- This topic has 79 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m a bit puzzled with the draw – The original seedings were Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djokovic.
Surely the philosophy of seeding should mean that the top seed recieves (in theory) the easiest semi-final match, ie against seed number 4, and 2 play 3. Similar to the football league play-offs.
I am therefore baffled as to how Murray has found himself in (what was) Nadals half of the draw.
Can anyone confirm?
Doesn’t work like the league play offs but I can understand your reasoning about why it should.
At Wimbledon, the number 1 seed is set to meet the number 3 if both reach semis’s and the same logic applies for the numbers 2 and 4 seeds.
That seems bizarre to me – you recieve an easier draw (in theory of course!) from being seeded 2 than 1? Crazy system.
PC,
The draw is made as follows :
Seeds 1 and 2 are placed in opposite halves of the draw.
Seeds 3 and 4 are then drawn from the hat, so Murray could have been against Nadal or Federer.
Likewise seeds 5 to 8 are then drawn randomly into the various quarters.
It’s done that way because the rankings at the top rarely change, so it avoids every tournament having the same pairings. E.g. if 1 always played 4, then Nadal and Djokovic would be facing each other with monotonous regularity, ditto Federer and Murray.
Turned it round by the looks of things, but is "Come on" after EVERY point won not becoming tiresome?
Especially after opponents unforced errors, which isn’t the best really.
Turned it round by the looks of things, but is "Come on" after EVERY point won not becoming tiresome?
Especially after opponents unforced errors, which isn’t the best really.
It looks as if he is going through but on this evidence he will struggle to make the final. For plenty of this match it has looked as if he was just relying on his opponent making mistakes.
PC,
The draw is made as follows :
Seeds 1 and 2 are placed in opposite halves of the draw.
Seeds 3 and 4 are then drawn from the hat, so Murray could have been against Nadal or Federer.
Likewise seeds 5 to 8 are then drawn randomly into the various quarters.
It’s done that way because the rankings at the top rarely change, so it avoids every tournament having the same pairings. E.g. if 1 always played 4, then Nadal and Djokovic would be facing each other with monotonous regularity, ditto Federer and Murray.
Never realised that so thanks for clearing it up – I just assumed seed 1 always played seed 3 at Wimbledon because it was the way it was this year.I have to say the patriotic side of me isn’t overly concerned with Murray’s performance this evening. He’s had an off-day and yet still came through against a recent top 10 player that played, over the piece, a pretty useful match. I’d also wager that the fact that he and Wawrinka practice together had a bearing- Murray seemed to feel he couldn’t mix things up as normal, presumbaly because the Swiss knows his ways down to a fine point.
Looking forward, I’ll bet he’s glad that his toughest match came prior to a clash with Juan Carlos Ferrero- with all due respect to the Spaniard, Murray has the legs on him and will have on Wednesday despite this evening’s exertions, whilst he’s also got him comfortably held on Queens’ form.
The other quarter final from that half should be a cracker, too.
I watched the last couple of sets and it was a good match. It’s just a pitty that an etiquette you’d associate with the hoy polloy who watch tennis dosen’t exist. Is there any need to shout ‘come on Andy’, in long bursts after every single point ?
Didn’t see any as was at Musselburgh but I have seen various highlights on the net this morning. I believe the roof being closed had an effect on the match. Led to increased humidity and slowed teh ball down according to what I have read. Murray said it effected the serving power of both players. But he is through and thats all that matters.
It’s just a pitty that an etiquette you’d associate with the hoy polloy who watch tennis dosen’t exist. Is there any need to shout ‘come on Andy’, in long bursts after every single point ?
I’m sure there’s worse. Wasn’t the Lleyton Hewitt match interrupted by some of his more excitable "fans" at least once?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
He’s had an off-day and yet still came through against a recent top 10 player that played, over the piece, a pretty useful match. I’d also wager that the fact that he and Wawrinka practice together had a bearing- Murray seemed to feel he couldn’t mix things up as normal, presumbaly because the Swiss knows his ways down to a fine point.
Back of the net, Friggo. That’s even before one considers they clashed in competition five times during 2008 alone.
Murray admittedly whitewashed him in the US Open quarter-finals, but three other matches were won by the odd set in three and Wawrinka recorded a straight sets (best of three) victory on the clay of Rome, so a tight encounter was never wholly beyond the realms of possibility.
Looking forward, I’ll bet he’s glad that his toughest match came prior to a clash with Juan Carlos Ferrero- with all due respect to the Spaniard, Murray has the legs on him and will have on Wednesday despite this evening’s exertions, whilst he’s also got him comfortably held on Queens’ form.
JC has done exceptionally well to progress this far after an injury-plagued recent history; and as a man so keen to do well here that he installed a grass court at his home in Spain some years ago, I’d never want to underestimate him entirely. It’s Murray in four for me, however.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Grays, maybe it’s normal i wouldn’t know but i just thought there would be a better flow to these games f people would stop shouting names when the players want to serve. Sometimes they have to take a step back and wait.
Grays, maybe it’s normal i wouldn’t know but i just thought there would be a better flow to these games f people would stop shouting names when the players want to serve. Sometimes they have to take a step back and wait.
Quite true – infact the umpiring in all the noisy games I’ve watched has been practically brain dead in that respect. I did, though, notice how quick the court security (clad in all sorts of uniform) were to jump on the Hewitt cheer leaders for doing nothing other than quite legally get in the face of his opponent at every opportunity, but shutting up with good enough time to not interupt his opponent’s serve.
Watching the Federer and Murray matches, I got the distinct feeling that their opponents had no belief whatsover – knowing full well that they had no chance of causing an upset, and were there simply to make up the numbers. Both were reduced to being no more than bit parts in the number 2 and 3 seeds’ relentless and upstoppable march to the final.
The words cannon and fodder sprung to mind.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Never realised that so thanks for clearing it up – I just assumed seed 1 always played seed 3 at Wimbledon because it was the way it was this year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.