September 03, 2008
US Open Laying Seeds of Discontent
By Tim JoyceThe most anticipated women's match of the US Open takes place under the lights this evening as Venus Williams and her younger sister Serena will battle yet again in a Grand Slam encounter. But unlike at Wimbledon two months ago where the sensational siblings met in the final (their seventh championship match in a GS event), this time they will be battling it out in the quarterfinals - much to the dismay of fans who would prefer them to be on opposite sides of the draw.
So for many, tonight's encounter is the de facto final. But this could have been avoided had the US Open followed Wimbledon's lead in seeding the tournament not strictly by the computer rankings.
Of the four Grand Slam events, Wimbledon is the only one that deviates from the ATP and WTA standings and injects a much-needed objective - and logical - measure based on anecdotal as well as statistical evidence when seeding the tournament.
Take this year for example. Marcos Baghdatis, the talented but enigmatic Cypriot was ranked 25th entering the tournament. But since he had reached the quarterfinal the year earlier and displayed grass court acumen, the committee at the All England Club bumped his seed all the way up to 10th. Additionally, Tomas Berdych, ranked 19th, was moved up to 11th. This resulted in consternation from the United Kingdom's own Andy Murray who was actually demoted a slot, from 11th to 12th.
Obviously, this has to be done in a most discriminating fashion - one should not be punished for performing consistently throughout the year, even if it yields strong results on only one surface. And on the flip side, a player should not be rewarded for inconsistent play at most events before ratcheting up their play in Grand Slam tournaments.
But think of how insulting it is to fans and players alike if, say, a clay court specialist is ranked first and would demand such a seeding at Wimbledon? This nearly occurred in 2001 when Gustavo Kuerten, the popular three-time champion at the French Open was ranked first before Wimbledon was to commence. Kuerten, if the players had their way, would have been seeded first due to his ranking - even though the beloved Brazilian had only once moved past the third round at Wimbledon. How would this have been fair? (Kueren withdrew due to injury that year.)
But so many players were aghast that Wimbledon would do such a thing that top players such as Alex Corretja, Albert Costa and Juan Carlos Ferrerro had threatened to boycott the event. But the same can be said in reverse for the other surfaces as well. Did anyone really ever believe that Pete Sampras was the true No. 1 seed at all of those French Opens? He was most likely a fourth seed at best, truth be said.
I see nothing wrong with the elevation of a seed - even if it's upward of 10 spots ahead of their current computer ranking - as long as other players are only demoted one or two spots.
So back to the Williams sisters. With the sudden retirement of No. 1 player Justine Henin earlier this year, women's tennis has something of a vacuum at the top of the rankings. Just consider that second-seeded Jelena Jankovic, who has yet to win a single Grand Slam title, was ranked first in the world for a period this year. If there was any year to validate a turn away from the computer it was now. Serena and Venus have both displayed a frustrating tendency to perform at a lackluster level at most events but then usually turn it on strong at the majors - evidenced most recently by their meeting in the Wimbledon final.
Serena is the fourth seed and Venus seventh at this year's Open. And with the draw being luck more than anything else, fate dealt them - and fans - a bad hand. So then what could have been done? Well, if Serena had been moved up to third and Venus fourth, that would have guaranteed the two not meeting before the final. If this had been done only one player - Svetlana Kuznetsova, last year's finalist, would have been demoted more than one spot. This probably would have been a too impolitic a maneuver since Kuznetosva is a consistent, multi-surface performer.
So then how about allowing a major tournament one or two chances to move a player from one side to the other? This won't change the seeding, per se - because when the draw is announced, except for the Nos. 1-4 seeds, every other player has a chance of meeting any other opponent regardless of ranking. For example, the top seed may play the eighth seed in the quarters - or she could meet the sixth seed, as No. 1 Ana Ivanovic was in fact slated to take on Dinara Safina in the quarterfinals, before she was stunned in the second round.
I think most fans are unaware that the top seeds are not balanced perfectly - one would think that in the fourth round the draw would play out as thus: 1-16, 2-15, 3-14 and so on. It's not. So since this isn't the case to begin with, why would players object to a tournament moving around a player or two on the draw sheet?
At next year's Wimbledon there's a chance that Roger Federer, the man who many thought would win upwards of 10 titles in London, will be seeded fifth or even lower if he continues his recent slump. But can anyone fathom the All England Club seeding the great Federer as low as his ranking? I doubt it.
It's time for the other Grand Slams to join the Big W and use some common sense when seeding the tournaments. This way, we might have had the chance to witness the eighth All-Williams final in a Grand Slam event.
