Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This 32-seeds thing is great for a less-stressful approach to watching your fave progress through to the latter stages of Slams, but overall it provides some really boring first and second round matches. Under the old system we could have had these first rounders:

Jennifer Capriati vs. Nadia Petrova
Venus Williams vs. Vera Zvonareva
Kim Clijsters vs. Lina Krasnoroutskaya
Lindsay Davenport vs. Svetlana Kuznetsova
Chanda Rubin vs. Silvia Farina Elia


etc etc etc

It was always great looking for that one really tough opening match for one of the seeds. Aside from seeing who Sharapova plays first round these days it ain't worth looking most of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
No doubt, the 16-seeds system worked brilliantly for the women, but we need to keep 32 seeds for the men. Hell, if they had to face someone from the Top 30 in the opening round half of them would be falling at the first hurdle in each and every Slam. BTW, you don't have a vendetta against the Russians, out of interest? It's just that nearly every one of those dangerous potential first-round floaters is a Russian.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
Hendouble said:
No doubt, the 16-seeds system worked brilliantly for the women, but we need to keep 32 seeds for the men. Hell, if they had to face someone from the Top 30 in the opening round half of them would be falling at the first hurdle in each and every Slam. BTW, you don't have a vendetta against the Russians, out of interest? It's just that nearly every one of those dangerous potential first-round floaters is a Russian.

Agree but i think Mark actually rates the Russians very highly and hence thinks these match up's would be far more interesting than the current first rounders
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
No, just goes to show how good they are :)

I was picking people who had beaten them recently. :) (apart from Davenport-Kuznetsova, but I think Svetlana has real upset potential).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122,492 Posts
Why should we have a crappy quarter with Hantuchova and 10 players like Sarah Taylor.
And then have another quarter with 10 top 30 players?
This way is much fairer for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
But hey, the first week of a women's Grand Slam is a snooze-fest anyway; they might as well only seed the players who have a faintly realistic shot at the title (although to be honest, if only genuine contenders deserve seedings, then the cut-off should be Top 8).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,638 Posts
16 seeds was great for the women. Right now, I only see 4 seeds (of the top 32) being upset in the first round (sprem over shaughnessy, casanova over daniilidou, loit over injured stevenson, cho over serna). note that none of them are in the top16. i think a showdown between Petrova and Rubin would be far more interesting...
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
Since I tend to support the lower-ranked players in the draw, I have to go with 16 seeds as it gives my guys & gals about twice the chance of winning a round or two. Plus it's always nice to see a few big names go crashing out on the first day :)
But I guess players 1-32, and their fans, would tend to disagree.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
26,138 Posts
32 seeds are absolutely :zzz: :mad:
I would love to see the old system back (I wouldn't mind having only 8 seeds either). Right now you can totally forget the first 2 rounds.
And I don't see why the 3rd is now more interesting. The top-seeds are still guaranteed a player only ranked 25 or lower, so it will usually still be an ass-whipping.

What about these 2 matches from 2000 (accidentally including my favourite player):

Aus Open 2nd round: Capriati def. van Roost 6-1 4-6 8-6
French Open 1st round: van Roost def. Davenport 6-7 6-4 6-3
(of course there are tons of other examples)

DRAMA and EXCITEMENT in the early rounds - but no, the top-players need total upset-protection. :yawn:

Even worse is that the 32 seeds were installed only because of complaints ON THE MEN'S SIDE. The women had nothing to do with it, yet they got it too. :rolleyes: And it's still a fact that the no. 50 doesn't have a chance against the top 5 in 99 times out of 100.

To win a slam, you are supposed to be able to beat anyone. So why can't you play the no. 20 in the first round then ???
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
GoDominique said:
32 seeds are absolutely :zzz: :mad:
I would love to see the old system back (I wouldn't mind having only 8 seeds either). Right now you can totally forget the first 2 rounds.
And I don't see why the 3rd is now more interesting. The top-seeds are still guaranteed a player only ranked 25 or lower, so it will usually still be an ass-whipping.

What about these 2 matches from 2000 (accidentally including my favourite player):

Aus Open 2nd round: Capriati def. van Roost 6-1 4-6 8-6
French Open 1st round: van Roost def. Davenport 6-7 6-4 6-3
(of course there are tons of other examples)

DRAMA and EXCITEMENT in the early rounds - but no, the top-players need total upset-protection. :yawn:

Even worse is that the 32 seeds were installed only because of complaints ON THE MEN'S SIDE. The women had nothing to do with it, yet they got it too. :rolleyes: And it's still a fact that the no. 50 doesn't have a chance against the top 5 in 99 times out of 100.

To win a slam, you are supposed to be able to beat anyone. So why can't you play the no. 20 in the first round then ???
Well then if you think player ranked between 25 and 32 can't do an interesting match against a top 8 player, in what way would it change something if there would be 16 seeds?

Again, it's 4... FOUR days on 14 that is supposely "boring". Anyway it's an ass-whooping sometimes even in the 1/8F. So at least 32 seeds make the draw more balanced overall.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
26,138 Posts
With 16 seeds, a top-player can meet a player ranked below 25 in the first 3 rounds.
With 32 seeds, a top-player can only meet a player ranked below 25 from round 4 on.

And come on, it's not 4 days out of 14. Women's event has 12 days of tennis in total, and well, for me the latter rounds are often :yawn: as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122,492 Posts
I see a lot of good first round matches:
Meghann - Sprem
Pierce - Srebotnik
Vivi - Maria S.
Eleni - Casanova
Hantuchova - Bartoli
Elena L. - Majoli
Dinara - Carly
And I can keep going. The system is fine the way it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Maybe 32 seeds is more of a money making stunt than anything? People don't want to see their big favorites going out in the first round. When Venus loses, unless Cappy is still in the draw, I don't even watch the tournament anymore really unless I know its going to be a great match.Maybe other people feel like this and ratings/attendance would go down. You know the WTA is all about the $$$
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Like I said, given the pattern, if

32 draw = 8 seeds
64 draw = 16 seeds

then

128 draw = 32 seeds

GoDom if you find the whole tournement boring quite franckly I don't see how 16 or 32 makes a difference.

In the past there has been parts of the draw so ridiculously weak after 1 or 2 top 16 players from the same part of the draw lose. They must keep the draw balanced.

And they have to do like the men... If the men are 32 seeds it has to be the same with women.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
26,138 Posts
I see the pattern, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

I don't find the whole GS boring. But I usually prefer the first week and would like it even more with 16 seeds.

What do you mean with "the draw was weak after top 16 players lost"? The players who defeated those top 16 players can't be that "weak", because they wouldn't have won then.

Why do women and men have to use the same system ? But OK, I wouldn't mind the men going back to 16 seeds as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Again, it's 4... FOUR days on 14 that is supposely "boring".
But those are the key first days of the tournament.

TV shows the Top Seeds. And when the mass audience watch the top seeds have pitifully one-sided, 35 minute, walkover matches for four days in succession, they are going to decide that Women's Tennis is indeed absolute junk!

The Grand Slams are the SHOWCASE of Women's Tennis. People need to see the best matches - not the worst.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top