Grand Slam seeding model:

[Steve500]

Grand slam seeds stuff:

Gali Monfis vs Perricard 1st round thriller match is exactly why I think there should be 64 seeds.

Perricard is like 30th ranked and Monfis(41). They shouldn’t have to meet in a first round.

In form Monfis won title in Auckland.
The top 64 players basically shouldn’t have to face off in the first round vs each other…..

I don’t agree with the spin that the first round needs more big matches to give the tournament momentum, hence only 32 seeds. A guy like 30th seed Perricard should have to play someone ranked like 80-90. Not a guy ranked 40-45(and in form with Monfis winning title in Auckland).

A match like this should be a 2nd round or 3rd round . Current 32 seed model eliminates more good players from first round which makes other rounds less good players .

It’s annoying how the world 1 can technically meet the world No 33 in 1st round. Such a match should be for like 3rd round .

 

[RaulRamirez]

I have mixed feelings.

My position has always been to accept 32 seeds for the slams, and to seed them (assuming no upsets) numerically: 1 v 32, then 16, 8, 4, up top and 2 v 31, 15, 7, 3 at the bottom. And so on. Most disagree with me (which is okay) but that would be my preference.

I may consider seeding up to 64, but all 128 would be too much for me. I'm not even sure if 64 would be too many, though I do like 32 being (on paper) "protected".

 

[reaper]

Grand slam seeds stuff:

Gali Monfis vs Perricard 1st round thriller match is exactly why I think there should be 64 seeds.

Perricard is like 30th ranked and Monfis(41). They shouldn’t have to meet in a first round.

In form Monfis won title in Auckland.
The top 64 players basically shouldn’t have to face off in the first round vs each other…..

I don’t agree with the spin that the first round needs more big matches to give the tournament momentum, hence only 32 seeds. A guy like 30th seed Perricard should have to play someone ranked like 80-90. Not a guy ranked 40-45(and in form with Monfis winning title in Auckland).

A match like this should be a 2nd round or 3rd round . Current 32 seed model eliminates more good players from first round which makes other rounds less good players .

It’s annoying how the world 1 can technically meet the world No 33 in 1st round. Such a match should be for like 3rd round .

I think seeding 64 and playing round 1 as seeded vs unseeded is a good idea. There'll still be a lot of competitive matches in round 1 with the players ranked at the lower end of the seedings often losing to unseeded players. There would be nothing to stop a Rublev vs Fonesca (or even Alcaraz vs Fonesca) in round 1 given a hot young player will often go in unseeded.

 

[aldeayeah]

I have mixed feelings.

My position has always been to accept 32 seeds for the slams, and to seed them (assuming no upsets) numerically: 1 v 32, then 16, 8, 4, up top and 2 v 31, 15, 7, 3 at the bottom. And so on. Most disagree with me (which is okay) but that would be my preference.

Exact numerical seedings can give you the same matchups over and over.

The current system is pretty close to this (1-4 play 29-32, 5-8 play 25-28, 9-16 play 17-24) but with a small random element.

I think 32 seeds hits a sweet spot where the top players get a measure of "protection", but we still have a handful of dangerous floaters to spice up the first couple rounds.

 

[reaper]

Exact numerical seedings can give you the same matchups over and over.

The current system is pretty close to this (1-4 play 29-32, 5-8 play 25-28, 9-16 play 17-24) but with a small random element.

I think 32 seeds hits a sweet spot where the top players get a measure of "protection", but we still have a handful of dangerous floaters to spice up the first couple rounds.

You wouldn't get the same match ups with numerical seedings any more than you do now. The rankings would move around enough to prevent it.You might for a period get the same semi final match ups on paper, but it would be a rarity for the top 4 seeds to all get through anyway.

 

[Tennfan123]

God no. These early round matches provide huge value for money to ticket holders. Tix are $$$ now. People deserve these kind of matches.

 

[reaper]

God no. These early round matches provide huge value for money to ticket holders. Tix are $$$ now. People deserve these kind of matches.

It would stop the specific match: Pellicard vs Monfils but wouldn't detract from match quality overall. Kokkinakis vs Draper could have happened as a 1st round match as could Korda vs Vukic or Fonseca vs Rublev. The 1st round matches wouldn't deteriorate at all.