PDA

View Full Version : #1 vs #3 and #2 vs #4 format? What's going on?


bruno hau
04-25-2008, 01:57 PM
#1 Federer vs #3 Djokovic and #2 Nadal vs #4 Davydenko at this year's Monte Carlo Open? I thought it is always #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 format? This happened at the Australian Open as well where #1 Federer played #3 Djokovic in the semis. How do they determine draws now? Federer has problems against Djokovic but would kill Davydenko.

Chadwixx
04-25-2008, 02:05 PM
Professional tennis is the only sport that uses an untraditional draw method. In college and the juniors it was always 1v4 and 2v3 for me.

Hockey is probably the only sport with a more wackey draw system.

PROTENNIS63
04-25-2008, 02:52 PM
^^^ No, I beleive in the juniors it depends on the draw size.

Fee
04-25-2008, 02:56 PM
#1 Federer vs #3 Djokovic and #2 Nadal vs #4 Davydenko at this year's Monte Carlo Open? I thought it is always #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 format? This happened at the Australian Open as well where #1 Federer played #3 Djokovic in the semis. How do they determine draws now? Federer has problems against Djokovic but would kill Davydenko.

That's part of the reason they use a random draw, so that the same players aren't playing each other every time. #1 is placed at the top of the draw, #2 at the very bottom, then 3 and 4 are draw out of a hat (so to speak) to be placed in the top and bottom half. The ATP rulebook spells out exactly how to draws for thier events, and it's available at www.atptennis.com (as a PDF file, easily saved to your desktop).

bruno hau
04-25-2008, 03:17 PM
That's part of the reason they use a random draw, so that the same players aren't playing each other every time. #1 is placed at the top of the draw, #2 at the very bottom, then 3 and 4 are draw out of a hat (so to speak) to be placed in the top and bottom half. The ATP rulebook spells out exactly how to draws for thier events, and it's available at www.atptennis.com (as a PDF file, easily saved to your desktop).
In that case, then the draw cost Federer a place in the Australian Open Final. Federer would have easily defeated Tsonga had they played in the semis.

Aeropro master
04-25-2008, 03:23 PM
In that case, then the draw cost Federer a place in the Australian Open Final. Federer would have easily defeated Tsonga had they played in the semis.

are you sure about that? the way tsonga was playing against nadal during the AO, i don't think anybody could have beat him.

crawl4
04-25-2008, 03:32 PM
are you sure about that? the way tsonga was playing against nadal during the AO, i don't think anybody could have beat him.

yeh i would agree, thats a gutsy call..however the draw here has worked out alright..davey just coming off a win against nadal and federer having some form coming in to the game against a player who's also in top form..not to mention AO rematch

Fee
04-25-2008, 04:12 PM
In that case, then the draw cost Federer a place in the Australian Open Final. Federer would have easily defeated Tsonga had they played in the semis.

How did the draw make him lose? He's the number one player in the world, he's supposed to beat all comers. Who says he would not have just lost to Djokovic in the final? Your theory seems a bit off to me somehow.

Chadwixx
04-25-2008, 04:21 PM
^^^ No, I beleive in the juniors it depends on the draw size.

I played over 100 junior tournaments (no idea actually) and i didnt see it once. From locals to closed. Talking from personal experience.

JW10S
04-25-2008, 04:49 PM
The only seeds whose position are always is the same are the #1 and #2 seeds. The rest are drawn by lot.

bluetrain4
04-25-2008, 05:20 PM
It may seem odd but it's been done for years.

#1 and 2 are on opposite sides of the draw.

#3 and #4 are paired randomly with #1 and 2

#5, 6, 7, 8, are paired randomly with #1, 2, 3, 4. I remember seeing a lot of slams where #1 played #5 in the QFs.

This may have changed and now and #7 and 8 are randomly paired with #1 and 2, while #5 and 6 are paired with #3 and 4, thus avoiding a #1 v. 5 QF match. It may vary from tourney to tourney, but there is never a strict 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 draw placement (unless it happens via the draw)

It used to be (in the day of 16 seeds) that #1-8 was randomly paired with #9-16. Thus, #1 could play #9 in the round of 16 at slams, instead of #1 vs. #16 as if it were a NCAA-style strictly slotted draw.

I think this is now broken down a little it further. #1-4 is randomly paired with #13-16, while #5-8, is paired with #9-12.

I think for 32 seeds at slams, it is broken down in one of two ways:

#1-8 is paired randomly with #25-32 in the 3rd Rnd
#9-16 is paired randomly with #17-24 in the 3rd Rnd.

OR

#1-4 paired with #29-32
#5-8 paired with #25-28
#9-12 paired with #21-24
#13-16 paired with #17-20

Fee
04-25-2008, 05:32 PM
Don't think, find a source and quote it :)

From the ATP Rulebook:

6.16 NUMBER of SEEDS
The number of seeds shall be as follows:

12 competitors - 6 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
16 competitors - 8 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
24 competitors - 12 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
28 competitors - 14 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
32 competitors - 16 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
48 competitors - 24 seeds (Singles Q’s only)
32 competitors - 8 seeds
48 competitors - 16 seeds
56 competitors - 16 seeds
64 competitors - 16 seeds
96 competitors - 32 seeds

Okay, link to the rulebook, http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/players/2008rbook.pdf

Bring up the 'bookmarks' for the document and scroll down to 6.17 Placement of Seeds. There is a chart there that explains it and I'm not in the mood to recreate it here. That is exactly how ATP draws are made. The ITF Grand Slam Rulebook is different, but I'll let someone else find the link for their rulebook. ;)

TB45
04-25-2008, 05:41 PM
for our subsectionals (high school tennis) we use 1v4, 2v3 but then when we move to Sectionals it goes to 1v3, 2v4. kinda wierd...

TB45
04-25-2008, 05:43 PM
Sorry Double Post but I forgot to say...

I am NOT in favor in 1v3, 2v4 format. That takes away the whole point in striving to be #1. I would rather be the 2 seed, just so i could play a "weaker" opponent.

Fedace
04-25-2008, 11:41 PM
#1 Federer vs #3 Djokovic and #2 Nadal vs #4 Davydenko at this year's Monte Carlo Open? I thought it is always #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 format? This happened at the Australian Open as well where #1 Federer played #3 Djokovic in the semis. How do they determine draws now? Federer has problems against Djokovic but would kill Davydenko.

They did it on purpose to get the Federer vs Nadal final. which is what everyone wants to see.

joeri888
04-26-2008, 02:18 AM
I think number 1 should always play number 4, because otherwise it makes no difference being #1. I understand the reasoning behind this more 'random' system, because otherwise, we'd be seeing Davydenko-Federer and Nadal-Djokovic far too often.
However, off-topic, I feel Nadal perhaps should be ranked number 1 in claycourt tourney, but that's a sidenote.

Fries-N-Gravy
04-26-2008, 05:42 AM
this is ridiculous. it's not that big of a deal. No one complained when roddick was no 3. personally i'd like to see fed beat djoker and nadal in the same tournament. its a great test for him.

JW10S
04-27-2008, 03:42 PM
By drawing where the seeds are placed in the draw it ensures that the same match ups in the same rounds are not seen tournament after tournament. If #1 always played #8 in the quarters then always played #4 in the semis would be boring as you would often see the same players playing each other in the same rounds in the big events over and over. Mixing up who plays who adds more drama and makes it more exciting and means there are more chances for players to improve or lower their rankings. The seeded players already have the advantage of being separated from each other until the later rounds anyway so having the #1 always play the lowest seed in any given round is too much of an advantage. The 'luck of the draw' will always, and should always, be a part of the sport.

Chadwixx
04-27-2008, 05:34 PM
Your assuming everyone from the previous tournament is playing the same event and there were no upsets in the previous. Injuries or taking a week off would also change everything.

Leublu tennis
04-28-2008, 12:16 AM
The only seeds whose position are always is the same are the #1 and #2 seeds. The rest are drawn by lot.

Kinda odd that they would not put the best players at the bottom and top of the draws when its a big tournament. In Barcelone, Nadal is on top and Ferrer is on bottom. But then #20 Murray and #21 Karlovic are in the other corners of the draw, skipping Nalbandian, Blake, Moya, and Robredo who are all higher rated.

Rob_C
04-28-2008, 05:41 AM
Kinda odd that they would not put the best players at the bottom and top of the draws when its a big tournament. In Barcelone, Nadal is on top and Ferrer is on bottom. But then #20 Murray and #21 Karlovic are in the other corners of the draw, skipping Nalbandian, Blake, Moya, and Robredo who are all higher rated.

You're paying too much attn to the positioning of the players. The draw is fine. The top four seeds are drawn to meet each other in the semis if they win their matches. Thats the way its supposed to be, it doesnt matter who's in what corner. Each of the top 4 seeds have their own 1/4 of the draw where they are the highest seeded player, whether they're on the top of that 1/4 or not.

Vision84
04-28-2008, 07:39 AM
In that case, then the draw cost Federer a place in the Australian Open Final. Federer would have easily defeated Tsonga had they played in the semis.

Tsonga was not seeded 4th so your point is a moot one.

JW10S
04-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Your assuming everyone from the previous tournament is playing the same event and there were no upsets in the previous. Injuries or taking a week off would also change everything.The top 4 seeds for the Australian Open were, in order, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko. The top 4 seeds for the Masters Series event in Indian Wells were, in order, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko. The top 4 seeds for the Masters Series event in Miami were, in order, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko. The top 4 seeds for the Masters Series event in Monte Carlo were, in order, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko. Those seeds will hold true for the Masters Series event in Rome and likely for the French Open and Wimbledon. If the players held up their seeds would you really want to be seeing the same match-ups in the semis of all these events? Of course not. The top 2 seeds are separated from each other so they will not meet before the finals. The top 4 seeds are separated from each other in the draw so they will not meet before the semis. The top 8 seeds are separated from each other so they will not meet before the quarters, and so on. Just who will play who is a matter of the 'luck of the draw' as it should be. No one wants to see the same players play each other in the same round event after event. Why not go so far as to say the #1 seed should always play the lowest ranked player in the draw in the 1st round? At some point you have get away from a draw that is too contrived. Having the #1 seed always play the lowest ranked player in every round is just plain silly.

idj49
04-30-2008, 04:29 AM
this is ridiculous. it's not that big of a deal. No one complained when roddick was no 3. personally i'd like to see fed beat djoker and nadal in the same tournament. its a great test for him.

You obviously weren't around here when Roddick was #3. LOL

diggler
04-30-2008, 05:52 AM
I think number 1 should always play number 4, because otherwise it makes no difference being #1. I understand the reasoning behind this more 'random' system, because otherwise, we'd be seeing Davydenko-Federer and Nadal-Djokovic far too often.
However, off-topic, I feel Nadal perhaps should be ranked number 1 in claycourt tourney, but that's a sidenote.


I agree. Nadal is really the number 1 on clay. It would be fair if he were seeded 1 and derived the benefit of playing the weaker number 4 Davydenko.


It's all a bit academic as Federer is seeded undeservedly as number 1.

cknobman
04-30-2008, 06:02 AM
I agree. Nadal is really the number 1 on clay. It would be fair if he were seeded 1 and derived the benefit of playing the weaker number 4 Davydenko.


It's all a bit academic as Federer is seeded undeservedly as number 1.

You could say the same on hardcourts where Nadal is always seeded #2 even though he is clearly below Djoker on a hardcourt.

Its all subjective so the only fair way is to seed according to the official ranking.

scineram
04-30-2008, 05:22 PM
How the **** is Roger seeded undeservedly?

diggler
04-30-2008, 08:15 PM
How the **** is Roger seeded undeservedly?

For clay I meant. Obviously Rafa should be seeded 1 for clay. Apologies for ambiguity.

Ideally there would be seperate rankings for different surfaces.

Fee
04-30-2008, 08:31 PM
I agree. Nadal is really the number 1 on clay. It would be fair if he were seeded 1 and derived the benefit of playing the weaker number 4 Davydenko.


It's all a bit academic as Federer is seeded undeservedly as number 1.

It makes no sense to seed Nadal number one for clay if the #3 and #4 are still drawn randomly. It works just fine the way it is now.

For clay I meant. Obviously Rafa should be seeded 1 for clay. Apologies for ambiguity.

Ideally there would be seperate rankings for different surfaces.

They tried that, and the players HATED IT.

diggler
05-01-2008, 07:49 PM
It makes no sense to seed Nadal number one for clay if the #3 and #4 are still drawn randomly. It works just fine the way it is now.



They tried that, and the players HATED IT.


I'm just saying that's logical, I didn't say people would do it.

illkhiboy
05-02-2008, 08:14 AM
That's part of the reason they use a random draw, so that the same players aren't playing each other every time. #1 is placed at the top of the draw, #2 at the very bottom, then 3 and 4 are draw out of a hat (so to speak) to be placed in the top and bottom half. The ATP rulebook spells out exactly how to draws for thier events, and it's available at www.atptennis.com (as a PDF file, easily saved to your desktop).

I like how you add "easily saved to your desktop" each time haha.

scineram
05-02-2008, 10:53 AM
They tried that, and the players HATED IT.

What experiment was that?

Fee
05-02-2008, 12:36 PM
I like how you add "easily saved to your desktop" each time haha.

Subtle hint, no? (it's not working, I should just give up ;) )

What experiment was that?

Well okay, they never really tried it. Wimbledon has done it for years, but a few years ago they changed the formula so that their grass rankings are close to the actual rankings with just a bit of tweaking, instead of moving people up 10 places. Part of the claycourters boycott was because of the special rankings (I personally never bought that excuse), so the LTA gave in somewhat. I know that RG has considered doing something similar and the players' association was very much opposed to it overall (I'm sure some would love it). Ideally, the best players are at least competent on all surfaces, so the rankings should not be surface specific. It all balances out by the end of the year, in theory, so it's fine the way it is now.

Moose Malloy
05-02-2008, 12:47 PM
Well okay, they never really tried it.

'96 USO tried seeding according to hardcourt ability(mainly as a way to help Agassi) & the players had a fit. Kafelnikov withdrew.

I know that RG has considered doing something similar and the players' association was very much opposed to it overall (I'm sure some would love it). Ideally, the best players are at least competent on all surfaces, so the rankings should not be surface specific. It all balances out by the end of the year, in theory, so it's fine the way it is now.

I think its fine now, because we are in a unique situation where most of the top 10 are very good on all surfaces & the 1 & 2 are clearly the best on clay.

In the 90s, the game was very polarized, it was ridiculous to see Sampras, Goran, & Becker constantly seeded in the top 5 at RG, while the reigning Monte Carlo or Rome champion was like 15 or 16.

Just looking at some of the draws, I think the tournament in that decade would have been a lot better off had they used clay specific seedings.

Check out 1998: That year's Rome champ Rios, Hamburg champ Costa, & Monte Carlo champ Moya were all in the same quarter of the draw! Something like that could happen again in the future.

Fee
05-02-2008, 01:21 PM
Thanks Moose. I knew someone around here would have a better memory. I was only a casual fan in 1996 (meaning I only followed Sampras, and I missed a lot of good tennis because of it).

Using the rankings instead of surface specific rankings does mean that we take the chance that all the 'good players' end up in one place in the draw, but sometimes it also makes for very interesting upsets.