Slams to vote on return to 16 seeds next week in London.

[Boozyuzi]

According to the Times.. Hidden behind a pay wall though.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/tennis-to-vote-on-new-rules-hsgcp66pk

Good move if they return to 16 seeds, hopefully more exciting matches in the first week.

Anyone got access to the Times to share the rest of the story?

 

[Mugu]

i'm all for that. never liked the 32 seeds. but i bet they don't do it.

 

[ark_28]

If this happens it would be amazing and give us some great matches... hypothetically if Andy Murray dropped one place he would be unseeded!

 

[pame]

According to the Times.. Hidden behind a pay wall though.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/tennis-to-vote-on-new-rules-hsgcp66pk

Good move if they return to 16 seeds, hopefully more exciting matches in the first week.

Anyone got access to the Times to share the rest of the story?

There's a similar, non-walled article at http://www.theweek.co.uk/tennis/89638/tennis-to-vote-on-rules-shake-up

 

[tennisaddict]

Either make 16 seed or BO3 for first 3 rounds or make it a 64 player draw or speed up courts.

First 4 days of majors is a big bore now.

 

[George Turner]

Not a good idea, you could get Fed vs Murray/Nole in round 1 and a host of other overpowered first round match ups. Save those matches for future rounds.

I could live with the first two rounds being made best of 3. Get a few more upsets and save players a bit of energy.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Sounds too good to be true.

 

[Justice Underworld]

16 seeds caused for more exciting matches and upsets but I've gotten used to 32 seeds now. I doubt they will change it.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Yes please

“A shot clock, in-match coaching and a reduction in the number of seeds from 32 to 16 are among reforms to be discussed by the Wimbledon Championships and the other three grand-slam tournaments in London next week. The All England Club takes pride in maintaining the traditions of the sport but has realised in recent months that it may fall behind the other grand slams if it refuses to adopt some innovations.”

Wimbledon has to make changes. And its clear w this they see this themselves. One reason is TV ratings this year worse they finally realizing it.

 

[True Fanerer]

Top players find their form throughout the slams by playing the low ranked players I think. It can get boring at times I agree, but the current format with 32 seeds seems fine to me. I'd rather Fed play a couple guys for practice before a dangerous player in an early round.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Based if true

 

[Shaolin]

They won't change it. Anything that might disrupt the big names in the final will affect their pocketbooks.

 

[chjtennis]

Oh, man. I don't really care whether it' 16 or 32 seeds, but at AO, we could have some draws from hell....

 

[Johnnypeacock]

According to the Times.. Hidden behind a pay wall though.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/tennis-to-vote-on-new-rules-hsgcp66pk

Good move if they return to 16 seeds, hopefully more exciting matches in the first week.

Anyone got access to the Times to share the rest of the story?

Tennis authorities seem very worried about the future state of the game.

 

[Max G.]

They want to protect Federer's record. As soon as he's done winning Slams, they'll make it tougher to make sure nobody can come close to that record again.

 

[mavsman149]

I feel like I'm in the minority, but I prefer the 32 seed format. I see many people say the beginning rounds of majors are boring but I can think of plenty of exciting early round scares or even exits for all of the big names, I'm sure that the tournaments prefer to have the big names at the end of the draw too.

 

[Tennease]

Just bring the shot clock / serve timer in GS matches. 20 seconds, not 25 seconds.

 

[Russeljones]

16 seeds 4 life

 

[Sentinel]

If this happens it would be amazing and give us some great matches... hypothetically if Andy Murray dropped one place he would be unseeded!

Fed was #17 at the AO, right ?

 

[peakin11mugs]

They need to do swim thing. First few matches of slams are absolute bore fest. It’s only interesting ish now because fed is old and Form can dip anytime and nadal has always been prone to mug upsets early rounds. Fed being old has actually made early rounds interesting again

 

[Mr Feeny]

Just bring the shot clock / serve timer in GS matches. 20 seconds, not 25 seconds.

That's got to be the biggest change. There's no room for cheating in tennis and most importantly, you'll make it more interesting by speeding it up. Fans are tuning out, watching players fake 30 seconds bouncing a ball before faulting and then repeating,ad-nauseum.

Enforce this by giving the umpire the timer so that he can exercise some discretion and give the players some leeway after long rallies. Other than that, you'e got to make sure that the matches are fair. You can't have one player taking in excess of 30 minutes between points with nothing done about it. Not only should gamesmanship be eradicated but it's just boring to watch.

 

[Mr Feeny]

They need to do swim thing. First few matches of slams are absolute bore fest. It’s only interesting ish now because fed is old and Form can dip anytime and nadal has always been prone to mug upsets early rounds. Fed being old has actually made early rounds interesting again

I suspect that when Federer hangs up his boots, there will be a precipitous drop in viewership regardless of anything else. He's the most popular player in tennis history by a countrymile and I think that they realize some changes may need to take place to generate some interest in the sport that's not specifically related to these ATGs.

 

[BGod]

People saying first 4 days of Slams are boring? Fanboys.

I love the 1st week of Slams but maybe because I go in person. Absolutely awesome days. I go 11am to 2am. Lower ranked players giving it all in 1st and 2nd Round.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Perhaps implementing the next gen rules in next years WTF's as an experiment to see how the top players adjust.

16 seeds at slams would really shake things up. AND A GRASS MASTERS, too many Clay events.

 

[prairiegirl]

I suspect that when Federer hangs up his boots, there will be a precipitous drop in viewership regardless of anything else. He's the most popular player in tennis history by a country mile and I think that they realize some changes may need to take place to generate some interest in the sport that's not specifically related to these ATGs.

I would hardly call him the most popular player in tennis history, and I say that as a huge fan of his. Remember that we're watching tennis in the digital age where we can see matches multiple times over, and we have access to the players in ways that fans in past years never did. We interact with them via Social Media, and there are more social events and exhibitions than ever before. So, because of that, we tend to get to know the players better. I will never forget how popular Borg was when he first began to play. Mobs of girls would run screaming after him, and he had to have police protection in several of his tournaments just to get onto court. No player in our day has ever reached that level of popularity. Even today, he's highly respected. There is no such things as the best player of all time, or even the most popular of all time. Those are titles that are all time-related. Ten years from now, we may look at another player and say that he or she is the greatest of all time, and that is how it evolves.

 

[prairiegirl]

I suspect that when Federer hangs up his boots, there will be a precipitous drop in viewership regardless of anything else. He's the most popular player in tennis history by a country mile and I think that they realize some changes may need to take place to generate some interest in the sport that's not specifically related to these ATGs.

I would hardly call him the most popular player in tennis history, and I say that as a huge fan of his. Remember that we're watching tennis in the digital age where we can see matches multiple times over, and we have access to the players in ways that fans in past years never did. We interact with them via Social Media, and there are more social events and exhibitions than ever before. So, because of that, we tend to get to know the players better. I will never forget how popular Borg was when he first began to play. Mobs of girls would run screaming after him, and he had to have police protection in several of his tournaments just to get onto court. No player in our day has ever reached that level of popularity. Even today, he's highly respected. There is no such things as the best player of all time, or even the most popular of all time. Those are titles that are all time-related. Ten years from now, we may look at another player and say that he or she is the greatest of all time, and that is how it evolves.

 

[sportmac]

People saying first 4 days of Slams are boring? Fanboys.

I love the 1st week of Slams but maybe because I go in person. Absolutely awesome days. I go 11am to 2am. Lower ranked players giving it all in 1st and 2nd Round.

Yep. I'll watch any good competition. Some are star struck and think only the top players can play or are worth watching. There's some excellent tennis played even in the qualifying.

Put me in the "like" column of 32 seeds.

 

[sportmac]

deleted duplicate

 

[Thundergod]

I think 32 seeds should stay, especially considering the future. The early rounds only look boring for the past 10 years because the Big 4 pretty much never lose before the QF let alone first 3 rounds which is where I think the seed change would affect.

We would see more interesting matchups early, but I would rather have the bigger matchups later. There's still a good amount of early round upsets if you exclude the Big 4.

 

[ark_28]

Fed was #17 at the AO, right ?

Sure was as was Pete when he won his last US Open

 

[Fedforever]

That's got to be the biggest change. There's no room for cheating in tennis and most importantly, you'll make it more interesting by speeding it up. Fans are tuning out, watching players fake 30 seconds bouncing a ball before faulting and then repeating,ad-nauseum.

Enforce this by giving the umpire the timer so that he can exercise some discretion and give the players some leeway after long rallies. Other than that, you'e got to make sure that the matches are fair. You can't have one player taking in excess of 30 minutes between points with nothing done about it. Not only should gamesmanship be eradicated but it's just boring to watch.

Yes. Definitely agree with the shot clock, especially with umpire discretion. I don't like on court coaching but get the feeling almost all players want it and it's their opinion that should carry. Perhaps just limited to end of set though?

 

[PMChambers]

32 seeds is fair for Majors where all fit players attend.
The first rounds is boring concept is only boring if your obsessed with Big 4. Outside the seedings the matches are great. Probably won't drive TV viewers or non tennis fans {I put obsessed big 3 fans here} but the tennis is good.
The reality is the old Pro Tour and EXO tour is what general public and big 4 fan base want. Small tour of top players playing top players IE Majors and Masters QF, WTF, Laver Cup, etc. Personally I like more than 16 players on tour and consider the outside courts at majors the place to be in the first week.
Reducing seeds from 32 to 16 will mainly hurt players in 16 to 32 ranking. It's not going to make better Top 4 matches unless the disparity in quality diminishes.

 

[Meles]

Either make 16 seed or BO3 for first 3 rounds or make it a 64 player draw or speed up courts.

First 4 days of majors is a big bore now.

32 seeds at majors may be a mistake. Miami and IW drive me nuts with the 32 seed, 96 player field. At least with the majors the stars are in action the first few days of the event.

 

[Meles]

People saying first 4 days of Slams are boring? Fanboys.

I love the 1st week of Slams but maybe because I go in person. Absolutely awesome days. I go 11am to 2am. Lower ranked players giving it all in 1st and 2nd Round.

Have to concur that the first two rounds are amazing. Just a ton of matches and bound to have some tight ones even for the seeds. Witness Medvedev vs Wawrinka this year at Wimbledon.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I don’t like going back to 16 seeds.

1) It would make for even more potentially lopsided draws for top players. Somebody gets #17 in round one while someone else gets a qualifier? That’s not really fair. Yes, I know someone can get #33 and someone else a qualifier, but thsts still a big difference. On top of that, the same player who could get a tougher draw in the ones rounds as happens now. The current system hedges against totally lopsided draws.

2) People are excited about more exciting early round matches and that’s great, but with only 16 seeds and almost surely more early upsets, you won’t get as good matchups in the final 16/QFs/SFs/Fs. Everyone remembers Agassi vs. Schuettler at the AO. A 32 seed system helps make those types of finals more unlikely. I know we got a Nadal/KAndy final at the USO, but these were extreme circumstances with so many people out and KAndy wasn’t a 36th ranked player.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I don’t like going back to 16 seeds.

1) It would make for even more potentially lopsided draws for top players. Somebody gets #17 in round one while someone else gets a qualifier? That’s not really fair. Yes, I know someone can get #33 and someone else a qualifier, but thsts still a big difference. On top of that, the same player who could get a tougher draw in the ones rounds as happens now. The current system hedges against totally lopsided draws.

2) People are excited about more exciting early round matches and that’s great, but with only 16 seeds and almost surely more early upsets, you won’t get as good matchups in the final 16/QFs/SFs/Fs. Everyone remembers Agassi vs. Schuettler at the AO. A 32 seed system helps make those types of finals more unlikely. I know we got a Nadal/KAndy final at the USO, but these were extreme circumstances with so many people out and KAndy wasn’t a 36th ranked player.

 

[Red Rick]

I don’t like going back to 16 seeds.

1) It would make for even more potentially lopsided draws for top players. Somebody gets #17 in round one while someone else gets a qualifier? That’s not really fair. Yes, I know someone can get #33 and someone else a qualifier, but thsts still a big difference. On top of that, the same player who could get a tougher draw in the ones rounds as happens now. The current system hedges against totally lopsided draws.

2) People are excited about more exciting early round matches and that’s great, but with only 16 seeds and almost surely more early upsets, you won’t get as good matchups in the final 16/QFs/SFs/Fs. Everyone remembers Agassi vs. Schuettler at the AO. A 32 seed system helps make those types of finals more unlikely. I know we got a Nadal/KAndy final at the USO, but these were extreme circumstances with so many people out and KAndy wasn’t a 36th ranked player.

We had an Anderson - Carreno Busta semifinal.