Wimbledon 2009

If you shop around then 1-1 is still available.

I can’t see beyond Federer and Murray (3-1) but neither of them represent good value in my book. In Roger’s case, you are betting he wins 7 matches off the reel and you only win $10 for an investment of $10.

Astonishingly, the price about a Federer/Murray final is only 6-5. If you are to collect on this outcome, each player must win 6 matches. You need 12 events to go your way to win $12 for a stake of $10.

Again, it might happen, but it’s not the kind of speculation you’d want to bet your house on.

The draw is random, based upon seedings. It works like this:

You make one half of the draw the #1 half, the other is the #2 half. The player seeded #1 goes in the #1 half, the player seeded #2 in the #2 half.

Now, you seed randomly the remaining seeds as follows: each of the remaining half of the next larger power of 2 are seeded randomly opposite the already seeded players. Thus, #3 and #4 are seeded randomly to be in the #1 or #2 halves; #'s 5 to 8 randomly in the four quarters of the draw, #'s 9 to 16 in the eight eighths of the draw, and #'s 17 - 32 in the 16 sixtheeths of the draw. The remaining 96 players are then placed randomly in the remaining slots. Thus, as you look down the pairings starting from the top, each group of four players (split into two matches, the winners of which meet in Round 2) will have one seeded player, and three unseeded players. Seeded players cannot meet until Round 3, and if/when they meet, all such meetings will be between someone from the top half of the seedings vs. someone from the bottom half of the seedings (1 to 16 vs. 17 - 32). After that, it’s someone from 1 to 8 vs. someone from 9 - 16, unless one of the top 16 was upset in a prior round, and thus it continues to the end.

So if the tournament holds to seeded form, the last round is 1 v 2, but the semis can be 1 v 3 or 1 v 4, the quarters can be 1 v 5, 6, 7, or 8, and the octos (Round of 16 they sometimes call it here in the States) will be 1 v 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16.
ETA: Men’s draw is here.

And should add that this system is slightly skewed now because they took the #5 seed, put him in the #1 hole, and moved a few others around, due to withdrawls.

So in theory, the number one seed could play:

the 17th seed in the round of 32,
the 9th seed in the round of 16,
the 5th seed in the Quarters and
the #3 seed in the Semis.

while the #2 seed could play:

the 32nd seed in the round of 32,
the 16th seed in the round of 16,
the 8th seed in the Quarters and
the #4 seed in the Semis.
It appears that there is no advantage to be the #1 seed versus the #2 seed.

Correct. And no advantage being #3 versus #4. And none being #5 versus 6, 7 or 8. In some (non-professional) tournaments they don’t even bother distinguishing between the seeds in each group. My son is currently playing in a tournament that has sixteen 17-seeds, eight 9-seeds and four 5-seeds.

Exactly. It’s a good way to set it up so that the 1 and 2 have a very good chance to meet in the Final, while ensuring other really good players also make it far.

So much for Blake’s “good luck,” as he is the first player to lose this year. Seppi bounced him in straight sets. Federer is a couple of minutes away from taking the second set against Lu.

Federer got through pretty easily, and Maria Sharapova won. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga dropped the second set of his match.

There are two amazing extended matches going right now: Feliciano Lopez leads Karol Beck 8-7 in the fifth, and Nicolas Almagro are tied 3-3 in the fifth set of a match that started with three consecutive tiebreaks!

Why are they playing tennis? The golf is still going!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

notfrommensa, yes, that’s correct. It reflects in part an understanding that differentiating among, say, 5 to 8 is not a precise science. It also reflects in part the original English thinking about elimination tournaments, which is that the whole process should be randomized. Thus, for example, in the FA Cup, their elimination tournament for soccer, not only is the draw randomized, but it’s re-randomized each round. The only concession to ability is to seed the teams from the top leagues into later rounds. But, theoretically, Manchester United could play Arsenal the very first game they play in the tournament, and the final two teams might never have had to beat anyone significant.

British Wonder Girl 15 year old Laura Robson, winner of last year’s Wimbledon girls title, goes out to Daniela Hantuchova in 3 sets.

I always consider the first British woman to go out of Wimbleon heralds the official start of summer.

To avoid overmuch cynicism, Robson does look like a really good prospect, and gave a pretty decent account of herself against the former world number 5. Frankly I think this is probably a very good result for her development; if she’d won, the ludicrous British hype machine would’ve cranked into full overdrive.

Djokovic gets by Benneteau in four tough sets.

The winners of those long five-setters I mentioned earlier were Beck (10-8) and Almagro (8-6). And next… they play each other!

She did well. :slight_smile:

English girl Georgie Stoop looks to be going well against Zvonareva.

I remember Zvonareva going out against Erakovic in NZ. Maybe she just doesn’t play well against home town support?

No particularly surprising results so far today, as I’m pretty sure no seeded players have lost on either the men’s or women’s side. I see Jelena Dokic lost her match, which is too bad. And Nicole Vaidisova continues to fade away, but Amelie Mauresmo won.

Here’s a potentially great second round match on Thursday: Andy Murray against Ernests Gulbis. Gulbis hasn’t done anything this year, but big things are expected from him and if he wants to get noticed, here’s his opportunity.

As far as I can tell, Gulbis hasn’t won an ATP tournament yet. Might be asking a bit much.

Safin lost to Levine. Was he not seeded?

No, he hasn’t won a tournament. He’s not quite 21 but is considered a promising player. I’m not predicting an upset, but in case he does put it all together for a stunning win (who expected Federer to beat Sampras in 2001?), I didn’t want to let the matchup pass unnoticed.

He was, but I either didn’t see the score or his match wasn’t over when I posted. I guess that’s the end of Safin at Wimbledon. Like I said in the French Open thread, given his power it’s kind of ridiculous that he usually struggled on the grass. Interesting to see him acknowledge that he probably should have won more majors in his career, which is completely true.

Sharapova is getting dissed and dismissed by Gisela Dulko. Less surprisingly, it looks like Rainer Schuttler is going home, and Tommy Robredo is down two sets.

Is there much evidence of a response to the “anti-grunting” campaign, particularly around the women’s game?

A lot’s been said about Larcher de Brito in the buildup, but apparently she was a bit quieter in her opening match?

Shut my mouth about Sharapova: after trailing 0-3 in the second set, she reeled off seven games in a row and they’re now tied early in the third.

I’ve heard Larcher de Brito was really terrible to listen to, but as far as a broader crackdown - they talk about it every once in a while and then don’t do anything.