Draw fiddling

Since the powers that be have decided that the men's draw can be adjusted at their behest with all sorts of seedings readjustments using their unique "formula" then why not the women's?

If the likes of Murray asnd Federer are special cases then why not similarly with previous winners Sharapova and Kvitova? Or are the pompous oafs basically the tennis equivalents of male chauvinist pigs?

I am sure the AEC would bring it in for the ladies as well if they requested it. Is anyone complaining about it?

I'd have gone further. Murray should be No.2

But I also think it would have been a scream to leave him at his own ranking and then beat Federer in the quarters

Well maybe it would have "been a scream" banbrotam ; or maybe not.

Worth remembering that Andy has only managed one victory over Federer in their five Slam meetings to date, so you might well have found yourself screaming for all the wrong reasons .....   

That aside, and back on topic .....I think it's fair to say there is less 'fiddling' these days with the Wimbledon seedings than when there was a seedings committee - the modus operandi of which was always something of a dark arts mystery. Okay, so Wimbledon still 'does its own thing' but at least it now does it within an open, clearly-defined set of calculations.

banbrotam wrote:I'd have gone further. Murray should be No.2

But I also think it would have been a scream to leave him at his own ranking and then beat Federer in the quarters

You're basically a troll at this point. A shame.

newballs, I tend to agree - it's an odd state of affairs. I can't think of any reason that this wouldn't be applied aside from reasons of tradition. LF for the historical fact-save?

is there really any diference being number 1 or 2?

banbrotam wrote:I'd have gone further. Murray should be No.2

But I also think it would have been a scream to leave him at his own ranking and then beat Federer in the quarters

He should be the no.1 seed in your criteria, Wimbledon champ and previous year Wimbledon finalist, last 2x Queens champ, Olympic champ, in comparison

No.1 seed - loser finalist Wim 2013 , no performance in 250 grass tournaments, previous year Wimbledon semi's and Olympic 4th place finish.

No.2 seed - Wimbledon 1st round and 2nd round exits last 2 years respectively, Halle 2nd and Quarters exit respectively and no show in Olympics.

No.4 seed - Wimbledon 2nd round last year, Wimbledon winner previous year, 2x Halle champ, Olympic finalist.

So clearly Murray should have been the no.1 seed and Federer the no.2 seed, I would clearly go for surface based seedings atleast for Grand slams, this would make the draw more interesting. Just thinking about it Djoko as top 8 and Rafa as top 16 and Rafa Djoko squaring off in 3rd round   

The mens seeding process was agreed with the ATP.
Keeping to the women's rankings was agreed with the WTA.
The AEC changed their 'dark arts' seeding committee to give both tours what they agreed on.

For me, the points supplementing approach makes sense for the men - they play relatively little on grass and clearly there is a different hierarchy on the surface (plays to the strengths of the big servers and the players with good hands) compared with either hard or especially clay. You can argue whether the actual formula is correct (i.e. doubling all grass court points from the previous year and adding 75% of the points from the best grass tournament of the preceding year), but it has to be enough to make some difference and probably makes sense to cover 2 seasons to allow for players whose grass court season was compromised by injury.

I think there probably should be some supplement to the WTA rankings, but maybe not as much - say adding the ranking points from the best grass tournament of the previous 12 months. Why less? Because there is less of a change in style and performance across surfaces for the women, but there is still some difference between those who are best on clay and best on fast courts.

Yeah, at the time it was first brought in it was perceived that there were less grass court specialists in the ladies game. I think that has probably changed a bit now - Lisicki for example. I personally would use it for both but I guess the WTA would have to agree to it.

This may all change next year when Stuttgart comes online and Halle/Queens become 500s. One aspect to consider is when ATP/WTA players withdraw, seedings do get changed and reflect the current participants.

Because W is unique (and autonomous to some extent), they have the leeway.

@NB... This happens every year and is nothing new. Are you suggesting that there is something specific which is an issue?

@BanBro... so you do consider Murray beating Federer (at ~33) is still a tough ask?

@Silver... There is an instance of seeding change on the Ladies side, IIRC, but let me verify.

laverfan wrote:.....................One aspect to consider is when ATP/WTA players withdraw, seedings do get changed and reflect the current participants.

.....................

Speaking of which ......Nicolas Almagro has apparently withdrawn (injured foot)

And there is a big question mark over Ferrer I believe .......??

Is age finally catching up with my favourite Energiser Bunny?