Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In 2001, the seeds at grand slams were extended in number from 16 to 32, offering better protection for top players. Arguably this helped Federer set his astonishing records for consecutive SF and QF appearances. It also seems likely that it helped Rafa to win an utterly unprecedented number of titles at Roland-Garros.

Generally, it must be a contributing factor to the consistency of the Big 3 at slam level, especially in latter years when conserving energy in early rounds is so vital for veterans. My question is: How much of a factor has it been?
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
48,151 Posts
Of course it is a huge factor. So much protection in the early rounds nowadays. Poor Sampras had to play maybe top 20 guys in first round

That's why I did not want to go back to 16 seeds. You cannot just have the protection and then right at end of career switch it back so no one reaches your records
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
In 2001, the seeds at grand slams were extended in number from 16 to 32, offering better protection for top players. Arguably this helped Federer set his astonishing records for consecutive SF and QF appearances. It also seems likely that it helped Rafa to win an utterly unprecedented number of titles at Roland-Garros.

Generally, it must be a contributing factor to the consistency of the Big 3 at slam level, especially in latter years when conserving energy in early rounds is so vital for veterans. My question is: How much of a factor has it been?
The question is, how strong the #17-#32 are, in 1st and 2nd rounds.
Any statistics on upsets by #17-#32 in the first 2 rounds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,326 Posts
The question is, how strong the #17-#32 are, in 1st and 2nd rounds.
Any statistics on upsets by #17-#32 in the first 2 rounds?
All I know is, 17-32 ranked players right now are extremely strong, and would wear out many of the top 10 and beat many of the 8-16.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,797 Posts
All I know is, 17-32 ranked players right now are extremely strong, and would wear out many of the top 10 and beat many of the 8-16.
All I know is, 17-32 ranked players right now are extremely strong, and would wear out many of the top 10 and beat many of the 8-16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocketMan70

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Very colorful selection, some of those are fully capable of pulling a hot botting performance, especially on green grass or fast hard court, for an upset.

So I guess at the end of the day Rogie is the biggest beneficiary of the 32 seed format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
Very colorful selection, some of those are fully capable of pulling a hot botting performance, especially on green grass or fast hard court, for an upset.

So I guess at the end of the day Rogie is the biggest beneficiary of the 32 seed format.
Nope, it's easydrawdal

Win/Loss % v/s Top-20 -

HC-
Djokovic - 77.05 (47-14)
Federer - 73.07 (57-21)
Nadal - 61.36 (27/17)

Grass -
Federer - 76.74 (33-10)
Djokovic - 76 (19-6)
Nadal - 75 (15-5)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,480 Posts
Unfortunately we'll never know how much it affected slam counts of Big3 but one can always speculate.

1) Avoiding 17-32 guys in round1 and round2 definitely helped Big3 in some slams, especially those when they had shaky starts against lower ranked opponents. This probably let them avoid some upsets at slams. However, there is only 37% chance that a seeded player (16 seeds) will draw 17-32 floater in his mini-section of the draw (R1 or R2). So this situation on average would affect draws of about one third of slams any member of Big3 played. What's more, there is a chance that 17-32 floater losses in R1 (projected R2 meeting with Big3 doesn't take place), so the percentage is even lower. Obviously only a fraction of these situations would cause problems for the Big3 in a given tournament (upset or significant energy loss). Overall Big3 could've been seriously affected in 10-15% of slams IMO.

2) OTOH 32 seeds system increases the chance that a Big3 player meets a very strong high-seeded rival later in the tournament. This effect can't be completely neglected as well.

IMO 16 seeds would cause few early upsets for Big3 (after all they rarely loss in Masters1000 first matches, against strong players) but one can't neglect the effect (esp. energy loss). I think their GS tallies could have been reduced by one, maybe two slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Win/Loss % v/s Top-30-50-

HC-
Djokovic - 94.28
Federer - 92.86
Nadal - 85.71

Grass -
Federer - 100
Djokovic - 90
Nadal - 84.62
First of all, this is still not #17-#32.
Second of all, we are talking about the chance #17-#32 causing an upset in first two rounds.
It appears you just want to rush some data, regardless how relevant they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Unfortunately we'll never know how much it affected slam counts of Big3 but one can always speculate.

1) Avoiding 17-32 guys in round1 and round2 definitely helped Big3 in some slams, especially those when they had shaky starts against lower ranked opponents. This probably let them avoid a few more upsets at slams. However, there is only 37% chance that a seeded player (16 seeds) will draw 17-32 floater in his mini-section of the draw (R1 or R2). So this situation on average would affect draws of about one third of slams any member of Big3 played. What's more, there is a chance that 17-32 floater losses in R1 (projected R2 meeting with Big3 doesn't take place), so the percentage is even lower. Obviously only a fraction of these situations would cause problems for the Big3 in a given tournament (upset or significant energy loss). Overall Big3 could've been seriously affected in 10-15% of slams IMO.

2) OTOH 32 seeds system increases the chance that a Big3 player meets a very strong high-seeded rival later in the tournament. This effect can't be completely neglected as well.

IMO 16 seeds would cause few early upsets for Big3 (after all they rarely loss in Masters1000 first matches, against strong players) but one can't neglect the effect (esp. energy loss). I think their GS tallies could have been reduced by one, maybe two slams.
Good points.
I also want to raise a question, without seed protection, would #17-#32 be stronger or weaker?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
First of all, this is still not #17-#32.
Second of all, we are talking about the chance #17-#32 causing an upset in first two rounds.
It appears you just want to rush some data, regardless how relevant they are.
The percentages establishes the fact that Nadal needs to avoid higher ranked players much more than the other two,so he's the biggest beneficiary of the 32 seed rule
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,480 Posts
Good points.
I also want to raise a question, without seed protection, would #17-#32 be stronger or weaker?
17-32 ranked players would still be in similar positions in another seeding system (in the long term this change affects all players the same) but with 16seed system there would probably be a larger ranking variance at these positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fedjokodal

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
The percentages establishes the fact that Nadal needs to avoid higher ranked players much more than the other two,so he's the biggest beneficiary of the 32 seed rule
Win/Loss % v/s Top-20 -

HC-
Djokovic - 77.05 (47-14)
Federer - 73.07 (57-21)
Nadal - 61.36 (27/17)

Grass -
Federer - 76.74 (33-10)
Djokovic - 76 (19-6)
Nadal - 75 (15-5)
Since you data don't provide any information of early round performance, I will divert the topic from the seeding format for now.

Nadal won his fair share, based on the percentage. However, Rogie won more slams undeservingly, especially on hard court, that's very clear from your data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
Since you data don't provide any information of early round performance, I will divert the topic from the seeding format for now.

Nadal won his fair share, based on the percentage. However, Rogie won more slams undeservingly, especially on hard court, that's very clear from your data.
Federer and Djokovic routinely beat 2-3 top-10 players for their HC slams.
Unlike Nadal who barely beat any top players for his off-clay(vultured) slams

Nadal truly is biggest Vulture of all time tbh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Federer and Djokovic routinely beat 2-3 top-10 players for their HC slams.
Unlike Nadal who barely beat any top players for his off-clay(vultured) slams

Nadal truly is biggest Vulture of all time tbh.
Hello, weak-era fanboy, US-Open record firmly exposed the Vulturer nature in Rogie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
Hello, weak-era fanboy, US-Open record firmly established the Vulturer nature in Rogie.
USO actually showed some of the greatest vulturing tendencies of easydrawdal
Capitalized on the cupcake to the final in both 2010 and 2013 while Djokovic had much tougher opponents and then leaving no stone unturned in vulturing 2017 and 2019 when both Djokovic and Federer got injured.

Both Djokovic and Federer have much better records against top players(I can post the stats but as seen in this thread you won't be able to comprehend it),but vulturedal just too damn lucky
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
USO actually showed some of the greatest vulturing tendencies of easydrawdal
Capitalized on the cupcake to the final in both 2010 and 2013 while Djokovic had much tougher opponents and then leaving no stone unturned in vulturing 2017 and 2019 when both Djokovic and Federer got injured.

Both Djokovic and Federer have much better records against top players(I can post the stats but as seen in this thread you won't be able to comprehend it),but vulturedal just too damn lucky
Face some reality. Backed in 2017 there already serious discussion about how Rogie vultured his slams on easy opponents, some are high ranked players in weak era.


It's too obvious you want to muddling the water by dragging Djokovic into this. He won some hard slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,936 Posts
Face some reality. Backed in 2017 there already serious discussion about how Rogie vultured his slams on easy opponents, some are high ranked players in weak era.


It's too obvious you want to muddling the water by dragging Djokovic into this. He won some hard slams.
LOL that old ELO inspired(demonstrably flawed method in tennis) article that was totally not written from a vulturedal fanboy bias and it totally doesn't miss the headline point of their own article by overrating Nadals clay slams.

Reality-
At USO,
Federer has a 72.8 win % and Djokovic has 63.15 WIN % against top-10

easydrawdal's is just 58.33 %
Easy to figure who vultured more.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top