SaFINNISHikori
New User
It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
It's so we don't end up with the same match-ups every tournament (assuming the seeds hold)It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
Side note - I very much like the username.It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
Going by your posting history you want EVERYTHING to be easy for Novak, like it hasn't been already.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.
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.
It would be boring if every tournament featured the same exact semifinal.
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.
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 mateLook guys, it's absolutely fair to say "for $$$" or "for novelty so we do not have the same match-ups every time". But it completely defeats the purpose of seeding. Make it a random draw. Why go through the farce of "seeding"?
The #1 player should have the easiest path, as determined by seeding. It's the reward for being #1. Regardless of whether Djoker, Fed, or Nadal is #1. Otherwise it lends itself to corruption.
Look guys, it's absolutely fair to say "for $$$" 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;It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
Oh, wait! This has been compensated with Nadal facing Millman in the first round. We are even.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.It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
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.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.
Yeh kya tha bhai~?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?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.
Kaun sa part samajh me nahi aaya?Yeh kya tha bhai~?
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.Exactly this. The last time someone asked this question I almost literally brought the same answer. Well, where is the like button?
Tennis is NOT the only sport where this can happen. It often happens in the major badminton tournaments. I'd be willing to bet there are other sports where this occurs as well.It literally defeats the point of seeding. Anyone?
I meant #1 and #3, disregard title.
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.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
This. If players are not drawn randomly, they can basically manipulate the rankings in order to avoid a certain player.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.
Part chhodo bhai...Kaun sa part samajh me nahi aaya?
No it doesn't if you view it as a meritocracy led system. 1 should play 4 and 2 play 3.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.
Is thread me post #31, #33, aur #36 padho.Part chhodo bhai...
Mera reaction yeh tha
.
Samajh to gaya bhai..Is thread me post #31, #33, aur #36 padho.
Shayad main clearly samjha nahi paya.
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.Samajh to gaya bhai..
Par jaan buzkar kaun harega?? (Wo chutiye kyrgious aur tomic ki baat nhi kr rha)
Khaas kar ke top players...
Han bhai, ye baat to sochne jaisi hai.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.
Hug liya?Federer is scared of nadal n djokovic that both of them will win more than 20 slams
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?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.
Let's see if it has...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.