Grand Slam seedings-New policy?

Question

I have come up with a new idea of seeding players at Grand Slams.

I think the cut off ranking should be 30 instead of 32.

Then there should be 2 'Wild Card rankings' We already have wild cards so why not go one step further and have 'wild card rankings'?

They would be given to players whom:

.Have a good, consistant record at the tournament but are not ranked high enough to be seeded naturally( Like Ai Sugeyama at Wimbledon who reaches 3rd round like every year)

.Players returning from injury who would be seeded had it not been for injury (Mario Ancic all year!)

.Players who have been ranked highly but have fallen and maybe deserve a chance of a lucky break (Guilermo Coria or Marat Safin)

.For centimental reasons (Kuertan at the French this year)

I don't think there is anything partically wrong with the way the work now and I am aware sometimes players are given a higher seed than there ranking anyway(Baghdatis no.10 seed at Wimbledon)etc.

What do you think?

Answer 1

nah

Answer 2

It won't be fair to other players.Look at safin..one year first round exit....another year winner...look at berdych...so no it won't be fair....

I definitely agree with the centimental point though...completely...I think carlos moya deserves it...

Answer 3

You have a good point. You surely thought this out quite in detail. Did you submit it to the organizers of the usopne? Also try emailing Pat Mac at espn.com -there's a contact section somewhere in there. Just cut and paste what you wrote here.

Not sure anyone will pay attention, because just look at what they did to the ground at Wimby and the new slower balls. Bunch of bull. The dudes running things probably place bets on the games and make millions thereby, so they're not really fair at all.

Answer 4

there would be too many wildcards. I believe there should be better organization of the wildcards we do have at the moment rather than. like having one home card

, one recently injured comeback card,one sentimental card, young peeps with potential.something like that. i mean they already do have this type of thinking when giving out wildcards. maybe less home wild cards.

so i don't think it would work but nice try!

Answer 5

I think they should go back to 16 like it used to be. Then the draw is more open than it is now. Sure there would still be the 32 best players but if 17-32 weren't actually seeded then they could come up against each other and the top 16 before the 3rd round.

Answer 6

Hmm I don't think it would really make that much difference to give a wild card ranking or not. Sometimes you get a hard draw and sometimes you get an easy draw, just the way it goes no matter what your ranking is.