merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
So you mean the only chance of getting an upset because of this is Nadal playing the qualies, right?
Haven't been following tennis recently, so--what are the chances he qualifies directly?
AO 2018 to have a shot clock, 16 seeds at slams from 2019
So you mean the only chance of getting an upset because of this is Nadal playing the qualies, right?
Haven't been following tennis recently, so--what are the chances he qualifies directly?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The move came about, because the dirtballers threatened to boycott Wimbledon, not because of some change of the number of the players in the draw.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
We should also make rules to allow just one serve. Dont understand rationale behind that. Other than encouraging serveboating. It's stupidity to give a free hit in the natural course of the game.
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Not sure if trolling
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
Don't think 16 seeds is good. Seems aimed at TV ratings. Prefer 32 seeds at Majors. Masters are smaller field so no issue with it there but not at Major.
Shot clock maybe be problematic, can see the crowd getting involved. Bit like cyclops first came out. Lots of whistles and noise.
The only reason for shot clock is the ATP don't support umpires enough to follow the rules. This is not a rule change rather forces the umpire to openly enforce the rules.
Shot clock maybe be problematic, can see the crowd getting involved. Bit like cyclops first came out. Lots of whistles and noise.
The only reason for shot clock is the ATP don't support umpires enough to follow the rules. This is not a rule change rather forces the umpire to openly enforce the rules.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
So, your rationale would be: "On serve games, let's give the advantage to the returner." Right?
Seems legit.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Shot clock is late by 13 years. Should have been introduced in 2005.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
No one is catching Pete's 16 seed slam record.(I think it stands at 13)
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
Probably 86ed the idea to appease Rafa.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I won't be watching much tennis in 2019, thanks to the Amazon Prime nonsense. And now there's this shot clock business. The tennis authorities have lost their heads, panicking that tennis has very few star names beyond the big 4.
16 seeds at the majors, I agree with. Back to how it was before 2001 Wimbledon, when players ranked 17-32 could face a seed in the first round, whereas 32 seeds means that no such match is possible until the third round at the earliest. The logic of the tennis authorities for going back to 16 seeds seems obvious, too. 16 seeds makes the top positions somewhat less secure than 32 seeds, shakes things up more etc. and the tennis authorities obviously want new talent to rise quicker.
16 seeds at the majors, I agree with. Back to how it was before 2001 Wimbledon, when players ranked 17-32 could face a seed in the first round, whereas 32 seeds means that no such match is possible until the third round at the earliest. The logic of the tennis authorities for going back to 16 seeds seems obvious, too. 16 seeds makes the top positions somewhat less secure than 32 seeds, shakes things up more etc. and the tennis authorities obviously want new talent to rise quicker.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not at all. 2001 Wimbledon changed to 32 seeds because of clay-courters threatening a boycott. Complicating matters further at the time was that Wimbledon didn't seed according to the world rankings, unlike the other majors (1996 US Open excepted, which caused big controversy and workaholic Kafelnikov withdrawing).
For some reason, the other majors decided to also move to 32 seeds, and that's how it's been since.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
That and they also want the current major records to stand for as long as possible it seems.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
It means 2 top 20 players could potentially meet in the first round. #1 could conceivably draw world #17 for a first round match where another first round match could have 2 qualifiers. I always find it hilarious and lopsided when 1 first round match has 2 top 50 players in it when you have others where the higher ranked player is still ranked below 100.
While I can see the logic of reducing the number of seeds, I can see the complaint from some players that if they are in the top 20 and drawing a top 10 player for their very first match at a slam that has a 128 player draw. However this is essentially the possibility at masters events with only 16 seeds as well so the coin flips both ways.
Bravo to the shot clock as well...it needs to happen
AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
I don't think it's even good for the event, because what if their stars go out in the early rounds?
It seems that both Federer and Nadal have reservations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/42074327
https://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/news/federer-and-co-shun-rule-changes/123022
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Move back to 16 seeds definitely a good idea: it will reduce the dominance of the top players and make things more competitive again, and we won't be stuck with the same 3-5 players winning everything for 15 years. At first, many fans of the top players will think it's a bad thing, but it'll turn out to be great. We need more upsets and better first weeks, and fewer obvious semi-final draws.
atp2015
Hall of Fame
I think Fedal should be seeded 1 and 2 for life in all grandslams for the benefit of tennis.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I don't think the results prove what you think: the effects of more seeds are both short-term and long-term. Any slight change in results will have long-term ramifications, so a more significant effect appearing a few years later is to be expected. For the same reason, we should expect that at first it seems that going back to 16 has only a slight effect, but that it will eventually turn out to be a major effect.
Statistically speaking, it must be the case that, over a sufficient portion of results, a change in the number of seeds makes a difference to the likelihood of upsets. That doesn't mean it's going to be the case in every tournament but it is going to be the case overall.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
That will presumably give new potential stars the possibility to shine, then. Tennis has endured for 30 years with 16 seeds at the end of the 20th century, I'm sure it will survive if we revert to that (granted, there was no Twitter or Internet fan-followings at the time, so some despair from the most "the world is out to get my guy" groups is to be expected, but still).
Or they could also go the other way, try 128 seeds and dictate that #1 *must* face #128 in R1, #2 must face #127, etc. At least they could get rid of the draws, then. Not sure that would be more exciting for tennis and the fans...
also, top players are supposed to beat a guy who is top 20-rop 30. If they can't, maybe they're better home training for the next event. Otherwise, let's give them a bye like in the good all days: #1: bye to the final; #2: bye to the semis, etc. Stars would be there everytime at the tail end of tournaments, alright--and it would suck big time.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
There is no shot clock for the main draw at the AO in 2018. They are merely continuing to trial it in the qualies.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
F**K!!!! F**K!!!! F**K!!!! F**K!!!!
Now Rafa is going to win AO and Roger's season will be in ruins.
F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!F**K!!!!
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
Calm down dude.. In 2017 there was no shot clock either. You are undermining your own fav by saying he is so dependent on shot clock. He played whole his life without such stupidity and achieved reasonable success.
corerotation
New User
I can't find confirmation of the clock only used in qualies. Could you post a link pls?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
It was in Euronews, if that helps, and published as a clarification of the earlier statement that suggested otherwise.
So if that was wrong, I don't know who's right.
So if that was wrong, I don't know who's right.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Same as in a Wimbledon final.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Why not put Fedal in the final directly while we are at it and let the rest fight through the tournament?
The Harkleroad
Rookie
I did not say the number of players in the draw increased.The move came about, because the dirtballers threatened to boycott Wimbledon, not because of some change of the number of the players in the draw.
What i said is that 64 player draws back then have 16 seeds. The Lipton Championships/Ericsson Open had a 96 player draw and had 32 seeds.
So it only made sense that a 128 player draw tournament have 32 seeds. That and to protect stars and to satisfy both clay and grass specialists who were not happy with the seeding system back then.
The Harkleroad
Rookie
A few years ago i read from some tennis blog that the biggest beneficiaries of the change from 16 to 32 seeds were the players seeded 17-32 and the one that suffered the most were the unseeded players (33-128).
The top players? they gained some benefit but not earth shattering.
The top players? they gained some benefit but not earth shattering.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You literally said that it made sense to change the numbers of the seeded because of the bigger draws.
It cannot get more literal than that.
And, grass specialists had nothing to do with the change. It was the dirtballers that threatened to boycott Wimbledon as I already said.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Well, if Wimbledon and the others slams were played on red clay, we would never do that, no?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You are wrong.
The current top players yield too much star power for the umpires to "only need to grow a pair".
Even if they started doing it, they, rather than the player at fault, would have been derided and scolded (I would imagine by their own bosses behind closed doors too).
If the top players can influence the change of the surface of a tournament (not every tournament, but still), imagine what is the pressure on the tournament officials to "do the right thing".
atp2015
Hall of Fame
You mean 2 spots reserved for them in semis? No, they need match practice to play well. But could offer bye till 3rd round.
AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
That will presumably give new potential stars the possibility to shine, then. Tennis has endured for 30 years with 16 seeds at the end of the 20th century, I'm sure it will survive if we revert to that (granted, there was no Twitter or Internet fan-followings at the time, so some despair from the most "the world is out to get my guy" groups is to be expected, but still).
Or they could also go the other way, try 128 seeds and dictate that #1 *must* face #128 in R1, #2 must face #127, etc. At least they could get rid of the draws, then. Not sure that would be more exciting for tennis and the fans...
also, top players are supposed to beat a guy who is top 20-rop 30. If they can't, maybe they're better home training for the next event. Otherwise, let's give them a bye like in the good all days: #1: bye to the final; #2: bye to the semis, etc. Stars would be there everytime at the tail end of tournaments, alright--and it would suck big time.
Your reply doesn't have much to do with my comment, which is that it's not good for the TOURNEY (which has to sell tickets) if the big names go out in the early rounds.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Why would they? Serious question. Why are you afraid that top 5 players are now in danger of losing (like, all of them? really?) should they face a top 20-30 player in the first couple of rounds? Aren't they supposed to be stronger than them and, you know, *beat* them? I fail to see how ticket sales would suffer if a tournament offers more interesting matches from the get-go, instead of basically nothing during the first week, and hope a couple of great matches come along afterwards? (Results last year, apart from AO which was amazing all-around, were one great match (Wawrinka-Murray) and nothing else at RG, one great match (Müller-Nadal) and a couple of enjoyable ones in the later rounds at Wimbledon, and... well, nothing (except if you're counting Del Potro-Thiem, which wasn't that bad, I guess) at USO. A couple of great matches and a few good ones in three consecutive slams was really awful, to be honest--I fail to see how having even just four or eight seeds could be worse than the quality (or lack of) of the last three slams of 2017 as far as ticket sales are concerned, so 16 is nothing to be afraid of.)
prairiegirl
Hall of Fame
This is racist.
prairiegirl
Hall of Fame
If you read this carefully, the primary criticism is leveled against the shorter sets, and that is not happening.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
link please, this one seems to think it's all tournament
http://www.euronews.com/2017/11/21/australian-open-to-feature-shot-clocks
hasn't his hero or Uncle Toni advocated the same thing? It ain't trolling - just another instance of 'what's good for Rafa is best for the game'.
Similar threads
