Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Since a mod deemed the last unecessary, here you go. A different string of thought.

How do you deal with skewed, tilted, imbalanced draws?

How can they be prevented?

What logical "objective" measurement can be taken to seperate dangerous from less dangerous players with similar rank/points?

Is it something that cannot be undone?

In the case of 2019 Wimbledon, we have too many section fractions/parts which are tilted to other parts even within that section.


Those sucky sections will have 4R and QF participants worse than 1R-3R losers in other sections.

Ideally, this of course shouldn't happen in a sport.


Only 1 of FAA/Dimitrov/Moutet can make the 3R, yet I can logically see all 4 playing at 4R "level".
Only 1 of Nadal/Kyrgios/Shapovalov/Tsonga can make the 4R, yet logically in a normal, balanced, level playing field, all 4 could.
Etc.


Meanwhile, Simon/Caruso/Uchiyama/Sandgren/Fucsovics/Novak/Tiafoe/Fognini will have 1 4R'er, 2 3R'ers, will have to FIND ONE.

Simon is the only player here who has ever made a Wimbledon 4R. No one else of the others even came close. They have a combined 2 3R's.

It's the same for the upper half in that section, where Thiem/Querrey have a free one after their 1R encounter, and there will be one defacto undeserving 3R'er.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
I would argue that on the contrary, it should happen....otherwise you would more or less have the same players facing each other at every stage of every tournament for as long as their form remains the same.

I find the system rather satisfying in a sense, it allows "mediocre" players to have, every now and then, a few shots at making a round that they would not usually make. It's up to those players to make the best of that one or two dream runs that opened up in their quarter. I'd also say that skewed draws profit different players quite evenly over time, case in point your favourite who previously had more clement draws than this one but obviously drew the short end of the stick this time around :p

Of course I say that but I always complain when I see draws like Goffin-Nadal in R3 of RG, while you have Moutet-Londero or whatever for a spot in R4 xD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I would argue that on the contrary, it should happen....otherwise you would more or less have the same players facing each other at every stage of every tournament for as long as their form remains the same.

I find the system rather satisfying in a sense, it allows "mediocre" players to have, every now and then, a few shots at making a round that they would not usually make. It's up to those players to make the best of that one or two dream runs that opened up in their quarter. I'd also say that skewed draws profit different players quite evenly over time, case in point your favourite who previously had more clement draws than this one but obviously drew the short end of the stick this time around :p

Of course I say that but I always complain when I see draws like Goffin-Nadal in R3 of RG, while you have Moutet-Londero or whatever for a spot in R4 xD
This is untrue.


Surfaces change, forms change rapidly, and new players arrive all the time....


just look at this WB compared to last WB, completely different top pool.

In an ideal world, it shouldnt be possible for only 1 of those mentioned groups to make it to a stage, a lowly stage at that.

The weaker players should be spread around more.

Give Tsonga Dellien. Give FAA Djere. Etc.

I don't mean hand-picked.

There really isn't anything that can be done but it to be heard about.


Think about the chaos that would ensue in a top 16 seed draw. My goodness. Some people actually are in favor of such an unfair mess.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
13,142 Posts
Those unbalanced draws happen at many slams - most of them I would say but especially at Roland Garros and Wimbledon because they are the two surfaces that have fewer tournaments played during the year and hence lesser impact on the seedings. Additionally - the ranks (so the seedings too) are made on the 12-month ranks (partly 24-months in case of Wimbledon) while form is temporary so in some cases players with high rank/ seed may be out of form and vice versa.

Can they do anything about it? I don't think so, they would need to subjectively change the rankings/ seedings and/ or extend the seedings from 32 to 64.

It's not perfect but do you have any better idea? If you do - speak up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,409 Posts
Most balanced draw is one that abolishes chance entirely, considers recent form (say, through the race rankings) and pitches the highest ranked vs lowest ranked at the earliest stage. Like #1 vs #128 (theoretically), #2 vs #127 and so on.

Of course that's never going to happen, and it opens up possible shenanigans like tactical tanking to manipulate your spot in the MD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Those unbalanced draws happen at many slams - most of them I would say but especially at Roland Garros and Wimbledon because they are the two surfaces that have fewer tournaments played during the year and hence lesser impact on the seedings. Additionally - the ranks (so the seedings too) are made on the 12-month ranks (partly 24-months in case of Wimbledon) while form is temporary so in some cases players with high rank/ seed may be out of form and vice versa.

Can they do anything about it? I don't think so, they would need to subjectively change the rankings/ seedings and/ or extend the seedings from 32 to 64.

It's not perfect but do you have any better idea? If you do - speak up.
The seeding pool increase would indeed be the best, maybe only sensible option.

Maybe a clause for returning players that are proven surface threats and have shown re-turning form within that return, like Tsonga. Make a certain qualifier for the clause.

No one interested in the fairest outcome wants to see R2-4 of Nadal/Kyrgios/Tsonga/Shapovalov/Cilic involved with themselves.

Horrible skew.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Reducing the number of seeds to 16, as has been proposed over the years, will make the issue of potentially skewed draws a lot worse. It will also create more better matches in the earlier rounds and shitty matches in the later rounds, which is not good. I really hope this doesn't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,311 Posts
If you don't increase number of seeds it's impossible to do. It's natural that dangerous players will be unevenly distributed in the sections (as probability signals).

For simplicity let's assume that there are 4 sections of the draw (6 free places in each section) and 8 dangerous unseeded "floaters". On average there should be 2 floaters in each section but probability of such an event is very low (about 7 %). The remaining 93 % of cases are uneven distributions (like 1+3+1+3, 2+1+1+4, etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I stopped reading at „moutet playing at r4-Level“ I mean wut?
I said he theoretically could.

He almost did at the FO, and he's only gotten better since.

Every youngster breaks out somewhere.

And this could be it, except, only one of him or FAA, or even Dimitrov, can.

But don't continue reading. You won't get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,087 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Beat the player on the other side of the net. Problem solved.
Therein lies the issue that only one can, and thus it's best for draws to be as balanced as possible, then this phrase would be accountable on the basis of fairness. Where as now you can lose in the 2R, maybe to an eventual SF'ist; being better than another QF'ist.

Please leave the simpleton think at the door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
Increasing seeds to 64 will see people winning 30 slams in the next generation.

That's why Wimbledon used to have a committee to remove skews and balance draws manually.
But that opens up possibilities of corruption as well due to lack of transparency.

I think instead of random draws, balancing algorithms can be used (the algorithms available publicly) which take in factors like recent form, surface proficiency, ranking, to determine balanced draws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,229 Posts
Well in the 90s the 16 seed draws were prevalent with early exits but noone complained because it was normal specially in Wimbledon where a big server would take out a big name. Then all of a sudden they changed the grass in 2002, the seeds were made 32 and it became the norm so they can go back to 16 seeds and it will feel abnormal at the start but we'll get used to it as it's more exciting. I doubt anyone watches the first week unless one of the big 3 or big 4 gets eliminated because the underlying narrative is that these guys are going to make the QFs and beyond. Usually a big name gets upset but in the very next round the big hitter is eliminated.

In the 90s the narrative wasn't that Pete and Agassi were dominating everywhere. There were newer players breaking through and making deep runs. Safin is one that comes to mind. Alynoui. Stich, Krajicek. Variety is the spice of life and that has been curbed by 32 draws and surface homogenization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,518 Posts
Players are given same amount of bidding cash to begin with.

They then bid for the seeding. If you don't play up to the seeding, they lose, other wise they win.

Fair and balanced.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top