|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 8:38:51 GMT -5
LOL, absurd. Absurd, absurd, absurd.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 8:41:27 GMT -5
And I don't think I've said this in a long time, but THANK YOU MAHREE! Sveta in 5-8 and Tina in 9-12 helps even out this draw a lot.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 9:11:24 GMT -5
Hingis draw is just fine.
Lisa Raymond (lolz). Dementieva (Hingis beat her easily). Clijsters (seems unmotivated atm). Henin or Petrova. Well. If Hingis wants to win the tournament, she will have to beat one of them. I think it's much better if the meeting happens in the 1/2F than the final. Less pressure and stuff. The final... Very likely to be a tier II opponent or Mauresmo. In both cases, very winnable match.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 26, 2006 9:45:03 GMT -5
LOL, absurd. Absurd, absurd, absurd. I hate her draw. I don't like Zheng/Golovin in the 3rd Round. Dementieva, if she gets as far as the 4th Round, is very dangerous and could deliver another thrashing - a far from guaranteed victory. Kim was playing on one leg and apprently on her deathbed, yet she managed to beat Marti. I'm not buying her "I don't like playing on clay and don't fancy my chances" bullshit. Compared to Vee's draw, Marti does have a shit draw.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 26, 2006 9:47:35 GMT -5
Hingis draw is just fine. Lisa Raymond (lolz). Dementieva (Hingis beat her easily). Clijsters (seems unmotivated atm). Henin or Petrova. Well. If Hingis wants to win the tournament, she will have to beat one of them. I think it's much better if the meeting happens in the 1/2F than the final. Less pressure and stuff. The final... Very likely to be a tier II opponent or Mauresmo. In both cases, very winnable match. I don't know why everyone's panicking about the Raymond match. I'll be surprised if Martina takes more than an hour in dispatching Lisa. Dementieva worries me a bit, should she get as far as R16. Clijsters - ugh. She'll make it seem like she's on the verge of withdrawl and then will be sitting in the final. Petrova/Henin was bound to happen, and it IS the semis of a GS, so whatever happens, happens. Everyone seems to be overlooking Zheng, who's played fantastic all season on clay. That would be a VERY tricky 3rd Round.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 10:15:02 GMT -5
Hingis will beat Zheng if they meet. Cmon.
Dementieva is inconsistant and Clijsters is a question mark. You can't really call that a shit draw.
Hingis is not a top 8 or top 4 seed... She can't have a "catwalk" draw all the way to the final.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on May 26, 2006 10:40:00 GMT -5
Mahree Better than eating up a good seeding though. That's a really good draw for Hingis. If she keeps up her form, I think she makes the semis out of that. If Venus makes it out of the first few rounds, she's probably making the final.
|
|
|
Post by DevilishAttitude on May 26, 2006 12:27:33 GMT -5
Wow, Justine has it tough, both Kim and Nadya in her path! But that's usual for her in Slam draws. While Sharapova, sheesh. Sharapova's draw isn't easy. Safarova 3R, Safina 4R. Yaeh on anything else I'd expect her to win but on clay, it's going to be tough specially with no matches on it this year. Mauresmo has a danger match with Shaughnessy to be sure, but Meg still hasn't really beaten anyone in a while. 73.2% chance of Mauresmo winning that. I think the chances of a Krajicek upset of Schnyder are better. I agree about Sprem. Likh looks like she's ready for retirement. Meghann beat Henin at Miami. Henin might have had the knee problem, but that's still a good win and it should give Meghann hope. Amelie needs a quick start and make Meghann not believe. I am 100% sure Patty will beat Misa even if she tries to lose. If Elena loses early, then chances of retirement at the year is 100% Is there any random player who could "shock" Venus in the early rounds? ;D Bammer, no. Sybille hasn't any power. Venus has to play even worse than against Sesil to lose that one. Fedossova or Laine should also be easy. And the 4 in the 3rd round she could face she should beat. That's the danger one for Vee. If she can get through them she should get very confident. For once, Petrova doesn't get an easy draw. Not according to pierce0143711371358713 Also note the thread titled something like "HARDEST DRAW EVER FOR HINGIS!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!n!ojkN!oN!" Tina got about as easy a draw as she could have: Dementieva is the weakest of the 5-8 seeds and Clijsters is only a worse QF seed than Sharapova. LISA RAYMOND IN 1R? ON CLAY? IN 2006?? Some people are really stupid. Petrova's draw is easy. Morigami will win about 4 games, Perry and Asagoe will win about 2 games. Dulko has the seed. LOL! Only Kirilenko is a threat. ALG wouldn't win cos she hit 50 errors. For no reason. Hingis should crush Raymond. The 2R is easy since she beat Schruff in straights and Ondraskova would struggle to win games. Golovin will lose to Zheng. No one takes the ball earlier than Zheng and I think she'll break Martina a lot if they played. But Zheng's serve is worse than Martina's and she's not consisent enough to beat Martina. But it's a dangerous match. Dementieva is dangerous. Nevber under-estimate Elena specially since she beat Marti 2 & 0 earlier this year. If she plays well then Martina will lose. Kim would be easier IMO has she's a mess mentally. Maybe Henin & Petrova won't be the SF. I don't think Martina will win. Speaking of Zheng, here's a classic Pierce0415 about her being the love-child: www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=237976I suspect he's going to get banned soon. Hingis will beat Zheng if they meet. Cmon. Dementieva is inconsistant and Clijsters is a question mark. You can't really call that a shit draw. Hingis is not a top 8 or top 4 seed... She can't have a "catwalk" draw all the way to the final. You mean cakewalk. Only Kim gets *catwalk* draws.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 12:36:38 GMT -5
It's true that Petrova has easy early rounds, but at least she has Henin in the 1/4F and Hingis or Clijsters in the 1/2. Compare this to the last tournaments she played, she didn't have any real opposition until finals.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on May 26, 2006 12:46:39 GMT -5
I have decided that:
Hingis will show well, but the accumulation of tough matches will take its toll and, in a strange twist of fate, she will lose 1-6, 0-2, ret. to Henin in the semis.
Henin will feast on overrated Russians. Having already shown Myskina and Petrova who's boss, will go on to claim the title over Kuznetsova in the final.
How did Kuznetsova get to the final? Well, Mauresmo has this cakewalk draw to the semis and the French press is ready to hand her the title. She faces her first test against Sveta, and guess what -- FREEZE! Sveta, battle-hardened by testing yet not overly fatiguing wins over Schiavone and Safarova in previous rounds, takes out the local fave and goes on to lose a closely-contested final.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on May 26, 2006 12:49:44 GMT -5
The thing is, Very very... Devilish, Mauresmo was whooping Shaughnessy when the latter was a much better player than she is now. Like I say it's a potential danger match but an upset is unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 26, 2006 17:16:02 GMT -5
Jon Wertheim picks:
Villiams - Sveta Juju - Hingis
Sveta - Juju
Juju
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 17:27:42 GMT -5
Bring back 16 seeds. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 18:28:17 GMT -5
Let's not go there again.
32 p. draw = 8 seeds. 64 p. draw = 16 seeds. 128 p. draw = 32 seeds.
End.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 18:32:31 GMT -5
Ýour logic is flawed.
4 p. draw = 2 seeds. (doubles qualifying)
Obviously draw/seeds ratio goes up the bigger the draw is.
Shit tournaments like Miami do well with 32 seeds though, as they are boring anyway. GS used to be special. Not anymore.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 18:46:05 GMT -5
Also, consider this:
Let's say they make Tier I's mandatory. Top 50 all playing. 16 seeds. 17-32 are unseeded.
Now a GS. Same players. Why are 17-32 suddenly deserving of protection? They are still as sucky as before.
Sugiyama seeded. LOL Srebotnik seeded. LOL. Bartoli seeded. LOL. Arvidsson seeded. LMAO. Koukalova seeded. LOL. Dulko seeded. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 18:53:17 GMT -5
The first 4 days of the womens tournament IS going to be sucky. Even with 16 players. Why do people care so much about the first 4 days anyway? There are matches all over the place, so people and television networks have plenty of opportunities to show exciting matches all day.
32 seeds is better because draws are more balanced that way. Which is better when the fifth day starts until the end of the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 18:58:36 GMT -5
Also, consider this: Let's say they make Tier I's mandatory. Top 50 all playing. 16 seeds. 17-32 are unseeded. Now a GS. Same players. Why are 17-32 suddenly deserving of protection? They are still as sucky as before. Sugiyama seeded. LOL Srebotnik seeded. LOL. Bartoli seeded. LOL. Arvidsson seeded. LMAO. Koukalova seeded. LOL. Dulko seeded. LOL. Ok, we can take one tournament and LOLZING at half of the seed. But take Wimbledon 94. That's ridiculous that Graf had to face McNeil in the first round. Or when Coetzer faced Graf in the first round of the US Open. Players ranked 17-32 do deserve protection (maybe they shouldn't be given a number, blah).
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 19:05:54 GMT -5
Jon Wertheim picks: Villiams - Sveta Juju - Hingis Sveta - Juju Juju Those look good to me. I would probably pick Kim instead of Tina, but yeah...Sveta. She should get to the final for sure.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 19:11:58 GMT -5
Does it get more interesting on Day 5 and 6? No. The top seeds play 25-32 (which suck) = BORING. They don't face a decent player until the second week.
Some years ago, one had at least a few matches early on to look forward to. Top-seeds meeting someone ranked 20 in the first or second, these were the Showcourt matches and they had excitement. It made the GS special. Today you usually get thrashings by the top-seeds, unless they are in terrible form but then it's still painful to watch.
Draws don't need to be balanced. Everything evens out over the course of a season. A bit more variance doesn't do any harm but it makes things more interesting. Balance is boring. The draw opens up for a player, fine. He/She still needs to take the opportunity. It's a myth that having top-players only later on brings better matches.
It's just ugly to see players like Arvidsson being seeded. They deserve to get trounced in the first round. You will not find such terrible players in the top 16.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 19:20:22 GMT -5
But take Wimbledon 94. That's ridiculous that Graf had to face McNeil in the first round. Or when Coetzer faced Graf in the first round of the US Open. Players ranked 17-32 do deserve protection (maybe they shouldn't be given a number, blah). Funny, I was just going to mention these matches as examples for exciting matches. Why is it ridiculous? Steffi can't get past McNeil = she wouldn't have won anyway. For Lori: Tough draw but whatever, make the best of it. This wasn't ridiculous, this was EXCITING. A GS winner is supposed to not need protection. He's supposed to get past anyone that he faces. Protection makes GS titles less valuable. These days, there are no upsets like the Graf-McNeil one. Top-seeds do lose but it's either because of injury/illness (Henin-Kapros) or total suckness (Venus/Serena-anyone). It's not because they are BEATEN.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 19:22:43 GMT -5
Does it get more interesting on Day 5 and 6? No. The top seeds play 25-32 (which suck) = BORING. They don't face a decent player until the second week. I addressed that problem already. 17-32 should be distributed randomly. Only 4 days. Out of 14. And you're already contradicting yourself, you just mentionned players ranked 20 blow. So it isn't going to produce exciting matches. Yes, draws to need to be balanced. Why having seeds in the first place? Balance is only boring the first 4 days. But there's 11 days left after. Players ranked 17 to 32 should just be put in bold. No seed.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 19:25:45 GMT -5
But take Wimbledon 94. That's ridiculous that Graf had to face McNeil in the first round. Or when Coetzer faced Graf in the first round of the US Open. Players ranked 17-32 do deserve protection (maybe they shouldn't be given a number, blah). Funny, I was just going to mention these matches as examples for exciting matches. Why is it ridiculous? Steffi can't get past McNeil = she wouldn't have won anyway. For Lori: Tough draw but whatever, make the best of it. This wasn't ridiculous, this was EXCITING. A GS winner is supposed to not need protection. He's supposed to get past anyone that he faces. Protection makes GS titles less valuable. These days, there are no upsets like the Graf-McNeil one. Top-seeds do lose but it's either because of injury/illness (Henin-Kapros) or total suckness (Venus/Serena-anyone). It's not because they are BEATEN. The point is that you have 2 excellent players with a decent ranking facing each other in the first round of a 128 players draw. Which is silly.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 19:28:17 GMT -5
Steffi can't get past McNeil = she wouldn't have won anyway. See....here's the thing about that argument: a lot of these players ranked 11-32...it's not about WINNING. It's about getting as far as they can go so they can improve their ranking and boost their confidence. Sure, Srebotnik or Arvidsson will clearly not win Roland Garros. But with a good draw helped by a seeding, they can make a QF or a SF and for these people who will never win a major, that's a big big deal. Sure it doesn't matter what JHH or Venus is seeded because they want to WIN, and they have to win seven matches no matter what, but for those players for whom final eight is a huge accomplishment...yes, it matters.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 19:35:45 GMT -5
I agree.
"Only 4 days"? LOL. That's like 29%. And as explained earlier, add days 5 and 6 and we're at 43%. The final 4 days are (usually) exciting no matter what so I would say it's one hell of a lot.
Looking at the current 17-32, you are right. They all suck. But that's not always the case. Also, although they suck and don't deserve protection, playing the top-seeds still guarantees some kind of excitement, at least regarding 17-24.
"Only boring" = see above. Why having seeds? I have no idea. I would love to see having no seeds at all for a whole season. Would make things much more competitive. Since that is unlikely to happen, 16 seeds sounds like a fair compromise.
Bolding them is already too much.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 19:49:02 GMT -5
The point is that you have 2 excellent players with a decent ranking facing each other in the first round of a 128 players draw. Which is silly. First of all, McNeil wasn't an excellent player. She was a good player who was excellent on grass. Seeding according to surfaces is a different issue altogether. Why is excellent player vs. good player silly? I just don't see it, sorry. According to your logic, you might as well have 128 seeds. VERY balanced, and certainly NO injustice for ANYONE. Steffi had to be ready from day 1. She wasn't, so she lost. Lori made the semis. And going back once more to the 4 boring days: Why not just cancel them or take them out of the real tournament? Give the top 16 a bye into the 4th round and let the other players battle for the 16 open spots. (This is done in Snooker for example.) That way, you have a few preliminary boring rounds, and 5 "exciting" rounds.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 19:50:35 GMT -5
You should just admit you contradict yourself.. Post 1: 17-32 seeds are SUCKY, HORRIBLE. Post 2: players ranked 17-24 provide excitement in the first 2 rounds!!! Down with the 32 seeds! Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 19:52:50 GMT -5
The point is that you have 2 excellent players with a decent ranking facing each other in the first round of a 128 players draw. Which is silly. First of all, McNeil wasn't an excellent player. She was a good player who was excellent on grass. Seeding according to surfaces is a different issue altogether. Why is excellent player vs. good player silly? I just don't see it, sorry. According to your logic, you might as well have 128 seeds. VERY balanced, and certainly NO injustice for ANYONE. Steffi had to be ready from day 1. She wasn't, so she lost. Lori made the semis. And going back once more to the 4 boring days: Why not just cancel them or take them out of the real tournament? Give the top 16 a bye into the 4th round and let the other players battle for the 16 open spots. (This is done in Snooker for example.) That way, you have a few preliminary boring rounds, and 5 "exciting" rounds. As you admitted yourself, PLAYERS SEEDED 17 TO 32 ARE SUCKY. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THE TOURNAMENT FROM BORING TO NON BORING FOR THE FIRST FOUR DAYS IF YOU BRING BACK 16 SEEDS.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:01:16 GMT -5
See....here's the thing about that argument: a lot of these players ranked 11-32...it's not about WINNING. It's about getting as far as they can go so they can improve their ranking and boost their confidence. Sure, Srebotnik or Arvidsson will clearly not win Roland Garros. But with a good draw helped by a seeding, they can make a QF or a SF and for these people who will never win a major, that's a big big deal. Sure it doesn't matter what JHH or Venus is seeded because they want to WIN, and they have to win seven matches no matter what, but for those players for whom final eight is a huge accomplishment...yes, it matters. Srebotnik and Arvidsson will never make the QF or SF of a Grand Slam. McNeil made the semis because she was a good player. These players aren't good, they are mediocre. Instead, they will somehow reach the 3rd round by wins against crap opponents like Vento-Kabchi, lose badly there, bag those 70 points and stay in the top 30 despite sucking. This doesn't boost their confidence, it just supports mediocrity. If you can only reach QF and SF by protection and without beating anyone of significance, it's a worthless achievement that no one will remember - an accident. People will remember Lori for that feat. They won't remember Suarez or Likhovtseva.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 20:07:41 GMT -5
But, again, I'm not talking about "feats." What I spoke about is gaining points, which they will, and boosting their confidence, which, contrary to your opinion, will also occur. You don't think Hingis gained a lot of confidence by making the 1995 AO QF unseeded? Or the USO SF as 16th seed later that year? I think the remainder of that year shows you that.
I'm sure Petra Mandula doesn't care how many people remember her 2001 RG run, but the $200,000 and 150+ ranking points sure helped.
Edit: Of course I mean Hingis' 1996.
|
|