The top 32 seed system made it easier for the top players to win slams.

[Spencer Gore]

The introduction of the 32 seed system to the early round draws of the slams undoubtedly made it easier for the top players to win multiple slams. It was far more dangerous for the top players back in the day when you could be drawn in the first round against a player ranked number 17 in the world.

Just another demonstration of why the accumulation of double-figure slams by all of the big 3 is clearly the result of changes in the game itself, and it's administration, rather than their superiority to the greats from previous generations.

Glad to see a change is coming, though once again it will play into the hands of Federer and Nadal by making it far harder for future players to reach their extravagant slam totals.

 

[Krish872007]

Maybe, maybe not.
What if one section of the draw ends up being stacked with lots of good players - that would give a top players in much "weaker" sections an easy ride into the latter stages.

 

[Chadillac]

Masters titles to, winning them when sampras was, is alot harder than the current 2/3.

 

[big ted]

u may be right and it also gave players #17-32 an easier time on the tour making $ winning a couple rounds in GS tourneys.. maybe it will give those players more drive to be in the top 16 now

 

[Thundergod]

Like someone said, draws also have the potential to evaporate very quickly.

Also, the main point, the Big 3(mainly Fed/Djokovic) barely lose to anyone outside the top 15 slams as it is. Unless it's someone like Tsonga or Delpo wandering outside of the top 15 for some reason, what 17-32 ranked do you think ever has a chance of upsetting them in a Bo5? With Nadal in FO, the draw can be pretty much anything for him.

If anything, the Big 3 would kill these guys' rankings having to face them in the first round of slams and masters.

 

[NoleFam]

I think it made it easier for those guys hovering around #17-#32 in main draws for Slams and Masters actually. They were able to go consistently deeper in these events and protect their rankings. Yes the 32 seeds caused for lesser upsets and the occasional massive upset in the 1st or 2nd round, but someone like Nadal was upset to lower ranked players in Slams off clay, in any case. It made a small difference for the top players but I don't think it would have significantly caused them to win less Slams.

 

[AtomicForehand]

u may be right and it also gave players #17-32 an easier time on the tour making $ winning a couple rounds in GS tourneys.. maybe it will give those players more drive to be in the top 16 now

Umm...like they aren't already pretty motivated to be in the top 16?

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed's record will be secure for centuries now.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

ITF worked hard to create the top 4 as it wouldn’t generate a lot of buzz around Tennis. Problem will come now, when Fedal retires.

They will leave too much of a hole that the ITF created. So to fill the hole they’ll change the rules to fast 4 and all that comes with it. Terrible times for Tennis coming :/

 

[big ted]

Umm...like they aren't already pretty motivated to be in the top 16?

i think 17-32 may be motivated more if they might not get an easier ride to the 3rd rnd of a GS anymore.. esp slackers like tomic (if he can make it back) and kyrgios...

 

[GabeT]

W

Masters titles to, winning them when sampras was, is alot harder than the current 2/3.

whaaaat?

 

[Chadillac]

W

whaaaat?

Masters are another inflated stat in todays game. Guys had to play 3 out 5 to win masters, now they are 2/3, much much easier.

Sponsors need their high paid players in the finals, the 32 seed system made it happen.

 

[GabeT]

Masters are another inflated stat in todays game. Guys had to play 3 out 5 to win masters, now they are 2/3, much much easier.

Sponsors need their high paid players in the finals, the 32 seed system made it happen.

Are you talking about the finals?

 

[MasturB]

Helped Sampras breeze through Wimby 2002 for sure.

 

[TheAssassin]

Masters are another inflated stat in todays game. Guys had to play 3 out 5 to win masters, now they are 2/3, much much easier.

Sponsors need their high paid players in the finals, the 32 seed system made it happen.

On the other hand BO3 means a better chance of an upset. It gives a better chance to the underdogs.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The title of the thread applies mostly to two types of players:

1) who have less rounded games, so that they cannot rely on different approach of dealing with a difficult opponent when not at their relative best when it comes to preparation/condition

2) players that have difficulty of winning tournaments where they have to meet several top players

 

[Chadillac]

Are you talking about the finals?

Ya, the finals felt huge. Now its just another tournament.

 

[True Fanerer]

Every player has started at the bottom at one point. The best players fought their way to the top 4 seeds. It wasnt just given to them.

 

[Goosehead]

Masters titles to, winning them when sampras was, is alot harder than the current 2/3.

masters finals were often 3 sets ..its a myth that they were always 5 set finals

 

[merlinpinpin]

masters finals were often 3 sets ..its a myth that they were always 5 set finals

Actually, that's the opposite. Finals were often Bo5 before, even in tournaments that would only rank as "500" in today's game (ie Basel, Barcelona, Vienna, Wembley, etc.). It really felt like the "main event" at the time. Other tournaments have always had Bo3 finals, though (Rotterdam, Queen's--although Queen's also had a few Bo5 finals, but mainly at the start of the 20th century, so let's not put too much stock in these, lol).

As for what is today the M1000 tournaments, yes, their finals were definitely Bo5--this is anything but a myth. The one which has been Bo3 the longest, I think, is--The Real Slam, believe it or not (then Canada second). In fact, it was such an oddity at the time that, when Edberg and Wilander were playing the Cincy final in 88, Edberg asked the umpire *during the match* (I seem to remember it was at the start of the second-set tiebreak) whether this was Bo3 or Bo5.

 

[Goosehead]

Actually, that's the opposite. Finals were often Bo5 before, even in tournaments that would only rank as "500" in today's game (ie Basel, Barcelona, Vienna, Wembley, etc.). It really felt like the "main event" at the time. Other tournaments have always had Bo3 finals, though (Rotterdam, Queen's--although Queen's also had a few Bo5 finals, but mainly at the start of the 20th century, so let's not put too much stock in these, lol).

As for what is today the M1000 tournaments, yes, their finals were definitely Bo5--this is anything but a myth. The one which has been Bo3 the longest, I think, is--The Real Slam, believe it or not (then Canada second). In fact, it was such an oddity at the time that, when Edberg and Wilander were playing the Cincy final in 88, Edberg asked the umpire *during the match* (I seem to remember it was at the start of the second-set tiebreak) whether this was Bo3 or Bo5.

wrong. 3 out of 9 grand prix super series tourneys in 1988 ..were 3 setters.

 

[merlinpinpin]

wrong. 3 out of 9 grand prix super series tourneys in 1988 ..were 3 setters.

As I said, Cincinatti, Canada, and...? (Ah, yes, Tokyo... which was replaced in 1989 by Stockholm, with a... Bo5 final.)

Bo5 at that time: IW, Key Biscayne, Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, and Paris Bercy.

Now, if you've got three that were Bo3, it stands to reason that six were Bo5. Of course, if you consider three out of nine being the norm and six being the exception, well...

(Also, as I said, Cincinnati *was* Bo5 before, you just have to go back farther in time, ie 1966. Ditto the Canadian Open--last Bo5 final was 1976. None of these started as Bo3 final, except of course for the latecomer to the party, ie Shanghai.)

 

[tennisaddict]

I am really skeptical about this change . The game is entirely different , relying on more and more physicality in slowed down courts. For guys who don't have great luck with draws , which is often the case, there is no concept of building up to the final days. You need to be physically in top form entering the major if you are going to face two tough 17-32 ranked players in R1 and R2.

You could potentially face 7 top 20 players to win a major which is extremely hard

This is a game changer . I understand TV was the driving force for this decision .

Going from BO5 to BO3 is the other option which is also not great.

But that would have been more fairer to everyone in the draw.

Given the gulf in level of play between top 25 players and the rest , it is brutal for someone who could potentially have to face 7 of them to win a major as compared to 5 currently

 

[Red Rick]

I think it had a bigger role in making it harder to reach the top 20 if anything.

 

[aditya123]

Masters titles to, winning them when sampras was, is alot harder than the current 2/3.

Atleast 3 of Sampras's masters wins came where best of 3 format was being implemented.

 

[Zeref]

I rather feel Top5 are more susceptible to an Upset by an outside top 40 players. Remember when Granpa Fed Said in AO 2017 , " I was hoping to play better against top ranked players. " Djoker, Nadal and Murray all are susceptible to lower ranked players. They know top 20 very well, top 15 (5-20)doesn't even stand a chance.

Just a few days ago No one even thought Goffin could ever defeat Federer someday in his career despite being a top10 , No one gives Berdyman a chance against Nadal. Inside the top 30 , only competition for THE BIG5 was among themselves in semi's , that was bound to happen regardless of Seed system, imo For Nadal especially playing the Same field makes it even easier to Roll atleast to the Semi's.