does being ranked no. 2/3/4/5 had any signficant meaning to player?

[hlkimfung]

no. 2
the only pro is not to face no.1 until final in any event. Might not be very helpful if top 4 are close in terms of level, like Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Chang, unlike Fed/Nadal >>>>> than the rest

no. 3
usually people mention top 3 as final prize in many other event - gold/silver/bornze, just not tennis, other than that, no advantage

no.4
like no.2, being no.4 makethe seeding cut off in big event. As above, it might not be very helpful if top 8 are very close in term of level, though not as likely as the top 4

no 5.
just half of the top 10, but being no 5 sound like a lot higher than no 6

youre thoughts?

[tennis_hand]

no 5 is the happiest one.

[hlkimfung]

Sampras was seeded no.4 in US open 2000 and people were all over it. Pete said "big deal?"

maybe player don;t care too much being ranked/seeded 3 or 4

However, he was standing fifth in the lineup for Hannover 2000, all dress up. He told PMAc he was uncomfortable standing that far behind in the line, showing he DID mind being ranked no.5, though the year end TMC is a round robin event, seeding didn't really make difference

[hlkimfung]

also in US Open 2002, Seneram defeding champ, was seeded 5th. The top 4 rush to the draw when it annouce and see who play Senera in the Qtr, Davenport did and she said '****', and she lost that match