That was a great post, kcchief19.

Back in the day, winning the grand slam pretty much required that you be able to play more than one style in order to win on the different surfaces. As I said, I haven't watched in many years, but around the time I stopped it seemed like watching a match on clay was hardly different from grass or hard court. I would guess that is still the case, probably to an even greater degree. Does the surface matter at all these days?

Not as much, but it still does matter. The reason Roger Federer is so great is because he's basically able to transcend this in a way that no one else has in a really long time. He's got beautiful strokes and plays masterful tennis. He's a marvel to watch in any era and is really the only player on the tour right now who I think could've hung with the best players of the last 25-30 years.

The scoring in tennis is not at all hard to follow. To win a set, you must win 6 games, and be ahead by 2; to win a game, you need 4 points, and be ahead by 2.

The issue is the nomenclature, which is a little funky, but really not very complicated at all - if you're interested and are not learning disabled, it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to pick it up. Bowling or darts might be a good comparison.

Changing up the tour structure is another thing entirely.

The lack of rallies has ruined any interest I had in the sport. I used to play all the time during the summer growing up and liked to watch the major events, as well as the occasional Davis Cup (now that's complicated). Once people started banging 200 MPH serves past someone who doesn't even bother to move, I lost all interest.

Give me some skinny dude with a wooden racket, please.

Apparently there was an event in 2007 called Turbo Tennis that took 4 current pros and two former ones and put them in a bracket or something.

Here were the rules.


I dunno if speed alone would make things more interesting, but...maybe.

Is they any particular reason to have a rule about color?

I think the idea here is probably to try to "jazz it up" by making things less staid and "boring" as some tournaments (Wimbledon notably) require players to wear white.

Tennis scoring is fine. Also, I'm not sure about the reference to curling. Closest stone to the centre scores. How is that illogical?

How about tennis seeding? If the final 8 all made it to the quarters, you'd have some silliness...

On the women's side:
1 vs. 7
3 vs. 5
4 vs. 6
2 vs. 8

On the men's side
1 vs. 6
4 vs. 5
3 vs. 7
2 vs. 8

So for the men, the 2 seed gets to face the lowest remaining seed, followed by the 3 seed? This isn't even the most fucked up as I've seen 1 vs. 5 in the quarters and more. How come they can't arrange it like every other sport whereas it would work out to be 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 if the top 8 remain. I just don't get it.

In tennis the seeding is not static as in other sports because players player dozens of tournaments in a year. If seeding was static you'd end up with people playing the exact same players over and over and over again.


In Tennis the only 2 guarenteed spots are the #1 (top spot) and #2 (bottom slot) the rest of the seeds are randomly slotted into specific lines so that they won't play another seeded player in the first and sometimes second rounds.

This allows for much more variety in matches and keeps players from seeing the same people until they hit the quarters and semi's in most tournaments.


Also unlike other sports, the level of talent/difficulty of a lower seed isn't as big iof a difference. If #1 plays #8 or #4 the match is just as difficult. The #2 player you noted playing the lowest seed left may in fact lose that match.

Unlike team sports tennis is truly one on one (except in doubles of course LOL) and the seeding is based on a rolling ranking, not a win loss record. So its quite a bit different.

ALso note that seeding doesn't always match the current USTA rankings.

The tournament director(s) have the right to seed the tournament however they wish. Its normally done by teh rankings for simplicity but some tournaments will move someone up or down based on previous play at that tournament.

Someone who won a tournament the year before may be given the top seed the following year in respect for their being the reigning champion of that tournament.

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.

Yeah buts its 15, 30, 40


What if Monday games were 8 and the rest of the week were 9?


ok, what if you got 5 downs in the 4th quarter only?


Got it. 3rd quarter is now 18 minutes.

Do you guys really think the argument structure is right?

And lets not even start on the Love bit, which should be oeuff (sp?) for Egg which makes much more sense.

Then you'd be the University of Colorado.

Dola

I had that joke in the tank for 7 months.

Glad I could set you up Pumpy

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?

this thread reminds me of people who don't like baseball or hockey because they are too low scoring but think a 35-28 football game (5-4 really) is a high scoring shootout.

The concept of the "turbo tennis" is that much different from the rules of World Team Tennis ... and that is much less popular than regular tennis.

You misunderstand...I'm not saying anything should be reseeded during. What I'm saying is that the draw is set up so you get these matchups later. If the top 8 players make it (which doesn't happen often if ever), you don't get a typical matchup (1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5) without reseeding. Can't they set up the draw so we don't see like 1 vs. 5 in the quarters?

Of course I'm talking theoretical since the top 8 never all make the quarters, but sometimes we see a 1/5 matchup in the quarters, and then the 3 playing the 7, which doesn't make any sense.

I think the odd scoring actually serves a purpose. It differentiates the points from the game score. If you say the score is 40-30, then people know you're referring to the points. If you say its 3-1, then you know they are talking about 3 games to 1. Now if they just had another numbering scheme for sets.

Well because tennis isn't a team sport. And there isn't much money in it.

But it is different than team tennis, in the sense that it's solo tennis, the draw is done all in one day and so, conceptually, you'd have say, an entire tournament over an entire day, versus over a week or so. That would be an interesting shift in the same way, that say, 20/20 Cricket has changed cricket by taking it from a several day affair to something that's about as long as a baseball game.

It's a pretty radical change. It was just a novelty event, but hey, this whole thread was really at conceptualizing something different, not really about a failure to understand the rules of the sport or why.

You know, pushing the envelope and all that.

Who the Hell would want a tournament over in one day?! A great deal of the fun is the building tension as the days go on and you have time to reflect over the previous day's actions.

Twenty20 is far different because you are taking a day long test match, which is hard to sit through the entire thing, to something that can be done in 3-4 hours. Much easier to catch.

"Nadal is leading 2-1, but Federer just went up 4-3, to build on his 3-2 lead".

Heh, I didn't fully misunderstood, I covered that other option in the second half of my post. ;)

MIJB: While seedings CAN == ranking it is not always the case and it is not a rule that it be so. It generally happens that way because its the simplest solution but there is no rule or regulation making it so.

For example last summer Serene Williams was a #1 seed at a prepertory tournament to the US open, she was ranked 5th or 6th I believe at that time, perhaps lower now that I think about it. There were 3 players above her in the rankings in the same tournament, so if they went by rankings she would have at best been seeded 4th.

The tournament wanted her #1 because she had won that tournament the year before and she is a huge ticket seller.


Another note on the actual positioning of the seeds: In your examples you are assuming a MUCH greater difference in skill level between 1 and 8. Anyone who reaches the top 15-20 in the USTA rankings could easily be #1 and can and probably has beaten the Top players at some point.

The idea that 1 should play 8 is rather irrelevent to making sure they get a good misture of matches year round.

Also the randomness isn't as extreme as you might think either.

Normally 1, 3, 5,7 ate top hjalf seeds and the even numbers are bottom half. The way the USTA rules set things up 3 and 4 get decided randomly top half, bottom half, in the spot that either number should be in anyway.

So basiacally all thats happening is the lowers seeds are flipping a coin to see if they could face #1 or #2 at some point during the tournament.

Sure but couldn't we score it 15,30,45?

Not really, the ATP Rulebook is very explicit about how seeding should go, it has for many years now. in 2009, there's no difference: seeding is based on the ATP Rankings. The trick for tournaments like Wimbledon is that the four Grand Slam tournaments are not officially linked to the ATP Tour and thus are not tied to those rules. Fwiw, it's the same rule book that tells the top players in the world they must play, barring injury.

Now, what the WTA tour says, I have no idea. So it could be that the WTA has that kind of rule where for some reason they can re-order the players the way they want to.

Math is evil, i´m glad at least tennis doesn´t give in to it.

I love tennis scoring personally. I also miss playing the sport, which I haven't since two years in high school (also my first tennis experience). Was the only sport I played my senior year.

There really wasn't any particular thread to post it, but Serena's meltdown wasn't pretty to watch today. Even if the umpire misread what was going on, her rant was...spectacularly painful. Then the crowd turned on poor Osaka for winning and she apologized!

Serena Williams unleashes furious rant at umpire as she loses US Open 2018 final to Naomi Osaka