Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Clanke » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00


There has been much discussion on this newsgroup of the possibility of
Davenport taking over the #1 ranking from Hingis.  However, Lindsay must
be fretting over whether or not she will still be #2 come next week.
According to this week's rankings, she is losing 298 points from last
year's tourney in Atlanta and is not playing this week.  On the other
hand, #3 Jana Novotna has no points to defend this week and she is
playing in Montreal.  Because of the relatively small gap in points
between these two, Novotna has a good chance of moving ahead of
Davenport in next week's rankings if she is able to reach the semis in
Montreal.

Why is this important?  Well, the seeds for all tournaments are based on
the prior week's rankings, which means that if Novotna moves up to #2,
she will be seeded #2 at the US Open - regardless of how well Davenport
performs next week in New Haven.  The main worry for Davenport in this
case would be the possibility of having to face Hingis in the US Open
semis instead of the final.

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Jack » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Novotna needs to reach the final at Montreal to move ahead of Davenport.

Davenport: 5015-289+54 = 4771
Novotna: 4615-73 = 4542 (229 points behind Davenport).

Quote:

> There has been much discussion on this newsgroup of the possibility of
> Davenport taking over the #1 ranking from Hingis.  However, Lindsay must
> be fretting over whether or not she will still be #2 come next week.
> According to this week's rankings, she is losing 298 points from last
> year's tourney in Atlanta and is not playing this week.  On the other
> hand, #3 Jana Novotna has no points to defend this week and she is
> playing in Montreal.  Because of the relatively small gap in points
> between these two, Novotna has a good chance of moving ahead of
> Davenport in next week's rankings if she is able to reach the semis in
> Montreal.

> Why is this important?  Well, the seeds for all tournaments are based on
> the prior week's rankings, which means that if Novotna moves up to #2,
> she will be seeded #2 at the US Open - regardless of how well Davenport
> performs next week in New Haven.  The main worry for Davenport in this
> case would be the possibility of having to face Hingis in the US Open
> semis instead of the final.


 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by J Lian » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Why is this important?  Well, the seeds for all tournaments are based on
> the prior week's rankings, which means that if Novotna moves up to #2,
> she will be seeded #2 at the US Open - regardless of how well Davenport
> performs next week in New Haven.  The main worry for Davenport in this
> case would be the possibility of having to face Hingis in the US Open
> semis instead of the final.

  I don't think Davenport will be worry about facing Hingis in US Open semi
or final,
  the fact is if she wants to be the US Open champion, she will need to be
the best player in the
  world for that two weeks, that means beating Hingis or Novotna, and order
of their meeting
  hardly matters.

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Robert B. Wal » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> There has been much discussion on this newsgroup of the possibility of
> Davenport taking over the #1 ranking from Hingis.  However, Lindsay must
> be fretting over whether or not she will still be #2 come next week.
> According to this week's rankings, she is losing 298 points from last
> year's tourney in Atlanta and is not playing this week.  On the other
> hand, #3 Jana Novotna has no points to defend this week and she is
> playing in Montreal.  Because of the relatively small gap in points
> between these two, Novotna has a good chance of moving ahead of
> Davenport in next week's rankings if she is able to reach the semis in
> Montreal.

My first reaction was that Novotna wasn't likely to overtake
Davenport. On second thought, she has a fair chance. With Davenport
losing 298 points, Novotna needs to pick up 103 points to move up
to #2. Now, though, Pierce is out of her section. Chances are that
Novotna will face the following:

2nd round: Likhovtseva (#25; win worth 36 RP + 35 QP)
3rd Round: Fernandez (#67; win worth 29 RP + 8 QP)
QF:        Graf (pseudo-#7; win worth 52 RP + 42 QP)

Before Graf's first-round match, I thought Novotna would be able
to handle Graf. Now I'm not so sure (given Novotna's spotty
record on hardcourts). But if Novotna makes it to the quarterfinals,
which she should, she should earn at least 108 points (more if
Farina beats Fernandez). Which will just barely restore her to the
#2 spot.

The irony is that Davenport will almost certainly take over #2
again the following week at New Haven. I'll bet she didn't
anticipate this situation when she set her schedule. :-)

Quote:
> Why is this important?  Well, the seeds for all tournaments are based on
> the prior week's rankings, which means that if Novotna moves up to #2,
> she will be seeded #2 at the US Open - regardless of how well Davenport
> performs next week in New Haven.  The main worry for Davenport in this
> case would be the possibility of having to face Hingis in the US Open
> semis instead of the final.

I wonder. I can see two sides to this. If Hingis makes the semis
at the Open, Davenport cannot take over #1 whatever happens. She might
prefer to face a tired Hingis in the final. On the other hand, one
advantage for Davenport in being seeded #3 is that it would
let her, potentially, beat both Hingis and Novotna. That is the
one thing that might let her take #1.

Fascinating situation. Amazing how many things are up in the air
at this year's Open.

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Robert B. Wal » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Novotna needs to reach the final at Montreal to move ahead of Davenport.

> Davenport: 5015-289+54 = 4771
> Novotna: 4615-73 = 4542 (229 points behind Davenport).

Woops! Disregard the calculations in my previous post. I forgot
that Novotna was defending points.

Assuming the 229 point gap is accurate, let me redo my list. :-)

                                            RP   QP  Total for getting
                                                     this far
2nd Round: Novotna vs. Likhovtseva (#25)   36    23     59
3rd Round: Novotna vs. Fernandez (#67)    +29    +8    108
QF: Novotna vs. Graf (pseudo-#7)          +52   +43    203

So it's true -- Novotna has to reach the final to reach #2.

Which isn't likely. Hardcourts, historically, aren't her surface.

I still wonder if Davenport wouldn't be better off falling to #3,
though. :-)

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Stev » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00

All of this overlooks Seles who just thrives at the U.S. Open.  She was
beaten in the finals in 95 and 96 by Graf and only needs a slight
improvement to win.  She is playing this week at the Canadian, another
tournament she does well in, so it is not certain in my book that Davenport
or Hingis are shoo-ins.

On the other hand Graf is the real floater.  If she gets hot this week at
Montreal, she would be a real threat at the Open as well.  On top of that,
last year the Open did what Wimbledon regularly does and set its own
seedings.  I know they took a lot of flak but I think they will do it again.
My betting is that Sampras will be seeded 1st unless Rios wins a hardcourt
tournament and Agassi will get seeded 4th.  They may put Davenport 2nd
regardless, a completely-defensible decision.

Steve

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Robert B. Wal » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> All of this overlooks Seles who just thrives at the U.S. Open.  She was
> beaten in the finals in 95 and 96 by Graf and only needs a slight
> improvement to win.  She is playing this week at the Canadian, another
> tournament she does well in, so it is not certain in my book that Davenport
> or Hingis are shoo-ins.

All this is true, but irrelevant. (Sorry. :-) After that little
escapade of upwardly seeding Agassi a few years back, the U. S. Open
is *required* to follow the rankings in its seedings. Right now, Seles
is #6 in the rankings -- and losing ground, as she failed to defend
her Los Angeles title. Seles cannot be seeded above #6 at the Open. (She's
680 points behind Venus Williams for #5; she cannot make that up.)
The only question is, can she hold on to enough points to avoid dropping
to #7. She probably will -- but even this is uncertain.

Quote:
> On the other hand Graf is the real floater.  If she gets hot this week at
> Montreal, she would be a real threat at the Open as well.  On top of that,
> last year the Open did what Wimbledon regularly does and set its own
> seedings.

Not true. Several years ago, they set their own seedings for the men,
but

1. They are now officially barred from doing so, and
2. They only did it for the men anyway.

Quote:
>I know they took a lot of flak but I think they will do it again.
> My betting is that Sampras will be seeded 1st unless Rios wins a hardcourt
> tournament and Agassi will get seeded 4th.  They may put Davenport 2nd
> regardless, a completely-defensible decision.

On the men's side, since Sampras will be #2 anyway, they don't have any
real motivation to upgrade him. On the women's side, it's unlikely
that Novotna can overtake Davenport anyway. It's not going to happen.
Even if they wanted to do it, they can't.

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Stev » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

You may well be right that the U.S. Open is "barred" from doing this, but
they were talking about this possibility on ESPN the other day.
 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Robert B. Wal » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> You may well be right that the U.S. Open is "barred" from doing this, but
> they were talking about this possibility on ESPN the other day.

Probably thinking back about what they did two years ago. I certainly
won't deny that they could produce *better* seedings than those
which come out of the computers (though I certainly wouldn't seed
Agassi #4 -- not based on his performance in important events).
I just don't think they will dare. Even if it is still "legal" --
and I don't think it is. These days, only Wimbledon is allowed
to alter the seeding list.

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Alan Vin » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> > You may well be right that the U.S. Open is "barred" from doing this, but
> > they were talking about this possibility on ESPN the other day.

> Probably thinking back about what they did two years ago. I certainly
> won't deny that they could produce *better* seedings than those
> which come out of the computers (though I certainly wouldn't seed
> Agassi #4 -- not based on his performance in important events).
> I just don't think they will dare. Even if it is still "legal" --
> and I don't think it is. These days, only Wimbledon is allowed

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You don't *think* it is?  You sounded like you knew for certain...

Quote:
> to alter the seeding list.

I thought each Grand Slam event reserves the right to change the seeding.
If the U.S. Open is barred from changing the seeding (based on rank), then
why "only Wimbledon" is allowed this right?

TennisTV, do you know the real deal with the U.S. Open?

Alan

Quote:

> --
> Robert B. Waltz
> (e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Try me...I'm very y » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

: You may well be right that the U.S. Open is "barred" from doing this, but
: they were talking about this possibility on ESPN the other day.

Why is the US Open barred from this, as well as Roland Garros and the
Australian Open. Why can only Wimbledon deviate from the rankings? It
doesn't make sense...

I would love to know...
:)

--

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

 Nestor Matos
 Skidmore College                  "Would you excuse me.  I cut my foot
 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866         before and my shoe is filling up
 (518)581-6464                      with ***."
                                      -Romy White says to a guy from
 McClellan 324                      Romy and Michele's High School Reunion

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Robert B. Wal » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
> Why is the US Open barred from this, as well as Roland Garros and the
> Australian Open. Why can only Wimbledon deviate from the rankings? It
> doesn't make sense...

> I would love to know...
> :)

Two answers:

1. Grass
2. It's Wimbledon

Of the two, #1 is the more important. Wimbledon is the *only*
major tournament played on grass. The other surfaces -- clay,
hardcourts, even indoors -- feature enough events that results
on those surfaces play a major part in one's ranking. But there
are so few grass events that rankings are simply not a good
predictor of success on the stuff. (Especially on the men's
side, with the Best 14 system. Right now Rios is #1 without,
I believe, a single grasscourt tournament figuring in his
ranking.)

Logically, *all* grass events should be free to seed based
on grass results rather than rankings. But that's where the
"It's Wimbledon" part comes in. Since Wimbledon is, well,
Wimbledon, it -- and only it -- gets to do the logical thing
and seed based on grass results. Or on whatever the seeding
committee thinks is important.

Now I might argue that Wimbledon should come up with a formula
for this, and stick with it. But I certainly can understand
why they, and they alone, can deviate from the rankings.

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by Alan Vin » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Robert,

Quote:


> > Why is the US Open barred from this, as well as Roland Garros and the
> > Australian Open. Why can only Wimbledon deviate from the rankings? It
> > doesn't make sense...

> > I would love to know...
> > :)

> Two answers:

> 1. Grass
> 2. It's Wimbledon

You have given reasons 1 and 2 without any references.  Where do you get
your information?  Why/how do we confirm your statement about *only*
Wimbledon has the right to change its seeding (ranking aside)?  Your
reasons may make sense, maybe, but I'm sure the other slams would contest
this.  Even if they have the right to change the seeds (ranking aside),
they usually don't but would want that right anyways like it has been in
the past before the U.S. Open controversy a while back...

Thanks - Alan

Quote:
> Of the two, #1 is the more important. Wimbledon is the *only*
> major tournament played on grass. The other surfaces -- clay,
> hardcourts, even indoors -- feature enough events that results
> on those surfaces play a major part in one's ranking. But there
> are so few grass events that rankings are simply not a good
> predictor of success on the stuff. (Especially on the men's
> side, with the Best 14 system. Right now Rios is #1 without,
> I believe, a single grasscourt tournament figuring in his
> ranking.)

> Logically, *all* grass events should be free to seed based
> on grass results rather than rankings. But that's where the
> "It's Wimbledon" part comes in. Since Wimbledon is, well,
> Wimbledon, it -- and only it -- gets to do the logical thing
> and seed based on grass results. Or on whatever the seeding
> committee thinks is important.

> Now I might argue that Wimbledon should come up with a formula
> for this, and stick with it. But I certainly can understand
> why they, and they alone, can deviate from the rankings.

> --
> Robert B. Waltz
> (e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

Will Davenport be seeded #3 at US Open???

Post by tennis » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> Robert,



> > > Why is the US Open barred from this, as well as Roland Garros and the
> > > Australian Open. Why can only Wimbledon deviate from the rankings? It
> > > doesn't make sense...

> > > I would love to know...
> > > :)

> > Two answers:

> > 1. Grass
> > 2. It's Wimbledon

> You have given reasons 1 and 2 without any references.  Where do you get
> your information?  Why/how do we confirm your statement about *only*
> Wimbledon has the right to change its seeding (ranking aside)?  Your
> reasons may make sense, maybe, but I'm sure the other slams would contest
> this.  Even if they have the right to change the seeds (ranking aside),
> they usually don't but would want that right anyways like it has been in
> the past before the U.S. Open controversy a while back...

> Thanks - Alan

There is no "right" needed for any of the four Grand Slam tournaments to
seed however they see fit.  They are independent entities and are beholden
to neither tour.  They are part of the ITF, but the ITF isn't part of
either tour, either, and hence not subject to the tour's rankings.  Bob
Waltz has apparently imagined something to the contrary.

The fact that the GS's seedings usually match the tour's rankings is
convenience, pure and simple.  With a dash of wimpy "let's not rock the
boat" sentiment thrown in.  They have every right to seed however they
want.