|
|
Post by lexpretend on Jun 17, 2009 18:11:44 GMT -5
The special seedings were done away with after 2004. Venus and Serena were both recipients of them throughout that year, and in Venus's case this tended to lead to draws falling apart completely. The next year, Henin and Clijsters had to do without.
|
|
|
|
Post by Denise49IQ on Jun 17, 2009 18:16:26 GMT -5
I'm assuming they also gave A. Stevenson a top 32 seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 17, 2009 18:37:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Denise49IQ on Jun 17, 2009 18:46:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 17, 2009 18:47:33 GMT -5
The Sistahtards really have a reason to be pissed with this. Stupid WTA.
Although, if you recall 2004, the special seedings probably would have remained if Serena played more than slams and Miami. Since the rule was you kept the protected ranking for 8 tournament. Thus, she benefited for an entire year, and screwed Lindsay for every slam lulz.
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 17, 2009 18:50:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Denise49IQ on Jun 17, 2009 18:57:02 GMT -5
The Sistahtards really have a reason to be pissed with this. Stupid WTA. Although, if you recall 2004, the special seedings probably would have remained if Serena played more than slams and Miami. Since the rule was you kept the protected ranking for 8 tournament. Thus, she benefited for an entire year, and screwed Lindsay for every slam lulz. Who was the real number one for Wimby '04? Justine? |
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 17, 2009 19:04:37 GMT -5
I don't really understand why they would do this. Wimbledon is the last tournament that would depend on someone like Sharapova going far in the event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edna Krabappel on Jun 17, 2009 19:11:29 GMT -5
Who was the real number one for Wimby '04? Justine? Yes, but she didn't play. Myskina was seed #2 (LOL) and Dementieva and Venus were the top seeds in that half too. All of them were gone by R3, I remember Dementieva had a horrific loss to some scrub in the first round. Which all led to Davenport vs Sharapova SF and we know what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Denise49IQ on Jun 17, 2009 19:22:12 GMT -5
I always look back on that match with anger, but think to myself, it would have been 10x worse in the final. 4
|
|
|
|
Post by Denise49IQ on Jun 17, 2009 19:22:33 GMT -5
That happened the year after.
Thanks for the memories, Linds.
|
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 18, 2009 0:21:38 GMT -5
The '04 Sharapova loss looking back on it, wasn't that bad. Maria did play great after the rain. Even though Lindsay did the laughing and "too good!" shit. Lindsay played so well in '04, the tour was in disaster mode, and she has shit to show for it. So typical.
'05 was unforgivable. That's when I really started hating Leach.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 18, 2009 13:32:16 GMT -5
Monfils has w/d. Haas has allegedly been slotted into the #24 seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on Jun 18, 2009 14:34:04 GMT -5
Who was the real number one for Wimby '04? Justine? Yes, but she didn't play. Myskina was seed #2 (LOL) and Dementieva and Venus were the top seeds in that half too. All of them were gone by R3, I remember Dementieva had a horrific loss to some scrub in the first round. Which all led to Davenport vs Sharapova SF and we know what happened. I think Henin was ranked 1, Clijsters was 2, Serena's SR (which counted for a special seeding back then) was 3, Myskina was 4. Henin and Clijsters w/d, so Serena was top seed (ie, they actually followed the rankings - this wasn't arbitrary, it was because of her official SR) and Myskina was 2nd. |
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 18, 2009 15:40:24 GMT -5
Yes, that's correct...well, Myskina was ranked #3. If they had gone by the actual rankings, Myskina at World #3 would have been the #1 seed after the w/d of Henin and Clijsters, but Serena's SR was also #3 and Wimbledon made the (fairly wise) decision to put Serena ahead of Myskina. And Venus's SR was #5 or so, so she was seeded #3. But then SPREMBLEDON occurred! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Women%27s_Singles |
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 18, 2009 15:46:45 GMT -5
Yes, that's correct...well, Myskina was ranked #3. If they had gone by the actual rankings, Myskina at World #3 would have been the #1 seed after the w/d of Henin and Clijsters, but Serena's SR was also #3 and Wimbledon made the (fairly wise) decision to put Serena ahead of Myskina. And Venus's SR was #5 or so, so she was seeded #3. But then SPREMBLEDON occurred! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Women%27s_SinglesAnastasia Myskina - #1 seed at a GS.  |
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 18, 2009 15:49:53 GMT -5
Yes, that's correct...well, Myskina was ranked #3. If they had gone by the actual rankings, Myskina at World #3 would have been the #1 seed after the w/d of Henin and Clijsters, but Serena's SR was also #3 and Wimbledon made the (fairly wise) decision to put Serena ahead of Myskina. And Venus's SR was #5 or so, so she was seeded #3. But then SPREMBLEDON occurred! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Women%27s_SinglesAnastasia Myskina - #1 seed at a GS.  As real as it may see-ee-eem, it was only in my dreams. |
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on Jun 18, 2009 16:38:06 GMT -5
2004 ITF Champion  |
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 18, 2009 16:43:54 GMT -5
I miss Drusilla.  |
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 18, 2009 21:53:58 GMT -5
Too bad she didn't ask for a WC to RG this year. By the criteria set here, Nastya would 'earn' a 24th seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 19, 2009 11:11:58 GMT -5
I'm late to the party: This is obviously retarded. Of course, I would have rooted for Sharapova to lose were I going to follow the women's tournament anyways. I'm not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 19, 2009 12:27:27 GMT -5
I'm late to the party: This is obviously retarded. Of course, I would have rooted for Sharapova to lose were I going to follow the women's tournament anyways. I'm not.  But then you'd be missing out on Sistah Act 27846 coming to fruition over the course of two weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 23, 2009 15:27:39 GMT -5
Remember that time Sharapova took A-Bond's seed, and we all bitched about how unfair it was, and then A-Bond became the only player on the women's side to lose to a Brit in the first round?  |
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 23, 2009 15:34:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 24, 2009 10:01:58 GMT -5
A-Bond deserved to lose with even less dignity. It should have been a seed losing to a Brit in the first round! Not only because it would have been right, but also more funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 24, 2009 10:10:49 GMT -5
Who should have actually gotten the final seeding?!?! DISCUSS.
My vote goes to Marie-Eve Pelletier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 24, 2009 10:41:04 GMT -5
Who should have actually gotten the final seeding?!?! DISCUSS. My vote goes to Marie-Eve Pelletier. Kim Krumm (WC) |
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 24, 2009 16:46:44 GMT -5
The 25th seed Kanepi also lost 1st round. If Sharapova had Alona's draw, she would have played Baltacha and Flipkens. Odds of losing to either are about .00001%. And one could guess what Dinara would do against her in a 3R matchup. So, we get the last laugh in the end.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 25, 2009 9:31:02 GMT -5
|
|
