Le Chat amongst Les Pigeons ...

Whilst Rafa is quietly going about his business practising and playing in the Barcelona Open, he's probably blissfully unaware that once again, various internet and media discussions have been raging about him.

At the weekend, Guy Forget (Roland Garros Committee member and former French Davis Cup captain) has said, as reported in this article in Tennis.com ...

"Since we can see them meeting in the finals of the biggest events in the next weeks, it would be a shame to have them [meet] in a quarterfinal in Roland Garros."

"The rules state the Grand Slam events have the right to change the seeding regarding the situation of the players. Wimbledon has done that in the past. I would not find it illogical to change the seeds."

For "them", read Rafa and A.N.Other ... and the subject matter at the root of all this ... that unless the Roland Garros Committee do something that they have never, ever exercised in it’s 100 year plus history - which is to weight their seedings according to a player's previous two years' results at the tournament in addition to their current ATP ranking - then Rafa will [probably] be seeded Number 5, and as such, is a ticking time bomb to the likes of Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer as he could potentially be a quarter-final opponent.

Now since Rafa returned to the circuit, we've all known about this probable eventuality, and with Rafa's withdrawal from Miami and Ferrer's final appearance, it's all but been a certainty (although David's trying to do his best to alter this with his result at Barcelona ;) ). But since last weekend's Monte Carlo final, it seems that Roland Garros, Steve Tignor, John McEnroe and the fans of opposing players are finally waking up to this. As we've also had some chat about this within the comments, I thought I'd bring the discussion out here, and share some of my thoughts.

Speaking completely parochially as a Rafa fan, if something was done that meant he was seeded within the top 4 at the French Open, would I be bothered? Probably not. Do I think it's right deep down? Probably not, but hey, I'd take it.

But the thing that has evoked some strong views within me is how Guy Forget's comments have seemingly been reported. All I can find of his direct quotes are what I've posted above; that it would be a “shame” for "them" to meet in the quarter-final at Roland Garros, and that it’s not “illogical” to change seeds. Nowhere can I find him directly mentioning Rafa in all of this. Of course the journalist copy around the quotes have the inference that this decision may come about because of what has happened to Rafa’s ranking due to his injury situation, and that it would be something that is being considered to help him …

But I don’t believe for a minute that Rafa is at the forefront of Guy Forget’s concerns.

My view is that Forget’s primary concern is for the tournament. It’s the tournament first. And the tournament wants to have the best matches, and for that best match to occur in the final … not the quarter-final. And I also believe that Forget’s secondary concern is to protect other players, not simply Rafa, so that those other players have as much chance as him to not get beat before the final. I’ve discussed in a previous post that the biggest tennis story everybody is waiting to see is the de-thronement of Rafael Nadal at the French Open, and who might be the one to do it. And once again, there’s a lot of renewed interest that the individual who has the best current chance is Novak Djokovic. And would the Roland Garros Committee prefer to see such a match in the quarter-final or the final? Well it’s the final – obviously – whilst the eyes of the world would be watching. And if it wasn’t Djokovic, then they’d love it to be Federer; so that’s why I think it’s a nonsense that they’re considering this change to support Rafa solely. The tournament first, and other players.

And Forget is not correct in saying that we can see “them” meeting in the finals of the biggest events in the next weeks. When all the top 5 showed up in Indian Wells, it was Federer who copped for Rafa in the quarter-final. And lost. Due to Federer and Ferrer withdrawing from Monte Carlo, yes, we did see “them” meeting in the final of that Masters. But in Madrid and Rome when it is assumed that once again all the top 5 will be there, someone will again end up with Rafa in their quarter. You just don’t want it happening at the French Open, do you Monsieur Forget? It’s also interesting to read other players’ fans opinion on this, such as a Federer fan saying he would think it quite a hoot for Rafa to draw Djokovic and get beat by him in the quarters, but then he wouldn’t be so pleased if the same fate befell Federer. A ticking time bomb …

I think it’s perhaps worth drawing out that the reason why Wimbledon has previously invoked it’s right to weight seedings for it’s tournament is because of the uniqueness of it’s surface. The seeding system is in place to try and ensure that the best players meet towards the “business end” of the tournament. But because the best players on grass only get Wimbledon and usually one warm-up tournament on the surface, the AELTC Seeding Committee have tended to use this weighting (and not always) in order determine their seeds. I assume that because there has always traditionally been a number of clay court events leading up to the French Open, then players tend to sort themselves out with these results and therefore the French Open hasn’t determined any weightings to be necessary. And as three quarters of the Tour is held on hardcourt tournaments, then I’m sure the US Open and Australian Open also consider the current rankings representative.

It’s interesting that when Rafa was on the Players’ Council and advocating his ideas for a 2-year protected ranking, it was wildly criticised for being self-serving. But it’s not self-serving for a tournament to effectively do the same in order to protect the tournament and some players?? Hhmmmm …

It’s also assumed that the player to “lose” out in all of this is David Ferrer, and nobody seems to care that it’s David Ferrer. The thing is, I’ve seen someone apply the Wimbledon criteria to this situation and they have Djokovic at 1, Rafa at 2, followed by Federer, Murray and Ferrer at 3, 4 and 5 respectively, but only with a tiny handful of points between them. All this could easily change at Madrid and Rome. Would it be OK after this clay season’s results and the Roland Garros Committee tinkerings to have Federer lose out? I think not. And would Andy Murray after winning the Olympic Gold and his first Slam quietly take being seeded 5 because of unprecedented RG tinkerings?   I think not. And only the future will tell what Wimbledon may or may not have to do, but if they did, at least it wouldn’t be uniquely applied.

I wonder what Rafa would think of it all? Rafa has a very simple belief system when it comes to most things that affect him in tennis … “it’s the sport …” And I think in this case, it is. I do not believe that it would sit very well with him that a non “illogical” change to seedings at the French Open would see his friend and compatriot – David Ferrer – missing out. Even if it was to his benefit. It’s a sad thing that this situation has come about not because Rafa has had a dreadful run of form and a huge number of losses, but because of injury … but this is why he felt the 2 year ranking system might be a good idea. Funny how an ITP tournament wants to protect their rankings when it suits them, and fans of other players want them to do likewise when it might affect their favourite player.

In conclusion, I don’t think the Roland Garros Committee will actually do anything about this – and if they do, I will be very, very surprised. Tennis has a funny old way of things turning out, so with another two Masters to go before the event, who’s to say that things won’t change naturally anyway? I suspect that Rafa has given none of this a second thought and is just happy to be able to compete, and whilst I would love Rafa to have a “free ride”, deep down, it doesn’t actually sit well with me [sorry, Rafafans].

Because after all … “it’s the sport …”