the ATP has a formula they used to calculate the ranking. The WTA doesn't. In ATP only the 32 highest ranked players can be seeded, no matter what their record on grass is like. I thought - well I was about 95 percent sure - that Wimbledon could "shuffle" the seeds but that they had to keep the original seeds

the ATP has a formula they used to calculate the ranking. The WTA doesn't. In ATP only the 32 highest ranked players can be seeded, no matter what their record on grass is like. I thought - well I was about 95 percent sure - that Wimbledon could "shuffle" the seeds but that they had to keep the original seeds

Yeh I think thats right. They can base / re-shuffle the seedings on grass results, but they can only seed those players that would be seeded regardless of grass court form.

edit: Gael Monfils has pulled out with a wrist injury, and as a result the seeds have been re-shuffled and Tommy Haas has been granted a seeding (24th). The German was not in-line for a seeding ranking wise (this week he is ATP 35), so the AELTC obviously can seed whoever they wish to (within reason), and give players with good grass results the advantage (Haas beat Djokovic to win in Halle last week).

...And as I mentioned in the Rankings thread, they've given Sharapova a ranking despite her being miles away from the top 32. Then again she is a former Wimbledon champion so not exactly a stupid decision to give her a seeding.

Scott

If Serena did better in the other tournaments then she would be number one. She had a four match losing streak earlier in the year.
Jon Wertheim at Sports Illustrated said that one reason Serena does so well in slams is that she gets a days rest between matches so can put in the exertion she does and recover the next day but she doesn't get the same rest at the regular tournaments so it's harder for her to make the same exertion and to recover. There also the question of her motivation for a lot of tournaments.
Serena's won Wimbledon for the first time since 2003. Wimbledon 2003 is the last Slam that Serena won that Justine Henin entered. Justine beat Serena in the quarter-final of 3 slams in 2007. Justine retires and Serena starts winning slams again.

Anyway, Safina's got a lot of points to defend in the hardcourt season and if Serena wants to be number one she can go out and get the wins to get to number one.

yes quality over quantity I agree, but it's not like Safina plays a lot of tournaments and have bad results in half of them. She is consistent on all surfaces - something that can't be said about the sisters. And still I am glad that it takes more than 5-6 tournaments (basically what Serena plays/cares about) to be number 1. If Serena wants to be number 1, she has to show up motivated for some more tournaments. I don't see it being that difficult. We are not talking 28 tournaments but
4 slams
4 mandatory (yes, she'll skip Indian Wells, but with strong results in the rest, it won't really matter)
5 Premier 5
YEC

that's 14 tournaments, minus Indian Wells. Doing well in those 13 tournaments over 52 weeks is a requirement for being number 1 IMO, can't just do well in slams.

I totally agree with what Christina and Scott have said and you both make a lot of very good points. If Serena was consistent and good enough to perform well on a regular basis, she'd be number one; but she isn't so she's not.

Between 2003 and 2007 which was when Henin played her best tennis, Justine had a 5-2 H2H record Serena, 4-1 at the slams. It would have been 6-1 but Serena got a net cord when match point down at 07 Miami, that's a lucky shot. Henin won more slams and more tournaments and was the player to beat in those years. She had her injuries and illnesses as well, but she generally got the job done. Serena didn't handle Justine's improvement and play that well.
When it comes to how fit a player is when they're playing, I go with Rod Laver: if you're playing, you're fit enough.