Why Are Tennis Tournaments Bracketed This Way??
I never did understand this, and I think I'm finally in the right venue to get an answer. Why are tennis tournament brackets set up so #1 plays #3 and #2 plays #4? Everywhere else in the sports world, it's #1 versus #4 and #2 versus #3, which makes a lot more sense. What am I missing?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Wyatt Dean on -
GavinC360 said:I always wondered why it was this way too.. Good question!
Right? It makes no sense! It's like the guy who put together the first tournament knew nothing about sports and since then everyone has just followed along. I think it's time to start a group here! I'll have it set up by the end of today!
-
Permalink Reply by Mark / The Mayor on -
I wondered the same thing and asked around last year. I heard that in tennis the seeding is drawn out of a hat. So lets say in the quarters, they set 1 thru 4, and then randomly place 5 thru 8 against them. In Miami this year, 4 played 8 in the quarters (Murray vs. Verdasco, rather than 4 vs. 5 like most other sports brackets). I heard the reasoning was so that the same two players don't have to meet up over and over and over. Keeps it fresh - once I learned that I actually like it better the way they do it.
M
Angela Wyatt Dean said:GavinC360 said:I always wondered why it was this way too.. Good question!
Right? It makes no sense! It's like the guy who put together the first tournament knew nothing about sports and since then everyone has just followed along. I think it's time to start a group here! I'll have it set up by the end of today!
-
Permalink Reply by mikeindo on -
i'm not so much married to this anymore, but i used to be very much in favor of 1-vs-3 and 2-vs-4. the idea behind seedings is to try to ensure the highest players meet in the late rounds, right? well, it seemed to me that to have a better chance of #1 and #2 meeting in the final, #2 should play #4 and not #3 in the semis. and by the same logic the QFs would be set up as 1vs5, 2vs6, 3vs7, and 4vs8. by doing it the other way (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5), it really looked only like a system designed to ensure the #1 seed made it. i'm not sure why, but this seemed to make more sense to me than the way the rest of the sports world did it. like, the numbers lined up more evenly or something. i s'pose i am just insane. that's cool.
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Wyatt Dean on
-
I understand what you're saying but from a fairness standpoint, I don't get it. Seems to me you have to worry more about the #1 than the #2. It aids the #2 by making if more difficult for the #1. And if the final winds up being 1 vs 3, is that bad?
-
Permalink Reply by mikeindo on
-
Angela Wyatt Dean said:I understand what you're saying but from a fairness standpoint, I don't get it. Seems to me you have to worry more about the #1 than the #2. It aids the #2 by making if more difficult for the #1. And if the final winds up being 1 vs 3, is that bad?
Yeah, I'd turn off the TV. ;) But fair for whom? I guess I'm not following your point about it being harder for the #1: are you saying the #1 has to work harder in the SF to beat #3 and then play #2 in the final? To me, it's not fair in that the higher seeds have it easy, the middle seeds are left to tear each other apart, and the lower seeds are thrown to the wolves -- and that obviously goes for any round. If you were #16 in a 16-player tournament, would you rather play the #1 or the #8? (Maybe that should be its own discussion in the forums! :) )
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Wyatt Dean on
-
Yes, I'm saying you're making the semi easier for the 2-seed at the expense of the 1-seed. And, of course, the 16-seed would rather play the 8-seed than the 1-seed, but why worry about the 16-seed? There should be a distinct advantage to getting to the final for the 1-seed and a gradually lessened advantage for each subsequent seed. The converse is also true (I think that's the converse). With a semi of 1vs3 and 2vs4, the 4-seed has a lesser opponent than the 3-seed. Seems to me, the 3-seed should have earned an easier match than the 4-seed.
-
Permalink Reply by mikeindo on
-
Angela Wyatt Dean said:There should be a distinct advantage to getting to the final for the 1-seed
why? why should the number 1 seed (or the higher ones in general) get any more favoritism than another seed? because he/she has earned it? ok, but i think that flies in the face of competition. (of course, i seem to be the only one thinking this cuz they stick with 1v4, 2v3 - haha!) That's what's not fair in my mind.
Seems to me, the 3-seed should have earned an easier match than the 4-seed.
yes, i understand that and I see where you're coming from. i just dont agree with it. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan A Lloyd -- North Potomac on -
..don't know if anyone person can have the answer...but, i agree: if #1 plays #4 it seems likely that #1 would advance (or mostly) is it then some sort of "upset insurance" to make it more competitive; or, is it a reward for the #1, having earned the right to advance to the finals, without a serious chance of crashing short by having to battle a #2 or #3?
p.s.
i have a "vintage"(read 80's) Pro Kennex i need to get re-strung, any advice?
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Renfro on -
Just like most other things, it's all about the money. More people will pay the outragious prices tournaments charge to see Nadal vs. Federer than would pay to see Istoman vs Roitman. The seeding works to better assure the money players move on.
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Wyatt Dean on
-
I like the conspiracy theory! I'm not sure how 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 sells more tickets than 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, but the concept of a conspiracy is always welcome!
© 2013 Created by Mark / The Mayor.
