Quote:
Originally Posted by miked
Well, I understand it's still a hard match, and I know seedings /= rankings...but still. But in most other sports, the #1 seed means you always play the lowest remaining seed, whereas in Tennis you could end up playing the 5th seed in the quarters while the person seeded 2 spots below you is playing somebody worse (providing all 8 seeds make the quarters, which never happens). It just doesn't logistically make sense.
|
Your idea doesn't make much more sense, really.
Logistically it's almost impossible for a tournament to re-arrange matchups after every round. Day 1, first game, the #1 seed beats the #128 seed. Day 2, last game, the #127 upsets the #2, al other higher seeds managed to win. Now what? Start Day 3 with a well rested #1 seed versus that #127?
How rewarding is it to tell players: if you beat Rafael Nadal, you will play Roger Federer in the next round (or vice versa)? Sure, most human beings would love to play them in back to back games, but it simply isn't fair to reward 'higher' seeds by giving them another easy matchup and 'punish' lower seeds by giving them their toughest possible opponents in the next round.
Or is that not what you would want to happen? You just want to keep the best players away from each other as long as possible? News flash: the way they do it in tennis (at least the ATP and the Grand Slams), it's already taken care of. 1 and 2 are split, 1-4 are split, 1-8 are all split, 1-16 are all split, 1-32 are all split, it's the weaker 75% of the field that don't get seeded.
Additionally, contrary to what RendeR said, at the top of the tennis world seeding = ranking. The best 30 to 50 players are required to play the most important 15 tournaments of the year and usually collectively play the better warm up tournaments in between. With that 1 vs 8 idea, it would give the the same brackets for a couple of weeks in a row. How boring would that be?