The problem lies with the fact that Ferrer is the world number 3 combined with the fact Federer has slipped out of the top 4 opening up a high possibility of the draw not going the way people hoped for Andy and Nadal. And it has not.
I'm not sure what the organisers could do about it. Ferrer is World Number 3, and even if you argue that Murray and Delpo missed a lot of the last year, how do you incorporate that into seedings? If you start to apply that reasoning to top players, you have to do it across the board, and it becomes a nightmare.
Wimbledon give weight to points gained from grass court tournaments over a longer period, which in essence means previous Wimbledon form, but that's only because the grass court season is so short, and grass court specialists deserve a boost.
If the Australian Open were to give extra points for those who were successful in Australia last year, then Ferrer is going to stay top 4, because he made it to the semis. We all know he provided next to no resistance to Djokovic in that semi, but it's almost impossible to factor that into the process. The finalist on that half of the draw is already getting an extra day's rest, which is arguably more of an advantage, but more so if they've fought to get there.
We know Ferrer's form dropped towards the end of last year, and doesn't seem much better at the beginning of this year, but for all we know, it could have been a niggling injury, so it wouldn't be fair to adjust his seeding accordingly. If you did that, you'd need to adjust Murray's too, and by more!
If Murray was fully fit and match sharp, and assuming Federer is in better form than most of last year, then I'd think he had a not so good draw, and there was the risk he'd be at a disadvantage should he make the final. However, given he's still regaining fitness and form, I'm delighted with his draw. Theoretically easy opponents for the first couple of rounds give him the best chance to make it to the trickier opponents later on. I'll worry about them if he gets that far!
It's very hard to recover from playing in that kind of heat because your heart beats a lot faster and of course you dehydrate a lot more. Anyone playing in those extreme temperatures will find it hard to recover in time for their next matches. This could effect Djokos chances who struggles a lot in this type of heat.
I would say that this is where Djokovic gets some benefit from the draw. He's by far the biggest star player in his half, so he'll get mainly night matches on the days he plays.
Having Nadal/Murray/Federer playing on the same day means more competition for the prime time slots. Nadal has the big match of the first round, plus he wasn't there last year, so that raises his viewability, and it's not clear how many more opportunities there will be to see Fed, so that enhances his prime-time worthiness.
I would say that this is where Djokovic gets some benefit from the draw. He's by far the biggest star player in his half, so he'll get mainly night matches on the days he plays.
Having Nadal/Murray/Federer playing on the same day means more competition for the prime time slots. Nadal has the big match of the first round, plus he wasn't there last year, so that raises his viewability, and it's not clear how many more opportunities there will be to see Fed, so that enhances his prime-time worthiness.
Bit unfair if Djoko gets mainly night matches. Although I suppose the semis and final won't be. It should be the same level playing field for all the top players. Sounds like the USO all over again.
On the theme of great articles about the lower ranked players, here's one about Jaimie Baker, now retired and working for Santander Bank.
Remember playing with a mate at Bisham Abbey and Baker was training on the next court with Paul Annacone. JB hit the ball so hard and I thought, wow, what a player.
Of course, unfortunately for Baker (who reached top 200), as Roger Taylor once said to me on my very first tennis holiday to Vale de Lobo in Portugal back in 1980, 'There are hundreds of guys who can hit like that'.
The tour is a ruthless meritocracry and while so many young men and women and their parents are willing to chase the dream, calls for a different distribution of prize money for the lower ranked players will fall on deaf ears.
Good luck to Jaimie in this next phase of his life.
On the theme of great articles about the lower ranked players, here's one about Jaimie Baker, now retired and working for Santander Bank.
Remember playing with a mate at Bisham Abbey and Baker was training on the next court with Paul Annacone. JB hit the ball so hard and I thought, wow, what a player.
Of course, unfortunately for Baker (who reached top 200), as Roger Taylor once said to me on my very first tennis holiday to Vale de Lobo in Portugal back in 1980, 'There are hundreds of guys who can hit like that'.
The tour is a ruthless meritocracry and while so many young men and women and their parents are willing to chase the dream, calls for a different distribution of prize money for the lower ranked players will fall on deaf ears.
Good luck to Jaimie in this next phase of his life.
That's so depressing. It's disgraceful that these lower ranked players prize money is so low compared to golf players with similar rankings.
I think it all comes down to demand and supply.
If the numbers of hopeful players dropped off, then maybe the powers that be would be forced to up the money.
As I said above, while the numbers are plentiful and growing (I think they rank down to 2,000 now where 10 years ago it was 1,500), they don't need to offer more, even though this intensifies the whole experience / our view of it.
Not sure about Robson in her match - I can see her crushing Flipkens, but also be thrashed making 40 unforced errors. She certainly has the power to hit Flipkens off the court, but she generally hasn't performed terribly well against players who play with a lot of slice like her opponent does. It is a winnable match though.
Watson should fancy her chances against Hantuchova - I saw the latter play in Sydney last week and she was looking slower than ever, and making a lot of errors. I do wonder if the nerves might get to Watson though - a loss would see her ranking fall well outside the Top 150, and send her back to the challenger world for the foreseeable future.
Anyone know what the viewing quality(kbps) is on eurosports online player?.
Its fine on my ipad and my laptop - it depends on your broadband speed!
It costs £5.99 per month rolling (you can cancel at any time) - or £3.99 if you sign up for the year.
However having lost the WTA tour to BT I am not sure how much more tennis they will have on between now and the French. They seem to be focusing on the lesser ATP 250 events (and the 500s Sky don't cover) showing the latter stages of Brisbane and Sydney - so we will see what they do show.
No idea who is showing Davis Cup this year i.e. GB vs USA in a few weeks?
Its fine on my ipad and my laptop - it depends on your broadband speed!
It costs £5.99 per month rolling (you can cancel at any time) - or £3.99 if you sign up for the year.
However having lost the WTA tour to BT I am not sure how much more tennis they will have on between now and the French. They seem to be focusing on the lesser ATP 250 events (and the 500s Sky don't cover) showing the latter stages of Brisbane and Sydney - so we will see what they do show.
No idea who is showing Davis Cup this year i.e. GB vs USA in a few weeks?
I'm pretty sure Eurosport have the Davis Cup rights.
I would say that this is where Djokovic gets some benefit from the draw. He's by far the biggest star player in his half, so he'll get mainly night matches on the days he plays.
Having Nadal/Murray/Federer playing on the same day means more competition for the prime time slots. Nadal has the big match of the first round, plus he wasn't there last year, so that raises his viewability, and it's not clear how many more opportunities there will be to see Fed, so that enhances his prime-time worthiness.
Except you've got Lleyton Hewitt to factor into this as well, he'll probably get most of the night matches as long as he's in. Nadal v Tomic is one of the few matches that would bump him off the night session.
Except you've got Lleyton Hewitt to factor into this as well, he'll probably get most of the night matches as long as he's in.
Yes, he probably will. They also have night matches on Hisense and MCA. I imagine that the top players would be happy to play on a lesser court if they can get out of the sun, but tradition usually dictates that the top two seeds play most matches on RLA.
The problem lies with the fact that Ferrer is the world number 3 combined with the fact Federer has slipped out of the top 4 opening up a high possibility of the draw not going the way people hoped for Andy and Nadal. And it has not.
If Tsonga/Federer was in Djokovic's quarter instead of Andy, and Ferrer was in Nadal's half of the draw Instead of Djokovic, the same people who are moaning right now about how unfair life is would have said great draws for Andy and Nadal.
I remember last year there was all this talk about if Andy or Nadal were to be in Ferrer's half of the grand slam draw they would effectively had one foot in the final.
The problem is not the seedings, they can be justified easily enough.
The problem is the draw format and that 4 of the top 6 seeds are in the one half. If you have seeds 1, 4 and 5 already in same half ( which in itself leaves flaws) you dont complete the half with seed 6?
I'm not sure what the organisers could do about it. Ferrer is World Number 3, and even if you argue that Murray and Delpo missed a lot of the last year, how do you incorporate that into seedings? If you start to apply that reasoning to top players, you have to do it across the board, and it becomes a nightmare.
Wimbledon give weight to points gained from grass court tournaments over a longer period, which in essence means previous Wimbledon form, but that's only because the grass court season is so short, and grass court specialists deserve a boost.
If the Australian Open were to give extra points for those who were successful in Australia last year, then Ferrer is going to stay top 4, because he made it to the semis. We all know he provided next to no resistance to Djokovic in that semi, but it's almost impossible to factor that into the process. The finalist on that half of the draw is already getting an extra day's rest, which is arguably more of an advantage, but more so if they've fought to get there.
We know Ferrer's form dropped towards the end of last year, and doesn't seem much better at the beginning of this year, but for all we know, it could have been a niggling injury, so it wouldn't be fair to adjust his seeding accordingly. If you did that, you'd need to adjust Murray's too, and by more!
If Murray was fully fit and match sharp, and assuming Federer is in better form than most of last year, then I'd think he had a not so good draw, and there was the risk he'd be at a disadvantage should he make the final. However, given he's still regaining fitness and form, I'm delighted with his draw. Theoretically easy opponents for the first couple of rounds give him the best chance to make it to the trickier opponents later on. I'll worry about them if he gets that far!
You would surely have to agree with me that whoever wins the upcoming Australian Open men's singles title is the 100% deserving champion and have right to fully celebrate it.
Wimbledon are the only ones to base seedings on grass form over a period of time and rightly so with far too little in the way of significant grass court tennis away from Wimbledon. But I would not wish the other 3 to follow suit re: based on overall surface form.
You would surely have to agree with me that whoever wins the upcoming Australian Open men's singles title is the 100% deserving champion and have right to fully celebrate it.
Not if they have an easier draw and get to play mostly night matches avoiding the intense heat.
The problem is not the seedings, they can be justified easily enough.
The problem is the draw format and that 4 of the top 6 seeds are in the one half. If you have seeds 1, 4 and 5 already in same half ( which in itself leaves flaws) you dont complete the half with seed 6?
Seed 7 was the plum draw.
That is one thing I would like seeing altered. Seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 9 to 16 in the last 16 ought to be changed to seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 13 to 16. And in the quarter finals, instead of seeds 1 to 4 facing anybody seeded 5 to 8, seeds 1 or 2 ought to face either the 7th or 8th seeded player instead.
That is one thing I would like seeing altered. Seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 9 to 16 in the last 16 ought to be changed to seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 13 to 16. And in the quarter finals, instead of seeds 1 to 4 facing anybody seeded 5 to 8, seeds 1 or 2 ought to face either the 7th or 8th seeded player instead.
This is what happens at the minute already. The QFs is random 1-4 vs. 5-8 but any round before that is sorted. In the 4th round currently, 1-4 face 13-16 and in the 3rd round currently, 1-8 face 25-32.
I think it's the best system to be honest. They could go a step further and do the QFs as well but I like some sense of randomness.
Not if they have an easier draw and get to play mostly night matches avoiding the intense heat.
Surely that does not include that half of the draw opening up big time as a result of Nadal and Federer both crashing out to huge upsets before round 3 and Tsonga being forced to retire injured round 1 while the only major contender still left in that half of the draw goes on and wins the whole thing. Eh!:D
Of course before the tournament began that player who benefited big time from the draw opening up was seeded to face Federer then Nadal to make it to the final was considered by so many to have had the impossible draw.
It is rather ridiculous for people to illegitimise anybody's grand slam title success because they have not had to beat 3 of the world's top 6 to do it. But before the tournanent began they were seeded to do so like the other 3 big contenders
Surely that does not include that half of the draw opening up big time as a result of Nadal and Federer both crashing out to huge upsets before round 3 and Tsonga being forced to retire injured round 1 while the only major contender still left in that half of the draw goes on and wins the whole thing Eh!:D
Comments
I'm not sure what the organisers could do about it. Ferrer is World Number 3, and even if you argue that Murray and Delpo missed a lot of the last year, how do you incorporate that into seedings? If you start to apply that reasoning to top players, you have to do it across the board, and it becomes a nightmare.
Wimbledon give weight to points gained from grass court tournaments over a longer period, which in essence means previous Wimbledon form, but that's only because the grass court season is so short, and grass court specialists deserve a boost.
If the Australian Open were to give extra points for those who were successful in Australia last year, then Ferrer is going to stay top 4, because he made it to the semis. We all know he provided next to no resistance to Djokovic in that semi, but it's almost impossible to factor that into the process. The finalist on that half of the draw is already getting an extra day's rest, which is arguably more of an advantage, but more so if they've fought to get there.
We know Ferrer's form dropped towards the end of last year, and doesn't seem much better at the beginning of this year, but for all we know, it could have been a niggling injury, so it wouldn't be fair to adjust his seeding accordingly. If you did that, you'd need to adjust Murray's too, and by more!
If Murray was fully fit and match sharp, and assuming Federer is in better form than most of last year, then I'd think he had a not so good draw, and there was the risk he'd be at a disadvantage should he make the final. However, given he's still regaining fitness and form, I'm delighted with his draw. Theoretically easy opponents for the first couple of rounds give him the best chance to make it to the trickier opponents later on. I'll worry about them if he gets that far!
I would say that this is where Djokovic gets some benefit from the draw. He's by far the biggest star player in his half, so he'll get mainly night matches on the days he plays.
Having Nadal/Murray/Federer playing on the same day means more competition for the prime time slots. Nadal has the big match of the first round, plus he wasn't there last year, so that raises his viewability, and it's not clear how many more opportunities there will be to see Fed, so that enhances his prime-time worthiness.
Bit unfair if Djoko gets mainly night matches. Although I suppose the semis and final won't be. It should be the same level playing field for all the top players. Sounds like the USO all over again.
Eurosport said midnight.
Remember playing with a mate at Bisham Abbey and Baker was training on the next court with Paul Annacone. JB hit the ball so hard and I thought, wow, what a player.
Of course, unfortunately for Baker (who reached top 200), as Roger Taylor once said to me on my very first tennis holiday to Vale de Lobo in Portugal back in 1980, 'There are hundreds of guys who can hit like that'.
The tour is a ruthless meritocracry and while so many young men and women and their parents are willing to chase the dream, calls for a different distribution of prize money for the lower ranked players will fall on deaf ears.
Good luck to Jaimie in this next phase of his life.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/jamie-bakers-break-point-a-tennis-nomad-exits-the-planets-cruellest-sport-9046491.html
That's so depressing. It's disgraceful that these lower ranked players prize money is so low compared to golf players with similar rankings.
I think it all comes down to demand and supply.
If the numbers of hopeful players dropped off, then maybe the powers that be would be forced to up the money.
As I said above, while the numbers are plentiful and growing (I think they rank down to 2,000 now where 10 years ago it was 1,500), they don't need to offer more, even though this intensifies the whole experience / our view of it.
Watson should fancy her chances against Hantuchova - I saw the latter play in Sydney last week and she was looking slower than ever, and making a lot of errors. I do wonder if the nerves might get to Watson though - a loss would see her ranking fall well outside the Top 150, and send her back to the challenger world for the foreseeable future.
"LIVE action from the 1st day of the @AustralianOpen starts at midnight tonight. First up, @laurarobson5 vs Kirsten Flipkins. #ausopen"
Its fine on my ipad and my laptop - it depends on your broadband speed!
It costs £5.99 per month rolling (you can cancel at any time) - or £3.99 if you sign up for the year.
However having lost the WTA tour to BT I am not sure how much more tennis they will have on between now and the French. They seem to be focusing on the lesser ATP 250 events (and the 500s Sky don't cover) showing the latter stages of Brisbane and Sydney - so we will see what they do show.
No idea who is showing Davis Cup this year i.e. GB vs USA in a few weeks?
I'm pretty sure Eurosport have the Davis Cup rights.
Except you've got Lleyton Hewitt to factor into this as well, he'll probably get most of the night matches as long as he's in. Nadal v Tomic is one of the few matches that would bump him off the night session.
Yes, he probably will. They also have night matches on Hisense and MCA. I imagine that the top players would be happy to play on a lesser court if they can get out of the sun, but tradition usually dictates that the top two seeds play most matches on RLA.
The problem is not the seedings, they can be justified easily enough.
The problem is the draw format and that 4 of the top 6 seeds are in the one half. If you have seeds 1, 4 and 5 already in same half ( which in itself leaves flaws) you dont complete the half with seed 6?
Seed 7 was the plum draw.
You would surely have to agree with me that whoever wins the upcoming Australian Open men's singles title is the 100% deserving champion and have right to fully celebrate it.
Wimbledon are the only ones to base seedings on grass form over a period of time and rightly so with far too little in the way of significant grass court tennis away from Wimbledon. But I would not wish the other 3 to follow suit re: based on overall surface form.
Not if they have an easier draw and get to play mostly night matches avoiding the intense heat.
That is one thing I would like seeing altered. Seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 9 to 16 in the last 16 ought to be changed to seeds 1 to 8 facing anybody seeded 13 to 16. And in the quarter finals, instead of seeds 1 to 4 facing anybody seeded 5 to 8, seeds 1 or 2 ought to face either the 7th or 8th seeded player instead.
This is what happens at the minute already. The QFs is random 1-4 vs. 5-8 but any round before that is sorted. In the 4th round currently, 1-4 face 13-16 and in the 3rd round currently, 1-8 face 25-32.
I think it's the best system to be honest. They could go a step further and do the QFs as well but I like some sense of randomness.
Surely that does not include that half of the draw opening up big time as a result of Nadal and Federer both crashing out to huge upsets before round 3 and Tsonga being forced to retire injured round 1 while the only major contender still left in that half of the draw goes on and wins the whole thing. Eh!:D
Of course before the tournament began that player who benefited big time from the draw opening up was seeded to face Federer then Nadal to make it to the final was considered by so many to have had the impossible draw.
It is rather ridiculous for people to illegitimise anybody's grand slam title success because they have not had to beat 3 of the world's top 6 to do it. But before the tournanent began they were seeded to do so like the other 3 big contenders
Of course not.
I imagine 12.30am will be the start of Nadal vs Tomic?
Lauras match is at midnight.
All courts start at midnight according to the schedule of play.