Can someone please explain why tennis is the only sport in which the #1 seed and #2 seed can be in the same half of the draw?

aman92

Hall of Fame
There's no difference between 3 and 4 seeds while considering the draw....we are only talking about it right now because there's a huge gap between the top 3 and the rest
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Well, I understand if you thought it was seed #1 and #2, but what's the point of this thread now? #1 drawn with #3 makes perfect sense.
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?

I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
You have to put #1 Djoker and #2 Rafa in separate halves.
After that, I would put #4 in Djoker's draw and #3 in Rafa's draw.
Must reward the #1 player with an easier (lower ranked) draw. So I agree with you that Fed does not belong in Djoker's half.
 

Knightrider

Hall of Fame
To avoid players tanking in the tournaments leading upto the slams. Let's say you are world number 3 and have a match-up problem with the world number 2. You would want to avoid being in his half and hence tank/withdraw from the leadup tournaments bcz you would rather prefer facing no. 1 seed than the no. 2 seed. You would tank to let your ranking drop to 4 so that you can face the no. 1 seed instead of no. 2 seed.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
You have to put #1 Djoker and #2 Rafa in separate halves.
After that, I would put #4 in Djoker's draw and #3 in Rafa's draw.
Must reward the #1 player with an easier (lower ranked) draw. So I agree with you that Fed does not belong in Djoker's half.
Going by your posting history you want EVERYTHING to be easy for Novak, like it hasn't been already.
 

Pistol10

Professional
Tournament's interests!

Is there anything in Tennis that's organized as a normal sports?! Players still have points from last season!!!!!
 

Slightly D1

Professional
That is a little strange that the 4 seed isn’t paired with the 1 seed’s half. But then again, majors aren’t obliged to follow standard seeding rules.
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
Going by your posting history you want EVERYTHING to be easy for Novak, like it hasn't been already.
Do you really think Djoker cares if Fed is on his side of the draw. :rolleyes:
Djoker welcomes it. Another chance for Fed to blow match points.
 

SaFINNISHikori

New User
Look guys, it's absolutely fair to say "for $$$" or "for novelty so we do not have the same match-ups every time". But it completely defeats the purpose of seeding. Make it a random draw. Why go through the farce of "seeding"?

The #1 player should have the easiest path, as determined by seeding. It's the reward for being #1. Regardless of whether Djoker, Fed, or Nadal is #1. Otherwise it lends itself to corruption.
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
I have always thought 4 should be in 1 and 2 should be in 3. That makes sense to me. But its not like that.
Well, in other sports they reseed after each round, but in tennis that doesn't happen, so I guess it makes sense that seeds 3 and 4 have the possiblity of being drawn into either half.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Long before I started following tennis, I found the NFL playoffs ridiculous, how the top seeds are constantly matched up with the lower seeds every round.

Certain protections come with a high ranking, it doesn’t mean the tournament should go out of its way to give the absolute easiest draw.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
You have to put #1 Djoker and #2 Rafa in separate halves.
After that, I would put #4 in Djoker's draw and #3 in Rafa's draw.
Must reward the #1 player with an easier (lower ranked) draw. So I agree with you that Fed does not belong in Djoker's half.

Del Potro seeded 3, was on the side of Nadal, seeded 1, in the US Open last year.
There is no controversy here!
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Look guys, it's absolutely fair to say "for $$$" or "for novelty so we do not have the same match-ups every time". But it completely defeats the purpose of seeding. Make it a random draw. Why go through the farce of "seeding"?

The #1 player should have the easiest path, as determined by seeding. It's the reward for being #1. Regardless of whether Djoker, Fed, or Nadal is #1. Otherwise it lends itself to corruption.
So basically going by your logic the draw from R3 onwards would be fixed once the seedings have been decided... #1 would be drawn to face #32 in 3rd round, #16 in 4th round, #8 in QF and so on... This isn't how this works mate
 

Max G.

Legend
Look guys, it's absolutely fair to say "for $$$" or "for novelty so we do not have the same match-ups every time". But it completely defeats the purpose of seeding. Make it a random draw. Why go through the farce of "seeding"?
Because then you might have 1 and 2 meet in the first round, which would be dumb.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?

I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
Because;
1. Federer is too lazy to play a whole season, as needed to have a #2 ranking (which was enough in 2017, but it's not clearly the case anymore)
2. Federer already lost his chance of not having Nole in his half of the draw in Wimbledon, not winning that title
3. US Open is always Nadal friendly
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?

I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
Absolutely agree. It was not a problem in the chaotic 90s when the pecking order changed all the time and form changed from month to month and surface dominance greatly varied, but in the Big 3 era it is preposterous. It REWARDS the no 2 for not being good enough to be no 1, by having 1 and 3 slug it out against each other while he sits and waits, smiling.

1 vs 3 means that the no 1 has to theoretically beat BOTH players, while the no 2 does not. How stupid is that?

About as stupid as a 1 vs 5 or 4 vs 8 QF.
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
You have to put #1 Djoker and #2 Rafa in separate halves.
After that, I would put #4 in Djoker's draw and #3 in Rafa's draw.
Must reward the #1 player with an easier (lower ranked) draw. So I agree with you that Fed does not belong in Djoker's half.
Fed is having none of that and will rather lose before facing Novak Luck-ovic again. Talent almost beat the lucky and juicing Serb at Wimbledon. Djokovic's diet juice allows him to never cramp and play forever.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
We should just put the Big 3 in the same bracket on a 3 sided court so that people stop complaining about draws
 
To avoid players tanking in the tournaments leading upto the slams. Let's say you are world number 3 and have a match-up problem with the world number 2. You would want to avoid being in his half and hence tank/withdraw from the leadup tournaments bcz you would rather prefer facing no. 1 seed than the no. 2 seed. You would tank to let your ranking drop to 4 so that you can face the no. 1 seed instead of no. 2 seed.
Yeh kya tha bhai~?
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
To avoid players tanking in the tournaments leading upto the slams. Let's say you are world number 3 and have a match-up problem with the world number 2. You would want to avoid being in his half and hence tank/withdraw from the leadup tournaments bcz you would rather prefer facing no. 1 seed than the no. 2 seed. You would tank to let your ranking drop to 4 so that you can face the no. 1 seed instead of no. 2 seed.
Exactly this. The last time someone asked this question I almost literally brought the same answer. Well, where is the like button? ;)
 

Knightrider

Hall of Fame
Exactly this. The last time someone asked this question I almost literally brought the same answer. Well, where is the like button? ;)
Not only this. There will be all sorts of calculation let's say among seeds 24-32 depending upon which of the top 8 seeds they would want to face in the top 3. That would result in some dubious withdrawls, losses, tankings in the smaller tournaments leading upto the big ones.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
There's no difference between 3 and 4 seeds while considering the draw....we are only talking about it right now because there's a huge gap between the top 3 and the rest
As long as Fed Djoker are not the top 2 seeds, there has been a tendency to see them playing in the SF. This tendency has given Nadal a huge advantage from 2008 to 2012.
 

gn

G.O.A.T.
To avoid players tanking in the tournaments leading upto the slams. Let's say you are world number 3 and have a match-up problem with the world number 2. You would want to avoid being in his half and hence tank/withdraw from the leadup tournaments bcz you would rather prefer facing no. 1 seed than the no. 2 seed. You would tank to let your ranking drop to 4 so that you can face the no. 1 seed instead of no. 2 seed.
This. If players are not drawn randomly, they can basically manipulate the rankings in order to avoid a certain player.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Well, I understand if you thought it was seed #1 and #2, but what's the point of this thread now? #1 drawn with #3 makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't if you view it as a meritocracy led system. 1 should play 4 and 2 play 3.

But tennis' draw-making (not seeding) system is such that the location of 3/4 is decided by a coin flip/draw, as are the following sets of seeds.
 

Knightrider

Hall of Fame
Samajh to gaya bhai..
Par jaan buzkar kaun harega?? (Wo chutiye kyrgious aur tomic ki baat nhi kr rha)
Khaas kar ke top players...
Medvedev bhai Qf me Djokovic bhai ko face karna chahega, naki Nadal bhai ko. To agar uska rank 7 hota, to wo chahta ki uska rank 8 ho. 7 se 8 par jane ke liye ho sakta hai ki wo tank kare kisi match me. Isse chhote mote tournaments ka quality kharab hoga.
 

Tshooter

Legend
The Tennis Gods simply do not want Fed-Nadal to happen at the USO. There would be too much interest in the match and when they retire Tennis would fall off too steep a cliff to recover.
 
Medvedev bhai Qf me Djokovic bhai ko face karna chahega, naki Nadal bhai ko. To agar uska rank 7 hota, to wo chahta ki uska rank 8 ho. 7 se 8 par jane ke liye ho sakta hai ki wo tank kare kisi match me. Isse chhote mote tournaments ka quality kharab hoga.
Han bhai, ye baat to sochne jaisi hai.
Nadal to medvedev ki gaand mar lega, lekin djokovic uske saame struggle karega....
Lekin jo khiladi mein pramanikta hogi, jaise ki big3 ya thiem ya aisa koi, wo aisa na kare
 

TripleATeam

Legend
No it doesn't if you view it as a meritocracy led system. 1 should play 4 and 2 play 3.

But tennis' draw-making (not seeding) system is such that the location of 3/4 is decided by a coin flip/draw, as are the following sets of seeds.
Then you get the question of why a #1 should be treated better than other players. I understand both ways of looking at it - if a player is #1, it should be harder to knock them down from being #1. Someone has to wrest it away from them. On the other hand, why should #16 face #17 in the R4?
1 v 2
1 v 4, 3 v 2
1 v 8, 5 v 4, 3 v 6, 7 v 2

You see what's happening? The lowest seed of each round is going up against the toughest seed of the previous round. For instance, #2 is going up against #3 in the previous round, likely a harder opponent in the semi, and therefore will be more tired in the final.

This doesn't just happen in the semi/final, though. If you look to the semis, #1 is against #4. In the previous round, #1 faced #8, but #4 faced #5. Again, the #1's opponent in the current round had the hardest matchup of the last round. This happens all throughout the tournament. It's tough to justify giving the #1 the easiest opponent in every single round of every single tournament.

In effect it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. #1 plays the easiest opponents, then wins and stays #1.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
As long as Fed Djoker are not the top 2 seeds, there has been a tendency to see them playing in the SF. This tendency has given Nadal a huge advantage from 2008 to 2012.
Let's see if it has...
2008
Australian Open: Same half but Nadal didn't make the final so no difference
FO: Djokovic in Nadal's half. Nadal beat both to win the title
Wimby: Djokovic lost early so made no difference
USO:Djokovic Fed in same half but Nadal
lost to Murray in the semi

2009
AO: Djokovic lost early so made no difference
FO: Again Djokovic lost early so made no difference
Wimby: Nadal didn't play
USO: Djokovic in Federer's half but again Nadal lost in the other semi final

2010
AO: Both Nadal and Djokovic lost early
FO:Djokovic in Nadal’s half but lost to Melzer in the QF
Wimby: Federer lost in the QF so no difference
USO: Djokovic Federer in the Same half and one can say Nadal benefited from this

2011
AO: Nadal lost early so no difference
FO: Djokovic in Federer's half and again a Rafa benefited from that
WB: Federer lost in QF so no difference
USO : Djokovic beat both

2012
AO: Federer in Nadal’s half which Nadal won but lost to Djokovic in the final
FO: same half and Nadal defeated Djokovic in the final
Wimby: Nadal lost early
USO : Nadal didn't play

So only USO 2010 and FO 2011 you can say the draw directly benefitted Rafa. Other times either they avoided each other or someone lost early so the draw didn't matter anyways
 

JLyon

Hall of Fame
3/4 can flip flop just like seeds 5-8 are random placed amongst each quarter, so 1/5 QF could happen
 
Top