Why Wimbledon’s seeds keep going out, and what it means for tennis

Wimbledon started like it does every year, with 64 seeds across the men’s and women’s singles draw. As the third round begins, just 27 remain — 14 women and 13 men. It’s the fewest at a Grand Slam since the 32-seed format was first adopted in 2001.

On the women’s side, four of the top five are out. Coco Gauff (2) fell to Dayana Yastremska’s all-out aggression, while Jessica Pegula (3) ran into an inspired Elisabetta Cocciaretto, both in the first round. Zheng Qinwen (5) left at that stage too, before last year’s finalist Jasmine Paolini (4) exited in the second round. Only Aryna Sabalenka, the world No. 1, remains.

On the men’s side, three of the top five remain: Jannik Sinner (1), defending champion Carlos Alcaraz (2) and Taylor Fritz (5). Britain’s Jack Draper (4) exited in the second round, while world No. 3 Alexander Zverev went out in the first.

Is the seeds falling a trend? Why is it happening? And where does it leave the tournament?

’s tennis writers, Charlie Eccleshare and Matt Futterman, attempt to explain.

Charlie Eccleshare: There have been some huge shocks, as well as some that are surprising in theory but not actually so much in practice. Gauff’s loss felt seismic, but all the signs were there that Wimbledon would be her toughest Grand Slam to win, and Draper’s early exit came about because he drew someone with serious grass-court pedigree while he is still figuring it out.

There are others that were big shocks, but none of the people sent home felt like they were ultimately going to win the tournament. No. 3 seeds Zverev and Pegula fall into that category.

Matt Futterman: I would say “stuff happens,” but I would probably use a different word to “stuff.” That’s the most consistent thing coming out from players and coaches. No matter how good a player is, and no matter what the number is next to their name, it’s really hard to win tennis matches and very easy to lose them.

Is there a sense there is a wider delta between being “good” and being “good on grass” than there was not that long ago?

Eccleshare: A lot of it comes from the fact that the lead-in period is so much shorter, and so much more divergent, than the lead-in to an event like the French Open. “Grass season” is only three weeks before Wimbledon, and while basically all the top players play the same two combined ATP and WTA 1,000 events on clay, their routes to Wimbledon can vary wildly. Some won’t play on the grass at all, and some will try and max out their reps, but whatever they do, it’s a brief, chaotic period trying to adjust to tennis’ most singular surface.

Futterman: It seems like there are so few players who are actually good on grass. I think what is most important is being able to come to Wimbledon without having a glaring weakness on the surface.

Coco Gauff is the prime example. She has three.

Her forehand doesn’t really work when the ball is low because her grip doesn’t allow her to get under it very well. She hates to be rushed, and prefers to stay back a little bit and extend points, but everybody gets rushed on grass because the ball slides through. And then her serve, which is sometimes unbreakable, can get shaky quickly. No one can survive on grass without serving well.

She’s the perfect grass storm. Other players who struggle have some version of those weaknesses or, more generally, haven’t yet figured out how to move well on grass, which is a skill all of its own. The ones who do well either have enough experience to know what to do or have mastered putting their feet in the right places on the turf. Everything flows from that.

Emma Raducanu’s win over Markéta Vondroušová was a prime example. She read the spins, got low and took the ball early. It was a masterclass from someone who clearly knows her way round a grass court against someone else who does, too. It was my favorite match of the tournament to watch so far.

Eccleshare: Perhaps the most interesting thing about these upsets is the absence of a defining trend beyond their existence. At the last Grand Slam, the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds were in both singles finals for the first time at a major in 12 years. The depth on both tours has gotten stronger and stronger in the last 10 to 20 years; add in the variance of a surface like grass, which can emphasize hand skills and dexterity over physicality and baseline prowess, and it’s not hard to see why there would be more results that go against rankings calculated over a season that is mostly played on different courts.

Futterman: To me the defining trend is that tennis is really hard these days and there are a lot of good players. Taylor Fritz, the No. 5 seed, drew Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard and Gabriel Diallo in the first two rounds. Both took him to five sets. Both have nightmare serves. He easily could have lost. He should have lost against Mpetshi Perricard, really.

Gauff, the No. 2 seed, drew Dayana Yastremska, who has been a Grand Slam semifinalist. When she’s on, she’s very hard to beat, and on a fast surface in two out of three sets, she doesn’t have to be on for very long to win.

That’s tennis in 2025. Sabalenka has scrapped through plenty of ropey performances this year. So too Alcaraz in round one here.

Who has most benefited and who should fans keep an eye on?

Eccleshare: In the bottom half of the women’s draw, Amanda Anisimova, the No. 13 seed, is now seeded to reach the semifinals. On the men’s side, Karen Khachanov, the No. 17 seed, is slated to reach the last eight, with no other seed in his quarter. Just below them in the bottom half, there’s a quarter with no seeded players, creating a land of opportunity for qualifier Nicolás Jarry, 18-year-old sensation João Fonseca, flairy Italian Mattia Bellucci and former semifinalist Cameron Norrie. All will fancy their chances.

In the top half of the women’s draw, there’s another unseeded quarter, with four-time Grand Slam champion Naomi Osaka and home player Sonay Kartal the standout names.

Futterman: Too early to say, but maybe Iga Świątek, or 2022 champion Elena Rybakina. Or possibly Sabalenka, depending on who might be left standing to play her if she makes the final. The thing about upsets is that there is the principle of delayed gratification at work. It can be exciting early on, but also completely shifts the usual dynamic of later rounds at Grand Slams, where the biggest stars are supposed to meet.

Eccleshare: It’s kind of like a great night out followed by a hangover. In the moment all the upsets are exhilarating, but then reality sets in and you realise that you could be left with some less than thrilling matchups.

Futterman: I don’t see a downside as long as some of the big names survive into the quarters. If we get to the semifinals and there is no Sinner or Alcaraz or Djokovic, or Sabalenka or Świątek or Keys, then there could be problems. For now, there are some great stories cooking. But a star-driven sport needs to have some stars at the end.

Eccleshare: It’ll surely (?) settle down, and it could well be that it’s the middle rounds, rather than the final stages, that feel the oddest. In spite of all the shocks, the three biggest favorites on the men’s side are still here, and the same could be said of the women’s draw, with Sabalenka, Keys, Rybakina and, looking at how the draw has shaken out, Świątek.

Futterman: Wimbledon has long been the tournament where the cream rises. It’s the tournament where the greatest players in the game have won a lot. The Big Four. Pete Sampras. Andre Agassi. John McEnroe. Björn Borg. Serena Williams. Venus Williams. Martina Navratilova. Steffi Graf. And on and on. That doesn’t mean that a great player doesn’t end up beating Milos Raonic or Eugenie Bouchard in the final (sorry for picking on Canada), but I’m betting on getting to a damn good champion in the end.

This article originally appeared in The Athletic.

Sports Business, Tennis, Women’s Tennis

2025 The Athletic Media Company