Wimbledon Seedings for this years tournament

GENTLEMEN'S SINGLES

DJOKOVIC, Novak (SRB) [1]
MURRAY, Andy (GBR) [2]
FEDERER, Roger (SUI) [3]
FERRER, David (ESP) [4]
NADAL, Rafael (ESP) [5]
TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) [6]
BERDYCH, Tomas (CZE) [7]
DEL POTRO, Juan Martin (ARG) [8]
GASQUET, Richard (FRA) [9]
CILIC, Marin (CRO) [10]
WAWRINKA, Stanislas (SUI) [11]
NISHIKORI, Kei (JPN) [12]
HAAS, Tommy (GER) [13]
TIPSAREVIC, Janko (SRB) [14]
ALMAGRO, Nicolas (ESP) [15]
KOHLSCHREIBER, Philipp (GER) [16]
RAONIC, Milos (CAN) [17]
ISNER, John (USA) [18]
SIMON, Gilles (FRA) [19]
YOUZHNY, Mikhail (RUS) [20]
QUERREY, Sam (USA) [21]
MONACO, Juan (ARG) [22]
SEPPI, Andreas (ITA) [23]
JANOWICZ, Jerzy (POL) [24]
PAIRE, Benoit (FRA) [25]
DOLGOPOLOV, Alexandr (UKR) [26]
ANDERSON, Kevin (RSA) [27]
CHARDY, Jeremy (FRA) [28]
DIMITROV, Grigor (BUL) [29]
FOGNINI, Fabio (ITA) [30]
BENNETEAU, Julien (FRA) [31]
ROBREDO, Tommy (ESP) [32]

LADIES' SINGLES

WILLIAMS, Serena (USA) [1]
AZARENKA, Victoria (BLR) [2]
SHARAPOVA, Maria (RUS) [3]
RADWANSKA, Agnieszka (POL) [4]
ERRANI, Sara (ITA) [5]
LI, Na (CHN) [6]
KERBER, Angelique (GER) [7]
KVITOVA, Petra (CZE) [8]
WOZNIACKI, Caroline (DEN) [9]
KIRILENKO, Maria (RUS) [10]
VINCI, Roberta (ITA) [11]
IVANOVIC, Ana (SRB) [12]
PETROVA, Nadia (RUS) [13]
STOSUR, Samantha (AUS) [14]
BARTOLI, Marion (FRA) [15]
JANKOVIC, Jelena (SRB) [16]
STEPHENS, Sloane (USA) [17]
CIBULKOVA, Dominika (SVK) [18]
SUAREZ NAVARRO, Carla (ESP) [19]
FLIPKENS, Kirsten (BEL) [20]
PAVLYUCHENKOVA, Anastasia (RUS) [21]
CIRSTEA, Sorana (ROU) [22]
LISICKI, Sabine (GER) [23]
PENG, Shuai (CHN) [24]
MAKAROVA, Ekaterina (RUS) [25]
KUZNETSOVA, Svetlana (RUS) [26]
LEPCHENKO, Varvara (USA) [27]
SAFAROVA, Lucie (CZE) [28]
PASZEK, Tamira (AUT) [29]
CORNET, Alize (FRA) [30]
BARTHEL, Mona (GER) [31]
OPRANDI, Romina (SUI) [32]

GENTLEMEN'S DOUBLES

BRYAN, Bob (USA) & BRYAN, Mike (USA) [1]
GRANOLLERS, Marcel (ESP) & LOPEZ, Marc (ESP) [2]
PEYA, Alexander (AUT) & SOARES, Bruno (BRA) [3]
PAES, Leander (IND) & STEPANEK, Radek (CZE) [4]
QURESHI, Aisam-Ul-Haq (PAK) & ROJER, Jean-Julien (NED) [5]
LINDSTEDT, Robert (SWE) & NESTOR, Daniel (CAN) [6]
MIRNYI, Max (BLR) & TECAU, Horia (ROU) [7]
BHUPATHI, Mahesh (IND) & KNOWLE, Julian (AUT) [8]
FLEMING, Colin (GBR) & MARRAY, Jonathan (GBR) [9]
GONZALEZ, Santiago (MEX) & LIPSKY, Scott (USA) [10]
BENNETEAU, Julien (FRA) & ZIMONJIC, Nenad (SRB) [11]
DODIG, Ivan (CRO) & MELO, Marcelo (BRA) [12]
LLODRA, Michael (FRA) & MAHUT, Nicolas (FRA) [13]
BOPANNA, Rohan (IND) & ROGER-VASSELIN, Edouard (FRA) [14]
KUBOT, Lukasz (POL) & MATKOWSKI, Marcin (POL) [15]
HUEY, Treat (PHI) & INGLOT, Dominic (GBR) [16]

LADIES' DOUBLES

ERRANI, Sara (ITA) & VINCI, Roberta (ITA) [1]
HLAVACKOVA, Andrea (CZE) & HRADECKA, Lucie (CZE) [2]
PETROVA, Nadia (RUS) & SREBOTNIK, Katarina (SLO) [3]
MAKAROVA, Ekaterina (RUS) & VESNINA, Elena (RUS) [4]
KOPS-JONES, Raquel (USA) & SPEARS, Abigail (USA) [5]
HUBER, Liezel (USA) & MIRZA, Sania (IND) [6]
GROENEFELD, Anna-Lena (GER) & PESCHKE, Kveta (CZE) [7]
HSIEH, Su-Wei (TPE) & PENG, Shuai (CHN) [8]
PAVLYUCHENKOVA, Anastasia (RUS) & SAFAROVA, Lucie (CZE) [9]
MLADENOVIC, Kristina (FRA) & VOSKOBOEVA, Galina (KAZ) [10]
BLACK, Cara (ZIM) & ERAKOVIC, Marina (NZL) [11]
BARTY, Ashleigh (AUS) & DELLACQUA, Casey (AUS) [12]
KING, Vania (USA) & ZHENG, Jie (CHN) [13]
HANTUCHOVA, Daniela (SVK) & KIRILENKO, Maria (RUS) [14]
CHAN, Hao-Ching (TPE) & MEDINA GARRIGUES, Anabel (ESP) [15]
GOERGES, Julia (GER) & ZAHLAVOVA STRYCOVA, Barbora (CZE) [16]

Source:http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-06-19/201306191371633190432.html

Shocked Ferrer has been placed above Nadal. But apart from that i think they have got it spot on.

When is the draw due?

Cheers Nando.

If Wimbledon go by a formula, why is Robredo the 32nd seed considering he didn't play last year and was beaten in the first round the year before?

Perhaps the top 32 are guaranteed to be the top 32?

ryan86 wrote:Perhaps the top 32 are guaranteed to be the top 32?

Correct

ryan86 wrote:Perhaps the top 32 are guaranteed to be the top 32?

That explains it, cheers. Still, if you've earned more points on grass than Tommy has you're bound to feel peeved.

Blame the Spaniards, it was they who moaned like Hell years ago and got it taken out of the hands of the seeding committee.

That's another thing I'll blame the Spaniards for then

I assume with all the chat about Nadal facing Novak, Murray or Fed that Wimbledon or tennis for that matter don't use a rigid 1v8 2v7 3v6 and 4v5 draw?

Could Ferrer get Nadal in the quarters if seedings go to plan?

Cheers
Alan

32 seeds is too much anyway...turns the event into a F1 procession.

Alsie wrote:I assume with all the chat about Nadal facing Novak, Murray or Fed that Wimbledon or tennis for that matter don't use a rigid 1v8 2v7 3v6 and 4v5 draw?

Could Ferrer get Nadal in the quarters if seedings go to plan?

Cheers
Alan

It's not rigid. Any of the top four could get any of 4 - 8 in the quarters.

Alsie wrote:I assume with all the chat about Nadal facing Novak, Murray or Fed that Wimbledon or tennis for that matter don't use a rigid 1v8 2v7 3v6 and 4v5 draw?

Could Ferrer get Nadal in the quarters if seedings go to plan?

Cheers
Alan

Yes to both. 1 + 4 and 2 + 3 aren't guaranteed to be in the same half either.

Cheers, so how exactly does it work then?

Is it random throughout the draws?

For instance you could play any of the 8 in the 9-16 in round 4 or any of the 17-32 in the round before?

32 seeds prevent early round matches with premature exits of seeded players. There is nothing to prevent a qualifier beating a seeded player.


Rankings as of now from ATP are - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx
There are slight differences, like JwT and Berdych.



Rank, Name & Nationality Points Week Change Tourn Played
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,830 0 19
2 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,560 0 18
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 7,740 0 20
4 Ferrer, David (ESP) 7,220 0 26
5 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 6,895 0 19
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,515 0 24
7 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 4,155 0 25
8 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 3,960 0 23
9 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 3,135 0 24
10 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI) 2,810 0 23
11 Nishikori, Kei (JPN) 2,495 2 23
12 Cilic, Marin (CRO) 2,470 0 24
13 Haas, Tommy (GER) 2,425 -2 27
14 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB) 2,390 0 28
15 Raonic, Milos (CAN) 2,225 0 24
16 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP) 2,195 0 25
17 Simon, Gilles (FRA) 1,985 0 25
18 Kohlschreiber, Philipp (GER) 1,885 0 26
19 Querrey, Sam (USA) 1,810 0 26
20 Monaco, Juan (ARG) 1,740 0 25
21 Isner, John (USA) 1,735 0 26
22 Janowicz, Jerzy (POL) 1,549 0 22
23 Anderson, Kevin (RSA) 1,510 0 23
24 Dolgopolov, Alexandr (UKR) 1,500 0 25
25 Paire, Benoit (FRA) 1,450 0 32
26 Seppi, Andreas (ITA) 1,440 0 28
27 Chardy, Jeremy (FRA) 1,416 0 23
28 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 1,415 1 26
29 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,355 1 25
30 Fognini, Fabio (ITA) 1,345 1 28
31 Dimitrov, Grigor (BUL) 1,330 -3 23
32 Benneteau, Julien (FRA) 1,200 0 27

Alsie wrote:Cheers, so how exactly does it work then?

Is it random throughout the draws?

For instance you could play any of the 8 in the 9-16 in round 4 or any of the 17-32 in the round before?

i. Method of Draw
The first seed shall be placed at the top of the first section, the second seed shall be placed at the top of the second section and so on until all sections have one (1) seed on the top line of each section. The remaining seeds shall be drawn as one group. The first drawn shall be placed on the bottom line of the first section, the second drawn shall be placed on the bottom line of the second section and so on until all sections have one (1) seed on the bottom line of each section.

The names of the remaining players shall be drawn and placed in the vacant spaces not occupied by the seeds beginning at the top of the draw.
j. Acceptances of Qualifiers into Main Draw
Once the Qualifying competition has begun, only those players who ultimately qualify and Lucky Losers may be accepted into the Main Draw.
k. Drawing of Qualifiers/Lucky Losers
At the conclusion of the Qualifying competition, the name of one Qualifier will be drawn for each qualifying place in the Main Draw. There shall be no prior designation of qualifying sections to qualifying places in the Main Draw. Likewise, when more than one Lucky Loser is to be inserted into the Main Draw, their positions in the Main Draw shall be determined by drawing. Vacancies occurring before the Qualifying is completed to be filled by Lucky Losers shall be drawn in conjunction with those players who qualified.

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_46486_original.PDF

Perfect, Cheers

Alan

Does the media know something we do not know? Everywhere you look they say Murray could face Nadal in the QFs. Surely this is not a certainty? I think it is more likely Nadal will be drawn against Fed in the QFs which would automatically kill Roger's enthusiasm!

As for Murray saying he would take the chance of playing Nadal in a QF in a flash is really fighting talk considering since 2008 when they have been drawn together Nadal has beaten him everytime at Wimbledon. Does he really mean that? I really doubt it...

I'm unsure where the quote above from Laverfan is from but I don't think it properly answers the question. The actual position I think is set out at f(v) of the pdf attachment to his post.
 
Seeds 1-4 can only be seeded to face those ranked 25-32 in R3 and those ranked 13-16 in R4. They can face any of 5-8 in the QF.

FedsFan, as has been discussed on another thread, Murray's comment of taking Nadal in the quarters is more that it means he would be at least in the quarters (four tricky rounds out of the way). If that means he faces Nadal he'd take it or do you expect him to turn into a gibbering wreck sobbing: 'No no please I don't want to face Nadal'?

So looking at this draw, its Fed-Murray final again

@BS... my quote is from the same PDF starting on page 29.

FedsFan wrote:Does the media know something we do not know? Everywhere you look they say Murray could face Nadal in the QFs. Surely this is not a certainty? I think it is more likely Nadal will be drawn against Fed in the QFs which would automatically kill Roger's enthusiasm!

Why do you think that?  The point about a draw is that no-one knows until it happens.  Or do you know something that I don't know?

@Laver - the bit you have quoted relates to qualifying, not the main draw.

Would have, should have, could have?

The seeding committee could have seeded the number one player in the race and the two times title holder higher than five. They were under no obligation to follow a formula it made up itself. But it chose not too. Their decision could very well come back to bite them if Nadal plays to form and they get a repeat of the anti-climactic RG final. After all they have a show to run...

There is no seeding committee. It got disbanded in 2003 at the request of the spanish players, who wanted a nice guarantee that they would be seeded. I would suggest you email or tweet Moya/Corretja etc and tell them how detrimental to the game their request was.

What? There are no people at Wimbledon to make decisions? There must be someone in charge or is everyone too scared to take responsibility.

It's not a case of being scared - there is a formula that the ATP/ITF/players/GS tournaments all agreed to and signed up to. That's the rules of tennis as it stands.

Edit - in other words, they are under an obligation.

The seeding means there will be some interesting matches earlier on (QF at least will be fun), think it's OK

Julius. No they are not under any obligation. Wimbledon can make its own rules.

This from the Guardian under the title "Wimbledon's desision to seed Rafael Nadal fifth mocks form and class".

If there is a bookmaker in the land who agrees that David Ferrer is considered more likely to win Wimbledon than Rafael Nadal, I will personally knock his door down to put my house on the man from Mallorca.

So how did Wimbledon come to this decision? This is what the referees office says: "The seeds are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP), but then rearranged on a surface-based system. Since 2002 a seeding committee has not been required for the gentlemen's singles following an agreement made with the ATP. The seeding order is determined using an objective and transparent system to reflect more accurately an individual player's grass-court achievements.
"The formula is: take ESP points at 17 June 2013; add 100% points earned for all grass-court tournaments in the past 12 months; add 75% points earned for the best grass-court tournament in the 12 months before that."
So, what we have is a skewed draw, arrived at by slavish adherence to the Wimbledon way, and ignoring history before 2011. It is a formula that puts too much emphasis on Nadal's early exit last year, when injured, and his subsequent seven-month absence from the game (when there were no grass-court titles available to win) and flies in the face of more compelling evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/19/rafael-nadal-fifth-wimbledon-seeds

This is just an extract but it's worth reading the whole article. It also says that seeding Nadal at five would be potentially damaging for Murray rather than Nadal

This is very familiar modus operandi, the wilfully ignorant controversial comment thrown out to see what will come back - and I see that the wriggling and dissembling has started right on cue.

Below is from the Wimbledon Website explaining that there is no seeding committee but a formula.
 

Seedings

To be announced on Wednesday 19 June 2013, around 10.00am. 32 seeds in Men's and Ladies' singles. Men's Seeding Formula Revised seeding arrangements for men introduced in 2001 when seedings committee disbanded.  Formula amended in 2002 for men as follows:  Take ESP points at 17 June 2013 Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournament in past 12 months Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in 12 months before that.

Basically, hawkeye is looking for special treatment for her idol. No two ways about it - that is all it comes down to.

Wimbledon can make its own rules? Where did you get that from then? You have solid evidence of that do you?

Even that link gives the rules they adhere to.

Frankly, you can believe whatever you want to out there in hawkeye-land.

This is an article from the Chicago Tribune (emphasis supplied) - oh the irony of it all, eh?  (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-06-12/sports/0106120149_1_seeding-atp-and-wta-rankings-wimbledon)

THE PRESS BOX.
Grand Slam tourneys going to 32 seeds
June 12, 2001





Pete Sampras might get to keep his No. 1 seeding at Wimbledon, and top clay-court players will no longer have to worry about facing him in the opening round.
Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam tournaments announced changes Monday in their seeding systems designed to protect star players and satisfy clay and grass specialists.


The four major tournaments are doubling the number of seeded players to 32, with the order determined using a formula that assesses past performance on each event's playing surface.
The changes by Wimbledon and the French, Australian and U.S. Open followed four days of meetings in Paris. The Grand Slam committee approved the moves partly in response to complaints by clay-court specialists that Wimbledon's previous seeding system was unfair.
"I'm very hopeful the players will see this as a positive move and a sensible compromise," said Tim Phillips, chairman at the All England Club.
The new system ensures that the top 32 players in the ATP and WTA rankings will be seeded.
In the past, a committee at Wimbledon adjusted seedings subjectively based on past performances on grass. Clay-court players wanted the tournament seedings to mirror ATP rankings, but instead Wimbledon will use a formula for the men that may alter seedings by five positions or more, Phillips said.
The ATP welcomed the decision to seed 32 players at the Grand Slams, but said it was opposed to determining the order based on a surface-based system.

In any case - if this is so unfair on Rafa it could be argued it is just as unfair for any of the top four seeds who face the prospect of facing Rafa so if the draw has been worked out in any sort of biased way then why aren't there Murray, Federer and Djokovic fans up in arms at the decision? Heck hawkeye is even the only Nadal fan (thus far) to claim there has been wrong-doing.

And another - this was about (a) TV income and (b) whining from clay-courters.

TENNIS: ROUNDUP; Grand Slam Tourneys Change Seeding Process
By The Associated Press
Published: June 12, 2001
The Grand Slam tournaments will double the number of seeded players to 32, with the order determined using a formula that assesses past performance on the event's playing surface.
The changes by Wimbledon and the French Open, the Australian Open and the United States Open were announced yesterday after four days of meetings at Roland Garros Stadium in Paris. The Grand Slam committee approved the moves partly in response to complaints by clay-court specialists that Wimbledon's previous seeding system was unfair.
The new system, which will be used immediately, ensures that the top 32 players in the ATP and the WTA rankings will be seeded.
In the past, a committee at Wimbledon adjusted seedings subjectively, based on past performances on grass. Instead, the tournament will use a formula for the men this year that could alter seedings by five positions or more, said Tim Phillips, the chairman at the All England Club.
Pete Sampras, who is ranked No. 4 but has won Wimbledon seven times, could be seeded No. 1 when the list is released next Monday, Phillips said. But the new system should ensure that the top clay-court players are seeded, and thus cannot face a top grass-court player in the early rounds.









Gustavo Kuerten, who won his third French Open title on Sunday, already has said he will skip Wimbledon, which begins June 25. He cited a sore groin muscle but has complained about the seeding system in the past.
The French Open runner-up Alex Corretja, who boycotted Wimbledon last year, has not said whether he will play this year.
The order of the 32 seeded women at Wimbledon again will be determined by the seeding committee. A surface-based system for women will be adopted starting next year.
Seedings will be doubled to ensure a more balanced draw, making early-round upsets less likely. That gives top players a better chance to reach the second week of the tournament, which pleases sponsors and television networks.
The United States Open pushed for the switch. The French Open, where Sampras and Venus Williams have been first-round losers the past two years, resisted but ultimately agreed to the change.
''Sixteen seeds isn't a magic number,'' said Merv Heller, the president of the United States Tennis Association. ''There are still going to be great matches the first week. I compare this to Beethoven's Fifth. You want to start out with a bang, but you want to finish with a grand finale.''
In contrast to Wimbledon, the seedings at the French, Australian and United States Opens have historically been the same as the rankings. Those three events now will also revise the order, using their own formulas that grade past performance on their playing surface.

I think the decision (and it is a decision) is wrong not because of it's affect on any particular player but because it is not seeding the tournament correctly. Is that really so difficult to understand? As for Nadal... well who would be more scared of a potential quarter final with him? Nadal or his opponant?

Johnyjeep. Calm down! Whatever you do don't read that Guardian article...

If all else fails, persist in disingenuously asserting that black is white, and try to draw attention away from the dishonesty of your position by expressing yourself in a pained fashion - even bring irrelevant faux 'reasonableness' to the table....

Seemingly, you are more petrified than anyone else about who Rafa draws in the quarters otherwise why make such a song and dance?

^ I've just said why!

hawkeye wrote:I think the decision (and it is a decision) ...

In hawkeye-land it may be seen as a decision. The real world knows otherwise.

But it is seeding the tournament correctly? How can you not understand that?

What you are saying is that the process (you do know the difference between decision and process right?) they use to determine the seedings is not to your liking. Can you understand the distinction between the two?

Think I will read the Guardian tbf. You have been known to completely misinterpet and twist things.

I know this because I read that 'article' you put about Murray wanting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon.

Hawkeye, how would you seed the tournament?

ryan86 wrote:Hawkeye, how would you seed the tournament?

This should be interesting....

CaledonianCraig wrote:Basically, hawkeye is looking for special treatment for her idol. No two ways about it - that is all it comes down to.

I wouldn´t say that CC I would think its because she is concerned for Andy who might get knocked out in the quarter finals if he meets Rafa ... surely even you can see that

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I think the decision (and it is a decision) ...

In hawkeye-land it may be seen as a decision. The real world knows otherwise.

The All England Club could have moved Nadal up to No. 4 ahead of Ferrer but decided to stick to the rankings.

www.tennis.com/The All England Club could have moved Nadal up to No. 4 ahead of Ferrer but decided to stick to the rankings.pro-game/2013/06/nadal-seeded-no-5-wimbledon/47970/#.UcHLEZwQPIU

Now can you show me some evidence that the All England Club had their hands tied and couldn't seed correctly? The slams can make their own decisions about seeding. RG could have seeded Nadal higher too.

Nadal and Murray both have Tennis racquets, don't they? Let the better player on the day win the match.

Why this protectionist attitude towards players, whether it be Nadal, Federer, Ferrer or JwT?

Should lower seeds play Canadian doubles with higher seeds, just because they are at the bottom of the totem pole?

Honestly. I've just clicked on that link to read the Guardian's 'article' and it is a blog.

A blog is a fancy message board. Nothing more.  

To be honest I started laughing. Poor old HE is being fed this stuff and clearly unable to interpret it. So maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on HE. Even in that 'blog' he states there is a skewed draw. If Nadal draws Ferrer then there is no 'skewed' draw at all. Is there?

Haddie-nuff wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Basically, hawkeye is looking for special treatment for her idol. No two ways about it - that is all it comes down to.

I wouldn´t say that CC I would think its because she is concerned for Andy who might get knocked out in the quarter finals if he meets Rafa ... surely even you can see that

Does no one here understand the principle of arguing for what is right? :roll:Also does no one ever venture out of 606v2? Anyone would think I'm the only one saying this...