Do you think that seeding at grand slams should be the same as the rankings or based on past success

Question

For example, in Wimbledon seeds are according to how well the players generally do on grass, so someone like Bagdahtis was seeded much higher. On other tournys, such as RG- seeding goes according to ranking.

Do you think this is fair? I personally think Wimby has got it right- seeding Nadal 1 for the US Open is as ridiculous as seeding Roger number 1 for Roland Garros.

Answer 1

There really is no right or wrong way to go about seedings at the Grandslams. Both of the ideas are generally good. But I do agree with what you say about the fairness of the seedings. I honestly think that the grandslams ought to begin seedings according to success. Example : Federer has been to three straight French Open finals, BUTRafa has won four straight French Opens and he is called the "The King of Clay" so he should be seeded number one and Federer is the second best clay court player so number 2 seed would be appropriate for him. Rafa is going to be the new number one and he could be number one when the US Open begins but Rafa is not the best hard court player, Federer is so he should be seeded first being that he's won four straight US Open titles. I really do think the grandslams should start seeding according to success. I mean there's nothing generally wrong with not changing the seedings according to rankings, but really it isn't fair to those that do well not to have a seeding if there constantly doing well at the grandslam.

Answer 2

Wimbledon got it right. Grandslams should seed players according to the past success on the surface.

But you know what.... nobody is stopping RG, US and Aussie Open to seed players based on their past successes. These grandslams choose to seed players based on ranks and not based on past success. So its not really a question of whether they got it right or wrong. They choose to seed players in a certain way.

Also, I dont think Wimbly got it completely right. They do use the special seeding method based on past success on surface, but ONLY FOR MEN. They seed the women purely based on ranking. Did you know they seeded Venus Williams at #7??

So if you think seeding Roger at #1 for RG and Rafa at #1 for US Open is ridiculous, then seeding Venus Williams at #7 who has reached 7, i repeat SEVEN, Wimbly finals including winning it 5 times is a blunder of epic proportions!!

Answer 3

I think its fair ! lol

Nice name, it looks like mine:P haha

Answer 4

As there is no perfect method this is only acceptable. Past records doesnot hold good because everytime there are surprises.

Who would have ranked Nadal No.1  or even 2 for Wimbeldon?

Answer 5

i like the roland garros way because if u think about it that wud mean that next yr jo-wilfried tsonga cud be the number 2 seed at the aussie open and he totally wudnt deserve that as he hasnt played at all this yr except at the aussie. also sum1 like gilles simon cud get a high seed at the us open since he did good leading up to the tournament but this cud just be a hot streak for him and it wud be disappointing to see him get a high seed and lose in the early round to an easy opponent. consequently a higher ranked player cud end up facing another good player if hes given a lower seed