New Seeding Arrangements at Slams - 16 instead of 32

Just watching Fed's interview and he was saying that 16 seeds will be fun, like he remembers from before 2001 when the change happened.  He was reminded that this was the first time a non-seeded player was in a slam SF for 10 years, and he introduced the point by saying we'll maybe see more of that next year with the seeding change before going on to say that it would be more entertaining and there'd be some tougher early matches.  He is looking forward to it.

He is undoubtedly right, and I am sure that one of the largely unremarked upon contributions to the consistency of Fed/Nadal/Djoko/Murray in slams (and even lesser players regularly making their seedings) has been that they are protected from meeting a lot of possible nasties until R3, by which time they have had a chance to play themselves in.  I'd think that this is particularly so when they are away from their best surfaces.  Last year is a good example - Fed was #17 at the AO, so he had a very tough draw, but how much worse could it have been, and how much tougher earlier on, if he had been forced to take pot luck in the draw.  From next year we'll see more upsets, and it is likely to help up-and-coming players because it will make life more difficult for 'bed-blockers' to reach and stay at a ranking plateau.

Maybe one day the slam records this lot have set will be given a very faint asterisk to reflect the helping hand that having 32 seeds from 2001-2018 have given them during this extraordinary era.

Jeez, yes, he’d have a complete free radical. That might have been crazy - imagine being, say, Andy Murray and learning your first round is Federer! Or it might have been a Fedal 1st round. The TV companies would have gone into meltdown.

More importantly, it’ll destabilise rankings a touch by increasing the chances for unseeded guys to slip through later. That said they not doing badly here.

I like the idea myself and I’m not surprised Federer sees the joy in it.

I don’t really know what to think about this...is it good, is it bad?

My gut feeling tells me it’s good.

so...

Yaaaaay!

About chuffing time!!!

I don;t think seeding in the reason for the consistency of the top 4.

Federer was consistent cause he is immensely talented, whereas the other 3 were dead consistent cause they simply are/were head and shoulders about the rest fitness wise.

Once that fitness dropped, their consistency dropped with it!

Tenez wrote:I don;t think seeding in the reason for the consistency of the top 4.

Federer was consistent cause he is immensely talented, whereas the other 3 were dead consistent cause they simply are/were head and shoulders about the rest fitness wise.

Once that fitness dropped, their consistency dropped with it!

That's why I said that any asterisk would be faint - these guys are head and shoulders, that's clear.  I am not doubting Nadal's credentials as a Wimbledon Champion, but of all four guys his vulnerability on the fast early grass and his need to play himself in over the first week at Wimbledon is probably the most obvious.  I have not scoured the various draws, but he might have been considerably helped on his way through the draws if the seeding arrangements meant that he managed to avoid more early round matches like the epic vs. Kendrick.

Otherwise, more generally, the seeding has surely saved them all from facing the odd more dangerous match in the  first three rounds than they míght otherwise have faced which, over a period of 10 years or so has probably given each of them a helping hand through on at least a couple of occasions.

Good point about Nadal and Wimbledon early rounds. Yes kendrick but also Petzchner, Haase, Youzhny,..