Quick Question,
why are seeding so important?

i was surfing the net, and came across a thread in some forum, saying how a 16th seed is alot better than being in 17th seed position.
Something about opponents, isnt it all random?

No. It's not all random. The No. 1 and No. 2 are always in opposite sides of the draw. In the SF, the top two always are seeded to face someone from the next two; QF, the top 4 are seeded to face someone in the next four. So, in the round of 32, if you're No. 16, you'll be seeded to face someone seeded 17-32. If you're No. 17, you could be seeded to meet anyone in the Top 16.

Did I get that right? :unsure:

After posting I wasn't sure if that was right or if they set it up more like 17-24 meet 9-16 and 25-32 meet 1-8??

You are right in both cases I think....

Being a top 16 seed basically means you avoid the other 15 best players in the draw until the 4th round.

I think you got it right originally. I may be wrong, but I think it's random within each of these groups.

I.e., #1 and #2 are in the obvious places in the draw. Then #3 and #4 get randomly drawn to their two places. Then #5 to #8, etc.

Of course I may be mistaken, but it was always my impression that that is how it happens.

It depends on the type of draw that a tournament uses. In a standard ITF draw, it usually goes No.1 at the top and 2 at the bottom. 3 and 4 are drawn for which half they are in, but can only meet the 1 or 2 seeds in the semis and so on (as Serenaw19 said).
In an NCAA draw (aka Wimbledon draw) the 1 and 4 seeds are in the top half and the 2 and 3 seeds are in the bottom half. It then distributes the seeds so that in the same half are 2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15 etc etc are in the same half. It means that the No.17 seed will normally be in the same section as the top seed and can meet 2nd or 3rd round. The seeds have set places in the draw and the non-seeds are randomly inserted after them.
The number of seeds depends on the size of the draw, but I like the idea of keeping the number of seeds down so that there are more floaters. Makes for better viewing and more shocks in the early rounds.

I think Wimbledon's way (1 v 4 and 2 v 3) is the most logical. 2 and 3 should be facing each other most often. The fact we had Nalby (long time number 3) never facing Nadal when he was in better form has really annoyed me. If one thinks about it, by playing 1/3 and 2/4 we may have 3 being stronger than 2 and never know about it.

Slam draws nowadays are

1 and 2 in separate halves.

3 and 4 are drawn to meet them in the semis randomly (even at Wimbledon - they may used to have done 2 v 3 & 1 v 4 but they don't anymore - it is just random. Though it did work out that way in 2006 it didn't in 2005 - check the womens draw it was 1 v 3 & 2 v 4)

then 1-4 meet 5-8 in the quarters.

In the 4th round 1-4 are drawn to meet 13-16 & 5-8 are drawn to meet 9-12.

In the 3rd round 1-8 are drawn to meet 25-32 & 9-16 are drawn to meet 17-24.

Tenez I a little curious and very interested in your comment as I never realised that WImbleon put 1 with 4 and 2 with 3. I thought it was as the other slams and 1 could go in the same draw as 3 or 4 depending on which half they were drawn to be in.

Have I understood your post correctly?

If so, then it certainly seems the best way of doing it. Why should the number 1 seed be put in the same part of the draw as 3 when 4 seems the sensible seed to go in with the number 1 seed....

Hi Gav - I only got the info from Tennismenace, which I trusted to be true.

I think, like you that 1 v 3 and 2 versus 4 is wrong in principle. For instance if Djoko becomes 3rd seed at some stage, I don't think it will be fair to get him in Fed's draw again. Let's say federer remains the best in the world, Dkoko would have no chance to overcome Nadal even if he becomes a better player.

There is something really wrong to leave this to chance.

No. Wimbledon puts either 3 or 4 in the same half as the top seed, same as the others. If you want to convince yourself, just look at the last couple years. Last year Fed was in the same half as No. 4; the year before it was No. 3.

So are you basing your entire reasoning on that the #4 seed should be in the number one seed's half on that Djoko might become number 3? :blink:

Tenez was just using that as an example.

You have to admit that 1 and 4 in the same draw and 2 and 3 in the same draw makes more sense. I know it doesn't make much difference but it essentially applies the same logic as the rest of the seeding system....

I actually like the way it's done, because it provides more variety. Say if Blake made it back up to being a No. 4 seed. He'd at least have a 50/50 chance of ending up in Nadal's half, rather than being forced into Federer's. B)

Exactly.

Nick - Before last year Wimbledon gave itself some flexibility on the seeding order. We remember when they chose Roddick as nber 2 seed versus Hewitt who was ranked nber 2 at the time (and former winner). I don't think they are now allowed to do that so it would be interesting to see if they always draw 1/4 and 2/3 or whether this is tossed like the other slams.

Blake shoudl worry about Dick Norman before worrying about Nadal or Fed! ;)


Just kidding, I like the guy and his game, shame he is a bit of a choker ....after all.

Exactly, we don't want it like it was in the old days when you could predict the draw before it came out. We want variety please :D

All the grand slams can seed the top 32 players in the draw at their own discretion.

Only Wimbledon tends to change the seeds though. They have a special grass court forumla for working out the seedings. I doubt it will be that different to the rankings this year though.

I don't think they can even consider it now.

I presume that Wimbledon will follow their usual procedure and apply the grass court formula to the mens seeds though as mentioned it won't make a huge amount of difference this year.

They lifted Venus in the seedings last year but I doubt they'll do it again seeing as she isn't defending champion.

They haven't changed their seeding procedure, Tenez. And it is not a subjective thing as you imply above, with the comment of "choosing" Roddick over Hewitt. They apply a formula which gives extra weight to points earned from grass court events over the past couple years.

Now, on the women's side, they generally don't do that at all and just go by rankings, but I believe they have been known to elevate the seeding of a top player who has dropped down the rankings due to injury.

:) interesting discussion..... I always suspected wimbers especially was skewed towards a former champion particularly for the men's draw...but not so for the women..... but lately I have to agree with Nick..that they may possibly help you out if you are coming back from injury....but only if you really have something to offer..ie..the likes of Venus..

Will keep my eyes peeled for this years seedings.... :)

Since the Top 2 were the Wimbledon finalists last year, you certainly wouldn't expect the seeding formula to affect them at all, but you might look for players like Baghdatis and Ancic (if he's fit to play) getting a boost because of their grass court points from last year.

With Murray and now *Haas* pulling out, a couple of those 'dangerous unseeded' players will now be seeded for Roland Garros.

wow, SO many replies, thanks, i think its cleared things up...

Yes, heard murray and Haas withdrew.

WTA side, Hingis has pulled out, and Hantuchova, Vaidisova, Ivanovic, Golovin, have all had injuries in last 2 weeks, so might disturb the Womens Draw, if more pull out

they'll be more withdrawls between now and sunday/monday...

I wasn't sure where to ask this question so.....

What is the exact date of the Men's finals?
Its probably a sunday right......I wanna know so I can request it off.

sunday 10th june

No 31 Mardy Fish has also just withdrawn from RG, freeing up another seeded spot.

Apparently he injured his foot whilst kicking an American football visiting with NFL Europa team Rhein Fire. :wacko: