16 seeds versus 32

[Murat Baslamisli]

Would going back to 16 seeds for slams bring some more excitement to the earlier rounds of a slam, as opposed to top seeds just steamrolling the opposition in the first couple of rounds?

Or is it better this way that there are no early casualties and top seeds only meet after the fourth round?

What do you guys think?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I like things the way they are. Keep in mind, things can heat up as early as the 3rd round, even for the top seeds. I can tolerate two rounds of gimmes. In many ways, they've earned them.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ agreed. and it's not like we don't ever get R1/2 upsets. it also keeps the early rounds easier to follow - there's so many matches going on, but the seeding makes sure that there's few of the top guys really involved in close matches. so you have the time to do watch those (if they happen), as well as a couple of interesting mid-tier match-ups that would get lost if there'd be more top guys in actually competitive matches.

 

[tented]

I like things the way they are. Keep in mind, things can heat up as early as the 3rd round, even for the top seeds.

Exactly. Some of the best/exciting matches can occur in the first 3 rounds. They weren't all ranked within the Top 4 for all of these matches, but nevertheless ...

Federer:
Wimbledon 2012, R32, Julien Benneteau - 4-6, 6-7(3), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-1
AO 2011, R64, Gilles Simon - 6-2, 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 6-3
Wimbledon 2010, R128, Alejandro Falla - 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6(1), 6-0
Wimbledon 2010, R64, Ilija Bozoljac - 6-3, 6-7(4), 6-4, 7-6(5)
AO 2008, R32, Tipsarevic - 6-7(5), 7-6(1), 5-7, 6-1, 10-8

Nadal:
Wimbledon 2012, R64, Lukas Rosol - 7-6(9), 4-6, 4-6, 6-2, 4-6 (Say no more ...)
RG 2011, R128, Isner - 6-4, 6-7(2), 6-7(2), 6-2, 6-4 (Similar to Karlovic at Queen's Club: boring, yet thoroughly nerve-wrecking.)
Wimbledon 2010, R64, Robin Haase - 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, 6-0, 6-3
Wimbledon 2010, R32, Philipp Petzschner - 6-4, 4-6, 6-7(5), 6-2, 6-3
Wimbledon 2007, R32, Soderling - 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(7), 4-6, 7-5 (Still feels longer than Isner/Mahut)
Wimbledon 2006, R64, Robert Kendrick - 6-7(4), 3-6, 7-6(2), 7-5, 6-4

Djokovic:
USO 2010, R128, Troicki - 6-3, 3-6, 2-6, 7-5, 6-3
Wimbledon 2010, R128, Oliver Rochus - 4-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2 (I remember my guy taking him to five sets. Odd match.)
USO 2007, R64, Stepanek - 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 5-7, 7-5, 7-6(2)
Wimbledon 2007, R32, Nicolas Kiefer - 7-6(4), 6-7(6), 6-2, 7-6(5)

Murray:
USO 2012, R32, Feliciano Lopez - 7-6(5), 7-6(5), 4-6, 7-6(4) (Remember his mother's crush on Lopez?)
USO 2011, R32, Haase - 6-7(5), 2-6, 6-2, 6-0, 6-4
RG 2010, R128, Gasquet - 4-6, 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-2, 6-1
USO 2008, R32, Jurgen Melzer - 6-7(5), 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-1, 6-3

I can tolerate two rounds of gimmes. In many ways, they've earned them.

And not having these rounds would be terrible for everyone: players, fans, tournaments.

 

[herios]

Would going back to 16 seeds for slams bring some more excitement to the earlier rounds of a slam, as opposed to top seeds just steamrolling the opposition in the first couple of rounds?

Or is it better this way that there are no early casualties and top seeds only meet after the fourth round?

What do you guys think?

Eoger came up with this idea, because he got to gimmies to start with. He should have gotten Monfils in the first Round
:huh:

 

[Didi]

That's a great list, tented, thanks for your efforts to put it together. Brings back some nice memories. Who could ever forget the moment when Falla, that little dude from Columbia, served for the match in the 4th set vs. Roger on Wimbledon's mighty Center Court? That would have been an ever bigger upset than the Rosol one, had Falla not got incredibly tight unlike Rosol who served it out in ice-cold manner like Pete or Bjorn.

 

[tented]

That's a great list, tented, thanks for your efforts to put it together. Brings back some nice memories. Who could ever forget the moment when Falla, that little dude from Columbia, served for the match in the 4th set vs. Roger on Wimbledon's mighty Center Court? That would have been an ever bigger upset than the Rosol one, had Falla not got incredibly tight unlike Rosol who served it out in ice-cold manner like Pete or Bjorn.

I sure do remember that. I'll bet Falla does, too. How long do you think it took him to get over that loss? And I agree it would have been bigger than Rafa/Rosol.

 

[El Dude]

When did it switch from 16 to 32?

The reason I ask is I'm wondering if this is part of the reason it is taking younger players longer to rise up the rankings. If you're not seeded than you've got a really good chance of facing a top 30 opponent within the first round or two; if you're 18-21, that's a tall order.

Grigor Dimitrov, by the way, made it to his first 3R Slam (where he unfortunately has to face Novak Djokovic). It also happens to be his first seeded Slam; in his previous nine Slams he went out in the 1R or 2R. Here is who he faced and lost to, with their seeding in parentheses:

2013 AO: L Benneteau (32)
2012 USO: L Paire
2012 WIM: W K Anderson (32), L Baghdatis (withdraw)
2012 FO: W D Young, L Gasquet (17)
2012 AO: W Chardy, L Almagro (10)
2011 USO: L Monfils (7)
2011 WIM: W Stebe, L Tsonga (12)
2011 FO: L Chardy
2011 AO: W Golubev, L Wawrinka (19)

The point being not that Dimitrov couldn't have won some of those matches he lost, or that he hasn't been a flaky talent who is only now (seemingly) putting it all together, but that he rarely faced an easy opponent in the 1R or 2R - and usually when he did he won. But his losses have been to six players who have been in the top ten--Wawrinka, Tsonga, Monfils, Almagro, Gasquet, Baghdatis--and three other players who are all quite talented--Chardy, Benneteau, Paire. If there had been 16 seeds instead of 32, my guess is that Dimitrov would have made it a bit deeper in many of those tournaments - not necessarily 4R or QF, but certainly the 3R before now.

 

[Denis]

I think 32 seeds is more fair, because players get rewarded for doing well during the year. I prefer that slightly over more drama in the earlier rounds. We will get it from now on (which is better since the weekend starts now).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

El Dude, 2001 Wimbledon was the first time 32 seeds was implemented. The year Roger had his one and only match with Pete.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

When did it switch from 16 to 32?

The reason I ask is I'm wondering if this is part of the reason it is taking younger players longer to rise up the rankings. If you're not seeded than you've got a really good chance of facing a top 30 opponent within the first round or two; if you're 18-21, that's a tall order.

Grigor Dimitrov, by the way, made it to his first 3R Slam (where he unfortunately has to face Novak Djokovic). It also happens to be his first seeded Slam; in his previous nine Slams he went out in the 1R or 2R. Here is who he faced and lost to, with their seeding in parentheses:

2013 AO: L Benneteau (32)
2012 USO: L Paire
2012 WIM: W K Anderson (32), L Baghdatis (withdraw)
2012 FO: W D Young, L Gasquet (17)
2012 AO: W Chardy, L Almagro (10)
2011 USO: L Monfils (7)
2011 WIM: W Stebe, L Tsonga (12)
2011 FO: L Chardy
2011 AO: W Golubev, L Wawrinka (19)

The point being not that Dimitrov couldn't have won some of those matches he lost, or that he hasn't been a flaky talent who is only now (seemingly) putting it all together, but that he rarely faced an easy opponent in the 1R or 2R - and usually when he did he won. But his losses have been to six players who have been in the top ten--Wawrinka, Tsonga, Monfils, Almagro, Gasquet, Baghdatis--and three other players who are all quite talented--Chardy, Benneteau, Paire. If there had been 16 seeds instead of 32, my guess is that Dimitrov would have made it a bit deeper in many of those tournaments - not necessarily 4R or QF, but certainly the 3R before now.

not really sure i can follow you there? how would limiting it to 16 seeds affect an unseeded player? it makes a world of a difference for the 16-32 seeds, and notable difference for the 1-16. but the others? with 16 seeds, Grigor could have just as well drawn the same opponents. the only difference being that the 1-16 and 16-32 wouldn't have been 'protected' of one another, and might have faced each other, hence only very, very, very slightly reducing the likeliness of one of those to meet a player ranked above 32. the difference in probability would hardly be enough to show in a sample size as small as Dimitrov's GS outings.

(actually, considering he was unseeded until recently, he's actually been rather lucky - in 14 GS matches, he's run into a top 8 player just once, and never had to face one of the Big 4.)

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

32 seeds is the only way..don't risk a major player coming in cold and losing early doors..

forget about that, what a shambles. no, it cannot be allowed to change, and it will not.

 

[Moxie]

When did it switch from 16 to 32?

The reason I ask is I'm wondering if this is part of the reason it is taking younger players longer to rise up the rankings. If you're not seeded than you've got a really good chance of facing a top 30 opponent within the first round or two; if you're 18-21, that's a tall order.

Grigor Dimitrov, by the way, made it to his first 3R Slam (where he unfortunately has to face Novak Djokovic). It also happens to be his first seeded Slam; in his previous nine Slams he went out in the 1R or 2R. Here is who he faced and lost to, with their seeding in parentheses:

2013 AO: L Benneteau (32)
2012 USO: L Paire
2012 WIM: W K Anderson (32), L Baghdatis (withdraw)
2012 FO: W D Young, L Gasquet (17)
2012 AO: W Chardy, L Almagro (10)
2011 USO: L Monfils (7)
2011 WIM: W Stebe, L Tsonga (12)
2011 FO: L Chardy
2011 AO: W Golubev, L Wawrinka (19)

The point being not that Dimitrov couldn't have won some of those matches he lost, or that he hasn't been a flaky talent who is only now (seemingly) putting it all together, but that he rarely faced an easy opponent in the 1R or 2R - and usually when he did he won. But his losses have been to six players who have been in the top ten--Wawrinka, Tsonga, Monfils, Almagro, Gasquet, Baghdatis--and three other players who are all quite talented--Chardy, Benneteau, Paire. If there had been 16 seeds instead of 32, my guess is that Dimitrov would have made it a bit deeper in many of those tournaments - not necessarily 4R or QF, but certainly the 3R before now.

not really sure i can follow you there? how would limiting it to 16 seeds affect an unseeded player? it makes a world of a difference for the 16-32 seeds, and notable difference for the 1-16. but the others? with 16 seeds, Grigor could have just as well drawn the same opponents. the only difference being that the 1-16 and 16-32 wouldn't have been 'protected' of one another, and might have faced each other, hence only very, very, very slightly reducing the likeliness of one of those to meet a player ranked above 32. the difference in probability would hardly be enough to show in a sample size as small as Dimitrov's GS outings.

(actually, considering he was unseeded until recently, he's actually been rather lucky - in 14 GS matches, he's run into a top 8 player just once, and never had to face one of the Big 4.)

I understand the argument. If you randomize the draw below seed #16, you set up a greater possibility for upset, giving the younger/lower ranked players a greater chance to advance. Of course, they can still have a difficult draw, but the 32-seed formula does limit the chances for upset. Look at the Berdych-Monfils first rounder. Obviously, that was because Monfils had dropped ranking due to injury, and got the WC, and it was an unlucky draw for Berdych, particularly in Paris, but it's the kind of thing that could happen more often if you changed it to a 16-seed draw.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of it. (As a fan of a top player, it doesn't behoove me.) However, if you want to mix things up, and you don't like the aging of the ATP, it's an idea.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ just to get this right - you're saying the increased chance for the #40 ranked young guy is that before he gets to a top player (#1-16), a mid tier one (#16-32) could've taken him out if they weren't seeded, hence making the young one profit of another player's upset? it's true, of course, but the difference would be very small and looking at Grigor's draw record, again, he hardly ran into any elite player, and just on three occasions even had a top 16 opponent.

yes, the unseeded player's chance for a nice, open draw, would increase, and for them as a group, over a couple of years, that would result in a noteable difference, as you say, mixing things up. but in Dimitrov's case, i don't see how he could've done noticeably better than he already has.

i still think very naturally, the main result is the protection of the 16-32 seeds, and that indeed is affecting young, up-and-coming players. it definitely creates a threshold around the #28-36 area; you got to work extra-hard to overcome that hurdle and enter that group.

 

[BalaryKar]

I am of the firm belief that the Top 32 seedings protects more the people in 17-32 than 1-16. Imagine the Top 16 being as consistent as the Top 4, and then the rest 17-128 have no chances of a QF whatsoever. And most of the 17-32 will be wiped out whenever they meet the Top 16 earlier than R32. Now that they spend more time in protection, they can sustain a bit more time in the Top 32 and make a sustained attack for a crack in the Top 10. Having said all this, a player needs to be really good to crack Top 10 and the 32 seedings system slightly increases their chances though not much.

Even I am wondering with El Dude's argument. Dimitrov in the 16 seeds system would have to actually wait more time before cracking the 32 seedings.