On seeding and draws in tennis

The big four: Has seeding assured them a place in the semi-finals of major tournaments?

We have this small tournament of sorts in our Department here in college. It is a multi-sport event where first years, second years and research scholars(M.S and Ph.D students) compete. A couple of days ago, the draw for badminton was being done. We had 50 entries. Simple, we thought. We’d make a draw of 64, give 4 seeds from each year, give them each byes in the first round and go on.

Now, the first and second years gave their top 4 seeds. There was a representative of the scholars (who, it must be said, is generally an idiot and one intent on playing politics for petty issues) who said, ‘What is this seeding? I want it to be random.’ Now, I knew exactly what he was up to – after all, this was not the first time that he was pulling off a stunt like this – and pulled him aside and told him, in no uncertain terms, that seeding is good enough for Wimbledon and seeding is good enough for us.

The draw was made based on seeding. I was feeling extremely smug. Until I got thinking, that is.

I thought of the rationale behind seeding. To explain the concept to him, I asked him, ‘Do you understand the concept of merit scholarships?’ He duly replied that they were given to award excellence, hard work, dedication and the whatnot. Quite simply, they were given because people deserved them. It was with this precise argument that I drove home the point that seeding was necessary. This, and of course the fact that everyone wants the best players to meet as late as possible in the tournament.

And then I thought of the thing that I had advocated. And then I thought of Wimbledon. And then I thought about tennis. And then I thought about the last few major tournaments. Tennis, I have found, has become boringly predictable. When the Big 4 are fit and playing in the same tournament, they seem to almost be destined to make the semi-final. One factor may well be that they are quite simply head and shoulders above the chasing pack. It could just be that their temperament is just that much better when it came to the big games.

But then I wondered. What if it were random indeed? What if Murray played Federer in round 1 of Wimbledon? Now, wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books? Of course, one the one hand, it would not be fair. After all, these players are ranked in the top 5 in the world and have earned their right to progress into the second week. They are entitled to a draw that they can ease into. However, the counter argument is this: for one to win the tournament, everyone else must lose. To win a tourney, you must beat your opponent every single time; no matter who it is. If this logic is to be followed, then it does not matter if you play the second best player in the first round or in the final; to win, you must beat him. Period.

It was an interesting thought. What if Federer did play Murray in the first round? That would mean that only one of them would advance beyond the first round. That would mean that there would most certainly be at least one outside the top 4 in the semi final. One of two things could happen – that one could get overwhelmed by the occasion and get his behind handed to him, or the other thing could happen. He could be galvanized by the occasion and produce a performance worthy of a champion. Far-fetched as it may seem, fairy tales do happen.

All this brings us back to the conjecture – is seeding necessary? There are as many arguments for as there are against the notion. On the one hand, seeding awards merit and merit is earned. Hence, seeding needs to exist. On the other, the current situation in men’s tennis is such that there is a very real risk of the boredom of predictability overtaking the game.

Maybe Rafa’s injury is a blessing in disguise. He will almost certainly not be in the top 4 in the world come the time to make the French Open draw. Perhaps the Roland Garros authorities will embrace French Libertarianism and decide to mix it up a bit, and make him the number 5 seed. That would be a turn up for the books, wouldn’t it?