|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:22:05 GMT -5
Komaan Kim!
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 8:22:06 GMT -5
GET OUT OF THE BATHROOM FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:22:25 GMT -5
I read, but I don't see what your answer would be. If they suck it isn't interesting whether they play Kim in round one or round three, is it? That is correct. But I said that seeds 17-32 (and 17-24 in particular) do not always suck. They do in this tournament though and have done well so far to prove that. So they shouldn't be seeded because they suck and it would be better if they were more dispersed because it would make the early rounds more interesting because they don't suck?
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:22:50 GMT -5
Peer breaks!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:25:53 GMT -5
Kim won. Do I cheer for Marti's hideous boyfriend or the random French dude? Whoever wins the third. Nadal is up next. Ugh. He's just about a level or two above Coetzer-Martinez epics as far as boredom is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:26:15 GMT -5
That is correct. But I said that seeds 17-32 (and 17-24 in particular) do not always suck. They do in this tournament though and have done well so far to prove that. Isn't that the fault of the ranking system then? Not the concept of 32 seeds. If you are going to get huffy, respond in the other thread. I don't even know what huffy means. I guess what I'm saying is that in women's tennis, it's impossible to have more than 20-25 players who are decent. Right now, it's more like 15. Or maybe I just don't like regulations. Having no seeds at all would be heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:29:23 GMT -5
"Bucko" is not a happy camper.
Did you know there is a player named Attila Bucko?
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 8:29:27 GMT -5
Do I cheer for Marti's hideous boyfriend or the random French dude? Don't you know you must root for random French dudes, every time!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:29:50 GMT -5
That is correct. But I said that seeds 17-32 (and 17-24 in particular) do not always suck. They do in this tournament though and have done well so far to prove that. So they shouldn't be seeded because they suck and it would be better if they were more dispersed because it would make the early rounds more interesting because they don't suck? Yes. They suck enough not to deserve seedings, but they don't suck enough to be entirely hopeless against the top-players. I'm not even sure it makes that much of a difference. I just don't see the point of having 32 seeds. Maybe because there is none.
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 8:30:40 GMT -5
"Bucko" is not a happy camper. Did you know there is a player named Attila Bucko? Attila Bucko, what a manly name! I think I'm in love! :lust:
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:31:17 GMT -5
Do I cheer for Marti's hideous boyfriend or the random French dude? Don't you know you must root for random French dudes, every time! Random French Dudes! Peer wins the opening set
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:32:13 GMT -5
Oli levels the match!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:32:32 GMT -5
From 1-4 to 6-4, not bad.
She better don't stop here.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:33:01 GMT -5
Or doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:33:14 GMT -5
Attila Bucko
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:35:17 GMT -5
Attila Bucko Details, please? Country? Achievements? Etc... Thanks in advance. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:36:04 GMT -5
Peer breaks to start the second. Nice. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:38:11 GMT -5
So they shouldn't be seeded because they suck and it would be better if they were more dispersed because it would make the early rounds more interesting because they don't suck? Yes. They suck enough not to deserve seedings, but they don't suck enough to be entirely hopeless against the top-players. I'm not even sure it makes that much of a difference. I just don't see the point of having 32 seeds. Maybe because there is none. It doesn't make much of a difference, other than to give the best players that much more cushion. Seeds are a good idea, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:38:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:39:37 GMT -5
Why do the best players need cushion?
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 8:40:00 GMT -5
So they shouldn't be seeded because they suck and it would be better if they were more dispersed because it would make the early rounds more interesting because they don't suck? Yes. They suck enough not to deserve seedings, but they don't suck enough to be entirely hopeless against the top-players. I'm not even sure it makes that much of a difference. I just don't see the point of having 32 seeds. Maybe because there is none. I think the point is that the powers that be don't want a marginally good player to have her ranking suffer due to a poor draw -- a la Coetzer-Graf or Schett-Williams. Of course you could say that if they were any good, they'd win that match, or not be ranked that low in the first place, but as I said before, it's not always about winning the title or beating the top players, it's about maintaining moderate success. But since you would prefer no seedings, my point doesn't hold any water with you anyway, so meh
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:42:27 GMT -5
Random French Dude wins the third set tb 10-8.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:42:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 8:43:01 GMT -5
woohoo Benneteau!!! One more set please!!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:44:39 GMT -5
Merci Beaucoup!
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:46:11 GMT -5
Why do the best players need cushion? You might wanna ask me what I mean by "best". Kim and Amelie should not have to play in the first round. If that happened, it would skew the rankings/results. Seeds are about protecting the best players from each other, not lesser players.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:46:16 GMT -5
Merci Beaucoup!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:51:17 GMT -5
I think the point is that the powers that be don't want a marginally good player to have her ranking suffer due to a poor draw -- a la Coetzer-Graf or Schett-Williams. Of course you could say that if they were any good, they'd win that match, or not be ranked that low in the first place, but as I said before, it's not always about winning the title or beating the top players, it's about maintaining moderate success. But since you would prefer no seedings, my point doesn't hold any water with you anyway, so meh I admit that was a slight exaggeration, and also unrealistic. 16 seeds is just fine. What I'm saying is, yeah, you might get a bad draw. Next GS, you might get a good draw. No difference actually. And if it makes a difference to you, you need to improve. 32 seeds supports mediocrity. A few years ago, getting into the top 16 was a HUGE incentive. Today, getting into the top 32 is a small incentive. Things were more interesting then. Also, I want to point out that all I said was "Bring back 16 seeds. That is all." It's all Bagel's fault.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 8:51:46 GMT -5
Are there still people saying Hingis draw is shitty?
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:52:26 GMT -5
Why do the best players need cushion? You might wanna ask me what I mean by "best". Kim and Amelie should not have to play in the first round. If that happened, it would skew the rankings/results. Seeds are about protecting the best players from each other, not lesser players. Yes. That's why I agree with 16 seeds.
|
|