main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Seeding.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Arena' started by Everton, Jun 29, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Everton

    Everton Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Having just watched Roger Federer dispose of Marat Safin, I wonder about seeding systems. Right now, it's the negatives that cause me to ponder.

    The top seeds play the easiest opponents, and so spend less time on court (in this instance). The lesser seeds have harder ties, and more evenly matched games earlier than the top seeds - thus they spend more time on court.

    When top seeds meet lesser seeds, the top seeds are more refreshed, and so their chances of victory increase a little more.

    All this means we only get the best matches (top players versus top player) in the semi-finals or final, and there's less chance of an unknown player coming through to win a tournament and increase the pool of big match experience.

    What are the positives of seeding?
     
  2. Kyp

    Kyp Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 27, 2003
    We don't get crap games in the semis.
     
  3. Kyptastic

    Kyptastic VIP star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2005
    I think seeding's become as much a commercial practice as opposed to a sporting practice. As Kyp has said, you're less likely to get bad games in the later stages of a tournament as the better players are more likely to make it through to those rounds, which, to sponsors and broadcasters, is better for ratings and therefore exposure, making tournaments more marketable and profitable.

    Especially in the major tournaments, there should be some reward for performing well over a period of time, as the top 10 or so have to have done. That said, to have 32 seeds in a tournament seems to be far too many,and I'd be happier to see it bought back to 16, giving new players more of a chance.
     
  4. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    When was the last time an unseeded man or woman won a Grand Slam title? Andre Agassi did it in 1994, at the U.S. Open, but how often does it happen now?
     
  5. Kyptastic

    Kyptastic VIP star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2005
    I know Ivanisavic was a Wildcard when he beat Rafter in 2001 at Wimbledon, but that's the last I can remember.
     
  6. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    How odd that if Agassi had beaten Rafter in that thriller in 2001, he would have played Goran again for the title (after doing the same thing nine years earlier). And probably won.
     
  7. rechedelphar

    rechedelphar Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Baghdatis was unseeded and made it to the final in the 2006 Australian and Mariano Puerta was unseeded in the final in the 2004 French.

    Wimbledon this year has had a few more upsets, 10 of the 32 in the 3rd round are unranked which I like more
     
  8. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    you don't want to see the two best players in the world against eachother in the first or second round. you want the best to play the best in the big games and that means the final and semi's.
     
  9. Everton

    Everton Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Jul 18, 2003
    So what's more important, then? The chance for more players to reach the latter stages of tournaments thus 'spreading the wealth' or audiences getting must see! repeats of the same big clashes at the business end of each major tournament? Isn't there are case to be made that the sport would, in the long term, be healthier if seeding were done away with?

    I'm a little fed up of seeing the same players (particularly in the Women's game) power through to the QF's without (it appears) really breaking sweat.
     
  10. rechedelphar

    rechedelphar Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 29, 2004
    I agree Everton. The reaso why I keep the men's game better is because of the larger parity but even in the men's game the parit is decreasing. I really really don't want a Federer/Nadal final.

    On a side note. I hate NBC's coverage. They show one match in its entirety (mostly womens matches [face_tired] )without switching from it once.
     
  11. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    why don't you want to see a Federer Nadal final? guarenteed awesome game. if it's Federer v any one else, the final is a walkover.
     
  12. rechedelphar

    rechedelphar Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 29, 2004
    I'd rather see a good tournamnet than a good final
     
  13. Onoto

    Onoto Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 7, 2004
    I think the current set-up is fine. You have tight contests between evenly matched middle-tier players, some rather cool thumpings by the best over the worst, and then some high-quality matches during the semis and finals when the high-ranked players square off. How is that bad?

    Also, how can it be avoided? The players have to play each other at some point, so why get the best players to knock each other out so early on that the general masses lose interest. There's no benefit in getting rid of seeding. All it will do is change when folks play each other, and I don't see how that can benefit the sport.
     
  14. rechedelphar

    rechedelphar Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Seeding is fine I think they should seed 16 instead of 32
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.