Men's #1 & #2 seed BOTH out in the 2R of a slam. When did this last happen? What has happened to the men's tour?

[Wander]

I am yet to see any major surprises on the men's side.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal is like 2005 Hulk Hogan lol it’s not a shock

 

[helterskelter]

When was the last time the top 2 seeds were both knocked out so embarrassingly early at a slam? Whether on the men's tour or the women's tour, surely not for a long time. It's awful. Not just the #1 seed losing in straight sets in the 2R but then the #2 seed losing in 4 sets the next day?

At least one of the top 2 seeds usually goes deep or y'know, makes the 3R. But Nadal and Ruud lose in the 2R. Going 1-6 in sets against unseeded opponents.

What has happened to the ATP? Is this the future?

In the 2002 AO both the #1 seed Hewitt and #2 Kuerten lost in the first round

2004 FO was also pretty bad, #1 seed Federer lost to the aforementioned Kuerten with a broken hip in the third round, while #2 seed Roddick lost in the second round

These are the worst appearances by the top 2 seeds since the seeds have been expanded to 32 (2001 FO was the last major with 16 seeds)

Why is either set of results bad or awful or embarrassing? I like it when there are upsets. I thought that the long period when the same players won every time was boring, especially as there were quite a few years in which the same supporting cast (Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Soderling) went deep all the time. The first week was just a procession. This is a partial reversion to the norm of the 1990s and I for one hope it continues.

Side note: at Roland Garros 1990, the top two seeds (Edberg and Becker) both lost in the first round and they won one set between them. Their opponents were Bruguera and Ivanisevic, both future slam champions. Then, as now, they were clearly not the best two players in the world on those courts - Lendl didn't play, as he was preparing for Wimbledon, and Agassi, the number 3 seed, was clearly better than them on clay. Djokovic would be seeded higher than Ruud if he hadn't decided to skip so many tournaments last year, and Alcaraz is injured. So Nadal and Ruud's seedings were both slightly artificial.

 

[maratha_warrior]

I am yet to see any major surprises on the men's side.

Tournament favourites and Inform players are going great in this tournament .

Djokovic , Medvedev , Tsitsipas , Sinner , Rune , Felix .

 

[socallefty]

I am yet to see any major surprises on the men's side.

Fritz was in good form and got upset today.

 

[Chanwan]

The point is, they were the top 2 seeds! All this commentary on they weren’t the “real” top 2 seeds, yes they were. Look at the draw, look at the number beside them. You can argue that Wimbledon points should be counted which is valid and would have changed things but real means reality. And the reality as we live in and breathe, is that they were the number 1 and number 2 seed. We can’t change reality.

But context matters. And the context here is that Rafa has been in a massive slump since W, that Ruud is a very poor no 2 (who lost to a player most consider a big talent) , that the actual no 1 withdrew with injury and that the king of the AO isn't no 1 because of W not awarding points

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Fritz was in good form and got upset today.

I think that poster has to be joking considering the #1, #2, #8, #12, #13, #17, #21, #23, #26, #30 and #32 are out all in the first 2 rounds lmao.

 

[Chanwan]

Tournament favourites and Inform players are going great in this tournament .

Djokovic , Medvedev , Tsitsipas , Rune , Felix .

Add Sinner to that list. TF is a minor surprise though

 

[Chanwan]

Why is either set of results bad or awful or embarrassing? I like it when there are upsets. I thought that the long period when the same players won every time was boring, especially as there were quite a few years in which the same supporting cast (Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Soderling) went deep all the time. The first week was just a procession. This is a partial reversion to the norm of the 1990s and I for one hope it continues.

Side note: at Roland Garros 1990, the top two seeds (Edberg and Becker) both lost in the first round and they won one set between them. Their opponents were Bruguera and Ivanisevic, both future slam champions. Then, as now, they were clearly not the best two players in the world on those courts - Lendl didn't play, as he was preparing for Wimbledon, and Agassi, the number 3 seed, was clearly better than them on clay. Djokovic would be seeded higher than Ruud if he hadn't decided to skip so many tournaments last year, and Alcaraz is injured. So Nadal and Ruud's seedings were both slightly artificial.

So much this

 

[bnjkn]

The Nadal was injured.

Ruud was such a beast from the baseline (lol), can't explain that.

 

[junior74]

Tournament favourites and Inform players are going great in this tournament .

Djokovic , Medvedev , Tsitsipas , Sinner , Rune , Felix .

+ Dimitrov, quietly...

 

[Spencer Gore]

Why is it embarrassing and awful for tennis if the top seeds lose in the first couple of rounds?

 

[helterskelter]

The point is, they were the top 2 seeds! All this commentary on they weren’t the “real” top 2 seeds, yes they were. Look at the draw, look at the number beside them. You can argue that Wimbledon points should be counted which is valid and would have changed things but real means reality. And the reality as we live in and breathe, is that they were the number 1 and number 2 seed. We can’t change reality.

Fine, forget Wimbledon points and Djokovic choosing not to play a whole bunch of events last year. The less said about his shtick the better.

It's still the case that the actual world number 1 withdrew before the tournament, and so the number 2 and number 3 became the top two seeds. If the number 1 is better than the number 3, then the number 1 withdrawing makes it more likely that the top two seeds will lose in the first two rounds than if the number 1 doesn't withdraw. [Hence my comparison to 1990 Roland Garros - Lendl was still world number 1 then and only lost the top spot in July or August 1990].

If Ruud had been number 3 seed in line with his ranking and lost early, it wouldn't have garnered as much notice as it does with him being number 2 seed. He also lost in round two of Wimbledon, but because he was number 3 seed there, not many people noticed.

By the way, I'm surprised you dislike upsets given how common they've been on the WTA in recent years. Isn't an element of surprise part of the appeal of sports, and isn't it one of the things that appeals to you about the WTA?

 

[Chanwan]

1) Ruud isn’t the actual #2. He’s going to tumble out of the top 10 soon enough. Additionally, the player he lost to is much more talented anyway
2) Worst generation of players ever
3) Nadal looks closed to done
4) WTA has been much worse than this for forever, so don’t try to compare, i.e., the real reason for your post

I think you are pretty much spot on, not least with 4

Fine, forget Wimbledon points and Djokovic choosing not to play a whole bunch of events last year. The less said about his shtick the better.

It's still the case that the actual world number 1 withdrew before the tournament, and so the number 2 and number 3 became the top two seeds. If the number 1 is better than the number 3, then the number 1 withdrawing makes it more likely that the top two seeds will lose in the first two rounds than if the number 1 doesn't withdraw. [Hence my comparison to 1990 Roland Garros - Lendl was still world number 1 then and only lost the top spot in July or August 1990].

If Ruud had been number 3 seed in line with his ranking and lost early, it wouldn't have garnered as much notice as it does with him being number 2 seed. He also lost in round two of Wimbledon, but because he was number 3 seed there, not many people noticed.

By the way, I'm surprised you dislike upsets given how common they've been on the WTA in recent years. Isn't an element of surprise part of the appeal of sports, and isn't it one of the things that appeals to you about the WTA?

See point 4 in the post I am quoting above

 

[junior74]

Ruud has an abdominal issue now. It rubbed off on him in $A.

Next: Hip problems and injected foot

A poor man's Rafa with a weak backhand and a gentle bamos

 

[helterskelter]

I think you are pretty much spot on, not least with 4

See point 4 in the post I am quoting above

Except that it also says "WTA has been worse than this" and I don't think it's a question of bad or good.

Also, the WTA used to be accused of having too few upsets. This was the constant refrain from men who wanted to denigrate the tour for at least the first 10-12 years that I followed tennis (1986 through at least mid-1998. It certainly would have been the case, too, had I followed tennis in the early 1980s, too). Then in the last decade, it's been the reverse. So, one could with justice say that the women's tour can't win - it's either too predictable or not predictable enough for those seeking to bash women's tennis. In that sense, I do understand @Aussie Darcy's frustration. But I don't think that this is the way to put things right.

 

[Chanwan]

Except that it also says "WTA has been worse than this" and I don't think it's a question of bad or good.

Also, the WTA used to be accused of having too few upsets. This was the constant refrain from men who wanted to denigrate the tour for at least the first 10-12 years that I followed tennis (1986 through at least mid-1998. It certainly would have been the case, too, had I followed tennis in the early 1980s, too). Then in the last decade, it's been the reverse. So, one could with justice say that the women's tour can't win - it's either too predictable or not predictable enough for those seeking to bash women's tennis. In that sense, I do understand @Aussie Darcy's frustration. But I don't think that this is the way to put things right.

Agree it's not bad/good. I too am tired of the monotony of the men' s tour and welcome surprises. Whereas I would like to see a wee bit more consistency at the WTA.

But the aim of this thread is 100 % to get back at the WTA bashers, imo. Which feels a bit childish even though I also understand the frustration

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Agree it's not bad/good. I too am tired of the monotony of the men' s tour and welcome surprises. Whereas I would like to see a wee bit more consistency at the WTA.

But the aim of this thread is 100 % to get back at the WTA bashers, imo. Which feels a bit childish even though I also understand the frustration

Well done

 

[AnyPUG]

The real number 1 seed is still in the draw.

Phonies are out, no big deal.

Casper Ruud seeded 2 itself is a big joke, even Nadal should not be seeded 1.

Tbh, the real number 1, low key, retired last year.
He will remain #1 for years to come.
Everyone else is just sus.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Why is it embarrassing and awful for tennis if the top seeds lose in the first couple of rounds?

Because i've been berated and targeted for seven years here by male tennis fans saying the WTA was a so called "disgusting mess" for early losses. So yeah, I threw it back now it's happening often to the men.

Fine, forget Wimbledon points and Djokovic choosing not to play a whole bunch of events last year. The less said about his shtick the better.

It's still the case that the actual world number 1 withdrew before the tournament, and so the number 2 and number 3 became the top two seeds. If the number 1 is better than the number 3, then the number 1 withdrawing makes it more likely that the top two seeds will lose in the first two rounds than if the number 1 doesn't withdraw. [Hence my comparison to 1990 Roland Garros - Lendl was still world number 1 then and only lost the top spot in July or August 1990].

If Ruud had been number 3 seed in line with his ranking and lost early, it wouldn't have garnered as much notice as it does with him being number 2 seed. He also lost in round two of Wimbledon, but because he was number 3 seed there, not many people noticed.

By the way, I'm surprised you dislike upsets given how common they've been on the WTA in recent years. Isn't an element of surprise part of the appeal of sports, and isn't it one of the things that appeals to you about the WTA?

As I quoted you above, you nailed it in one. This was my way of getting back, just throwing back the exact lines i've had thrown at me for for years and years. Suddenly having depth on the men's tour is good? And early losses are good? Young players knocking out older higher ranked seeds super early is good? But when it happened on the WTA I dealt with being told they deserved to be paid less than the men, that the women should go back to the kitchen. that the men were subsidising women's sport.

So yeah, I got a little petty.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

AO 2017 both Murray and Djokovic went out pretty early. Djokovic 2nd round and Murray can't remember exactly.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

AO 2017 both Murray and Djokovic went out pretty early. Djokovic 2nd round and Murray can't remember exactly.

Murray lost 4R to Mischa Zverev. Andy just could not handle the serve and volley of Mischa. That was brutal to watch.

 

[Mike Sams]

36 year old #1 seed whose body is falling apart and Casper the clown seeded #2 who has no business being there. Not a big surprise.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

36 year old #1 seed whose body is falling apart and Casper the clown seeded #2 who has no business being there. Not a big surprise.

Not sure if your watching but the guy who everyone is saying should have been the #1 seed is 35 years old and his body is also falling apart. His thigh couldn't be strapped more unless he was the Mummy and he just dropped a set to a qualifier who's accomplished nothing in his career...

 

[mike danny]

Only time depth was higher was the peak year of Maestro, 2006, when Ljubicic reached #3, Blake #4 and Robredo #5.

Last year was even worse. Ruud could've become no.1 without winning a big title.

 

[Crocodile]

I don’t think there are any easy matches out there right now. No one can take their rankings for granted and if you are slightly off, you are in trouble. I think that for the first time in many years the young guys feel that there are opportunities coming.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Side note: at Roland Garros 1990, the top two seeds (Edberg and Becker) both lost in the first round and they won one set between them. Their opponents were Bruguera and Ivanisevic, both future slam champions.

immediately thought about that one as well...

PS: 16 seeds clearly made it more likely!

 

[SonnyT]

Time passes!

The Big3 becomes the Big1. How is Nadal supposed to win RG again? Wheel him out in a wheelchair?

Ruud is not a serious contender!

 

[ChrisJR3264]

Ruud was a weak 2. Is a weak 2. Maybe he defends some of those points at the French but he’ll drop.

 

[helterskelter]

immediately thought about that one as well...

PS: 16 seeds clearly made it more likely!

#17 clearly has more chance to catch #2 cold than does #33, ceteris paribus. Graf would probably have won Wimbledon 94 had they had 32 seeds. So glad they didn’t!