why not get rid of the seeding system altogether?

onyxrose81

Hall of Fame
Rafa fans forgetting how Wimbledon used to work by just assigning seeds randomly. The system was never a problem for them until this year.

I don’t know what it’ll take. Thiem losing justified the system.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
Then in 2008 to 2012 period you would have seen Federer Djokovic clashing in early rounds than the SF.
so what
that gives someone else a go doesnt it?
top players get all the advantages
top players shouldnt need their bums wiped to keep them in a tourny to the later rounds
 

73west

Semi-Pro
that would be fair......wouldn't it?
a) Because it's not fun for the fans. A few first round heavyweight matchups is fine, but people want to see the best players play multiple matches. They don't want to see the 6th best player out in the 1st round simply because he drew the 2nd best in R1.
b) Because it would create wildly imbalanced draws. If you think good draw / bad draw is a talking point now, imagine when you randomly draw Fedalovic into the same half and Kevin Anderson, Dominic Thiem and Kei Nishikori are alone in the other half.
c) Because it would render the pt system, where you get more points for going further, meaningless.

The players would hate it. The fans would hate it. The tournament organizers would hate it. TV would hate it.
 

skip1969

Legend
While my own desire is to return to 16 seeds . . . and while I don't think no seeds will EVER fly . . . it's fun to think about. Naturally, the game is driven by money and sponsors, so from that angle, it's a no-go. And it's the players who want to be "protected" so they'll never agree. But it would be fun for a regular tourney to do it.

Protecting the big guys has made the first week of Slams pretty meaningless. All you have to do is look at the bazillion TTW threads about "cakewalk" draws and "rigged" draws. And these poasters are supposed to be the savviest of the savvy tennis fans. They pencil in the Big 3 right into the semis or finals because it's such a foregone conclusion. They talk about how many bagels and breadsticks their heros can collect on the way to the only matches that matter, the semis and finals. If they're bored with the current set-up, imagine a casual fan or a new one. Why spend money on tickets for the first week? Why not just give the reigning champ a bye to the finals like they did back in the beginning of the Slams?

It would be like the FA Cup, where starting at the Third Round Proper (when all of the big teams start playing) everyone is put into the same pot to be drawn. Sometimes you end up with two huge clubs playing each other early and one being knocked out. Last year, Chelsea were defending champs and got knocked out in the Fifth Round by ManU. That's just the luck of the draw.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I did like the 16-seed era. It's still the reason I think of the 4th round of a major as a "showcase" round and consider it a big accomplishment for a player to make the 4th round for the first time at a major.

The drawback - obviously - is that No. 1 can play No. 17 in the first round. But, I liked it; it left some good unpredictability in the draw. Plus, going by the logic that No. 1 shouldn't play No. 17 in the first round, why should they have to play No. 33, or No. 65 (if there were 64 seeds)? Why not just seed the entire field 1-128.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Why not? There would be more surprises and more upsets. In a way, it would be more fun.
In an era when the same guy can win one slam 12 times and counting and when the same 3 have made almost all the slam finals for more than 10 years, I say it's a legit question.
Does the current system make things somewhat too safe for the top guys? Maybe. Maybe we need to shake it up a bit. More drama, less routine. (And a chance for more people to make some big bucks)
In any case, grass remains the surface where upsets are most likely to happen. Short season though. Let's enjoy it while it lasts ;)
 
so what
that gives someone else a go doesnt it?
top players get all the advantages
top players shouldnt need their bums wiped to keep them in a tourny to the later rounds
But you could also be 40th in the world, and draw Djokovic in the first round, Nadal in the second and Federer in the third. Right now if you beat a seed in the first round, at least you won't meet another one in the second. It's more balanced for the non seeded players too.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
But you could also be 40th in the world, and draw Djokovic in the first round, Nadal in the second and Federer in the third. Right now if you beat a seed in the first round, at least you won't meet another one in the second. It's more balanced for the non seeded players too.
It's balanced but the flip side of that is it's become extremely predictable.
 

NLBwell

Legend
Money.
Tournaments want the players attracting the most fans - which are the best known, highest ranked players - to be around at the end.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
More chances of unsold expansive tickets for later rounds with lesser known players. It affects sponsorship, viewership, and attendance.

But I like to see it happens...you might end up with a better crop of top 50 players.
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
I disagree with this idea. I thought the desired ideal outcome of a tournament is to have the two best players play in the title match. This random draw method would only randomly achieve this. Tournaments structure their (single) ticket prices to gradually increase as the best players reach the later rounds. If OP wants to hold a tournament like this, I think it would be a good (and expensive) experiment.
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
winner of 1-128 plays winner of 64-65 in R2, and so on.
The question is, would you reseed after each round in the event of upsets? ;)

The seeding system is fine as it is. There will always be dangerous unseeded players out there, but for the most part, it's to the players' respective benefit (especially in the early rounds) to be seeded higher.
 

reef58

Rookie
You would have a bunch of undeserving players rated in the top ten since the best players may knock themselves out in the early rounds. You could argue rating won't matter as there are no seeds, but it does matter.
 
128 seeds.

1 plays lowest ranked, until #64 plays #65.
It's never going to happen, but I agree. For all the complaints about cakewalk draws, we wouldn't have that problem if the entire field was seeded and placed in accordance with their rankings. It's never made any sense to me that you could be seeded #2 and draw the 33rd ranked player, while two qualifers might draw each other only to play the winner of the 96th-ranked player and a Lucky Loser.

Even 64 seeds would seem more fair, but I guess people prefer the thrill of surprise and having something to complain about more than they do fairness. ;-)
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
It's never going to happen, but I agree. For all the complaints about cakewalk draws, we wouldn't have that problem if the entire field was seeded and placed in accordance with their rankings. It's never made any sense to me that you could be seeded #2 and draw the 33rd ranked player, while two qualifers might draw each other only to play the winner of the 96th-ranked player and a Lucky Loser.

Even 64 seeds would seem more fair, but I guess people prefer the thrill of surprise and having something to complain about more than they do fairness. ;-)
No, that would actually be the worst idea. Because it causes tanking in the tournaments before a Slam when someone has a bad matchup with another one to let his own ranking drop on purpose. For example Nadal is #1 and Federer is #2. And then someone like Davydenko or Ferrer who never had a chance against Federer but regularly prevailed against Nadal would be #3. He would possibly do anything he could to avoid Federer before the final and deliberately lose in another tournament to fall to #4. So he would meet Nadal in SF and Federer in F. The same could occur for lower players to avoid someone in the SF and so on.

That’s why drawing anything lower than #2 to at least 2 possibilities on both sides is perfectly right.

Also rankings don’t always change that fast. So your system would mean many matches between the same players. They have this system starting in the 2nd round in darts, and it’s very striking. But at least in darts there are no matchup issues, so maybe it is at least acceptable there.
 
Top