A few days after Roger Federer lost his #1 ranking to Rafael Nadal last week I thought to myself that Wimbledon might still seed Roger #1 - knowing of their unique seeding system which takes into account previous grass court results for two years, weighting 2008 75% to 2009. I wondered if they'd have the nerve.
This morning when I saw that the seedings had been made I went to the men's list first to see what they had produced. Sure enough Roger Federer was bumped up above Rafa to the #1 seed. I was (mostly) fine with that, given the math they use - Roger is defending (and a 6 times champion) while Rafa missed last year owing to injury.
There were several other changes made - Roddick, Hewitt and Querrey received significant uppings while Isner (the very definition of a dark horse) was moved down. At some point this seeding system just doesn't make sense. How do you move Isner down? Do they actually know tennis?
I moved on to the women's list hoping to find a similar juggling of players. And NOTHING. They went strictly according to the rankings with the players ranked 6-33 moved up 1 spot because Elena Dementieva has pulled out with a calf strain.
WTF?
Maria Sharapova & Justine Henin are seeded #16 and #17. How is this even remotely possible? They both deserve to be ranked inside the top 10 - especially Justine, who according to the Race points on the year is the 6th ranked player of 2010. Wimbledon will have shot itself in the strawberries & cream if Serena and Justine draw each other in the 3rd round. That's not exciting - that's just annoying. Great going guys.
So then I started thinking... if they can't make a single change in the women's seedings then why shake up the men so dramatically?
I've read plenty of articles this morning suggesting that being seeded 1 or 2 makes no real difference as they can't meet each other until the final anyway but...
Couldn't an exception have been made in Rafa's case? The Spaniard went to 3 straight finals - winning here the last time he played in 2008. He worked his (famous) butt off to get back to #1 just to have Wimbledon (in an odd way) disrespect that... You won't hear him complain about it but rest assured it will be a very controversial move.
As for Roger, I think this may actually hurt him. In my view he would have been better off as the 2nd seed. As the 2nd seed it might well have taken some pressure off the man who has not had the best of seasons. Now the pressure is back squarely and in every press conference he is going to be asked about this (as if his fault somehow) and it may just add that pressure he and his game could well do without.
Again, had the women been re-worked I wouldn't even have written this but (in my opinion) Wimbledon has been a some glaring mistakes. Can't we call this a fault and allow them a second serve to get it right? Hell, I'd even call it a let.
Comments