|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:52:31 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. People, like yourself, tend to think that 'luck of the draw' gets evenly dispersed, usually, like you, thinking that happens over the course of one season. But that's false.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:53:41 GMT -5
Suilenroc sounds cool.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 8:57:25 GMT -5
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. People, like yourself, tend to think that 'luck of the draw' gets evenly dispersed, usually, like you, thinking that happens over the course of one season. But that's false. Even if it is, it's not unfair because it's the same for everyone. What about those ranked around 50? Shouldn't they get some kind of protection too so that it's impossible for them to face a top-player a few times in a row?
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:57:29 GMT -5
Are there still people saying Hingis draw is shitty? Compared to Queen Vee's? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 8:57:50 GMT -5
Peer trailing 4-1. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 8:58:06 GMT -5
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. I thought you preferred none?
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 8:58:10 GMT -5
ED seems to have things back in hand now.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 8:59:19 GMT -5
People, like yourself, tend to think that 'luck of the draw' gets evenly dispersed, usually, like you, thinking that happens over the course of one season. But that's false. Even if it is, it's not unfair because it's the same for everyone. What about those ranked around 50? Shouldn't they get some kind of protection too so that it's impossible for them to face a top-player a few times in a row? A player ranked 17 in a 128 draw deserves protection. A player ranked 50 doesn't, unless it's a 512 draw or something.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:00:46 GMT -5
A player ranked 17 in a 128 draw deserves protection. In your opinion, right?
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:02:19 GMT -5
Yes. That's why I agree with 16 seeds. I thought you preferred none? See reply #117.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:04:17 GMT -5
People, like yourself, tend to think that 'luck of the draw' gets evenly dispersed, usually, like you, thinking that happens over the course of one season. But that's false. Even if it is, it's not unfair because it's the same for everyone. What about those ranked around 50? Shouldn't they get some kind of protection too so that it's impossible for them to face a top-player a few times in a row? But it's not the same for everyone. That's the point. Go ahead and seed 64 for all I care.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 9:04:47 GMT -5
A player ranked 17 in a 128 draw deserves protection. In your opinion, right? An opinion based on the logic of seeding: 32 players - 8 seeds 64 players - 16 seeds 128 players - 32 seeds And don't bring back seeds for double qualifying and such nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 9:05:34 GMT -5
Too bad Attila Bucko is a boy, not a MAN. What a waste of a manly name!
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 9:05:40 GMT -5
An opinion based on the logic of seeding: 32 players - 8 seeds 64 players - 16 seeds 128 players - 32 seeds And don't bring back seeds for double qualifying and such nonsense. That nice, but what he's saying is why does that have to be the logic seeding?
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 9:06:38 GMT -5
Allez random French dude! u kin du it!!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:07:03 GMT -5
Peer brings it back on serve.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:07:25 GMT -5
An opinion based on the logic of seeding: 32 players - 8 seeds 64 players - 16 seeds 128 players - 32 seeds And don't bring back seeds for double qualifying and such nonsense. I won't. I didn't know "the logic of seeding" says 1/4 of the field deserves to be seeded. Has this been proven?
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:08:32 GMT -5
Allez random French dude! u kin du it!! Only 3 more games!
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 9:08:41 GMT -5
The R-rated mixed team is demolishing Bagh and his bumpkinette partner!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:09:07 GMT -5
But it's not the same for everyone. That's the point. Go ahead and seed 64 for all I care. Aha! It's never the same for everyone, no matter how hard you try. Hence, you might not even try in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:10:02 GMT -5
Peer leads Dementieva 6-4, 4-4. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:11:09 GMT -5
Rochus 5-5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:12:21 GMT -5
Random French Dude has a breakpoint!
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:13:00 GMT -5
Random French Dude breaks! 5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-2.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:14:14 GMT -5
Peer needs to break heer.
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 3, 2006 9:15:22 GMT -5
I thought seedings were to keep the marquee players apart. You don't get more marquee players just because the draw is bigger. That isn't even why they moved to 32 seeds. It was a silly solution to a completely different problem.
That is my analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:16:21 GMT -5
Marti's BF serves to stay in the match.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 9:17:41 GMT -5
An opinion based on the logic of seeding: 32 players - 8 seeds 64 players - 16 seeds 128 players - 32 seeds And don't bring back seeds for double qualifying and such nonsense. I won't. I didn't know "the logic of seeding" says 1/4 of the field deserves to be seeded. Has this been proven? 99% of pro tennis tournaments are with 1/4 of the field being seeded, if it's being kept that way, I would say that it's been proven the most logical way to seed.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 9:20:01 GMT -5
Peer needs to break heer. Peer blows her breakpoints. Lena D holds.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 9:20:41 GMT -5
I thought seedings were to keep the marquee players apart. You don't get more marquee players just because the draw is bigger. That isn't even why they moved to 32 seeds. It was a silly solution to a completely different problem. That is my analysis. You tell 'em!
|
|