What do you think?

Question

Do you think in Clay court masters events they should seed by their past performences, or just like any other tournament. It's the third round and the 3rd, 4rth, 9th seeds have already fallen. Also many lower seeds have also been beaten ex: Marcos Baghadatis. I think that is what they do at Wimbledon

Answer 1

I think they should use the same system as has worked at Wimbledon.

Answer 2

It's kind of a good idea but kind of an unlikely one at the same time. Wimbledon basically only gets away with it now because it's the oldest tournament in the world and because grass has become such a specialty surface (to the point of there being only like a dozen players who are especially proficient on it). So at Wimbledon, it would make sense to seed Roddick over Davydenko if that's not what the computer ranking says at the moment. No one really complains about it.

On the other surfaces, however, it causes problems. Remember the US Open in 1996? They messed with the seeds and pulled Andre Agassi into the top 8 in the hopes of having an Andre-Pete Final. Muster and Kafelnikov were royally pissed and Kafelnikov actually skipped the tournament that year.

So while messing with the seeds would seem to make sense on clay (No one honestly thinks Roddick should be seeded higher than Gonzo or Djokovic or Haas on clay), it would cause a lot of players to be pretty angry. It would definitely harm American tennis too. Tournaments already have a hard time getting Americans to show up to the European clay tournaments (Australians too). When they start stripping them of their rankings to move unseeded players up, you can forget about them showing up period. Think Andy Roddick is gonna put up with having to play Roger Federer on clay in the 1st round of Monte Carlo? That would be a nightmare.

Answer 3

I think they should be seeded by rank. If you mess with one, you have to mess with all. Wimbeldon has it's own set of rules and is steeped in it's own traditions.
The system is designed to get the most fairly matched final by dividing the top players evenly among the two brackets. If a player does not play in that particular tournament one year, how are they rated the following? If they had to withdraw or get knocked out early because of injury, are they a less worthy player because they left in early rounds?
I think it makes more sense to determine seeding from a body of play other than an individual tournament. Look at Federer, he got dropped in the early rounds of 2 tournaments, but managed to make the finals in Monte Carlos. He's still the best, and deserves his seeding based on his overall skill and accomplishments.

Answer 4

It's a good idea, but at the same time I don't think that's fair, what if a player has become seeded recently and became excellent, if he isn't seeded in the clay tournament because he wasn't that good in the past, that would be unfair, he can be playing with strong players in the first rounds.
I agree that the players playing good in hard courts aren't always good on clay.

Add to the players who lost: 5th Robredo, 6th Djokovic.
The 7th Ljubicic is about to lose, and add Federer's tough wins.

Answer 5

That is hard to say. Look at Roger Federer. He lost the French Open to Rafael Nadal. But Roger is the number 1 rank. Are you going to give Nadal the number 1 seed just because he won it last year. But then again, I am a Rafa Supporter!!!!! You do bring a good point. Why give someone else credit for their number 1 seed, when it has been acquired during hard or grass season!!!

Answer 6

the seed system now is okay. what if a person is injured, cannot participate in the masters. and the person joins in the next year's event. he's still top ten rank. just because in the last performance he didn't participate, so it means that he cannot get SEEDED?