Early Grass Talk - 2019

[Moxie]

The WTA do not follow the mens seeding at Wimbledon,they have ranked the newly No1 player Ash Barty as the top seed for Wimbledon.....so far I have not read one complaint regarding her seeding at Wimbledon.

I saw that. The women are seeded exactly following the rankings as of now. Leaving another reason to debate it, if it's only on the men's side. (Note: Angie Kerber won last year, and yet she's still ranked #5, reflecting her actual ranking.) As I said, the question comes up now because you swap #2 + #3, which is a big shift, and it's Federer for Nadal. But rather than discuss rationally, we have folks saying that Rafa is "whining" to address the system, a headline about a "Federer Nadal Feud," etc. So much hysteria, really.

 

[MartyB]

Well, it's not an exact quote, since he said it in Spanish, though it's a reasonable paraphrase. This is what he said:

"Lo único que a mí no me parece bien de esta historia es que solo sea Wimbledon el que lo haga", comentó el actual número dos del mundo.

"Si lo hicieran todos los Grand Slams sería correcto, pero que lo haga solo un torneo, no solo ha ocurrido en mi lugar, le ha pasado a otros jugadores. No respetan el estatus que algunos jugadores se han ganado a lo largo de la temporada jugando bien en las diferentes superficies", matizó Nadal.

The above is a fuller quote. He said, "The only think that doesn't seem right to me in the whole thing is that it's only Wimbledon that does it. If they did it in all the other Grand Slams it would be fair, but they do it in only one tournament, it's not just me, it's happened to other players. They aren't respecting the ranking that some players have earned over the season playing well on different surfaces."

______________

Now, if you want to call that whining, that's your right. But if you take a step back for a second, and think about it with an open mind: both Broken and I have pointed out that a) he was asked a question, and he gave an opinion...he didn't call a press conference to complain about Wimbledon; b) folks around here keep saying that he knows how Wimbledon works, so why complain now? Again, he's being asked about it now because it's the first time it's been sort of a huge shift...Federer for Nadal, 3 to 2. As I looked for the original Spanish, (which Broken had already provided, btw,) I found a few sensationalist headlines about Nadal "blasting" Wimbledon, etc. And in bringing it up at all, it was Federberg's original post (not Britbox's, as I erroneously posted above,) that said only that Nadal called Wimbledon's ranking system "disrespectful." That's not really accurate. And the sportswriters were pulling out a quote and making drawing a sensational conclusion from it. The Express even had a headline about Djokovic weighing in on the "Federer Nadal Feud." As if! And btw, Djokovic said he thought it was surprising that they put Federer over Nadal.

Here's the thing: whether you agree or not with the Wimbledon ranking system, it is anomalous in tennis, and there is room for debate. Mrzz and I were debating it above. Nadal is a professional tennis player and has a right to his opinion, and it comes from the inside.

If Fed was asked whether the grass has been modified at Wimbledon to assist baselines and in particular Nadal by a reporter and said yes it would be a valid opinion on his part wouldn't but that woukd sound whiny and self serving? The debate on seedings by surface is valid but this ranking switch was in no way disrespectful but all of us as well as the pros know the formula that Wimbledon uses for as long as anyone can remember.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I saw that. The women are seeded exactly following the rankings as of now. Leaving another reason to debate it, if it's only on the men's side. (Note: Angie Kerber won last year, and yet she's still ranked #5, reflecting her actual ranking.) As I said, the question comes up now because you swap #2 + #3, which is a big shift, and it's Federer for Nadal. But rather than discuss rationally, we have folks saying that Rafa is "whining" to address they system, a headline about a "Federer Nadal Feud," etc. So much hysteria, really.

I honestly do not think any shift among 1 and 4 is a big deal at all, unless the #1 is such a huge favorite that you do not want to meet him before the finals. Definitely not the case here. If seeds hold, you still have to go though each other. I see zero upside for Roger with this move and I see zero downside for Rafa. So Roger will play Nole in the finals as opposed the semis. Big deal. He can win or lose in both situations. Rafa at 3 will still only play Roger or Nole in the semis, cannot play both. Dropping someone that is a top 4 player out of top 4 would be a huge deal.

 

[Moxie]

I honestly do not think any shift among 1 and 4 is a big deal at all, unless the #1 is such a huge favorite that you do not want to meet him before the finals. Definitely not the case here. If seeds hold, you still have to go though each other. I see zero upside for Roger with this move and I see zero downside for Rafa. So Roger will play Nole in the finals as opposed the semis. Big deal. He can win or lose in both situations. Rafa at 3 will still only play Roger or Nole in the semis, cannot play both. Dropping someone that is a top 4 player out of top 4 would be a huge deal.

I do agree with this, and I think I said so. If Rafa is drawn on Novak's side, and makes the date, perhaps SFs is better. If he's drawn on Roger's side, I don't think Roger will make the date, anyway. Anyway, Rafa has to make it that far. But that's not really the argument.

 

[Moxie]

If Fed was asked whether the grass has been modified at Wimbledon to assist baselines and in particular Nadal by a reporter and said yes it would be a valid opinion on his part wouldn't but that woukd sound whiny and self serving? The debate on seedings by surface is valid but this ranking switch was in no way disrespectful but all of us as well as the pros know the formula that Wimbledon uses for as long as anyone can remember.

I don't think it's reasonable to make an equivalency with a comment that Roger has not made. Either you did not read my post just above with an open mind, or you're just committed to your opinion. You did say that you were, a few posts back.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Come on, here is an exact quote form Ralph. I am not putting words into his mouth.

"It has not only happened to me, it has happened to other players. They do not respect the status that some players have earned throughout the season."

Do you think this is not whining?

You said "foul play," which is clearly the term I took issue with. I said Nadal at no point implied that there are any sinister motivations, so to claim he's suggesting foul play is ridiculous.

I call this an opinion. He was asked to provide his opinion, and he did. Seriously, what do you want him to say? It's his opinion. He thinks it's unfair. He said it is. You can agree or disagree. But whining implies that he made a big deal out of it, which he clearly didn't, since he gave his answer and accepted things (as evidenced by his other quotes which I highlighted in my initial post) even if he doesn't agree with them. So whining? You can interpret it that way if you don't like him. Suggestions of foul play? Give me a break.

Same fans who lament boring and cliche answers jump on players for the smallest opinionated answer. You guys are ridiculous.

 

[DarthFed]

I do agree with this, and I think I said so. If Rafa is drawn on Novak's side, and makes the date, perhaps SFs is better. If he's drawn on Roger's side, I don't think Roger will make the date, anyway. Anyway, Rafa has to make it that far. But that's not really the argument.

Heh, Roger is such a scrub that he isn't going to make the semis at Wimbledon in what is undoubtedly one of the 2-3 most important tournaments of his career? He has been bad this year so far but hopefully he doesn't bomb out. He does love the slow and high bouncing grass after all.

 

[Moxie]

Heh, Roger is such a scrub that he isn't going to make the semis at Wimbledon in what is undoubtedly one of the 2-3 most important tournaments of his career? He has been bad this year so far but hopefully he doesn't bomb out. He does love the slow and high bouncing grass after all.

I posted that just to rile you up. Worked!

 

[the AntiPusher]

lol! mate! What are you going on about? Exposed me? How?? You're too funny! What you wrote is what you wrote. You can try to weasel out of it and claim to be misunderstood. That's fine. But it's there as a record for eternity. Deal with it

mate.I NEVER have ever wavered from anyone or anything..Did I say that Roger was one of the greatest servers EVER. If so where do you get his defense is the primary and only reason he won so many titles. You can get GSM to assist you.

 

[Moxie]

I saw that. The women are seeded exactly following the rankings as of now. Leaving another reason to debate it, if it's only on the men's side. (Note: Angie Kerber won last year, and yet she's still ranked #5, reflecting her actual ranking.) As I said, the question comes up now because you swap #2 + #3, which is a big shift, and it's Federer for Nadal. But rather than discuss rationally, we have folks saying that Rafa is "whining" to address the system, a headline about a "Federer Nadal Feud," etc. So much hysteria, really.

I was watching the US political debates, but I also wanted to say this: No one cares that Kevin Anderson jumped up from #8 - #4, and that Isner went up 3 rankings points to #9. Anderson's move to #4 is REALLY helpful for him. For the record, he lost in the 2nd round at Queens to Simon a couple of weeks ago, and before that he hasn't played since Miami, due to injury. Everyone happy with this?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I saw that. The women are seeded exactly following the rankings as of now. Leaving another reason to debate it, if it's only on the men's side. (Note: Angie Kerber won last year, and yet she's still ranked #5, reflecting her actual ranking.) As I said, the question comes up now because you swap #2 + #3, which is a big shift, and it's Federer for Nadal. But rather than discuss rationally, we have folks saying that Rafa is "whining" to address the system, a headline about a "Federer Nadal Feud," etc. So much hysteria, really.

Do you want Wimbledon to do the seeding for Men as they do for Women? If your wish is granted, you will actually regret.

At least for Men, there is an objective grass formula and so everyone knows exactly what they could potentially do to get a desired seeding. For women, although they try to keep the seedings same as rankings, the seedings are actually determined by the subjective opinion of a committee as to whether it is appropriate to change the seedings and if so in which way. Do you really want a bunch of executives decide the seeding in a committee meeting? I personally think most ATP players would prefer a formula than a committee deciding based on their discretion.

 

[Moxie]

Do you want Wimbledon to do the seeding for Men as they do for Women? If your wish is granted, you will actually regret.

At least for Men, there is an objective grass formula and so everyone knows exactly what they could potentially do to get a desired seeding. For women, although they try to keep the seedings same as rankings, the seedings are actually determined by the subjective opinion of a committee as to whether it is appropriate to change the seedings and if so in which way. Do you really want a bunch of executives decide the seeding in a committee meeting? I personally think most ATP players would prefer a formula than a committee deciding based on their discretion.

The men used to have that, too. However, given the kerfuffle this year, I don't think they'd be playing so fast and loose with the rankings, even if they didn't have a formula. Attention is being paid now. Just wait until they change it next year. They will. Like the dumb roof rule. As soon as it matters, they can see how problematic it is.

I did mention that Djokovic said he thought it was surprising. He said that he gets the rules, and of course Roger has won it 8 times, but, as he said, "but the #2 seed was Rafa."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I honestly do not think any shift among 1 and 4 is a big deal at all, unless the #1 is such a huge favorite that you do not want to meet him before the finals. Definitely not the case here. If seeds hold, you still have to go though each other. I see zero upside for Roger with this move and I see zero downside for Rafa. So Roger will play Nole in the finals as opposed the semis. Big deal. He can win or lose in both situations. Rafa at 3 will still only play Roger or Nole in the semis, cannot play both. Dropping someone that is a top 4 player out of top 4 would be a huge deal.

I disagree with this. There are certain seed changes that gives draw advantages and certain which do not.

Here is the complete list.

Who is #1 and who is #2 does not matter.

Who is #3 and who is #4 does not matter.

If someone is seeded between #5 and #8, it does not matter what is their exact number, as all of them provide the same advantage in the draw.

Same story for #9 through #12.

Same story for #13 through #16.

Then it takes a big leap.

If you are seeded anywhere between #17 and #24, it is all the same.

Finally, if you are seeded anywhere between #25 through #32, it is all the same.

However, a change of seeding between #2 and #3 is significant. Now, assuming seeds hold, both Roger and Novak has a 50% chance of winning the trophy after facing only one Big-3 member (depending on which side Ralph falls in). On the other hand, assuming seeds hold, Rafa has 0% chance of winning the trophy without facing BOTH members of Big-3.

Also, one should realize that seeds are advantageous in a different way also. The farther your dreaded opponent is in the draw, the greater the chances of them not meeting you when they are supposed to.

 

[Moxie]

^ So, then, as to my point above, how do you feel about Anderson getting the #4 seed? Big advantage for a guy who's barely played tennis since March. And lost to Simon in Queens.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ So, then, as to my point above, how do you feel about Anderson getting the #4 seed? Big advantage for a guy who's barely played tennis since March. And lost to Simon in Queens.

Look the same thing can be said of ATP rankings as well. It is completely possible for a player to be #1 and have not won a single match in the last eight weeks (or for that matter even more). If you want to have recency bias, then the ranking should be based on just performance in the last three months (BTW, that is the complete opposite of what your man wanted).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ So, then, as to my point above, how do you feel about Anderson getting the #4 seed? Big advantage for a guy who's barely played tennis since March. And lost to Simon in Queens.

Make sure to read my post clearly before replying. I am actually saying I am disagreeing with Murat and claiming that the change of seeds of #2 and #3 is a Big Deal.

 

[Moxie]

Look the same thing can be said of ATP rankings as well. It is completely possible for a player to be #1 and have not won a single match in the last eight weeks (or for that matter even more). If you want to have recency bias, then the ranking should be based on just performance in the last three months (BTW, that is the complete opposite of what your man wanted).

This is not at all the point. As I said, Anderson is still #8 based on points, meaning he had a lot of points accumulated. But he's #8, and he's been injured, and has barely played, and he gets the very cushy #4 slot, in a Major, based on the Wimbledon formula. If you could stop being so defensive for a moment, can't you say that maybe that's NOT where you'd like a formula to lead you? Or, if you agree with it, defend it, and fair enough.

 

[Moxie]

Make sure to read my post clearly before replying. I am actually saying I am disagreeing with Murat and claiming that the change of seeds of #2 and #3 is a Big Deal.

I did read. I know what the seedings mean, as most do. My point, to that discussion of the relative importance, was that KA getting the #4 was a big deal. Maybe you should try reading more carefully.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I did read. I know what the seedings mean, as most do. My point, to that discussion of the relative importance, was that KA getting the #4 was a big deal. Maybe you should try reading more carefully.

Indeed KA got a good advantage due to his performance in WImby last year. That is the point of the grass formula to reward players based on the grass performance.

If KA was moved from #8 to even say, #5, he would have got ZERO advantage as the seeds numbered 5 through 8 all of them have exactly the same draw advantage.

 

[Moxie]

Indeed KA got a good advantage due to his performance in WImby last year. That is the point of the grass formula to reward players based on the grass performance.

If KA was moved from #8 to even say, #5, he would have got ZERO advantage as the seeds numbered 5 through 8 all of them have exactly the same draw advantage.

Yes, but you're avoiding your own post...he didn't move up to 5...he moved up to 4. That's a big deal.