This match proves how much today's top players benefit from 32 seed system

[kandamrgam]

After Del Potro's win over Djokovic today I am compelled to notice how different tennis would have been had the seeding system not changed from 16 to 32 from 2001 onwards. As much as I am not a big fan of smaller number of seed system one cant deny the top players today benefited from playing lesser players in earlier rounds in maintaining their winning record. Not that Del Potro's rank currently is inside anything to make a difference here but it is usually players like him or ones at his level today you would see inside top 20.

It does make a difference if you're playing a 15-30 player in first two rounds and not in 4th or QF because by the time tournament advances to second week all the top players will be in much better shape whereas in first two rounds they will still be shaky. Hence today's top players look more consistent, and also the final rounds of Majors will have top players more often.

 

[gn]

The problem is that there are not so many good players who would go on to win the whole thing. It will result in loopsided finals like this Wimby!

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I don't think anyone disputes that the top players benefit from the 32-seed system. In fact,I think that's the point. Being at the top means you're less likely to face a fellow top seed during the early stages and there is thus less of a risk of beinf eliminated. Plus, the spectators also benefit. And it acts as an incentive to get to the top.

So, what's your point, OP? No offence intended.

 

[kandamrgam]

I don't think anyone disputes that the top players benefit from the 32-seed system. In fact,I think that's the point. Being at the top means you're less likely to face a fellow top seed during the early stages and there is thus less of a risk of beinf eliminated. Plus, the spectators also benefit. And it acts as an incentive to get to the top.

So, what's your point, OP? No offence intended.

1. That aspect has two sides. On one hand, spectators benefit of having multi-starrer finals and semi-finals, on the other it leads to boring initial rounds. This is the side (complaint) I have heard the most here on these boards.

2. I wasnt insinuating anything, just a reminder how the seeding system comes into play. This has to come into consideration if you are assessing players from the past. Del Potro - Djoker match was just a reminder. Personally I am all for 128 seed system. It just feels more correct, even if non-helping (whatever the cause is).

 

[helterskelter]

Steffi Graf v Lori McNeil at Wimbledon 1994. Couldn't have happened with 32 seeds.