Does Wimbledon's mass exodus of seeds show that we don't need to revert to only 16 seeds?

[Aussie Darcy]

Obvious spoilers here:

This years Wimbledon has seen a record number of seeds fall in the 1R with a whopping 21 seeds knocked out
11 on the mens side and 10 on the women's side

ATP:
#6 Dimitrov
#7 Thiem
#10 Goffin
#16 Coric
#18 Sock
#20 Carreno
#23 Gasquet
#28 Krajinovic
#29 Cecchinato
#30 Verdasco
#32 Mayer

WTA:
#4 Stephens
#5 Svitolina
#6 Garcia
#8 Kvitova
#16 Vandeweghe
#19 Rybarikova
#24 Sharapova
#30 Pavlyuchenkova
#31 Sevastova
#32 Zhang

Starting next year, the slams will revert back to the old format of 16 seeds.

Going off the current rankings, the following players would be unseeded at the Aus Open:
Nishikori
Raonic
Osaka
Kontaveit
Kyrgios
Djokovic
Serena
Sharapova

Do you think 16 seeds is better? Or should the current 32 stay?

 

[AiRFederer]

It means that Grass is way better and harder to dominate than any other surface.

 

[EloQuent]

I think it actually proves the opposite. Most of them are lower seeds. If seeds aren't justifying themselves, what's the point of seeding?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I think it actually proves the opposite. Most of them are lower seeds. If seeds aren't justifying themselves, what's the point of seeding?

Not quite. First time on the women's side 4 of the top 8 seeds bowed out and on the mens side 3 of the top 10 bowed out too.

 

[EloQuent]

Not quite. First time on the women's side 4 of the top 8 seeds bowed out and on the mens side 3 of the top 10 bowed out too.

Still most overall. (I don't much follow the WTA. Nothing against it tho.)

imo the typical player ranked 27 or so doesn't deserve a seeding. And they mostly lose before R3, every time. You can cherry pick individual dangerous players but then floaters are always around. Serena isn't even in the top 100.

Better solution is to automatically seed any previous slam winner, for say 3 years after.

 

[vex]

Jack Sock just sucks. Is he even gonna be top 100 after Paris? Dudes been dropping like a rock

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Still most overall. (I don't much follow the WTA. Nothing against it tho.)

imo the typical player ranked 27 or so doesn't deserve a seeding. And they mostly lose before R3, every time. You can cherry pick individual dangerous players but then floaters are always around. Serena isn't even in the top 100.

Better solution is to automatically seed any previous slam winner, for say 3 years after.

Well I think it's not so much for their benefit but more the top players. And I don't think just seeding slam champs works.. the ATP would only have like 4 seeds then anyway..

Issue is that potentially now tournaments could lose huge stars in the 1R if you got Djokovic v Fed R1 (possibility), Kyrgios v Nadal R1 (possibility) or Wozniacki v Serena R1 (possibility).

 

[True Fanerer]

#6 Dimitrov
#7 Thiem
#10 Goffin
#16 Coric
#18 Sock

This makes the future look bad. Zverev to own Wimbledon? Kyrgios??

 

[skip1969]

One tourney is hardly a large enough sample size, but I have always hated 32 seeds.

Grass is grass. Might be slower, and lamer, and more bouncy than in days of yore . . . but it's still rare. A lot of the players who lost first round lost cos they suck on grass. They were exposed. And then there were freaky draw losses, like Gasky losing to Monfils, and Thiem losing to Stan.

We need more tough draws, more seeds being tested early, and less 'protecting' of seeds.

 

[EloQuent]

Well I think it's not so much for their benefit but more the top players. And I don't think just seeding slam champs works.. the ATP would only have like 4 seeds then anyway..

Issue is that potentially now tournaments could lose huge stars in the 1R if you got Djokovic v Fed R1 (possibility), Kyrgios v Nadal R1 (possibility) or Wozniacki v Serena R1 (possibility).

Seed 16 or 24. Any recent slam winner (Djokovic, Serena) gets a seed, but not only them.

What has Kyrgios done to deserve anything? If he's ranked 33 would you also say seed him?

 

[Jackuar]

Irrespective of the current situation I've always thought 16 seeds would be better because it gives potential chances of meeting of seeds 17-32 in earlier rounds.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Seed 16 or 24. Any recent slam winner (Djokovic, Serena) gets a seed, but not only them.

What has Kyrgios done to deserve anything? If he's ranked 33 would you also say seed him?

I'm not saying seed anyone, i'm just going off the rankings and having a discussion

Also your method is a bit flawed cause Wawrinka is out of the top like 200 yet you'd give him a seeding for being a recent slam champ.

 

[EloQuent]

I'm not saying seed anyone, i'm just going off the rankings and having a discussion

Also your method is a bit flawed cause Wawrinka is out of the top like 200 yet you'd give him a seeding for being a recent slam champ.

He just took out a top 10 player, didn't he? What's the big deal with seeding him.

 

[helterskelter]

If more than half the seeds reach the round in which the seeds are scheduled to meet each other, there are too many seeds. So unless 15 or fewer seeds reach round 3, we have too many seeds and should reduce the number.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

He just took out a top 10 player, didn't he? What's the big deal with seeding him.

Thought the whole point of removing this was to stop protecting the top players and yet this is protecting the slam champs.

 

[EloQuent]

Thought the whole point of removing this was to stop protecting the top players and yet this is protecting the slam champs.

So now we don't want any seeds at all? I'm confused.

 

[Deon Sanders]

16 seeds is absolutely better, at least for us fans

It means bigger matches earlier making both weeks enormously important to the sport. It is going to make everyone have to work harder at some point. Its going to make things once figured to be mere formalities question marks. Its going to allow for more lower ranked players that catch a good draw to make a move (those who capitalize on their luck will be the ones that get ahead). Its going to mean that Roger Federer's streaks of QFs, SFs, and Finals will be untouchable.

It still keeps those most likely to actually win a slam separated. Really we only needed 4 seeds for the last 8-12 years.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So now we don't want any seeds at all? I'm confused.

Hey i'm just starting a discussion here. I'm not really passionate about either or.

 

[Sentinel]

Do you think 16 seeds is better? Or should the current 32 stay?

What exactly does this imply ?

Does it mean that those outside of 16 will be randomly assigned ?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

What exactly does this imply ?

Does it mean that those outside of 16 will be randomly assigned ?

Yes, they'll be just like any other unseeded player starting from next year. So you could have the number #17 v the #1 in essence. They won't have a specified spot in the draw anymore.

 

[reaper]

Obvious spoilers here:

This years Wimbledon has seen a record number of seeds fall in the 1R with a whopping 21 seeds knocked out
11 on the mens side and 10 on the women's side

ATP:
#6 Dimitrov
#7 Thiem
#10 Goffin
#16 Coric
#18 Sock
#20 Carreno
#23 Gasquet
#28 Krajinovic
#29 Cecchinato
#30 Verdasco
#32 Mayer

WTA:
#4 Stephens
#5 Svitolina
#6 Garcia
#8 Kvitova
#16 Vandeweghe
#19 Rybarikova
#24 Sharapova
#30 Pavlyuchenkova
#31 Sevastova
#32 Zhang

Starting next year, the slams will revert back to the old format of 16 seeds.

Going off the current rankings, the following players would be unseeded at the Aus Open:
Nishikori
Raonic
Osaka
Kontaveit
Kyrgios
Djokovic
Serena
Sharapova

Do you think 16 seeds is better? Or should the current 32 stay?

I'd go to 64 seeds...and play seeded vs unseeded in round 1, but I suspect I'm in a minority of 1.

 

[JackGates]

Ok, looking just one sample size to make any theories is just so wrong.

 

[metsman]

let's not make drastic decisions based on the results of "top 10 players" Dimitrov and Thiem. Dimitrov living off 1 title, Thiem living off winning 8 million clay futures probably. Goffin and Sock pretty much holding on with 1 tournament result too.

 

[reaper]

Ideally the better a player is the further they should advance in a tournament. So ideally the best two players should meet in the final, the best 4 should make the semis, and the worst 64 should be knocked out in the first round. By reducing the number of seeds you increase the likelihood that more better players will meet early in the tournament, which goes against the principle that in an "ideal world" the better the player is, the further they should advance in the tournament.

 

[Bartelby]

In an ideal world it is their talent that increases their chances of advancing.

Seeding is like being born into a wealthy family and then being given every chance to succeed.

In other words, it is the real world.

Ideally the better a player is the further they should advance in a tournament. So ideally the best two players should meet in the final, the best 4 should make the semis, and the worst 64 should be knocked out in the first round. By reducing the number of seeds you increase the likelihood that more better players will meet early in the tournament, which goes against the principle that in an "ideal world" the better the player is, the further they should advance in the tournament.

 

[reaper]

In an ideal world it is their talent that increases their chances of advancing.

Seeding is like being born into a wealthy family and then being given every chance to succeed.

In other words, it is the real world.

When the player who is currently seeded comes onto tour they are unseeded. So the meritocratic principal is maintained because they have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[Gary Duane]

Obvious spoilers here:

This years Wimbledon has seen a record number of seeds fall in the 1R with a whopping 21 seeds knocked out
11 on the mens side and 10 on the women's side

ATP:
#6 Dimitrov
#7 Thiem
#10 Goffin
#16 Coric
#18 Sock
#20 Carreno
#23 Gasquet
#28 Krajinovic
#29 Cecchinato
#30 Verdasco
#32 Mayer

WTA:
#4 Stephens
#5 Svitolina
#6 Garcia
#8 Kvitova
#16 Vandeweghe
#19 Rybarikova
#24 Sharapova
#30 Pavlyuchenkova
#31 Sevastova
#32 Zhang

Starting next year, the slams will revert back to the old format of 16 seeds.

Going off the current rankings, the following players would be unseeded at the Aus Open:
Nishikori
Raonic
Osaka
Kontaveit
Kyrgios
Djokovic
Serena
Sharapova

Do you think 16 seeds is better? Or should the current 32 stay?

11 also out at Wimbledon in 2003, but the last one was seeded #33 because he replaced someone who withdrew. There were 35 seeds that year in a way because three withdrew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

However, only three of those seeds who lost in R1 were seeded below 16.

Four were 16 or above this year. What you REALLY want to look at is year when more then 4 were out in R1 when there were only 16 seeds.

The 90s were the worst, which you can either view as weaker at the top or greater parity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_Singles

 

[merlinpinpin]

I'd go to 64 seeds...and play seeded vs unseeded in round 1, but I suspect I'm in a minority of 1.

Technically, you could go with 128 seeds and have a very "just" draw everywhere: #1 plays #128, #2 plays #127, etc. So the path of #1 would always be (should players uphold their rank) #128, #64, #32, #16, #8, #4, and #2. And it would be awfully boring.

In real life, I'll take 16 seeds any day, thanks. 32 was a real bad move anyway, time to revert to what we had before.

 

[reaper]

Technically, you could go with 128 seeds and have a very "just" draw everywhere: #1 plays #128, #2 plays #127, etc. So the path of #1 would always be (should players uphold their rank) #128, #64, #32, #16, #8, #4, and #2. And it would be awfully boring.

In real life, I'll take 16 seeds any day, thanks. 32 was a real bad move anyway, time to revert to what we had before.

I would go with 64 seeds and play seeded vs unseeded, then 1 vs 64 etc. That way you play the player you deserve based on your prior record. There would still be loads of upsets just as there are now. But they'd be sweeter because they'd be upsets born of perfect fairness

 

[Gary Duane]

It means that Grass is way better and harder to dominate than any other surface.

In the OE there have been:

192 R1 losses by seeded players at Wimbledon.
At RG, 173
At the USO, 167

The difference it not huge, and this may have more to do with the overall seeding being less accurate at Wimbledon and RG because too much of it goes by overall ranking and does not reflect yearly strength on the surface.

Meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles

13 seeds out in R1, an OE record for all majors.

 

[Gary Duane]

Issue is that potentially now tournaments could lose huge stars in the 1R if you got Djokovic v Fed R1 (possibility), Kyrgios v Nadal R1 (possibility) or Wozniacki v Serena R1 (possibility).

How would that happen? Novak is #12 so would be seeded with only 16.

A more interesting case would have been AO 2017. Fed would have been unseeded and so could have faced anyone in R1. On the other hand, considering the seeds he faced, staring with #10 in R3, how much worse could it have been?

I still think it's a wash. I'm not convinced 32 seeds makes thing more predictable.

 

[Gary Duane]

Technically, you could go with 128 seeds and have a very "just" draw everywhere: #1 plays #128, #2 plays #127, etc. So the path of #1 would always be (should players uphold their rank) #128, #64, #32, #16, #8, #4, and #2. And it would be awfully boring.

In real life, I'll take 16 seeds any day, thanks. 32 was a real bad move anyway, time to revert to what we had before.

I think people are thinking of the 90s, when anyone could get eliminated in any round. That had nothing to do with the number of seeds. It was not like that earlier. This started happening around the late 80s and continued into the early 2000s, after the seeding was changed.

 

[reaper]

I think people are thinking of the 90s, when anyone could get eliminated in any round. That had nothing to do with the number of seeds. It was not like that earlier. This started happening around the late 80s and continued into the early 2000s, after the seeding was changed.

If they made no change to the seeding system we'd have the same thing happen in about 2 years from now. Look how inconsistent everyone bar Federer and Nadal are now...and Djokovic and Murray were for a long time. It'll be a lottery.

 

[Bartelby]

That's true, but it doesn't defeat my point. Every tournament where there are seeds has an aristocracy of bestowed privilege for whom all paths are made smoother.

A completely unseeded tournament would be a more meritocratic one.

When the player who is currently seeded comes onto tour they are unseeded. So the meritocratic principal is maintained because they have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[Gary Duane]

Ideally the better a player is the further they should advance in a tournament. So ideally the best two players should meet in the final, the best 4 should make the semis, and the worst 64 should be knocked out in the first round. By reducing the number of seeds you increase the likelihood that more better players will meet early in the tournament, which goes against the principle that in an "ideal world" the better the player is, the further they should advance in the tournament.

True in theory, but I see no evidence that 16 seeds vs 32 seeds make a big difference. We are dealing with recency bias. Over the last 10 years or so the same players have dominated. Seeding Fed #17 in 2017 didn't change the outcome. This is an unusual case where a player really was conditioned and ready to win - as evidenced by his performance the whole year - but his much lower ranking did not give him the usual advantage.

It did not change the outcome.

 

[Gary Duane]

If they made no change to the seeding system we'd have the same thing happen in about 2 years from now. Look how inconsistent everyone bar Federer and Nadal are now...and Djokovic and Murray were for a long time. It'll be a lottery.

I'm not understanding your point. What same thing would happen 2 years from now?

The outcome of majors was incredibly predictable at the beginning of the OE, and it stayed that way for some time. In some years there were fewer than 16 seeds.

It turned into the Wild West in the late 80s and more so in the 90s and early 2000s. If there had been 32 seeds in the 90s, it still would have been the way it was because there was more parity. You can say that top was weak, or that the majority was stronger. Apples and oranges. Either way, things were unpredictable.

 

[reaper]

That's true, but it doesn't defeat my point. Every tournament where there are seeds has an aristocracy of bestowed privilege for whom all paths are made smoother.

They marry into the Royal family rather than being born into it lol. In terms of what happens on court I doubt overall it matters in the careers of most players which system they adopt. I do think it's the wrong idea to try and contrive more "big" matches early in the tournament...there are plenty of cliffhangers and upsets now and I think there's a danger of a few better matches played early in the tournament coming at the expense of more lame matches at the end.

 

[reaper]

I'm not understanding your point. What same thing would happen 2 years from now?

The outcome of majors was incredibly predictable at the beginning of the OE, and it stayed that way for some time. In some years there were fewer than 16 seeds.

It turned into the Wild West in the late 80s and more so in the 90s and early 2000s. If there had been 32 seeds in the 90s, it still would have been the way it was because there was more parity. You can say that top was weak, or that the majority was stronger. Apples and oranges. Either way, things were unpredictable.

The same thing as happened from the '80's to the early 2000's. There'll be little pattern to the results with any seed vulnerable to going out early.

 

[Gary Duane]

The same thing as happened from the '80's to the early 2000's. There'll be little pattern to the results with any seed vulnerable to going out early.

Then I think we agree. My opinion is based on collecting every seed in every major since the beginning of the OE. It might be useful sometime in the future to go back farther and see if there was a sudden change in Open Tennis.

The problem is that we don't have enough data. Say, for instance, we had 50 years of majors with no seeding. Every player could play ever player. We could rank the players with what we think their likelihood of winning is, as if they were seeded, then see how the results change. But we don't have this. We just don't know.

The results could be radically different, or they might not differ much. The one big difference I believe we'd see is a far smaller chance of seeing the two best players face each other in finals.

Otherwise the way players are seeded, especially at Wimbledon, is so incredibly hit and miss. My opinion is that seeding best correlates to ranking at the AO because it comes so quickly after the end of the previous year and because there is such a track record on HCs.

I've done a number of comparisons. For instance, I look at all the times the first two seeds made it to finals in majors, and which major had the highest number of hits. As I remember I did not find anything conclusive. I tried the same thing with X number of seeds above Y seeding # making it to round Z, but again I did not see anything conclusive except that things got really unpredictable in that same period, the late 80s to the early 2000s.

 

[Gary Duane]

I pretty much knew this already, but here are numbers:

14 1968-1977
18 1978-1987
43 1988-1997
36 1998-2007
13 2008-2017

The first number is the frequency of the top 8 seeds getting eliminated in R1 at all majors.

As you can see, it is now about as it was in the first decade of OE tennis. I used 8 seeds because it is a quicker comparison, since at the beginning sometimes there were only 8 seeds. There is one year, I think 1978, where not one of the top 8 players were knocked out all year. In fact, there were more than one.

It's pretty obvious. It's not the number of seeds doing this. In the 60 and early 70s the guys who were supposed to win won. Number of seeds did not really matter. There were still 16 seeds in the 90s, and now it was in all majors, but it was insanely unpredictable. The greatest parity was in the late 80s to early 2000s. Seeding had nothing to do with it. Whatever happened in tennis to flip the balance more back to the way it used to be, it happened. It was not just the big 4. I could run the same thing with 12 or 16, and I don't think it is going to change much.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Well I think it's not so much for their benefit but more the top players. And I don't think just seeding slam champs works.. the ATP would only have like 4 seeds then anyway..

Issue is that potentially now tournaments could lose huge stars in the 1R if you got Djokovic v Fed R1 (possibility), Kyrgios v Nadal R1 (possibility) or Wozniacki v Serena R1 (possibility).

I'm all for new names going deeper in tournaments. The tour has been front end loaded too long now.

I can't give a care if a Federer or a Nadal or whichever top player gets even more prize money, having unknowns getting more share of prize money with deeper runs is extremely important.

Let [former] seeds 17 ~ 32 also knock themselves out if it gives the smaller guys a little extra glimmer of hope.

 

[JackGates]

That's true, but it doesn't defeat my point. Every tournament where there are seeds has an aristocracy of bestowed privilege for whom all paths are made smoother.

A completely unseeded tournament would be a more meritocratic one.

I disagree. Because top pros weren't born on top. They also had the same obstacles, so it's totally fair.
What people don't get is, yes top 1% has privilege once you get there, but not the same people are in 1%, it changes all the time and all had the same obstacles.

You are acting like Federer from day 1 of his career had those privileges, no he didn't so we actually have your meritocracy.

 

[tennis_pro]

I was thinking about this and the answer is yes - I don't feel like Krajinovic and Cecchinato should be protected.

 

[Chicharito]

WTA certainly has no need to change to 16.

 

[Druss]

Obvious spoilers here:

This years Wimbledon has seen a record number of seeds fall in the 1R with a whopping 21 seeds knocked out
11 on the mens side and 10 on the women's side

ATP:
#6 Dimitrov
#7 Thiem
#10 Goffin
#16 Coric
#18 Sock
#20 Carreno
#23 Gasquet
#28 Krajinovic
#29 Cecchinato
#30 Verdasco
#32 Mayer



Do you think 16 seeds is better? Or should the current 32 stay?

The only surprises here are: Dimitrov, Goffin, Gasquet and Coric (who just beat Federer to win Halle). Thiem is useless on grass, Sock is still hungover from winning Paris-Bercy, Mayer and Verdasco are on their last legs and Busta....well he’s just being Busta.

 

[tennis_pro]

WTA certainly has no need to change to 16.

Hey I don't think it would matter if there were no seeds in the WTA.

 

[Bartelby]

I agree that seedings make for better tournaments, but the top seeds benefit from this situation enormously just the same.

They marry into the Royal family rather than being born into it lol. In terms of what happens on court I doubt overall it matters in the careers of most players which system they adopt. I do think it's the wrong idea to try and contrive more "big" matches early in the tournament...there are plenty of cliffhangers and upsets now and I think there's a danger of a few better matches played early in the tournament coming at the expense of more lame matches at the end.

 

[Bartelby]

I am not saying its a perfect aristocracy, but the fact is that the top seeds are enormously benefited by this system compared to one based on lottery.

The Grand Slams are reducing this privilege to an even more select few so that the earlier stages of their events are more interesting.

The net result is a super aristocracy of the select 16, which can of course change over time, but as for being 17-32, well, the middle class just disappeared.

I disagree. Because top pros weren't born on top. They also had the same obstacles, so it's totally fair.
What people don't get is, yes top 1% has privilege once you get there, but not the same people are in 1%, it changes all the time and all had the same obstacles.

You are acting like Federer from day 1 of his career had those privileges, no he didn't so we actually have your meritocracy.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

The only surprises here are: Dimitrov, Goffin, Gasquet and Coric (who just beat Federer to win Halle). Thiem is useless on grass, Sock is still hungover from winning Paris-Bercy, Mayer and Verdasco are on their last legs and Busta....well he’s just being Busta.

Thiem has made a 4th round before but retired in the 1R. Goffin might still carry some injury he had at the FO.

 

[Gary Duane]

I am not saying its a perfect aristocracy, but the fact is that the top seeds are enormously benefited by this system compared to one based on lottery.

The Grand Slams are reducing this privilege to an even more select few so that the earlier stages of their events are more interesting.

The net result is a super aristocracy of the select 16, which can of course change over time, but as for being 17-32, well, the middle class just disappeared.

Repeating this:

14 1968-1977
18 1978-1987
43 1988-1997
36 1998-2007
13 2008-2017

That's for the top 8 seeds.

To me things were most interesting in the 90s, and I'd like to see anything that would return tennis to this more unpredictable state where there are more upsets. It makes the first week or so of majors much more dramatic.
I agree with your point logically, but after running the numbers for the top 8, it doesn't seem that a bigger middle class much changes results. I could run the numbers for 17-32, but we would have only about a 17 year period to look at, which makes it hard. It may be that those players have been benefited, but it's pretty hard to know when we can't see who would be in the same class in prior years without looking at rankings for players below 16th seed.