Worth just noting (although it's been done before) that de Vroome is an ex-top 10 junior and ex-top 200 adult player, and would have carried on going up, no problem if it weren't for horrid injuries.
Not going to be easy for Beth....
NB I don't like a draw where the 9th seed gets the 6th seed but the 10th gets the 8th. Doesn't seem right.
Worth just noting (although it's been done before) that de Vroome is an ex-top 10 junior and ex-top 200 adult player, and would have carried on going up, no problem if it weren't for horrid injuries.
Not going to be easy for Beth....
NB I don't like a draw where the 9th seed gets the 6th seed but the 10th gets the 8th. Doesn't seem right.
But you will be aware that that sort of thing happens in any pro ( and junior? ) tennis tournament MD as well as Q
The 9th seed could play the 6th seed and the 10th seed play the 8th seed in the US Open MD.
So have you an issue with this generally and prefer it to be less random or more particularly with qualifying or levels?
Where I can see more of a possible issue in 15K and 25K qualifying with 8 qualifiers is no bracketing beyond any one of seeds 1 to 8 are paired up with any one of seeds 9 to 16. So not really your example but you can have at the extremes 1 vs 9 and 8 vs 16. So we could say maybe have one further split in 1 to 4 to face 13 to 16 and 5 to 8 to face 9 to 12 as in MDs where there are that many seeds.
Otherwise I am happy with the general randomness that there is, particularly with the big pro tournanents where very largely the same fields come together with similar seedings, particularly at the top end of the top level.
eg with say a consistent 1.Djokovic, 2. Nadal, 3. Federer I would certainly not want it always 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.
You might get better pairings in the higher tournaments, but the way they are drawn for W25 and W15's means that you will get far more pairings that are uneven than even.
Yes. I know there's arguments against doing it on a strict "every pair add up to 17" basis as you - of course - could do for a 16 seed event. But I'm not completely convinced by them.
On the other hand, I don't think rankings actually count for a whole heap of beans the lower you get so, in some ways, it makes no difference at the really low end.
You might get better pairings in the higher tournaments, but the way they are drawn for W25 and W15's means that you will get far more pairings that are uneven than even.
Well not really in say Slam qualifying where again there is only one split of the seeds.
There you can get 1 vs 17 and 16 vs 32. Indeed I see that in the current US Open women's qualifying (q1) Rybakina was bracketed with (q18) Kawa, although Kawa didn't make the FQR.
I believe that there is just the one split of qualifying seeds at any pro level. It is just the issue ( for those that think it is an issue ) is less pronounced when there are fewer qualifiers like just 4.
And as CD indicates in that last post, the ranking levels are very probably generally 'truer' at higher and particularly Slam levels.
-- Edited by indiana on Monday 26th of August 2019 03:34:48 PM
Wasn't at all easy for Beth 0-6 0-6 in 46 minutes.
Ouch! Poor Beth.... puts Mandys win over Indy last week into perspective (though Indy of course could have been playing better today etc etc and all the usual caveats).
