Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Rodneck got the easy draw (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=7989)

barry 07-03-2004 09:35 AM

Rodneck got the easy draw
 
Can you imagine how a player can reach the finals of a grand slam event and never have played a ranked player below 31?

His opponents were ranked 181,128,31,90,23,63. What an easy setup draw.

It is by belief we should start seeding the 128 players based on the current 52-week rankings. Might make the outcome of the grand slam event different, but we would see better quality tennis.

dantyem108 07-03-2004 10:09 AM

so, 23 (shalken) isn't below 31??? Check your own facts before you post, lol

Jack Romeo 07-03-2004 10:14 AM

If I remember correctly, Pete Sampras won the 2000 Wimbledon title without having to face anyone in the top 20. His finals opponent, Patrick Rafter, was 27th (though seeded 10th) at that time.

joebedford 07-03-2004 10:26 AM

Wouldn't that be "above", and "23"?

perfmode 07-03-2004 10:49 AM

Half of the top 32 seeds were in his draw. Shut the f*** up. The top seeds were all beaten by these "non top 32" players.

mlee2 07-03-2004 11:31 AM

Rankings don't mean squat when a "lower" player like Ancic played great tennis throughout the whole tournament.

You're probably the same type of person who'll discredit Roddick ("Ancic should've won/Roddick got lucky") for beating an on-fire Ancic in 4 sets while Henman just "simply got outplayed" despite getting his *** kicked around as Ancic's b!tch.

In your obvious haste to discredit "Rodneck," you forgot 23 is a higher number than 31.

You're either incredibly biased or an idiot. Either way, STFU.

TwistServe 07-03-2004 11:32 AM

The problem is most the top players are not grass court players, so they lose to these "non top 32"..

For instance, Coria, Moya, Gaudio, Chela, Robredo, guga, pavel, ferrero, Safin, etc... They all got knocked out or didn't participate..

So on paper, it may seem Roddick had an easy draw by only playing "non top 32", but in essense he played the best grass courters of the tornament.

Chadwixx 07-03-2004 12:30 PM

who are these top grass court players you are speaking of? certainly u cant consider popp, dent and schalken potential wimbledon winners.

look at the points race this year, how are the ppl roddick plays doing?

here is a link, try to find the names of any on this list

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/championsrace/

just compare the draws of federer to that of roddick, if u cant see the difference watch tennis for a 2nd year and come back.

Chadwixx 07-03-2004 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfmode
Half of the top 32 seeds were in his draw. Shut the f*** up. The top seeds were all beaten by these "non top 32" players.

henman, arazi, gonzalez, novak, robredo, hrbaty, horna, schuettler, spadea, chela, massu, and pavel. those were the seeds on his side of the draw. not exactly a group u would pick to win wimbledon. henman and philopoussis are the only potential threats in the whole bottom section.

VamosRafa 07-03-2004 01:08 PM

Given their prior perfomances here, Henman and Philippousis were threats to Roddick -- particularly Henman, who has a good record against Roddick.

But why is the supposed ease of Roddick's draw relevant? :?: It didn't impact Federer, whose draw may have looked tougher on paper, but turned out to be basically a cake-walk for him. It's not as if he's going to be exhausted going into the final. Neither guy is.

At the end of the day, the two best grasscourt players in the draw are left standing. Which is what almost everyone expected anyway.

I realize there's a sense of disappointment that Andy is a contender in these events. But it's a fact, and no amount of whining and complaining is going to change it. :wink:

Chadwixx 07-03-2004 01:18 PM

id hardly consider roddick a great grass court player, hell, lendl volleyd better than him.

its just a shame they put all the talent in the top side of the draw and we only get to see bottom half matches on espn.

VamosRafa 07-03-2004 01:25 PM

Roddick won the last two Queen's Trophies. This year he beat Kucera, Ancic, Srichaphan, Hewitt and Grosjean, on his way to the Trophy. Not exactly the easiest draw.

And Roger won Halle, and has the biggest grasscourt streak going. I believe Andy has the second best, with his only loss in two seasons coming in last year's Wimbly semis.

So no matter how the draw was divided up, tomorrow's final is hardly a surprise. :roll:

PJVA 07-03-2004 01:30 PM

I think that Roddick just has luck in getting easy draws, while Federer has the worst luck. In the French Open for example Roddick's quarter was loaded with Americans and only Fabrice Santoro and Chela as clay courters. Federer had Guga in the third round!

Now in Wimby, Roddick didn't have the caliber of opponents that Federer did. Federer had to face Karlovic, Hewitt, and Grosjean. Roddick's last three opponents were Pop, Shalken, and Ancic.

AAAA 07-03-2004 02:00 PM

Federer played Hewitt and Grosjean in the QF and SF. Roddick played Schalken and then Ancic. The apparent ease with which Federer beat Hewitt and Grosjean isn't the point. The point is Hewitt and Grosjean are much better players than Schalken and Ancic.

barry 07-03-2004 02:15 PM

Intesesting observations, if the draw does not matter, maybe the event should just seed by ranking. Then this point is mute.

Agassi use to get the easy draws, played the same guy at the U.S. Open 3 years in a row, delgato. I think it only fair to all players, your 52 week ranking is where you should be seeded.

What a joke Seeding Venus number 3 and the heavy one number 1. Jen and lindsay were ranked higher.

Why let some tournament official decide!

perfmode 07-03-2004 02:43 PM

Having a high rank/seed is only a privelage that you get. If you work hard and play well all year, you get an easier draw. That does not mean that you are going to win the event. It's like qualifying for pole position in a race. You get an advantage for being the best coming into the event.

Chadwixx 07-03-2004 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry
Intesesting observations, if the draw does not matter, maybe the event should just seed by ranking. Then this point is mute.

but if they dont place the seeds in the proper places in the draw it doesnt matter. federer played hewitt in the quarters, 1 vs 7. while roddick was scheduled to play schuettler, 2 vs 8. anyone who has ever ran a tournament knows the sums should be equal, that of 9 for the quarters, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, and 4 vs 5. id say the seedings catered toward roddick. they also put the #3 seed into federers half so u get a 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4 semi.

hard to debate the evidence that the draw was easier for roddick. not just in player caliber but in the seeding alone.

devila 07-03-2004 04:06 PM

I see grass court fans here!!!!! :lol:

VamosRafa 07-03-2004 04:44 PM

Roger and Andy were seeded where they were supposed to be seeded -- based on their ATP entry system ranking.

If the tourney officials did any rigging, as alleged, I'd say it was done to benefit "Our Tim" rather than Roddick. That at least would make some sense. :wink:

Chopin 07-03-2004 04:55 PM

I agree with VamosRafa


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse