Being unseeded sometimes better than being seeded? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Being unseeded sometimes better than being seeded?

n8
06-04-2012, 03:46 AM
I reckon that being unseeded can be better than receiving a 25-32 seed in Slams for some players (pre-draw discussion).

Assuming all matches go to seeding, number 25-32 seeds are guaranteed to play a top 8 seed in round three. The top 8 are well above the rest of the field (well most of them are) so avoiding them for as long as possible is preferable.

If you are unseeded, you only have a 50% chance of facing a top 8 seed before the 4th round:

Round Chance of facing top 8 seed Cumulative chance
1st 8.3% 8.3%
2nd 16.7% 25%
3rd 25% 50%
4th 50% 100%

At Wimbledon, I believe grass court specialists like Tomic, Roddick and F.Mayer are better off not being seeded than taking a 25-32 seed. Tomic is a good example. At Roland Garros he happily took a 25-32 seed as most seeds would beat him and it enabled him to have two matches against non-seeded players. However, at Wimbledon, Tomic would be favoured against most non top 8 seeds, so being unseeded is better than 25-32. What are your thoughts?

Freak3yman84
06-04-2012, 03:52 AM
I see where you're coming from, but it really isn't worth risking drawing a high seed in the 1st round or 2nd round. For example, if Tomic was seeded he'd get a cakewalk draw(most likely)to atleast the 3rd round where as if he were unseeded he could have to play Fed in the 1st round... So being seeded atleast guarantees you something :shrug:

Chase Visa
06-04-2012, 04:21 AM
wrt the Tomic example, he will be seeded 16-24 due to his QF at Wimbledon. Remember, they do seeds differently there.

n8
06-04-2012, 04:29 AM
I see where you're coming from, but it really isn't worth risking drawing a high seed in the 1st round or 2nd round. For example, if Tomic was seeded he'd get a cakewalk draw(most likely)to atleast the 3rd round where as if he were unseeded he could have to play Fed in the 1st round... So being seeded atleast guarantees you something :shrug:

True. It takes out the variance.

wrt the Tomic example, he will be seeded 16-24 due to his QF at Wimbledon. Remember, they do seeds differently there.

Yep. Grass courters are screwed by the short season so the Wimbledon seeding system makes up for this a little.

dencod16
06-04-2012, 04:38 AM
why the hell is it an advantage, you can face top 8 seeds in the first round whereas if your 25-32 you will face them in the third. Illogical. This is not the women's tour where the likes of Serena, Kim, and Venus can be unseeded.

evilmindbulgaria
06-04-2012, 04:39 AM
Interesting observation.

Why are you considering avoiding Top 8 only? The chances are, if a player is unseeded, he might very well fall to a player ranked 9-16. Especially Roddick - he has been losing to inferior players lately at Wimbledon (Lu/Tipsarevic/Lopez).

n8
06-04-2012, 05:03 AM
Interesting observation.

Why are you considering avoiding Top 8 only? The chances are, if a player is unseeded, he might very well fall to a player ranked 9-16. Especially Roddick - he has been losing to inferior players lately at Wimbledon (Lu/Tipsarevic/Lopez).

True, the circumstances are pretty specific. You just very rarely see a 25-32 seed in the 4th round and I think this has something to do with it. Sure Isner (28 seed) did at the US Open last year, but his top 8 seed withdrew (Soderling), Wawrinka was the last man to do it legit at the 2010 US Open (d. Murray in the 3rd round).

duchuy89
06-04-2012, 05:48 AM
Thank for share!

bouncer7
06-04-2012, 11:32 AM
Just make stats for seeds 25-32 and 33-40 and see who has deeper run at slams

romismak
06-04-2012, 11:58 AM
Agree that sometimes being unseeded is much better than 25-32- if you to face top 8 player most likely it means you will loose against them in that R3, but being unseeded you can take advantage of playing qualifiears, many other unseeded and be in section of somebody out of form. Look at Goffin for example - he was unseeded take advantage of the draw and make R4. If he would be 25-32 he would face top 8 in R3 and most likely he would loose against either of them. Sometimes is definitely better to be unseeded and Wimbledon is probably best slam for unseeded players, because Wimbledon is most special slam in termfs of surface- i mean not everybody can play on grass and at Wimbledon you have most chances to upset seeded players, so making R4 at Wimbledon is something you can do with right draw-qualifiers, grass mugs among seeded and so on, but if you are 25-32 you willl most likely loose in R3 vs top 8.

Hewitt =Legend
06-04-2012, 12:13 PM
Agree to an extent but it all depends on the luck of the draw, something you can't control. I'd probably still take the 25-32 place.

asmazif
06-04-2012, 12:20 PM
I'd probably take unseeded, chances of landing inside the top 4's 3R bracket is 1/8. You can get lucky and land in say the Tsonga-Simon-Stan section or the Tipsy-Almagro and have a chance of a deep-ish run.

n8
06-04-2012, 12:35 PM
I'd probably take unseeded, chances of landing inside the top 4's 3R bracket is 1/8. You can get lucky and land in say the Tsonga-Simon-Stan section or the Tipsy-Almagro and have a chance of a deep-ish run.

Exactly, while the chance of being in the top 4's 3R bracket is 1/2 for 25-32 seeds.

Making R3 of a Slam is generally not a big deal for a 25-32 seed, but making R4 or Quarters is probably big news. Plus the point difference is substantial, +80 points for 3R is less than you'd get for an ATP250 semi or ATP500 quarter-final (as get 10 for just showing up at Slams). But +170 or +350 puts some real juice into your rank.

Adri89
06-04-2012, 12:39 PM
What's your point with this question ? Are you suggesting that the current system is unfair ? I don't see where you want to come. Should a good player (range 20-30) for you lost matchs before a slam to not be seeded ?

To answer to your question : yes, sometimes it's better. See Goffin (Stepanek/Clément/Kubot) and Youzhni who has to face Ferrer in R3. All depends of the draw because you're never sure 100% to meet a top 8 in R3 being seeded 25-32 : an upset can happen (not with the current top 4, but before them it used to be often upsets in the first week of GS with top seeds) and at this moment your draw becomes very good. But there are no rules at all for your question : sometimes it's better, sometimes it's far worse. I think in average it's worse.

n8
06-04-2012, 12:51 PM
What's your point with this question ? Are you suggesting that the current system is unfair ? I don't see where you want to come. Should a good player (range 20-30) for you lost matchs before a slam to not be seeded ?

To answer to your question : yes, sometimes it's better. See Goffin (Stepanek/Clément/Kubot) and Youzhni who has to face Ferrer in R3. All depends of the draw because you're never sure 100% to meet a top 8 in R3 being seeded 25-32 : an upset can happen (not with the current top 4, but before them it used to be often upsets in the first week of GS with top seeds) and at this moment your draw becomes very good. But there are no rules at all for your question : sometimes it's better, sometimes it's far worse. I think in average it's worse.

The point of my question was to just point out a quirk in seeding and draw system. I probably should've written it as a statement and asked people to discuss the statement, so sorry about that.

Adri89
06-04-2012, 01:06 PM
Don't be sorry StatRacket, I was just curious because I didn't understand your point. Sorry if my question seems to be aggressive, I don't know how to speak english despite all these years of reading this forum :sad:

n8
06-04-2012, 01:19 PM
That's cool! :D Your English seems fine to me (and people can use more than one language impress me). My only tip is to lose the space before question marks and colons. :)

You get the point: sometimes it's worse and sometimes it's better. It depends on a lot of things (some of which you pointed out thanks) and I was too lazy when opening the thread to go into them all.