> >>>> 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.