#1 vs #3 and #2 vs #4 format? What's going on?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by bruno hau, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. bruno hau

    bruno hau Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    145
    #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.
     
    #1
  2. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    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.
     
    #2
  3. PROTENNIS63

    PROTENNIS63 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,722
    ^^^ No, I beleive in the juniors it depends on the draw size.
     
    #3
  4. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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).
     
    #4
  5. bruno hau

    bruno hau Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    145
    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.
     
    #5
  6. Aeropro master

    Aeropro master Professional

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    899
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    are you sure about that? the way tsonga was playing against nadal during the AO, i don't think anybody could have beat him.
     
    #6
  7. crawl4

    crawl4 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    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
     
    #7
  8. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #8
  9. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    I played over 100 junior tournaments (no idea actually) and i didnt see it once. From locals to closed. Talking from personal experience.
     
    #9
  10. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    The only seeds whose position are always is the same are the #1 and #2 seeds. The rest are drawn by lot.
     
    #10
  11. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,873
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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. ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2008
    #12
  13. TB45

    TB45 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    for our subsectionals (high school tennis) we use 1v4, 2v3 but then when we move to Sectionals it goes to 1v3, 2v4. kinda wierd...
     
    #13
  14. TB45

    TB45 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    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.
     
    #14
  15. Fedace

    Fedace Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    23,292
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    They did it on purpose to get the Federer vs Nadal final. which is what everyone wants to see.
     
    #15
  16. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    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.
     
    #16
  17. Fries-N-Gravy

    Fries-N-Gravy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    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.
     
    #17
  18. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2008
    #18
  19. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    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.
     
    #19
  20. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,426
    Location:
    Moldova
    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.
     
    #20
  21. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,692
    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.
     
    #21
  22. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Tsonga was not seeded 4th so your point is a moot one.
     
    #22
  23. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2008
    #23
  24. idj49

    idj49 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    412
    You obviously weren't around here when Roddick was #3. LOL
     
    #24
  25. diggler

    diggler Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,177
    Location:
    Sydney

    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.
     
    #25
  26. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,220
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    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.
     
    #26
  27. scineram

    scineram Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Hellhole Hungary
    How the **** is Roger seeded undeservedly?
     
    #27
  28. diggler

    diggler Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,177
    Location:
    Sydney
    For clay I meant. Obviously Rafa should be seeded 1 for clay. Apologies for ambiguity.

    Ideally there would be seperate rankings for different surfaces.
     
    #28
  29. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #29
  30. diggler

    diggler Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,177
    Location:
    Sydney

    I'm just saying that's logical, I didn't say people would do it.
     
    #30
  31. illkhiboy

    illkhiboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,968
    Location:
    Karachi
    I like how you add "easily saved to your desktop" each time haha.
     
    #31
  32. scineram

    scineram Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Hellhole Hungary
    What experiment was that?
     
    #32
  33. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    Subtle hint, no? (it's not working, I should just give up ;) )

    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.
     
    #33
  34. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,916
    '96 USO tried seeding according to hardcourt ability(mainly as a way to help Agassi) & the players had a fit. Kafelnikov withdrew.

    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.
     
    #34
  35. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,299
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #35

Share This Page