By Erik Gudris | Monday, June 16, 2014

 

If Wimbledon's special seeding formula is used, Novak Djokovic could be the top men's seed. But is that fair or even necessary?

Photo Credit: Stephen White/CameraSport

Wimbledon is special. But should its seeding method be ordinary?

With the third major of the year only a week away, debate is already underway on how players may or may not be seeded at the ultimate grass court tournament. If Wimbledon uses its unique methodology for determining seeds, world No. 1 Rafael Nadal could be placed second while Novak Djokovic just might be chosen as the top seed.

Oddo: Ode to the Sweet, But Short Grass Court Season

The grass court season, or interlude as some might call it, is very short within the overall calendar. Because of that, Wimbledon uses its own formula in determining seeds than what is listed on the ATP computer. Taking the current rankings from this Monday, organizers will then add in all the points a player won on grass in the previous 12 months and 75 percent of what they earned in their best grass court result 12 months prior.

With Djokovic being a Wimbledon finalist last year and Nadal having been bounced out in the opening round by Steve Darcis, it could create the flip flop in seedings. Defending champion Andy Murray would rise up to No. 3 while Roger Federer would remain at No. 4. Stan Wawrinka, despite being current world No. 3, would drop to being the No. 5 seed, if organizers use the formula.

This rearranging of seeds is nothing new for the women either. Serena Williams, after returning to action post-injury in 2011, was ranked No. 26 but was seeded seventh at Wimbledon mainly due to her being defending champion that year.

While some applaud the process, others find the whole thing maddening. Many times, Wimbledon organizers will let the seeds mirror current rankings. Other times, they will make some minor adjustments here and there based on what they perceive to be a player's proficiency or past history on grass. Is it fair for those players who achieve a certain, or even career high ranking based on 12 month results, and not during two or three weeks just on grass, who get bumped down in favor of a "grass court specialist"? Doesn't that negate the whole purpose of the rolling 52-week ranking system?

Next year, the grass court swing will be extended a week on both tours. The ATP and WTA will add new tournaments while both Halle and Queen's Club will become ATP 500 events. The extension is largely due to players needing extra time to adjust from running around Europe for two and half months competing on clay who then have to make the quick transition over to grass after Roland Garros. The added week will also help boost anticipation for the arrival of Wimbledon.

That extra week should, though not likely, signal the end of Wimbledon's special seeding formula. With players able to earn more points on grass leading up to the major, it will allow the tournament to keep its seeds in line with current rankings. And not based on results partially from two years ago. While a few players who do well on grass might object, there's no real proof that boosting or lowering a player's seed has any real impact on their overall performance at Wimbledon. It certainly creates intriguing matchups, especially in the quarterfinals, but again, they still have to win those matches regardless of how they are seeded.

The current rankings system is often debated and ridiculed for its flaws, but it’s the only one that we have at the moment. Wimbledon is indeed a special event for many reasons, but the days of massaging where certain players end up on the seeding chart should come to an end. Djokovic and Nadal probably could care less how they are seeded, but they shouldn't be distracted during their preparations by endless questions about the formula and if it's fair or not.

We'll find out soon enough what Wimbledon decides, or doesn't, with the seeds. But the best way to end the debate would be not to have one in the first place.