Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament draws? - MensTennisForums.com
 8Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:07 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
zzzyyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,459
                     
Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament draws?

In tournaments, #1 seed has no advantage over #2 seed, since they are placed on opposite sides of the draw and have same probability of drawing an opponent.

So being #1 in the world vs #2 in the world has no advantage in terms of seeding draw (obviously prestige of being #1 but for winning a tournament it doesn't provide an edge).

Every other rank theres some advantage in terms of seeding/draw (e.g. for #3 and #4, if #1 or #2 withdraw from a tournament, than the #3 player will have draw advantage)
zzzyyy is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:09 AM
Ace Loveforty
 
scarecrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tirana, ALBANIA
Posts: 81,992
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

How would you solve it?
scarecrows is offline  
post #3 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:21 AM
Registered User
 
Mr.Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,893
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Not much you can do about it really if you want to keep the draw balanced.

.
.
12 / 30 / 5 / 4 / 223
___________________

Road to Ruins

6x Australian Open champion / 1x French Open champion / 3x Wimbledon champion / 2x US Open champion
30 Masters titles / 5 World Tour Finals titles / 67 ATP titles / Davis Cup champion
4x Year End no.1 / 223 Weeks at no.1 / ATP rankings record: 16.950 / NCYGS


Mr.Black is offline  
post #4 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:33 AM
Registered User
 
Jolyon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,041
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzyyy View Post

So being #1 in the world vs #2 in the world has no advantage in terms of seeding draw (obviously prestige of being #1 but for winning a tournament it doesn't provide an edge).
To make lives of No.1 and No. 2 seeded/ranked players easy so they have a higher chance of meeting in the final, this is the way to go, but they will be knowing who exactly they will be meeting at the QF, SF, F stages.

QFs - 1 seed vs. 8 seed (A), 2 vs. 7 (B), 3 vs. 6 (C) and 4 vs. 5 (D)

SFs - A vs. D (I), B vs. C (II)

Fs - I vs. II

No.1 will have 8, 5, 4 and No.2 will have 7, 6, 3 on their sides of the draw.

The draw for 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R can be random and it should not affect results that much.

9-2 9-4 7-2 Now, who's the GOAT?

Last edited by Jolyon; 05-17-2016 at 09:46 AM.
Jolyon is offline  
post #5 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:45 AM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,022
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

No, the top ranking positions often do not move very much over periods of several years, so (under a 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 system) there would be a strong risk of getting the same match-ups again and again.

This would make the sport even more boringly predictable than it already is.

I would actually keep the random assignment as it is, and cut the number of seeds in a 128 draw back to 16.
Brit Tennis Fan likes this.
chalkdust is offline  
post #6 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:52 AM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 31
Posts: 13,819
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

I see, you'd rather have a system like the 1900 Wimbledon. Top seed only plays the final against the player who manages to come on top of everyone else. Smart system.
Mateya likes this.
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #7 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:56 AM
Registered User
 
Mr.Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,893
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

The "playoff system" of 1-8, 2-7, etc. is clearly not suitable for week by week tournaments where rankings aren't altered every week. It would be same boring matchups tournament after tournament. It's only viable for American group sports playoffs, where you get a (almost) different matchup after every regular season of 80+ games. Similar to what we have at WTF in London.

.
.
12 / 30 / 5 / 4 / 223
___________________

Road to Ruins

6x Australian Open champion / 1x French Open champion / 3x Wimbledon champion / 2x US Open champion
30 Masters titles / 5 World Tour Finals titles / 67 ATP titles / Davis Cup champion
4x Year End no.1 / 223 Weeks at no.1 / ATP rankings record: 16.950 / NCYGS


Mr.Black is offline  
post #8 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 09:59 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,428
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

I guess it could still be random if we had 1st seed against 7 or 8, then 2nd seed against 6,7 or 6,8 (depending on which one the first seed got). That would stop 5th seed from getting 1st or 2nd (which is kind of unfair, since 4th seed is treated much better in the QF) and give the 1st seed a boost at the same time. However, that would complify the draw and I would keep it the way it is.
raysun68 is offline  
post #9 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:06 AM
Registered User
 
Crvena Zvezda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nîmes, France
Posts: 5,299
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalkdust View Post
No, the top ranking positions often do not move very much over periods of several years, so (under a 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 system) there would be a strong risk of getting the same match-ups again and again.

This would make the sport even more boringly predictable than it already is.

I would actually keep the random assignment as it is, and cut the number of seeds in a 128 draw back to 16.
They had extended to 32 and of course killed some surprised.

But I guess when big points (and big money) are in GS, it was pretty unfair to have a 5 vs 17 in R128 when a 23 can go to R32 without facing any seed.
DinnerWarrior likes this.

CRPIJA
Crvena Zvezda is offline  
post #10 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:12 AM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,022
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crvena Zvezda View Post
They had extended to 32 and of course killed some surprised.

But I guess when big points (and big money) are in GS, it was pretty unfair to have a 5 vs 17 in R128 when a 23 can go to R32 without facing any seed.
Why unfair? That would be just luck of the draw.

Surely it is (much) more unfair that the higher-ranked players are consistently given an advantage in every tournament they play in, even though - as the better players - they don't need any advantage, have a much higher income, can employ a whole team of staff etc.
SBH Safin likes this.
chalkdust is offline  
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:21 AM
Registered User
 
SBH Safin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 304
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalkdust View Post
Why unfair? That would be just luck of the draw.

Surely it is (much) more unfair that the higher-ranked players are consistently given an advantage in every tournament they play in, even though - as the better players - they don't need any advantage, have a much higher income, can employ a whole team of staff etc.
Spot on. If they're not going to seriously address the imbalance in prize money for the different rounds they could at least do this. The change in seeding has definitely favoured the top players, and contributes towards 'slam inflation'.

Does anyone know if the seedings for Masters 1000s changed at the same time they increased slam seedings from 16 to 32?
SBH Safin is offline  
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:30 AM
Registered User
 
TigerTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London (sadly)
Posts: 15,094
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Reduce number of seeds to 16. Simples.
TigerTim is offline  
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:31 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 786
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBH Safin View Post
Spot on. If they're not going to seriously address the imbalance in prize money for the different rounds they could at least do this. The change in seeding has definitely favoured the top players, and contributes towards 'slam inflation'.

Does anyone know if the seedings for Masters 1000s changed at the same time they increased slam seedings from 16 to 32?
I don't think that increasing the number of seeds actually made a really big difference for the very top players and caused "slam inflation". During their prime years, players like Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic almost never lost to players ranked outside 16 anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered if they had to play someone ranked 17-32 in the early rounds. It made a big difference, however, for the lower seeds and certainly helped to keep the rankings altogether more stable.
Martin12 is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:38 AM
A Perfect Hat Trick
 
zjtennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,314
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

I have to agree with making it an 1/8 seeding system rather than the 1/4 we have right now. This current system have players a seed as early as the 3rd Round, rather than the 4th which is the halfway point of a Slam. This system though may complicate, say "Seeded Bye" tournaments (i.e. Masters with 96-player/32-seed draws and 500's with 48-player/16-seed draws) in the sense if we are keeping the same number of players in the Main Draw in the 1/8 system, we will have unseeded players get Byes. I guess the better way is to adjust to add players to the main draw (from 96/32 to 112/16 and 48/16 to 56/8) but I am not sure if they could afford that. Maybe just do the 1/4 system during these type of tournaments and stay 1/8 when there are no Byes or on 250's where the Top 4 seeds are the only ones with Byes.



--------------------------------------------------

zjtennis is offline  
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 05-17-2016, 10:42 AM
Registered User
 
chalkdust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 46
Posts: 4,022
                     
Re: Is it unfair that the #1 seed has no advantage over the #2 seed in tournament dra

Quote:
Originally Posted by zjtennis View Post
I have to agree with making it an 1/8 seeding system rather than the 1/4 we have right now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this?
chalkdust is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome