wimbledon?

Question

should wimbledon have seeded serena and venus higher because of past performance. Serena shouldn't have had to play justine henin twice in a row in a grand slam final. Venus should have never had to play sharapova in the forth round.

Answer 1

The short answer is yes, they both should have been seeded higher!

Serena should have been seeded somewhere around 4th and venus should have been seeded in the top 10. The reason I say this is because Wimbledon is one of the few tournaments that seeds players based on a combination of ranking points, past performance and grasscourt expertise. By their own rules, Venus (now a 6 time Wimbledon finalist) was seeded way too low. She has the best grasscourt record of anyone competing now and this was mentioned by commentators (MacEnroe brothers and Mary Carillo).

The French Open should also follow a similar seeding arraingement procedure that Wimbledon uses since the claycourt benefits certain playing styles more than others and some players have had better history on that surface. However, the Australian Open, the US Open and other hardcourt events should seed players strictly by rank order since those are the most neutral surfaces.

Okay, so that wasn't really a short answer, but hey!

Answer 2

As tadeeb mentioned, the rankings are based on points accumulated throughout the year based on performance at tournaments. That the Williams' have had to play top tier players often is the result of the Williams' actions (or inactions to play more frequently for whatever the reason) not the WTA.

It's perfectly fair for the Williams to play Henin and Sharapova in any round in any tournament any number of times in a row based on the system that's in place. If they want to change how that happens, their only recourse is to perform better and play more frequently. That goes for any player, not just Venus and Serena.

Past performance ranking is sometimes held for a short time for special reasons. But the Williams, while formitable no matter how long they've been away fromt he game, have for a multitude of reasons accumulate a certain number of points and that decides their ranking, not the WTA.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

Rankings by WTA is just where each player has collected based
on the points per event.....Even the seeds are meaningless to
an extent, other than meeting them may be earlier than the
finals....
Given that William sisters play very few tournaments, their
total points will be a few compared to others.....based on their
previous performance, Wimbledon seeds them accordingly.

Even if they were seeded higher, the outcome would be the
same....hence seedings do not matter a lot for players
like William sisters

Answer 4

There has been so much drama in the past about seedings that I find it fair to just use their current rankings. But some players did get a bump up this year just not where many of us felt they should have been. I will certainly be watching next year when Venus enters if she is seeded less than 5 I will boycott.

Answer 5

i think its all very calculative process--every player's RACE and RANING .....her performance at the event is considered..her record on the surface is considered..so you probably cannot fight on what's good and how it is bad....Serena lost not coz she was facing justine..coz she had two dreadful injuries...left thight and left wrist....

If Venus was seeded higher she wud have still won the wimbledon..coz she is just too experienced of the two sisters