|
Post by DBBN on May 26, 2006 20:17:53 GMT -5
Having said all of that, I would go back to 16 seeds, because I do basically agree with GoDom's argument. But I also agree with Bagel in that...you think there are a number of useless matches now? Taking away 16 protected spots for as least proven DECENT players will only let that number increase.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:17:56 GMT -5
Cornelius, you need to learn how to read. Else I'm just wasting my time (which I'm doing anyway I guess).
I never said seeds 17-32 are SUCKY, HORRIBLE.
I said that 17-32 do not change in level when they play in a 64-draw and in a 128-draw. They are as sucky as before, which doesn't say anything about the actual LEVEL of suckness. As sucky as before can mean: not sucky at all in both cases.
Then I said seeds 25-32 suck. Which is true. Most of the players mentioned earlier on are from that range. I see a difference between 17-24 and 25-32.
Then I said the CURRENT 17-32 suck. I look at them and don't see anyone who is a threat to the top-players. But I also said this is not always the case. Then, looking at them again, I said that having Ivanovic or Kirilenko playing the top-seeds would bring excitement. In this post, I was talking SPECIFICALLY about the upcoming Grand Slam. In the other posts I was talking GENERALLY.
You, however, simplify everything I said into two nonsense statements, which have zero to do with what I said. I see absolutely no contradiction.
Again, there are often players in the 17-32 range that are good and MIGHT deserve protection. But the MAJORITY from that range (especially 25-32) do not deserve protection at all. And I would rather have no protection for those who might deserve it than have it for players who don't deserve it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on May 26, 2006 20:27:12 GMT -5
The first 4 days of the womens tournament IS going to be sucky. So what? The whole women's tournament will blow.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:29:05 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. Now, let's not compare Srebotnik and Arvidsson to Hingis, okay? A potential number one vs. better journeywomen. And Mandula was a qualifier. Totally different situation. We are talking about two different things here. Of course a QF or SF gives confidence and is a good thing. Even for those that I mentioned. The "remembering-it-later-on"-thing was off-topic. I just don't see what this has to do with the seedings. Most players who reach a QF or SF deserve it. You don't get there by protection through seedings. By protection you might reach the 3rd round though. Which might not be a feat of any kind. But it guarantees further seedings, so the pattern goes on and on. I think quite a few players will never get past that level, simply because they don't have to. They might if they were forced to play top-players from time to time early on. But they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 26, 2006 20:32:12 GMT -5
16 or 32 seeds, it doesn't make that much of a difference one way or another, so yeah we're wasting time. And you do contradict yourself, I'm just too lazy to point out correctly why, so I was oversimplifying your posts.
To me, what's interesting the first 4 days, 16 or 32 seeds, is the number of matches. There's always going to be an exciting match to follow. So if you attend, you can walk around all day and stop for a while at interesting matches. Having 2 top 25 players facing each others right away, when there are so many other matches going on, isn't really important.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:35:58 GMT -5
Having said all of that, I would go back to 16 seeds, because I do basically agree with GoDom's argument. But I also agree with Bagel in that...you think there are a number of useless matches now? Taking away 16 protected spots for as least proven DECENT players will only let that number increase. Most matches are useless IMO. The number will not decrease under the current system though. A non-useless match might be a match of 1-8 vs. 9-24. But, we aren't going to get many of these. Because 17-24 face 9-16 in the 3rd round. So the potential decent opponents for the top-seeds eliminate themselves, thus cutting the potential number of good matches by up to 50%. Cornelius' proposal of 17-32 being all equal would be a move into the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:37:13 GMT -5
The first 4 days of the womens tournament IS going to be sucky. So what? The whole women's tournament will blow. Well that is a given anyway.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:46:10 GMT -5
16 or 32 seeds, it doesn't make that much of a difference one way or another, so yeah we're wasting time. And you do contradict yourself, I'm just too lazy to point out correctly why, so I was oversimplifying your posts. To me, what's interesting the first 4 days, 16 or 32 seeds, is the number of matches. There's always going to be an exciting match to follow. So if you attend, you can walk around all day and stop for a while at interesting matches. Having 2 top 25 players facing each others right away, when there are so many other matches going on, isn't really important. I think it makes quite a difference. I look at the draw and realise that it's pointless to check the 1r match-ups of the top-seeds. This was not the case a few years ago. And I was simplifying a bit earlier on too, but I overcame my lazyness in the previous post to correctly explain what I meant. I didn't know you are attending Roland Garros. I am not. Each day, 50,000 people attend. 50 million watch TV. I am one of these. The first 4 days are exciting for those who attend. When I attended Wimbledon, yes it was exciting. But, here I'm not attending. So how am I going to follow those exciting matches, except on the scoreboard. No, I depend on the maincourt matches featuring the top-seeds. These are the matches I can watch, and I would like to look forward to them. But I can't.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 26, 2006 20:54:33 GMT -5
My last post on this:
Look at Henin's quarter. We have Ivanovic vs. Myskina in 3r there. Two decent opponents for the top-seeds. But one of them will be eliminated, so only one of them will be left as a potential opponent for a top-seed (like Henin).
If Ivanovic was unseeded, both players could meet a top-seed, thus we would have two decent matches. This way, we will have one. Instead of the other one, we get Henin vs. Ani, Craybas and Koukalova.
|
|
|
Post by DevilishAttitude on May 27, 2006 6:04:09 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. The 1st 4 days of the French last year were better than the last 4 days ;D 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. How do you know? I've never watched Arvidsson play and she's badly slumping but there's no reason she couldn't have a good slam. And if Srebotnik finally decided what style of play she wanted to do she could do well. And Katarina was a set and a break up on Lindsay last year. I think people do remember. Every time Lena's mentioned, she's *last years Frecnh open Semi finalist* and Suarez's semis is over-shadowed by her doubles record. The Top 32 seeds deserve to be there. FACT. There obviously not THAT bad.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on May 27, 2006 13:22:50 GMT -5
Must you put forth your opinion as "FACT"?
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 27, 2006 14:48:09 GMT -5
And must you refuse to learn the difference between there, they are and their?
|
|
|
Post by DevilishAttitude on May 27, 2006 16:22:31 GMT -5
Must you put forth your opinion as "FACT"? Well, I try to make it sound like it's right what i'm saying And must you refuse to learn the difference between there, they are and their? I have learnt it for exams I'm doing currently but I still usually forget it Qualifiers places (Q) Rezai vs (Q) Brianti (Q) Vakulenko vs Yuan (Q) Perianu vs [28] Safarova (Q) Pichet vs [LL] Flipkens (Q) Birnerova vs [27] Chakvetadze (Q) Fernandez vs Loit (Q) Kloesel vs Czink (Q) Hsieh vs Johansson (Q) Beygelzimer vs [32]Dulko (Q) Voskoboeva vs Lisjak (Q) Azarenka vs [26] Medina Garrigues I think most of the qualifers will win there matches except Perianu, Birnerova and Azarenka. I got the rule wrong. Flipkens is in cos she was #4 ranked That sucks. Flipkens is very over-rated and Oprandi could have done some damage Oh and Kim is *injured* again And in her blog entry sounds like she'd rather be at a basketball match than RG Maybe Razzano can beat her...
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 27, 2006 17:07:58 GMT -5
I have learnt it for exams I'm doing currently but I still usually forget it Is English your first language?
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on May 27, 2006 19:25:23 GMT -5
If Sofia lost some weight, I could see her becoming a Top 10-ish player. She has beautiful groundies, and a booming serve.
Kat Srebotnik is one of those types that will play strong, attacking tennis one day, and look like she's a Top 20 talent... then the next play horrible defensive mush and get killed.
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on May 27, 2006 19:31:29 GMT -5
And if it were up to me... I'd go up to 64 seeds.
Simply to make Grand Slams more fair for everyone. It's not just about the top seeds. I hate seeing a specifically weak section... because a 3rd round run for anyone outside the Top 30 is very significant, and quite the jump up the rankings. Especially with bonus points being dead now.
There's always going to be a majority of boring 1st-2nd round squashes on TV. If there's 32 seeds, or no seeds. Back in the day when we had 1st round matches like Huber-Coetzer, they were still on the 3rd court, with no plans of showing the match on TV.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on May 27, 2006 20:38:18 GMT -5
I have learnt it for exams I'm doing currently but I still usually forget it There. Their. They're. How is that hard to manage.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 27, 2006 21:55:58 GMT -5
Seriously. It's like "your" / "you're" or "lose" / "loose". What is it people don't get?
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on May 27, 2006 22:14:44 GMT -5
Lose/loose is the one that annoys me. Loose has an entirely different meaning. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 28, 2006 4:24:14 GMT -5
Arvidsson is horrible whenever I see her play, which is why I dislike her.
Well, then why not go all the way and have 128 seeds. 1 vs. 128, 2 vs. 127 and so on. It doesn't get any more "fair" than that.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on May 28, 2006 6:21:24 GMT -5
There has to be a balance between fairness and randomness.
I hate Sunday start. Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by DevilishAttitude on May 28, 2006 6:29:04 GMT -5
I have learnt it for exams I'm doing currently but I still usually forget it Is English your first language? Yes. If Sofia lost some weight, I could see her becoming a Top 10-ish player. She has beautiful groundies, and a booming serve. Kat Srebotnik is one of those types that will play strong, attacking tennis one day, and look like she's a Top 20 talent... then the next play horrible defensive mush and get killed. I'll never forget the way Kata destroyed Amelie with Serve and Volley tennis. And yet she does it like once a year I have learnt it for exams I'm doing currently but I still usually forget it There. Their. They're. How is that hard to manage. Why the hell do people care??? In England we get taught that when were like 6 and never taught again. A lot of English people get it wrong. Seriously. It's like "your" / "you're" or "lose" / "loose". What is it people don't get? What is the difference between your and you're. I know lose and loose. Today's Results Dinara Safina (RUS)[14] def Vera Zvonareva (RUS) 6-3 7-5 Ai Sugiyama (JPN)[22] def Eleni Daniilidou (GRE) 6-7(1) 6-0 6-3 I've seen bits of both matches. Dinara was too good, if she reamins consisent, she could be a threat. Vera's best days seem to be already behind her. She didn't have the game to really hurt Dinara. I saw the last 4 games of the other match. Crowd were involved, Ai too consisent. Eleni also seems to have seen her best days.
|
|
|
Post by janie on May 28, 2006 6:47:10 GMT -5
I don't think Eleni was ever going to be much of a claycourter, but I'm not writing her off on the other surfaces quite yet. As for Vera, what a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 28, 2006 7:06:33 GMT -5
I expect Eleni to do better at Wimbledon, draw permitting (though that didn't stop her last year).
I don't like this Sunday start either.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 28, 2006 7:08:47 GMT -5
Lose/loose is the one that annoys me. Loose has an entirely different meaning. Ugh. It annoys me a lot as well. Especially since I come across that error in every other post on WTA World.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on May 28, 2006 7:10:38 GMT -5
Seriously. It's like "your" / "you're" or "lose" / "loose". What is it people don't get? What is the difference between your and you're. I know lose and loose. Correct me if I'm wrong... Your - belongs to you. Example: That is your cold drink. You're - You are Example: You're an ugly cunt. Edit: If you get confused when using the two, just think of using "you are" and see if it fits. If it does, then you want to use "you're", otherwise you should use "your".
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on May 28, 2006 7:19:34 GMT -5
Their - possession.
There - location.
They're - they are. That's self-explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on May 28, 2006 8:01:27 GMT -5
What I don't get is: Since when is randomness unfair? There's nothing more fair IMO.
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on May 28, 2006 8:51:39 GMT -5
Oh, RG started today.
I think it will take a decade before I get used to that.
|
|
|
Post by janie on May 28, 2006 9:04:50 GMT -5
The other odd thing about the Sunday start is that one half of the draw doesn't all play on the same day. So Kim plays tomorrow, while Justine doesn't start till Tuesday. Lucky break for those who get a nice rest day while their future opponents are toiling in the sun on consecutive days. As already happens in the US Open, where some unfortunates get a bizarre Wednesday start.
|
|