verdasco67
Professional
i cannot stand this guy's face & facial expressions...he bumped into nalbandian on a changeover and nalbandian gave him like a death stare haha..
Hewitt
- Thread starter verdasco67
- Start date
I like both guys in this match. They play great points, good to see David back in form. He has had a lot of injuries, maybe time he put it together.
To me the final will be Federer / Safin, after that match I will call it a tournament. Roddick has had such an easy draw plus played almost all his matches at night. Grand Slams need to fix the seeding issue, it is becoming a joke when you make it to the quarters and have not played a top 30 player.
I think the Nadal / Hewitt match was the best so far.
To me the final will be Federer / Safin, after that match I will call it a tournament. Roddick has had such an easy draw plus played almost all his matches at night. Grand Slams need to fix the seeding issue, it is becoming a joke when you make it to the quarters and have not played a top 30 player.
I think the Nadal / Hewitt match was the best so far.
verdasco67
Professional
this is a absolutely crazy match, go nalbandian..
verdasco67
Professional
i really want to see hewitt loose to roddick now =|, to me nalbandian should have won the match he deserved it more.
Bobby
I have been pushing for seeding the top 128 players by ranking, not appointment like the grand slams do. Nadal / Hewitt was a good Semifinal match up. Like Wimbledon, Roddick once again has played no one and yet he is in the quarters. At Wimbledon, he did not play a top 20 player but made it into the final. Something is definitely wrong with placing players in named player’s sides.
don't care who plays who, but lets keep it fair
I have been pushing for seeding the top 128 players by ranking, not appointment like the grand slams do. Nadal / Hewitt was a good Semifinal match up. Like Wimbledon, Roddick once again has played no one and yet he is in the quarters. At Wimbledon, he did not play a top 20 player but made it into the final. Something is definitely wrong with placing players in named player’s sides.
don't care who plays who, but lets keep it fair
The Grand Slams *do* seed by ranking. Wimbledon alone alters the order of the top 32 using a formula based on recent grass results.
Nadal was only ranked in the fifties before the AO; to merit a semi-final seeding against the number three (Hewitt), you have to be top two.
The top 16 players cannot play each other before the fourth round; that is what seeding is *for*. A larger set of seeds will not make any difference to this. In any case you can't prevent players losing.
You say: "Something is definitely wrong with placing players in named player’s sides."
What on earth do you mean by that? The only players who are placed are the top two seeds. The seeding placement is done by rules (but random match within a group) and the draw is *random*.
What exactly is *unfair* about it?
Nadal was only ranked in the fifties before the AO; to merit a semi-final seeding against the number three (Hewitt), you have to be top two.
The top 16 players cannot play each other before the fourth round; that is what seeding is *for*. A larger set of seeds will not make any difference to this. In any case you can't prevent players losing.
You say: "Something is definitely wrong with placing players in named player’s sides."
What on earth do you mean by that? The only players who are placed are the top two seeds. The seeding placement is done by rules (but random match within a group) and the draw is *random*.
What exactly is *unfair* about it?
rhubarb
Nadal is ranked 20th coming into the A.O. by the ATP point standings. If you look at the Atp.com it depends on which rankings you chose.
Seed 128 players by rank, and eliminate the bias positioning. In addition, did you know the Grand Slams can place players into other player’s side of the draw and they do not have to seed by ranking?
Last years Wimbledon the #1 women's seed was Serena Williams, she was 12th ranked at the time.
So maybe they should establish rules that must be followed for seeding.
In the last 3 grand slams Roddick has by far the easiest draws. Last year Hewitt lost every grad slam to the winner of the grand slam.
Nadal is ranked 20th coming into the A.O. by the ATP point standings. If you look at the Atp.com it depends on which rankings you chose.
Seed 128 players by rank, and eliminate the bias positioning. In addition, did you know the Grand Slams can place players into other player’s side of the draw and they do not have to seed by ranking?
Last years Wimbledon the #1 women's seed was Serena Williams, she was 12th ranked at the time.
So maybe they should establish rules that must be followed for seeding.
In the last 3 grand slams Roddick has by far the easiest draws. Last year Hewitt lost every grad slam to the winner of the grand slam.
barry, now I see your confusion. At this point in the year the ATP race rankings are based on two weeks' worth of tournaments. Seeding based on that would completely silly - Roddick and Agassi would not even have been seeded (as they are not ranked), nor would have Federer been last year. Please ignore the Race rankings - it starts from scratch every 1st January and gets people confused. In my opinion the ATP should abolish it.barry said:
The entry rankings consists of the last 12 months' results, and that's what all ATP tournaments use for seeding.
If you seed 128 players by rank, it just means that the top seeds are guaranteed to player lower ranked players at the beginning. I really don't see that it would help at all.barry said:
No, the Grand Slams cannot place particular players into either the top or the bottom of the draw, as I said before, only the top two seeds are placed. At least in the men's; can't vouch for the women's, but I would be very surprised if they can do this.
I believe the WTA allow players to be seeded on injury ranking. The ATP does not allow this, so it doesn't apply to men's events.barry said:
They do have rules. It's based on *entry* ranking for the men, and that's the only fair way.barry said:
Roddick may well have had draws that you perceive as easy, partly because some of his higher-ranked opponents have lost early. Hewitt's 2004 draws were hard because his ranking was that much lower (his own fault) - and that's the only reason he ran into Federer so early. He won't have that problem this year because he is top three.
Personally, I think Hewitt should have to play Federer in the first round of every slam by default, that way can send the little sh it home from the onset.
I have NEVER liked Hewitt and he only gets worse.
I have tried to be nice, but I now realise, it is pointless.
Hewitt :thumbdown:
I have NEVER liked Hewitt and he only gets worse.
I have tried to be nice, but I now realise, it is pointless.
Hewitt :thumbdown:
rhubarb said:
i wonder how many semi-finals/finals hewitt will reach in the grand slams this year considering he wont meet federer early in the stages. Should be interesting.
The way i see it is federer is the only major problem for hewitt. If hewitt puts his heart and soul into it he has the ability to beat any of the top10 players except federer. But hey, who can beat federer?
he bummed out in the 4th round of aussie open last year cause of federer. Since they are now in opposite halves, he's progressing quite nicely (though not easily).
Chadwixx said:
128 seeding would just eliminate the problems where top seeds face relatively high-ranked players (30s, 40s) in the first round. I can't see that would be a significant advantage for anybody (maybe for the top players).
If you are additionally asking for match-ups within the seeding to be strictly matched (1 v 32, 2 v 31) then that's something different. When GSes were 16 seeds this used to happen. To be honest though, the men's game is usually so deep that the difference between the 25th and 32nd ranked player is minimal.
I don't think either would bring *balance* to the draw, whatever you mean by that. There will always be upsets, and tough match-ups early on, whatever system you devise. It's fine as it is.
robbie_dademo
Rookie
hewitt acted like a complete *** last night, i am aussie and nalbandian is my favourite player... normallly i would support hewitt against most other international players..
but being on davids side last night, i can see how many of you non-aussies get so ticked off with him, his attitude was appaling last night.
yellling at the ump and line judges and he also called david an idiot at one stage for questioning a call.
did you guys get all hewitts verbal diorrhea in your broadcast? coz in australia we did.
appaling.
David showed what a class act he is by keeping pretty cool about it
but being on davids side last night, i can see how many of you non-aussies get so ticked off with him, his attitude was appaling last night.
yellling at the ump and line judges and he also called david an idiot at one stage for questioning a call.
did you guys get all hewitts verbal diorrhea in your broadcast? coz in australia we did.
appaling.
David showed what a class act he is by keeping pretty cool about it
rhubarb
So in your opinion the draw were balanced? Even the ESPN announcers cannot believe how easy Riddick’s draw was. Now do some research and look at Wimbledon and the U.S. open last year. See the easy draws? One more research question: How has Roddick matched up with top 10 players? Won / Lost record
It is all about name recognition and putting butts in the stand. Non-tennis players believe Roddick is a better player than Hewitt, but in head-to-head matches, Hewitt is up 4 to 1. ESPN in their stupidity does a hard sell on American players believing no one would watch if an American was not in the final.
Seed 128, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, and A.O seeding did not work. Lets correct the situation and let the better players win even if they are not American.
So in your opinion the draw were balanced? Even the ESPN announcers cannot believe how easy Riddick’s draw was. Now do some research and look at Wimbledon and the U.S. open last year. See the easy draws? One more research question: How has Roddick matched up with top 10 players? Won / Lost record
It is all about name recognition and putting butts in the stand. Non-tennis players believe Roddick is a better player than Hewitt, but in head-to-head matches, Hewitt is up 4 to 1. ESPN in their stupidity does a hard sell on American players believing no one would watch if an American was not in the final.
Seed 128, Wimbledon, U.S. Open, and A.O seeding did not work. Lets correct the situation and let the better players win even if they are not American.
dennis1188
Semi-Pro
Federer will toast him again. Look again for the terror in the eyes of Hewitt.
Federer is Hewitt's, 'daddy'.
Federer is Hewitt's, 'daddy'.
barry said:
There is a big difference between a balanced draw (which logically it must be if it follows the seeding system as is), and whether a particular player had an easy draw. Yes, I would say Roddick's AO 05 draw looked easier than Hewitt's. So? Another time it might not. And think about this too: if Nadal and Nalbandian had lost in the first round (and they almost did), whilst Henman had come through to the quarters, then anyone might be excused for thinking Hewitt's draw was more straightforward.
barry said:
So what you're saying is that Roddick has easy draws, and he doesn't deserve them because he has a bad record against top 10 players? Let me re-iterate: draws are random (apart from seeding rules etc). If someone seems to be getting easy draws, he'll get tough ones sooner or later, that's the law of averages. His record against the top 10 is a complete red herring. His ranking in the top 10 (and hence his seeding) is the only relevant factor here.
Your arguments don't make sense to me; I can't see the logic in them. They just leave me with the feeling you have something against poor old Andy Roddick. I'm not that keen on him either, but to suggest he is getting favours with easy draws and blame it on a random draw system does not make any logical sense. If you believe he's getting consistent favours, then it follows that you think the draw isn't random...
barry said:
What the heck does any of that have to do with the draw or the seeding process? ESPN may be short-sighted in its scheduling policy, but if you are suggesting a TV company it has an influence on the draws of any major tournament, then I'd love to see your evidence. If that were the case, then we would need to deal with the guilty party, and not the much maligned draw system.
barry said:
Nope, the seeding does work at those tournaments, and there's no need to change it. In any case, only the USTA might care whether an American won its slam; doesn't it make better sense that Tennis Australia would certainly prefer Hewitt to win in Melbourne, and the AELTC's most heartfelt desire would be for Henman to be Wimbledon champion.
I would suggest that Roland Garros seeding could be helped by a surface weighting similar to Wimbledon's, but that's venturing beyond the limits of the current discussion.
Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.
