Watching the US Open, tonite’s USA coverage told me that 2nd seed Andre Agassi will be playing the thirteenth seed (someone named Federer) in the round of 16.
Logic dictates that the 2nd seed should be playing the 15th seed in the Round of 16, that is, of course if both players advance. In the Round of 16, the seeds to play each other should add up to 17: 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14, etc. to 8 vs 9, assuming that they advance that far.
This is how it is done in the NCAA basketball playoffs. Can someone explain how the seedings are bracketed?
This year they started seeding 32 players rather than 16, as had been customary. I believe they did the same at Wimbledon.
As to why the match-ups between seeds don’t make any sense, I’ve got no clue. As our non-mensan friend stated in the OP, assuming all seeded players make it through to any particular round, the top seed should face the lowest seed, the number two seed the second worse, and so on. Would anyone with a clear insight as to why this is not so care to be a good sport and explain?
Easier said than done. Federer is an up-and-coming talent who beat non other than Sampras at Wimbledon. If Agassi gets past him, either Sampras or Rafter (assuming the likely scenario that he will beat Nicolás Lapenti tonight)would be waiting for him in the quarters. Tough road if you ask me. And that’s just to get to the semis!
OK, apparently tennis randomly organizes part of the bracket. And the rules are fairly complicated: USTA Regulations: Making the Draw
To summarize: 1st and 2nd seed have fixed positions. 3rd and 4th seed have 2 possible placements, you pick randomly between them. 5-8th seeds have 4 possible placements, you pick those randomly again. And so on.
The best theory I could find on why they do this is because rankings (and thus seedings) don’t change much between consecutive tournaments. So if they used a fixed draw format, the same players would play against each other in several tournaments in a row.
Thanks for the link. You’re right, it is quite complicated and I guess it is another instance of justifying your own existence.
As a casual Tennis fan, many of the players skip tournaments because of fatigue, conflicts, injuries, or surface (grass, clay, hard-court, indoor, etc.) so I would think that the seeds would not the same from tournament to tournament. And I can’t beleive the rankings are that static, at least they shouldn’t be IMHO.
It doesn’t seem fair that in the round of 16, that the number 1 seed could conceivably play the 9th seed when he should be playing the 16th seed. All other things being equal the 9th seed should be a stronger opponent than the 16th seed.
Apparently it does not upset the players too much because I have never heard any controversy about it.
Bet the 16th seeds in the NCAA tournament would like it this way. Instead of playing a team like Duke, they might play a team like Missouri.
No offense to you Tiger fans out there but Mizzou is not quite in the same league as Duke, even though their head coach is a former Dukie.
The Grand Slam tournaments reserve the right to make their own seedings and ignore the computer rankings. Pete Sampras was seeded #1 at Wimbledon this year even though he wasn’t ranked #1 at the time.
