[great smash]

According to some article in the Australian Newspaper, under the new systems with 32 seeds,

The no. 1 and 3 seed will be in the top half of the draw, same for no. 2 and 4 in bottom half.

This means a possible

Capriati-Hingis
V. Williams-Clijsters

I wonder if there are more rules concerning lower seeds?

 

[Volcana]

Sisters can't be on the same side of the draw.

 

[GoDominiqu]

I can't imagine this is true.
As far as I remember, seeds 3 and 4 have always been put randomly into top or bottom half.

 

[Seles2002]

What is the link to the article?

 

[great smash]

Seems I made a mistake it will be:

Capriati (1)-Clijsters(4)
Williams (2)-Hingis(3)

I sould read more carefully!!

 

[great smash]

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/2002/01/10/FFXPDZMZ7WC.html


It talks about Hewitt(1) and Agassi (3) being seeded to face each other in the finals!

 

[Seles2002]

I found this quote from Hingis about Lindsay's withdrawl:

"She's on the other side of the half or maybe in the semi-finals, so I will be happy just to get there," said Hingis, who is chasing a spot in her sixth consecutive Australian Open final.

 

[Sam L]

"Under the new 32-seed system being used here for the first time, seeds one and four are in the same half, while seeds two and three are in the other half."

The new 32-seed system had been used already at Wimbledon & US Open. And there, seed #1 wasn't drawn to meet seed #4 in the semi-finals.

Unless if this is a new thing only the Australian Open is having. I doubt it, I hope the article is wrong.

I want Hingis to draw Capriati in the semis.

 

[JCAPfan]

According to <b>Wimbledon 2001 draw</b>:

Top half: #1 to face #4 or #5
Bottom half: #2 to face #3 or #6

Based on this system:
<b>Capriati</b> to face <b>Clijsters</b> or <b>S.Williams</b>
<b>V.Williams</b> to face <b>Hingis</b> or <b>Henin</b>

According to <b>US Open 2001 draw</b>:
Top half: #1 to face #3 or #6
Bottom half: #2 to face #4 or #5

Based on this system:
<b>Capriati</b> to face <b>Hingis</b> or <b>Henin</b>
<b>V.Williams</b> to face <b>Clijsters</b> or <b>S.Williams</b> (In this case, the sisters may face each other in the semis!)

In both cases, #3 to #6 and #4 to #5!

 

[Rocketta]

Whats the point of being seeded #1 if u have to play a higher seed than the person who is seeded #2??

 

[disposablehero]

I understand where this is coming from. In the playoffs of most team sports, #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. The basic idea is, the higher you are in the standings, the easier a road you get to the championship. I don't like this idea for tennis though, as EVERY week is the playoffs. Think back to 1998 for instance. For the first 9 months of the year, if I remember correctly, Martina Hingis was always #1. Lindsay Davenport and Jana Novotna were always #2 and #3. These three players were clearly ahead of the field. Yet, if this system had been used, Martina would always be set up with an easier opponent in the Semis, and Lindsay/Jana would have always gotten each other. I've always felt that the more random the draw is, the better. I don't even like the idea of 1-4 vs 13-16. It gives too much advantage to the #12 player trying to hold her ranking, and too much penalty to the #13 player trying to catch her.

 

[Martian Martin]

It should really go with 1v4 and 2v3, because that's the fairest way to do it, having said that though I hope it doesn't go like that, because I'd far rather Martina had to play Jennifer in the semis than Venus!

[email protected]!!

 

[Rocketta]

I understand where this is coming from. In the playoffs of most team sports, #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. The basic idea is, the higher you are in the standings, the easier a road you get to the championship. I don't like this idea for tennis though, as EVERY week is the playoffs. Think back to 1998 for instance. For the first 9 months of the year, if I remember correctly, Martina Hingis was always #1. Lindsay Davenport and Jana Novotna were always #2 and #3. These three players were clearly ahead of the field. Yet, if this system had been used, Martina would always be set up with an easier opponent in the Semis, and Lindsay/Jana would have always gotten each other. I've always felt that the more random the draw is, the better. I don't even like the idea of 1-4 vs 13-16. It gives too much advantage to the #12 player trying to hold her ranking, and too much penalty to the #13 player trying to catch her.

But didn't it change from tournament to tournament who was ranked 1-3?? I mean like at Wimby didn't they rank the best grass player #1 not who was #1 in the computer or the tour, thereby changing who they played from tournament to tournament. However, still keeping the semis as 1 vs 4 & 2 vs 3.
Just a question.

 

[disposablehero]

No, they kept the seedings accoerding to the rankings. The only adjustment anywhere near that time was at the 99 Wimbledon, moving Steffi Graf up a spot in the seedings.

Martina was always #1 during the months I mentioned, although Lindsay and Jana would trade the 2 and 3 spots a few times. The thing is, it wouldn't have mattered which of them was #2, because they would still end up playing the other under this proposed system.