2012 U. S. Open Championships...New York, New York

[don_budge]

That's Just the Way It Is...Roger Hornsby. Not necessarily so... says don_budge!

Sorry if I disappointed you tennis_chiro but I more or less refuse to stand corrected...but once again I am right and it doesn't matter if everyone else says that I am wrong. The Right...just like the Truth is not a numbers game. Votes don't count in The Kingdom.

Being seeded is a right that is earned. If you earn the number one seed you have done it over a course of time and effort. What exactly is it that you have earned? To me...you have statistically earned the right, or rather the best chance, to meet the second best player in the tournament in the finals. Just as earning the lower seeds have been earned over time and effort. So why not systematically give the system a logical and fair conclusion? Why not give it some deeper and more profound meaning? Why not give VALUE to the seed earning system? Why the randomness...the key to any organization is it's organization.

That being said...the only fair way to handle the seeding is thus...the #1 and the #2 are at opposite ends of the draw. These are the two that are preordained to reach the finals...based on their performance. Then if we proceed with any sense of logic the #4 will play the #1 in the semi's as well the #3 will play the #2. If I were deity of tennis tournaments and it was up to me I would proceed through the #5 and #8 seeds in a similar method and the rest of the seeds you can do what you will. Actually, come to think of it, I would take this system to the logical end...if you seed 16 then I would use this pairing system to the conclusion. Why not?

The practicality and orderliness of my proposal is evident in the U. S. Open draw. The Once and Future King (Federer) has earned the right and the tennis viewing audience has earned the right to see the most drama for the buck. The most drama in this case is pretty obvious to me and that would be a final with Roger Federer and the winner of Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. I rest my case.

The final that I want to see is Roger Federer vs. Andy Murray because I am having a hard time resolving the contrast in the last two matches between these two men. But at the same time an equally compelling argument could be made for a Federer vs. Djokovic final. Who wouldn't want to see a replay of the 2011 semifinal when Djokovic hurled that bolt of lightening from nowhere and made that DeNiroesque face from the Russian Roulette scene in "The Deer Hunter" to the New York throng on that September night in The Big Apple? But in my book, both of these contestants must battle their way past the other to have the honor of facing the #1 seed. Plus the #1 seed deserves to play either of these guys once they have conceivably weakened each other with a tougher semi final than the #1 seed theoretically draws by playing my hypothetical #4 seed. Get my drift?

What if the Spanish Conquistador was in the draw? The semifinal match ups that I would want to see then would be Federer vs. Murray and Djokovic vs. Nadal...if they were seeded accordingly. As far as I am concerned Federer as the #1 seed would of earned himself the right to face the weakest link in the semi's while the other two beat each other up in the other semi. A shame about the disappearance of Rafael by the way...I am curious as to the truth of that matter also. Whatever happened to Söderling by the way also? Nobody is talking...it must be a secret.

The only possible way that the tennis viewers and the players have to see the best of all possible permutation or combination of all possible events, is if the #1 plays the #4 and the #2 plays the #3...and so on. They, referring to all of the players in the draw, have earned the right to face each other in the finals provided they can answer all of the questions asked of them on a gradually escalating level that their performances have "guaranteed" or "earned" them...throughout the tournament.

But that makes sense...so that is the reason why they have probably deviated from such a system. Probably someone has deemed it the politically correct thing to do. I wouldn't dare to argue with you about the way it is...but I reserve my right to make a plea for doing the right thing...that is, obtaining the highest degree of justice possible. Thanks for the enlightenment as well...tennis_chiro! I didn't know that. And now that I know it...I still don't agree with it.

Man...the tournament hasn't even started and I am already worked up into a lather. Come on Roger...bow your neck! (as my father says)

[tennis_chiro]

I'm pretty sure about this

At Wimbledon the top 2 seed are placed in opposite halves of the draw (obviously) but seeds 3 and 4 are drawn randomly and could end up in either half of the draw. It used to be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 but this policy was abandoned some time ago I believe. I'm fairly sure about this...but not absolutely certain.:

Checking ATP yearbook, Wimbledon finals in '86, '94 and '99 all show 1st and 4th seeds meeting in the finals, so there was no 1vs4 & 2vs3 scenario in the semis.

Also, I think it's relatively recent that they seed or even place more than 16 players. The tournament would be more interesting if they just seeded 8 and placed the next 8. It used to be a "floater" was anyone just outside of that top 16, but now there are no 1st or 2nd round surprises unless it comes from someone outside the top 32. It happens, but it is pretty rare for the top 8 to lose in the first two rounds.

don

[stotty]

Wimbledon

At Wimbledon the top 2 seed are placed in opposite halves of the draw (obviously) but seeds 3 and 4 are drawn randomly and could end up in either half of the draw. It used to be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 but this policy was abandoned some time ago I believe. I'm fairly sure about this...but not absolutely certain.

Seedings at Wimbledon don't always follow the world rankings. Wimbledon for many years now has reserved the right to seed players according to their ability on grass... based on a player's results on grass over the previous 24 months. This became policy in 2002. In the years previous to 2002 seeding were adjusted at the discretion of the tournament committee. The 2002 policy has become less and less useful because:

1 There only a few grass court tournaments around these days...so all too often players have no results to glean anything from.

2 The Wimbledon grass more closely resembles other sufaces since the committee took the decision the change the grass seed to 100% rye. Previously Wimbledon used three different type of grass seeds. Now the grass is much firmer and bounces higher...gone are the shooting bounces of yesteryear. With grass more closely resembling other surfaces there is less need or reason to judge players' form on grass.

Seeding players on their ability to perform on grass was far more useful years ago when grass was grass. There would have been little point seeding Vilas number 2 on grass when he was utterly hopeless on the surface, despite being world-class everywhere else. Same with Dibbs and Solomon...Solomon never got past round one in five attempts.

Amazing when you think that Forest Hills and The Australian Open were also played on grass years ago....three of the slams were once played on grass.

Things have changed over the years but not necessarily for the better. Peter Flemming and Matts were saying recently the reason why the top three have been so dominant is due to the lack of court-surface variety. There are no quick grass courts or fast indoor carpet anymore. Years ago players like Tanner or Dibley would have blitzed a few wins on these surfaces even with the likes of Borg, Connors and Mac around. Now that possibility has been removed, equivalent players today are unlikely snatch a title or two off the big guns. The days of sheer serving power won't win a player titles...nor will sheer artistry. It's all about thumping groundstrokes and consistency. The relentless consistency of the top three makes them near impossible to beat. Rosol had to play the greatest match in history to beat Nadal in FIVE SETS.

I don't put Federer in the thumping groundstrokes bracket. He is an anomaly. A genius. The exception.

I think Peter and Matts may have a good point. The game has become very predictable. The last 30 grand slams say it all.

[tennis_chiro]

I'm disappointed in you guys

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

While the NCAA penchant for pairing 1 vs 64, 2 vs 63 etc in March Madness has probaby dominated the general public's understanding of seeding, I expected you to understand tennis's age old practice (right or wrong) of using the "luck of the draw" to determine position of seeds. According to that practice, there is no difference in placement of seeds for 3 vs 4. In fact there is no actual 6th seed, just 4 5th seeds. And correspondingly, 8 9th seeds and 16 17th seeds. I always did it with a flip of a coin and if 5 went up, another flip of the coin was still necessary to determine which quarter in the top half. But then I would put 6 in the bottom half with the quarter determined by a flip. But the way the rule reads (excerpted below from the 2012 USTA Friend at Court), there is no difference between 3 and 4, 5 through 8, 9 through 16 or 17 through 32. According to the way I read the rule, 17 through 20 could conceivably end up in the first quarter along with 1. 5. 9, 10. That was not the way I understood the old rule, but they are making no distinction between the 17th and 32nd seed. There is a difference in who gets to move up if there is a loss of a seed ahead and in the distribution of the byes (priority to higher seed), but not in the actual draw.

don
PS Stotty, the LTA may run Wimbledon off a different rule book, but I believe this lack of seeding priority is a longstanding ITF modus operandi.

Here is the excerpt from "Friend at Court"(I added a few spaces for clarity; otherwise, verbatim):

USTA's Friend at Court (2012) beginning on page 73

B. Making the Draw


1. Public draw. The draw, computer or manual, shall be made in public at the
time and place specified by the Tournament Committee.


2. Draw made by Referee or Deputy Referee. The Referee or a Deputy
Referee, assisted by at least one Tournament Committee member and
preferably by two members, shall make the draw. The Referee and the
Deputy Referee shall be jointly responsible for the draw’s compliance
with applicable USTA Regulations. If the Referee has a Deputy Referee
make the draw, the Referee shall determine when the Deputy Referee
shall return the draw to the Referee, at which time the authority of the
Deputy Referee over the draw ceases.

FAC Comment II.B-1: When a district, sectional, or the national office has a
person who assists the Referee in making the draw, this person is appointed
as a Deputy Referee and serves as a member of the Tournament Committee as
long as the person’s authority as a Deputy Referee remains in place. These
Deputy Referees should be certified as Referees by the USTA or should have
undergone current Referee training with the USTA.


3. Draw formats. USTA Regulations describe the procedures that Referees
shall follow when they run single elimination draws, First Match Losers
Consolations, voluntary Sign-Up Consolation, Feed-In Championships,
round robins, and compass draws. Tournaments may use other draw
formats. When a tournament uses other formats, the Referee shall post
at the tournament the procedures defining the format before the start of
play. Referees shall follow USTA Regulations except for those USTA
Regulations changed by the posted procedures.


4. Main draw. When the number of players is 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, or any
higher power of two, they shall meet in even pairs in progressive elimination
in accordance with the following pattern:

a. Balancing seeds. The principle of drawing to position the seeds
shall be applied so that the same number of seeds will fall in each
half of the draw, in each quarter of the draw, etc.

b. Positioning seeds. The first seed shall be positioned on the top line of the
draw, and the second seed shall be positioned on the bottom line of the
draw. The position of the remaining seeds shall be determined by lot
using the procedure described below, with each seeded player in the
top half of the draw being positioned on the top line of the bracket for
which that seed is drawn, and each seeded player in the bottom half of
the draw being positioned on the bottom line of the bracket for which
that seed is drawn. The procedure for different size draws with the
maximum number of seeds is shown in Table 6.

c. Using byes to fill out draw. When there are not enough players to
put one player on each line in the draw, byes are added. This serves
to bring to the second round a player on each line so that there can
be an orderly progression down to two finalists. For example, with


TABLE 6
Positioning Seeds

A. Draw of 12-16 with 4 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 16
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 5 or 12

B. Draw of 24-32 with 8 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 32
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 9 or 24
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 20, or 28

C. Draw of 48-64 with 16 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 64
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 17 or 48
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 9, 25, 40, or 56
Seeds 9-16 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 21, 29, 36, 44, 52, or 60

D. Draw of 96-128 with 32 seeds.
Seed 1 Line 1
Seed 2 Line 128
Seeds 3 & 4 Drawn at random for line 33 or 96
Seeds 5-8 Drawn at random for line 17, 49, 80 or 112
Seeds 9-16 Drawn at random for line 9, 25, 41, 57, 72, 88, 104,
or 120
Seeds 17-32 Drawn at random for line 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53, 61,
68, 76, 84, 92, 100, 108, 116, or 124

[stotty]

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

I agree.

[don_budge]

U. S. Open Draw...Question?

Federer draws the third seed in the semis...what gives? I thought that the one seed played the fourth seed and the two seed played the third seed. Otherwise what is the advantage of earning the one seed?

[don_budge]

The second...from the Top Ten

He's the second top ten player to disappear from the tour in the last year...anybody here remember Robin Söderling? His disappearance was supposedly due to mononucleosis and now it is Nadal's knee(s). Neither medical condition has been thoroughly discussed from a medical standpoint. Robin has virtually disappeared. Here in Sweden there has not been any news to speak of.

[stotty]

Nadal Out.

Shame Nadal is cropped...Nadal makes a tournament...he's the biggest draw. Roger is brilliant but a banal personality.

Still, let's see if Djokovic can regain the form he had in 2011...be interesting if can.

[don_budge]

First headline is already in...Nadal is out. Stunning upset at Wimbledon...withdraws from the Olympics and now the US Open. What gives? Does that make David Ferrer the fourth seed and the projected opponent for the first seed...aka Roger Federer?