Grand Slams Really Need To Scrap 32 Seed Format [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Grand Slams Really Need To Scrap 32 Seed Format

Xavier7
01-24-2010, 11:38 PM
The Grand Slams should go back to having 16 seeds imo.
It would make the early rounds much more interesting and produce more close and entertaining match ups in the early rounds if the top seeds were playing people in the 20 - 30 ranking in the first couple of rounds some of the time, who potentially might beat them.
The top seeds just get so easy cake draws with 32 seeds.
Are people with me on this?

bleu_cheese
01-25-2010, 12:03 AM
Well, while it would be interesting to see Haas and Federer go at it in the first round, where would that leave the rest of the draw? There would be so many more possibilities for a Dodig-De Bakker or Starace-Serra first round. This would lead to fluke runs due to lucky draws. The more seeds there are, the more stability there is at the top. While total deadlock would be uninteresting, a free for all would be too dependent on luck. Plus, think of all the complaining that would go on if Murray faced Berdych in the first round, while Nadal faced Zverev. Cake draws are better than fluke runs.

Jimnik
01-25-2010, 12:08 AM
Couldn't agree less.

n8
01-25-2010, 12:14 AM
Well, while it would be interesting to see Haas and Federer go at it in the first round, where would that leave the rest of the draw? There would be so many more possibilities for a Dodig-De Bakker or Starace-Serra first round. This would lead to fluke runs due to lucky draws. The more seeds there are, the more stability there is at the top. While total deadlock would be uninteresting, a free for all would be too dependent on luck. Plus, think of all the complaining that would go on if Murray faced Berdych in the first round, while Nadal faced Zverev. Cake draws are better than fluke runs.

Well said. A greater number of seeds also gives players ranked 17-32 more recognition for the efforts in getting up in the rankings. With so much ranking points and prize money avaiable at Grand Slams, I think it is good having lots of seeds and therefore a fairer draw.

gulzhan
01-25-2010, 12:32 AM
Nothing interesting in having a match such as Youzhny vs Gasquet in the 1st round.

Jimnik
01-25-2010, 12:35 AM
Personally I hate nothing more than seeing two good players meet early in a slam. Seems like such a waste. Would rather both win several matches and then play each other.

out_here_grindin
01-25-2010, 12:39 AM
32 seeds is just right. Otherwise players ranked high around 20 could often get screwed by getting drawn against a top 5 player in the 1st round. The notion that a player in the top 20 could be placed anywhere in the draw equal to a qualifier is ridiculous.

paseo
01-25-2010, 01:01 AM
No.

Xavier7
01-25-2010, 01:08 AM
I agree its much better for players ranked 17-32 to have 32 seeds as they'll get easier draws overall in the first couple of rounds but why should that even matter?
Its better for the spectators and more interesting for the sport if the top seeds are sometimes dealt really tough match ups in the first couple of rounds and thats what should be important.
Before the 32 seed rule there were some great matches in the early rounds which would not be allowed to happen today.
Having more fluke runs is surely better than boring cake draws and its cool to see a low ranked player go deep once in a while.
And a more random and unpredictable draw is more fun and exciting.

Goldenoldie
01-25-2010, 08:49 AM
With 32 seeds it's much more difficult for new players to break through. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Oh for the good old days pre 1968, when there were only 8 seeds!!!

Black Friday
01-25-2010, 08:53 AM
With 32 seeds it's much more difficult for new players to break through. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Oh for the good old days pre 1968, when there were only 8 seeds!!!

The problem is then you have mediocre players making it deep only because they've played other mediocre players meanwhile you could have two good players meeting in the first round.

oranges
01-25-2010, 09:00 AM
With 32 seeds it's much more difficult for new players to break through. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


How, they get randomly drawn against anyone. Unless, you're counting on some getting lucky enough to have a couple of rounds of cakewalk draw, it doesn't affect them at all, it would affect those who would lose the seeding as they could also be drawn against anyone from 1st round on.

sammy01
01-25-2010, 09:16 AM
The problem is then you have mediocre players making it deep only because they've played other mediocre players meanwhile you could have two good players meeting in the first round.

this.

the less seeds the more chance of skewed draws.

brithater
01-25-2010, 09:18 AM
I would like to see 16 seeds again as well. Especially now that there is coverage on all the courts available. I like fluke runs. Its parts of what makes the slams great.

Foxy
01-25-2010, 09:20 AM
I would like to see 16 seeds again as well. Especially now that there is coverage on all the courts available. I like fluke runs. Its parts of what makes the slams great.

I would like just the opposite. 64 seeds. More fair draw but less entertaining matches early on.

nobama
01-25-2010, 09:52 AM
SetSampras would love this idea.

Sean
01-25-2010, 11:51 AM
Scrap seeds altogether GS draws should be done FA cup stylee

Diprosalic
01-25-2010, 12:03 PM
no. winning a slam is so much more than just play matches. you need to stay focused over 2 weeks and try to save energy early on.

Goldenoldie
01-25-2010, 01:05 PM
How, they get randomly drawn against anyone. Unless, you're counting on some getting lucky enough to have a couple of rounds of cakewalk draw, it doesn't affect them at all, it would affect those who would lose the seeding as they could also be drawn against anyone from 1st round on.

If some of the players ranked 17-32 are unlucky, then ipso facto some of the players ranked 33 upwards are lucky in the same proportion, and you can't say it doesn't affect them.

Xavier7
01-25-2010, 01:06 PM
How, they get randomly drawn against anyone. Unless, you're counting on some getting lucky enough to have a couple of rounds of cakewalk draw, it doesn't affect them at all, it would affect those who would lose the seeding as they could also be drawn against anyone from 1st round on.

Nonsense. Its much worse for the players outside the top 32 as they have a much higher chance of being drawn against a top 10 player in round 1 or round 2 now because the players in the 17 to 32 range can't occupy those spots in the draw.
And it makes it harder for a lower ranked player to get to the 4R or QF on a cake draw now and again.

oranges
01-25-2010, 01:29 PM
If some of the players ranked 17-32 are unlucky, then ipso facto some of the players ranked 33 upwards are lucky in the same proportion, and you can't say it doesn't affect them.

Well, that's true enough on the basic level, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference for those unable to beat those 17-32 even now when they draw them first or second round. So in reality, such a system screws up those who lost the seeding far more, since many would be making 3rd or 4th rounds and can easily go out in 1st this way if they are unlucky enough. It should also be noted that slam points are more important for these guys since they can't count as many 250/500 tournaments as some others. In other words, it would make breaking from top 17-32 up tougher, more so than this system makes it tough to break the top 30, given that most rise up there through enough good results in regular ATP tournaments anyway

Sophocles
01-25-2010, 01:32 PM
Not a bad idea actually.

Andi-M
01-25-2010, 02:35 PM
Too much luck involved. 128 players, 16 seeds. A player ranked 18 in the world could draw no 1 seed and go out in 1st round and a player ranked say 55 in the world could play lower ranked oppenants for 3 rounds and make 4R.

The player ranked 18 has outperformed the player ranked 55 on tour events, but will inevitably drop down the rankings as players with more fortunate draws will overtake them, in some cases without having to play a higher ranked oppenant, tell me thats fair.

If they were to use this system it would then be necessary to bring back bonus points, for beating higher ranked players, to keep things relative.

miura
01-25-2010, 02:54 PM
Stupid idea. Without seeding, rankings would be nearly pointless aswell. Leaving this much to chance would also alter the integrity of the game in my opinion.

sammy01
01-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Stupid idea. Without seeding, rankings would be nearly pointless aswell. Leaving this much to chance would also alter the integrity of the game in my opinion.

yep, snooker has been trying random draws and to me it makes the sport look silly and cheap. 2nd round matches that could easily be finals are not going to help tournaments in the long run.

ChinoRios4Ever
01-26-2010, 03:43 AM
nope

n8
01-26-2010, 05:30 AM
I like the current system except that I think seeds 25-32 get a bit screwed. Guys seeded 25-32 have to play a top 8 player in the third round (assuming the top 8 make it that far). I honestly think that some 25-32 players would prefer to be unseeded on some occasions (unseeded players only have a 50% chance of having to play a top 8 player before the 4th round). For example Kohlschreiber had to play Federer in the third round at Wimbledon last year and Nadal in the third round at this year's Australian Open.

Havok
01-26-2010, 06:26 AM
I like the current system except that I think seeds 25-32 get a bit screwed. Guys seeded 25-32 have to play a top 8 player in the third round (assuming the top 8 make it that far). I honestly think that some 25-32 players would prefer to be unseeded on some occasions (unseeded players only have a 50% chance of having to play a top 8 player before the 4th round). For example Kohlschreiber had to play Federer in the third round at Wimbledon last year and Nadal in the third round at this year's Australian Open.

True, but being seeded at a Grand Slam guarantees you will not face another seeded player before the 3rd round. Some might take that over gambling and having to face a seeded player straight off the bat. It's a simple trade-off, and those who get the 25-32 ranking will either be stuck there because they can't improve their game and get a better ranking/seed or simply use that to get decent results and move up the rankings.

I personally enjoy the 32 seed system at Slams. IMO the biggest difference you see in ability based on rankings is the top 30 vs the top 40. Huge gap, hence 32 seed system.

whattheheck
01-26-2010, 08:40 AM
I like the 32 seed format.