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

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

Post by tennis » 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...

> > 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?

Yes.  As presented here many times before, the US Open is not bound by
either tour's rankings.  It is an independent tournament, not part of
either tour.  Bob Waltz is flat wrong.    Wimbledon, the French, and the
Aussie are in exactly the same position as the US Open, vis a vis
rankings/seedings.

This in no way means the US Open will ever again choose to seed
differently than the tour rankings.  There is very little up side for
doing so, and it's far easier to "go along".  But they certainly don't
<have> to.

 
 
 

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

Post by da » 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...
> > 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)?  

I think the deal is that the Slams are administered by the ITF, and the
rest of the tour(s) by the ATP/WTA. The ITF is not *required* to follow
the ranking system established by their rivals, the ATP/WTA. But in
general, they have. Even Wimbledon, which is the most free-wheeling
(because of the surface and because I think they just like reasserting the
fact that they're "The Championships" doggone it!), doesn't tinker with
the ATP rankings *that* much, and then only for the seeds (obviously). And
they almost never fudge on the women's side ... most notably with
Navratilova and Graf, who have proven themselves to be so strong on the
surface, by bumping them up. They never bump the ladies down, though, like
you you would expect them to have done with, say, Seles, when she was No.
1.

Anyway, what the USO did a couple of years ago (again, just with a few of
the men's seeds) was to assert their independence of the ATP ... but they
caught hell from the players and have since pledged not to do so again. I
think, though, that each of the Slams could theoretically do what it
wanted with their seeds. Personally, I'd like to see the French adjust
more for clay-court prowess, but I'd like to see the USO and AO stick to
the rankings; there are so many hard-court events nowadays that I think
the ATP/WTA rankings do a pretty good job of sorting things out fairly.
But I think most of us would agree that in a situation where Rios and
Sampras were no. 1 and 2 in the world, it would make no sense to give the
top Wimbly seed to Rios, and only a bit more to give the top French seed
to Pete.

dar
--
Will play tennis for food.

 
 
 

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

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

Quote:

> 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...

What in the world did I do to deserve this?

The answer is, I'll admit, that I got my information from those
Great Sources of Misinformation, television coverage. And, no,
I can't cite the station or the broadcast. (If I'm writing a
dissertation, yes, I give footnotes, but I didn't think it
was needed here.)

The analysis of reasons is my own. But, again, it comes from
analysis on television -- and here.

Dar took care of the rest of the answer, I think.

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

 
 
 

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

Post by Shun Cheun » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> > 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...

> What in the world did I do to deserve this?

Because you talk about things that you aren't 100% sure about.

Quote:
> The answer is, I'll admit, that I got my information from those
> Great Sources of Misinformation, television coverage. And, no,
> I can't cite the station or the broadcast. (If I'm writing a
> dissertation, yes, I give footnotes, but I didn't think it
> was needed here.)

When the USTA moved Agassi's seeding up in 1996, there was a huge uproar
from the players, mainly Europeans. Regardless of how stupid they may be,
I really doubt that the USTA will make that mistake again.

In any case, on the men's side, Sampras has regained the #1 ranking from
Rios, so Sampras will be the #1 seed (although there isn't much difference
between #1 and #2 as far as seeding goes). On the women's side, unless
Novotna actually takes over the #2 ranking, Davenport will be the 2nd seed.
In this case, there isn't that much of a difference between #2 and #3.
The main advantage for being #2 is that you cannot meet #1 Hingis before
the final. Given Hingis' current form, meeting her in the SF (instead of
the final) isn't really that much of a disadvantage.

-- Shun Cheung  New Jersey,USA  shun(AT)worldnet.att.net

1998 GS--AO:Jan19-Feb 1  FO:May25-Jun 7  W:Jun22-Jul 5  USO:Aug31-Sep13

 
 
 

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

Post by Robert B. Wal » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> > What in the world did I do to deserve this?

> Because you talk about things that you aren't 100% sure about.

Actually, I was 100% sure. I may have been wrong, but I was sure. :-)

Seriously, as Dar pointed out, until recently the only tournaments
allowed to go against the rankings were the Slams. In the wake of
the U. S. Open scandal, it was proposed that the same rule be
applied to all slams except Wimbledon. I understood that the
Tours had approved this. If this is not true, I would like to
know what has become of the resolutions, and what rules the
other slams apply.

Also, the original question was why Wimbledon still goes against
the rankings. I still believe my answer is correct: The reason
they *ought* to do it is grass, and the reason they are allowed
to do it is because it's Wimbledon. :-)

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

 
 
 

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

Post by tennis » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> > > What in the world did I do to deserve this?

> > Because you talk about things that you aren't 100% sure about.

> Actually, I was 100% sure. I may have been wrong, but I was sure. :-)

> Seriously, as Dar pointed out, until recently the only tournaments
> allowed to go against the rankings were the Slams. In the wake of
> the U. S. Open scandal, it was proposed that the same rule be
> applied to all slams except Wimbledon. I understood that the
> Tours had approved this. If this is not true, I would like to
> know what has become of the resolutions, and what rules the
> other slams apply.

You've got to wake up, Bob.  The Slams are not in any way shape or form
bound by any rule of the tours.  They never have been, and until there is
some sort of restructuring of tennis (don't hold your breath) they never
will be.  The Slams are administrated by their respective owners and are
confederated under the administration of the ITF.  Each Slam is "allowed"
to do whatever the hell it wants to.  You should recognize this before you
embarrass yourself any further, and confuse even more people who don't
know any better.
Quote:

> Also, the original question was why Wimbledon still goes against
> the rankings. I still believe my answer is correct: The reason
> they *ought* to do it is grass, and the reason they are allowed
> to do it is because it's Wimbledon. :-)

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

 
 
 

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

Post by tennis » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> > 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...

> What in the world did I do to deserve this?

You asserted something, unequivocally, that was unequivocally wrong,
that's what.

Quote:

> The answer is, I'll admit, that I got my information from those
> Great Sources of Misinformation, television coverage.

The patricide appealing for sympathy because he's an orphan!  That's rich.

And, no,

Quote:
> I can't cite the station or the broadcast. (If I'm writing a
> dissertation, yes, I give footnotes, but I didn't think it
> was needed here.)

> The analysis of reasons is my own. But, again, it comes from
> analysis on television -- and here.

> Dar took care of the rest of the answer, I think.

Oh come on, Bob.  You were flat out wrong.  Admit it.  Be a man.  Or don't.
 
 
 

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

Post by Mike » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> Anyway, what the USO did a couple of years ago (again, just with a few of
> the men's seeds) was to assert their independence of the ATP ... but they
> caught hell from the players and have since pledged not to do so again.

The problem with what USO did was that they ordered the seeds after the
draw, and made it obvious that they were just moving Agassi away from
potentially meeting Sampraas in the QF. I think that, more than seeding
differently than the ranking, was what made the European players real
pissed off.

--
Mike Ma  University of Cincinnati

 
 
 

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

Post by da » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00

You're right. I had forgotten that fly in the ointment. Didn't Kafelnikov
boycott the USO that year in protest?

dar

Quote:


> > Anyway, what the USO did a couple of years ago (again, just with a few of
> > the men's seeds) was to assert their independence of the ATP ... but they
> > caught hell from the players and have since pledged not to do so again.
> The problem with what USO did was that they ordered the seeds after the
> draw, and made it obvious that they were just moving Agassi away from
> potentially meeting Sampraas in the QF. I think that, more than seeding
> differently than the ranking, was what made the European players real
> pissed off.

--
Will play tennis for food.
 
 
 

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

Post by Kamakshi Tando » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00



<....>

Quote:
> Seriously, as Dar pointed out, until recently the only tournaments
> allowed to go against the rankings were the Slams. In the wake of
> the U. S. Open scandal, it was proposed that the same rule be
> applied to all slams except Wimbledon. I understood that the
> Tours had approved this. If this is not true, I would like to
> know what has become of the resolutions, and what rules the
> other slams apply.

AFAIK :) :
The Slams can still go against the rankings for the seedings, but they
don't to keep the peace. If the USO tried it again after the '96 fiasco,
there would almost certainly be a boycott. The trouble with that year was
that it was too obvious that CBS was doing a lot of string pulling in the
Agassi and the USTA did a bad job of diguising it -- i.e made some stupid
seeding decisions: there is no way Kafelnikov should have been dropped, he
was the FO champion and a good hardcourt player;
Ivanisevic being moved up was laughable given his track record; Muster was
dropped too much. The only sensible thing they planned was to give the 16th
seed to Stich instead of Mantilla, but the Spanish players threatened a
walkout and so it was dropped (this is the one thing the USTA should have
been firm about, but weren't).

The real uproar, though, came when the USTA did the draw, *then* placed the
seeds into it. It actually turned out pretty well for them, but anyway, I
don't that they're going to try tinkering with the draw again for a *long*
time. I think there's now a tacit agreement betwen the ATP and the Slams
('cept W) to just stick to the rankings.

Quote:
> Also, the original question was why Wimbledon still goes against
> the rankings. I still believe my answer is correct: The reason
> they *ought* to do it is grass, and the reason they are allowed
> to do it is because it's Wimbledon. :-)

Pretty much. There isn't a lot of resistance becasue their decisions are
usually fair, and the players aren't stupid; they understand that
exceptions have to be made for grass. I think the French Open could also
get away with a few different seedings (though much less than Wimbledon)
but for one reason and another they choose not to. I did think it was
strange that in '96 Sampras was the first seed and Muster the second in the
FO, even though Muster was the defending champion and had been No.1 earlier
in the year. (& even more strangely, Muster accepted it without comment --
and perhaps that's why he was so bitter about being the No7 seed at
Wimbledon).

Kamakshi