Sport Today

by **Fred Goodwi** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:13:22

How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make it
all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

Is this the way tennis draws work in general? Or did the powers-that-
be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would meet only
in the finals?

by **dbrown** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:17:36

Quote:

> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? ?I
> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make it
> all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

> Is this the way tennis draws work in general? ?Or did the powers-that-
> be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would meet only
> in the finals?

This has been discussed repeatedly: the 1 & 2 seeds are in opposite
halves, 3 is drawn to play in either half, then 4 is placed in the
remaining slot.

by **Fred Goodwi** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:24:32

Quote:

> > How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? ?I
> > thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four
> > make it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2
> > vs. #3.

> > Is this the way tennis draws work in general? ?Or did the powers-
> > that-be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would
> > meet only in the finals?

> This has been discussed repeatedly: ?the 1 & 2 seeds are in opposite
> halves, 3 is drawn to play in either half, then 4 is placed in the
> remaining slot.

Sorry, I didn't catch the earlier discussions. I don't normally read
this NG and came here just to ask that question.

You say #3 is "drawn" to play in either half -- is that unique to
Wimbledon, or do all the majors do it that way? How many other seeds
are "drawn" by half? Does that process go all the way down to #64 (or
#128, as the case may be)?

Thanx

by **David** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:25:56

Quote:

> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make it
> all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

No, the #3/#4 pair can be drawn either way round.

Quote:

> Is this the way tennis draws work in general? Or did the powers-that-
> be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would meet only
> in the finals?

Luck of the draw. If I were a power-that-be I'd want the Williamses in the same
half.

by **David** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:34:52

Quote:

>>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four
>>> make it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2
>>> vs. #3.

>>> Is this the way tennis draws work in general? Or did the powers-
>>> that-be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would
>>> meet only in the finals?

>> This has been discussed repeatedly: the 1 & 2 seeds are in opposite
>> halves, 3 is drawn to play in either half, then 4 is placed in the
>> remaining slot.

> Sorry, I didn't catch the earlier discussions. I don't normally read
> this NG and came here just to ask that question.

> You say #3 is "drawn" to play in either half -- is that unique to
> Wimbledon, or do all the majors do it that way?

They all do.

Quote:

> How many other seeds
> are "drawn" by half? Does that process go all the way down to #64 (or
> #128, as the case may be)?

I don't know how the rest are done. I see that #5 and #6 were in the same half,
but they have to have half the seeds in each half, and you'd think there would
be a roughly even mix of upper and lower seeds between them.

by **stephen** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:05:48

Quote:

> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make it
> all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

that's the way it should be, but tennis screws it up.

--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.

- Albert Einstein

by **David** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:15:56

Quote:

>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make
>> it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

> that's the way it should be,

Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between slams you keep
getting the same semi-finals.

by **Joe Ramire** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:48:39

Quote:

> >> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? ?I
> >> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make
> >> it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

> > that's the way it should be,

> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between slams you keep
> getting the same semi-finals.

Only if, in addition to rankings stasis (which of course is an
absolute given), no top player ever pulls out of a slam because of
injuries or other issues (that would never happen -- slams are too
important) *and* none of the top four players ever loses before the
semifinals (consistently making slam semifinals is easy; haven't most
champs done it 20 or 30 times in a row?).

by **Fred Goodwi** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:07:16

Quote:

> >> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? ?I
> >> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four
> >> make it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2
> >> vs. #3.

> > that's the way it should be,

> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between
> slams you keep getting the same semi-finals.

Good point -- I hadn't thought of that.

by **David** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:09:59

Quote:

>>>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>>>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make
>>>> it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

>>> that's the way it should be,

>> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between
>> slams you keep getting the same semi-finals.

> Only if, in addition to rankings stasis (which of course is an
> absolute given),

No, but it's very possible.

Quote:

> no top player ever pulls out of a slam because of
> injuries or other issues (that would never happen -- slams are too
> important)

Possible but rare.

Quote:

>*and* none of the top four players ever loses before the
> semifinals (consistently making slam semifinals is easy; haven't most
> champs done it 20 or 30 times in a row?).

Possible, even likely, but it's enough if only one side of draw goes to
seedings. Didn't the top 4 make the semis at Wimbledon?

The point is that you would be more likely to get some semi-finals than others,
and you _might_ keep getting the same one for many slams in a row.

by **Joe Ramire** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:17

Quote:

> >>>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
> >>>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make
> >>>> it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

> >>> that's the way it should be,

> >> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between
> >> slams you keep getting the same semi-finals.

> > Only if, in addition to rankings stasis (which of course is an
> > absolute given),

> No, but it's very possible.

> > no top player ever pulls out of a slam because of
> > injuries or other issues (that would never happen -- slams are too
> > important)

> Possible but rare.

> >*and* none of the top four players ever loses before the
> > semifinals (consistently making slam semifinals is easy; haven't most
> > champs done it 20 or 30 times in a row?).

> Possible, even likely, but it's enough if only one side of draw goes to
> seedings. Didn't the top 4 make the semis at Wimbledon?

Yes, at Wimbledon, but at Roland Garros the semifinalists were the 1,
7, 20 and 30 seeds. At the AO they were 2, 3, 4 and 7. (Note that
Serena played Dementieva there as well, despite the use of the
nonfixed draw approach.) At last year's USO the semifinalists were 2,
4, 5 and 6.

Of course, Wim for the men this year was pretty wide open. Haas was
what, the 24th seed? Roddick was no. 6.

by **David** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:40:39

Quote:

>>>>>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>>>>>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four
>>>>>> make it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2
>>>>>> vs. #3.

>>>>> that's the way it should be,

>>>> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between
>>>> slams you keep getting the same semi-finals.

>>> Only if, in addition to rankings stasis (which of course is an
>>> absolute given),

>> No, but it's very possible.

>>> no top player ever pulls out of a slam because of
>>> injuries or other issues (that would never happen -- slams are too
>>> important)

>> Possible but rare.

>>> *and* none of the top four players ever loses before the
>>> semifinals (consistently making slam semifinals is easy; haven't
>>> most champs done it 20 or 30 times in a row?).

>> Possible, even likely, but it's enough if only one side of draw goes
>> to seedings. Didn't the top 4 make the semis at Wimbledon?

> Yes, at Wimbledon, but at Roland Garros the semifinalists were the 1,
> 7, 20 and 30 seeds. At the AO they were 2, 3, 4 and 7. (Note that
> Serena played Dementieva there as well, despite the use of the
> nonfixed draw approach.)

Well, there's a 1/2 chance, as opposed to a 1/1 chance if the criteria are met.

Quote:

> At last year's USO the semifinalists were 2,
> 4, 5 and 6.

> Of course, Wim for the men this year was pretty wide open. Haas was
> what, the 24th seed? Roddick was no. 6.

It's probably more of an issue for the women than the men.

by **pltrg..** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:09:39

Quote:

>You say #3 is "drawn" to play in either half -- is that unique to
>Wimbledon, or do all the majors do it that way? How many other seeds
>are "drawn" by half? Does that process go all the way down to #64 (or
>#128, as the case may be)?

See the ITF 2009 Official Grand Slam Rule Book- http://tinyurl.com/nbbdta, or
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_38630_or...

Page 24, "Procedure for Placing Seeds."

-- Larry

by **RzR** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:47:38

Quote:

>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make it
>> all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.

>> Is this the way tennis draws work in general? Or did the powers-that-
>> be futz with the pairings so that the Williams sisters would meet only
>> in the finals?

> This has been discussed repeatedly: the 1 & 2 seeds are in opposite
> halves, 3 is drawn to play in either half, then 4 is placed in the
> remaining slot.

so its a basically a way to fix the draw...it should be 1 plays 4 and 2
plays 3

by **stephen** » Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:39:26

Quote:

>>> How is that #1 faced #3 and #2 faced #4 in the ladies semis? I
>>> thought in a standard single-elimination draw, if the top four make
>>> it all the way to the semis, it would be #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3.
>> that's the way it should be,

> Except that if the rankings at the top don't change much between slams you keep
> getting the same semi-finals.

which is a problem ... how?

--
for the total eradication of imperialism, the Chinese
people are willing to endure the first U.S. nuclear
strike. All it is is a big pile of people dying.

- Mao Tse-Tung, 1957

Sport Today

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?

Ladies bracket at Wimbledon?