Seedings

wimdledont · Challenger level

Seedings

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

But the big draw is part of what makes GS events unique. Many of the players wouldn't normally be in the same events as the top 10. Obviously this does often mean one-sided matches, but it does give the lower ranked players in the draw a chance to try their hand against stronger opposition, even against the best. And upsets do happen and they are part of the special magic of slams - Simona Halep went out this week, Serena lost a set .....

freerider · Futures level

No i think seedings Work out well. Would you rather fed novak andy and roger etc all got drawn in the same section and then the victor of the 4 walk tje semi and a one sided final? during wimbledon first week there are some very good close 5 se matches. And guess what you can watch any of them for free on the bbc sport website. The whole idea is that matches in theory get progressively harder for the big hitters

BradMarx90 · County player

If we didn't have seedings, we'd end up with dull finals - like this year's FA Cup Final between Arsenal and Aston Villa, which is the equivalent of Tomas Berdych (consistent, always qualifying for the majors but never actually winning) versus Lleyton Hewitt (once great champion but now fading from obscurity due to age.)

...actually I wouldn't mind backing Lleyton in that one.

My point is, like the others have mentioned above, seedings make it possible for the biggest and best possible final outcome. Everyone would rather see Nadal battle it out against Federer again, or Djoker play Muzza in the final rather than in the first round. And I wouldn't say the WR32 is gifted a Round 3 berth every slam - partly because he has to earn that ranking in the first place through battling through challengers or by knocking out seeded players.

And doesn't it make it easier to pick who to back in a match? Always go for the underdog...

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I am completely FOR seedings - as per the arguments above.

However, I agree with you, WimbledonT, regarding the TV coverage - I also have no interest really in seeing Djoko or Nadal or Federer (or even Andy) in the first week. (Although I understand that many do) I want to see the 'story' matches - up and coming youngsters, favourite old timers, player's with a special interest story, whatever . . .

I realise that the show courts usually have the bigger names on and so it's obvious the tv companies show that one but do think that sometimes they could think outside the box a bit in their choices (mind you, Fed v Falla was a very enjoyable match)

indiana · Tennis legend

This is heresy, the next thing you will have folk suggesting no Slam MD WCs

In truth I lean towards seedings for some of the reasons given.

Though the FA Cup is maybe not a great example with shocks much more likely even if it was seeded. Aston Villa beat Liverpool ( 2nd in last year's Premier League and would presumably be a high seed ) in the SF and Bradford won at Chelsea. And I presume some 'lower' teams have at times just had a run of 'surprise' wins says he not thinking of any examples at the moment.

But for tennis anyway I rather like seeding.

Spectator · All-time great

Is the question seeding in general? Or, as I've seen raised elsewhere, the 17-32 seedings? I've no particular feelings personally, but I have seen others argue that only seeding the top 16 would accomplish the aims you mention CD, Indie et al ... but not have the early rounds be quite so predictable.

-- Edited by Spectator on Friday 29th of May 2015 11:12:37 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Wimbledon ( and I'm pretty sure the other Slams ) used to just seed the top 16 until not that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Much further back, I think it was less than that.

Not sure when it changed. In my mind I have it linked to when they brought in the Wimbledon grass rankings adjustment formula, while guaranteeing that the new (?) 32 seeds would be the top 32 ranked players, just mixed up a bit.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Yeah, bit of a silly one, this. I may well have imbibed, last night, before posting. It will never happen, and it would be such a break with the past that all the all-time records would be thrown out, and so on.

But there is more glamour and excitement through every round of the English FA Cup - after R3 - when Man United or Chelsea, say, are not guaranteed that their first round match will be against opposition ranked a minimum of 32 places below them. They could play each other.

I believe there was a sensible discussion, which I heard trailed, but missed, yesterday on itv4, with Jim Courier et al debating whether the Slams should revert to the old system of only 16 seeds.

Streaming and multi-channel broadcasting have improved the amount of competitive tennis on telly during week 1 of Slams.

I do think that the ITF, WTA/ATP could offer other tournaments the option of declaring themselves, in advance, to be non-seeded events, if they wish to do so. In which case ALL of the starting field is dependent on the luck of the draw, including the top 8/16 players at that event.

It all bugs me at present, because I am constantly hoping that Hev will have a great week or two, and catch up with the top 32 women; who are very hard to catch up, if they start every big event with a distinct advantage over the players ranked from 33 and down...

You have to play tougher opponents, and get better results, to break into the seedings than you do to stay there.

indiana · Tennis legend

I do think a non seeded open draw event or two at Masters level might be quite fun, though whether the top ranked players would see it that way ...

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I don't think the Tournament Directors would see it that way, either. They don't want a final between Sousa and Gabashvili, fun though that might be for the tennis enthusiast I doubt it would put very many bums on seats.

indiana · Tennis legend

With the consistency of the top 8 or 9 compared to the rest, I don't imagine the RG QFs being far removed from :

(1) Djokovic vs (6) Nadal
(3) Murray vs (7) Ferrer
(5) Nishikori vs (4) Berdych
(8) Wawrinka vs (2) Federer

But certainly in a Slam particularly I want the best to reach the later stages ( perhaps apart from when they stand in Andy's way ! )

Up to the other players to beat some of these and advance themselves, particularly the new kids on the block.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well, for those who dislike top 32 seeds, for making it 'boring', worth noting that 4 out of 8 of the top 8 seeds have been knocked out this week, in the women's RG Grand Slam.

Top 8 : Halep, Wozniacki, Suarez Navarro, and Bouchard - all out - before Saturday in the first week. And that's not to mention the 9-16 seeds as well . . . .

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

The women's game is different for many reasons I wonder if those matches were over 5 sets of these seeds would have fallen. Probably not. I can already see Novak winning at RG this year and Serena for the women.

I would prefer 16 seeds only to give a better chance of the big guys falling if they get the 17th ranked guy. The disparity in earnings is bad enough without giving the top 8 easy money for the first 3 rounds. That would be interesting.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I am indifferent and see male slams as almost two tournaments with week 1 essentially being qualifying for the elite tournament in week 2, for different reasons they are both fascinating and reflect the unofficial tiers of ability that exist within the game.

The bracket at 128 is too big to claim it is a tournament of the elite and 5 sets favours the more complete player.

We have a big ( final four), elite 8, and a sweet 16, and as a result get a festival of truly elite tennis four times a year on three different surfaces, in very different conditions. Such great variety, a real test even for the most talented.

The first week is fascinating with potentially elite players transitioning and catching higher seeded players on the way down, local wildcards and young Tyros ,adding to the flavour. Real looking forward to seeing Grycios take on Murray today, efinal 4 v definite elite 8 of the future probably final 4.

16 seeds is a must, 32 perhaps