The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Scrap seedings for tennis Grand Slams

Roar Guru
26th January, 2009
1

Federer versus Nadal in the first round: not a bad spectacle for day one of the US Open. But instead the public were able to view 56 other matches of the highest quality. Well, not really.

Out of those 56 matches between the men and woman on day one, 41 of them were won in straight sets. Only three out of 32 women’s matches went to a third set.

Grand Slam tennis has become too predictable in the first week. There might be the occasional upset, but generally all the crowd will pay to see the top players flogging lowly ranked players.

To stop the top players getting an armchair ride into the second week of a Grand Slam tournament, there should be no seedings and everyone should be drawn out at random, something that Tennis Australia CEO, Geoff Pollard does not agree with.

“Seedings have always been apart of tennis and I don’t see that changing … seedings give you a balanced draw with the matches getting progressively harder the longer you stay in. The increasing depth of tennis leaves few easy first round matches,” says Pollard.

Seventy-three percent of the first day’s matches at the US Open were won in lop-sided, straight-sets affairs.

Editor of Australian Tennis Magazine, Vivian Christie shares a similar opinion.

“I think you only have to look at Ana Ivanovic and Maria Sharapova who were knocked out of Wimbledon really early to see that anybody can beat anybody on any give day of an event.” says Christie.

Advertisement

Respected television commentator Liz Smylie also sides with Pollard and Christie.

“I think seedings need to happen, having the number one player in the world playing the number two player in the world in the first round does not do anything for anybody,” says Smylie.

If seedings were scrapped, most would argue that we would not see the best players coming up against each other in the semi-finals and final. This is not the case. There are two sides to the draw and a player on one side of the draw cannot meet another on the other side until the final.

There would now be more twists to the tale, more intrigue and excitement.

Tennis Grand Slams should be modelled on the FA Cup soccer, where teams are randomly drawn out. This could mean that Manchester United could play Chelsea well before the final.

Until Portsmouth won the title this year, only the top four teams; Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool have won the FA Cup in the last thirteen years.

Only the best teams are winning the FA Cup. Only the best tennis players will win the slams.

Advertisement

Nadal will still win the French Open, whether he plays Federer in the first round or the final, but he might just have to do a little work for the whole tournament for a change.

Grand Slam finals are not what they are all hyped up to be anyway.

Of the last 80 Grand Slam finals between the men and woman, 43 of those have been won in straight sets, 15 in the mens and 28 in the woman’s. The men have only slugged out epic five-set finals on five occasions, and in the U.S Open only two woman’s finals have went to a third set since 1990.

“Very often the final is not the best match of the tournament,” says Smylie.

So the argument that seedings ensure that the best contests are saved until the final few games is not necessarily true. All they do is ensure that the higher ranked players play in the final few games.

How many major surprises has tennis thrown at the fans over the last ten years? Sharapova winning Wimbledon at the age of 17, Goran Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon as a wild card in 2001, an unheard-of Marcos Baghdatis making the final of the 2006 Australian Open.

The tennis hierarchy must pull their heads out of the sand on this issue. And if the game is to be more appealing, it must move forward.

Advertisement

The only way to do that in any sport is to be open-minded to the possibility of change.

close