Writer Asks - Why the Third Seed Gets A Tougher Matchup Than the Fourth? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Writer Asks - Why the Third Seed Gets A Tougher Matchup Than the Fourth?

gogogirl
01-30-2008, 01:11 AM
All,

What say y'all?

Check it out in the last five paragraphs.


WTA, ATP exclude fans from highlights of Aussie Open

Malcolm Aboud

Printer-friendly version Tuesday, January 29, 2008


At the conclusion of an exciting Australian Open, which saw top seeds Roger Federer and Justine Henin upset by eventual champions Novak Djokovic and Maria Sharapova, tennis fans witnessed a changing of the guard.

Well, at least that’s true for tennis fans in Australia, Asia and Europe. North Americans missed many of the most important matches of the tournament, which took place at 3:30 a.m. EDT.

That’s because organizers opted to schedule matches such as Djokovic’s semi-final upset for 7:30 p.m. Melbourne time, allowing Europeans to watch but forcing North Americans to stay up all night or miss the match.

Same for Europeans during top women’s matches. For example, Sharapova’s championship match versus Ana Ivanovic took place at 1:30 p.m. in Melbourne. That meant Serbs hoping to catch Ivanovic were left with a 3:30 a.m. start and Sharapova’s Russian fans had to wake up at 5:30 a.m.

Tennis’ widespread popularity makes it tough to find ideal times, but something is clearly wrong when neither North America or Russia — two of the strongest tennis markets in the world — can’t tune in for a Grand Slam final.

The obvious solution is to schedule the most important matches — semi-finals and finals — at a time that is reasonable in each time zone.

That means scheduling matches for 8:30 a.m. Melbourne time, allowing them to start at 4:30 p.m. in Toronto and New York, 10:30 p.m. in Paris and 12:30 a.m. in Moscow (not ideal but certainly reasonable).

This places that unbearable 3:30 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. start time squarely over vacant portions of Russia’s tundra and over the Middle East. New Delhi and Beijing both miss out, but they are not exactly the centres of the tennis universe.

The time zone issue wasn’t the greatest frustration of this year’s Aussie Open. That’s because even viewers who did see Djokovic’s semi-final upset over Federer didn’t get to do so under proper circumstances. That matchup — likely the best of the tournament — should have been in the finals.

The reason Djokovic and Federer met in the semis is that tennis’ current seeding system has the third seed matching up against the first, with the fourth seed meeting the second. That pitted third-ranked Djokovic against first-seeded Federer, with fourth seed Nikolai Davydenko set to face Rafael Nadal.

In what other sport does the third seed get a tougher matchup than the fourth? Common sense and sporting convention dictate Djokovic should have been lined up on Nadal’s side of the bracket, waiting until the finals to face Federer.

This is especially relevant in this case, since Djokovic has been the de facto number two hard-court seed for the past year. Nadal’s ranking points are mostly accumulated in the clay and grass portions of the year, and Djokovic — by far the superior hard-court player — has for some time been the heir apparent to Federer’s hard-court dynasty.

It was inevitable for Djokovic to beat Federer eventually — he’s simply been too good on hard court over the past year. This past weekend was earlier than most expected, but you’ll see tennis fans watching closely if Federer and Djokovic meet at the US Open.

Hopefully then it will be under better circumstances – during the day and in the finals.

http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Sports&articleID=1150&month=01&day=29&year=2008

l_mac
01-30-2008, 01:18 AM
All,

What say y'all?

Check it out in the last five paragraphs.


WTA, ATP exclude fans from highlights of Aussie Open

Malcolm Aboud

.........

The reason Djokovic and Federer met in the semis is that tennis’ current seeding system has the third seed matching up against the first, with the fourth seed meeting the second. That pitted third-ranked Djokovic against first-seeded Federer, with fourth seed Nikolai Davydenko set to face Rafael Nadal.

In what other sport does the third seed get a tougher matchup than the fourth? Common sense and sporting convention dictate Djokovic should have been lined up on Nadal’s side of the bracket, waiting until the finals to face Federer.

This is especially relevant in this case, since Djokovic has been the de facto number two hard-court seed for the past year. Nadal’s ranking points are mostly accumulated in the clay and grass portions of the year, and Djokovic — by far the superior hard-court player — has for some time been the heir apparent to Federer’s hard-court dynasty.

It was inevitable for Djokovic to beat Federer eventually — he’s simply been too good on hard court over the past year. This past weekend was earlier than most expected, but you’ll see tennis fans watching closely if Federer and Djokovic meet at the US Open.

Hopefully then it will be under better circumstances – during the day and in the finals.

http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Sports&articleID=1150&month=01&day=29&year=2008

:retard: It's random. The seeding system doesn't mean that #1 plays #3.

I suppose this writer is one who wants the draw to play #1 vs #128, #2 vs #127 etc etc in the 1st round.

Corey Feldman
01-30-2008, 01:31 AM
I agree with it

when it comes to the semis it should be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 ...

why should No.1player get a harder Semi than no.2? or in the same way why should no.4get an easier SF than no.3

also, it coulda stopped that pathetic injustice at 2005 Wimbledon when Hewitt, ranked 2 in the world, had to play Federer in the Semis - but no one can make any excuses for how many idiots are at the All England Club.

danton
01-30-2008, 01:36 AM
:retard: It's random. The seeding system doesn't mean that #1 plays #3.

I suppose this writer is one who wants the draw to play #1 vs #128, #2 vs #127 etc etc in the 1st round.

Not only that he says in the last line AO is the first time Nole beat Fed - I could have sworn in Canada last year he did it :rolleyes:

I am guessing tennis isn't his main sport.

l_mac
01-30-2008, 01:38 AM
I agree with it

when it comes to the semis it should be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 ...

why should No.1player get a harder Semi than no.2? or in the same way why should no.4get an easier SF than no.3

also, it coulda stopped that pathetic injustice at 2005 Wimbledon when Hewitt, ranked 2 in the world, had to play Federer in the Semis - but no one can make any excuses for how many idiots are at the All England Club.


But then how would Evil Tio Toni and the ATP bigwigs rig the draws in Rafa's favour the drama would be taken out of the draw. You couldn't just draw like that for the semis, it would have to be done with all 32 seeds at least, maybe the whole draw.

I prefer the system they use now.

thelionrose
01-30-2008, 01:39 AM
The rule for positioning of seeds is number II.B.4.b. in the USTA Friend at Court Tennis Rules and Regulation Handbook 2007 edition. For a 128 person draw with 32 seeds, Seed 1 is placed on line 1 of the bracket, Seed 2 is placed on line 128, Seeds 3 and 4 are drawn at random for line 33 or 96 in the bracket. This means that 3 and 4 are randomly placed at either the bottom or top halves of the draw. It just worked out how it did this year.

Corey Feldman
01-30-2008, 01:53 AM
You couldn't just draw like that for the semis, it would have to be done with all 32 seeds at least, maybe the whole draw.

I prefer the system they use now.Nah, just do it with the top4 until the Semis i say

even if it meant ruining that exciting part of a draw to see who gets Nole in a Semi - Federer or Nadal ...

also it would mean Nole and Rafa in the same half at Roland Garros :woohoo: :D

Fee
01-30-2008, 02:00 AM
I stopped reading when the author said that the matches should be played at 8:30 am Melbourne time. At that point I figured this was from one of those spoof sites.

Johnny Groove
01-30-2008, 02:02 AM
Im sure Djokovic would love the easier matchup with the #2 seed at RG

krystlel
01-30-2008, 02:06 AM
I stopped reading when the author said that the matches should be played at 8:30 am Melbourne time. At that point I figured this was from one of those spoof sites.
:lol: Yeah, that's one of the silliest suggestions I've read before.

gulzhan
01-30-2008, 02:12 AM
I stopped reading when the author said that the matches should be played at 8:30 am Melbourne time. At that point I figured this was from one of those spoof sites.

:lol: yep, that was one of the wackiest suggestions i'be heard :eek:

Im sure Djokovic would love the easier matchup with the #2 seed at RG

:haha: :yeah:

Kolya
01-30-2008, 02:25 AM
Its because Davydenko fixed the draw.

schorsch
01-30-2008, 03:16 AM
Im sure Djokovic would love the easier matchup with the #2 seed at RG
Thats exactly what I just wanted to write. It depends. It really depends what is tougher and what is not. The good thing is that the 4 top seeds dont meet before the semis. And well. I hope that soon Nadull wont have the luxury of being #2 seed anymore :devil:

Mechlan
01-30-2008, 03:24 AM
Im sure Djokovic would love the easier matchup with the #2 seed at RG

:rolls:

Tennis does it right. 1v4 and 2v3 all the time would end up being a disaster. There are times the rankings don't change much all year. If you think some players never face off now, imagine the scenario with unchanging seeds and fixed brackets.

thelionrose
01-30-2008, 11:10 AM
For Escude: Rules for positioning seeds 5-32
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 17,49,80, or 112
Seeds 9-16 Drawn at random for line 9, 25, 41, 57,72,88,104, or 120
Seeds 17-32 Drawn at random for line 5,13,21,29,37.45,53,61,68,76,84,92,100,108,116,or 124

Månu
01-30-2008, 11:25 AM
This Malcolm Aboud is a joke, did Europeans or Australians complain for the 94WC or for the Atlanta or Salt Lake City Olympics?

8.30 am in Melbourne, so basically players can't warm up??? what a douche this journalist is

jitterbug
01-30-2008, 11:32 AM
8.30am Melbourne time :retard: :spit:

stebs
01-30-2008, 11:40 AM
How stupid do you have to be to write an article critiquing a set of rules when you don't even know those rules.

clandis
01-30-2008, 11:59 AM
The time thing is crazy. The big fans will stay up or get up early. I put the big matches that I couldn't watch on DVR. Matches can't be rescheduled for people half the world away.
This joker makes a fundamental thing like time differences seem like a conspiracy.:cuckoo:

scarecrows
01-30-2008, 12:03 PM
who makes this guys write for newspapers and magazines?

barbadosan
01-30-2008, 12:32 PM
I stopped reading when the author said that the matches should be played at 8:30 am Melbourne time. At that point I figured this was from one of those spoof sites.

hahahaha.. I DID continue skimming after that, but seriously, when he has the gall to figure organisers should schedule matches for times when their stadiums would be empty, he's got something loose in his head (and it isn't coloured grey)

Tankman
01-30-2008, 12:44 PM
Meh. It's a Canadian student newspaper. And it's written by a third-year philosophy student. I don't think this article counts for much.

juninhOH
01-30-2008, 02:04 PM
I like the system the way it is, with a drawing of the seeds to see where they go to. It would suck if its not like that.

rocketassist
01-30-2008, 02:25 PM
The guy sounds like a disappointed Fedtard. :lol:

As for the US not tuning in, well a lot of US tennis fans are blinded and only watch the US players and Federer- they don't follow anything else.

Merton
01-30-2008, 04:28 PM
A fixed draw (eg. 1-4, 2-3 in the semis, 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 in the quarters and so on) leaves a big window open for gaming the system. The current system is best even though it provides a field day for fixed draw cospirasists.

RickDaStick
01-30-2008, 08:38 PM
What a fucking idiot. Playing the final at 8:30 am is really realistic :rolleyes: Then he says Beijing misses out but they arent exactly the center of the universe. My guess would be their tennis tv ratings are a lot higher than those in the US where pretty much everyone doesnt give a shit about tennis