This item is for discussing professional tennis, both men's and women's.

8 responses total.

The story in the news today is that Wimbledon is considering changing 
it's seeding method.

Wimbledon has traditionally seeded the players according to how well 
it's seeding committee thinks they can play on grass.  Some of the clay 
court players think it's unfair because they're seeded lower at 
Wimbledon than other tournaments.  Some pretty highly ranked players 
have been unseeded at Wimbledon because they're clay court specialists.

Brazilian clay court specialist Gustavo Kuerten, whom I believe won the 
last couple of French Opens (clay court), has threatened to lead a 
Wimbledon boycott by clay court players if Wimbledon doesn't switch to 
using a straight, unweighted ATP (Association of Tennis 
Professionals) ranking based on the last year of tournament play.

Wimbledon appears to be buckling; they've dismissed their seeding 
committee and it appears they're going to change their seeding.

It seems to me like a bad idea.  Clay court play is very much different 
than grass play.

In clay court play, you have a surface that amounts to moist clay, 
essentially mud, which slows the ball down as play continues.  The court 
is always very even, so there are very few odd bounces.  Players 
typically slug it out with ground strokes.  Whoever makes the least 
mistakes wins the match.  Bjorn Borg and Guillermo Vilas once played a 
single match, 5 sets, that lasted 6.5 hours on a clay court.  (Borg 
won.)

On a grass court, the grass quality is depleted as play continues, so 
that by the end of Wimbledon the playing surface is pitted and grooved, 
and parts of the grass are bare.  The advantage goes to the strongest, 
hardest-hitting and fastest players because they can react most quickly 
to bad bounces, cause bad bounces to be worse, and play more at the net 
so they don't have to deal with the bad surface at all.

Seeding these two types of players on the same system, as if every match 
is the same, is inaccurate.  Grass and clay courts are a lot different, 
much like drag racing is different than NASCAR, or sand volleyball is 
different than indoor hard-court volleyball.

However, Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam tournament which seeds this 
way.  It's also the only one on grass, the only one where women are 
called either "Mrs." or "Miss", and the only tournament widely watched 
by non-tennis fans.  Wimbledon has traditions that the other tournaments 
don't, and I think this doesn't sit well with some of the players.  It's 
hard to satisfy everyone.  I think Wimbledon should stick with it's 
traditions.

I used to watch a lot of tennis, including all of the major tournaments. 
If the Tigers remain as bad as they are now, this could very well be the 
year I return to being a rabid tennis fan.

What do they do re: seeding at the Australian, US, and French opens?  
Seed based on success at hard court or clay court, or seed based on 
overall pro ranking?  I think that Wimbledon (no T! :-) should follow 
suit.  Or they can be stodgy, the way they are with allowing only white 
clothing.  It will depend on how likely a boycott is.

The other Grand Slam tournaments use the ATP computer rankings for their 
seedings.

Wimbledon is all about tradition.  It's *different*.  That makes it more 
interesting and better.  May it ever remain stodgy.

I would feel better if the French open gave special preferance to Clay court
players, and artificially lowered the seedings (of Pete Sampras, for instance)
of those who can't seem to succeed on clay.  I'll be Sampras has a lot to do
with this, since he succeeds so easily at Wimbledon with high seeds, but gets
high seeds at the French Open and blows them.  It amounts to an advantage for
him.  

It should be noted that sticking to stodgy traditions can get you killed if
you don't watch out.  Remember the Indianapolis 500?  I do.  As recently as
1995 it was a major landmark on the American Sports landscape, revered around
the world as the top automobile race anywhere.

It's barely a blip, consumed by NASCAR.  Why?  Well, just as NASCAR was
gaining steam, Indy attempted to revert to its roots even more. American open
wheel racing was torn asunder, both parts considerably less than half the
whole.  It has to be one of the largest political blunders in the history of
sports.  Into the void that was once a solid series stepped NASCAR, which even
began holding a race at Indy, one which is probably more successful than the
500.  The ultimate insult.  Tradition occasionally needs to be updated to keep
with the times, or it will be... a vague memory.

Raul, would you please enter another item about car racing?  (Or 
separate items about Indy and NASCAR, if you like.)  I sure would 
appreciate it.  Thanks!

A little controversy is good.  Let the Brits be stodgy about Wimbledon -
they've lost everything else!  ;-)

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss