's an excellent grass player. There's a perfectly good argument that he deserves to be seeded higher for grass than his overall ranking.

As I've said, I could go either way on it, I'm only saying that I get the argument for it. And, as they do it via a perfectly transparent formula, on the ATP side, I don't mind.

 

[Kieran]

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

For me that's the argument for using it at Wimbledon. If a player is much better on grass than on clay or hard he has just a few tournaments each year on his favorite surface and he has little chances to build up his ranking by just being good on grass. The formula allows such players to have a better seeding at Wimbledon, if they are in the Top 32 and those ranked directly in front of them have substantially worse results on grass, which seems OK to me.

Using a formula for the French Open would be acceptable to me, too, but the additional weight given to clay-points should be less, as the performance on clay is already much more reflected in the normal rankings, than the performance on grass.

I don't think the divide exists nowadays between players who are just good on grass and need help with the seedings to preserve their spot. I think it's been made redundant for the last ten years, and especially since the Big 4 have monopolised the semis of virtually every slam...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I don't think the divide exists nowadays between players who are just good on grass and need help with the seedings to preserve their spot. I think it's been made redundant for the last ten years, and especially since the Big 4 have monopolised the semis of virtually every slam...

At the very top, where the difference between being #1 or #2 or #2 or #3 regularly is quite a big amount of points, the impact of the formula is rather limited anyway. For a change there two players have to be quite close to each other (Rafa and Novak) or one must have significantly better grass results than the other (Andy and Stan). Especially in the second case it makes sense, as Andy being seeded higher than Stan doesn't feel wrong to me at all.

I think during the last 5 to 10 years there were little notable changes in the top 8 seeds because of the formula. In my opinion it is much more important for positions 9-32. The point differences between players in that range are often rather small, so the ones with better grass results may get into more favorable sections (9-12 compared to 13-16, 13-16 compared to 17-24, 17-24 compared to 25-32) if they are close enough to those ranked directly in front of them and have increased chances to go a round or two further.

 

[herios]

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

For me that's the argument for using it at Wimbledon. If a player is much better on grass than on clay or hard he has just a few tournaments each year on his favorite surface and he has little chances to build up his ranking by just being good on grass. The formula allows such players to have a better seeding at Wimbledon, if they are in the Top 32 and those ranked directly in front of them have substantially worse results on grass, which seems OK to me.

Using a formula for the French Open would be acceptable to me, too, but the additional weight given to clay-points should be less, as the performance on clay is already much more reflected in the normal rankings, than the performance on grass.

I don't think the divide exists nowadays between players who are just good on grass and need help with the seedings to preserve their spot. I think it's been made redundant for the last ten years, and especially since the Big 4 have monopolised the semis of virtually every slam...

The monopoly ended 2 years ago.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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

For me that's the argument for using it at Wimbledon. If a player is much better on grass than on clay or hard he has just a few tournaments each year on his favorite surface and he has little chances to build up his ranking by just being good on grass. The formula allows such players to have a better seeding at Wimbledon, if they are in the Top 32 and those ranked directly in front of them have substantially worse results on grass, which seems OK to me.

Using a formula for the French Open would be acceptable to me, too, but the additional weight given to clay-points should be less, as the performance on clay is already much more reflected in the normal rankings, than the performance on grass.

I don't think the divide exists nowadays between players who are just good on grass and need help with the seedings to preserve their spot. I think it's been made redundant for the last ten years, and especially since the Big 4 have monopolised the semis of virtually every slam...

That is what I have been trying to say...

 

[Iona16]

This is worth a read.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/wimbledon-seeds-andy-murray-roger-federer

 

[Kieran]

You're rubbing peoples noses in it, Iona! :laydownlaughing

Great to see the Big 4 in the top places. I wonder, if Rafa faces Nole in the final, who sits in what seat?!