Borquat wrote:If clay court results had been factored into the seeding at the French Open, a Coria v. Moya quarter final would have been avoided, meaning that the best clay court players would face each other as late in the tournament as possible.
I disagree, it wouldn't have helped much. Bob Larson did some analysis on possible seedings, and concluded that even with clay-court results weighted in the same way that AELTC does for Wimbledon, Roddick would have still been seeded 2 because he was such a long way ahead of Coria in points anyway. In any case, it would have been very difficult to get Moya in the top 4 (above Ferrero) which would have been required to avoid the possibility of the Moya-Coria quarter-final.
Similarly we have the case at Wimbledon that Coria, who has never won an ATP match on grass, will most likely be seeded 3 because there is a big points gap below him, whilst Nalbandian and Henman would be considered much better grass-court players (particularly Henman). One of them will end up seeded 5 (don't ask me which - the AELTC chose their formula carefully!), and could be drawn against Federer or Roddick in the quarters. So even the grass weighting doesn't help here.
Having said all that, I do agree with surface-related weighting, particularly on grass, and to a lesser degree on clay, because it does help lower ranked players. But since hard court tournaments are so common, and most players play well on them, I don't really see the point of introducing surface-weighting for the AO and USO.