Just heard that along with the new proposals for the 25 second shot clock and players receiving 50% of their prize money if withdrawing before the first round of the slams, they are also looking at abolishing the 17-32 seeded positions in slams to 'increase the jeopardy for the top players'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/42074327
What the ****? What backwards logic is that? If anything it only punishes the top 30 players who would potentially come up against the likes of Nadal or Djokovic in the opening round. Makes it even more of a lottery for those outside the top 16. The current seeding system is fine.
If Andy makes the Australian Open there is a good chance that he will be outside the top 16 seeds. He is currently WR 16, for starters just 25 points ahead of Isner and 55 points ahead of Pouille, each with no counters to drop whilst Andy has 150 runner-up points from Doha to come off. Already currently residing in the 17 - 32 are such as Berdych, Kyrgios, Nishikori and Raonic. The last 32 and last 16 ( with who is in 9 - 16 ) are looking as if they might be very interesting as things stand, if possibiy a bit more so than usual with players' positions.
"Jeopardy" in sport is interesting and certainly at times for the good. Think no relegation, who thinks that is good. Or the ever increasing football World Cup finals line-up. The top football nations should have some element of jeopardy as to being there at all and most already don't. But at least this time Netherlands were beaten for second in their group and missed out, Italy lost out in the play-offs and Argentina ( and some other top South American sides ) were taken to the wire. And although many of the proposed 16 extra places will be for more 'emerging' areas, making qualification easier at all for European and South American sides is not a good step in my opinion.
Anyway back to the tennis. Just top 16 seeds, not for me. It works fine as it is, and we do still get plenty shocks and some great early round matches ( all to easy to point to these that aren't ) even with rather less players kind of out of position as presently.
I don't think it is an enormous no-no for me but still no ( as I would guess for most tennis followers although general reaction will be interesting* ) and it has the look of desperately introducing supposed jeopardy when a good lot of jeopardy already exists, probably to the ultimate detriment of the later rounds of the competition. Also the Slams are hardly struggling are they so not a problem area that needs such a change. Huge interest and still many shocks but with generally good later line ups ( though think back just to the last US Open and that with 32 seeds ), so problem? - well, no.
And Vandenburg will be there with "Is X Y the worst player ever to reach the QF of a Slam?!"
* At least to gauge general thinking here I have added a poll, hope that's OK.
I don't remember the 16 seeding from before so while I am doubtful about it I will give it a go.
Whilst the ATP has been stable with the same players winning the slams/Masters (more or less) the WTA has no such issue and the 16 seedings may make it very unpredictable.
Also, Wimbledon seeding is different anyway.
I voted, no strong feelings.
-- Edited by flamingowings on Wednesday 22nd of November 2017 10:52:46 PM
One thing of course it doesn't do is "punish" players ranked 17 to 32 who might meet a top 16 seeded player in the opening two rounds. It just puts them on a level playing field in the luck of the draw with all the other non seeded players.
I can see some arguments for, which is why it it isn't an enormous no-no with me, but a no nevertheless with weight falling on the reasons I gave.
I did actually consider a "prefer no seeds at all" choice but chose to concentrate on people's views on the change as proposed.
Wimbledon is currently just different for the men, and even there the top 32 ranked are currently guaranteed a seeding with the grass adjustment then applied to these 32. Wimbledon would have to decide with 16 seeds whether to guarantee a seeding to the top 16 ranked ( I believe the original move up to 32 seeds was related to Wimbledon introducing grass adjustments, ie to at least offer some protection to the highly ranked but less grass proficient players, or indeed players just unlucky in the limited previous two years' grass events ).
I quite like the status quo. I agree with kundalini that it does tend to reward the status quo and make it hard for an outsider to go deep, but on the other hand it tends to keep the draws well balanced right the way through the event. Of course upsets do happen, and that is one of the joys of sport, but the fewer seeds there are, the more chance there is that one or more sections of the draw will quickly become extremely weak and out of kilter with the rest.
I like it as it is but can understand the change.
Like f1 tennis viewing figures are falling and the governing bodies of the game do need to change something
I just rather question if reducing Slam seeds is any sort of influential "something". And for every person that might, if they are bothered, prefer a bit more mixed up draws there are probably others that prefer more likelihood of the cream reaching the later stages and would more watch bigger name later stages. Though not as if the normal 17 to 32 seeds anything like routinely generally march into the last 32, the women in particular. So arguably they are anyway normally not part of the cream ( though be some interesting men's 17 to 32 seeds in the Australian Open ) or the number of seeds a real issue in say viewing or attendance numbers.
So there is an argument that if you are doing something be even more radical. Not that I would personally go down that route.
Viewing figures unlikely to be helped by the forthcoming many different platforms to view tennis on..
Amazon, eurosport, BT Sport, Sky I think still has some. Some on freeview, some on free to air.
Interesting to look at the vote now that it has fairly settled down with 18 votes.
For 4 (22.2%), Against 9 (50%), No feeling either way 5 (27.8%).
So while most votes are against, I didn't sense much further really strong opinion against after the initial post, including from other against voters like myself, and indeed a fairly strong 'for' post.
That and not that much debate or number voting leaves it overall looking a bit "meh ...". Personally I still don't see how it achieves much, whatever it is meant to achieve other than just doing something, and remain on balance against based on a combination of some of the 'against' arguments.
