To Seed or Not to Seed -- That Is the Question

[Vince Evert]

Sad to see Woz exiting so early. I think seeds should not always be determined by ranking. These two should have met later in the tournament. By leaving Vika unseeded, pure luck played a role in which top player was sent packing.

Vika should have been given a seed based on her past winning record at the AO.
Stuff the WTA or for that matter, ATP rankings.

 

[tented]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

Sad to see Woz exiting so early. I think seeds should not always be determined by ranking. These two should have met later in the tournament. By leaving Vika unseeded, pure luck played a role in which top player was sent packing.

Vika should have been given a seed based on her past winning record at the AO.
Stuff the WTA or for that matter, ATP rankings.

And which player, who has worked hard, and risen high enough in the rankings to merit being seeded, should be knocked down to allow a lower-ranked player to pass her up?

 

[Vince Evert]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

That's for the Grand Slam committee to determine. Otherwise what is the point of having them ? The other Slams should learn from Wimbledon and not follow WTA or ATP rankings exclusively.

 

[Vince Evert]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

It's actually an insult to Azarenka that she was not seeded inside the top 16 as she is a two time winner here. Also in those circumstances the econd round match up with Woz would not have happened. GS Committee's should have the balls to base heir seedings on more on merit IMO.

 

[tented]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

That's for the Grand Slam committee to determine. Otherwise what is the point of having them ? The other Slams should learn from Wimbledon and not follow WTA or ATP rankings exclusively.

Wimbledon follows the WTA rankings. It's only the men who are adjusted. Azarenka would be seeded the same in London as she is in Melbourne.

It's actually an insult to Azarenka that she was not seeded inside the top 16 as she is a two time winner here. Also in those circumstances the econd round match up with Woz would not have happened. GS Committee's should have the balls to base heir seedings on more on merit IMO.

Following this logic, should Schiavone, currently ranked 78, be seeded at Roland Garros because she won it a few years ago?

 

[Vince Evert]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

Yes, is the short answer.

 

[tented]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

Yes, is the short answer.

How about Hewitt -- should he be seeded at the USO and Wimbledon?

 

[Vince Evert]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

Yes, is the short answer.

How about Hewitt -- should he be seeded at the USO and Wimbledon?

No as in his case those wins were over 10 years ago. You need to aim for a compromise. Otherwise, as I mentioned previously, what is the point of having GS Committee's? The All England Lawn Tennis and Crochet Club have altered their seedings including WTA rankings. In 1985 they famously had Martina and Chris as Co-no 1 seeds, is one instance that comes to mind.

 

[tented]

RE: Australian Open Day 4: Thursday, January 22

Yes, is the short answer.

How about Hewitt -- should he be seeded at the USO and Wimbledon?

No as in his case those wins were over 10 years ago. You need to aim for a compromise. Otherwise, as I mentioned previously, what is the point of having GS Committee's? The All England Lawn Tennis and Crochet Club have altered their seedings including WTA rankings. In 1985 they famously had Martina and Chris as Co-no 1 seeds, is one instance that comes to mind.

They don't do this anymore, which they indicate on their own website:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2014-06-18/seeds_announced_for_the_championships_2014.html

 

[Hoergren]

[split] To Seed or Not to Seed -- That Is the Question

Maybe some of you disagree but think a bit over these thoughts I'm sharing with Chris Chase on ForTheWin. He's writing about the absurdity of not seeding a player like Victoria Azarenka. I know my babe lost to a better player but it shouldn't have been before the 4th round. To me Australian Open and other slams are shooting themselves in the foot not having a special ranking for a two time champion. Vika should have been seeded not lower than 16. So to me slams suck and slam is closer to the Danish meaning of the word = MUD - than anything else. Luck of the draw - HAH!

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/caroline-wozniacki-australian-open-victoria-azarenka-seeding

 

[tented]

I merged posts from a few threads to form this one in order to discuss the idea of whether or not certain players should be seeded at GSs, even though their current ranking falls below being seeded.