On Sunday night, Australian Open third seed Grigor Dimitrov defeated 17th seed Nick Kyrgios.
It was an exciting match, and one worthy of a fourth-round billing – but what if I told you that, from next year, we could be seeing Dimitrov and Kyrgios play off in the first round of a Grand Slam?
Under the new seeding system to be introduced from the start of 2019, that’s exactly what could happen.
The current system sees the top 32 players in both draws receive a seeding, protecting them from meeting any other seeded players until the third round. However, tennis’ Grand Slam board announced late last year that from 2019, Grand Slams will revert to having only 16 seeds.
This was the case up until Wimbledon 2001, when the number of seedings was doubled to 32, largely to provide more protection for clay court players who argued that they received unfavourable draws at Wimbledon compared to grass-court specialists.
This also guaranteed the top players would not face anyone ranked in the top 32 in the world until the third round.
Under the new model, the top 16 seeds could face anyone ranked 17 upward from the first round. Thus, Dimitrov facing Kyrgios in the opener becomes a possibility.
Some support the change on the basis that it will bring variety to the competition, while others argue that the competition is even enough as it is.
I place myself firmly in the former camp – the change can only mean good things for the game.
[latest_videos_strip]
Firstly, let’s take the reason why the change was instigated – to help give those who specialise on one surface and at one type of play a chance to succeed at all Grand Slams. The game has changed since then, such that there are very few ‘specialists’ of any terrain (perhaps Rafael Nadal aside).
Today, players need to adapt to all surfaces, and the majority can.
Secondly, while there’s an argument to be made that the competition now is as even and open as it has been for a decade, this has more to do with the cyclical nature of sport than any long-lasting structural changes.
Players get injured and have peaks and troughs in form – as we’re seeing at the moment with Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic – which allows others to step up. But let’s not forget that in the last decade, only two men outside the ‘Big Five’ (including Stan Wawrinka) have won Grand Slam titles – Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic, both at the US Open.
We’re so used to seeing the top players easily reach the fourth round of a Grand Slam, which is when the tournament really starts to get interesting. The competition may be going through a phase of evenness now, but history suggests this won’t last.
In that vein, reducing the number of seeds has the potential to bring interest back to the first few rounds. If Kyrgios and Dimitrov are drawn in the same quarter, why wouldn’t we want to see them play in the first or second round, rather than wait until they’ve dispatched two or three lower-ranked opponents?
Grigor Dimitrov (AAP Image/Darren England)
Yes, it means that one of them would be eliminated from the tournament early, which would affect their rankings points, but that’s tennis. The sport is fighting for eyeballs and participation in the global sporting landscape, and everything we can do to keep it relevant and appealing is warranted.
Making the first few rounds of major tournaments more exciting would definitely fit this bill.
This leads to the fact that seeding changes shouldn’t affect the fact that good players usually find a way to win. Many smaller tournaments frequently pit top players together from early on. Case in point, this year’s Sydney International featured 15 of the world’s top 25 women (and six former Grand Slam champions), and a direct entry cut-off of 33. Despite this, Ash Barty (ranked 17) and Angelique Kerber (ranked 14) still found their way to the final.
I’d wager that, aside from Serena Williams, the top 16 would more likely than not beat those ranked 17-32, regardless of when they meet in a tournament.
Finally, there is also an argument that reducing the number of seeds could see all seeded players knocked out early in the tournament if they’re facing those ranked 17-32.
This is unlikely – for one, at the moment the seeds are doing a pretty good job of knocking themselves out, and for another, the nature of the draw is that it will change each match. While some high seeds may be drawn to face the number 17 in the world in one Grand Slam, in the next they may not face a seed until the third round.
Reducing the number of seeds at Grand Slams can only benefit tennis. Hopefully, at this tournament next year, we’ll see Dimitrov and Kyrgios square off in the first round.
Bakkies
Guest
Yep and there aren't many clay court specialists around these days. The Masters Series probably put a stop to that as the top players are having to compete in the those key events rather than skipping tournaments to get conditioned for Wimbledon. It will be a good wake up call for Krygios to start reaching his potential year round on the tour and prove that he is better than his current ranking. Particularly in the lead up to the US Open with the Masters Series events so he can get his ranking further up, get in to the Tour Finals in London and a seeding at next year's Australian Open.
Swissguy
Guest
No one was yelling for 32 seeds except for the clay court players so going back to 16 should not be an issue. It will be great for the fans on the outside courts. The arguments for the better players to play each other deeper in the draw is a good argument, but unfair for the up and coming players. Also, is there really a big difference between 32 and 33? The top players should not worry about playing #17 in the first round.
Torchbearer
Guest
Not a fan - mostly we have been discussing the top players- what if number 17-50 (for extreme example) all end up in the top half, then the bottom half has 60-100....making every second day of a Grand Slam a bit 'dull'...mmm
Bakkies
Guest
Was never an issue before the change and you still got Rafter, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, etc in the back end of tournaments. Rankings were protected for consistently strong players that were out with injuries. Wimbledon was always different due to the prestige of past results there and less than a handful of grass court tournaments on the circuit to seed players from. The so called grass court specialists also got results on the hard courts and the top players got to the back end of the tournament so it wasn't that big of an issue. The clay court players were just bitter. Nadal and Ferrer showed that you can perform at Wimbledon. 32 always seemed to many seeds with names you don't recognise in the later seeds and it will encourage inconsistent players like Krygios to work harder to get in the top 16 to get seeded.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the idea either, but I don't know that it would make a lot of difference in general for the above sort of scenario. But when someone has a ranking drop from being out of tennis for a while, that is always a chance, it throws a real wildcard into the draw. Top players being out for extended periods for injury can often drop further down the rankings than that and still have this happen even with 32 seeds. The fact Roger was ranked 17 still could have seen him match up with Nadal as soon as the 4th round. To an extent it was still just luck that had a draw that meant they avoided each other until the final. I guess the thought is that the idea of having some better match ups early in the tournament is worth losing some people earlier who otherwise might get a bit further. Of course, while you may get these sort of matchups earlier, it also means more chance of nobody v nobody further in. If you are a qualifier, you could potentially draw another qualifier in the first round, but if you did, you'd definitely have to face either a seed, or someone who managed to beat a seed, in the second round. While going to just 16 seeds means that such a player could potentially get a draw where they play some other similarly lowly ranked player in round 2 also and get through to the third round without having to play anyone of note. I don't think it would have made a major difference to all these rivalries we've seen over recent years, as, until recent injuries to several of them, they've generally been all together at the top of the rankings and seedings anyway.
Brian
Guest
I prefer the 32 as well allows the better players to ease into it and so you get a better 2nd week. At the last US Open Murray, Djokovic, Nishikori, Wawrinka all missed with injury. Imagine Federer or Nadal crashing early and week 2 can start to look rather bleak
bazza200
Roar Rookie
Yep seems silly to me they get into the tournament and when they play the better players both are playing at their best not beating someone who's rusty in the first round.
Tom M
Guest
I completely disagree with your view. You want the best players in the world playing each other deep into the tournament.
Bandy
Roar Guru
I'm not so sure why they have done this. The move to 32 seeds has allowed the best players to progress more often, and it's one of the reasons we have seen such an incredible and storied rivalry amongst the top players. Moving to 16 seeds can absolutely kill a tournament financially, too. Last year Roger Federer was the 17th seed, instead of the incredible final we got, we could have had Federer play Nadal first round, I can't see how a tournament organiser, or a fan, would want that? You would have lost massive amounts of TV viewership. The tournament last year was a dream come true for organisers and fans - the two biggest draw cards playing in the biggest match. Men's tennis especially has been in a golden age with the big four and Wawrinka. These players have produced some of the most memorable matches in history, and part of that excitement stems from the fact that when it's 4-4 in the fifth set, it's the final, it's important, the stakes are raised. That feeds part of the excitement when there is more on the line. The move to 16 seeds could kill the interest in tennis. Just look at last year's US open final, where Kevin Anderson made the final through a (relatively) weak draw with Murray and Djokovic out, and Federer losing earlier. TV numbers were down and in all honesty, the final was a straight-sets bore. Having top players face off earlier is a lose-lose situation for fans and the sport alike, in my opinion. We shall see what it brings.