PDA

View Full Version : Shoud we get back to the 16 seed format?


Doraemon
Nov 30th, 2003, 12:59 AM
I really think the GSs were much more exciting espeically in the early rounds when there were only 16 seeded players.
Guess clay court some clay court players complaining about not being seeded despite their rankings at the Wimby was the major reason why the format was changed. But given that surfaces matter much less in women's tennis and the depth isn't that great yet, I hardly see it has done any good to women's side. Can the GSs use different seeding formats for men and women? I just get bored in the first couple of rounds of major tournaments including Indianwells and Miami where too many players are seeded and most of the matches are just not worth watching.
What's your take on that?

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 30th, 2003, 01:19 AM
16 seeds

i'd rather be unseeded than be seeded 25-32.

AndyLoefflerCaro
Nov 30th, 2003, 01:40 AM
16 seeds

i'd rather be unseeded than be seeded 25-32.

That's because 17 to 32 should be put randomly in the draw... They shouldn't do 2 categories: 17-24 and 25-32.

I do prefer 32 seeds than 16. But I agree with TBE, right now, it's better to be unseeded than being seeded 25 to 32.

fried_beans
Nov 30th, 2003, 01:53 AM
how bout 2 seeds? lol

i heart backhand
Nov 30th, 2003, 01:59 AM
Having 16 seeds (again) would be absurd. Not only would it be a step in the wrong direction, but it would only further add to the problems surrounding the women's game. Can you imagine if the #16 player in the world somehow drew the #17 player? I give the example of Roddick having to play Henman at the USO in the 1R (however, Henman was 'slipping' at the time). It shouldn't happen to anyone. Those matchups should be saved for the later rounds.

Vicky88
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:20 AM
I much preferred when it was only 16 seeds. Makes the game a lot more exciting. It ensured a lot more movement in the rankings which is good to see.

azza
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:37 AM
16 seeds

i'd rather be unseeded than be seeded 25-32.

why?

Doraemon
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:49 AM
why?

Because you are totally guaranteed to face a top 8 seed in the third round if you reach there.

VeNuS#1LoVa
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:50 AM
Yes, 16 Seeds should come back. It offered possible good first round matches, now the early rounds are quite boring.

AndyLoefflerCaro
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:52 AM
The early round are boring with 16, 32 or 64 seeds, it has nothing to do with the number of seeds.

Yes, you get more boring match in the first 2 round with 32 seeds, but you get more boring third round matches with 16 seeds.

VeNuS#1LoVa
Nov 30th, 2003, 02:52 AM
OMG! TBE, I just realized you have 51,000 some odd posts?!?!?!?! How do you do it?

Doraemon
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:08 AM
Having 16 seeds (again) would be absurd. Not only would it be a step in the wrong direction, but it would only further add to the problems surrounding the women's game. Can you imagine if the #16 player in the world somehow drew the #17 player? I give the example of Roddick having to play Henman at the USO in the 1R (however, Henman was 'slipping' at the time). It shouldn't happen to anyone. Those matchups should be saved for the later rounds.

Well.. it is an entertainment business we're talking about here. so I don't know if we always should put players' interest first. Funs need some intersting match-ups in the first and second rounds which can hardly be expected in the 32 seed format. I was really excited when Henman and Roddick got drawn to face each other in that first round. It's not absurd at all. Some luck should be involved cuz that's really a part of the sport and an important one. When Steffi faced Lori in the first round of Wimby, I don't think Steffi complained about the seeding format after her loss. It's just in men's tennis the seeding is more complex as there are so many different forces depending on surfaces. I would welcome a first round match between the top seed and a top 20 player with open arms!

AndyLoefflerCaro
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:12 AM
There are so many matches the first 2 rounds, some are interesting no matter the number of seeds, the problem is that it's not matches that are show on tv...

Anyway 16 or 32, the top players win their first rounds matches easily, there isn't much of a difference. At least with 32 it's more fair for players ranked between 17 and 32.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:56 AM
Go back to 16 seeds.

Mens draws-Quite honestly, theres so much friggin depth in mens tennis these days that anyone in the top 80 can literally beat anyone in the world on a given day. Look at Karlovic knocking out Hewitt at Wimby, lucky loser Bastl knocking out Sampras, or Wayne Arthurs beating Guga when he was ranked #2 and Arthurs about #140. You'll still see upsets in the mens draw regardless.

Womens draws.-I know its a business and you want your stars to be there on the final days. But 16 seeds or 32 seeds, you will still have in the worst case scenario for the semis: At least 1 Williams Sister, at least 1 Belgian, a Davenport or a Capriati, and then maybe a player like a Sharapova (in a year or so) or a Mauresmo. Once in a blue moon you'll get a surprise like a Clarisa Fernandez or Nadia Petrova. You'll still get your high ratings regardless. Furthermore, 32 seeds alienates fans of womens tennis in the first week because in the coverage (at least in the US) they REFUSE to go anywhere else besides the main 2 courts unless you're deep into a third set for women or a late 4th set/5th set for men. So you're forced to watch Serena hammer some poor girl whos been in challengers and Tier V qualies all year. And they don't even TALK about the unknown girl and try and give you a sense of her. The match is so bad that you're forced to talk about what you see happening in the 2nd week blah blah.

Heres my advice: Either go back to 16 seeds or have ESPN cover the blowouts and have the Tennis Channel cover JUST the outer courts. Not everyone likes to watch blowouts.

Myskina Lina
Nov 30th, 2003, 04:29 AM
The last time a Grand Slam had 16 seeds, Barbara Schett beat Venus Williams in the 1st round. With 32 seeds, Babsi wouldn't have ever faced Venus in the 1st round. THAT'S the type of thing they're trying to avoid now.


16 or 32, I'll be watching the GS's either way.

Doraemon
Nov 30th, 2003, 08:45 AM
The last time a Grand Slam had 16 seeds, Barbara Schett beat Venus Williams in the 1st round. With 32 seeds, Babsi wouldn't have ever faced Venus in the 1st round. THAT'S the type of thing they're trying to avoid now.


16 or 32, I'll be watching the GS's either way.

That's just a rare example. It doesn't happen that often obviously.
Give the depth of women's tennis, I don't see more than a few top 10 seeds upset in the first few rounds even when there are only 16 seeds. I don't think it's that relevant that the organizers seed 32 players instead of 16 for the sake of avoiding early upsets of big names. In men's cause that's understandable. I hardly turn on in pre much the whole first week of a GS these days cuz there is hardly an interesting or competitive match.
Definitely men's side is more entertaining and exciting in the first week and then women take the spotlight in the second week in general.

Experimentee
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:09 PM
The matches in early rounds are always easy whether its 16 or 32 seeds. Just bc someone is ranked outside of the top 32 doesnt mean they cant put up as good a fight as someone ranked 17-32. When it was a 16 seed format I dont think there were any more exciting early matches as there are now.
32 seeds is just fairer to players ranked 17-32. It gives them soemthing to work towards. For example Sharapova had a great last few tournaments bc her goal was to be seeded in the top 32 and she was happy to achieve that.

ghosts
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:16 PM
32 is now OK ;)

KV
Nov 30th, 2003, 03:18 PM
Go back to 16 seeds.

Mens draws-Quite honestly, theres so much friggin depth in mens tennis these days that anyone in the top 80 can literally beat anyone in the world on a given day. Look at Karlovic knocking out Hewitt at Wimby, lucky loser Bastl knocking out Sampras, or Wayne Arthurs beating Guga when he was ranked #2 and Arthurs about #140. You'll still see upsets in the mens draw regardless.

Womens draws.-I know its a business and you want your stars to be there on the final days. But 16 seeds or 32 seeds, you will still have in the worst case scenario for the semis: At least 1 Williams Sister, at least 1 Belgian, a Davenport or a Capriati, and then maybe a player like a Sharapova (in a year or so) or a Mauresmo. Once in a blue moon you'll get a surprise like a Clarisa Fernandez or Nadia Petrova. You'll still get your high ratings regardless. Furthermore, 32 seeds alienates fans of womens tennis in the first week because in the coverage (at least in the US) they REFUSE to go anywhere else besides the main 2 courts unless you're deep into a third set for women or a late 4th set/5th set for men. So you're forced to watch Serena hammer some poor girl whos been in challengers and Tier V qualies all year. And they don't even TALK about the unknown girl and try and give you a sense of her. The match is so bad that you're forced to talk about what you see happening in the 2nd week blah blah.

Heres my advice: Either go back to 16 seeds or have ESPN cover the blowouts and have the Tennis Channel cover JUST the outer courts. Not everyone likes to watch blowouts.Well said, thoroughly agree

Tennisfan-Mtl
Nov 30th, 2003, 06:01 PM
OMG! TBE, I just realized you have 51,000 some odd posts?!?!?!?! How do you do it?

I've always asked myself the same question.....;)