PDA

View Full Version : Why there shouldn't be 32 seeds at the slams


Volcana
Aug 19th, 2003, 02:54 AM
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.

Fingon
Aug 19th, 2003, 02:55 AM
I agree

ys
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:02 AM
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?

martamagica
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:05 AM
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?

darrinbaker00
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:06 AM
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..... ;)

martamagica
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:07 AM
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.

Messenger
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:16 AM
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).

Doc
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:18 AM
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.

Knizzle
Aug 19th, 2003, 04:19 AM
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.

Brian Stewart
Aug 19th, 2003, 08:33 AM
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.

skanky~skanketta
Aug 19th, 2003, 08:44 AM
in that case, top 8 seeds should do. cuz no one else stands a chance.

Dava
Aug 19th, 2003, 08:56 AM
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.

ex hopman
Aug 19th, 2003, 09:07 AM
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...

MartinaI
Aug 19th, 2003, 10:23 AM
I completely agree, 16 absolute maximum. 32 is way too many and takes out the chance of earlier big upsets. Bring back the excitement.

propi
Aug 19th, 2003, 11:01 AM
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

tennnisfannn
Aug 19th, 2003, 11:18 AM
It is the 32 seeds that allow players with no tune up tournys get into the second week. Venus for instance if healthy can easily survive the first week and have four matches under her belt to get to the quarters, and should she draw Myskina or Rubin, we will all be marvelling about her getting to the semis after her long lay off.
This is what happened to Lindsay after her long time off with injury, she found herself in the semis quiet easily. So far the tough quarter will be whoever draws capriati or Amelie.
The 32 seed make more sense in the men's draw.

Volcana
Aug 19th, 2003, 12:30 PM
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.

Your welcome. And yet how odd that others seem to see some validity in my arguements. And certainly, having YOU disagree with me makes me that much more confident.

Volcana
Aug 19th, 2003, 01:11 PM
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.

I don't dispute your economic points, but in that case, why not just seed all 128 players? The element of randomness that seeding a subset of the players produces has no (well little) value to the tournament or to TV.

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 19th, 2003, 02:32 PM
16 seeds for women
and 32 for men

if i had it my way i'd reduce both back to 16

to say that the 17th ranked player has earned her right not to face a seeded player isn't correct.
thats just the luck of the draw. the 17th ranked hasn't got any rights.

by that argument now with 32 seeds, the next one should be peeved and say she has earned her right to be seeded to :o,

then we would have 64 seeds :rolleyes:

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 19th, 2003, 02:35 PM
having the 32 seeds has had more upsets in last few slams as well, (thats gonna be obvious as a seed being knocked out is called an upset, before with 16 seeds it was just another match of two non-seeds)

Mens event has become even worse with 32 seeds.

bis2806
Aug 19th, 2003, 02:40 PM
MGM doesn't deserve to be seeded :o

Beat
Aug 19th, 2003, 03:25 PM
MGM doesn't deserve to be seeded :o

gosh, you really are obsessed :rolleyes: :mad: