ATP WTA GS Roland Garros 5/16 - 6/5 2022

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

My daughter just said that the Women's draw is useless. She'll wait to see who is still standing in Week 2 to start paying close attention.

[Liamvalid]

I would prefer a Wimbledon style seeding where they take previous grass form into account. Or even an FA Cup style draw where there are no seeds at all! I guess if it was a rigid 1seed vs 8seed, that could make things interesting in the run up to a slam with players being strategic with their results so as to avoid becoming the 8th seed to avoid Djokovic

[JazzNU]

This feels like someone who knows the NCAA Tournament and their bracketing exists, but has no idea how it actually works. This is kind of hilarious.

[ponchi101]

Short on memory, Mr. Kemet. Mr. Kust does remember. The reason why the seeds are random is to avoid the same QF's all the time. The time difference between RG and Wimby would almost always lead to the same matches, and there is not a lot of time between W and the USO.
About taking the Wimby style. Maybe the tours could have rankings for each surface? But then imagine more confusion.
Having said that: Nadal/Djokovic in the QF's is indeed a total disaster. I would rather give the tournament director the option to veto one match or seeding. But imagine the controversies.

[dmforever]

I'm actually with Zemek on this. How often do all 8 top seeds make it to the quarterfinals, and then do it again in successive grand slams? As you say, this is a thing for RG and W because they are so close to one another, but I don't think it's the case for the the AO and RG or W and the USO or the USO and the AO. Plus W takes grass court prowess into account, so the seedings there sometimes are different from the ATP rankings, which is another way there might be different match ups. I just checked last year's RG and W top 8 men's singles seeds. Obviously 1 year doesn't prove anything, but for what it's worth...
FO
1. Djokovic
2. Medvedev
3. Nadal
4. Thiem
5. Tstistipas
6. Zverev
7. Rublev
8. Federer

W
1. Djokovic
2. Medvedev
3. Tsitsipas
4. Zverev
5. Rublev
6. Federer
7. Berrettini
8. Batista Agut

Looking at the two lists, it's also clear that injuries also play a part in making it more unlikely that the same people will play each other in the quarterfinals.

Just my 2 cents.

Kevin

[meganfernandez]

Djokovic, Nadal and Alcaraz all in the same half. Yikes. Good news for Tsitsipas, who's in the other half.

RG website's story on the draw breakdown says "Djokovic and Nadal share the same half with sixth-seeded Carlos Alcaraz and third-seeded Carlos Alcaraz." Haha, it does feel like Alcaraz is everywhere. Funny mistake. Meant third-seeded Zverev.

Shapo-Rune R1.
Nice opportunity for Kecmanovic, with Medvedev in R3.

Pegula would get Kalilina in R2, which is tough, and she's in Iga's quarter. Bad draw for her.
Leylah is in the same section as Bencic and Andreescu. Only one of them makes the fourth round.
Badosa has a soft draw, other than being in Iga's half.
Collins could potentially get Kasatkina in R3 and Sabalenka in R4. So-so draw.
Muguruza will lose to Kanepi in R1.

[dmforever]

I'm actually with Zemek on this. How often do all 8 top seeds make it to the quarterfinals, and then do it again in successive grand slams? As you say, this is a thing for RG and W because they are so close to one another, but I don't think it's the case for the the AO and RG or W and the USO or the USO and the AO. Plus W takes grass court prowess into account, so the seedings there sometimes are different from the ATP rankings, which is another way there might be different match ups. I just checked last year's RG and W top 8 men's singles seeds. Obviously 1 year doesn't prove anything, but for what it's worth...
FO
1. Djokovic
2. Medvedev
3. Nadal
4. Thiem
5. Tstistipas
6. Zverev
7. Rublev
8. Federer

W
1. Djokovic
2. Medvedev
3. Tsitsipas
4. Zverev
5. Rublev
6. Federer
7. Berrettini
8. Batista Agut

Looking at the two lists, it's also clear that injuries also play a part in making it more unlikely that the same people will play each other in the quarterfinals.

Just my 2 cents.

Kevin

I'm just editing this:
Here are last year's USO men's top 8 seeds.
1. Djokovic
2. Medvedev
3. Tsitsipas
4. Zverev
5. Rubelev
6. Berrettini
7. Shapavolov
8. Ruud

So if you did the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 seedings and all 8 made it to the quarterfinals each time, there would be exactly one repeat quarterfinal in 3 slams.

[JazzNU]

Wanting to see the top players meet is one thing. Making a NCAA bracketing analogy is another. It's truly out of touch with how NCAA bracketology works. Also, out of touch with how things unfold. There has been a single time that all top 4 #1 seeds have made the Final Four. Like I said, sounds like someone who knows about the NCAA tournament and that there are brackets, but not much more than that.

[ashkor87]

It used to be this way, in the 60s ..#1 met #16, and so on..it was a real punishment to be seeded 16, better not to be seeded at all! I remember a young Stan Smith getting crushed by Laver in a #1 versus #16 matchup...

[ponchi101]

The parity in tennis is so big nowadays, that I would go back to 16 seeds. There is no real difference in the WTA between the #16 seed and a player ranked 42. And in the men's, as soon as Novak packs it, there will be no difference between #8 and #24.

[the Moz]

The top seeds need to be coddled less, not more.

[ashkor87]

There is a historical reason for 32 seeds..it used to be 16. I imagine most people here know the history..

[ashkor87]

this is just my recollection, have not googled it or anything:
there was always a tension between Wimbledon wanting to seed players subjectively, based on their own judgement, and the ATP/WTA wanting them to follow the rankings, strictly. It came to a head when a clay court specialist (I think it was Alex Corretja) did not get seeded by Wimbledon and he was very very upset, threatened to boycott and so on.. Wimbledon came up with a Solomon-like compromise - we expand it to 32 seeds, the top 32 players by rankings will be included, but within the 32, we will order them any way we like.. so the majors have the right to deviate from the ranking, I think, even today, but dont seem to be doing it much. Maybe that agreement has expired or something.

[ashkor87]

But 32 has remained..I don't see any reason to seed, therefore protect, more than 4 players nowadays..at most 8..