Why there shouldn't be 32 seeds at the slams - TennisForum.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 01:54 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,673
                     
Why there shouldn't be 32 seeds at the slams

Think about it. All of you can name at least one player who'll be seeded who shouldn't be. A seeded player should at least have a CHANCE to win the tournament.
Do Silvia Farina Elia, Elena Bovina, Eleni Daniilidou, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Lisa Raymond or Alexandra Stevenson have any realistic chance of winning this tournament?

No.

Go back to 16 seeds. If Venus and Amelie hadn't lost in the first round of RG in 2001, we wouldn't be in this stupid fix.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 01:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hitlum
Posts: 8,050
                     
I agree
Fingon is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:02 AM
country flag ys
Adrenaline junkie
 
ys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: always on the move
Posts: 21,985
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Think about it. All of you can name at least one player who'll be seeded who shouldn't be. A seeded player should at least have a CHANCE to win the tournament.
Do Silvia Farina Elia, Elena Bovina, Eleni Daniilidou, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Lisa Raymond or Alexandra Stevenson have any realistic chance of winning this tournament?
Do Magdalena Maleeva, Conchita Martinez, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama or Amanda Coetzer have?
ys is offline  
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: barcelona espana
Posts: 156
       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ys
Do Magdalena Maleeva, Conchita Martinez, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama or Amanda Coetzer have?
I concur.

Look at the top 16 seeds on the men's side. Do they all have a realistic chance of winning.

Being seeded is not just about winning the tournament, it's about making draws fair for everyone.

Is it fair to have Jennifer Capriati vs. Nadia Petrova in the 1st round... while Daniela Hantuchova's section is filled with 75th-ranked or lower players?
martamagica is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:06 AM
Serena's #1 Hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 19,717
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Think about it. All of you can name at least one player who'll be seeded who shouldn't be. A seeded player should at least have a CHANCE to win the tournament.
Do Silvia Farina Elia, Elena Bovina, Eleni Daniilidou, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Lisa Raymond or Alexandra Stevenson have any realistic chance of winning this tournament?

If that's the case, then there'd only be four seeds.....

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord." -- Proverbs 18:22

"Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." -- Herb Brooks

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali
darrinbaker00 is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: barcelona espana
Posts: 156
       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Think about it. All of you can name at least one player who'll be seeded who shouldn't be. A seeded player should at least have a CHANCE to win the tournament.
Do Silvia Farina Elia, Elena Bovina, Eleni Daniilidou, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Lisa Raymond or Alexandra Stevenson have any realistic chance of winning this tournament?

No.

Go back to 16 seeds. If Venus and Amelie hadn't lost in the first round of RG in 2001, we wouldn't be in this stupid fix.
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Know-it-all...

Elena Bovina is the 16th seed of the US Open... so you just rendered your own argument meaningless.

Shows how much you know.

Thanks.
martamagica is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The lonely desert
Posts: 1,626
                     
I don't agree that all seeded players should have a chance at winning the tournament. The 8-16 seeds are "supposed" to reach the 4th round and challenge the top 8. That's what I believe.

Personally, I prefer the 16 seeds because it means something to be seeded. I remember that after a great 1999 Elena Likhovtseva found herself rewarded with a top 16 seed at the Australian Open the next year for the first time in her career(she went on to reach the QF).
Messenger is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 02:18 AM
country flag Doc
Senior Member
 
Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The consulting room
Posts: 3,061
                     
Of course Elena Bovina can win the tournament!

I don't like 32 seeds though, but for a different reason. it removes any reasonable possibility of a challenge to the top players until the third Round.

This means that the top players waltz through their first couple of rounds against low, or extremely low ranked opponents. The resultant boring, one-sided matches are a very bad advertisement for the womens' game.

Sabine Lisicki, Maria Sharapova, Elena Dementieva,

Victoria Azarenka, Dinara Safina, Maria Kirilenko

Nadia Petrova, Samantha Stosur, Ana Ivanovic.

0026..Eternal follower of the Golden Girl .... Official Political Advisor to the Maria Mafia.
Doc is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 03:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Knizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,749
                     
I like the 32 seeds better because having only 16 seeds means that one side of the draw can be severely loaded down with all players ranked 17-32. Imagine in today's game if the 17-32 ranked players all ended up on the same side of the draw. 16 seeds can breed GS winners who don't really have to defeat tough players. One instance of this is the AO '97, no offense Hingis fans, but that is one example I know off the top of my head. The highest seed Hingis defeated was the #8 seed. In today's system, who would win a slam without beating two or three top ten players?? So even though 32 seeds do make boring first weeks at the slams, they set up great matchups for the second week. A fair share of upsets still occur.
Knizzle is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 07:33 AM
Plainclothes Division
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South Park, CO
Posts: 6,323
                     
You can't blame Venus and Momo for the 32 seeds. If any player were to blame, it would be Pete. Wimbledon went to the 32 seeds because of the surface specialization on the men's tour. They wanted to make sure the guys who could play on grass didn't wind up in the same quarter, and then have blowout wins by Pete in the semis and finals, when you are (in theory) supposed to have your best matches. And they did this also to appease the clay courters, who annually complained about being "de-seeded" at Wimbledon. As a compromise, Wimbledon went to 32 seeds, guaranteeing the 32 highest-ranked players would all be seeded, although reserving the right to adjust them for better draw balance.

The ironic thing is that the seed expansion has had the opposite effect of that which the "experts" predicted. They said there would be far fewer close matches in the early rounds on the women's side (as if they ever pay any attention). But it hasn't affected them much at all. You still get about 1/3 of the women's early round matches going the distance, just as with 16 seeds. And there are many matches with high seeds being challenged in the early going by unseeded players. There has, however, been a decrease in the number of early round men's matches going the distance.

So what if Serena, Kim, Venus, and other top seeds are rarely pushed to 4-all in a final set in the early rounds? Neither are Andre, Andy, Lleyton (when he had his sh*t together), or other top men when they played like top 10-ers. That's why slams have 128 players. If the stars aren't being challenged, and they aren't particular faves of yours, go watch someone else. There are plenty of close matches in the first week. The difference being, however, that the TV networks will always seek out close men's matches, but never women's matches. That's why that myth as been perpetuated over the years.

And if you're only going to seed players who are serious contenders for the title, then you're looking at seeding Clijsters, Henin, Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, Rubin, Agassi, Roddick, and Federer. How do you fill out 8 seeds then? Do you add Pierce, who may get healthy and recapture her form? Do you put in Sharapova, predicting a breakthrough? Does Hewitt get a seed? He's won it before, but been nowhere near that form recently. What about someone like Safin? He's outside the top 8 and the top 16. Do you think any top seed wants to face him in an opening round, for fear he may get his form back? Suppose he did. Would it be good for the tournament to have, say, Safin vs Roddick in the 1st round, see them play a grueling match, and the tired winner go down in round 2?

Grand Slam tennis is a business, and their assets are top players. And despite what some spinmeisters would try to have you believe, having a lot of upsets early is NOT a good thing. (If it were, there wouldn't be announcers and players taking potshots at the women whenever it happened.) They make the bulk of their money from TV; particularly network TV. And network TV makes the bulk of its money from the late rounds. They would like to see star players, or stars in the making, or at least familiar names. This increases viewership, and gives better odds of a memorable match. If the price of that is that the cable broadcaster has fewer close early matches involving top seeds, the slams are willing to pay it. There are plenty of other good matches early on, whereas there are no alternatives for the quarters, semis and finals.
Brian Stewart is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 07:44 AM
Senior Member
 
skanky~skanketta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not paradise thats fo sho
Posts: 15,459
                     
in that case, top 8 seeds should do. cuz no one else stands a chance.

skanky~skanketta is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 07:56 AM
Senior Member
 
Dava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pau-Pau-Pau-Pau-La-La-La!
Posts: 17,733
                     
I think 32 is okay, but talk of it going up is rediculous. Anyway the TV people only tend to focus on the top 16 seeds at slams anyway...

But what I do think is redicoulous last year, was when they seeded HALF the draw at the championships. THere could have been some really interesting match ups if they had done the normal thing.

WTA TOUR
ELENA DEMENTIEVA
KIM CLIJSTERS
ALSO STARRING
THE GIRLS ON TOUR!

ASAGOE~BOVINA~JANKOVIC~MOLIK
MYSKINA~SCHNYDER~ZVONAREVA

THE YOUNG GUNS

BACSINSZKY~CHAKVATADZE~IVANOVIC
JACKSON~KIRILENKO~LINETSKAYA
MAKAROVA~MIRZA


THE COMEBACK KIDS

BEYGELZIMER~DOKIC~HARKLEROAD
SPREM~VAKULENKO

Dava is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 08:07 AM
Senior Member
 
ex hopman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LA/Honolulu/Tokyo
Posts: 2,639
                     
yea, I think 8... mmm... maybe 16 seeds r enuf.
it'd be fun/exciting to see 1st seed and 20th ranked player match on the 1R... (of course, it'd suck for the lower ranked player if she loses...)
like graf and coetzer at french some years ago?
it's exciting!

now, til 3rd R, or 4th R... it could be boring...

just my opinion...

Go! Trojans!

ex hopman is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 09:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ely, UK
Posts: 731
                     
I completely agree, 16 absolute maximum. 32 is way too many and takes out the chance of earlier big upsets. Bring back the excitement.

Martina Hingis

'THE COMEBACK QUEEN'

2006 Australian Open Mixed Doubles Champion

209 weeks at No.1

40 singles titles incl. 5 GS, 2 WTA Champs
36 doubles titles incl. 10 GS, 2 WTA Champs
1 GS mixed doubles title



MartinaI is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old Aug 19th, 2003, 10:01 AM
Senior Member
 
propi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lost in Space
Posts: 34,060
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by ys
Do Magdalena Maleeva, Conchita Martinez, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama or Amanda Coetzer have?
Yes, the only ones who can't win it are those not playing it

"Qui n'a connu
Douleur immense
N'aura qu'un aperçu
Du temps
"


propi 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









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



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