PDA

View Full Version : Amount of seeds at Slams - discussion


crazillo
Sep 8th, 2008, 05:35 PM
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?

BrianII
Sep 8th, 2008, 06:50 PM
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.

A Magicman
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:26 PM
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.

Slutati
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:28 PM
32 is fine, thanks

Kipling
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:34 PM
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.

kiwifan
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:46 PM
16 seeds makes being a seed more of an honor.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:51 PM
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. :yeah:

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 07:53 PM
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.

:rolleyes::help::tape:

OsloErik
Sep 8th, 2008, 09:00 PM
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).

crazillo
Sep 13th, 2008, 12:53 PM
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. :lol:

rockstar
Sep 13th, 2008, 05:29 PM
isnt the number of seeds per tournament usually a quarter of the draw size?

Volcana
Sep 13th, 2008, 05:50 PM
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.