British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

9vicman wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Why is potentially losing more top 16 seeds in the early rounds automatically a bad thing? Everyone moans when they steamroll through unchallenged to the second week, and when upsets happen people moan a bunch of big names have gone out early doors.

And CD thank you. It's a valid basis for an opinion haha!

---

 People moan. Period. I think 32 seeds fairer to be honest. With so much money and points at stake, the idea that someone ranked No. 70 could be the highest ranked player in a section of four players seems a little FA-Cuppy, and a contrast to the rest of the circuit.

---

 Its also more consistent across the tour - 8 seeds, 32 draw aligns with 32/128

christ wrote:

---

They could just make it 128 seeds; that would make everyone's planning easier.

---

 I actually like the idea of a draw that's based on some logic of everyone knowing who they're playing, and of course it can't be fixed as there are too many players who may have unexpected results.

9vicman wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Why is potentially losing more top 16 seeds in the early rounds automatically a bad thing? Everyone moans when they steamroll through unchallenged to the second week, and when upsets happen people moan a bunch of big names have gone out early doors.

And CD thank you. It's a valid basis for an opinion haha!

---

 People moan. Period. I think 32 seeds fairer to be honest. With so much money and points at stake, the idea that someone ranked No. 70 could be the highest ranked player in a section of four players seems a little FA-Cuppy, and a contrast to the rest of the circuit.

---

 I think the seedings is fair as it is really a sort of reward for good performances over the course of a year. However, the difference in quality and ability between someone ranked say 20 and someone ranked say 80 is far closer than it was years ago. I started watching tennis in earnest in the 1970s and, especially in the women's game, the difference between the top players and the rest was enormous. Not just in ability but in fitness etc too.

It is much harder now to win a lot of majors than it was even when the Williams sisters started playing. The real cream does rise to the top over the course of a season but nowadays if a top player is, say 5% off, then a top 100 player can beat them and I'd say this is exaggerated at Wimbledon because of the surface though it appears a lot slower to me now than 50 years ago.

(13) Amanda Anisimova, the strongest remaining player in Sonay's quarter, on paper and surely in practice, dropped the 2nd set vs Dalma Galfi but now leads in the 3rd.

6-3 5-7 3-1*

In the match to determine who the winner of Kartal vs Parry will meet in R4, Osaka has got the 3rd set back on serve vs Pavlyuchenkova and is receiving at 3-3*

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 4th of July 2025 11:56:38 AM

I think those first two very close games where Sonay had chances could end up proving to have been rather important.

Parry looks very much the more dangerous when there is any sort of rally. Hopefully that hold helps our girl settle down. But she's still far to far behind the baseline.