The Dominance of Roger in Slams: Linked to 32 Seeds? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Dominance of Roger in Slams: Linked to 32 Seeds?

sawan66278
02-05-2008, 04:50 PM
During the off-season between slams, one invariably allows their mind to wander? I started thinking...remember back in the day when Agassi lost quite a few first round matches at the U.S. Open? Today, this (aside from the rare exception like the Jo Will run) would almost NEVER occur.

It makes you wonder: how would Roger, Rafa, and the rest of the field have fared if there were only 16 seeds at the slams? I submit: Roger would NOT have as many slams as he has...Now, this could be the case for any slam winner...but can you imagine?

I wish they slams would go back to only 16 seeds. Pete, through most of his career, had to deal with the inherent challenges involved with this...who wouldn't like to see Roger (and Rafa and Novak) have to deal with this challenge as well?

Burrow
02-05-2008, 04:51 PM
Maybe it is just cause he is better than anybody else?

Skyward
02-05-2008, 05:00 PM
Check Federer/Nadal's (on clay) records against players ranked 17-32.

Adler
02-05-2008, 05:25 PM
Maybe it is just cause he is better than anybody else?
Naaah, that may not be true :)

Manon
02-05-2008, 05:50 PM
Sampras had more real challengers, exellent players, extraordinary competitors...Fed is almost alone (exept Rafa & now maybe Novak (Nole is grose). So, because of that, in any means, Sampras is way better player and will be. Now, Fed IS better than anybody else.

Adler
02-05-2008, 05:59 PM
Here we go again...

tennizen
02-05-2008, 06:04 PM
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)

juninhOH
02-05-2008, 06:05 PM
check federer number of losses to top10 after he became #1.

stebs
02-05-2008, 06:09 PM
Federer hasn't lost to a 16-32 player off clay since Mirnyi in 2002 USO. He wouldn't be losing to them just because he meets them a round or two earlier.

Sjengster
02-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Agassi's early losses at the US Open (when he was a seeded player, as opposed to a low-ranked up and comer):

Krickstein (ranked 47)
Enqvist (ranked 61)
Clement (ranked 37)

Sunset of Age
02-05-2008, 06:22 PM
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)

Some people enjoy listening to broken records. ;)

tennizen
02-05-2008, 06:30 PM
Some people enjoy listening to broken records. ;)

Sawan I think likes to watch other people playing broken records:lol: No offense,Sawan:)

sawan66278
02-05-2008, 06:36 PM
Sawan, do you really want people to discuss how Sampras is much better than Federer. Because that's where this thread is going:)

I originally thought I would include Rafa in the discussion, but...I like broken records;)

Seriously though, I can imagine it would change some of the events...perhaps Rafa would even suffer. Don't forget: its not just who Roger or Rafa faces in the first round, but who his potential opponents face. Roger, Rafa, or Novak could have avoided a more difficult opponent because a player (say the #17 player in the world) knocked out someone they might find difficult.

ALSO...say Roger or Rafa had to face the #17 player in the world in the opening round. That could have an impact later down the line as far as fatigue, etc...so its not just an issue of upsets...but struggles down the line, as well.

Lleyton_
02-05-2008, 06:36 PM
:retard::retard::retard:

tennizen
02-05-2008, 06:44 PM
I originally thought I would include Rafa in the discussion, but...I like broken records;)

Seriously though, I can imagine it would change some of the events...perhaps Rafa would even suffer. Don't forget: its not just who Roger or Rafa faces in the first round, but who his potential opponents face. Roger, Rafa, or Novak could have avoided a more difficult opponent because a player (say the #17 player in the world) knocked out someone they might find difficult.

ALSO...say Roger or Rafa had to face the #17 player in the world in the opening round. That could have an impact later down the line as far as fatigue, etc...so its not just an issue of upsets...but struggles down the line, as well.

I am a little dense when it comes to the matter of seedings and draws but don't Federer and Nadal win Masters events. Wouldn't it be the same thing only in a slam. In fact, I think wouldn't five sets be far more advantageous to the top players.

World Beater
02-05-2008, 06:45 PM
:lol:

just say it sawan.

ill do it for you.

sampras >>>> federer.

happy now? :lol:

sawan66278
02-05-2008, 07:46 PM
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Sampras. Let's face it: even as a spectator, the early round matches were MUCH more exciting back in the day when there were only 16 seeds.

This argument applies even more strongly to the DTA (Diva Tennis Association): back then, women's matches were as entertaining as watching paint dry. Now, watching women's early round matches is like watching paint dry while be subjected to Chinese water torture.

tennizen
02-05-2008, 07:50 PM
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Sampras. Let's face it: even as a spectator, the early round matches were MUCH more exciting back in the day when there were only 16 seeds.

Except the French Open last year, I thought the early round matches in all the slams were quite exciting:shrug:

l_mac
02-05-2008, 07:54 PM
Federer would still have 12 Slams. You can count on one hand the number of times he's been truly stretched during his 12 Slam wins. I don't really see how the possibility of playing someone ranked 17-32 in the first two rounds would have changed this. And I think Rafa would still have won 3 RG titles. He doesn't lose many matches on clay, regardless of his opponents ranking.

scoobs
02-05-2008, 08:27 PM
I doubt it would have changed an awful lot, and it's the sort of what if game that I find rather dull and pointless to speculate on in any great depth.

rosamunda
02-05-2008, 08:34 PM
whoops, double post

JimmyV
02-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Federer is actually the worst player on the ATP tour besides Roddick. People just play poor matches against him so he keeps getting lucky win after lucky win, if this was the 1990's he wouldn't be ranked in the top 100.

rosamunda
02-05-2008, 08:36 PM
This discussion has NOTHING to do with Sampras. Let's face it: even as a spectator, the early round matches were MUCH more exciting back in the day when there were only 16 seeds.
This argument applies even more strongly to the DTA (Diva Tennis Association): back then, women's matches were as entertaining as watching paint dry. Now, watching women's early round matches is like watching paint dry while be subjected to Chinese water torture.

I have to disagree with this; having watched tennis for centuries, I can recall nothing particularly memorable about early round matches either on the men's or the women's side. Sure, you got the odd upset, but nothing more significant than today. In fact, apart from the occasional 5 star moment - like Becker winning Wimbledon as a 17 year old qualifier in 1985 - it was a fairly predictable business, just as it is now (perhaps a FEW more players in the melting pot at the end back then, but usually the same few).

I think there is as much or even more danger nowadays of an early upset than there was years ago. There may not be so many standout players at the very top, but there is much more overall strength in depth over the top 100 players or more who are close in ability and talent to the numbers 17 - 32. So it's still as much (or as little) of a lottery in the early rounds as it ever was.

ExpectedWinner
02-05-2008, 09:00 PM
I wish they slams would go back to only 16 seeds. Pete, through most of his career, had to deal with the inherent challenges involved with this...who wouldn't like to see Roger (and Rafa and Novak) have to deal with this challenge as well?

It looks like the challenge you're talking about did not materialize too often.

Below are the rankings of the players Sampras had to play in the R128/64/32 from W-93 to USO-99.

W 93- 121, 58, 108
USO 93- 54, 96, 25

AO 94- 225, 60, 77
FO 94- 109, 283, 25
W 94 -57, 35, 72
USO 94- 206, 54, 187

AO 95-95, 191, 100
F0 95 -24 (Schaller, Gilbert)
W 95- 120, 174, 73
USO 95-54, 69, 93

AO 96- 118, 89, 40
RG 96 -34, 23 (Brugerra), 18(Martin)
W 96-21(Renenberg), 33 (Flip), 107
USO 96 -164,47,178

AO 97-169, 48,128
FO 97- 57, 31(Clavet), 65
W 97- 54, 78, 65
USO 97- 204, 338, 81

AO 98- 52, 94, 38
RG 98- 33, 97
W 98- 46, N/A, 17 (Enqvist)
USO 98- 109, 256, 71

AO 99- DNP
RG 99- 92, 100 (Medvedev, the eventual finalist)
W 99- 75,100, 595
USO 99- DNP

Young Boss
02-05-2008, 09:09 PM
Roger's dominance at Slams has all to do with his tennis game and nothing to do with 16 or 32 seeds.

Recognize his talent, congratulate him, and keep it moving. stop trying to discredit his accomplishments.

jonny84
02-05-2008, 09:13 PM
32 seeds is better. Although it could provide more interesting match-ups in the first and second round, lesser players sneak through due to easier draws if players ranked #17-#32 face the top seeds in the first two rounds.

Corey Feldman
02-05-2008, 09:37 PM
Sampras had more real challengers, exellent players, extraordinary competitors...Fed is almost alone (exept Rafa & now maybe Novak (Nole is grose). So, because of that, in any means, Sampras is way better player and will be. Now, Fed IS better than anybody else.go away annoying fly

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/much.gif

MissMelly2U
02-05-2008, 09:50 PM
32 seeds is better. Although it could provide more interesting match-ups in the first and second round, lesser players sneak through due to easier draws if players ranked #17-#32 face the top seeds in the first two rounds.

I agree to a certain extent, but in the long run, I don't really think it matters all that much.

Manon
02-05-2008, 10:40 PM
go away annoying fly

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/much.gif

no, i wan't my dear.

Komodo
02-05-2008, 10:50 PM
It looks like the challenge you're talking about did not materialize too often.

Below are the rankings of the players Sampras had to play in the R128/64/32 from W-93 to USO-99.

W 93- 121, 58, 108
USO 93- 54, 96, 25

AO 94- 225, 60, 77
FO 94- 109, 283, 25
W 94 -57, 35, 72
USO 94- 206, 54, 187

AO 95-95, 191, 100
F0 95 -24 (Schaller, Gilbert)
W 95- 120, 174, 73
USO 95-54, 69, 93

AO 96- 118, 89, 40
RG 96 -34, 23 (Brugerra), 18(Martin)
W 96-21(Renenberg), 33 (Flip), 107
USO 96 -164,47,178

AO 97-169, 48,128
FO 97- 57, 31(Clavet), 65
W 97- 54, 78, 65
USO 97- 204, 338, 81

AO 98- 52, 94, 38
RG 98- 33, 97
W 98- 46, N/A, 17 (Enqvist)
USO 98- 109, 256, 71

AO 99- DNP
RG 99- 92, 100 (Medvedev, the eventual finalist)
W 99- 75,100, 595
USO 99- DNP

Expected Winners post puts an end to this discussion so I don't understand how five further posts in the thread have been made just disregarding it.

Nice work to check that!

Komodo
02-05-2008, 10:52 PM
no, i wan't my dear.


-You want your dear (deer even? :angel: ).-

-No, I won't (will not), my dear.-

Hope you don't disapprove.

Federerhingis
02-05-2008, 10:56 PM
Here we go again...
Ditto,

Oh God, If Federer is so boring, such a pitiful champion then just don't watch mens tennis. unfortunately for those who think he is pathetic or not as great as his records suggest; well I've got news for you he'l be around for quite a while longer and at the very top of the game. ;)

Marek.
02-06-2008, 01:34 AM
Federer is actually the worst player on the ATP tour besides Roddick. People just play poor matches against him so he keeps getting lucky win after lucky win, if this was the 1990's he wouldn't be ranked in the top 100.

:lol: This guy is a legend. :worship:

Action Jackson
02-06-2008, 01:35 AM
No.

dragons112
02-06-2008, 02:12 AM
Sampras had more real challengers, exellent players, extraordinary competitors...Fed is almost alone (exept Rafa & now maybe Novak (Nole is grose). So, because of that, in any means, Sampras is way better player and will be. Now, Fed IS better than anybody else.

who are the real challengers

JimmyV
02-06-2008, 02:23 AM
who are the real challengers

George Bastl.

Leo
02-06-2008, 05:04 AM
This theory does not work. You are overestimating the strength of the #17-#32 seeds. Federer is that good outside of Paris, and Nadal is that good in Paris.

Purple Rainbow
02-06-2008, 07:20 AM
I have to disagree with this; having watched tennis for centuries, I can recall nothing particularly memorable about early round matches either on the men's or the women's side.

Wow, you must be, like, 423 years old? :eek:

Modetopia
02-06-2008, 09:30 AM
move on, or go back to the 90s:o