Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion - TennisForum.com
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 06:35 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
crazillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 35,745
                     
Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Taken from www.tennisone.com


Return to 16 Seeds

But beyond that, the women’s and, to a lesser extent, the men’s fields have both been hurt by the deployment of 32 seeds. Time was when you could expect a high-seeded player to be tested by a dangerous floater ranked anywhere from, say, 17 to 25. Those days are gone, leading to a great many dreary early-round matches.

The introduction of 32 seeds was started in 2001 at Wimbledon to placate a flock of Spanish claycourters who felt their year-long achievements were discounted by the officials at Wimbledon (no other Slam is more willing to alter its seedings regardless of rankings). It subsequently spread like a virus and has done little to enhance the entertainment value of any Slam. Moreover, it’s aided the higher-ranked players, keeping them from too many early round tests; the rich get richer.

So my message to TennisOne readers: Protest the presence of 32 seeds at Grand Slam events. Go back to 16 – and you’ll have even more drama at this great tournament.



Interesting point by the author. I still remember when Dominique Van Roost defeated Lindsay Davenport at the FO or when Barbara Schett surprised Venus Williams (I think?) there. They were ranked pretty high, too.
What do people think about this? Was the implemention of 32 seeds good or bad for the sport?

FLAVIA PENNETTA

US OPEN CHAMPION 2015

Thank you for all these moments over the last years! Supported you until your final point!
crazillo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 07:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 399
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Nothing wrong with the 32 seeds ..people look back at those years and and pretend that schett-venus and Lindsay-van roost matches were the order of the day but they weren't the early round matches back then were for the most part just as dominating as the early round matches today, for every upset you can think of then there is an even more stunning upset today think julie coin and Zheng jie recently ..when the 32 seeds system was introduced it did much more to pretect middling player from the top seeds than to protect the top seeds from the middling players . today there are enough really dangerous players outside of the top 32 to provide for whatever drama you need .. and therefore the 32 seed system has the important effect of grading the draw ie not letting some top player have all weak players in their quarter while another top player has all medium strong players in her quarter. if the seeds are able to justify themselves then by the third round a top player must meet a reasonable strong middle player. Just off the top of my head go back look at davenports draw 1999 Usopen before she ran in to serena and Hingis draw 2000 Usopen before she ran into seles/venus .. looked tough on paper but both players just blitz the early round oppostion regardless of how good the oppostion was supposed to be.... couldn't believe what hingis did to testud in their match until I saw it for myself.
BrianII is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:26 PM
Senior Member
 
A Magicman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hannover
Posts: 8,887
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Back to 16.

One the one hand, lower ranked players get the chance to reach R32 with a good draw and bring some color into the draw and on the other hand, there can be some surprise upsets of seeds in early rounds.

More suspense.

Greta Arn - Yanina Wickmayer

and a reminiscence to the past:
HELEN KELESI FOREVER
Hater of Ratwanska & Wozniacki
A Magicman is online now  
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:28 PM
The Most Lovely Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 20,237
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

32 is fine, thanks
Slutati is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Writer of Stuff
 
Sum_Of_All_Fears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,729
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

I'll go you one better. I personally think that the slams need to go back to a 64 draw with 16 seeds as they were originally. Make qualifying harder & longer if you want, but a nice tight 64 draw with more rest between matches would be beneficial IMHO. The game is too physically demanding now to play 7 intense matches over 2 weeks. Cutting back on a round full of monotony wouldn't be missed.

Drawback--fewer matches for your tennis-watching buck. Advantages: potentially great 1st round matchups, healthier players, better quality of play at the end of the tourney.

Heidi El Tabakh Allie Kiick* Monica Puig * Laura Robson *


The Tripled Fault tennis blog: https://thetripledfault.wordpress.com/
Iheartmasha09 WTA/USTA Pro Circuit tennis videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv4...view_as=public
The.Triple.Fault WTA/USTA Pro Circuit tennis videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChI...view_as=public
Sum_Of_All_Fears is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
kiwifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,737
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

16 seeds makes being a seed more of an honor.
kiwifan is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:51 PM
Everybody's a star!!!
 
Shvedbarilescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 23,508
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianII View Post
Nothing wrong with the 32 seeds ..people look back at those years and and pretend that schett-venus and Lindsay-van roost matches were the order of the day but they weren't the early round matches back then were for the most part just as dominating as the early round matches today, for every upset you can think of then there is an even more stunning upset today think julie coin and Zheng jie recently ..when the 32 seeds system was introduced it did much more to pretect middling player from the top seeds than to protect the top seeds from the middling players . today there are enough really dangerous players outside of the top 32 to provide for whatever drama you need .. and therefore the 32 seed system has the important effect of grading the draw ie not letting some top player have all weak players in their quarter while another top player has all medium strong players in her quarter. if the seeds are able to justify themselves then by the third round a top player must meet a reasonable strong middle player. Just off the top of my head go back look at davenports draw 1999 Usopen before she ran in to serena and Hingis draw 2000 Usopen before she ran into seles/venus .. looked tough on paper but both players just blitz the early round oppostion regardless of how good the oppostion was supposed to be.... couldn't believe what hingis did to testud in their match until I saw it for myself.
Good post. Nicely thought out with all the right points raised and considered and finally a sensible conclusion.

Shvedbarilescu is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 08:53 PM
Everybody's a star!!!
 
Shvedbarilescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 23,508
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Heart Masha View Post
I'll go you one better. I personally think that the slams need to go back to a 64 draw with 16 seeds as they were originally. Make qualifying harder & longer if you want, but a nice tight 64 draw with more rest between matches would be beneficial IMHO. The game is too physically demanding now to play 7 intense matches over 2 weeks. Cutting back on a round full of monotony wouldn't be missed.

Drawback--fewer matches for your tennis-watching buck. Advantages: potentially great 1st round matchups, healthier players, better quality of play at the end of the tourney.

Shvedbarilescu is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Senior Member
 
OsloErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,579
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

I loved the old 16 seed system. I think it was conducive to early breakthroughs. A top 20 player could beat a top 5er in the first round or two, and then the road is open for a surprise semifinalist. Lori McNeil beating Steffi Graf was one of the best matches I've ever witnessed, and matches that you can expect to play out like that (top 20 player/grass specialist vs. world #1) are few and far between nowadays. The only time it's even close is if someone is making a comeback (Zheng at Wimbledon, Li at the Olympics).
OsloErik is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2008, 01:53 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
crazillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 35,745
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OsloErik View Post
I loved the old 16 seed system. I think it was conducive to early breakthroughs. A top 20 player could beat a top 5er in the first round or two, and then the road is open for a surprise semifinalist. Lori McNeil beating Steffi Graf was one of the best matches I've ever witnessed, and matches that you can expect to play out like that (top 20 player/grass specialist vs. world #1) are few and far between nowadays. The only time it's even close is if someone is making a comeback (Zheng at Wimbledon, Li at the Olympics).
I agree - nowadays the first few rounds at Slams are really boring most of the times... The top-players winning 2 and 1, maybe just one or two struggle a bit each event cuz of a spirited fight of another player...
But before, we used to have a few great matches at Slams, and even if not, then there were at least some decent match-up's between mid-level players, e.g. a #12 facing a #22... That wouldn't happen nowadays. Slams were less predictable back then I guess...

But I think that players probably prefer the way the system is now, cuz it gives them some sort of safeness going into events...

I guess most memebers here are too young to actually remember those times though.

FLAVIA PENNETTA

US OPEN CHAMPION 2015

Thank you for all these moments over the last years! Supported you until your final point!
crazillo is online now  
post #11 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2008, 06:29 PM
Senior Member
 
rockstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,156
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

isnt the number of seeds per tournament usually a quarter of the draw size?

-Daniela Hantuchova-


JELENA JANKOVIC - CAROLINE WOZNIACKI
rockstar is offline  
post #12 of 11 (permalink) Old Sep 13th, 2008, 06:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,268
                     
Re: Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazillo View Post
So my message to TennisOne readers: Protest the presence of 32 seeds at Grand Slam events. Go back to 16 – and you’ll have even more drama at this great tournament.


Interesting point by the author. I still remember when Dominique Van Roost defeated Lindsay Davenport at the FO or when Barbara Schett surprised Venus Williams (I think?) there. They were ranked pretty high, too.
What do people think about this? Was the implemention of 32 seeds good or bad for the sport?
Bad for the sport. And they ain't goin' back.

It was RG '01 when Amelie Mauresmo and Venus both lost in the first round. And both were stars who were expected to drive TV ratings, and thus ad revenue. (Not that the tournament needed it of course, but a lot of people make money off the slams.) Tournaments and sponsors don't want stars losing early. For that matter, neither do fans. We love seeing the ig upset, but then when the stars are out of the tournaments, TV ratings fall.

We're stuck with one-sided 1st and 2nd round matches.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome