Uhh, who thought it was fair for seeds 2 and 3 to be randomized in the draw [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Uhh, who thought it was fair for seeds 2 and 3 to be randomized in the draw

SerialKillerToBe
05-25-2012, 10:01 PM
in the first place? 1 and 4 should ALWAYS be in the same part of the draw imo. The current system gives players NO INCENTIVE to become number 1 over number 2, as they have THE SAME PROBABILITY in the end.

edit: title should be "seeds 3 and 4"

Certinfy
05-25-2012, 10:07 PM
I get where you're coming from, but really at the end of the day 1/2, 3/4, 5-8, 9-12 are all the same in the end when it comes to Grand Slams, at least this way it's more 'random'. :hug:

Time Violation
05-25-2012, 10:10 PM
in the first place? 1 and 4 should ALWAYS be in the same part of the draw imo. The current system gives players NO INCENTIVE to become number 1 over number 2, as they have THE SAME PROBABILITY in the end.

edit: title should be "seeds 3 and 4"

If being #1 in the world is not enough incentive in itself, something is really wrong :p

Filo V.
05-25-2012, 10:11 PM
Random is random.

Looner
05-25-2012, 10:11 PM
Dumb thread is dumb. Next.

Jimnik
05-25-2012, 10:13 PM
Interesting theory. Another Einstein has joined MTF.

BauerAlmeida
05-25-2012, 10:31 PM
He's right. The semis should ALWAYS be 4vs1 and 2vs3.

Snowwy
05-25-2012, 10:33 PM
Yup. I don't understand why either. Getting the #1 seed should have the perk of having hte #4 player on your side of the draw.

Looner
05-25-2012, 10:35 PM
Great thinking, moderator Snowwwwwwwwwy. Might as well make the #8 seed play the #1 seed, #7 seed play the #2 seed, the #3 seed play the #6 seed and so on and so forth. Indeed, make all the players in the draw seeded and make sure there's "fairness" in the process. We can't have surprises or lower ranked mugs like #5 reaching finals now, can we?

70-68
05-25-2012, 10:59 PM
So the top 4 seeds (and everyone else) would know who are they going to face in the semis, even before the draw was made.... and if the rankings on the top doesn't change for a longer period, we would have the same potential semifinal line up at every big tournament....

yesh222
05-25-2012, 11:24 PM
How about we seed everyone 1-128 and have the exact same tournaments every time? It's the difference between the American and European mindset. Get used to it.

Sauletekis
05-25-2012, 11:30 PM
How about we seed everyone 1-128 and have the exact same tournaments every time? It's the difference between the American and European mindset. Get used to it.

:superlol: THIS!

Mechlan
05-25-2012, 11:33 PM
It would be boring because the rankings wouldn't really change and we'd get the same semis every time. Oh wait...

BauerAlmeida
05-26-2012, 12:41 AM
How about we seed everyone 1-128 and have the exact same tournaments every time? It's the difference between the American and European mindset. Get used to it.

Yeah, because rankings don't change right?

And as far as I can see, we are having the same players in the SF everytime....

When was the last time we didn't have Fed, Rafa or Djoko in the final?? Or 2 of them eliminated before the QF?? Or even the SF??

abraxas21
05-26-2012, 01:00 AM
i have a better question:

who really thinks the seeds 2 and 3 are truly "randomized" in the draw?

n8
05-26-2012, 01:00 AM
I think randomness is needed here. If number 4 was guaranteed to play number 1, there might be some tanking in weeks prior to Slams to get the position you want. For example, world number 4 may prefer to be number 5 to have a change of being in a different half to the number one.

Certinfy
05-26-2012, 01:03 AM
If they do it like this, then people are going to say that No.4 should draw No.5 in the QF, No.3 should draw No.6 etc. It just doesn't work out doing it for the top 4 seeds and no one else.

superslam77
05-26-2012, 01:06 AM
the rankings did change the last what, 5 years? but still it was always the same draw to help nadal.

if the rankings were stable the draws would have been different and by merit.

superslam77
05-26-2012, 01:07 AM
I think randomness is needed here. If number 4 was guaranteed to play number 1, there might be some tanking in weeks prior to Slams to get the position you want. For example, world number 4 may prefer to be number 5 to have a change of being in a different half to the number one.

because nole couldn't have tanked at rome to avoid nadal at RG?

n8
05-26-2012, 01:10 AM
because nole couldn't have tanked at rome to avoid nadal at RG?

True. But there are less tanking scenarios when 3 and 4 are randomised. If #1 and #2 seeds are not guaranteed to be in different halves then something is terribly wrong.

superslam77
05-26-2012, 01:13 AM
"randomize" opens the door to corruption!! which is the worse case scenario. i mean what could have been worse than 13/13 fed vs nole... that would have never happened. you have got to give control to the player merit and not some corrupt organizers looking to make some $$$.

emotion
05-26-2012, 01:14 AM
I do actually agree, all the way down. 1 vs 32 in 3r, 16 vs 17

cardio
05-26-2012, 01:29 AM
OK, great tennis reformators, lets start from little things :

1) time violations
2 ) coaching violations
3) fake medical timeouts.

Lets fix those issues first and after that lets deal with "evil draw rigging conspiracy " .

superslam77
05-26-2012, 01:36 AM
agreed...also better ahem "controls" as number 4

MagicMilan
05-26-2012, 01:43 AM
It would be boring because the rankings wouldn't really change and we'd get the same semis every time. Oh wait...
We do get the same semis every time :o

Dr. Frankenfed
05-26-2012, 02:51 AM
The current system has the advantage that it is symmetric
and reasonably random. By symmetric I mean that the
route to the final for the players with rankings 1 - 2, 3- 4, 5-8, ...
etc are of similar difficulty. The number of possible permutations of the draw
with respects the different blocks is so large that we a get a tournament without
too many repetitions.

Belludal
05-26-2012, 03:10 AM
The fact is that in Wimbledon and US Open will be Djokovic-Federer and Nadal-Murray.

Probably Uncle Toni is doing the Masters 1000 and Grand Slams Draws.

Mountaindewslave
05-26-2012, 04:19 AM
as others have mentioned OP, randomizing the draw keeps players from getting too focused on deliberately winning and losing to change their rankings to improve their chances and who they could potentially face at Grand Slams. Grand Slams after all are what really matters. I like that they do it and although it doesn't seem to pan out much different draws these days, at least it occasionally does

Topspindoctor
05-26-2012, 04:23 AM
Always hilarious to see nerds building useless conspiracy theories. Good for a laugh.

Myrre
05-26-2012, 04:29 PM
Silly theory really. It's called a "draw" for a reason. What's next? No.1 should always get the no. 8, 16 and 32 seed?

GSMnadal
05-26-2012, 04:39 PM
We do get the same semis every time :o

Didn't we see a Fedal and a Djokovic-Murray semi at the AO or did I just imagine that?

reery
05-26-2012, 04:43 PM
ITF loves to see Federer-Djokovic SF. 15 of the past 18 slams. :o

superslam77
05-26-2012, 04:43 PM
fans of the one that benefits don't have a problem with this of course.

Alex999
05-26-2012, 04:43 PM
The fact is that in Wimbledon and US Open will be Djokovic-Federer and Nadal-Murray.

Probably Uncle Toni is doing the Masters 1000 and Grand Slams Draws.
lol, probably true ... is it possible that uncle Tony is more powerful than Chuck Norris :unsure::scared::scared::rain:?

superslam77
05-26-2012, 04:45 PM
chuck norris was defeated by bruce li once, true story.
toni greed has never been defeated, you heeaaaar me?

Alex999
05-26-2012, 04:52 PM
chuck norris was defeated by bruce li once, true story.
toni greed has never been defeated, you heeaaaar me?
yeah, but Chuck was injured ;)

LoveFifteen
05-26-2012, 06:02 PM
I think randomness is needed here. If number 4 was guaranteed to play number 1, there might be some tanking in weeks prior to Slams to get the position you want. For example, world number 4 may prefer to be number 5 to have a change of being in a different half to the number one.

This.

If you were a player who could easily beat, let's say, Fed and Djoke, but struggled with Nadal, you could sabotage your ranking accordingly in the weeks proceeding a Slam to avoid his half.

It's just an unfortunately randomness that Djokovic and Federer keep ending up on the same side so frequently.

TigerTim
05-26-2012, 06:27 PM
Federer and Nadal thought it was fair - this is your answer OP

Matt01
05-26-2012, 06:39 PM
We do get the same semis every time :o


Didn't we get a Nadal-Federer semi at the last Slam which we for sure won't get at RG? I'd say at least this year the semis are as different as they can get.