A new way to make seedings fairer?

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

By rankings, it should makenit fairer and will do even more to protect the higher seeds, albeit marginally.

R32: If all 32 seeds make it to R32, it would be:

1 vs 32
2 vs 31
3 vs 30
4 vs 29

Etc.

R16:

1 vs 16
2 vs 15...

You get the idea.

Out of all the matches so far, Wawrinka (4) and Raonic (13), Federer (3) and Berdych (6) and Nishikori (7) and Tsonga (9) have followed this path.

This seeding rewards the top players and makes it objectively fairer.

You might say it ruins all intrigue and blockbusters the current draw brings, but this could also bring new great matches too.

There's also the perfect symmetry it brings and if all the matches went according to seeds, if you add up the two numbers of the two seeds in that match, it will be the same for all other matches in that round.

 

[reaper]

I agree with that, except I don't think you can do it week to week on the circuit, especially at masters Series level where they play events in consecutive weeks. If everyone shows up, you'd wind up with the same seeds playing each other at the same stage of the tournament in consecutive weeks, which is not ideal.

 

[Inanimate_object]

What this does is seed by player, not by pair. In essence, creating a distinction between the Number 1 and Number 2 seed. I agree with the sentiments shared by the poster above. If each player plays to their seeding (and in fact you may say this system encourages that even more) you will see the same match ups over and over again, which isn't that great to watch. This isn't a problem you see in football, ice hockey or basketball

 

[beltsman]

It's a nice idea but I wouldn't like the same matchups tournament after tournament - especially in a sport all about matchups.

They should create a Money in the Bank briefcase and wear slam title belts though.

 

[RoddickAce]

It's a nice idea but I wouldn't like the same matchups tournament after tournament - especially in a sport all about matchups.

They should create a Money in the Bank briefcase and wear slam title belts though.

Very strong relevance between your post and username.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

After last year its clear the only way to make the Seedings Fair is to just skip straight to the final and make Djokovic play Fed and Murray 1v2.

 

[skip1969]

i'm not sure they could be any more fair. 32 seeds just about makes the first week of a slam almost unwatchable. but i guess it's what the players wanted.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

I agree with that, except I don't think you can do it week to week on the circuit, especially at masters Series level where they play events in consecutive weeks. If everyone shows up, you'd wind up with the same seeds playing each other at the same stage of the tournament in consecutive weeks, which is not ideal.

What this does is seed by player, not by pair. In essence, creating a distinction between the Number 1 and Number 2 seed. I agree with the sentiments shared by the poster above. If each player plays to their seeding (and in fact you may say this system encourages that even more) you will see the same match ups over and over again, which isn't that great to watch. This isn't a problem you see in football, ice hockey or basketball

It's a nice idea but I wouldn't like the same matchups tournament after tournament - especially in a sport all about matchups.

They should create a Money in the Bank briefcase and wear slam title belts though.

But how often have the 32 seeds all made it to the R32 of a major? Never.

How about the top 16 seeds into the R16? Never.

Top 8 seeds in the quarters? Never.

So in essence, you probably won't be getting the same matchups each time. This idea can be just for the slams. Also, the rankings of the top 32 players in the world will change throughout the year, obviously. Except from RG to Wimbledon seeing as there isn't a whole lot of time between them, the rankings should change a bit each time.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I think the best way to make the seedings fairer would be to reduce it to 16 seeds.

 

[NastyWinners]

It's a nice idea but I wouldn't like the same matchups tournament after tournament - especially in a sport all about matchups.

They should create a Money in the Bank briefcase and wear slam title belts though.

As long as HHH isn't the surprise entrant then we are good.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The draws should be decided randomly and only the number 1 and 2 should be granted that they will be in different halves.

That is "fair".

Everything else favours the top players.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

The draws should be decided randomly and only the number 1 and 2 should be granted that they will be in different halves.

That is "fair".

Everything else favours the top players.

That's pretty much the current system... which is objectively, not as fair as it could be.

I think the best way to make the seedings fairer would be to reduce it to 16 seeds.

The whole point of seedings was to protect the top players from losing early in the tournament, or at least, make it harder for that to happen. And it's good for the tournament if the top players all make it through to the final rounds; more fans will attend the matches.

World no.1 vs no 17 in the first round of a major? That is so unfair and touhh for both players. A nightmare for tournament organisers and directors too.

So Tomic vs Djokovic first round at the AO. Sounds stupid lol.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

That's pretty much the current system... which is objectively, not as fair as it could be.

I think that you didn't pay attention to what I have written.

It is not the current system.

There was a time, however .....

 

[Deleted member 688153]

The whole point of seedings was to protect the top players from losing early in the tournament, or at least, make it harder for that to happen. And it's good for the tournament if the top players all make it through to the final rounds; more fans will attend the matches.

World no.1 vs no 17 in the first round of a major? That is so unfair and touhh for both players. A nightmare for tournament organisers and directors too.

So Tomic vs Djokovic first round at the AO. Sounds stupid lol.

Sounds fine to me.
He's the World #1, why should he get easy 1Rs? - if he can't handle that maybe the system is why he's #1.

The problem is -as you say- that the tournaments want all the top seeds to survive because money rules all (never mind that that's actually bad for the sport).

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

I think that you didn't pay attention to what I have written.

It is not the current system.

There was a time, however .....

Oh I see, no seeds except for top 2 players on opposite sides of the draw.

Aren't you a Federer fan? Federer Djokovic first round match and Fed loses? How does that sound?

 

[Bukmeikara]

Let's think for a second, you are the 32th seed before a Slam event. You are in good form and you think that the R16 is in your reach, but using your system that means you would meet the number 1 seed in round 3 which is a 99% loss. What do you do in this case, you lose your ranking ...... Not to mention that this way matches would be a lot easier to fix

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Oh I see, no seeds except for top 2 players on opposite sides of the draw.

Aren't you a Federer fan? Federer Djokovic first round match and Fed loses? How does that sound?

I am a fan of tennis, who happens to like Federer's game.

I don't care who Federer will be drawn against.

If he is good enough, he will win, if not, tough luck.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Sounds fine to me.
He's the World #1, why should he get easy 1Rs? - if he can't handle that maybe the system is why he's #1.

The problem is -as you say- that the tournaments want all the top seeds to survive because money rules all (never mind that that's actually bad for the sport).

It's not fair because the greatest benefit of being number are the easier draws. Also often enough both finalist would have completely different path towards the final which many would consider unfair. For example Upper side you have to beat Tomic, Paire, Dolgopolov, Monfils, NIshikori, Federer and the other half you go past Sela, Kuznestov, Almagro, Robredo, Ferrer and Raonic. See the difference?!

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Sounds fine to me.
He's the World #1, why should he get easy 1Rs? - if he can't handle that maybe the system is why he's #1.

The problem is -as you say- that the tournaments want all the top seeds to survive because money rules all (never mind that that's actually bad for the sport).

look at the mess that is the WTA. Seeda hardly go as expected because they all suck.

If seeds go as planned at grand slams in the ATP, you get awesome blockbusters that you would never have gotten if there were only 16 seedings, or even no seedings.

If there were 16 seeds, Nadal could have met Verdasco first round at AO 2009. How pathetic and anticlimactic is that? See what I mean?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Let's think for a second, you are the 32th seed before a Slam event. You are in good form and you think that the R16 is in your reach, but using your system that means you would meet the number 1 seed in round 3 which is a 99% loss. What do you do in this case, you lose your ranking ...... Not to mention that this way matches would be a lot easier to fix

It's also silly to give the #1 the easiest match.
Giving the top players privileges like that just reinforces their position.
You should have to really fight to keep the position - not cruise along.

As far I'm concerned if you're #1 you're not some revered king to be showered with freebies - you're a player like all the others who fought their way to the top of the pile and as a result you now have a big target on your head.

Being #1 in tennis is like holding the Iron Throne - or at least that's what it should be like.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Let's think for a second, you are the 32th seed before a Slam event. You are in good form and you think that the R16 is in your reach, but using your system that means you would meet the number 1 seed in round 3 which is a 99% loss. What do you do in this case, you lose your ranking ...... Not to mention that this way matches would be a lot easier to fix

Cmon now, with the current system, no.32 seed is certain to draw a very high seed, someone from the top 3 or so I'm guessing. A 99% chance for a loss either way.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It's not fair because the greatest benefit of being number are the easier draws. Also often enough both finalist would have completely different path towards the final which many would consider unfair. For example Upper side you have to beat Tomic, Paire, Dolgopolov, Monfils, NIshikori, Federer and the other half you go past Sela, Kuznestov, Almagro, Robredo, Ferrer and Raonic. See the difference?!

That's just it - IMO there shouldn't be any "benefit" at all to being #1 or having a high seeding.
The ranking is more than enough privilege in itself - you get into the history books as having once been officially the best among millions of tennis players in the world.

Titles are the rewards in this game.

The only importance of the seeding the way I see it is so the best players don't face off in early rounds and spoil the later rounds.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

look at the mess that is the WTA. Seeds hardly go as expected because they all suck.

Lol

If seeds go as planned at grand slams in the ATP, you get awesome blockbusters that you would never have gotten if there were only 16 seedings, or even no seedings.

If there were 16 seeds, Nadal could have met Verdasco first round at AO 2009. How pathetic and anticlimactic is that? See what I mean?

As I said above, it is important to make sure the best players don't face off too early and ruin the later rounds - but we also don't want to give the seeded players a ride on easy street.

 

[gn]

Hewitt does not always disappoint. This is something I was thinking about as well. We won't be having the same rivalry tourney after tourney. Not all top players show up every tournament + there is always a chance for an upset + players move up and down in rankings.

 

[gn]

Let's think for a second, you are the 32th seed before a Slam event. You are in good form and you think that the R16 is in your reach, but using your system that means you would meet the number 1 seed in round 3 which is a 99% loss. What do you do in this case, you lose your ranking ...... Not to mention that this way matches would be a lot easier to fix

If you're in "good" form, you can beat No.1 in R32. How about in-form No.17 facing No.1 then?

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Lol


As I said above, it is important to make sure the best players don't face off too early and ruin the later rounds - but we also don't want to give the seeded players a ride on easy street.

Is that lol a sign of disagreement? It really is true though.

Let's look at the case of Djokovic. A ton of points to defend this year. Everyone is targeting him and wants his head, as Simon mentioned before their match. It is tiring mentally and physically to back it up each week and make it the final of every tournament you play. To add to his dilemmas, thanks to the shoddy new seeding system that makes it top 16 seeds only in a major, he as well as Fed, Murray and the other top players, can draw top 20 players in the first round.

What ever happened to using the first few rounds to "warm up" and then peaking at the right amount of a slam come deep in the second week?

The top 20 players lose out too cause now they are at the mercy of the draw more than ever.

 

[tennisaddict]

The draw system is fine as it is. Just that some intelligence needs to be built in the computer systems to avoid situations like Kohli constantly facing a top seed in R1 for continuous majors.

If you have a tough draw as a non seeded player in a major , it should average out over a period.

Ryan Harrison perhaps lost all belief in life with this tough draws. There are some other players who luck out mostly winning couple of rounds when they have no business to win because they met other journeymen or qualifiers.

The draw system should ensure any player ranked less than 64 faces a seed before R3.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Is that lol a sign of disagreement? It really is true though.

Let's look at the case of Djokovic. A ton of points to defend this year. Everyone is targeting him and wants his head, as Simon mentioned before their match. It is tiring mentally and physically to back it up each week and make it the final of every tournament you play. To add to his dilemmas, thanks to the shoddy new seeding system that makes it top 16 seeds only in a major, he as well as Fed, Murray and the other top players, can draw top 20 players in the first round.

What ever happened to using the first few rounds to "warm up" and then peaking at the right amount of a slam come deep in the second week?

The top 20 players lose out too cause now they are at the mercy of the draw more than ever.

No I was agreeing with you.