In 2001, the four tennis Grand Slams doubled the number of seeds at their respective tournaments, from 16 to 32. Whereas the old system could have pitted the No. 1 player in the world against No. 17 in a first-round match, the new way ensured that none of the top-32 players in the draw would meet before the third round.
The balanced draw, which theoretically leads to better matches in the later rounds, has worked out fine. It’s neither been a boon nor a disaster. Whether it’s better for the sport, however, is open for debate.
When the French Open draw was unveiled Friday, the lack of compelling first- and second-round matches was immediately apparent. Diehard tennis fans may enjoy Richard Gasquet vs. Bernard Tomic or Ana Ivanovic vs. Caroline Garcia, but there’s no matchups to capture the interest of the casual fan. The only way the non-tennis world will hear about the opening days at Roland Garros will be due to a massive upset or Venus Williams wearing another revealing dress. By protecting the later rounds, tennis has made the opening rounds irrelevant.
How much are the early rounds really protected? Were top players losing so much that they needed more breathing room in the first two rounds?
Not at all. Even before the seeding change, the best in the world rarely exited Grand Slams early. It’s not as if there were giant killers lurking in the lower reaches of the top 20 and biding their time for the perfect first-round upset.
No comments:
Post a Comment