Spain’s Rafael Nadal, left, hugs Switzerland’s Roger Federer during the awarding ceremony after winning the Men’s singles final match at the Australian Open Tennis Championship in Melbourne, Australia, Sunday, Feb. 1, 2009. (AP Photo/Rick Stevens)
Those planning hours in front of the idiot box watching the Australian Open can save themselves a week of insomnia curing boredom and one-sided contests by waiting until week two of the Asia Pacific Grand Slam before tuning in.
Admittedly, there is occasionally an upset result or more likely the annual Channel Seven inspired fairytale to follow, almost always involving an Aussie female battler who can be featured for a week on Sunrise and Today Tonight. Odds on that this year it will be the returning Alicia Molik.
They build upon the underdog status before the likes of Casey Dellacqua mysteriously find themselves on Centre Court during prime time night sessions while Dinara Safina and Svetlana Kuznetsova, ranked #2 and #3 respectively, are forced to play in the blazing heat of the day on court 14.
Barring the fairytales and rare shock results, the tournament only truly gets interesting from the round of 16 onwards.
Until that point, the best players in the world are unnecessarily protected from facing each other by the seeding process.
Is anybody truly struggling to sleep with the anticipation of crackerjack opening matches between Andy Murray and a qualifier? Lleyton Hewitt and a qualifier? Or perhaps Ana Ivanovic (whether you’re watching for tennis purposes or otherwise…) who has drawn, you guessed it, a qualifier.
During Friday’s final of the Sydney International, commentators Sam Smith and Todd Woodbridge lamented the likely collision of eventual Sydney victor Elena Dementieva and former number one Justine Henin in the second round in Melbourne.
For the sake of the tournament and particularly those unable to attend in person, therefore reliant on television coverage to follow the event, such a pairing in the early rounds is music to the ears of all tennis lovers.
However, the match up is nothing more than a quirk in the draw given Henin, despite once being the best player in the world and a seven time Grand Slam champion, enters the Australian Open unseeded as she has only recently returned from premature retirement.
A similar match up provided rare pleasure in the first week at Wimbledon in 2008, when Marat Safin, returning from a long injury lay off, upset third seed Novak Djokovic in just the second round in a match worthy of a final and in the process, rescued what had been a tedious opening four days.
Likewise Serena Williams’ success in 2007, when she stormed the field to clinch the Aussie Open crown despite being ranked 81 in the world after an extended injury break.
Unseeded, the draw forced Williams into quality match ups against seeded players from round one, including fifth seed Nadia Petrova, eleventh ranked Jelena Jankovic and young gun Nicole Vaidisova before defeating Maria Sharapova in the final.
To find the true Australian Open champion (and likewise for all the Grand Slams), the seeding system should be abolished and a truly random draw conducted.
Yes, Federer v Nadal will be a brilliant semi final or even final but why not in round three? Sharapova and Venus Williams would be a great way to kick off the tournament and squillions would tune in to see Hewitt against Roddick in a second round slugfest.
The best players, particularly in the women’s field, would be forced to genuinely work for their victories instead of the usual drudgery of 6-1 6-1 in 50 minutes over a no name from Absurdistan.
These matches are not an illustration of tennis at its best, which surely the four Grand Slams are intended to be.
Conversely, the poor bloke ranked 128 would not always be drawn against a Federer or a Del Potro in the first round, giving the battler’s greater opportunity to progress at least a few days into the event.
They may well still cop a top 32 player for that is the luck of the draw yet the 128th and last ranked entrant could just as easily be drawn to battle player 127.
Even first round losers at the Australian Open pick up a lazy $19 400 and the eventual champion will benefit to the tune of $2 000 000.
Let’s make them earn it.
Abolition of the seedings would make little difference to attendance figures, which are always strong in Melbourne, yet would generate greater television interest and deliver tennis at its best to a larger audience.
Most importantly, the champions of the respective Grand Slams would be just that – genuine champions, having beaten all comers to achieve the ultimate success in the game rather than rolling through the motions for eight of the 14 days of competition.
Crazy Dave
Guest
Can't wait till TV can give us a choice here... Turn your TV on, select the channel which is showing the Grand Slam, and then pick which court you want to watch.... with commentators or without... but always with crowd and player/umpire noise... we can already do that with the Internet, watch the scores at any court you want, on the website of the Grand Slam... How long till TV can do it? They already have cameras at every court....
Crazy Dave
Guest
If you start talk like that, pretty soon people will be saying, forget the first few games... 15th seed vs 12th seed... let's just have the top 4 play off... much more interesting... Don't mess with something that ain't broke!
Crazy Dave
Guest
Correct Mushi, All major sporting events have a seeding system for the knock out period of their competition... even the World Cup has a seeding system.... that is cause the World Cup is more than just that month of games once every four years... it is all the lead-up games during those four years... the World Cup (what we call the World Cup) is just a Finals Series. It could be said that the Grand Slams are Finals.... not every one gets to enter the Grand Slam, you've got to do well in other tournaments to gain entry...
Mushi
Guest
But the AFL does have a seeding system for the knock out period of the competion just like every other major sport in the world
ohtani's jacket
Guest
There's been a number of exciting matches over the first few days: Youzhny/Gasquet, del Porto/Blake, Henin/Dementieva, Baghdatis/Ferrer. From what I can gather, lousy free-to-air coverage is more of a problem than seedings.
pat
Guest
i was and that match and it was amazing, tomic at 4-4 in the 5th set had 3 break points to go up 5-4 and serve for the match.
Crazy Dave
Guest
So... I take it that you didn't see Tomic almost defeat Cilic.... if you think the early rounds are boring watching a lowly ranked player against a top ranked player, then you should do whatever it takes to get your hands on a copy of the tape of that match.... Tomic, ranked in the 290's, and aged 17, almost defeated Cilic, ranked 14th.... 5 sets, over 4 hours of great tennis... a real pleasure to watch.
Seiran
Guest
The same thing happens in all world cups too. I've never liked it myself but it's obvious the reason they do it is so the viewer ratings will stay high enough to keep an interest right through to the final.
Marcel
Guest
Good luck trying to sell this to the sponsors and TV networks that keep the game alive...sure theyd love to lose half of theyre drawcards in the first week.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Federer's less than comfortable first round win ought to be proof enough that the Grand Slam format doesn't require an overhaul. Grand Slam tournaments only happen four times a year and a week isn't long enough to distinguish them from the rest of the ATP and WTA tournaments. Sometimes I think sports fans need to sit back and realise not everything needs changing. Change is a hobby horse for a lot of sports fans around here, but for tennis fans who follow the tour year round there's points of interest in the first week. I think it ought to be left alone. Mind you, I grew up on American sports where the post season lasts for months and watch sumo which goes for 15 days.
Lazza
Guest
Perhaps the tournament itself should only go for one week and have the lowly ranked players pre-qualify so only the best few make it through. The tournament would then be ineresting from the beginning and you could still seed the players.
bever fever
Guest
I think seedings are deserved, its planned to have the best play each other in the finals, our domestic football codes work the same way. If a player is good enough they will eventually have a high seeding thus rewarding their hard work over the course of the year or in many cases years. Womens tennis is different and quite simply IMO overpaid for less work and more importantly less TV ratings than the men, i did hear this year at the OZ open that men were demanding/asking for the early game as they are the ones who usually finish at 2 o'clock in the morning as their games started after the women and go longer. Their reasoning was "we get the same money ".
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I could see the merit of this article if the top 8 seeds regularly made the quarterfinals but it seledom ever happens. It's tennis. Just skip the opening rounds and start watching from the third or fourth round. Is it really necessary to watch every single day of the Open? Nobody wants Federer vs. Tommy Robredo in the final. Besides, how is winning seven matches in a row an armchair ride?
Jeff Dowsing
Guest
True Pat, but my point is why should the better teams/players have a contrived armchair ride? If two seeds happen to get drawn early in the piece, that's the way the cookie should crumble. I actually think seeding devalues the merit of the title winner - here, have a few easier games to tune up for the last 2 or 3 serious contenders... And for the first week, endure a bunch of tiresome mismatches.
pat
Guest
AFL is completely different as it is a round robin system and yes the best will inevitably make it to the top. In tennis however it is the fairest way to decided the rankings at the top of the game.
Jeff Dowsing
Guest
If the AFL had the top 8 teams playing the bottom 8 teams twice and the other top 8 teams once in the fixture most fans would be up in arms. Draws should be just that - random pairings of teams/players. The best will inevitably make it to the pointy end but if it opens the way for a few more bolters, then hell, wouldn't that be a tad more interesting?
pat
Guest
This is a bad idea, higher ranked players deserve the privilege of playing easier opponents until the third round where they will play another seed. There are still many exciting matches in the early rounds with many top seeds being pushed or beaten. If this were implemented the world rankings would often not be a true representation of where they should be ranked as players with lucky draws will be higher. A Federer V Nadal 2nd round would greatly disadvantage the loser which would lower there ranking whilst a Murray or Djokovic could have an easy draw to the quarter / semi final which would greatly improve there ranking.
pernunz
Roar Rookie
I do like the idea that MattRusty has suggested. Seedings to have a purpose, to segregate the draw and prevent the best players all playing each other by the 4th Round. But yes, I never really understood the purpose of having such a large tournament that lasts two weeks when the chances of an upset are not only slim, but remote if at all.
Brian
Guest
There's some merit in the argument particularly with how dominant Federer & Nadal have been recently. However this was not always the case. Think back to the early part of the decade pre-Federer and even with seeding there were many upsets. From memory in 2002 Johannson won the Aus Open and Hewitt beat Nalbandian to win Wimbledon. Another era like that + no seedings and who knows who could walk away with a lucky gran slam. At least this way there are harder to win, and thus more valuable.
Jannerboyuk
Guest
The thought is good, and the grand slam tournamnets could do with a shakeup, but the finals mights, as mattrusty says, end up disappointing.