| Archive for Percy896's Tennis Forum This is a new tennis forum to discuss professional tennis, vote and create polls, and ask advice about equipment, fitness, or anything regarding tennis! Now with a new Fantasy Tennis League! |
| J-man |
Should Nadal be seeded at WimbyWhat do you think about Nadal being seeded or not at Wimbledon??I myself Think he should be seeded at Wimbledon. He's is the #2 player in the world so let it show with a seeding. Also he has shown us that he can play on grass by getting to the Quaterfinals at Queens |
||||||||||
| PSALT |
Re: Should Nadal be seeded at Wimby
one QF at queens will not make up for the fact he has never had success on grass. I don't think he should be seeded #2 at all, based on results that spot should still be given to Roddick. |
||||||||||
| J-man |
I don't think Nadal should be seeded #2 you misheard me  but I think He should be seeded nonetheless.
|
||||||||||
| PSALT |
yes, he should be seeded. I agree. |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
Nadal should be, because he's the run away Number 2 in the world...I don't understand why Roddick would be seeded number 2 based on results. I would put Hewitt's one win and 2 semifinals ahead of Roddick's 2 final appearances.... | ||||||||||
| PSALT |
Roddick has won the last Queens, two Wimbledon finals, and an arguement can be made that he might of won the '04 WImbledon if not for the rain delay. |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
Yes, but like, Hewitt won a Wimbledon...anyways, I don't think being seeded 1 to 4 makes a big difference.... | ||||||||||
| admin |
But it does! If you are seeded #2 there is no way of playing Federer until the finals. |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
Oh, yes ...but I mean, if we didn't have a Federer, it wouldn't really make a difference. But, after thinking of that, I guess it does.
|
||||||||||
| J-man |
|
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
But you've got to consider that Hewitt has been getting the misfortune of being in Federer's half everytime. | ||||||||||
| J-man |
Yes that too. Which is part of the point Hewitt got mad at last years Wimbledon because he was seeded lower than Roddick | ||||||||||
| x.doublea |
Yes, and he was probably really mad because he was drawn to face Federer in the semifinal, not Roddick.... | ||||||||||
| Not_Even_Amateur |
Unlikely. Roddick gets a tennis lesson by Federer. I think he should get maybe no seed, he is simply not going to win it. If Nadal managed to get to Federer at the final he would be more likely to win that Roddick. About 100 times more. There is no point in Roddick being given a seed...he ain't gunna win wimbledon, simple as. He can serve his way past lesser players but when he meets the best on grass he gets SHOWN UP for the player he is, period. Also, has ANYONE ever suggested Nadal should NOT get a seeding? Or was this topic just a random musing? I am just interested if there are any fools out there suggesting that Nadal's seed is not rightful... |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
He's probably going to get second seeed (I think).... | ||||||||||
| J-man |
Your post seems to be more based on the fact that you don't like Roddick then actual logic |
||||||||||
| dav6789 |
At Wimbledon only, the seeds are determined on which players have performed better on grass in recent years. The top 32 players that enter will definetely be seeded, but the order of them can be changed due to grass results. I think Nadal should be seeded 4 at highest since he has not done much on grass compared to Roddick and Hewitt. | ||||||||||
| x.doublea |
I personally think the World Number 1 should always be seeded number 1, and so should the Number 2, only if the number 3 or 4 are really close to him/her in terms of points and have done better on grass.... | ||||||||||
| J-man |
I personally don't think Nadal deserves to be seeded #2 from his past record on grass | ||||||||||
| x.doublea |
That would be a bit unfair though, because he has only really played on year on grass.... | ||||||||||
| admin |
But he just lost to Hewitt on grass. Plus he struggled against qualifiers. I think it's still safe to say that a #2 seeding at Wimbledon is not right. By the way, way in hell was Myskina seeded 2nd at Wimbledon in 2004? She is (and was) TERRIBLE on grass! |
||||||||||
| leftys_rock |
She had just won RG and had moved up to 2 in the world. They don't shift the womens seedings as much. | ||||||||||
| admin |
Still, I mean the Wimbledon tournament directors are not idiots...they knew tha Myskina really wasn't that good and knew there was no way she could win Wimbledon with her game. Plus, they seeded Venus 3rd (I believe), who had won the title twice and reached the finals the previous year! Seriously, that is just rediculous... |
||||||||||
| PSALT |
as far as I know they don't change the seeding at all. why? an arguement can be made for less prize money, but what are their reasons for not giving the women that seeding either? Both Davenport and Venus would be seeded much higher than they are. It would be horrible if they met in the RD16, they deserve better than that. |
||||||||||
| leftys_rock |
And something that isn't related to the seeding, but I was seeing some threads from the 2004 Wimbledon(there were some schedules of play), and what was Lindsay who was the #5 seed doing playing on COURT 18!! I mean, she is the #5 seed! | ||||||||||
| admin |
Well Serena was seeding #1 at 2004 Wimbledon. I think that's about the only change for the women, except Venus was seeded #3. What is also weird to me is why the U.S. Open that year decided to seed Serena #3 even though she was ranked 7th. I though Wimbledon was the only place that did that. |
||||||||||
| Not_Even_Amateur |
OMG! Seriously j-man are you illiterate? You can READ posts but never understand the atmosphere/tone. I do despise Roddick and this was more of a dig at him rather than a SERIOUS post...obviously. Yet you come out with this heartwarming speech about my post is not "based on actual logic". Hey, well done detective! Obviously it is not...it was sarcasm/irony...call it what you will, but not serious. FFS. I think Nadal should have the number 2, nobody has seen him enough on grass to really take that away from him. He didn't lose to Hewitt as such...he retired, he played a BRILLIANT first set, really, really good grasscourt tennis and was showing he could be a big power on grass. Seriously, I kid you not. What I have seen of him is promising and, while there is no way he will win wimbledon or he is not even second favourite, he should still keep his number 2; he has done more than anyone else this year, far more (minus Fed) and if we are going in this direction then Henman should get a higher seeding than most people. Maybe number 5 or something. But, you lot aren't calling for that now are you? |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
About Henman though, I don't think it's right to seed someone like 5th if he's ranked 60-something.... | ||||||||||
| J-man |
Anyhow the reason that I did not understand your tone is that you have shown your disliking of Roddick so many times, that almost whatever you say about Roddick seems legit to what you think |
||||||||||
| beachjm |
Of course he should be seeded. Let's just hope he plays after his injury tomorrow. I guess it's Wimbledon's prerogative if they want to play around with the seeds, but imagine if the FO did the same. Roddick wouldn't even be seeded!
Hopefully, Nadal competes, wins a couple of rds. and maybe in 3-4 yrs. becomes a legit contender at the big W. |
||||||||||
| J-man |
Wouldn't hurt of Roddick wasn't seeded for FO  
|
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
He would still lose in the first or second round, regardless. | ||||||||||
| PSALT |
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/ne...-06-21/200606211150891015418.html
wow....... that sucks for Agassi............ |
||||||||||
| leftys_rock |
#26 seed! He is going to get a hell of a draw then. | ||||||||||
| PSALT |
R.Federer vrs A.Agassi RD32? not good |
||||||||||
| stevos14 |
Venus gets #7! This is great, I never thought they did it for women.
Very happy right now 
Some great possible qtrfinals now! |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
Well, that's sort of where Agassi stands in the rankings...all I can do is HOPE that he doesn't get drawn into Federer's section. A Federer-Agassi R32 is just not fair.... |
||||||||||
| Rattler |
That will really shorten his comeback.... Nadal as the #2 seed is alittle confusing too, since normally Wimbledon doesn't strickly follow the rankings...remember in 1990 Johnny Mac was seeded 3rd or 4th...and his ranking was nowhere close to that good. |
||||||||||
| x.doublea |
I think it's because Nadal's the run away Number 2.... | ||||||||||
| J-man |
To bad for Aggasi he could get knocked out early. I think Nadal could make a dent at Wimbledon too. His draw look pretty good | ||||||||||